2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

It's true that a single tunnel could be used for both, however, a streetcar-only tunnel wouldn't need exhaust fans for diesel fumes. 

 

Which raises the specter of using battery-powered buses and battery-powered streetcars, which I don't like, because it would mean we'd have two separate types of streetcars. 

 

In England, they use the phrase "captive" to describe trains that are able to travel on sections of a shared line but not on various branches. 

 

The existing streetcars would be "captive" to the existing line and the ones with the battery capability (likely they'd raise and lower a pantograph at either end of the battery section) would be captive to the new section. 

I would be amazed if the BRT vehicles weren't electric.

 

https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Board Documents/2023/April 2023/Planning and Operations (4-23).pdf (see pages 17-45) 

While a tunnel makes good sense, what’s the likelihood of it happening given the (assumed) substantial cost added compared to merely extending the existing system up the hill on the street? I feel like the cost + time involved is going to immediately put things in option 2’s favor.

9 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

While a tunnel makes good sense, what’s the likelihood of it happening given the (assumed) substantial cost added compared to merely extending the existing system up the hill on the street? I feel like the cost + time involved is going to immediately put things in option 2’s favor.

The Auburn street alignment was estimated at $300 Million in 2002 dollars (https://cincinnati-transit.net/mtauburn-tunnel.html), which is ~$500M in today's dollars. Supposedly, the Christ Hospital alignment would be less expensive than the Auburn alignment. The study was for a streetcar only tunnel, so there would be additional cost to incorporate busses as well. So maybe somewhere in the $400M-750M range???

 

Here are the cost estimates from the 2009 feasibility study for alternative routes. (All figures are 2009 dollars) Source: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/linkservid/252AD3BF-5298-4C97-A76EC7131F1A35AF/showMeta/0/

These capital costs would provide the following Uptown-Downtown connectivity:

 

Note that the Vine St. alignment scored poorly on a lot of metrics other than cost and trip time.

 

 

Where we should expand next comes down to how much federal help we could get. The Mt. Auburn tunnel has the highest capital requirements, but would be the most transformational option, as it's the quickest Downtown-Uptown route for both streetcars and busses. However, getting the funds will require a lot of time and planning.

 

In the meantime, extending the streetcar up McMicken makes a lot of sense. It's relatively inexpensive, would help spur development in Mohawk, and would get people excited about further streetcar extensions. A small Phase 1 (Blue) could set up future lines to Camp Washington & Northside (Green), the West Side (Orange), and Uptown (Purple). 

 

The Mt. Auburn Tunnel is the best way to get Uptown. Tunnels are built all the time in this country. We can do this.

Something to keep in mind- if you have both BRT routes using Vine, along with the 46, 78 and Metro Plus, there will be a bus from Uptown to Downtown every 4 minutes during the day. 

8 hours ago, thomasbw said:

Something to keep in mind- if you have both BRT routes using Vine, along with the 46, 78 and Metro Plus, there will be a bus from Uptown to Downtown every 4 minutes during the day. 

 

 

BRT - if it is in fact rapid - ought to be thought of as the express and the streetcar as the local. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

BRT - if it is in fact rapid - ought to be thought of as the express and the streetcar as the local. 

 

 

The four-minute bus headways on the Vine/Jefferson corridor is why there will never be a Downtown > Uptown streetcar. Sad to say, but that's the reality.

 

Streetcar had 4,090 riders on Wednesday. During 2019, aside from Blink, the streetcar only had more than 4,090 daily riders one time (Saturday of Oktoberfest). 

 

Looks like we're going to pass pre-pandemic annual ridership some time around July 4th/All Star Break. 

 

Some charts for context on the larger transit landscape

 

Is there any chance of rebuilding an incline to go up the Clifton hill, or can it not be done with modern streetcars? It would be nostalgic, unique/touristy, and I would think cheaper than a tunnel.

2 hours ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Is there any chance of rebuilding an incline to go up the Clifton hill, or can it not be done with modern streetcars? It would be nostalgic, unique/touristy, and I would think cheaper than a tunnel.

