1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The city wanted it to happen. They did not like Metro's management and felt that Metro was not providing adequate service on the routes and causing much of the problems associated with the streetcar at the time. Both Metro and the city wanted this breakup.  In one sense, since Metro left the picture, the impressions of the Streetcar have improved. 

I don't think "the city" was of one mind about this. My take is that the Cranley administration saw the "streetcar divorce" as an opportunity to kill it off once and for all; by having full operational control the city would have the power to not restart service after it stopped early in the pandemic. Council members had a diversity of reasons to support the divorce, with a common one being to support Metro in its desire not to be tied to Cranley's punching bag, particularly as they were going to voters with the sales tax. (Metro saw the city sabotaging the project and rationally hated having their own reputation tied to that.) But also I think some on council saw it as an opportunity to vote for operational policies that would fix some of the problems: while Metro had to interface with a mayor's office that wanted to thwart success, a council largely hostile to the mayor could do what they'd want regardless. Probably a majority of council saw that as a reason, since their first post-divorce move was to bring it back into service fare-free and subsequently ridership has skyrocketed.

 

The recent query to council is pretty useless. With campaigning in full effect (every other year again 🙄) there is no incentive to distract from campaign talking points with something that has been controversial over the years. Asking a month from now would be more revealing.

 

I agree that "study" is used as cop-out language here, however supporting a study is 100% the first step toward implementing expansion. So unless a council member wants to vote against a study, they're in for the first step. The public's reaction to that study (as much or more than what the study actually says) will have influence on where they go from there. Reading beyond that is just Rorschach territory. Which is exactly why it's a politically savvy thing to say.

The city fathers can't wait to spend the assumed railroad sale bonanza.  This pot of gold could be a new source of revenue for streetcar expansion, but they don't want it competing with the pet arena and convention center expansions.  Or even to - imagine this - integrate a streetcar expansion/reconfiguration around said facilities.   

 

 

38 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I don't think "the city" was of one mind about this. My take is that the Cranley administration saw the "streetcar divorce" as an opportunity to kill it off once and for all; by having full operational control the city would have the power to not restart service after it stopped early in the pandemic. Council members had a diversity of reasons to support the divorce, with a common one being to support Metro in its desire not to be tied to Cranley's punching bag, particularly as they were going to voters with the sales tax. (Metro saw the city sabotaging the project and rationally hated having their own reputation tied to that.) But also I think some on council saw it as an opportunity to vote for operational policies that would fix some of the problems: while Metro had to interface with a mayor's office that wanted to thwart success, a council largely hostile to the mayor could do what they'd want regardless. Probably a majority of council saw that as a reason, since their first post-divorce move was to bring it back into service fare-free and subsequently ridership has skyrocketed.

 

The recent query to council is pretty useless. With campaigning in full effect (every other year again 🙄) there is no incentive to distract from campaign talking points with something that has been controversial over the years. Asking a month from now would be more revealing.

 

I agree that "study" is used as cop-out language here, however supporting a study is 100% the first step toward implementing expansion. So unless a council member wants to vote against a study, they're in for the first step. The public's reaction to that study (as much or more than what the study actually says) will have influence on where they go from there. Reading beyond that is just Rorschach territory. Which is exactly why it's a politically savvy thing to say.

I think @thomasbwis probably able to best offer insight into the divorce of the Streetcar between Metro and the city. I think he may know some additional insight on the dynamics going on at the time.

On 10/26/2023 at 12:22 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think @thomasbwis probably able to best offer insight into the divorce of the Streetcar between Metro and the city. I think he may know some additional insight on the dynamics going on at the time.

The concept of the "divorce" is kinda over-blown. The main reason as far as I could tell was to increase the chances of Metro's Levy passing (which only passed by like 400 votes).

 

The Streetcar is operated by Transdev, so the main issue is just oversight. SORTA still handles a lot of the back end stuff like CAD/AVL and apparently the APCs (see below).

 

Most of the 'problems' between SORTA and the City relating to the streetcar were due to the fact the previous administration was either completely incompetent or was deliberately sabotaging the streetcar. 

