Newtown is something.  It is a great little place and the people that live there don't want a fricking freeway through their burb, and I don't blame them one bit. 

 

If this was built, it would dump tons of traffic at it's intersection with Columbia Parkway.  It would devastate home values in Mariemont.  And for what?  I can drive from downtown to Eastgate mall in 22 minutes now via I-471.  How many minutes would you save by by building this?

 

It would definitely encourage more sprawl.  My son's Boy Scout Troop bought 40 acres of woods in Cleremont County 60 years ago.  After I-275 was built, the surrounding woods were developed into suburban sprawl while Cincinnati de-populated.  Why encourage this wasteful development further?

Do they still own the woods? 

 

I'm personally not opposed to a new road for 32, but I am opposed to an expressway.  This was always going to be an expressway, not the "parkway" they promised.   

They still own the property.  They have a log cabin and they camp there often, but the increasing development around it makes it less than ideal.

If this was built, it would dump tons of traffic at it's intersection with Columbia Parkway.  It would devastate home values in Mariemont.  And for what?  I can drive from downtown to Eastgate mall in 22 minutes now via I-471.  How many minutes would you save by by building this?

 

Exactly. The Eastern Corridor planners expect the Clermont County-to-Downtown traffic to follow OH-32, cross the new bridge across the Little Miami, continue north on the Red Bank Expressway north to I-71, then take I-71 south into the city. Which is a just about as illogical as the current route that goes south into Kentucky then north into the city.

 

In reality, a large number of people would take OH-32 across the new bridge, then exit onto Central Parkway and follow that route into the city. So Columbia Tusculum gets a few thousand extra vehicles per day clogging its streets as well.

 

For reference, here's the map of where the potential new OH-32 alignment would be between Mt. Carmel and Fairfax: http://easterncorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17-SR321.pdf

Well, sorry, I just don't share the strict urbanist view on this one. To me this project is about upgrading transportation within the existing metro area. The entirety of Cincinnati's future does not rest on LRT and the Streetcar. Even if, by some miracle, 50% of the next 20 years of population growth chose to re-densify Cincinnati and Hamilton County, we would still have to accomodate 150,000 to 200,000 new people. I guess we will continue to just plow them up I-75, since that seems to be the manifest destiny of southwest Ohio.

Well, sorry, I just don't share the strict urbanist view on this one. To me this project is about upgrading transportation within the existing metro area. The entirety of Cincinnati's future does not rest on LRT and the Streetcar. Even if, by some miracle, 50% of the next 20 years of population growth chose to re-densify Cincinnati and Hamilton County, we would still have to accomodate 150,000 to 200,000 new people. I guess we will continue to just plow them up I-75, since that seems to be the manifest destiny of southwest Ohio.

 

Our region's population is barely growing though. What's happening for the most part is that people are continuing to vacate out inner ring suburbs and move outward. That's not actually "growth" and it's going to bankrupt us in the long term, especially if we keep building highways to facilitate this type of "growth".

They still own the property.  They have a log cabin and they camp there often, but the increasing development around it makes it less than ideal.

 

Well Mt. Airy Forest is 1,400 acres and you can still hear I-74 and other city sounds from every corner of the park.  I suppose that they could sell the land in Clermont and use that money to buy several times as much lane in the eastern part of that county or Brown or Adams. 

Anyone concerned about what happens to Columbia Parkway when a freeway gets plugged into the east end of it?

As someone who grew up in Clermont County, I am all for this entire project.

 

It has been sad to see perfectly convenient areas in Clermont continue to fester in white-trash-spawning low land values and lack of sophisticated developer interest, all because you have to go around half the metro area to get into Cincinnati instead of enjoying a direct route through...what? An already-urbanized river tributary? A dog park? Flood plains?

 

This is and always has been about putting real infrastructure a little too close to the rich f*cks along the base of Indian Hill. Meanwhile, Cincinnati continues to burst northward towards Lebanon, because that's where the infrastructure investments have been made. For some metros, such an uneven development pattern would be due to geographic constraints. In Cincinnati, it's because a swatch of rich people half the size of a county didn't want any big roads.

 

I grew up in Clermont County as well and I see your point.

