47 minutes ago, taestell said:

I'm not going to link to it, nor did I click on it myself, but the Enquirer just ran an editorial about how we need to spend our money filling potholes instead of building bike lanes. 🧻

Enquirer's gonna Enquirer. 

Make car companies pay for their destruction of the roads and infrastructure. Why is it the governments responsibility?

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/bike-plan/bike-plan-update-west-side/?utm_campaign=West+Side+Bike+Lane+Survey

 

Public comments are open for the west side bike plan.

 

The most surprising and disappointing aspect is the lack of any plans for Glenway or Warsaw. I commented that one of the priorities should be putting protected bike lanes along Warsaw, which is more of a business district than Glenway before they merge, and thus a more likely route for bike riders.

 

On 2/23/2022 at 2:15 PM, ryanlammi said:

I commented that one of the priorities should be putting protected bike lanes along Warsaw, which is more of a business district than Glenway before they merge, and thus a more likely route for bike riders.

So what then happened to the Warsaw Avenue Safety Project??? Did the community feedback shoot down the bike lane option?

EDIT: In an update DOTE gave to City Council in August about the Pedestrian Safety Program, Warsaw was listed as one of their major projects.

 

Quote

A preferred option has been vetted with the community. Funding is needed for construction; Est Cost; Design: $400,000; Construction $4,400,000

 

Edited February 24, 20223 yr by Dev

I had no idea that the new sidewalks for the Lick Run Greenway were supposed to be shared use. Are there signs down there indicating that???

3 hours ago, Dev said:

So what then happened to the Warsaw Avenue Safety Project??? Did the community feedback shoot down the bike lane option?

EDIT: In an update DOTE gave to City Council in August about the Pedestrian Safety Program, Warsaw was listed as one of their major projects.

I'm pretty sure the funding for that is now coming from the Metro fund and they went with the option with a parking lane. Warsaw (Glenway to Grand) was awarded $2.125m of $4.250m total cost and the doc describes 4 to 3 conversion with parking. Specifically says "No" to "does the project include pedestrian and biking facilities?"

 

I don't have a lot of feedback on the bike plan specifically because I've admittedly never ridden my bike on the west side, but I am glad they chose that part of the city after downtown, and hope we see the results of the downtown survey soon. It looks like the plan is to release a draft Bicycle Plan of the entire city by the end of the year, but if downtown/OTR area is able to be funded by savings from doing the right thing on Central Parkway, it'd be great to see that happen sooner rather than later. 

15 hours ago, shawk said:

I'm pretty sure the funding for that is now coming from the Metro fund and they went with the option with a parking lane. Warsaw (Glenway to Grand) was awarded $2.125m of $4.250m total cost and the doc describes 4 to 3 conversion with parking. Specifically says "No" to "does the project include pedestrian and biking facilities?"

 

What's weird is that they include all 3 design proposals, one of which includes a bike lane option, implying that they have not decided what they want to do. In any case, here is what that parking lane option looks like. Sadly, it's not surprising that people would prefer a parking lane over a bike lane.

 

 

^The WVXU article doesn't really explain details of what exactly was acquired... anybody know how much land was acquired? It seems like it's referring to the land owned by Norfolk Southern railroads along Sharon Creek.  I'm curious what width of right-of-way was acquired.

3 hours ago, jwulsin said:

^The WVXU article doesn't really explain details of what exactly was acquired... anybody know how much land was acquired? It seems like it's referring to the land owned by Norfolk Southern railroads along Sharon Creek.  I'm curious what width of right-of-way was acquired.

They talked this in detail at the Tri-State Trails meeting last month. It's a mix of acquisition and conservation easement from NS of 4700 feet on either side of Sharon Creek. They acquired the land using the Clean Ohio Fund. They also got a donation for this parcel. It is in the flood plain and has a small creek that feeds into Sharon Creek. They want to partner with Great Parks to create a small park there.

