http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/09/cincinnatis-next-big-transportation-fight-a.html

 

Next big transportation fight...Central parkway bike path

 

"Mayor's top aide says he wants to figure out a solution that will ensure bike track gets built but doesn’t hurt businesses along the route"

 

Of course.  The Classic Cincinnati 'I'm for ____...Just not this plan'

 

'I'm for light rail, just not metromoves'

 

'I'm not against streetcars at all.  I like them.  I'm just not for this plan' 

 

 

I'm well acquainted with that area & have biked it for decades. (in the 80s the sewer grates ran in line with traffic. Used to scare the hell out of me. They're diagonal now.) Central, Spring Grove & McMicken as well. I don't think there's any reason to mess with most of it. Right turning motorists are the biggest problem.

I don't like my allies much, tho...

If I were Haines, I'd be more worried about CityLink.

Apparently the Northside Community Council is on board, too.

Quimbob, the main advantage of dedicated infrastructure for bikes is that it makes people who otherwise wouldn't take a trip by bike consider doing it. (Also, parents are more willing to let kids take trips by bike, which can greatly increase their mobility and quality of life.) I know you're a vehicular cycling advocate, but the fault with that approach is you fail to achieve the safety-in-numbers critical mass.

 

Assuming a static number of cyclists, vehicular cycling is probably safer. But since dedicated infrastructure increases cycling modeshare, it makes for a safer cycling environment. Also it can be used for road diets/traffic calming (which the engineer quoted in the BizCourier piece notes is true of the proposed Central Parkway plan).

I have a win-win solution for Central Parkway bike lanes: simply allow parking on the southern side 24-hours a day. That would keep the businesses happy and be a better solution for traffic calming. Bikers win. Businesses win. It means incoming rush hour traffic wouldn't have two lanes to fly down, and that'd be fine by me. :)

As for Delta Ave re-striping, this looks perfect:

 

Delta Avenue between Columbia Parkway and Erie Avenue (excluding the Square) is scheduled to be repaved in early 2014. Delta Avenue currently has two lanes in each direction (a 10-foot travel lane and an 18-foot shared travel/parking lane).

 

The Department of Transportation and Engineering (DOTE) is developing a new lane configuration that would include:

 

• one 10-foot travel lane in each direction;
  
• a center two-way left turn lane;
  
• bicycle lanes; and
  
• on-street parking on both sides of the street
  

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/news/delta-avenue-restriping-project/

 

 

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/15/exclusive-mayorcranley-freezes-central-parkway.html

Executive Mayor John Cranley halts Central Parkway Bikeway project. Seelbach and others thinks this overreaches his mayoral boundaries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/15/exclusive-mayorcranley-freezes-central-parkway.html

Executive Mayor John Cranley halts Central Parkway Bikeway project. Seelbach and others thinks this overreaches his mayoral boundaries.

 

the Napoleon Complex That Walks Like a Man strikes again!

 

If Cranley wants to halt a previously approved project, he needs to get the new Council to sign off on that.  Guess he's not confident that he has a majority on Council to back him...

Surely, Cranley is warming up his crowbar for those bollards.

Surprisingly, he supports this project (and the Wasson Way).

 

Sherman, Sherman, Sherman... Now I have traced where I got the idea that Cranley supported this project. I knew I read it somewhere!

 

You peddler of false hope and false information, you! :whip:

I forgive you.

City council voted unanimously to apply for tiger funds to study Wasson way. 

 

John cranley said they can always look at rail Later.

 

This is not true.  If Wasson way proceeds as planned, without a reversion clause which it currently doesn't have, there will be no rail east of 71. 

An interesting contrast to today's opinions of bicycles & cars sharing the road.

 

In the early 1970s, California was implementing a policy of forcing cyclists off the roadways onto bikeways, using the excuse that this would make cycling much safer, but actually, as events proved, with the intent of making motoring more convenient, regardless of the danger to cyclists.

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

 

But nowadays it's the cyclists who want to abandon their rights to the road.

https://medium.com/p/47528a053745

 

So what has changed in 40 years?

Seems like a race to the bottom...

