One of my big issues with the streetcar naysayers is that they're quick to reflexively shoot down the project without offering any ideas of their own regarding alternate plans or how it could be improved. So, assuming the Eastern Corridor commuter rail project moves forward, how should its potential be maximized? A few ideas that come to my mind:

 

1. There's a compelling argument that the line should use the Wasson right-of-way rather than the Oasis Line. At a very minimum, this should be looked into. If the Oasis Line is ultimately selected, the rail line should be built in a way that doesn't preclude the Wasson line from being utilized in the future. I'd even build a provision for a junction at Eggleston Avenue that anticipates a line up the I-71 and Wasson corridors.

 

2. Likewise, while the mode of rail transit being discussed is DMU commuter trains, the line should be designed and built in a matter that makes it possible to upgrade it to light rail at some point in the future, and to make that upgrade process as easy as possible. (Ideally, it would involve nothing more than installing overhead catenary and maybe adding a couple more intermediate stations. DMU commuter trains could continue running during that construction process.)

 

3. The Eastern Corridor line should be run by SORTA, and be fully integrated with the streetcar and buses, including the use of the same fare media. This should be a no-brainer with SORTA's new fare system being rolled out. There's no excuse for this to be a stand-alone line existing in its own universe; to do that would be a sure-fire recipe for failure.

 

4. Stations should be located to maximize connections with existing neighborhood business districts, bus routes, and highways. Each station should have at least some park-and-ride capability. It would be foolish to assume that this line can completely replace driving to/from the eastern suburbs, but it should be designed so that it serves as a convenient way for people to reduce the number of miles they have to drive. Make the park-and-ride lots free, or at a minimum, make sure the cost of parking + train fare is favorable to driving and parking downtown. It would be ideal if the same media used to pay the train fare can also be used to pay for parking. This should be easy with some sort of smart card system.

 

(Some transit advocates seem to think the private automobile is something that should be eliminated altogether. This only feeds into the COASTers' paranoid conspiracy theories, and it's a goal that is neither feasible nor desirable. Public transit needs to be about expanding transportation choices, not forcing people to give up one mode of transit for another. There's no reason cars and trains can't play nicely with each other. But that's a topic for another thread.)

 

5. The topography along the line is a challenge, but it needn't be a deal-breaker. For example, the 9th Street Station on New Jersey's Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system has a tall elevator and walkway that makes the station accessible to dense neighborhoods further up the hill. Something similar could be done at the East End to make that station more accessible to East Walnut Hills and O'Brianville where Taft Avenue meets Columbia Parkway. (And I'd argue that the elevator tower can be made much more aesthetically appealing than the one built at 9th Street on the HBLR.)

I've ridden that exact elevator, and it is used extensively because the hilltop neighborhood is large and dense like Fairview.  There's nothing that dense in East Walnut Hills. 

 

The problem with light rail is that these tracks are still used by freight, meaning the FTA will not permit vehicles that cannot sustain a crash with freight trains, which by definition are heavy rail.  If the Wasson Rd. line is used, past Red Bank, a new light rail double-track would have to be built parallel but 50+ feet away from the active freight track.  The better plan is light rail on the Wasson Rd. ROW, then light rail that ignores existing freight lines east toward Clermont County.

 

Again, light rail on the Oasis line to Lunken is possible if all freight use is abandoned, but six miles of light rail to, say, Norwood has much higher ROI.

Interesting note about the Wasson line is how one strip mall owner in Oakley attempted to bury the tracks and create an extension of his surface lot.

 

 

Apparently, some folks went before the planning commission to get it stopped, but work has again resumed as of yesterday.

 

As for west of Montgomery, all of our planning documents for the Mixed Use Development (that's now the official title) at Xavier show the rail lines being used for light rail, with a stop envisioned at the western boundaries of the new development (between Dana and Herald Ave.), and the PRR line that has been abandoned through the heart of Norwood being somehow reactivated - although this has been long developed over. More interesting is that Xavier has been burying the tracks - with Norfolk Southern's blessing, for either a linear park with a gravel walkway (north of Dana), or a gravel surface lot (south of Ledgewood). NS will not allow for any permanent easement or redevelopment, which is good if there is a future reuse such as light rail.

I've ridden that exact elevator, and it is used extensively because the hilltop neighborhood is large and dense like Fairview.  There's nothing that dense in East Walnut Hills. 

 

The problem with light rail is that these tracks are still used by freight, meaning the FTA will not permit vehicles that cannot sustain a crash with freight trains, which by definition are heavy rail.  If the Wasson Rd. line is used, past Red Bank, a new light rail double-track would have to be built parallel but 50+ feet away from the active freight track.  The better plan is light rail on the Wasson Rd. ROW, then light rail that ignores existing freight lines east toward Clermont County.

 

Again, light rail on the Oasis line to Lunken is possible if all freight use is abandoned, but six miles of light rail to, say, Norwood has much higher ROI.

 

Ya- I'd MUCH rather see Wasson developed than this-- Just looking at the stops, the topography around the stops, etc. there really are low options for anything useful.  And using diesel cars for a 10 mile ride?  Crazy.

 

 

Sherman, the goings-on with that parking lot mean nothing.  The government has the power of eminient domain, meaning that and the structures that have been built on former row's can be seized in short order and in fact amount to less than 1% of a typical project's cost.  The total value of the stuff on Norwood on the former PRR line *maybe* totals $5 million.  I mean, the city is about to tear down 20 homes by power of eminient domain on MLK.  It's done all the time.

Interesting note about the Wasson line is how one strip mall owner in Oakley attempted to bury the tracks and create an extension of his surface lot.

 

Odd, that shopping center has plenty of parking for it's size.