 

Looking back at our region's history, there are a lot of things we should have done differently with our infrastructure. We should have completed the subway. We should have made sure that Cincinnati's major airport was built somewhere in Ohio. And yes, we should have build the eastern segment of the Ronald Reagan Highway, providing a more direct route from Clermont County into Cincinnati. (Actually, we should have just built a much smaller I-275 loop, with the northern portion being where the Ronald Reagan Highway is now.)

 

But just because we have had an insane amount of sprawl to the north does not mean that we should use that as an excuse to justify a new highway to the east. Clermont County does not inherently "deserve" a speedy interstate-class highway connection to Cincinnati. Notice that Clermont County supports the Eastern Corridor while Hamilton County neighborhoods oppose it. That's because Clermont County get the benefits (low-value land potentially turned into new subdivisions and strip malls) while Hamilton County gets sliced up with yet another highway.

 

As some point we need to face the reality of future growth trends. People are driving less. More people want to be closer to the urban core. Fewer people want auto-dependent lifestyles. Let's use our limited transportation dollars to fix our existing highways and bridges, and then built the type of infrastructure that is being demanded by the next generation, rather than building new highways and inducing more sprawl.

I totally agree.  Sprawl does not justify more sprawl.  If the project were only a transit portion and increased pedestrian and bike access sure, but its mostly about building a highway.

 

Our region's population is barely growing though. What's happening for the most part is that people are continuing to vacate out inner ring suburbs and move outward. That's not actually "growth" and it's going to bankrupt us in the long term, especially if we keep building highways to facilitate this type of "growth".

It's not growth, it's getting fat.

If this was built, it would dump tons of traffic at it's intersection with Columbia Parkway.  It would devastate home values in Mariemont.  And for what?  I can drive from downtown to Eastgate mall in 22 minutes now via I-471.  How many minutes would you save by by building this?

 

Exactly. The Eastern Corridor planners expect the Clermont County-to-Downtown traffic to follow OH-32, cross the new bridge across the Little Miami, continue north on the Red Bank Expressway north to I-71, then take I-71 south into the city. Which is a just about as illogical as the current route that goes south into Kentucky then north into the city.

 

In reality, a large number of people would take OH-32 across the new bridge, then exit onto Central Parkway and follow that route into the city. So Columbia Tusculum gets a few thousand extra vehicles per day clogging its streets as well.

 

For reference, here's the map of where the potential new OH-32 alignment would be between Mt. Carmel and Fairfax: http://easterncorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17-SR321.pdf

Alot of them work in Blue Ash as well. It would take a load off I-275 that has daily backups from Wards Corner to I-71.

If this was built, it would dump tons of traffic at it's intersection with Columbia Parkway.  It would devastate home values in Mariemont.  And for what?  I can drive from downtown to Eastgate mall in 22 minutes now via I-471.  How many minutes would you save by by building this?

 

Exactly. The Eastern Corridor planners expect the Clermont County-to-Downtown traffic to follow OH-32, cross the new bridge across the Little Miami, continue north on the Red Bank Expressway north to I-71, then take I-71 south into the city. Which is a just about as illogical as the current route that goes south into Kentucky then north into the city.

 

In reality, a large number of people would take OH-32 across the new bridge, then exit onto Central Parkway and follow that route into the city. So Columbia Tusculum gets a few thousand extra vehicles per day clogging its streets as well.

 

For reference, here's the map of where the potential new OH-32 alignment would be between Mt. Carmel and Fairfax: http://easterncorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17-SR321.pdf

 

 

Just for some perspective...

 

The red route is the path that planners are expecting people to take to get from Eastgate to Downtown Cincinnati. As you can tell, it's not exactly a direct route. A lot of people will turn at US-50 (following the green route) if they're going downtown. If that's the case, how much time are they really saving compared to the current route (blue+green)?

 

(Yes, I realize that the new alignment will save time for people commuting between Eastgate and Blue Ash, for example.)

I doubt ODOT is really interested in the red route, the one that would theoretically serve Cincinnati commuters. They're interested in building I-74 through Cincinnati via I-75, Norwood Lateral and Red Bank Road. If you look at it from an interstate perspective -- say Indianapolis to Wilmington NC -- it's a fairly direct route. That's what's so sneaky about this plan.

Last week I drove from Cincinnati to The Outer Banks, NC, and taking I471 from downtown Cincinnati, to the the AA highway to I64 at Grayson, KY is very fast.  The AA is just as close to a freeway as SR 32 in Ohio, and is more direct. The AA is not separated grade exits, but is all improved highway to I-64. Then  I64 takes you all the way to Norfolk, VA. 