Quimbob, take a trip to Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

Quimbob, take a trip to Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

If you go to 1974

 

Alternative proposed for Central Parkway bike track

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati transportation officials offered to alter the Central Parkway bicycle track on Monday, proposing to pave part of a tree-lined park district-owned right-of-way near a building in the 2100 block of the road.

 

Under the idea, between four and 15 trees would have to be removed and the right-of-way paved at a cost of roughly $110,000. The cost would be added to the $625,000 current cost of the project.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/21/alternative-proposed-for-central-parkway-bike.html

COMMENTARY: Agree to Central Parkway bikeway compromise and move on

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

“Always with you it cannot be done.”  Sometimes I think Yoda was talking to Cincinnati instead of Luke Skywalker.

 

Protected bike lanes are the latest urban innovation other cities did years ago that Cincinnati is just now planning today. The city has a plan to put in protected bike lanes along Central Parkway that eventually will connect downtown and Uptown.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/commentary-agree-to-central-parkway-bikeway.html

City council voted unanimously to apply for tiger funds to study Wasson way. 

 

John cranley said they can always look at rail Later.

 

This is not true.  If Wasson way proceeds as planned, without a reversion clause which it currently doesn't have, there will be no rail east of 71.

 

It's not clear to me why this is the case.  While I believer the Wasson bike route is pretty stupid on its face (there is plenty of room, and plenty of bikers, who use Erie Avenue), why wouldn't the City be able to take the route through eminent domain?  Passenger inner-city rail is a clear and obviouse public use.

COMMENTARY: Agree to Central Parkway bikeway compromise and move on

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

“Always with you it cannot be done.”  Sometimes I think Yoda was talking to Cincinnati instead of Luke Skywalker.

 

Protected bike lanes are the latest urban innovation other cities did years ago that Cincinnati is just now planning today. The city has a plan to put in protected bike lanes along Central Parkway that eventually will connect downtown and Uptown.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/commentary-agree-to-central-parkway-bikeway.html

 

Does anyone know what "Mann's Bend" would look like? I just hope we don't have a ridiculous looking section of the cycle track just because of one whiny business owner and a council that wants to exterminate every decision made by the previous administration.

Here's the street view. The grass & trees would be removed & paved over so cyclists & pedestrians, some with mobility issues, can share a wide piece of sidewalk.

Here is what nobody mentions. The building backs along Central Avenue where there appears to be some parking available....

The parking lot on the right also belongs to the Mohawk Building.

 

FWIW, if the city gave the building owner permission to use it, he could knock out a wall in his basement and let people enter via Central Ave, drive through & park in the subway tunnel.

 

^ But, but, they need to be able to park right in front of the door! 

There are entrances in the back and a stairway to the left/north from where there used to be a pedestrian bridge which the WECC had demolished.

Some of the building entrances on Central Ave are loading zones so it's not all continuous parking.

Mann's Bend (if it becomes the final design) will be an embarrassing testament to this Council's willingness use scarce public dollars to satisfy one individual business's request, at the expense of the environment (cutting down mature trees in favor of free on-street parking), our budget (spending extra dollars that are supposed to be dedicated to bike programs), and geometry (the Bend will be offensive to anybody who knows how to draw a straight line).

 

As a side note, Cranley's interview with Urbanophile was... extremely frustrating. He paints himself as such a good Urbanist (espousing the values of slowing down traffic), but at the same time he's raising the false alarm about "this hugely negative impact on business". I don't suspect this will be proposed, but if Cranley really believes in traffic calming, then the best way out of this mess would be just keep the on-street parking during rush hour (limiting traffic to one lane each way).

 

There’s got to be a win-win solution. And, frankly, from a pro pedestrian urban friendly point of view, you always want to save on street parking. On street parking slows down traffic because when you’re driving, you’re worried you’re going to hit the car’s windshield or mirrors. And what I want to see is pedestrian friendly, urban friendly neighborhoods and city, and so I’m very loathe to see on street parking to be taken away. Now, they’re talking about taking away just during rush hour but it has this hugely negative impact on these businesses, including a more sympathetic case of this Parkinson’s group, which then really have a very hard time getting to where they’re trying to go.