You'd probably want to use a modern aerial tram for going up the hill

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

You'd probably want to use a modern aerial tram for going up the hill

The down side would be you would have to change transportation nodes at the bottom and top of the hill, an incline (where the streetcar drives on and drives off) would be much more convenient in that regard. If you want to change transportation at top and bottom, then you might as well ride the bus instead of building a new transportation type (aerial tram).

On 6/24/2023 at 2:32 PM, CincyIntheKnow said:

The down side would be you would have to change transportation nodes at the bottom and top of the hill, an incline (where the streetcar drives on and drives off) would be much more convenient in that regard. If you want to change transportation at top and bottom, then you might as well ride the bus instead of building a new transportation type (aerial tram).

 

Would be nice to have an aerial tram from Findlay Market area to Bellevue Hill Park/UC

1 hour ago, Miami-Erie said:

 

Would be nice to have an aerial tram from Findlay Market area to Bellevue Hill Park/UC

 

That wouldn't serve a real transportation purpose.  The aerial tram systems can have intermediate stations, so a station at that park and then one on the UC campus could work. 

 

But the ultimate project is a streetcar extension via a tunnel to UC with an intermediate station at the site of the broadcast tower.  The tower would be removed and the site would be redeveloped as hi-density residential. 

 

 

 

 

 

On 6/7/2023 at 9:06 AM, Lazarus said:

 

 

It's an election year.  

Sadly it will always be election year with the new shortened council terms

 

A tunnel from the Main/Walnut pair through Mt. Auburn to UC would be terrific, but with Metro's installing two BRT's in the Vine/Jefferson corridor, it will now be hard to justify. The Corryville side of UC is out for streetcar. The Cilfton side of campus is a much more of a transit-oriented neighborhood. A tunnel or aerial tram from near Rhinegeist to Clifton and Calhoun would be terrific. Brad's done a lot of thinking on this.

14 hours ago, John Schneider said:

A tunnel from the Main/Walnut pair through Mt. Auburn to UC would be terrific, but with Metro's installing two BRT's in the Vine/Jefferson corridor, it will now be hard to justify. The Corryville side of UC is out for streetcar. The Cilfton side of campus is a much more of a transit-oriented neighborhood. A tunnel or aerial tram from near Rhinegeist to Clifton and Calhoun would be terrific. Brad's done a lot of thinking on this.

1) What would offer the biggest bang for the buck?

2) what type of expansion could be done as economically as possible and still offer a good ROI?

 

I certainly agree that going up to Clifton would be ideal given the density of the neighborhood and all the college students but, the topography causes challenges and makes it expensive. 

 

Is there value in a smaller expansion going west to TQL and Union Terminal and East say to the Casino, Art Museum (off Gilbert) and even up Gilbert toward Walnut Hills?  That expansion certainly does not connect with the dense university areas as much but it would connect key destinations that cause people to ride the streetcar and give people more reason to say, park on the outside of the city and ride the streetcar around the core. Furthermore, with the talk about added Amtrak expansion, a spur to Union Terminal could prove very valuable as it now connects the city with regional transport and allows people traveling from out of town to navigate the area without worrying about a car.  While a light rail connection to the airport would have been most ideal many years back, a streetcar spur to Union Terminal could present some good opportunities. At a very minimum, it connects with good public parking that will circulate people into the city

Driving through the upper part of the West End/Brighton, I am struck by the amount of potential there is in that area. A lot of historic building stock left, and lots of empty lots. The architecture is really something, too.

 

As the primary aim of the Streetcar is to drive redevelopment, why not really cover that area with a streetcar extension right through the middle of it? This covers it a lot better than just going up McMicken.

 

 

It would be a pretty "cheap" and simple project, too. About 2 miles of track in a flat area, on back streets.

 

The only tricky part would be the switches at Elm and Race. 

If you look at ridership on the 17, there isn't a ton of ridership 'on the hill' between UC and Over-the-Rhine.  

 

Also this chart doesn't really show how much of the ridership gets on and off downtown. The final blue bar should be about three times longer (the text says that but, the chart cuts the numbers off at 300)

What about UC's own shuttle? Always wondered what that ridership was like.

8 hours ago, GCrites said:

What about UC's own shuttle? Always wondered what that ridership was like.

 

Tons of UC students take Uber 1/4 mile instead of walking or taking the free shuttle. 