 

 

I want to thank @Devbecause if you wouldn't have posted that yesterday I would have completely forgotten about that meeting. There were 4 options shown, none of which were the Hub&Weber designs. I guess that Matt Butler / Devou Good hired them to show some alternatives to the KYTC 6 plans that basically ignored the existence of the Riverfront commons trail and the Licking River greenway and only showed generic bike paths and or shared paths but never mentioned the trails or showed how the bridge would connect to them. There was a really good turnout at the meeting and many people came on their bikes so hopefully the message was sent to KYTC and Stantec that pedestrian/bike infrastructure is crucial for this new bridge.

 

The 4th alternative was basically a clone of the 12th street bridge with the steel girder underneath and I really really hope that's not the direction they go. For one thing, having the structure under the roadway adds a ton of height to the crossing making it harder to use for all modes but especially bikes and pedestrians, but also cars in the winter having a steeper climb/descent. It also just won't look like anything, this is the main connection between the two cities and is also very visible from the Cincinnati riverfront and should look cool or at the very least look like a bridge and not a glorified overpass. 

 

 

Oh wow, I had no idea it was that bad. It's frustrating that something that should be obvious is taken for granted like that.

This 4th Street bridge is critical for bike / walk path and I would really hate to see them mess this up.  

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

For one thing, having the structure under the roadway adds a ton of height to the crossing making it harder to use for all modes but especially bikes and pedestrians, but also cars in the winter having a steeper climb/descent.

The Covington side of 4th St is at about 520' and the approach from Newport starts around 490' (near the roundabout) and has to clear the levee at 510'. Are they proposing something significantly different from that existing slope? Where would they introduce the "steeper climb/descent"?

In the design of a steel girder bridge there are 12'+ tall girders underneath the roadway that as you say need to clear the existing concrete levee to make Army Corps happy. They also need at the very least maintain the same clearance below for boat traffic (one option showed the existing bridge remaining and a new bridge going next to it, some should new bridges only) and if the bridges are completely new they may need to go even higher. At the vary least they can't go any lower than what's already there so when you add the depth of the girders you could get 6'+ higher roadway to maintain existing clearances. This is outdated but see this section from the original plan in 2016. 

All of the options will sit at least a little higher than the existing bridge (due to higher weight limits and design safety factors today) but the truss and arch designs (exposed structure above roadway) were much better than the plate girder (hidden structure below roadway) and have the added benefit of looking much cooler.

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by ucgrady

The current designs are in this survey. All 4 widen the bridge to have 4 travel lanes from the existing 3. They also have 4 renderings for how the intersection on the west side of the bridge could potentially look like.

 

 

I don't have super strong opinions about any of the alternatives, especially absent any info on the cost differences between them. That being said, I think my preference is for Alternative 1 that rehabs the existing bridge and puts up a new truss bridge next to it. I like the idea of rehabbing it vs demolishing it, but again that's with the caveat of not knowing cost differences. One thing I don't like about Alternative 1 though is that the bike lane and sidewalk on the existing bridge appear unprotected, whereas in the all the other alternatives there appear to be concrete barriers to protect bikes/pedestrians. Was that decision explained? Is there some reason that they can't put up protective barriers on the existing bridge?

Edited April 14, 20223 yr by jwulsin

From what I picked up at the meeting the other week, the Alternate 2 -plate girder was the cheapest, but Alternate 1 had the huge added benefit that they could keep the existing bridge open the whole time until the new adjacent span was open to finish the rehab. Both Alternate 2 options would require the existing bridge to get demolished meaning there would be at least a year where the only bridge connecting Newport and Covington would be 12th street. Alternate 3 could be staggered as well to keep some lanes open the whole time but with two individual spans would probably end up the most expensive. 

 

Visually I like Alternate 2 - Tied Arch, and with this bridge being so visible from the riverfront and being such a vital connection I really hope they don't settle for the plate girder. 

Northwest section of the city ready for feedback. I was totally unaware of that access road for number 1. Very exciting opportunity there.
 

 

^Very cool! I also hadn't heard about that trail/road! Looks like there is a 40' ROW that tracks "Access Road 1"... and I see a note on CAGIS about "CL West Track". 