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/interviews/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley/

^ The quote shows a complete misunderstanding of the value of on-street parking as a buffer, indicating that he probably heard it as a sound-byte and wants to use it to sound intelligent.  The thing is, the lower the speeds the less parked cars are needed as a buffer.  Also, and this is the critical one for Central Parkway, you don't need to use parked cars as a buffer if you have a planted buffer zone instead.  There's already something like 12 to 15 feet of lawn/tree buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk.  That's plenty.  It's when the sidewalk is right up against the curb that those parked cars become critical. 

The Enquirer's editorial on Mann's "odious" actions is delightfully spot-on. They're holding no punches on this, and I agree with every word:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2014/04/24/editorial-central-parkway-bike-path/8098507/

 

Well, it's still nice to have a buffer of parked cars, even with a landscaped barrier. But with a landscaped barrier, a bike lane, and a row of plastic bollards, I think a barrier of parked cars is quite unnecessary.

 

Probably won't happen, but I like Michael Moore's gumption!

 

City says it can move ahead on bikeway alternative without council vote

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati’s top transportation official said the city can implement changes he proposed to the Central Parkway bikeway without a City Council vote, but the plan remained in flux on Thursday.

 

Speaking to council’s transportation committee, Michael Moore, the director of transportation and engineering, said unless there is council action between now and May 1, he plans to implement a revised version of the bikeway. Tweaks are often made to plans after council approves them, and this one is minor enough not to require a vote. May 1 is the deadline for the city to present a signed contract to the Ohio Department of Transportation for the work.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/24/city-says-it-can-move-ahead-on-bikeway-alternative.html

Cranley has been quoted as saying he intends to kill the project.

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

 

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

Everyone's been suspecting this about the Wasson line to begin with.  Anyone who owns property in Hyde Park or east of that point stands to gain massively from the transit line, yet those people are nowhere to be seen. 

 

 

 

^ Because they'd oppose the transit line even if it would ultimately be to their benefit.  Noise!  Blight!  Traffic interference!  Doesn't go where I want to go!  And of course, it'll bring in "those people!"

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

Everyone's been suspecting this about the Wasson line to begin with.  Anyone who owns property in Hyde Park or east of that point stands to gain massively from the transit line, yet those people are nowhere to be seen.

 

Bingo.  Cranley also successfully killed the Central Parkway bike path plan as it was(on the street). 

 

It's also interesting to note that Norwood developers are trying to buy up ROW near X to preserve future light rail while cincinnati is doing nothing.  The argument from the Cincy side is "There is enough room for the bike trail to co-exist with a future rail line". 

 

1) There are 2 narrow bridge points that cannot co-exist 2) There are few examples in the history of the US of a rail to trail path converting back to rail. That is why the reversion clause is important

 

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

Everyone's been suspecting this about the Wasson line to begin with.  Anyone who owns property in Hyde Park or east of that point stands to gain massively from the transit line, yet those people are nowhere to be seen.

 

Bingo.  Cranley also successfully killed the Central Parkway bike path plan as it was(on the street). 

 

It's also interesting to note that Norwood developers are trying to buy up ROW near X to preserve future light rail while cincinnati is doing nothing.  The argument from the Cincy side is "There is enough room for the bike trail to co-exist with a future rail line". 

 

1) There are 2 narrow bridge points that cannot co-exist 2) There are few examples in the history of the US of a rail to trail path converting back to rail. That is why the reversion clause is important

 

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

 

Well they're going to be stuck having to dig a tunnel to Hyde Park, which has actually been proposed twice.  First in the 1912 Arnold Report, then again by OKI in 1970 (tunnel from Walnut Hills to Hyde Park Square to Mt. Lookout Square) right after UMTA 1970 passed and dropped truly huge money on transit that hasn't been seen since, thanks to Reagan not renewing it and instead spending money on firing up the nuclear weapons program for a nostalgic, vote-gathering reprise after it had been winding down.   