 

Cincinnati Parks did the same thing to the Oasis Line by the Montgomery Inn Boathouse. Overflow for Sawyer Point parking lot during special events.

Well what's odd about the Wasson situation is that Norfolk Southern really does not like their right-of-way falling into anyone else's hands.  They'd just assume sit on an abandoned rail line than let Indiana & Ohio Railway have it or sell it off for private development.  They're very much about railbanking, so I wonder how this parking lot thing ever got going in the first place. 

Besides what has been pointed out here already, there are a lot of problems with the Wasson line in terms of getting it down the hill into downtown, from the area around MLK.  The old CL&N tunnels aren’t wide enough for two trains to pass side by side, and one of the tunnels has a street collapsing into it.  South of the tunnels the entire ROW is beneath I-71.

 

I like the Eastern Corridor as a commuter line, traffic to/from the east side during rush hour is horrible and I firmly believe thousands of people would opt for a park and ride situation rather than sit on Columbia Parkway for an hour, or loop through Kentucky via I-471.  The ridership from the Anderson/Mt. Lookout/Milford areas would be a lot higher than people here are giving credit for.  Having the downtown station in the transit center would make for a <10 minute walk for almost everyone working downtown, and coupled with a transfer to the streetcar – another 10 minute ride uptown.

 

Does anyone know why the Enquirer buried the Eastern Corridor story?  I don't remember it ever being on the homepage of Cincinnati.com and it has zero comments which leads me to believe it never was.

 

 

Well no, south of the tunnels the ROW is not buried under I-71.  If they were going to bury the line, then why'd they build all the bridges for it?  It was abandoned at about the time the highway was built yes, but some non-revenue trains were supposedly run into the mid 1970s.  The problem is that the ROW has been built on at the Baldwin Center and to some extent the Catholic Healthcare Partners on Elsinore, and now it drops right into the casino parking garage.  All this is at a pretty steep grade too.  North of the tunnels there's another building next to the old Ford plant, and where Whittier Avenue used to bridge over the railroad it's since been filled in with earth. 

 

Of all these things though, the only really difficult barrier is the Baldwin parking garage and the casino.  That said, even if those weren't problems, the CL&N ROW has many of the same issues as the Oasis line.  It parallels I-71 in rough terrain, so there's not much development potential there.  Along with the problems of the tunnels (the bridges over I-71 are also only single-track), and the buildings on the ROW, that gets me back to a Gilbert Avenue light rail sort of situation that connects to the Wasson line at Montgomery and Dana.  Gilbert would be a fantastic corridor for light rail.  If Xavier really wanted a better connection to their campus, then maybe a Gilbert/Woodburn route or something involving Victory Parkway would work, but it seems like the CL&N is hopeless.  It's probably too steep to safely operate commuter type trains anyway. 

Does anyone know why the Enquirer buried the Eastern Corridor story?  I don't remember it ever being on the homepage of Cincinnati.com and it has zero comments which leads me to believe it never was.

 

I didn't see it there. Only found it after a Google search.

Gilbert would be a fantastic corridor for light rail. 

 

 

^ Or a streetcar or both.

>some non-revenue trains were supposedly run into the mid 1970s.

 

The line was only used for two years after I-71 opened.  So that huge capital expense and I-71 design considerations went for basically nothing.  The date in my head is 1968 for the last operational train, but I might be off by a few years. 

 

I remember taking a field trip to the old Natural History Museum as a kid, where WCPO is now.  We were eating our packed lunches in the lawn directly across the street, and I remember wandering with some of the boys onto the diagonal CL&N overpass which is still there.  There was a homeless encampment on the bridge and that was my first memory of homeless people.  We took a step or two onto the bridge and turned back when the guys looked at us.

 

But even at that time, around 1985, it was impossible to trace the path of the railroad, from what I remember. 

 

Close enough.  According to John Hauck's book, Penn Central shut down the Court Street freight depot and the tracks in the Deer Creek Valley in 1969.  The depot was demolished in 1975 to build the Greyhound station.  Historic Aerials shows some cars on the tracks at Court Street in 1968 but also a few scattered about in 1970 as well.  Apparently the tracks connecting Court Street to Sawyer Point along Eggleston Avenue remained in service a few years longer so it's anyone's guess which way those cars were moved out, unless they were scrapped in place.  On the other hand, the United States Railway Association's Final System Plan for Conrail (page 358 on the report, page 356 on the PDF) shows 257 carloads of freight being delivered to Court Street in 1973, but acknowledging that the track near Avondale was out of service.  Maybe they all came up from Eggleston at that point. 

 

Anyway, I know that was way too much information, but look at the route in those aerial shots.  Navigating through the Baldwin Complex, crossing Elsinore at grade, and then diving quickly into Broadway Commons on a very curvy route was anything but ideal in the past, and would certainly be a problem now. 

All Aboard Ohio's SW Ohio director sent this to me......

 

http://www.facebook.com/wassonwayproject#!/wassonwayproject

All Aboard Ohio's SW Ohio director sent this to me......

 

http://www.facebook.com/wassonwayproject#!/wassonwayproject

 

So this Wasson way Project wants to cover the existing railroad tracks with a bike trail?

 

 

 

So this Wasson way Project wants to cover the existing railroad tracks with a bike trail?

 

 

Wasson Way activist Jay Andress tells our SW Ohio director that they want the trail built next to, not on the railroad track so it can be used for light-rail.

 

FYI: if there are properly spaced passing sidings, a single-track rail line can offer relatively frequent headways. For example, the north end of the electrified Baltimore LRT is single-track and offers 15-minute headways. Similar operations are possible with diesel-powered commuter rail. The Los Angeles Metrolink commuter rail system's San Bernardino Line is mostly single tracked and it offers headways of 20 minutes during rush hours.