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, GCrites said:

What about UC's own shuttle? Always wondered what that ridership was like.

Unlike many University transit systems, they're not an FTA grant recipient, so the ridership data isn't easily pulled from the NTD. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

Unlike many University transit systems, they're not an FTA grant recipient, so the ridership data isn't easily pulled from the NTD. 

 

 

Turns out that was remarkably easy to find online.

 

UC has 13 routes. In 2022 - 17 shuttles operating, total passengers:  365,873

 

That's very similar ridership-

TANK route 1 Dixie Highway/Florence - 357,457

Metro Route 64 Glenway/Westwood- 345,167

Metro Route 46 Avondale- 399,885

 

Despite the recent ridership growth in Cincinnati, the Kansas City Streetcar is still beating it by 50-100%:

 

 

I still can't explain it, as KC's big stadiums aren't downtown and the streetcar area doesn't seem much more active or wildly different than Cincinnati. 

 

KC didn't spend a decade fighting over and s**tting on their streetcar.  The city as a whole actually embraced it from the start and public perception has always been positive.  Meanwhile in Cincy there is a large percentage of the metro population who will never ride the streetcar because of the media and past politicians.  First impressions leave lasting thoughts and our first impression was terrible.  

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

Despite the recent ridership growth in Cincinnati, the Kansas City Streetcar is still beating it by 50-100%:

 

 

I still can't explain it, as KC's big stadiums aren't downtown and the streetcar area doesn't seem much more active or wildly different than Cincinnati. 

 

Two main factors.

 

1. KC runs almost 50% more service than we do

 

2. Kansas City competently operated their system from day 1 and has seen ridership growth because of that (I'm removing COVID years here) 

Our previous administration either deliberately sabotaged the system or ran it so incompetently that we lost ridership

We're still digging out of that hole.

 

The truth is that we don't know what the upper limit of our ridership actually is. We essentially waste the first five years of operations. 

 

We still have a ways to go with optimizing the route as well. Coordinating light signals, a transit/emergency vehicle only lane on Walnut and more green lights for the streetcar will make the system faster, which will speed up travel times, reduce wait times and increase ridership.

 

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

Despite the recent ridership growth in Cincinnati, the Kansas City Streetcar is still beating it by 50-100%:

 

 

I still can't explain it, as KC's big stadiums aren't downtown and the streetcar area doesn't seem much more active or wildly different than Cincinnati. 

 

May Ridership is out but service hours aren't out yet, so let's just assume both systems ran the same amount of service in May 2023 that they did in April 2023.

 

 

Passengers per hour are pretty similar. 

2 hours ago, thomasbw said:

May Ridership is out but service hours aren't out yet, so let's just assume both systems ran the same amount of service in May 2023 that they did in April 2023.

 

 

Passengers per hour are pretty similar. 

Final element- operating speeds. KC's streetcar's operating speed is 15% higher than Cincinnati's (which might explain the why their ridership per hour is 13.5% higher than ours). 

 

Basically weren't not yet at our maximum potential ridership, but we can increase our ridership by running more service and optimizing the route to speed up our streetcars. 

On 7/3/2023 at 2:56 PM, thomasbw said:

Final element- operating speeds. KC's streetcar's operating speed is 15% higher than Cincinnati's (which might explain the why their ridership per hour is 13.5% higher than ours). 

 

Basically weren't not yet at our maximum potential ridership, but we can increase our ridership by running more service and optimizing the route to speed up our streetcars. 

 

I just looked and their block length is typically longer than ours, with fewer mid-block stops. 

 

The KC streetcar passes through about 40 intersections in 20,100 feet of revenue track whereas the Cincinnati streetcar travels through about 50 in 18,800 feet of revenue track. 

 

I think that explains much of the difference. 

 

The KC streetcar also has a single stretch of 1,400 feet with no intersection or parking lot curb cut between the Union Station station and 20th St.  There is no equivalent in Cincinnati. 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 20231 yr by Lazarus

^That certainly helps speed up their route, but we also have things like this where the streetcar waits for a red light, then waits another 23 seconds before it's allowed to proceed. There's three of these mid-block crossings along the route.  

 

On 7/4/2023 at 7:10 AM, thomasbw said:

There's three of these mid-block crossings along the route.  

