1 hour ago, Dev said:

Lines are more efficient than loops.

 

Coincidentally, @ryanlammiand I talked about this last night while having a beer. If you did a theoretical "loop" between Downtown, Newport, and Covington it would have to be bi-directional/double tracked to be most useful. One direction of flow would lead to, like you said, people just opting for other options. Ironically, that's one of the issues the Southbank Shuttle has now. If you're in Newport or Covington, the shuttle is a great connection to Cincy but can't get you to the other NKY city without going to Cincy first. 

 

On the note of the shuttle, and funding/planning for a NKY line, though —

 

Obviously, despite the best efforts and intentions of the Newport streetcar group, the state of Kentucky isn't likely to have any political will to help fund such a venture and the likelihood of that mentality changing/adjusting anytime soon is low. However, I do see several good options:
 

Low Hanging Fruit:

• Simply modify the Southbank Shuttle's operation, route, and marketability.
  • Make it free like the streetcar.
  • Move the Fountain Square stop to Government Square with true visibility, or, create stops that directly serve Northbound/Southbound streetcar stations.
  • Use both systems to highlight the other (signage on the streetcar, etc. pointing to the shuttle and vice versa).
  • Alter the route to better reflect an NKY "loop." Downtown Cincy's stop has quick connection to streetcar service and have it serve a bi-directional loop into NKY. I.E. You can then ride to Covington and after your time there, go back Downtown quickly - or - hop over to Newport.
  • Sync up the operational hours with the streetcar. No more of this "we stop running the shuttle at 7 PM in the winter."
  • Market the hell out of the set up with an information/education campaign. Maybe both are called "Connector" and use similar branding?
  • Frequency: no specific times for boarding, just every 12-15 minutes like the streetcar.

 

More Ambitious Fruit (The idea being that these cities could fund these smaller projects via grants, etc. without their archaic state government being involved):

• Newport Spur
  • Extend tracks along (Cincy's) 2nd St. in a transit only down to the intersection of 2nd/Pete Rose Way. Take the tracks across the Taylor-Southgate with a quick loop down York, Fifth, and Saratoga before the line links back to the bridge. Hell, you could even just have it come over the bridge, go down 3rd, drop off at the levy, then go back. Essentially you'd have a spur with a dedicated connection to NKY that could always be built out in the future for a bigger system. 
• Covington Spur
  • Similar to the above Newport idea, but come across the Clay Wade Bailey and then down 4th past the new IRS Site development into the heart of Covington and back.

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by Gordon Bombay

Two problems with getting the streetcar to Covington or making a connection between Newport and Covington. First, the Covington mayor, Joe Meyer, has had no interest in it, so there is no momentum for it. He's retiring, so that might change. Second and more fundamental, KYTC is not planning to make the new Fourth Street Bridge ready for rail with the construction of a sacrificial slab like we built on Walnut and Main over FWW knowing that rail was coming someday. So, even if there is future interest in a connection, it may require substantial alterations to the bridge structures. I think if the streetcar goes to KY, it only goes to Newport, at least for many years. 

19 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

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

I think there are places on the West Side that would be more likely to vote 'no' if they did get rail service than if they didn't. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

Low Hanging Fruit:

• Simply modify the Southbank Shuttle's operation, route, and marketability.
  • Make it free like the streetcar.
  • Move the Fountain Square stop to Government Square with true visibility, or, create stops that directly serve Northbound/Southbound streetcar stations.
  • Use both systems to highlight the other (signage on the streetcar, etc. pointing to the shuttle and vice versa).
  • Alter the route to better reflect an NKY "loop." Downtown Cincy's stop has quick connection to streetcar service and have it serve a bi-directional loop into NKY. I.E. You can then ride to Covington and after your time there, go back Downtown quickly - or - hop over to Newport.
  • Sync up the operational hours with the streetcar. No more of this "we stop running the shuttle at 7 PM in the winter."
  • Market the hell out of the set up with an information/education campaign. Maybe both are called "Connector" and use similar branding?
  • Frequency: no specific times for boarding, just every 12-15 minutes like the streetcar.

