You could close Wasson, but it would require buying 19 properties. But you will have your width.  As a matter of fact you would need to buy properties anyway to put a station in and or park and ride in the area.

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.

 

That's where a trail is called an "Interim use." There was an Interim Trail built near Clearfield, PA and the railroad got a new shipper for a mixed abandoned/railbanked 20-mile line, but the tracks were removed about 1990 and have to be put back. So the trail had to remove all of its facilities (bridges, pavement, signs, etc) at its own expense.

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

 

I don't think that's true.  As I mentioned for both to exist the light rail line has to go underground for at least 2,000 feet and preferably a mile.  If the bike trail is built, the transit line could travel on the wide ROW near Montgomery, cross I-71 on its own bridge to the equally 90-foot wide ROW on the east side of I-71, then travel in a bored tunnel to Paxton with a single underground station in the Madison/Edwards triangle.  The ROW narrows right where the Rookwood shopping center is.  So the tunnel would begin there and then surface east of Paxton, where the ROW again widens. 

 

Also presumably the Madison/Edwards triangle would be opened up, so that the level of the tracks and platforms would be subsurface, but the station itself would not actually be a subway station.  That way you avoid having to have it staffed by security.  It will be a very, very busy station. 

 

 

You guys are right.  I guess I'm just skeptical of Cranley's intentions. 

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.

 

How much would it cost to remove the bike path, who would pay for that ? Would that be a talking point for opposition & bike supporters to never remove the bike path?

This rec trail is going to be, by far, the most popular in the region.  Randy Simes first brought up the issue several years ago, right at the inception of all this, that the bike people are wildly underestimating how much mixed mode traffic will be on the trail.  There will be tons of walkers, joggers, and strollers blocking the bicycles.  It's actually going to be a pretty lousy place to ride a bike for people who ride bikes all the time.  So the answer is that the trail needs to be either wider, or as they've done in Chicago, have two parallel trails with one reserved for bicycles, at least in what will be the busiest section between Madison and Paxton. 

 

As for the path of the line east of Hyde Park, I've never thought that going to Fairfax via the rail line made much sense because it obviously disturbs the park, diminishes the character of the bike path, and threatens to make it discontinuous in its approach to the existing bike path at Newtown Rd.  There is not a great station location in Fairfax either, and east of there, where does the line go?  I'm not a fan of spending $300 million extending a light rail out to...where?  Miles and miles of track through nothing to get out to the I-275 loop, and the 28X is already a very good bus service.

 

That's why I've suggested having the line travel on Erie Ave., cross Red Bank, and travel on Murray Ave. (bike trail there would be rebuilt) to Plainfield, then east on the grassy interurban ROW in Mariemont to a park & ride at Newtown Rd.  There the line is obviously competing somewhat with the 28X, however the 28X goes directly downtown whereas the Wasson line would serve XU and Uptown. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd keep a very wary eye on trail advocates. There are several ACTIVE rail lines under attack from them around the country and some are real brawls. The Rails to Trails movement has metastasized from calling for the use of long-abandoned rail lines for trails to actively trying to pick off the weak sisters among active lines. Rail lines which are secondary, little used or dormant are targets. The Rails To Trails Conservancy actively monitors for any abandonments or downgradings and immediately alerts their followers in the field to take action. Right now, they are trying to kick out rail tourist lines and even active short line freight railroads around the country. The Adirondack Scenic RR, Catskill Mountain RR and a freight shortline in California are under attack, among others.

 

^The Oasis line only serves two customers out near Peebles.  The line is severed for about ten feet for legal purposes.  The abandoned track from Peebles to Portsmouth remains.  It's easy to sit here and say we should encourage the full abandonment of that line because it would make a helluva bike trail.  But the fact is that our existing Miami Valley trail from Cincinnati to Columbus was possible only because there was so much redundancy in the rail network and the former Little Miami railroad, being the first railroad in the area, was quite circuitous and inevitably unprofitable in the modern era. 

 

The lines you're talking about and the one to Portsmouth might very well have use in the future, because they have no direct rail competitors.  However, it's unimaginable that this line through Hyde Park would be reactivated to Montgomery Rd. for freight purposes.   