 

And unfortunately it would cost $10 million or more to eliminate them by keeping the track and stations consistently on one side of the street or the other. 

 

Here is a good video on the CAF Urbos 3 streetcars in Zaragoza, Spain.  This is the model that is about 30 feet longer than ours (approximately 105 feet long versus approximately 70 feet long).  But per Google Earth, they have build all of the stations for this tram line to accommodate streetcars up to 400 feet in length.   This video also shows how the streetcars are able to operate for more than a mile in the city center without direct power.  The streetcars have capacitors (rather than batteries) that are charged by a device embedded between the tracks at stations at either end of the wireless zone. 

 

There are also several examples of the streetcar line plowing straight through traffic circles, like this:

Edited July 5, 20231 yr by Lazarus

You don't have to spend $10m, this situation could easily be remedied as set forth below at the cost of the staff time to reprogram the light sequence. 

 

Currently-

 

·      Mid-block light goes red

·      Pedestrian Walk Phase (23 seconds)

·      Streetcar Movement Phase (white vertical bar)

·      Light goes green

 

Proposed Change-

 

·      Mid-block light goes red

·      Streetcar Movement Phase (white vertical bar)

·      Pedestrian Walk Phase (23 seconds)

·      Light goes green

 

This small change would speed up the streetcar and have ZERO impact on automobile traffic

I work at UC and I was thinking about something yesterday. If the streetcar came up Calhoun, they should really just pedestrianize that street and make the streetcar two-way.

On 7/7/2023 at 10:42 AM, JaceTheAce41 said:

I work at UC and I was thinking about something yesterday. If the streetcar came up Calhoun, they should really just pedestrianize that street and make the streetcar two-way.

This actually seems more feasible than I originally would've thought. Would be a cool idea UC/Uptown could test out during a weekend using temporary barriers, signage, and placemaking. 

On 7/12/2023 at 10:20 AM, dnymck said:

This actually seems more feasible than I originally would've thought. Would be a cool idea UC/Uptown could test out during a weekend using temporary barriers, signage, and placemaking. 

In this scenario, would McMillan be made 2-way for cars? The intersections at Jefferson and Clifton would be tricky to reconfigure on a temporary basis.

21 hours ago, jwulsin said:

In this scenario, would McMillan be made 2-way for cars? The intersections at Jefferson and Clifton would be tricky to reconfigure on a temporary basis.

Long term - yes.

 

Short term; I think if the city and UC were to study this, for say a month or so, the best option would be to shut down Calhoun to vehicular traffic from W Clifton to Scioto. W Clifton and Scioto would both remain open to through traffic while Market street would be open only to cars entering and exiting the Calhoun Garage. This would provide decent circulation in the area for vehicles while still converting plenty of room to bike and pedestrian traffic so that people can get a feel what this area could be like. In this scenario, vehicles would reroute up Jefferson, across MLK, and down Clifton Ave before traversing McMillan. 

 

Not sure how you would handle bus traffic, low speed transit only lane perhaps?

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by dnymck

1 hour ago, dnymck said:

Not sure how you would handle bus traffic, low speed transit only lane perhaps?

 

A short busway could be built between W. Clifton and Straight St. through the space between Blegan and the old law school. 

 

 

 

 

On 7/7/2023 at 10:42 AM, JaceTheAce41 said:

I work at UC and I was thinking about something yesterday. If the streetcar came up Calhoun, they should really just pedestrianize that street and make the streetcar two-way.

 

A streetcar from Hughes High School to Woodburn Ave. looks good on paper but it's just a repeat of the #31 crosstown, which no UC students use.   

 

The core of any uptown streetcar needs to travel through the UC campus, either following the former University Ave. (it used to run from Probasco at Clifton to the current University Ave. at Jefferson) or Corry St. (connecting through the campus between Straight St. and CCM).  

 

Something like this, or both lines:

 

^ Why not extend the Blue Line to the Xavier Campus? Would that be beneficial at all? With Xavier having a medical school, it seems that connecting the streetcar to both campus's could be collaborative in some capacity. Maybe it can be integrated with the innovation corridor.