There isn't enough room for both though.  Certainly not without regrading Wasson Road to be level with the tracks or vice versa.  Plus there's the underpass at Erie that's only wide enough for the one track that's there, plus the trestle over Red Bank that's also just one track.  The pictures of other corridors at the Wasson Way Facebook page show huge rights-of-way, like two side-by-side double-track routes, one being used for the trail and the other banked.  The Green Bay Trail through Chicago's North Shore is like this.  The trail (especially noticeable in Winnetka where it's in a trench) is on the rail bed of the defunct Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee interurban's Shore Line, while Metra's Union Pacific North Line continues to run on the other side.  Both are/were double-track.  That's simply not the case with the Wasson Line, which was always single-track, and was even narrow gauge to begin with! 

 

As a cyclist myself, I do like to see more trails and bike lanes and other bike infrastructure.  On the other hand, a railroad's right-of-way is best used as a railroad.  I'd rather see this returned to some sort of rail use before anything else.  Bike trails are good because they keep the corridor open and protected from development, but they should be a last resort option. 

 

It would be really nice to have a direct bike route from the Little Miami Valley up to Hyde Park on an easy grade like this, there's no doubt.  What I wonder though is just how much work would be required.  The trestle over Red Bank is over 100 years old, and it would need a new deck and fencing, plus complete repainting to make it safe.  That's big money.  There's another shorter girder bridge in Ault Park that needs some work too.  It looks like they've put some good thought into how to navigate around the Bulkmatic transloading facility at Clare Yard, but I'm not so sure about crossing Madison Road. 

Historic Aerials[/url] shows some cars on the tracks at Court Street in 1968 but also a few scattered about in 1970 as well.

 

I moved downtown in 1976 and rememeber seeing stray box cars on and around Eggleston. I assume they came in along the Oasis Line.

^ That bridge on Red bank is gone anyway if they make it  a freeway.

Why isn't there room along Wasson Road? Check out what was done along the RiverLine in New Jersey (a diesel-powered light rail line that runs for 30 miles from Camden to Trenton). Gradients were changed, right of ways widened, and rail lines run along the sides of roads separated only by a curb....

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/images/photos/TRO2_NJ_TRANSIT_Lt_Rail_5.jpg

 

From Wikipedia article on River Line:

 

"The River Line is currently exceeding final ridership estimates of 5,500 passengers per day, with an average of 7,350 weekday, 5,550 Saturday, and 3,600 Sunday average passenger trips during FY 2006. As of the fourth quarter of 2007, the daily weekday ridership has grown to an average of 7900 trips.[2] As of the end of 2008, weekday ridership was 9,000, the current capacity of the system.[3]"

^Looks so simple! The drawback with running rail in the middle of the street is that it's intimidating for passengers to cross the street and wait in traffic.

 

I've toyed with the idea of making the Wasson cooridor into a rail line with a pair of one-way streets on either side, with the rail line depressed below street level between two retaining walls in certain stretches, allowing for grade separation at important cross-streets such as Madison.

 

Adjacent property owners, the rail cultists  :-D and the bicycle lobby are all eyeing that corridor. I hope it is preserved as a corridor and not developed into self-storage places like so many other railroad properties.

 

The Exclusive Guideway plan of 1977 says that the Penn line (former CL&N) still served 40 railcars per week from Eggleston but the Walnut Hills tunnel was closed.

Why isn't there room along Wasson Road? Check out what was done along the RiverLine in New Jersey

 

I see light rail and a street, but not light rail and a street AND a bike path.  If the ROW was graded to be level with Wasson and the rail pushed to the curb, then the path could go about where the rail is now.  Is that likely to be done if the bike path is built first?  I doubt it.  There's also still the issue of the Red Bank trestle and overpasses at Marburg and Erie only being wide enough for one thing but not both.  It's not insurmountable but it's not easy either.  It seems like the bike path advocates are just paying lip service to maintaining a path for light rail in the same way ODOT is "preserving" a light rail corridor along I-75, even though it's going to be monumentally expensive to actually build. 

^A properly designed street should accomodate automobiles and bicycles. The only real reason to separate bicycle and automobile modes is when the speed differential is high, such as a bike path parallel to I-75.

 

On a side note, I can't tell you how many West-Siders have said, "They have a nice bike trail along the Little Miami River. Why can't we have one parallel to the Great Miami? Or the Whitewater? I guess it's obvious to me, but not everyone knows that the Little Miami Bike Trail was built on a graded railroad right-of-way. In fact, I think the rail banking program allows the railroad to take it back if they require it, not that they ever would.

 

Cutting a new right-of-way of any kind, whether it be for rail, highway, bicycle path, or utility is an expensive proposition.

^A properly designed street should accomodate automobiles and bicycles. The only real reason to separate bicycle and automobile modes is when the speed differential is high, such as a bike path parallel to I-75.

 

Or when the bike path can get around obstacles that roads can't.  There's also the people who simply won't ride on the road no matter what. 

 

I mentioned before the having a shallow grade for scaling the hill is a big selling point.  It's also a good way to get across Columbia Parkway/Red Bank Road, which combined with the hillside (and thus lack of connecting streets) is a big obstacle to east-west bike travel.  The only way to get from Hyde Park or Mt. Lookout to Lunken Airport or Armleder Park if you're not super crazy hard core is to take either Delta or Erie.  Linwood/Beechmont/Wilmer Circle is very dangerous but doable in a pinch.  I'll ride just about anywhere myself, but I won't go down there if I can avoid it.  Delta is very out of the way unless you're going to the airport terminal, and Erie puts you to Red Bank and Wooster, neither of which are good cycling roads.  You can take the Murray Trail along Fairfax and through Mariemont to get to the Little Miami Trail, but you still have to navigate Wooster through Plainville, which sucks.  To have a trail on a consistent and shallow grade from Hyde Park Plaza to the Little Miami would be very well used I have no doubt.  It would allow a lot of people to ride from home to the Little Miami Trail rather than having to drive out to Avoca Park. 