This rec trail is going to be, by far, the most popular in the region.  Randy Simes first brought up the issue several years ago, right at the inception of all this, that the bike people are wildly underestimating how much mixed mode traffic will be on the trail.  There will be tons of walkers, joggers, and strollers blocking the bicycles.  It's actually going to be a pretty lousy place to ride a bike for people who ride bikes all the time.  So the answer is that the trail needs to be either wider, or as they've done in Chicago, have two parallel trails with one reserved for bicycles, at least in what will be the busiest section between Madison and Paxton. 

 

These kinds of trails are automatically going to be more popular around Cincinnati as compared to flatter areas due to the lack of flatness around the city.

^The crazy thing about bicycling in Cincinnati is that so many of the hardcore spandex bikers on the $3,000 bikes avoid the hills, even the moderate ones.  When I was a kid people made fun of you if you didn't bike up the hills.  To get off and walk the bike was unthinkable.  It just plain didn't happen.  Now if you call out Sgt. Spandex you're the bad guy. 

How often do rails get paved over for bike trails and then removed for a new rail project afterwards?

I'm all for the Wasson Way project.  We need more biking facilities in the city, and there are still plenty of options available for getting rail to the East Side.  Quite frankly I think we need to focus on rail going North first and once it's popular, the East Side neighborhoods will lobby for it if they want it anyway...  Not worried about this transaction at all.  The only thing that concerns me here is TIGER grants going to Wasson instead of the Uptown Streetcar.  We'll see how that plays out.

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.

 

At a certain point there's going to have to be some money spent.  There's always this notion that we can get something great for cheap but that's basically incorrect.  There's a better chance of getting something freaking awesome if you pay the money required for the right thing.

 

While the CL&N line is pretty cut up, I think one of the advantages of it is that it's end points are honeypots but it travels through a barren wasteland.  So if you did it the right way, you'd have an entity that redeveloped all the adjacent crap land under the auspices of the rail line, and did so with a mind of making it very dense.  You've got the destinations (Downtown, Xavier; connection to Wasson-East Side line) while the rest is a pure development play.

 

Once people see the difference the streetcar makes they are going to be a lot more hip to these types of arguments.  Even if it isn't in fact a pure cause and effect relationship, the way the human mind works is to associate those types of things.  That's why they can get away with saying the MLK interchange will bring X,XXX jobs.

How often do rails get paved over for bike trails and then removed for a new rail project afterwards?

 

I don't like the idea of the rails being removed for any length of time. People will come up with too many excuses not to restore them.

^The Oasis line only serves two customers out near Peebles.  The line is severed for about ten feet for legal purposes.  The abandoned track from Peebles to Portsmouth remains.  It's easy to sit here and say we should encourage the full abandonment of that line because it would make a helluva bike trail.  But the fact is that our existing Miami Valley trail from Cincinnati to Columbus was possible only because there was so much redundancy in the rail network and the former Little Miami railroad, being the first railroad in the area, was quite circuitous and inevitably unprofitable in the modern era. 

 

The lines you're talking about and the one to Portsmouth might very well have use in the future, because they have no direct rail competitors.  However, it's unimaginable that this line through Hyde Park would be reactivated to Montgomery Rd. for freight purposes.

 

In specific to the NS Cincinnati Division (Peavine), it is railbanked east of Peebles due to the curves and grades along that line, and the Scioto River Bridge that needs rehabilitation. On March 21, CCET filed with the STB to lease/operate the Peavine between Clare/Mariemont and Williamsburg. A Brandt Truck might be run from Williamsburg to Peebles for a lumber operation.

 

How often do rails get paved over for bike trails and then removed for a new rail project afterwards?

 

Not often. Many of the rail-to-trails were built in corridors that were abandoned in the 1970s and 1980s, when there was a surplus of rail lines that competed for essentially the same traffic. Consolidation of the industry was probably one of the better things to happen in terms of maximizing rail usage per track, but this was also during a time of unfair competition until the Staggers Rail Act was passed.

 

KJP mentioned this:

 

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.

 

That's where a trail is called an "Interim use." There was an Interim Trail built near Clearfield, PA and the railroad got a new shipper for a mixed abandoned/railbanked 20-mile line, but the tracks were removed about 1990 and have to be put back. So the trail had to remove all of its facilities (bridges, pavement, signs, etc) at its own expense.