I pitched exactly this to TANK's General Manager and they had no interest at the time. 

 

https://x.com/bradleywthomas/status/1509520485914136578?s=20

 

They really should make these changes though. I think they could at least double ridership if they did. 

I had this data set that I thought would make a cool Economist style dumbbell chart and it did. 

 

The reaction on Twitter provoked a good discussion of why Issue 7 passed and MetroMoves failed. I think the differences between the two ballot initiatives are below in 'roughly' the order of importance. 

 

·      MetroMoves was an across the board tax increase while Issue 7 was a tax swap (although a net increase)

·      Changing composition of the County (65% voted Republican in 2002 vs 57% Democrat in 2022, +22% D swing; Issue 7 did +18% better than MetroMoves)

·      Democrats becoming the ‘pro-transit’ party and Republicans not taking an official position due to the  0.3% Earnings Tax Cut.

·      The Earnings Tax Cut motivating large businesses to generously fund the ‘yes’ campaign

·      Dedicating 25% of the Issue 7 funds to roads/bridges, which allowed the roads/bridges message to be used as the primary focus of the ‘yes’ campaign

·      Extremely low turnout primary election where the Democratic nomination was contested & the Republican nomination wasn’t (remarkably there were more total ‘yes’ votes for MetroMoves than for Issue 7)

·      Much less anti-urban sentiment in 2020 than there was for MetroMoves following the 2001 riots

·      Grassroots bus advocacy starting years ahead of the vote (MetroMoves was rushed due to a belief it had to be included in the next congressional transportation bill)

·      Streetcar advocacy and two successful elections discrediting and demoralizing the anti-transit opposition

·      Lower gas prices in 2002 than 2020

Annual Streetcar ridership by year. Dark blue lines indicate fares in effect, light blue is fare free. Solid lines are Cranely, dashed lines are Aftab. Asterisk indicates service did not operate for a full year.

How much did free fares 'cost' the City of Cincinnati? Arguably nothing.

The Coalition for Transit and Sustainable Development will be hosting a streetcar forum February 1st. Signups and more info here: https://www.sustainablecincy.org/news/cincinnati-streetcar-forum

It's good to see that there's some movement on this. 

Just get ready though. We're going to see opposition from all the usual suspects. This guy is running for county commissioner and is already raising the "bUt HoW ArE wE gOInG tO PaY fOr It!" line. 

https://x.com/still_hustling/status/1744384503076864396?s=20

I really wouldn't worry about Adam Koehler here. Guy's a lost ball in high weeds.

This guy gets it-

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/01/11/cincinnati-streetcar-smashes-ridership-records.html

WLWT- https://www.wlwt.com/article/cincinnati-streetcar-ridership-passengers-connector/46354243

 

Interestingly, nothing from the Enquirer 

I am thinking for efficiency of operations (isolating any problems that may occur, allowing flexibility in levels of service, avoiding streetcar bunching), for a streetcar extension of more than one or two stops, operating the extension as a separate route should be considered.   

 

Given that, I think it may be worth re-looking at using W Clifton Ave. for a separate Uptown route (with a transfer point at Findlay Market):

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/clifton-ave-streetcar-to-uptown/

15 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

I am thinking for efficiency of operations (isolating any problems that may occur, allowing flexibility in levels of service, avoiding streetcar bunching), for a streetcar extension of more than one or two stops, operating the extension as a separate route should be considered.   