Allright, I have a plan:

 

Starting at Rookwood Pavilion, make the Wasson corridor a light rail line between two one-way streets, designed to accomodate bicycles as well as cars.  At Erie, the divert the light rail northeast along Erie to the Murray line, and follow the Murray line to Mariemont. This lines up the possibilty of a future extension in the direction of Eastgate, and the former Hyde Park Branch is available all the way to the former CL&N, complete with a bridge over I-71. This allignment maximizes potential ridership, because it splits the most developed area. It sure does beat the OASIS line for development potential.

 

From the Wasson corridor at Erie, continue a separate bike trail on the former Hyde Park Branch to connect to the Little Miami Bike Trail. The grade is easy, and the infrastructure can probably be rehabbed for bicycles. This works out well because so much of the alignment passes through park property. This gets a connection all the way from Rookwood Pavilion to the Little Miami Bike Trail.

 

Meanwhile, build the interchange at MLK and I-71. Grade-separate some of the major intersections such as MLK and Clifton, MLK and Burnet, MLK and Vine, etc. to improve traffic flow in both the north-south and east-west directions. Prohibit crossing traffic on some of the other existing intersections. (Some of them are already right-in, right-out intersections with MLK.) Make sure to accomodate all the left-turn movements by directing traffic around the block to the grade separated intersections. Of course, if there is no other way, leave the intersections at grade. This will dramatically improve automobile access to the uptown area by reducing the number of signalized intersections and left turning movements, and make MLK a sort of modified expressway.

 

Preserve the OASIS line for heavy rail. The Circus Train still uses it, as does a handful of industries and an occasional passenger excursion. Rebuild the front-street line along the Riverfront from the Boathouse to the old Amtrak station, connecting the two railroads operated by Rail America. This in turn will give Rail America an option to avoid the congested Mill Creek Cooridor, freeing up a little bit of capacity there, and does not affect the transit center under Second Street. 

 

Now we have four improved east-west routes through eastern Cincinnati, one for each mode; light rail, bicycle, motor, and heavy rail. Only on Wasson do they overlap. Everybody happy?  :-)

 

Bring on metro moves II. It's been 10 years.

^ I led the first MetroMoves campaign, and if it does come back, we need to re-think it. I have gradually become convinced that counties are not the correct building-block for transit issues. County government represents the collective will of township government, not cities. Many people live in townships because they don't need, don't wan't or don't want to pay for more than a minimum of public services.

 

On the other hand, people do value cities and towns for the services they provide, transit among them. So if we ever bring back something like the first MetroMoves, it ought to be financed by the collection of cities, towns and villages along the routes. In the I-75 Corridor, they are contiguous -- no gaps between incorporated areas. The Eastern Corridor has contiguous cities if they would use the Wasson Line to Fairfax, Mariemont and Terrace Park, although there is a slight gap where Columbia Township intervenes between the latter two. I-71 has nearly contiguous cities and towns except for the intervention of Sycamore Township around Kenwood.

 

The townships along these lines could participate and gain stations if they agreed to participate in the funding. Otherwise, the line would bypass their jurisdictions, and the benefits and economic development would instead flow to adjacent towns at their peril.

Allright, I have a plan:

 

Starting at Rookwood Pavilion, make the Wasson corridor a light rail line between two one-way streets, designed to accomodate bicycles as well as cars.  At Erie, the divert the light rail northeast along Erie to the Murray line, and follow the Murray line to Mariemont. This lines up the possibilty of a future extension in the direction of Eastgate, and the former Hyde Park Branch is available all the way to the former CL&N, complete with a bridge over I-71. This allignment maximizes potential ridership, because it splits the most developed area. It sure does beat the OASIS line for development potential.

 

From the Wasson corridor at Erie, continue a separate bike trail on the former Hyde Park Branch to connect to the Little Miami Bike Trail. The grade is easy, and the infrastructure can probably be rehabbed for bicycles. This works out well because so much of the alignment passes through park property. This gets a connection all the way from Rookwood Pavilion to the Little Miami Bike Trail.

 

Meanwhile, build the interchange at MLK and I-71. Grade-separate some of the major intersections such as MLK and Clifton, MLK and Burnet, MLK and Vine, etc. to improve traffic flow in both the north-south and east-west directions. Prohibit crossing traffic on some of the other existing intersections. (Some of them are already right-in, right-out intersections with MLK.) Make sure to accomodate all the left-turn movements by directing traffic around the block to the grade separated intersections. Of course, if there is no other way, leave the intersections at grade. This will dramatically improve automobile access to the uptown area by reducing the number of signalized intersections and left turning movements, and make MLK a sort of modified expressway.

 

Preserve the OASIS line for heavy rail. The Circus Train still uses it, as does a handful of industries and an occasional passenger excursion. Rebuild the front-street line along the Riverfront from the Boathouse to the old Amtrak station, connecting the two railroads operated by Rail America. This in turn will give Rail America an option to avoid the congested Mill Creek Cooridor, freeing up a little bit of capacity there, and does not affect the transit center under Second Street. 

 

Now we have four improved east-west routes through eastern Cincinnati, one for each mode; light rail, bicycle, motor, and heavy rail. Only on Wasson do they overlap. Everybody happy?  :-)

 

 

Eighth and State might be on to something here by incorporating a freight rail element into his proposal. This brings another player to the table and we clearly need more supporters.