 

A few years ago they upgraded the last section of the AA (the Grayson Spur) that connects Vanceburg, KY to Grayson, KY.

 

If you were coming from Indianapolis or Chicago, you could do the same thing, but you would need to either take I-275 around Cincy or come into town and go through Fort Washington Way and over the 471 bridge. 

^Did the same a couple weeks ago to Duck, NC.  Ohio 32 to US 35 to I64 on way there.  64 to AA back.  Hard to tell best on timing. Kids have bladders the size of walnuts.

Great letter!

 

Column: Want shorter trip? Move closer

CIN 12:01 a.m. EDT September 17, 2014

 

 

Here is a wonderfully simple solution to all of the people whining about traffic on state Route 32 and the need for a relocated state Route 32 “Eastern Corridor” project to move forward. Ready? Move to Hamilton County or quit complaining.

 

You have selected to locate your home or business in Clermont County. God bless you. It is a fine place. You have lower taxes, a more rural way of life and all the elbow room a person could need.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/hamiltoncounty/2014/09/17/column-want-shorter-trip-move-closer/15283047/

It is a good letter, but watch out for the slippery slope.  Mariemont, where the author lives, got its own highway back in the 1930s-60s: Columbia Parkway and Wooster Pike.  Places like Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Linwood, Fairfax, Mariemont, Indian Hill, and Terrace Park have a much easier drive to downtown thanks to that highway which destroyed hillside neighborhoods, reamed through Columbia-Tusculum and Linwood, and created excessive hillside stability and noise issues throughout the East End.  It also led to the collapse of all the east side streetcar lines in the 1940s, and by extension Peeble's Corner in Walnut Hills which was an important streetcar transfer point. 

 

So I wouldn't get too righteous about living in Mariemont because it's still a fair distance away from downtown, and it got its highway at the expense of other neighborhoods too.  That doesn't make the Eastern Corridor a good project by any means.  This 1970s idea that no road is a bad road has to die, but you can at least see where the folks in Clermont County are coming from, even if it's based on outdated and flawed beliefs. 

Hey, Mariemont got the original Columbia Parkway/US 50 bypass to be cancelled decades ago, too.

^ I think is a matter of degree. When Columbia Parkway was built, people had transportation choices that didn't cause the destruction of communities that has taken place since.

^ It's also a matter of "what's done is done." Letting one genie out of the bottle doesn't justify letting another one out.

That letter was dripping with disdain for anyone east of I-275, hidden behind a guise of urbanism. Here's what people in Mariemont, Terrace Park and Indian Hill really want: to pretend that they still live on the pastoral edge of Cincinnati, where they can freely move to and from downtown unhindered. This only aligns with urbanism coincidentally.

 

These are the same communities that will vote against transit, and send car-friendly politicians to Columbus and Washington.

Mariemont, at least, is not anti-transit. It voted for MetroMoves at a higher percentage than Cincinnati did.

Todd Portune is still beating the Eastern Corridor drum.

 

 

There's a whole slew of these videos that were posted by OKI around the beginning of the month.

Do or die decision on Eastern Corridor drags on

Jason Williams, [email protected] 8:56 p.m. EST December 3, 2014

 

 

A new report sheds light on the complexities of a major East Side transportation project – compounded by government mistrust, accusations of hidden agendas and fundamental disagreements over the merits of the project.

 

What the report doesn't do, however, is provide a clear solution on whether to stop or move forward with the most controversial part of the multiphase Eastern Corridor project – expanding Ohio 32 through Newtown and Mariemont.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/12/03/eastern-corridor-project/19861251/

After reading the article in the Enquirer today who really decides what happens with SR-32?  If they stop the highway do the rail and Red Bank go forward independently?

If ODOT backs out do the City County or SORTA carry on?

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/02/17/railroad-dont-put-bike-trail-along-oasis-line.html

Railroad company: Don't build bike/pedestrian trail on Oasis line http://cin.ci/1EmdYyW

 

May be related to this:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,8721.msg744862.html#msg744862

Isn't that basically the standard response from all railroads though? 

Isn't that basically the standard response from all railroads though? 