 

The STB granted RJ Corman (May 2012) permission to reclaim 20 miles of track in Clarence that was abandoned by Conrail in 1990. Nearly 10 miles of that had been converted into the Snow Shoe Rails to Trails. This is one of the only instance where this has happened. From http://www.stb.dot.gov/FD35116Files/03_Executive_Summary.pdf:

 

"R.J. Corman/Pennsylvania Lines now is authorized to construct a 10.8-mile line over a segment of abandoned rail right of way between Wallaceton and Winburne, Pa., and reactivate a connecting 9.3-mile line between Winburne and Gorton, Pa. The combined 20-mile line will be used to provide rail transportation services to a proposed waste-to-ethanol facility, quarry and industrial park near Gorton, as well as other shippers along the route.

 

The STB’s authorization is subject to environmental mitigation conditions and the stipulation that R.J. Corman build the line on the environmentally-preferable route, board officials said. R.J. Corman also is authorized to acquire the adjoining right of way currently being used as a trail in order to provide service on the combined route."

 

And:

 

"RJCP shall attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the  Headwaters Charitable Trust to mitigate the impacts of the reactivation of  the Eastern Segment or the loss of 9.3 miles of the Snow Shoe Multi-Use Rail Trail. However, should RJCP determine that a mutually acceptable mitigation agreement is unachievable, RJCP reserves the right to construct a new trailhead facility, consisting of a gravel parking area and covered sign structure, at the new Gorton Road trail terminus as the sole voluntary mitigation for the project’s impact to the Snow Shoe Multi-Use Rail Trail."

 

I can't find anything anywhere about the Snow Shoe Rail Trail having to expend any money when their trail became part of the active RJ Corman line.

 

--

 

Then there is Poseyville, Indiana, which has a railbanked rail line that became a rail-to-trail, was briefly reactivated, then abandoned after a bridge collapsed over the Wabash. So it's becoming a trail again now that the rails were lifted. That line was up for abandonment anyways as the Wabash bridge needed major rebuilding - it's piers were sinking or shifting, and the short line did not want to incur that cost.

How often do rails get paved over for bike trails and then removed for a new rail project afterwards?

 

Not often. There were two cases I can think of, the one KJP mentioned and another in Michigan. Once a line is abandoned and converted, NIMBY and trail supporter opposition makes it just about impossible to restore rail service unless its a freight line asserting eminent domain.

 

Meanwhile, here is a partial list of active lines under threat from trail groups:

 

> Adirondack Scenic Railroad between Thendara NY (Old Forge) and Lake Placid NY

> Catskill Mountain Railroad in Ulster County NY

> Saratoga and North Creek Railroad (NY)

> Santa Maria Valley Railroad (shortline freight road-CA)

> Western Maryland Scenic Railroad (Cumberland MD)

> Santa Cruz and Monterrey Bay (CA-both freight and tourist passenger)

> Columbus and Greenville (MS-dormant but not abandoned)

 

No doubt there are more.

>At a certain point there's going to have to be some money spent.  There's always this notion that we can get something great for cheap but that's basically incorrect.  There's a better chance of getting something freaking awesome if you pay the money required for the right thing.

 

I agree.  It will be expensive but we can have a transformative project where Wasson Rd. is rebuilt as a nice boulevard with a very high ridership transit line and the region's most popular rec trail.  Instead, if this actually happens under Cranley's watch (and I'm still very suspicious that he's just lobbing cheap talk) we'll have some third-rate rec trail, no rebuild of Wasson or the Madison/Edwards triangle, and light rail forced to tunnel, at a cost of $100 million, under an area that could have been served for half that capital cost had it been planned in coordination with the trail. 

 

How often do rails get paved over for bike trails and then removed for a new rail project afterwards?

 

I don't like the idea of the rails being removed for any length of time. People will come up with too many excuses not to restore them.

 

I don't, either. Reclaiming an abandoned line after the tracks come up and little prospect of coming back is one thing. Going after an active line is quite another.

 

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.

 

I agree with you on this.  Of course any place the transit is tunneled, it would be expensive, but that solves the space issue.  I like your idea of having it run along Wasson in-street.  I have thought in the past that it would make sense to tunnel under the ROW through there for space issues and to reduce traffic crossings with Paxton, Edwards, etc.  That would be really expensive though.  But then also running in-street south towards downtown where there is no ROW makes a lot of sense.

John Schneider came up with the idea of completely rebuilding Wasson with rail running in Wasson and the freight track ROW given over to the bike trail. 