 

Edited October 28, 20231 yr by thomasbw
I had the incorrect ballot issue number so I just renamed it "Metro's Levy"

6 hours ago, Lazarus said:

The city fathers can't wait to spend the assumed railroad sale bonanza.  This pot of gold could be a new source of revenue for streetcar expansion, but they don't want it competing with the pet arena and convention center expansions.  Or even to - imagine this - integrate a streetcar expansion/reconfiguration around said facilities.   

 

 

Yeah the “city fathers” who want to develop a big chunk of the West End certainly don’t want a streetcar extension down Ezzard Charles which would make their property more valuable. They totally don’t want that to happen!

It seems like a high-quality feasibility study would be prudent in case new Federal funds are specifically earmarked for streetcars or LRT. IIRC the current infrastructure bill has a fund that could be used for expansion but it's really broad and thus really competitive. The Federal bill needs to be renewed in 2026 so there's still plenty of time to read some tea leaves, especially after the 2024 election cycle is complete.

On 10/26/2023 at 6:26 PM, JaceTheAce41 said:

Yeah the “city fathers” who want to develop a big chunk of the West End certainly don’t want a streetcar extension down Ezzard Charles which would make their property more valuable. They totally don’t want that to happen!

 

There is almost zero privately-owned property along the length of Ezzard Charles Drive. 

 

That, of course, will likely change as FC Cincinnati's ownership demands more of the West End and the City Council and Mayor sheepishly sign it all over to them. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening from streetcar vehicle 1177 just a few feet past the Sixth and Main station. Currently blocked by a car, but pulled up far enough that the streetcar operator can’t open the doors and let people walk. Real-time sign not working and the app is all sorts of wrong. Walked down here cause it said “two minutes,” but forgot that you have to tap into the route to see where the train is actually at so it was ten minutes. 

 

Seven years in. 🙄

While I'm disappointed that they're not looking at expansion, the fact that the streetcar still does not have signal priority is absurd.

Edited October 31, 20231 yr by JaceTheAce41

On 10/26/2023 at 8:31 AM, thomasbw said:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2023/10/25/cincinnati-city-council-who-supports-expanding-the-streetcar-route/71127766007/

 

To Summarize-

 

Albi- Unsure, needs to know route and cost

Cramerding- No, Focus on BRT

Harris- Yes, and also do BRT

Jeffries- Yes, Has a four step plan to determine how to expand

Johnson- Yes if there's funding

Kearney- Streetcar is good, but need to do a cost/benefit analysis first

Keating- No

Owens- Focus on Metro first? 

Parks- Yes, if there's funding

Walsh- No

The three candidates who did not want to expand the streetcar from this interview finished 8, 9 10 

As of today, the Connector has carried 1 million riders in 2023. This is the first time that the system has crossed this threshold in a calendar year.

 

Back when the streetcar was being debated, opponents said that it would be useless because it "didn't go anywhere", meaning it didn't take people from their front door to their office building in the morning and back home in the evening. Supporters kept pointing out that the majority of trips taken every day are not home-to-work or work-to-home, but random point-to-point trips -- from office to lunch; from office to a happy hour event; from a restaurant to Music Hall; from Rhinegeist to the Ball Park. When the system opened, the idea that the big companies downtown would be letting most of their employees work from home 2-3 days a week was unimaginable...and yet ridership just hit a new all-time high.

On 2/2/2023 at 7:00 AM, thomasbw said:

January is normally the lowest ridership month for the Cincinnati Streetcar. 

 

In January 2023, the streetcar had higher ridership than any month in 2017, 2018, 2020 or 2021. It also had higher ridership than every month in 2019 except for Blink. 

 

We could conceivably break a million riders in 2023. 

update- we did 

On 9/20/2023 at 10:54 AM, thomasbw said:

Absent any major system shut downs, the streetcar will break the 2022 record on or around October 1st and have the 1,000,000th rider some time before Thanksgiving. 

Off by one day 

The 'cost' of free fares has been pretty much nothing. Our region has kind of a natural experiment going on for post-pandemic ridership on transit systems.

 

*Streetcar went fare free 

*Metro almost doubled its budget

*TANK is a control group, making no major changes

 

If we assume streetcar would have performed similarly to TANK had nothing changed, we would have actually lost money collecting a fare. Basically we tripled ridership at no cost. 