 

Yes, because there is no benefit to them to have a trail on their right of way, and more often there is a negative. Many people are not aware that rail rights of way are private property and their owners have to pay insurance on them. The companies acquired the properties on their own. Anticipating a question -- only 7% of railroad route mileage nationwide was provided by federal land grants, and nearly all of that was west of the Mississippi River. The railroads are under no obligation to make their rights of way available.

 

In contrast, road right of ways are public and their owners don't pay insurance on them -- and there's more of them.

^ Except that in this case SORTA owns the Oasis right-of-way, and I&O/G&W is just leasing it. 

^ Except that in this case SORTA owns the Oasis right-of-way, and I&O/G&W is just leasing it. 

 

"Just" leasing it means they have property rights.

I can't remember where I remarked about this, but what's the benefit of reopening the second freight track? It's not as if it's bursting with activity, and with no through traffic...

I think, as a blanket rule, any rail corridor converted to recreational usage should be zoned with the ability to be converted back to transportation later. We have lost too many highly valuable rail corridors already.

I can't remember where I remarked about this, but what's the benefit of reopening the second freight track? It's not as if it's bursting with activity, and with no through traffic...

 

Once you lose a track, it's almost possible to get it back. How many roads are four lanes but don't need to be -- we keep those extra lanes for contingency purposes. Far too many railroads have done a slash-and-burn approach to tracks, facilities, infrastructure etc. over the past 40 years to reduce their property tax. Then when a customer shows up and wants to use the rail line, the railroad can't accommodate it because it isn't worth it to them to restore track because the economic return isn't there to build it back from scratch for that one shipper (absent government grants which are hard to get!). But if a mothballed track is already there, the incremental cost of restoring it to operating condition is minuscule. The biggest cost to any track restoration is the cost of buying and installing rails which, for low-speed secondary rail service, have a life of 100 years. And in this case, the railroad isn't paying any additional property tax by having the track sit there since it publicly owned. So why incur the expense of removing it? The track is effectively railbanked -- a laudable policy which became popular in the 1980s.

 

But now some of these trail people can't wait for a railroad corpse to turn cold and be legally abandoned. They have a feature on the rails-to-trails website urging people to report when railroad abandonment applications are filed. And some trail advocates aren't even waiting for that, as in the case of the Adirondack Railroad in New York where the trail advocates want an active rail removed for a trail so they can ride their ATVs. Rail freight traffic in this country is growing and recreational trail advocates are fighting to keep "their trails" from reverting back to rail use. Once upon a time, that was the primary reason for converting abandoned rail to recreational trails -- rail corridor preservation for future rail use. Not anymore. Once a rail becomes a trail, it gains its own political constituency and the rail is gone for good. Don't let anyone tell you. Once their foot is in door, they're living there.

^ Except that in this case SORTA owns the Oasis right-of-way, and I&O/G&W is just leasing it. 

 

"Just" leasing it means they have property rights.

 

Maybe so, but do they have ALL the same rights as if they owned it outright? 

it just depends on the language of the lease. Saks 5th Ave doesn't own their building in downtown. Neither do the Bengals. They have incredibly powerful leases.  So, they could be right... but it depends on the details of their agreement

Maybe so, but do they have ALL the same rights as if they owned it outright? 

 

I don't know. Sometimes evicting a tenant is as difficult as seizing a property.

Lots of discussion about the Oasis bike trail today. Question: if you are pro bikes, pro rail transit, and generally anti Eastern Corridor (anti highway and think it's not that great of a rail line,) how are you supposed to feel about this project? I think pro, even though it takes up a rail right of way? Also this is supposed to be a cheaper in lieu of alternative to the Ohio River trail in the east side right?

There is no conceivable scenario in which this rail corridor would suddenly need two rebuilt parallel tracks.  This line was rebuilt at great expense (this was the first railroad in the Cincinnati area, dating back to the 1830s) in its current almost completely grade separated double-track configuration in the early 1900s.  Much of the need for the grade separation evaporated when Union Terminal opened in 1933. 

Lots of discussion about the Oasis bike trail today. Question: if you are pro bikes, pro rail transit, and generally anti Eastern Corridor (anti highway and think it's not that great of a rail line,) how are you supposed to feel about this project? I think pro, even though it takes up a rail right of way? Also this is supposed to be a cheaper in lieu of alternative to the Ohio River trail in the east side right?