^ I led the first MetroMoves campaign, and if it does come back, we need to re-think it. I have gradually become convinced that counties are not the correct building-block for transit issues. County government represents the collective will of township government, not cities. Many people live in townships because they don't need, don't wan't or don't want to pay for more than a minimum of public services.

 

On the other hand, people do value cities and towns for the services they provide, transit among them. So if we ever bring back something like the first MetroMoves, it ought to be financed by the collection of cities, towns and villages along the routes. In the I-75 Corridor, they are contiguous -- no gaps between incorporated areas. The Eastern Corridor has contiguous cities if they would use the Wasson Line to Fairfax, Mariemont and Terrace Park, although there is a slight gap where Columbia Township intervenes between the latter two. I-71 has nearly contiguous cities and towns except for the intervention of Sycamore Township around Kenwood.

 

The townships along these lines could participate and gain stations if they agreed to participate in the funding. Otherwise, the line would bypass their jurisdictions, and the benefits and economic development would instead flow to adjacent towns at their peril.

 

This is the same approach advicates for intercity passenger rail are going to have to take: avoid the anti's by seeking alternative ways to develop support. For ingtercity rail, we could see joint public-private partnerships, joint powers authorities and so on, all to avoid dealing with an anti-rail, anti-urban state government.

>The townships along these lines could participate and gain stations if they agreed to participate in the funding

 

Cincinnati Public Schools, for example, extends in some cases outside the city limits.  Their recent capital bond issue of $1 billion is being paid by a property tax that nobody seems to notice.  The county's 1/2 cent sales tax for the stadiums, meanwhile, remains a comical source of contention since few seem to remember the property tax rollback. 

 

My point is that Cincinnati + surrounding communities do have the ability to pay for large capital improvements while avoiding the wrath of the county and talk radio.  Funding for rail projects is quite different than building stadiums because there are many opportunities for state and federal matches and grants.

 

 

 

Hey man rail might get grants and matching funds, but stadiums can ease traffic congestion, improve mobility for the poor, increase density, and reduce our reliance on foreign resources.

 

Oh...wait...

^^I don't think anybody really understood the property tax rollback to begin with.

I understood it perfectly clear, and I was 17 years old when the whole thing was going on.  To clarify, in late 1995 the commissioners enacted the sales tax and it was going to take effect sometime in 1996.  In early 1996 a citizens group led by Tim Mara, Tom Luken, and my dad (some of the group's meetings took place around our basement ping pong table) led the effort to collect a huge number of signatures, something like 30,000, to put the issue on the May 1996 ballot. 

 

In the lead-up to the election, the commissioners changed the plan in order to make it more appealing to the electorate.  Originally, all $60 million of the 1/2 cent sales tax was going to pay off the stadium bonds.  They changed it so that there was also a property tax rollback and part of the sales tax was allocated to Cincinnati Public Schools.  So suddenly way less was going to be collected every year, and has been.

 

The stadiums sales tax passed at the polls, something like 55-45.  This enabled the commissioners to enact the tax, which I think started on October 1, 1996.  But because of their promise to do the property tax rollback and give money to Cincinnati Public Schools, they didn't have enough money to do The Banks and now are having to return property taxes close to pre-1996 levels. 

 

I don't think that's too hard to understand, or that the property tax rollback wasn't particularly significant for the average homeowner either.  But our media is eager to whore itself out. 

^To add to that, the commssioners promised a property tax rollback, but after it passed, they said they forgot to say that it only applies to owner-occupied residential properties. Landlords and commercial property owners got nothing.

 

At the time that it was proposed, the idea was that it would be a wash for Hamilton County residents, since for the average person the sales tax would be offset by the property tax rollback, and the net gain in revenue would come from outsiders who paid the sales tax in Hamilton County.

 

In any case, the football stadium ended up costing much more than advertised, the anticipated sales tax revenue didn't keep up with the forecast, and the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment. Also, the Republicans lost their control of the Hamilton County Commissioners, a condition that had been in place for many years.

 

And yes, this is pertinent to the streetcar because it led to renewed mistrust of local government, especially of the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Mike Brown got generous terms on the lease, including parking revenue, and therefore has no incentive for any kind of mass transit at the stadium.

 

As I remember, the opposition effort collected 80,000 signatures. This might have been the largest political movement in Hamilton County.

 

The Enquirer and WLW were obviously on the side of the stadiums because they make a lot of money on sports coverage.

 

the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment

 

Can you elaborate on this?

In any case, the football stadium ended up costing much more than advertised, the anticipated sales tax revenue didn't keep up with the forecast, and the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment.

 

I literally just came from there. Holy Grail was packed, there was a line for Johnny Rocket's window and there were people partying on the balconies for the apartments.

 

Dissapointing indeed, like a ghost town over there.

I think he meant it was a disappointment while it was an idea which wasn't acted on.

 

Now that some of it is built, that is turning around. But some people need some time to see what's happened. Some still have a bad taste in their mouth, rationally or not. Not everyone keeps up on this stuff like we do, but they will figure it out eventually.

the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Since you asked,

 

Yes, I'm happy that something is finally happening there, but I'll tell you why I think it's been a disappointment. It has taken way too long to build. At the time of the stadium campaign, the assumption was that it was going to open at about the same time as the stadiums. That's 10 years of potential activity, property tax revenue, and postcard views that were lost. The Freedom Center, which occupies the central site, is underwhelming because it just doesn't attract much traffic. The Banks is surrounded by too much parking, and the football stadium is just too big and empty most of the time. The Banks doesn't interact with the river as well as it could, because it is cut off by a motorway and the navigation aspects of the site make it difficult to establish any riverboat action.  A marina which appeared in one of the early renderings never materialized.