 

I think part of the problem is people aren't thinking about where the light rail line should go after traveling through Hyde Park.  As I mentioned above continuing east to Murray Ave. is a simple and relatively low-cost option.  It introduces public transportation to a corridor where it does not currently exist, meaning buses will not run a redundant service. 

 

 

I don't know.  I can see some pretty fierce NIMBY opposition in that section of Hyde Park to light rail.  You know, the old triad of property values/perceived crime/won't someone think of the children.  Just look at what one guy who was vehemently opposed to the Erie bike lanes was able to do ("roads are for cars!").

 

I will withhold judgment until some plans are drawn up, but I worry about the safety of an MUP next to Wasson, too. There are a lot of odd non-aligned intersections and grade crossings, and Wasson has enough congestion that turns to side streets (especially lefts) are often rushed.  Perhaps if they prohibit left turns to southbound Shaw and Michigan and work the bike path into the signals at Paxton some of that could be mitigated.  This still leaves the Edwards/Madison crossings un-addressed.  I don't envy the engineers on that one - that intersection barely works through voodoo and dark magic as-is.

Union Savings Bank at the corner of Wasson/Madison/Edwards is looking to move out at some future point. It would be nice to see that building leveled and that intersection completely reconfigured.

^ The trouble is that everything north of the railroad tracks and west of the centerline of Edwards Road is in Norwood, so that makes doing any sort of reconfiguration even more difficult. 

I don't know.  I can see some pretty fierce NIMBY opposition in that section of Hyde Park to light rail.  You know, the old triad of property values/perceived crime/won't someone think of the children.  Just look at what one guy who was vehemently opposed to the Erie bike lanes was able to do ("roads are for cars!").

 

I will withhold judgment until some plans are drawn up, but I worry about the safety of an MUP next to Wasson, too. There are a lot of odd non-aligned intersections and grade crossings, and Wasson has enough congestion that turns to side streets (especially lefts) are often rushed.  Perhaps if they prohibit left turns to southbound Shaw and Michigan and work the bike path into the signals at Paxton some of that could be mitigated.  This still leaves the Edwards/Madison crossings un-addressed.  I don't envy the engineers on that one - that intersection barely works through voodoo and dark magic as-is.

 

But how many accidents have occurred there?  The stretch of Wasson from Paxton to Edwards is definitely unique, but my long experience with that road is that the actual traffic problems stem from Paxton & Edwards, Paxton because of the number of cars trying to get in and out of the Kroger parking lot, and Edwards because of the traffic from the Rookwood development.  Now that they've cut off all the connections from Edwards into Oakley the section from Madison to Markbreit is going to turn into an absurdly high speed area.  I suspect that, so long as people can adequately see what's coming from the right or the left at an intersection, you put up a stop sign or maybe a blinking red and you've basically solved the problem in the optimal way.  My experience driving through Mt. Lookout, Hyde Park and Oakley Squares after spring storms have knocked out the power and defaulted all the traffic lights to blinking reds is that traffic moves both smoother and slower because people aren't racing to get through the 30 second green light window some algorithm has for several of those green lights.  The blinking reds tap into some innate human sense of fairness that calms everything down, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, the side streets on Wasson are probably less of a problem than you might think, and are definitely less of a problem presently than the Kroger parking lot.

I doubt that there are many serious traffic accidents in that area because everybody is driving with caution, maybe even hanging up the cell phone for a second.  I agree though that the odd grade crossings onto Wasson will create a problem for a rec trail, but they at the very least will be leveled out if not removed entirely as part of the project. 

^ I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  I'm thinking specifically where the current train tracks cross Shaw and Michigan as being dangerous to potential MUP users.  Traffic heading west along Wasson and wishing to turn left onto these streets has to contend with a normally steady flow on Wasson eastbound.  Turns by these drivers are often necessarily done with haste, with an eye only on oncoming traffic.  Throw in pedestrians/bikes, often coming from behind those left turning cars, and I can foresee conflicts.  The volume turning left onto those streets isn't huge, but they are "back ways" for traffic to get to Hyde Park Square, and there's enough historically that they've installed speed humps.  I'm advocating for left turns to be prohibited onto those streets.

 

The Kroger parking lot won't have a bearing on the Wasson MUP.  It's on the other side of Wasson from Hyde Park Plaza.  The entrances to Rookwood on Edwards aren't a factor to the MUP, either.  The Madison entrance to Rookwood, along with the entire Wasson/Edwards/Madison intersection, will be the real trick.