19 hours ago, taestell said:

As of today, the Connector has carried 1 million riders in 2023. This is the first time that the system has crossed this threshold in a calendar year.

 

Back when the streetcar was being debated, opponents said that it would be useless because it "didn't go anywhere", meaning it didn't take people from their front door to their office building in the morning and back home in the evening. Supporters kept pointing out that the majority of trips taken every day are not home-to-work or work-to-home, but random point-to-point trips -- from office to lunch; from office to a happy hour event; from a restaurant to Music Hall; from Rhinegeist to the Ball Park. When the system opened, the idea that the big companies downtown would be letting most of their employees work from home 2-3 days a week was unimaginable...and yet ridership just hit a new all-time high.

 

Travis is spot-on here. Even before the pandemic, commute trips were only about 20% of total trips in most regions. Some feel the highway lobby has steered the discussion to this measure because it necessarily leads to more and wider highways designed for peak demand. The pandemic has sort of reasserted the primacy of neighborhoods in the scheme of things, where more people work from home and do other things closer to home. Over time, this probably means fewer cars will be bought and fewer miles driven. In dense, mixed-use neighborhoods, streetcars can fill a lot of the demand for travel. 

Riders Per Vehicle Hour, US Streetcar systems reporting data in a timely fashion for the initial September 2023 raw data release.

 

Full data- https://transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-raw-data-release 

 

The top three systems are in a league of their own in terms of passenger productivity. 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

Riders Per Vehicle Hour, US Streetcar systems reporting data in a timely fashion for the initial September 2023 raw data release.

 

Full data- https://transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-raw-data-release 

 

The top three systems are in a league of their own in terms of passenger productivity. 

 

Pretty amazing!

 

I'm curious about Tucson's system. I'm familiar with KC but know nothing about Tucson. Does anyone know anything about their system?

Edited November 27, 20231 yr by Miami-Erie

I've ridden Tucson's before, it's basically what ours *should* have been had the original layout been built up the hill, by connecting their downtown, their main entertainment district and then running adjacent to University of Arizona's campus. It's free to use like ours, and lots of students and people use it for short hop on hop off trips, the only negative is that as much as I've heard complaints about our route zig-zagging and being hard to navigate for out of towners, the Tucson route is much bendier and harder to navigate. KC's is still the best from this perspective in my opinion.

Edited November 27, 20231 yr by ucgrady

https://www.wlwt.com/article/cincinnati-ohio-streetcar-over-the-rhine-next-steps/46001513

What do we think the nine potential routes are. The article mentioned they could be on both sides of the river so that's something to consider. 

9 seems like a lot. Off the top of my head there's 1. Original Vine street route up the hill 2. Covington/Newport loop 3. another route up the hill (tunnel or through-the-woods) 4. Union Terminal 5. Gilbert up to WH 6. Central/Springgrove towards Northside 7. Western Hills Viaduct to Farimount 

 

I guess you could get a couple slightly different routes off those, such as stand alone Covington and Newport Routes or some additional routes up the hill but those are the routes I've seen discussed in the past. Anything more starts to really become a light rail discussion

Top 10 Ridership Months of all time

On 11/27/2023 at 12:48 PM, ucgrady said:

I've ridden Tucson's before, it's basically what ours *should* have been had the original layout been built up the hill, by connecting their downtown, their main entertainment district and then running adjacent to University of Arizona's campus. It's free to use like ours, and lots of students and people use it for short hop on hop off trips, the only negative is that as much as I've heard complaints about our route zig-zagging and being hard to navigate for out of towners, the Tucson route is much bendier and harder to navigate. KC's is still the best from this perspective in my opinion.

 

Tuscon's line is 3.5 miles from end-to-end, so at least a mile longer than any of the other new streetcar lines. 

 

It also features a purpose-built underpass for the streetcars at one point:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2373657,-110.9469266,3a,15.1y,175.37h,90.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se8JEfdyfgACm5mtu-6dk6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

 

 

On 12/1/2023 at 12:26 PM, RustyBFall said:

https://www.wlwt.com/article/cincinnati-ohio-streetcar-over-the-rhine-next-steps/46001513

What do we think the nine potential routes are. The article mentioned they could be on both sides of the river so that's something to consider. 