 

If the Oasis Line commuter rail were built as a standalone project, it would probably get decent ridership. Suddenly is quicker to take the train directly to downtown than to drive through Kentucky.

 

If the Oasis Line and the OH-32 relocation both get built, you kill the ridership on the rail line. How many people from Milford/Eastgate would take the train to Downtown if we simultaneously open a new interstate-quality highway right next to it? Some people will, but not enough to justify the cost.

 

My odds:

50% chance neither are built.

49% chance the OH-32 relocation is built but the Oasis Line is not.

1% chance both are built.

0% chance the Oasis Line is built but the OH-32 relocation is not.

Yea I'll take those odds! Crazy isn't it?

BTW, a friend of mine who was an executive at the Ohio Central Railroad HATES the trail they built right next to the state-owned track they leased through Newark, OH. The reason? The proximity of the trail means the Ohio Central can't use mechanized equipment to swiftly replace ties on the track using a limited number of workers. Instead, it has to do the work by HAND costing them more money without any benefit gained. And this isn't a short stretch of track. It's 10 miles of trail built on where the second mainline track used to be for the Panhandle Line, from East Main Street near downtown Newark east to Felumlee Road near the Longaberger Golf Club in Nashport. This is Oakwood Avenue next to SR16 in Newark...

 

I think the only way the trail will proceed is if the City, SORTA or others buy out the Indiana and Ohio Railway, Kinder Morgan and Cincinnati Barge and Rail Terminal. 

BTW, a friend of mine who was an executive at the Ohio Central Railroad HATES the trail they built right next to the state-owned track they leased through Newark, OH. The reason? The proximity of the trail means the Ohio Central can't use mechanized equipment to swiftly replace ties on the track using a limited number of workers. Instead, it has to do the work by HAND costing them more money without any benefit gained. And this isn't a short stretch of track. It's 10 miles of trail built on where the second mainline track used to be for the Panhandle Line, from East Main Street near downtown Newark east to Felumlee Road near the Longaberger Golf Club in Nashport. This is Oakwood Avenue next to SR16 in Newark...

 

At some point I think you have to just say "use it or lose it."  I realize that the government's taxation of railroad property based on its improved value is the crux of the problem (just as it's a problem with parking lots downtown, or any vacant or otherwise underutilized property in already built-up areas), but corridors like this are so valuable that simply letting them grow weeds is borderline criminal. 

And if you use it for a trail, you risk the remaining rail. All these underutilized roadway corridors and we want to put a nonconforming use next to a linear industrial property?

It will be underutilized indefinitely, as it will never have a connection further west or south. Unless we get on the ball with commuter rail, it's pretty much a long shot. Even at that, it's not a good commuter route.

I'm referring to the roads being underutilized -- go after them instead. Why is the first assumption to build a trail along an existing rail line? Trails are better suited to be created on road rights of way and at far less cost -- often by changing the striping along them. It's happening with greater frequency as part of road diets everywhere. It would be worth doing more of in Cincinnati....

 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/brochure/

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, a friend of mine who was an executive at the Ohio Central Railroad HATES the trail they built right next to the state-owned track they leased through Newark, OH. The reason? The proximity of the trail means the Ohio Central can't use mechanized equipment to swiftly replace ties on the track using a limited number of workers. Instead, it has to do the work by HAND costing them more money without any benefit gained. And this isn't a short stretch of track. It's 10 miles of trail built on where the second mainline track used to be for the Panhandle Line, from East Main Street near downtown Newark east to Felumlee Road near the Longaberger Golf Club in Nashport. This is Oakwood Avenue next to SR16 in Newark...

 

 

There is a story behind this trail. The driving force behind it was a bullying type of personality who also pushed a tourist railroad out and built the trail across other land without permission. In the latter case, the land in question was owned by a pair of ladies from out of state who came to town only to find a brand new trail across their land. they filed suit and blocked the trail. Don't know if that ever got resolved.

 

Some trail advocates are quite pushy and they salivate every time the see a rail line, whether it's in use or not.

Is the Eastern Corridor project officially dead?

 

The Eastern Corridor may be dead after state lawmakers refused to give the controversial transportation project any more money Monday, according to a report by online statehouse news service Gongwer.

 

House lawmakers are not allowing the Ohio Department of Transportation to spend any more money on the East Side rail, highway or bike project, which would effectively scrap the entire project.

 

Cont

This just might be some good news.