^ I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  I'm thinking specifically where the current train tracks cross Shaw and Michigan as being dangerous to potential MUP users.  Traffic heading west along Wasson and wishing to turn left onto these streets has to contend with a normally steady flow on Wasson eastbound.  Turns by these drivers are often necessarily done with haste, with an eye only on oncoming traffic.  Throw in pedestrians/bikes, often coming from behind those left turning cars, and I can foresee conflicts.  The volume turning left onto those streets isn't huge, but they are "back ways" for traffic to get to Hyde Park Square, and there's enough historically that they've installed speed humps.  I'm advocating for left turns to be prohibited onto those streets.

 

The Kroger parking lot won't have a bearing on the Wasson MUP.  It's on the other side of Wasson from Hyde Park Plaza.  The entrances to Rookwood on Edwards aren't a factor to the MUP, either.  The Madison entrance to Rookwood, along with the entire Wasson/Edwards/Madison intersection, will be the real trick.

 

Another John Schneider idea was to rebuild the Madison/Edwards triangle as a large traffic circle, eliminating many of these issues.  The idea is complicated by the fact that the traffic circle would overlap the municipal border between Cincinnati and Norwood. 

 

Jake, wouldn't that mean tearing down busken?

 

^ I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  I'm thinking specifically where the current train tracks cross Shaw and Michigan as being dangerous to potential MUP users.  Traffic heading west along Wasson and wishing to turn left onto these streets has to contend with a normally steady flow on Wasson eastbound.  Turns by these drivers are often necessarily done with haste, with an eye only on oncoming traffic.  Throw in pedestrians/bikes, often coming from behind those left turning cars, and I can foresee conflicts.  The volume turning left onto those streets isn't huge, but they are "back ways" for traffic to get to Hyde Park Square, and there's enough historically that they've installed speed humps.  I'm advocating for left turns to be prohibited onto those streets.

 

The Kroger parking lot won't have a bearing on the Wasson MUP.  It's on the other side of Wasson from Hyde Park Plaza.  The entrances to Rookwood on Edwards aren't a factor to the MUP, either.  The Madison entrance to Rookwood, along with the entire Wasson/Edwards/Madison intersection, will be the real trick.

 

Another John Schneider idea was to rebuild the Madison/Edwards triangle as a large traffic circle, eliminating many of these issues.  The idea is complicated by the fact that the traffic circle would overlap the municipal border between Cincinnati and Norwood. 

 

 

Like this?

 

^That's way too simple and elegant, they'll never go for it.  I wouldn't be surprised if they run Wasson through to Madison opposite the Rookwood entrance, add a traffic signal there, demo the bank in the triangle left in between, prohibit left turns where they'd be redundant, and leave it at that.  Simple, ugly, and marginally effective, but otherwise blah. 

Yeah, something like that.  I like your idea to have Wasson drift northward into the circle. 

^ It pretty much has to.  If you just put the circle in the triangular area between Edwards, Madison, and the railroad tracks, you end up with a lot of the streets intersecting before the ever get to the circle (Madison & Edwards, Edwards & Wasson, and Madison & Rookwood) and that just doesn't work very well.  You start having to introduce secondary roundabouts or make the whole thing kind of a tear-drop shape or oval kind of like Oakley Square which makes it a lot more complicated.

^The Oasis line only serves two customers out near Peebles.  The line is severed for about ten feet for legal purposes.  The abandoned track from Peebles to Portsmouth remains.  It's easy to sit here and say we should encourage the full abandonment of that line because it would make a helluva bike trail.  But the fact is that our existing Miami Valley trail from Cincinnati to Columbus was possible only because there was so much redundancy in the rail network and the former Little Miami railroad, being the first railroad in the area, was quite circuitous and inevitably unprofitable in the modern era. 

 

The lines you're talking about and the one to Portsmouth might very well have use in the future, because they have no direct rail competitors.  However, it's unimaginable that this line through Hyde Park would be reactivated to Montgomery Rd. for freight purposes.

 

In specific to the NS Cincinnati Division (Peavine), it is railbanked east of Peebles due to the curves and grades along that line, and the Scioto River Bridge that needs rehabilitation. On March 21, CCET filed with the STB to lease/operate the Peavine between Clare/Mariemont and Williamsburg. A Brandt Truck might be run from Williamsburg to Peebles for a lumber operation.