 

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

 

So what can be done to prevent this?  Is it possible to get someone like Simpson, Seelbach, or Sittenfeld to suggest accepting Mann's modified Central Parkway bike plan in exchange for a reversion clause in the Wasson Way project?

^While it would be nice to have a reversion clause (and demonstrate actual foresight), it's not that big a deal.  Property can always be taken for a public use through eminent domain.  In addition, as jmecklenborg has stated, for light rail to be effective along the Wasson route, a tunnel is likely needed from near Marburg through Rookwood Commons.  Also, there's the issue of how far the Wasson route would go- would it extend all the way through Ault Park, which is sort of pointless, or take that hard left at Erie Avenue and move along Murray Avenue, a much more useful route but one with far more political difficulties.  At least the route is still planned to stay intact as a continuous right-of-way.

I hate this idiot more and more every day.  I think every bike club in town should get together and ride back and forth in front of Cranley's house to make a point.

 

 

Cranley: Want to bike on Central Parkway? Use the sidewalk

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley has been notably reserved when it comes to his opinion as to whether there should be a protected bikeway along Central Parkway, sticking to generalities about needing to listen to business owners and potentially make changes.

 

At a news conference at City Hall on Friday to announce other biking initiatives, Cranley said he thought bicyclists could use the sidewalk alongside the road, at one point referring to it as a “highway.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/cranley-want-to-bike-on-central-parkway-use-the.html

I hate this idiot more and more every day.  I think every bike club in town should get together and ride back and forth in front of Cranley's house to make a point.

 

 

Cranley: Want to bike on Central Parkway? Use the sidewalk

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley has been notably reserved when it comes to his opinion as to whether there should be a protected bikeway along Central Parkway, sticking to generalities about needing to listen to business owners and potentially make changes.

 

At a news conference at City Hall on Friday to announce other biking initiatives, Cranley said he thought bicyclists could use the sidewalk alongside the road, at one point referring to it as a “highway.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/cranley-want-to-bike-on-central-parkway-use-the.html

 

I didn't think Cranley could continue to get worse in his role as a miserable excuse for a big-city mayor and I'm proven wrong. Again.

 

What a joke he's become. A modern charicature of the old "Boss" mayors of the past.

 

It's so sad that this city is singularly held back by a complete moron like John Cranley.

 

 

^ Just mind boggling. 

dude is stark raving mad

He's pretty clearly got a chip on his shoulder for some reason and just wants to try and undo as much of what was done during the previous 4 years when he wasn't on Council.  It's really weird, because he and Mallory were always on the same side of every budget dispute between 2005-2009.

He is literally suggesting people break the law, unless he plans to designate those specific sidewalks as shared paths. Even then, people have the right to bike on the street even if a bike path is present.

 

Central Parkway is ridiculously wide in places, and never near capacity (I commute on it during rush hour every day to and from Ravine to downtown, sometimes on bike and sometimes in a car). A bike lane would be better for everyone because the space is there for one, and people drive way over the speed limit.

^I get the feeling that he realizes that the people who support this project are largely the same as those who support the streetcar.  I don't put it past him to kill this just to spite those who thwarted him back in December.  He's a small man, and I'm not talking about stature.

^I get the feeling that he realizes that the people who support this project are largely the same as those who support the streetcar.  I don't put it past him to kill this just to spite those who thwarted him back in December.  He's a small man, and I'm not talking about stature.

 

Starting to get that vibe as well from him. 

“[The new Winton Road sidewalks] are the most beautiful sidewalks I’ve ever seen,” Cranley said.

...

“I drove it yesterday, and I noticed that the sidewalk all the way down the highway is a beautiful sidewalk that is not used because it’s on the highway side of the road,” Cranley said. “My gut instinct is that you’ve got this amazing sidewalk all the way along the highway side of Central Parkway – that’s my preference.”

 

Beautiful sidewalks! Amazing sidewalks!

Related...

 

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

April 24, 2014

Michael Andersen, Green Lane Project staff writer

 

Every city that's ever considered removing auto parking to make room for a protected bike lane has been, understandably, nervous. North America's best city for biking wasn't immune.