 

Some of the beach cities in this country have excellent waterfronts. Look at Virginia Beach, Myrtle Beach,  Miami Beach, etc. They are oriented toward the water. Also, the harbour cities of New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc., have made excellent use of the waterfront. Cincinnati is a river city, as are Pittsburgh, Memphis, New Orleans, and Louisville. The river cities have all pretty much ignored their rivers, because there just isn't much action there anymore. River traffic is still important, but it's all bulk materials in really big tows that dock at obscure industrial locations. I told someone once that the City of Cincinnati is the biggest inland port city in the United States. He said, "where's the port?" Most of the pleasure boat action in the Cincinnati metro area is near the Little Miami River, at Harbortown, Four Seasons Marina, and others. Yes, there are technical reasons for this, namely the topography was more suited for it in the Little Miami River floodplain. The serpentine wall was designed for small boat docking, but few use it. It would have been nice to see a better connection to the river.

 

The whole thing is of course heavily funded with public money. The untold story is what could have been done with that money. Sure, it's fun to see new things get built, but just look at what we've lost. We have a new baseball stadium, but we lost the Cyclones. We have The Banks, but we lost McAlpins. We have Holy Grail and Johnny Rockets, but we lost the Maisonette. The flip side of subsidized development is that the money has to come from somewhere else, and there is an opportunity cost that is not well publicized.

 

None of the mass transit elements - light rail, the streetcar, inter-city rail - have materialized.

 

The machine room was supposed to be a full-time restaurant. There's not enough interest to keep it open.

 

So we have a couple of trendy restaurants. Better than nothing, but it could be so much more.

 

Don't compare The Banks with what it was 10 years ago. Compare it with what it could be.  :-)

 

 

 

 

^ Even I would not call it a disappointment, and I'm a pretty critical person. It's just a very long delay.

 

Canceling the project would be a disappointment.

^ Your view is incredibly strange

the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Since you asked,

 

Yes, I'm happy that something is finally happening there, but I'll tell you why I think it's been a disappointment. It has taken way too long to build. At the time of the stadium campaign, the assumption was that it was going to open at about the same time as the stadiums. That's 10 years of potential activity, property tax revenue, and postcard views that were lost. The Freedom Center, which occupies the central site, is underwhelming because it just doesn't attract much traffic. The Banks is surrounded by too much parking, and the football stadium is just too big and empty most of the time. The Banks doesn't interact with the river as well as it could, because it is cut off by a motorway and the navigation aspects of the site make it difficult to establish any riverboat action.  A marina which appeared in one of the early renderings never materialized.

 

Some of the beach cities in this country have excellent waterfronts. Look at Virginia Beach, Myrtle Beach,  Miami Beach, etc. They are oriented toward the water. Also, the harbour cities of New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc., have made excellent use of the waterfront. Cincinnati is a river city, as are Pittsburgh, Memphis, New Orleans, and Louisville. The river cities have all pretty much ignored their rivers, because there just isn't much action there anymore. River traffic is still important, but it's all bulk materials in really big tows that dock at obscure industrial locations. I told someone once that the City of Cincinnati is the biggest inland port city in the United States. He said, "where's the port?" Most of the pleasure boat action in the Cincinnati metro area is near the Little Miami River, at Harbortown, Four Seasons Marina, and others. Yes, there are technical reasons for this, namely the topography was more suited for it in the Little Miami River floodplain. The serpentine wall was designed for small boat docking, but few use it. It would have been nice to see a better connection to the river.

 

The whole thing is of course heavily funded with public money. The untold story is what could have been done with that money. Sure, it's fun to see new things get built, but just look at what we've lost. We have a new baseball stadium, but we lost the Cyclones. We have The Banks, but we lost McAlpins. We have Holy Grail and Johnny Rockets, but we lost the Maisonette. The flip side of subsidized development is that the money has to come from somewhere else, and there is an opportunity cost that is not well publicized.

 

None of the mass transit elements - light rail, the streetcar, inter-city rail - have materialized.

 

Your view of the Banks is incredibly bizarre.  You're talking as if it's finished.... As if this is the final outcome.  You talk about a crappy riverfront but ignore the Riverfront Park... You say there's not enough traffic etc., but seem to ignore that Phase 1A is about an 1/6 of the full project... 

 

If you're talking about the Cincinnati Cyclones... they are still there- I went to a game last week. 

 

The Maisonnette closed but now Boca is moving into it's place, and between the maisonnette closing and today about 20-30 other great restaurants of all different kids have opened downtown.

 

And nearly all of the places you talked about have major roadways separating them from the water.... the crazy part is... people walk across the road and visit the beach. 

 

You basically presented a major criticism of a project that is now becoming quite a success... and presented no alternative... You complain that the river has been neglected, but then suggest that we should have spent all that money on other parts of the city and not the river...

 

Then you complain that there are too many surface lots... Are you kidding???? The entire area used to ONLY be parking- The surface lots are disappearing constantly and you complain that it's poorly planned and there are too many surface lots!? Ahhhh.

 

Just because the marina hasn't been built yet and is very far off in the plan, doesn't mean it will never happen. It wasn't even drawn in this whole area (it was drawn on the Hilltop Concrete site), there was never a timeline that was missed, etc.  I feel that you're making some poorly thought out, simplified criticisms.

 

The main frustration in your thinking is that you're complaining about things in different time periods- some things you complain about are future plans that have yet to happen, so your complaints are temporary and WILL be fixed but not tomorrow- other things you complain about have been around for 10 years (the football stadium) and have no chance of being changed.

 

Sure it's not perfect, is anything ever??  Sure I would love to live in a world where we DONT need that much parking, but aren't you one of the most critical people of the costs of the streetcar? 