 

Given that, I think it may be worth re-looking at using W Clifton Ave. for a separate Uptown route (with a transfer point at Findlay Market):

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/clifton-ave-streetcar-to-uptown/

 

The West Clifton alignment was studied extensively during the streetcar planning period. Everyone wanted to use it. But it's too steep and, as I recall, the turn below the cliff was too sharp even for an articulated vehicle. Sure, earlier streetcars used this route, but they were much shorter in length, weighed much less and carried maybe a fourth as many pax. I'm certain a standalone Uptown streetcar route would have tremendous benefits. Remember, there will be frequent BRT's pulsing up and down Vine Street to make the Downtown/OTR/Uptown connection. And eventually, a direct streetcar route. Brad Thomas has the best (and only feasible) idea for an OTR/Clifton Heights connection -- an aerial tram. 

I'm curious what an Uptown circulator, which complements the BRT plans, would look like. UC's shuttle map makes it look like there would be a lot of potential in one given how many overlaps the routes have with each other.

44 minutes ago, Dev said:

I'm curious what an Uptown circulator, which complements the BRT plans, would look like. UC's shuttle map makes it look like there would be a lot of potential in one given how many overlaps the routes have with each other.

Suggest that you attend the Streetcar Forum on February 1st. Go to the Devou Good website to register. 

I came up with an idea for a new route featuring an east-west streetcar couplet using Sixth and Seventh streets downtown, that would connect a lot of potential developments "in the news" and could allow interesting different extension possibilities to the east and west.

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/sixth-seventh-street-streetcar/

 

 

Here is related concept for a streetcar route to Queensgate and Lower Price Hill that could be built off of a pair of tracks using Sixth and Seventh streets downtown. With an aerial gondola lift up to Price Hill Incline District.

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/streetcar-to-queensgate/

 

 

Cincinnati Streetcar backers will unveil nine new potential routes

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

Jan 29, 2024

 

Supporters of the Cincinnati streetcar project will reveal nine potential new routes at a public forum scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 1, in an effort to get a discussion about potential expanding the system underway.

 

John Schneider, a former developer and longtime streetcar supporter, and Matt Butler, president of the Devou Good Foundation, previewed one of the potential routes and the forum to the Business Courier. The others will be revealed Thursday and stem from suggestions from people who took a public survey.

 

The survey, which got about 2,500 responses, found that people are most interested in seeing the streetcar head Uptown to the University of Cincinnati and its nearby hospitals or across the river to Newport and Covington.

 

MORE

Text from the PPT show you'll see Thursday night:

 

DOWNTOWN TO THE UNVIERSITY OF CINCINNATI

·       Starting at the existing streetcar route on Central Parkway, this route would travel north along Reading Road to Burnet to University Avenue and then west on University to Vine, near the UC campus.

·       PROS: Achieves the highly desired Downtown/Uptown connection. Serves Hard Rock Casino, residential and commercial development along Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue, Eden Park, and densifying residential areas in Corryville. More residents and more development potential along this route than on any other path to UC. Could be extended north along Vine Street to the Cincinnati Zoo and from there into the UC Medical Center.

·       CONS: The section of Reading Road between Liberty Street and Reading Road’s intersection with Burnet Avenue may require some dedicated and/or protected transit travel lanes shared by streetcars and buses. Could become part of a traffic calming strategy for this dangerous section of Reading Road.

A protected transit lane isn't a con IMO. All the streetcar lanes should be protected. 

I'd like to see that line use the old rail RoW instead and there's no need for a loop uptown when you could just build a stub end with switches. But those are my nitpicks. I do like that this could easily be added on to if you want to build a western line.

9 minutes ago, John Schneider said:

Text from the PPT show you'll see Thursday night:

 

DOWNTOWN TO THE UNVIERSITY OF CINCINNATI

·       Starting at the existing streetcar route on Central Parkway, this route would travel north along Reading Road to Burnet to University Avenue and then west on University to Vine, near the UC campus.

·       PROS: Achieves the highly desired Downtown/Uptown connection. Serves Hard Rock Casino, residential and commercial development along Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue, Eden Park, and densifying residential areas in Corryville. More residents and more development potential along this route than on any other path to UC. Could be extended north along Vine Street to the Cincinnati Zoo and from there into the UC Medical Center.