 

I haven't read this whole thread so I'm not sure if I'm right but it seems some of you are wanting to rail line to Peebles be shut down and paved over for a bike trail. I just wanted to say that I personally don't want that to happen because there is a piece of real estate in Peebles with a siding already in place that I have a dream of developing into a factory of some kind. I know it's far fetched but being from Peebles and having a dream to see the town become something more than it is is something that I've had for a long time. I'm eventually gonna run for mayor and already own and currently rehabbing the largest building in town to help me achieve my dream.

^I can't speak for everyone on this board, but I think most on this forum are in favor of keeping the Peavine line east of Claire Yard open for rail. The discussion is about the Hyde Park branch, which travels between Norwood and Claire Yard. The Hyde Park branch has no railroad customers on it. The railroad wants to sell the property, and there are two special interest groups, the bicycle advocates and the light rail advocates, who have their eyes on it.

 

 

 

Ok, now I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Business Courier Subscriber-Only Article

 

Oasis Rail Line opposition coming from unexpected places

 

John Schneider’s user names on Twitter and Facebook leave no doubt where he stands on Cincinnati’s need for better public transportation.

 

The business owner and Cincinnati wise man – he conceived the plan to wedge Great American Ball Park between U.S. Bank Arena and the Banks, was a leader in pushing for the untangling of Fort Washington Way and is known by some in his flock as Mr. Streetcar – calls himself “ProTransit” on the social media forums.

 

So his position on the Oasis Rail Line, which would be Cincinnati’s first commuter train, is surprising: Schneider doesn’t support it. To ...

Few problems with the above proposed graphic.

 

1. The lone property that is necessary to accomplish the re-routing of Wasson (south east of the roundabout) is a successful strip center with an office tower above (read point 1)

 

2. The gas station at the north west could stay, but it makes a blah roundabout.  I don't think you would get that property without a big fight.

3. Rumors are the bank at the south west wants to relocate, so I don't think it will be a problem there.

4. This is not Europe, and I can only imagine the traffic jams/accidents that will happen when people who do not understand roundabouts are forced to use one in such a ridiculously high traffic count intersection. Heck, the roundabout at the old Beechmont Mall has been a traffic nightmare and people avoid it like crazy.

 

 

I like the idea of a roundabout there but I don't think it will be so easy. First, anytime that a property has to be taken for a public use, expect a fight, or at least a very expensive project. If the property owners support it, then it's not so bad. Second, I think the circle is going to have to be much larger than it is shown on the graphic, making the property acquisition issue even worse, and the redevelopment potential smaller.

 

I agree that making the center of the roundabout at the intersection of Madison and Edwards is the only practical way to make it work. I would also suggest relocating the entrance to Rookwood to the opposite side of the circle, for a 6-way intersection with each leg at nearly the sixth points.

 

Probably 90% of the traffic is locals who will get used to it. American drivers are gradually getting used to roundabouts as more and more of them are built. Is there any data that shows a higher accident rate at roundabouts? I thought that in general, the most accident-prone areas are signalized intersections. Furthermore, the accidents at signalized intersections tend to be more  severe because of the large number of collisions at an angle. The beauty of the roundabout is that it minimizes the potential angle conflict points.

 

The drawback of the roundabout, at least in the United States, is that it is rare to be able to fit them into existing streets. It's much easier to construct a new one on a new street than it is to retrofit an existing street.

A municipality taking property by eminent domain for a transportation project is the original and well-established use of the power.  Taking to to build a strip mall, hotel, and office tower, as did Norwood in the early 2000s is not, and that's why that eminent domain case rose through the courts to the Supreme Court. 

^ Nevertheless, it would need to be a joint Cincinnati/Norwood venture, which I don't see being an easy situation to reconcile. 

I heard straight from the horse's mouth -- someone in Norwood city government -- that the current XU project on Montgomery is a joint Cincinnati/Norwood project.  There is precedent. 

Can all this (good) Wasson way talk be  moved to an appropriate thread?

A municipality taking property by eminent domain for a transportation project is the original and well-established use of the power.  Taking to to build a strip mall, hotel, and office tower, as did Norwood in the early 2000s is not, and that's why that eminent domain case rose through the courts to the Supreme Court.