I'm sorry Eighth and State, but I have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you just pointed out. I apologize in advance for how much of your post I'm going to cut up and quote and for how long winded mine will be, but I promise the point I'm about to make does eventually come full circle to the topic at hand.

 

the Banks and entertainment district, although it is finally being built, has been a disappointment

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Since you asked,

 

Yes, I'm happy that something is finally happening there, but I'll tell you why I think it's been a disappointment. It has taken way too long to build. At the time of the stadium campaign, the assumption was that it was going to open at about the same time as the stadiums. That's 10 years of potential activity, property tax revenue, and postcard views that were lost.

 

I agree with you here, the beauracratic delays that hampered the project from even starting were both an embarrassment and a disappointment. It was stupid walking along 2nd Street to a game at the ballpark and overlooking that vast mud pit where 1/2 of Riverfront Stadium used to sit. It's a shame it took so long, but look how far the project has come since the groundbreaking. Even the Enquirer (Yes, our local paper whose support of the city and journalistic practices are questionable at best) had a front page article in the Sunday paper today about the project and it successes.

 

From the actual Banks thread, I know a lot of people have problems with the design. I never really questioned it or thought much of it until I learned about architectural design from friends and posters on here. I agree, it appears pretty generic. I like how the stadium buts up to all of it like it's "in the neighborhood," but thirty years from now will everything age well ala Wrigley Field neighborhood? Who knows, but to the typical ballpark goer or Holy Grail drunk - it's something new, cool and fun to do.

 

The Freedom Center, which occupies the central site, is underwhelming because it just doesn't attract much traffic.

 

I'll admit, I've never paid to go into the Freedom Center. Every time I've been there has been on an assignment or job. However, the museum and its staff are fantastic. The few rotating exhibits I've seen - great. The problem is that it just doesn't do well as a standalone museum. A wing in the museum center would've been perfect. I wish they'd be able to attract some sort of traveling smithsonian exhibits or the like. I see your point, its attendance is disappointing, but as far as being the "centerpiece," what else would you have? There's plenty of other retail space around it and anything taller would block an already iconic and beautiful skyline.

 

The Banks is surrounded by too much parking

 

Parking that as The Banks expands will be in garages hidden from view.

 

and the football stadium is just too big and empty most of the time.

 

Not sure how that reflects poorly on The Banks. The Banks could be packed to the brim with cancer curing health centers ATM's that spew free money, still doesn't change that Mike Brown is Mike Brown and The Bengals are well.... The Bengals.

 

The Banks doesn't interact with the river as well as it could, because it is cut off by a motorway and the navigation aspects of the site make it difficult to establish any riverboat action.  A marina which appeared in one of the early renderings never materialized. Some of the beach cities in this country have excellent waterfronts. Look at Virginia Beach, Myrtle Beach,  Miami Beach, etc. They are oriented toward the water. Also, the harbour cities of New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc., have made excellent use of the waterfront.

 

I remember the marina in the rendering. I always thought that was cool, but was it practical? A rendering is just a rendering, it's not like we were promised a marina at the ballot box. Having worked in the amusement industry, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a rendering of something the employer is planning to build and next year it's never quite like the artwork.

 

Look at the cities you're highlighting when discussing waterfronts. Five of the six cities you mention border an OCEAN (the Ohio River is not an ocean), one borders Chesapeake Bay (and yeah, "technically" the Sesquehanna River), but to compare Cincinnati to these isn't fair or logical. How these cities utilize oceanfront is much different to how a city like Cincinnati could capitalize on the river front. You can't go swimming in the Ohio River by downtown (Or at least I wouldn't recommend it), there's no room for boardwalk piers, no surfing, no beaches etc.

 

Cincinnati is a river city, as are Pittsburgh, Memphis, New Orleans, and Louisville. The river cities have all pretty much ignored their rivers, because there just isn't much action there anymore. River traffic is still important, but it's all bulk materials in really big tows that dock at obscure industrial locations.

 

So what's your point? You just negated your own line about how The Banks is disappointing since it doesn't interact with the waterfront, but there "just isn't much action there anymore?" Huh?

 

The Ohio River isn't much of a tourist attraction, it's a major artery for inland shipping. There's attractions on the river (B&B Riverboats etc.), but how much of a market can there be? How many more riverboat tour companies could really operate in the area anyways? What exactly do you want there to be that "interacts" with the River? I think the new park will do just fine. Sawyer Point is packed in the summer and spring with people just taking in the view. I know, I ride my bike there from my apartment almost every evening. It's not an oceanfront or beachfront, so really what can you do?

 

The whole thing is of course heavily funded with public money. The untold story is what could have been done with that money. Sure, it's fun to see new things get built, but just look at what we've lost. We have a new baseball stadium, but we lost the Cyclones.

 

No. We didn't. US Bank Arena still stands and The Cyclones stuck around. Two pervious incarnations (IHL and ECHL) of them folded and re-located, but that was due to competition from ANOTHER minor league hockey team further up town. They came back and still play to this day in the US Bank Arena (although we should've had an NHL team in the 70's, but that's a story for another topic and when there's more beer). We never really "lost" the cyclones, and when we sort of did - it wasn't because of subsidized developments on the other side of the arena.

 

We have The Banks, but we lost McAlpins. We have Holy Grail and Johnny Rockets, but we lost the Maisonette. The flip side of subsidized development is that the money has to come from somewhere else, and there is an opportunity cost that is not well publicized.

 

Don't forget to add "Caddy's" to the list, which relocated and got torn down to build a giant church on top of an abandoned waterpark. I heard Mark Miller make a similar argument when he called into taestell's radio show one time. He complained about all these good bars we lost when we built the stadiums and how there is now no nightlife in Cincinnati. The nightlife is doing well, getting better and I think the benefits of The Banks, stadiums and keeping the pro teams for outweigh keeping Caddy's and the Spaghetti Warehouse/Factory/Whatever it was.