·       CONS: The section of Reading Road between Liberty Street and Reading Road’s intersection with Burnet Avenue may require some dedicated and/or protected transit travel lanes shared by streetcars and buses. Could become part of a traffic calming strategy for this dangerous section of Reading Road.

So my only question on the Corryville part is why have a one block loop around University and Euclid? Why not extend it an extra block South to potentially open up a few more ridership options. It is not like there are a ton of businesses on that block. There are a bunch of apartmetns and that area is certainly developing but it does not seem like it would serve an ideal amount of people putting a loop there vs extending it and additional block or two South, or even extending the line to Short Vine and having it loop around on Short Vine?

I agree, it's just that protected lanes can be costly and may be fought by businesses and residents along the line. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So my only question on the Corryville part is why have a one block loop around University and Euclid? Why not extend it an extra block South to potentially open up a few more ridership options. It is not like there are a ton of businesses on that block. There are a bunch of apartmetns and that area is certainly developing but it does not seem like it would serve an ideal amount of people putting a loop there vs extending it and additional block or two South, or even extending the line to Short Vine and having it loop around on Short Vine?

These are fat lines on a map. Just like the existing streetcar, they may morph over time.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/02/02/cincinnati-streetcar-nine-potential-routes.html
 

Went to the forum last night. It was nice to not only see a packed house but to see a nice range of ages. 

Cincinnati Streetcar backers release all nine potential new routes — and you can vote on them: MAP

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

Feb 2, 2024

 

People who want the Cincinnati streetcar expanded unveiled nine potential new routes Thursday, Feb. 1, that could take the streetcar south across the river to Covington and Newport and north as far as Camp Washington or Walnut Hills.

 

The Greater Cincinnati Coalition for Transit and Sustainable Development unveiled the routes at a packed event at First Presbyterian Church in Over-the-Rhine. Supporters asked people to rank the ideas, which can be done on the coalition’s website. People also can watch the forum there.

 

“We’re trying to get a consensus,” said Galen Gordon, a former Cincinnati City Council candidate and general manager of the Kinley Hotel who moderated the forum. “We’re trying to build some enthusiasm.”

 

MORE

Here's a full map of the proposed expansions

 

IMO, they really should try to build as many of these simultaneously as possible. I understand that we need the new viaduct to be built to get some expansion to the West Side but the Dark Purple and Red lines could be built at the same time (unless the Ezzard Charles overpass needs to be replaced). Regardless, all of these routes should be in protected lanes with signal priority so we can eventually build out a full light rail system that integrates with the streetcar system. 

 

Also, if I'm being nitpicky, there are far too many loops for my liking. 

I listened to the live stream last night and was really impressed by the depth of information and the realistic expectations that the presenters provided about these proposed expansions. They noted that 4 of the 9 expansions would require major work on bridges in order for the streetcar to run over them. The dark purple line extension to Union Terminal was one of them. However, they noted that the Ezzard Charles bridges (there are actually 2 of them) were part of the massive I-75 re-build that is coming as a part of the Brent Spence project.

 

Personally, I think the red line up Reading Road has the most potential.

Is there an archived version of the stream?

Red, then followed closely by pink, should absolutely be happening ASAP.

As should yellow. If we had those three expansions, that's an extremely useful core system.

The presenters last night made it seem like any expansion into Newport/Covington was the least likely to happen. According to them, the state of Kentucky and the city of Covington have shown no interest in expanding the streetcar to their jurisdictions. Also, the yellow line required bridge rehabilitation in order for it to work, not to mention the bureaucracy of coordinating transit construction and funding between two states. Right now, there are just too many obstacles to extend into Kentucky. It would be one of the most useful lines, but we should focus on the expansions that have a realistic chance of happening first.

16 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Is there an archived version of the stream?

Yes, the Devou Foundation uploaded the video to Youtube.