 

I get the feeling that all this talk of “new” routes is just theatre. We have council members now limited to two year terms who can’t even get our existing route running the way it was designed/intended when it opened seven years ago. 

 

Realistically, uptown should be the route pursued first. Not only is it a great connection/smart connection — so much of it was already studied that even if new studies need to be done, there’s already ground work laid for highlighting its benefits.

I agree, as much as I would selfishly love to have an NKY loop, the original route up the hill needs to be completed before any talk of other routes and expansion is discussed. And to your point, the necessary improvements to the existing line need to happen before anything at all happens in terms of studying expansion. 

The city shouldn't give a dime to extend to NKY other than helping to pay to run trains on it once Kentucky builds it. That's Kentucky's problem.

I hope we get some concrete answers about expansion and that those expansions are the backbone for future light rail. A line through Mohawk and to Northside could be a start. I'm a fan of CUT to the Casino then up the old PRR RoW to Xavier.

With the announcement that Amtrak has selected four routes in Ohio for Amtrak expansion, I think an extension to CUT is really worth considering, especially with all the development around the FCC Stadium. Assuming that it gets funded and built, Cincinnati will be getting daily Cardinal service and thrice daily 3C+D service so getting the streetcar out there will go a long way in convincing people to ride Amtrak and not have to rely on rideshare. 

4 minutes ago, RustyBFall said:

With the announcement that Amtrak has selected four routes in Ohio for Amtrak expansion, I think an extension to CUT is really worth considering, especially with all the development around the FCC Stadium. Assuming that it gets funded and built, Cincinnati will be getting daily Cardinal service and thrice daily 3C+D service so getting the streetcar out there will go a long way in convincing people to ride Amtrak and not have to rely on rideshare. 

 

Couldn't agree more, especially with the new FCC development coming online and the potential of a new arena in that general area (even though I personally believe the WCET site is a poor choice for an arena). Ultimately, though, I think the route expansion that makes the most sense is the one that was originally planned and kneecapped by Kasich: Uptown. And if you can't get expansion to Uptown, at least consolidate/organize the bus system better to show how easy it can be to get between Downtown and Uptown (i.e. if routes X, Y, Z all go between downtown and uptown before separating into various spurs, flag them as "the green line" to make it easier to understand that they connect both destinations).

However, any talk of expansion is moot until the city has representatives that show they clearly are willing to fight for such expansion. I know I keep beating a dead horse with this, but the existing system is now over seven years old and still operated in such a lackluster fashion: no signal timing/prioritization, no estimated arrival times (unless you happen to know how to use the cumbersome app), etc. 

If the supposedly "pro-streetcar" councils of the past weren't willing to fight for even modest operational changes that were originally designed into the project, I don't see expansion going forth in any meaningful way anytime soon.

 

Also, just a personal gripe: Cincinnati Bell is gone and no one ever called the thing the "Connector" anyways. Strip that terrible name off, call it the streetcar as intended, and bring back that slick logo. 

37 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

Couldn't agree more, especially with the new FCC development coming online and the potential of a new arena in that general area (even though I personally believe the WCET site is a poor choice for an arena). Ultimately, though, I think the route expansion that makes the most sense is the one that was originally planned and kneecapped by Kasich: Uptown. And if you can't get expansion to Uptown, at least consolidate/organize the bus system better to show how easy it can be to get between Downtown and Uptown (i.e. if routes X, Y, Z all go between downtown and uptown before separating into various spurs, flag them as "the green line" to make it easier to understand that they connect both destinations)

 

Metro's BRT plan has both new bus rapid transit lines connecting the basin to uptown. Service on the shared portion would come every 4 to 5 minutes.

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

The city shouldn't give a dime to extend to NKY other than helping to pay to run trains on it once Kentucky builds it. That's Kentucky's problem.

I hope we get some concrete answers about expansion and that those expansions are the backbone for future light rail. A line through Mohawk and to Northside could be a start. I'm a fan of CUT to the Casino then up the old PRR RoW to Xavier.

I can tell you Cincy/Ohio isn’t going to be paying a penny towards a NKY route. NKY would have to pay for expansion and would also be on the hook for helping with maintenance costs of current and future train cars and utilities of course.