 

Now if we can just get a Red Bike Station up in College Hill...

Connecting Northside to College Hill through the woods would be awesome.  Also would be good to continue the Mill Creek Trail up to Wyoming with a crossover at Mitchell to get to Wasson Way at XU.

I think #1 could be one of the absolute best trails in the city! The map shows it stopping at Groesbeck but I hope TriState Trails and the City would figure out a way to work with Children's Hospital, the Bradford, and College Hill Presbyterian to get the trail all the way to Hamilton and the southern end of College Hill's business district.

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by Chas Wiederhold

That makes a lot of sense as that is also the route the interurban took, which is the basis for the trail concept.

2 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

The map shows it stopping at Groesbeck but I hope TriState Trails and the City would figure out a way to work with Children's Hospital, the Bradford, and College Hill Presbyterian to get the trail all the way to Hamilton and the southern end of College Hill's business district.

Totally agree they should find a way to connect the trail up to the College Hill business district, but the ROW was previously sold for that area behind the Bradford College Hill Presbyterian. I agree with you that it'd be awesome if those property owners (Children's, Bradford, and CH Presbyterian) worked with the City to make a better and more direct path feasible.

 

https://linknky.com/news/2022/05/16/major-public-infrastructure-projects-coming-to-dayton/

GE Aviation sponsors expanding Red Bike bike-sharing service

 

Cincinnati's Red Bike bike-sharing service has a new corporate sponsor, the first for its fleet of E-bikes, and plans to expand its offerings in the coming months.

 

GE Aviation on Friday announced its sponsorship of Red Bike, which will see it sponsoring two Red Bike stations downtown and a fleet of 20 E-bike electronic bicycles.

...

Jason Barron, executive director of Red Bike, told me that as a nonprofit, the bike-sharing organization only makes about 35% to 45% of all of its revenue from users who pay to rent bicycles. Corporate sponsorship from GE Aviation will help it expand its services across the region, including seven new bike rental stations rolling out over the next two months, including in Over-the-Rhine, West End and Lower Price Hill.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/05/20/ge-aviation-sponsors-expanding-red-bike-b.html

 

 

Small news here but today, City Council voted to move forward on an ordinance for the next round of the Surface Transportation Grant Program and Transportation Alternatives Grant. It authorizes DOTE to ask for up to $8 million for a right sizing of Gilbert from MLK to East Court, which includes bike infrastructure as well as pedestrian and safety improvements, and $1 million to extend the LMST connection on Beechmont from Elstun to Ranchvale in Mt. Washington.

Does it really cost $1 million to make a 1,500 foot long bike lane extension up Beechmont hill?

 

That said, I would like to see more focus on these hill connections for bike lanes.  

23 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

Does it really cost $1 million to make a 1,500 foot long bike lane extension up Beechmont hill?

 

That said, I would like to see more focus on these hill connections for bike lanes.  

Important to note that the application is "up to" $1 million so it might not actually cost that much. I doubt that they have a final design either, though it doesn't look like the assessment from the Eastern Corridor engineers wanted to move the curb over,

 

That said, if the plan is to move the curb, to create a larger buffer, that will effect drainage which is going to be very expensive.

On 6/22/2022 at 5:41 PM, Dev said:

Important to note that the application is "up to" $1 million so it might not actually cost that much. I doubt that they have a final design either, though it doesn't look like the assessment from the Eastern Corridor engineers wanted to move the curb over,

 

That said, if the plan is to move the curb, to create a larger buffer, that will effect drainage which is going to be very expensive.

 

 

Yup, the plan is to move the curb. Hopefully 'vegetated' means trees

Mariemont is holding a public meeting at the Mariemont Elementary school next Monday, August 1st at 7 pm to discuss the feasibility study for a protected multi-purpose path from the Murray Path (Plainville) to the library. The study is being conducted by The Kleingers Group and it's being referred to as the Mariemont Connector.. The presentation should be uploaded to their website at the same time.

 

Once this and the Columbia Connector is completed, someone would be able to bike from Xavier up to Springfield.