 

 

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

IMO, they really should try to build as many of these simultaneously as possible.

I don't think this will be financially feasible, unless the next Federal transportation bill drastically increases the amount of funds in grants programs like CMAQ and RAISE. I think the current bill will need to be renewed in 2026, so the next 2 federal election cycles could have a big impact here.
  

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

unless the Ezzard Charles overpass needs to be replaced

The Ezzard Charles overpasses have to be replaced as part of the BSB corridor project regardless of streetcar access.

 

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Regardless, all of these routes should be in protected lanes with signal priority so we can eventually build out a full light rail system that integrates with the streetcar system.

Most of these streets are too narrow for fully separated or protected lanes but that's something that should be looked at during the feasibility study, including removing on-street parking.

  

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Also, if I'm being nitpicky, there are far too many loops for my liking. 

I agreed but most of those loops are required because of the one-way streets that lead to interstate ramps. That's why Bridge Forward is so important. In the existing plan, 4th street will probably be able to be converted to two-way, but it's very unlikely the other east-west streets will be able too. So unfortunately, I think we have to decide if we want less than ideal loops, or skip those routes for now. That said, these are just conceptual. The professional feasibility study will look at multiple alternatives for each proposal.

For the Mohawk line, If I remember correctly they said that it was originally part of the expansion. If they do this one I think it should be the whole Linn street expansion. The only issue I have with that expansion is that at the end it doesn’t cross over back to OTR but rather goes all the way back up to northern OTR. I feel like if people are taking it to OTR they would more than likely walk then spend an extra 10-15min on the streetcar. 

4 minutes ago, OliverHazardPerry said:

The presenters last night made it seem like any expansion into Newport/Covington was the least likely to happen. According to them, the state of Kentucky and the city of Covington have shown no interest in expanding the streetcar to their jurisdictions. Also, the yellow line required bridge rehabilitation in order for it to work, not to mention the bureaucracy of coordinating transit construction and funding between two states. Right now, there are just too many obstacles to extend into Kentucky. It would be one of the most useful lines, but we should focus on the expansions that have a realistic chance of happening first.

In a separate conversation, I was told that there is a lot of interest in Newport but that it requires the approval of Campbell County, who are not interested in it at all.

It also doesn't sound like it's all that hard to coordinate a Kentucky streetcar within Cincinnati. I was recently told that the big hurdle for TANK moving further north into downtown or even Uptown, was the lack funding within TANK. We shall see though as Mark Jeffreys wants to figure out how to make some quality of life improvements for the 2X, if only it's just better signage.

I was there too, I wish I knew what more of you looked like so I could've said hi. I get the argument they made for using one way streets and that it can preserve street parking etc. but I think what KC and Tucson have shown is that having both directions on one street can make the system more navigable. With that said I really like the red line, and its ability to be extended in the future to include the purple section to Union Terminal after the Ezzard Charles overpasses are redone.

 

For the pink line I think it would need to be done in conjunction with a two way street conversion and run only on Taft or McMillan. I just don't think its realistic to have the two opposite directions over 700' apart like they would be near Burnett and Reading. That works downtown because our blocks are only 400' feet wide but Taft and McMillan are just too far apart. 

IMO, they should try to build the lines in the middle of stroads as much as possible. The Orange line on the West Side shouldn't be street-running at all since there's more than enough room for dedicated RoW in the median of Queen City Ave. that could be used to build a full-blown LRT line to the West Side neighborhoods.

 

My opinion of each route:

 

Mohawk Line

Really only worthwhile if we go with more lines like the Linn, South Fairmount, or Camp Washington Lines. Not much more needs to be said about this segment. Overall it isn't a long spur, so if we determined we wanted this route, I would say we could pursue this without funding for other routes in hand.

 

Queensgate

Connecting downtown east/west makes sense, and the potential for redeveloping Queensgate is enticing, but this seems like it's 10 years away from even considering as an option outside of advocating for sacrificial slabs on bridges over I-75 to allow this to be possible.