Line A looks like the better option but it would make sense to have it also stop at the zoo. I've said it before but I'll repeat that a line up Gilbert, on to the the old railroad ROW to XU makes a ton of sense and frankly should take priority over a bike path. An uptown crosstown line also could make sense connection some of the old streetcar suburbs to XU and UC. 

12 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ Why not extend the Blue Line to the Xavier Campus? Would that be beneficial at all? With Xavier having a medical school, it seems that connecting the streetcar to both campus's could be collaborative in some capacity. Maybe it can be integrated with the innovation corridor.

 

There is no way for a line connecting UC and Xavier to serve both the hospitals and the new innovation buildings and whatever might take the place of Bethesda Hospital. 

 

The total distance between McMicken Hall and the center of XU is 3.5 miles, with approximately 1.5 miles on the old rail ROW.  Overall, that's about 2X more track than the existing streetcar system, and it would miss a lot. 

 

 

Ridership on Modern US streetcar systems compared to pre-pandemic levels 

 

On 7/6/2023 at 8:00 AM, thomasbw said:

This small change would speed up the streetcar and have ZERO impact on automobile traffic

 

This makes total sense, but what is STILL keeping these small, positive changes from being implemented?

14 hours ago, thomasbw said:

Ridership on Modern US streetcar systems compared to pre-pandemic levels 

 

 

Why are these other towns still so bad? WFH?

9 hours ago, GCrites said:

 

Why are these other towns still so bad? WFH?

Of the 547 fixed route transit units that reported data in 5/23, only 54 had higher ridership now than in 5/19 and the average ridership was down -28%.

 

 

On 2/24/2023 at 8:41 AM, The_Cincinnati_Kid said:

BACK ON TRACK

After year of record ridership, what's next for Cincinnati's streetcar?

The Cincinnati Connector saw record ridership in 2022

By Chris Wetterich  –  Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

Feb 24, 2023

 

A day five years ago this month may have been the Cincinnati streetcar’s most embarrassing one.

 

Cincinnati was slammed by freezing rain, which coated the overhead electric lines with ice. Typically, the streetcar would run the route with its pantograph, the pole that transfers power from the lines to the train, clearing ice as precipitation fell. But a disabled vehicle blocked it that day, leaving enough time for a frozen layer to form.

 

It all led to a surreal sight: A semi-truck – complete with police escort – towing the powerless streetcar, with no riders, around downtown to remove the ice.

 

Before that, the streetcar was beset with problems, such as vehicles blocking or crashing into it, the trains breaking down in the cold and riders being confused by the ticketing machines.

 

MORE

There is a fairly new website to create custom transit and metro networks called Metro Dreamin. It's very barebones, which makes it great on mobile and tablet but difficult to fully customize. For example, you cannot designate if a line is grade separated and instead just uses a broad generalization for transit mode to estimate travel time.

 

Anyways, I used to create the discussed streetcar extensions from Wetterich's article. I had to make some assumptions, especially with station placement and turnarounds so let me know if something is off. The estimated travel times are pretty funny, in a sad kind of way. I'll probably create a different version to incorporate a lot of the suggestions in here. I already started creating one with the existing streetcar route and the planned BRT routes.

Edited July 27, 20231 yr by Dev

 

Region's busiest transit routes in June 2023

While I'm excited that Cincinnati is eventually getting some BRT lines, I do worry about BRT creep when the city should really be looking at expanding the streetcar and pushing for light rail.

 

22 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

While I'm excited that Cincinnati is eventually getting some BRT lines, I do worry about BRT creep when the city should really be looking at expanding the streetcar and pushing for light rail.

 

Light rail is nice, but you need a transit system that serves the most people and that people will use.  You have to have a system people want to use first, then you can push light rail. Get more people to find transit worth it first. 

16 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

While I'm excited that Cincinnati is eventually getting some BRT lines, I do worry about BRT creep when the city should really be looking at expanding the streetcar and pushing for light rail.

A streetcar extension and commuter LRT lines are fundamentally different types of service than the proposed BRT routes. Ideally the region, not the city, should be pursuing all 3 at the same time but that political willpower clearly does not exist. There will be a lot of public engagement for BRT in the near future. Supporters need to go to those meetings and pushback on the inevitable strawman arguments, instead of giving in to doomerism.