 

Edited August 3, 20222 yr by Dev

On 7/25/2022 at 9:23 AM, Dev said:

Mariemont is holding a public meeting at the Mariemont Elementary school next Monday, August 1st at 7 pm to discuss the feasibility study for a protected multi-purpose path from the Murray Path (Plainville) to the library. The study is being conducted by The Kleingers Group and it's being referred to as the Mariemont Connector.. The presentation should be uploaded to their website at the same time.

 

Once this and the Columbia Connector is completed, someone would be able to bike from Xavier up to Springfield.

I went to this meeting. It was pretty well attended. More people than I thought. And it sounds like Mariemont and Kleingers are using it as an opportunity to look at bike and pedestrian traffic thru the village as a whole and potentially not just a straight line between Murray Path and the Library.

45 minutes ago, BallHatGuy said:

I went to this meeting. It was pretty well attended. More people than I thought. And it sounds like Mariemont and Kleingers are using it as an opportunity to look at bike and pedestrian traffic thru the village as a whole and potentially not just a straight line between Murray Path and the Library.

I went as well and that wasn't the impression I came away with. I think this is being done because too many residents complained about the original plan to use the utility parcels without public engagement. It sounds like there was a lot of pushback when people started to see the routes drawn on the CROWN map as well as how things went to get the Murray Path installed.

 

Ultimately, it will probably take that route anyways due to costs. It really is such an obvious option and I don't think they will spend the money on multiple routes or upgrades. I also really doubt ODOT will be supportive of any useful bike infrastructure along Wooster through the village, or support for removing the on-street parking that does exist in and near the square.

3 hours ago, Dev said:

I went as well and that wasn't the impression I came away with. I think this is being done because too many residents complained about the original plan to use the utility parcels without public engagement. It sounds like there was a lot of pushback when people started to see the routes drawn on the CROWN map as well as how things went to get the Murray Path installed.

 

Ultimately, it will probably take that route anyways due to costs. It really is such an obvious option and I don't think they will spend the money on multiple routes or upgrades. I also really doubt ODOT will be supportive of any useful bike infrastructure along Wooster through the village, or support for removing the on-street parking that does exist in and near the square.

I guess I just meant to say that while the obvious option is down Murray, I don't think they have decided upon that and wanted input from the community.

8 minutes ago, BallHatGuy said:

I guess I just meant to say that while the obvious option is down Murray, I don't think they have decided upon that and wanted input from the community.

Ah okay. Hopefully this doesn't become an example of getting engagement to support the thing planners wanted anyways.

 

Some good suggestions that I would not have thought of was getting to Murray Trail from Wooster via Oak Street as well as using Madisonville and Miami roads to get access to the square without going through it. For my part, I wrote a sticky stating that they should look at pursuing all 3 options!

On 8/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, Dev said:

 

Is it even worth bothering with a "sidepath" on MLK? I can't think of a much worse cycling experience in Cincy. Until there is a decision to really fix MLK to not be a pseudo-highway, making University/Lincoln the priority bike corridor is probably the best option. Curious what people think who actually ride in the area.

 

Is there any standard necessary for making a sidewalk a shared use path? Just making it legal to cycle on the sidewalk on MLK and spending money elsewhere for real infrastructure could be considered. Not ideal for pedestrians, but could be revisited if it's perceived to generate conflicts.

 

Before building new sidepaths, they should fix the existing ones where they cross streets so the ramps and islands are as straight and wide as the segments between intersections. Eliminate slip lanes (and possibly beg buttons). Provide cycle-specific signals so cyclists aren't left in limbo as vehicle operators unsure whether they should be following the lights for vehicles or pedestrians. Widening a sidewalk and putting up a sign is not cycling infrastructure.

20 minutes ago, Robuu said:

Curious what people think who actually ride in the area.

Usual complaint is excessive trash in the path which creates a big risk for tire puncture. Also, it's not complete so it's not particularly useful ATM.

32 minutes ago, Dev said:

Usual complaint is excessive trash in the path which creates a big risk for tire puncture. Also, it's not complete so it's not particularly useful ATM.