 

Linn Street

It seems unusable for most people. If you're at Liberty and Linn, you're never going to take the streetcar north to Mohawk and then south through OTR. It's such a roundabout way to get to the rest of the system. A spur from the southern tip of Washington Park that went across Ezzard Charles to Linn would make sense. But not one that ends at the southern bit of Linn and then goes north.

 

Ezzard Charles

I'm not too hot on this route. I think it has a good opportunity for ridership, but not new development (which is my biggest metric). So many pieces of land are owned by institutions like CMHA, schools, churches, and parks. We aren't going to get $1 billion of development on this line. And as soon as you cross 75 you've got the remaining 40% of the line that goes through the massive Union Terminal parking lots. If those lots aren't going to be redeveloped, this route really doesn't make sense IMO.

 

Newport/Covington

I agree with earlier comments by @OliverHazardPerry. This seems like a really tough route to get off the ground. I don't know that we'll every get Cincinnati, Ohio, Newport, and Kentucky to all align on this. If I could only pick one, I wouldn't do this unless Kentucky and Newport were aggressive about making this happen, and the political leaders were determined. And the new 4th Street Bridge is going to be built without any consideration for potential rail, so that addition is kind of moot.

 

Reading/Corryville

It certainly gets a lot of residents in Corryville, but a lot of this route is on the Reading corridor, where there is dead space abutting I-71 and massive hillsides. I don't think the economic return on this route is going to be big, unless the area along Burnet is aggressively upzoned.

 

UC/Walnut Hills 

Walnut Hills has a ton of potential development. It's not connected to the rest of the streetcar system, but I don't think that's that big of a deal. It would have a massive population and job center around UC, and a massive development potential around Walnut Hills. This is similar the original streetcar route (Downtown providing the big destinations and OTR providing the new development potential). Traffic can be really tough around Calhoun/McMillan. This route would be more appealing IMO if we could convert McMillan and Calhoun/Taft to two-way and have the streetcar run along one of these streets in both directions. Centering this on McMillan would be my preference.

 

Camp Washington

I think this route has one of the highest development potential, but currently one of the lower ridership counts. There are tons of vacant lots, derelict buildings, and reuse opportunities in this neighborhood. Truly thousands of new residents could be added to Camp Washington in a way similar to the South Waterfront district in Portland. With upzoning in this neighborhood and a massive investment in a streetcar, I could easily see this neighborhood build up tremendously. The one change I would make to this route is running the streetcar from Mohawk to Bank via Linn, and then up Spring Grove Avenue instead of Central Parkway. Central Parkway doesn't provide much benefit after the Mockbee. Lots of steep hills, and a highway on one side that prevents development. Running of Spring Grove under the Western Hills Viaduct would provide a lot of development opportunity, but the downside is that a connection to South Fairmount would be a lot more difficult since you aren't on the same level as the bridge. Running a route to Camp Washington and South Fairmount via Central Parkway makes sense logistically, but not for development potential.

 