 

But when it was planning its signature downtown bike project in 2005, Montreal got past those concerns with a very simple tactic. Instead of counting only the change in parking spaces on the boulevard De Maisonneuve itself, a measure that might have led to headlines and perceptions that "half of the parking" was being removed, it counted the total number of auto parking spaces — public and private, on-street and off — within 200 meters of the project.

 

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-montreal-built-a-bike-lane-by-debunking-fears-of-autoparkolypse

Cincinnati Council votes on Central Parkway bikeway

Apr 30, 2014, 3:19pm EDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/30/cincinnati-council-votes-on-central-parkway.html

The Cincinnati City Council approved a modification to the plan on a 5-4 vote. The city will pave part of a tree-lined right-of-way near a building in the 2100 block of the road. Between 15 and 23 on-street parking spaces would be preserved along the route under the approved alternative proposed by the city’s transportation director and pushed by Vice Mayor David Mann.

 

Related...

 

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

April 24, 2014

Michael Andersen, Green Lane Project staff writer

 

Every city that's ever considered removing auto parking to make room for a protected bike lane has been, understandably, nervous. North America's best city for biking wasn't immune.

 

But when it was planning its signature downtown bike project in 2005, Montreal got past those concerns with a very simple tactic. Instead of counting only the change in parking spaces on the boulevard De Maisonneuve itself, a measure that might have led to headlines and perceptions that "half of the parking" was being removed, it counted the total number of auto parking spaces — public and private, on-street and off — within 200 meters of the project.

 

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-montreal-built-a-bike-lane-by-debunking-fears-of-autoparkolypse

 

Interesting article.  Unfortunately the premise that a fact will influence the debate doesn't seem to relevant to our situation when the process gets hijacked by a politician whose sole concern is presenting himself as the most reasonable guy out there because he "balances" both sides.  I'm speaking of David Mann of course.

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

Per Central Parkway, it wasn't brought up much that there was a lot more parking behind the Mohawk Building but I am pretty sure the owner's main objective was to get rid of the trees so as to make his building more visible.

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

Per Central Parkway, it wasn't brought up much that there was a lot more parking behind the Mohawk Building but I am pretty sure the owner's main objective was to get rid of the trees so as to make his building more visible.

 

I’d suggest every single one of those Central Parkway spots be occupied for that Park(ing) day thing if that still exists?

I'm looking back at my notes from the Central Parkway session last week and the presentation that Michael Moore gave, and one slide in particular is very puzzling. The traffic count at Ravine for morning rush hour shows only 900 vehicles, which (according to this slide) would mean 1 lane would be sufficient (since 1 lane accommodates 700-1000 vehicles per hour). So... they should be able to preserve the on-street parking during morning rush hour without it having any impact on travel time... isn't that correct? Or am I mis-reading the slide? If those numbers are accurate, there should just be one lane of inbound traffic in the morning. If at some future point, traffic becomes miserable for driving commuters (it won't!), then the city could always tweak the parking restrictions (and implement Mann's Bend if they still think that crazy idea is helpful). Doesn't that solve everybody's problems, without adding any cost, or hurting commuters? Keep the bike lane as is. Keep the on-street parking during morning rush hour.

 

 

Michael Moore's slide is poorly formatted, so it is confusing. The only relevant numbers are these:

 

Inbound Morning Traffic (1 lane is optimal):

Ravine - 900

Western Hills Viaduct - 880

 

Outbound Afternoon Traffic (2 lanes are optimal):

Ravine: 1240

Western Hills: 1200

 

The logical conclusion from this is that during afternoon rush hour, parking would be prohibited in the outbound parking lane, allowing for two lanes of traffic. Inbound traffic is never high enough to warrant a second lane dedicated to traffic. 

Somehow the fact that we're gaining a lane on I-75 has in no way entered the conversation.  If a lane is being added to the parallel I-75, but it's of no benefit, why is it occurring?

jwul and jmeck are both right, but opposition to this plan was never rational.

 

There's also the fact that McMicken could handle some of the traffic if it actually gets so bad. Wouldn't hurt to have a few more eyes on that street.