If they expanded a line on the Ohio line, and then the NKY side wanted to join in, would they need a second maintenance facility? If so, I imagine they would logistically want it on the Kentucky side.

30 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

If they expanded a line on the Ohio line, and then the NKY side wanted to join in, would they need a second maintenance facility? If so, I imagine they would logistically want it on the Kentucky side.

 

Is the current one not big enough to accommodate additional trains? 

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Is the current one not big enough to accommodate additional trains? 

 

I know it was big enough to accommodate the original planned route to Uptown. I don't know exactly how many trainsets can be stored overnight at this location. If they expanded to Union Terminal and then NKY wanted another route, this would probably triple the current route's total track length. I don't know how much capacity the current location has.

56 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Metro's BRT plan has both new bus rapid transit lines connecting the basin to uptown. Service on the shared portion would come every 4 to 5 minutes.

That’s right! Thank you! Boom, there we go, let’s go to the West End/CUT!

When Fort Washington Way was being rebuilt, they had sacrificial slabs in the overpasses over Main and Walnut to accommodate future light rail. It ended up being used for the streetcar, but the lesson is that the Ezzard Charles overpass over I-75 needs to either be constructed with streetcar rails from the beginning or at least have a sacrificial slab for future expansion. 

Quote

Initially, two vehicles can be parked in the maintenance building and up to six streetcars can be stored in the yard. The facility will have the capacity to store up to 12 vehicles when the streetcar system is expanded and the yard is fully developed.

 

From 2012

 

https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Procurement/Transportation and Maintenance Operations Plan.pdf

16 hours ago, RustyBFall said:

With the announcement that Amtrak has selected four routes in Ohio for Amtrak expansion, I think an extension to CUT is really worth considering, especially with all the development around the FCC Stadium. Assuming that it gets funded and built, Cincinnati will be getting daily Cardinal service and thrice daily 3C+D service so getting the streetcar out there will go a long way in convincing people to ride Amtrak and not have to rely on rideshare. 

One problem with making the next extension to CUT is that it can't be completed until the new bridges for Ezzard Charles Drive over the widened I-75 are completed late this decade.

14 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Is the current one not big enough to accommodate additional trains? 

A streetcar line to Newport (or Covington which hasn't wanted it) should use the Riverfront Transit Center. Otherwise, it will get stuck in game-day traffic on 2nd and 3rd like the current streetcar does. It would be even more affected because it would have to travel more blocks on 2nd and 3rd. Plus, the Feds, who financed much of the RTC, would like to see it used more. And there would be less track construction. It would be a speedy route to NKY. However, it would be disconnected from the existing line and the MOF. You could put a tail track on Ramp LL that connects Second Street with Riverside Drive, but all things considered, I think NKY should have its own MOF. We'd need to think through the vertical transfer from the RTC to Stop #1 on Second Street, but stairs and elevators exist, so I don't see a problem. After all, if we built multiple routes over time. there will be transfers.

10 minutes ago, John Schneider said:

However, it would be disconnected from the existing line and the MOF

This would be a none starter and DOA. Having to switch trains between Downtown-OTR and Newport On The Levee-NKY would be silly from a rider perspective. I do understand the Traffic point but doing a NKY line that’s disconnected from the

 downtown track is pointless, you might as well just keep the tank bus circulator instead. Keep in mind a NKY street car route would probably be very short for the first decade or so and will probably terminate at or shortly after Newport on the levee so terminating at the RTC and having to switch lines is a no go.

17 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I know it was big enough to accommodate the original planned route to Uptown. I don't know exactly how many trainsets can be stored overnight at this location. If they expanded to Union Terminal and then NKY wanted another route, this would probably triple the current route's total track length. I don't know how much capacity the current location has.

No need for overnight storage if you simply run the excess units 24/7!!!

3 hours ago, John Schneider said:

A streetcar line to Newport (or Covington which hasn't wanted it) should use the Riverfront Transit Center. Otherwise, it will get stuck in game-day traffic on 2nd and 3rd like the current streetcar does. It would be even more affected because it would have to travel more blocks on 2nd and 3rd. Plus, the Feds, who financed much of the RTC, would like to see it used more. And there would be less track construction. It would be a speedy route to NKY. However, it would be disconnected from the existing line and the MOF. You could put a tail track on Ramp LL that connects Second Street with Riverside Drive, but all things considered, I think NKY should have its own MOF. We'd need to think through the vertical transfer from the RTC to Stop #1 on Second Street, but stairs and elevators exist, so I don't see a problem. After all, if we built multiple routes over time. there will be transfers.