 

Those eminent domain cases are kind of funny, in that it's for some reason a big deal now what was commonplace 50 years ago.  Basically you can do the same thing you could always do, but for economic development eminent domain (at least in Ohio now) you can only take if the area is "blighted" which basically means you can only take from the least politically powerful property owners.  There was an old U.S. Supreme Court case from the 50's where one of the the taken properties argued that their property wasn't blighted even if the rest of the neighborhood was, and the Court basically said, "Suck it".  But at least that was a slightly more equitable standard than what the Ohio Supreme Court decided in the Norwood case.

 

The funny thing about the eminent domain cases is that I don't think they would arouse so much opposition if these mega-block developments didn't suck so bad.  People would like them more if they were actually nice and not some Sartrian parking lot nightmare.

Can all this (good) Wasson way talk be  moved to an appropriate thread?

 

Perhaps the Wasson Way discussion should be moved here, as it could become part of the Eastern Corridor?

John Schneider came up with the idea of completely rebuilding Wasson with rail running in Wasson and the freight track ROW given over to the bike trail. 

 

I think part of the problem is people aren't thinking about where the light rail line should go after traveling through Hyde Park.  As I mentioned above continuing east to Murray Ave. is a simple and relatively low-cost option.  It introduces public transportation to a corridor where it does not currently exist, meaning buses will not run a redundant service. 

 

 

 

Great idea. And I love that traffic circle idea on the previous page.

 

I am not speaking for All Aboard Ohio but I personally have concerns about the Eastern Corridor as it is currently designed. If it is rerouted via the Wasson Way -- with Wasson Way being the first phase -- not a later phase, then I'd be supportive. But starting Eastern Corridor along the river east from downtown all but guarantees there will be no later phases, as the ridership will be so low that the calls to discontinue rail service will be much louder than those to spend more money to "fix" it by rerouting it via Wasson Way. Start it via Wasson or don't do it at all.

  ^ Precisely.

A municipality taking property by eminent domain for a transportation project is the original and well-established use of the power.  Taking to to build a strip mall, hotel, and office tower, as did Norwood in the early 2000s is not, and that's why that eminent domain case rose through the courts to the Supreme Court.

 

Those eminent domain cases are kind of funny, in that it's for some reason a big deal now what was commonplace 50 years ago.  Basically you can do the same thing you could always do, but for economic development eminent domain (at least in Ohio now) you can only take if the area is "blighted" which basically means you can only take from the least politically powerful property owners.  There was an old U.S. Supreme Court case from the 50's where one of the the taken properties argued that their property wasn't blighted even if the rest of the neighborhood was, and the Court basically said, "Suck it".  But at least that was a slightly more equitable standard than what the Ohio Supreme Court decided in the Norwood case.

 

The funny thing about the eminent domain cases is that I don't think they would arouse so much opposition if these mega-block developments didn't suck so bad.  People would like them more if they were actually nice and not some Sartrian parking lot nightmare.

 

Yeah in the 50s they were easily able to create blight by changing zoning, thereby making rentals unprofitable and resale of single family homes impossible without expensive improvements. 

 

What was so bad in the case of Cincinnati's West End is that the 1937 flood was invoked when calls for the neighborhood to be demolished heated up in the 1950s and actually occurred in the early 1960s.  Nobody seemed to notice that the Army Corps of Engineers had built the Mill Creek Barrier Dam in the late 1940s, which has kept the West End dry since. 

 

Just because the buildings dried out didn't make them inhabitable.

Oasis vs. Wasson: Which line should be for bikes, rail?

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Within the debate about the Oasis Rail Line that I wrote about for Friday’s cover story is a sort of sub-debate: If Cincinnati is going to start with an east-west commuter rail line, should it go along the Wasson Rail Line or the Oasis Rail Line?

 

Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune, one of the leading advocates for commuter rail in the region, believes both lines can accommodate rails and bike trails – and that there is a federal obligation to do so when it comes to Wasson.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/05/oasis-vs-wasson-which-rail-line-should-be-for.html

Nobody seemed to notice that the Army Corps of Engineers had built the Mill Creek Barrier Dam in the late 1940s, which has kept the West End dry since.

 

The Mill Creek Barrier Dam keeps the streets dry, but not all of the basements. They only close the barrier dam when the river gets close to flood stage, but there were still lots of basements that flooded before the river reached flood stage.