 

None of the mass transit elements - light rail, the streetcar, inter-city rail - have materialized.

 

Trust me, having stood in the subway and researched it for years, I feel the frustration on this one. That's all coming together now and none of that was funded as part of the original Banks/Stadium plan, so how is that a disappointment on The Banks fault? We have the Transit Center, geared towards the future and as this thread has indicated - we may see some real use for it very soon.

 

The machine room was supposed to be a full-time restaurant. There's not enough interest to keep it open.

 

Ever eaten there? It's nothing special. Yeah, it sucks the promise to have it open year round never panned out, but that didn't make much sense anyways and it's not part of "The Banks," so really who cares? Go there when the ballpark is open if you'd like, bring lots of money and prepare for mediocre food.

 

Don't compare The Banks with what it was 10 years ago. Compare it with what it could be.  :-)

 

And this statement you concluded with is what inspired me to make this post and round out my point back to the Eastern Corridor, I thank you for it.

 

Look, you can compare it with what it could be all you want. Kings Island could've been on par with Disney World. The Cincinnati Stingers could've been in the NHL. Queen City Square could've had a better looking tiara. The point is - this is what we've got and lets be honest - we're damn lucky to have it in this economy and in a day and age where cities getting projects like this are hit and miss. We can sit on a message board all day and talk about what they could've done instead, but hindisght is 20/20 and we're not playing Roller Coaster Tycoon. This is what we got with the resources and funds provided. The design - questionable. The tenants - not everyone's cup of tea. Did it take a long time - yeah it did. However, the ship of opportunity hasn't sailed and The Banks every month gets better and better. No need to waste time with what could've happened, that's just a distraction. Appreciate what we do have and in reality - it's not a disappointment, it's an improvement. The attitude you take reminds me of why we have two miles of abandoned subway tunnel beneath Central Parkway.

 

Edit: While I was typing, OctoCincy pretty much said the same thing in a lot less words, hats off to him for his post.

 

So now you've got a downtown on the move, the north end of which is anchored by a revitalized OTR. It's all going to be connected via the streetcar (knock on wood for Tiger III funds and Banks extension). You've got talks of the Eastern Corridor really happening. Soon you'll hopefully be able to take a train from the East Side, right onto "Cincinnati's Front Yard" and from there there's plenty to do and a downtown full of activity. It's not about connecting with the industrial corridor river, it's about connecting people jobs, attractions and business.

 

The first month I had my new bicycle, I rode from my apartment in Ft. Thomas to Sawyer Point. I was so excited to be riding again, i took off down Pete Rose Way and went out East, following the tracks as best I could. I couldn't believe how we didn't have a rail line there - the infrastructure is just sitting there. Now, having read about the issue, I understand it would take significant upgrades, stations, etc. However, we have a mostly preserved corridor to do this in. While it will be costly, I can see it being a success. There's no direct highway out East, the traffic that way is terrible. What a more perfect place for commuter rail? No highway to compete with. Lets build it and show people in this city how rail transit works.

 

In closing, I see the Eastern Corridor as being a huge asset to not just the future of rail transit in Cincinnati, but the future of The Banks and the surrounding suburban area. For once, Cincinnati is chasing what we see as bold, new ideas (lets face it, rail transit isn't new elsewhere). That's what this city needs. Strengthen the downtown and create easy, accessible ways to bring a variety of people to it quickly and safely.

 

That's the end of my rant, thanks for reading.

 

Abridged version:

- Eighth and State's wrong, Banks is not a disappointment.

- Cincinnati should've had an NHL team.

- Easter Corridor = great idea.

- I had the afternoon off work with free time on my hands.

^ Great post! Much more organized than my babbling, but similar post.  :)

^You as well sir. I edited mine to give you some props - very well said.

^To add to that, the commssioners promised a property tax rollback, but after it passed, they said they forgot to say that it only applies to owner-occupied residential properties. Landlords and commercial property owners got nothing.

 

Which means that not only do renters pay property taxes by having them passed through to them by their landlords, but they actually pay a higher rate than owner-occupied homeowners in Hamilton County. Yet tons of idiots still think renters pay no property taxes.

From Building Cincinnati:

 

"11/23: Council adopts motion supporting the renaming of Red Bank Expressway to Dunbar Parkway, after historic black neighborhood of Dunbar, and as a show of support for the Madisonville's opposition to making Red Bank a 55-mile-per-hour highway."

 

My reading on this: Ezzard Charles, Martin Luther King, and other road renames does little to advance a particular cause, demographic, race or subset. I am opposed to renaming bridges, highways, intersections, interchanges and other infrastructure after people because in 20 years, some of these folks will be so obscure that they will face renaming - already happening in some states like Kentucky.

 

Remember the last time you drove over the Army Private Jason L. Sparks Memorial Highway in northern Ohio? Oh wait, it's US 20.

 

Why bother to confuse the public? If it was an honorary designation, such as Martin Luther King Boulevard in a brown sign under something like "Crosstown Road," that would be more appropriate. The hononary designation along Elm in front of Music Hall is another good example of this.

I enjoy taking a nice ride on the Donald K. Rolf Circle Freeway

And now we have the companion Ronald Reagan Highway - otherwise designated Interstate 275, in northern Kentucky. It compliments the Cross-County Highway, also known for most of its length as Ohio State Route 126, and now better known as the Ronald Reagan Cross-County Highway. Even though Reagan had nothing to do with funding both highways.

Gordon, I must compliment you on that long rant. I enjoyed reading it.