Is there any momentum to build a NKY Line? How important would it be to connect the tracks in Cincy or as you say to use the transit center for transfers. It may be optimal to keep NKY trains underground on the Ohio side and then those who want to use the line in Cincy can walk upstairs to the banks to wait for the local line. It would prevent confusion with ridership from getting on an NKY train when they want to stay downtown, and would also limit traffic backups on gamedays and such?

Wouldn't it be harder to line up the NKY tracks with the RTS since they'd have to cross the river then descend into the RTS? Granted, those tracks could be built to heavy rail standards in the RTS itself for future commuter rail.

33 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Wouldn't it be harder to line up the NKY tracks with the RTS since they'd have to cross the river then descend into the RTS? Granted, those tracks could be built to heavy rail standards in the RTS itself for future commuter rail.

It would be simpler to just connect it all in one line above ground and leave the RTC out of it. 

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by 646empire

34 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Wouldn't it be harder to line up the NKY tracks with the RTS since they'd have to cross the river then descend into the RTS? Granted, those tracks could be built to heavy rail standards in the RTS itself for future commuter rail.

Is there any realistic discussion going on about commuter rail? I have not heard anything serious there for the last 10 years

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Is there any realistic discussion going on about commuter rail? I have not heard anything serious there for the last 10 years

Realistically, I think new commuter rail is probably dead for a while until the main reason for building it -- the suburb-to-downtown commute -- remains suspect. If WFH reverses and fulltime downtown employment starts growing again, I'm guessing the light rail discussion will resume in some places. Cincinnati needs new leadership at OKI for this to happen.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Is there any momentum to build a NKY Line? How important would it be to connect the tracks in Cincy or as you say to use the transit center for transfers. It may be optimal to keep NKY trains underground on the Ohio side and then those who want to use the line in Cincy can walk upstairs to the banks to wait for the local line. It would prevent confusion with ridership from getting on an NKY train when they want to stay downtown, and would also limit traffic backups on gamedays and such?

There's an active prostreetcar group in Newport.

30 minutes ago, John Schneider said:

There's an active prostreetcar group in Newport.

But not in covington? 

It seems like the best and most effective streetcar option would be through Newport and then across the licking into Covington and then across the Clay Wade bailey Bridge. Would it make sense to build in Newport alone? Would the purpose of going to Newport be to spur Covington on?

37 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But not in covington? 

It seems like the best and most effective streetcar option would be through Newport and then across the licking into Covington and then across the Clay Wade bailey Bridge.

Lines are more efficient than loops. If I'm in Newport trying to get to the convention center, it's really inefficient to have to go through Covington first. This would hurt ridership as people won't use it at all or call an Uber instead. Ideally we should be asking for 3 routes in NKY: one each for Covington and Newport into downtown, and intercity route from like Ludlow to Dayton.

  

37 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Would it make sense to build in Newport alone?

Yes, absolutely. Newport has a population of 14k, with a historic high of 31K.

  

37 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Would the purpose of going to Newport be to spur Covington on?

No. The point remains the same, move as many people, as efficiently as possible. Having a line across Taylor Southgate that loops around York and Monmouth, or better yet, just making York a two-way transit street, could do a lot in building future cross-river connectivity.

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Is there any momentum to build a NKY Line?

In my opinion no. It’s interesting to talk about but I don’t see it happening for many years. The best bet would have been getting some funding via the Biden Infrastructure Bill but that’s not int the cards that money is as good as gone especially with the Billion plus dollars we got for the Brent Spence.

I'd really love to see the Streetcar go from CUT through downtown. I did a Twitter thread on what I think could/should be the first light rail line that the city builds. I'm in favor of using the old C&O of Indiana RoW because if it connects the West Side, political will for building it would be higher. That was one of the failures of MetroMoves. Call the whole thing the Cincinnati Streetcar if you need to, like how San Diego calls theirs the Trolley 

https://x.com/JaseOfBase513/status/1729631182608904515?s=20