I meant in terms of focusing on making University/Lincoln a preferred corridor for new bike infrastructure investment, instead of MLK, between Clifton Ave and Gilbert. Are there any reasons extending the sidepath on MLK would be preferable to in-street facilities on University/Lincoln?

44 minutes ago, Dev said:

Usual complaint is excessive trash in the path which creates a big risk for tire puncture. Also, it's not complete so it's not particularly useful ATM

I concur.  Thirdly, a large concrete sidewalk just kind of sucks to bike on.  You hit a small bump every second and it gets annoying quickly.

6 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I meant in terms of focusing on making University/Lincoln a preferred corridor for new bike infrastructure investment, instead of MLK, between Clifton Ave and Gilbert. Are there any reasons extending the sidepath on MLK would be preferable to in-street facilities on University/Lincoln?

I can't speak from the city's perspective but I imagine University and Lincoln does nothing for any of the major hospitals to the north of MLK, or users traveling from the west of campus. It also doesn't help with through cycle traffic.

 

But you can always leave a comment if you disagree

5 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

I concur.  Thirdly, a large concrete sidewalk just kind of sucks to bike on.  You hit a small bump every second and it gets annoying quickly.

Yeah it's definitely not ideal. In the past, I brought his up after the Ohio River Trail was installed along Kellogg in California. I was told that this was done so that the concrete panels can be removed individually for utility maintenance. I don't know if this is really that big of a deal but that's what I was told.

36 minutes ago, Dev said:

I can't speak from the city's perspective but I imagine University and Lincoln does nothing for any of the major hospitals to the north of MLK, or users traveling from the west of campus. It also doesn't help with through cycle traffic.

 

But you can always leave a comment if you disagree

I'm not going to comment on it, since I don't live in the area anymore. You're obviously right that the MLK path would be closer to points north and would have continuity with the path up the hill from Central Parkway. I really should have said between Jefferson and Gilbert, since obviously University doesn't connect to Clifton.

 

I think crossing MLK is the biggest barrier between the hospitals and either a bikeway on University or a continued path on the south side of MLK, but you're right that traveling south a block to University only to go north almost immediately to get to a hospital would be too inconvenient to make it worth doing at all.

 

How about between Reading and Gilbert, though? The map has the facility on University ending there and the MLK one continuing through the 71 interchange. There isn't anything equivalent to the hospitals there, so as a cyclist would it be preferable to go south a block for a more comfortable ride between Reading and Gilbert? Depending on your origin and destination it could increase the time riding by a couple minutes, but cycling through that interchange would be kinda sucky.

53 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I'm not going to comment on it, since I don't live in the area anymore. You're obviously right that the MLK path would be closer to points north and would have continuity with the path up the hill from Central Parkway. I really should have said between Jefferson and Gilbert, since obviously University doesn't connect to Clifton.

 

I think crossing MLK is the biggest barrier between the hospitals and either a bikeway on University or a continued path on the south side of MLK, but you're right that traveling south a block to University only to go north almost immediately to get to a hospital would be too inconvenient to make it worth doing at all.

 

How about between Reading and Gilbert, though? The map has the facility on University ending there and the MLK one continuing through the 71 interchange. There isn't anything equivalent to the hospitals there, so as a cyclist would it be preferable to go south a block for a more comfortable ride between Reading and Gilbert? Depending on your origin and destination it could increase the time riding by a couple minutes, but cycling through that interchange would be kinda sucky.

Oh I see what you're saying now, basically a bypass around the interstate ramps and yeah, I'd much rather take that regardless of my destination/origin.

1 minute ago, Dev said:

Oh I see what you're saying now, basically a bypass around the interstate ramps and yeah, I'd much rather take that regardless of my destination/origin.

Yes, that's the gist of what I was saying. And I also didn't mean to imply MLK getting nothing or not completing the existing gap, but just considering priorities.

 

I think if I were going to comment on it, I would say the green line on University should continue past Reading to Gilbert. And maybe make that extended segment dark green and the parallel MLK segment light green.