South Fairmount

I'm bullish on this line, but I really don't think the city is ready to make the kind of changes needed to reach the potential of this route. The new Lick Run Greenway is a great amenity for the neighborhood, and pairing that with conversions to two way streets on Queen City and Westwood, massive upzoning along the park to allow for 8-10 story buildings, and a master plan site similar to Factory 52 in Norwood could make this an incredibly unique and attractive neighborhood. It would massively change this area, and it would serve as a gateway to the west side. But it would take a very coordinated plan and all city departments working together to make this successful.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic if about getting the streetcar to Newport. That's quite possible. Newport streetcar supporters have told me the Taylor Southgate Bridge is suitable to add a streetcar. Covington is another story. I think the Newport line should start in the Riverfront Transit Center. There, you'd have an all-weather interchange with frequent BRT's on two routes into Cincinnati. Sure, it would require a transfer, to get on the streetcar to downtown and OTR, but consider the alternative -- tying the Newport route into the existing route on 2nd and 3rd. Sounds simple, right? Consider: you would need to total rebuild four intersections at 2nd and 3rd and Walnut and Main. Would cost many millions and close the downtown loop for a month or two. I understand the desire for a one-seat ride, but if a Newport to OTR line is going to have the same frequency as the current line it will need many, many vehicles -- probably as many as ten. And then there's this: would Newport want to beholden to Cincinnati. What if we get another Cranley someday who decides, for some reason, that Cincinnati should close its line. Newport is then kinda screwed. It would be better for Newport to control its own destiny and operate from the RTC. Plus, look to the future. When the Brent Spence replacement is finished, the Clay Wade Bailey is available for an extension to Covington using the RTC. 

12 minutes ago, John Schneider said:

Plus, look to the future. When the Brent Spence replacement is finished, the Clay Wade Bailey is available for an extension to Covington using the RTC. 

Thanks for adding this because it's something I was curious about. I figured the Clay Wade was strong enough since it already carries heavy rail and semi trucks, and it seems like it could easily fit dedicated lanes especially after the BSB becomes the local traffic carrier in the future. You showed the Portland A and B loop as an example route and in a perfect world a similar loop route could connect the whole downtown basin between the Clay wade and Taylor Southgate and utilizing the Riverfront transit center. Maybe the next Covington Mayor will be more willing, and maybe the IRS development won't be as popular as they believe with developers and the city will be looking for something like a streetcar connection to help spur things along. Thanks for your presentation and knowledge as always!

58 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

IMO, they should try to build the lines in the middle of stroads as much as possible. The Orange line on the West Side shouldn't be street-running at all since there's more than enough room for dedicated RoW in the median of Queen City Ave. that could be used to build a full-blown LRT line to the West Side neighborhoods.

 

I'm a big fan of this. Several of these options are on streets that are obscenely dangerous atm and they would force the city to finally address them in a thorough manner.

54 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Reading/Corryville

It certainly gets a lot of residents in Corryville, but a lot of this route is on the Reading corridor, where there is dead space abutting I-71 and massive hillsides. I don't think the economic return on this route is going to be big, unless the area along Burnet is aggressively upzoned.

All of Burnet Avenue and Corryville is in the tier 1 for Connected Communities. It's possible the buffer could be reduced to a quarter mile but I am optimistic that if Connected Communities passes this summer, any streetcar extension will include tier 1 upzoning. The template would exist and it would be real simply to just copy and paste the ordinance.

It needs to get uptown but the red line doesn't make sense unless you also do the pink one.  Spending all that money to not put the streetcar on campus or on med campus would be pretty stupid imo.  

Perhaps I am oversimplifying this, but I am not understanding why it is so hard to picture a Cincinnati/Covington/Newport route for a Kentucky leg. 

 

Imagine a route starting somewhere in The Banks or a continuation from The Banks area and heads West and then goes over the bridge to Covington (Clay Wade Bailey Bridge) hits the areas around downtown Covington, hotels, etc. and then the Mainstrasse area or any other area deemed necessary, until you would get back for a turn on 5th, head East on 5th Street, eventually cutting over to 4th street across the bridge going into Newport (they are rebuilding this bridge and I believe space was being included for rail).  Then hit all the great places in Newport, downtown Newport, aquarium, etc and then turn back heading West towards Covington and head back to Cincinnati. 

 

This would essentially just be creating a Newport/Covington (East/West) route with a bridge connection into Cincinnati's riverfront area.   

 

This would uncomplicate the route and give it everything necessary to thrive.  

 

Looking at that map that has it going across two different bridges just looks horrible.  It looks overly complicated.   

 

 

18 hours ago, Cincy513 said:

It needs to get uptown but the red line doesn't make sense unless you also do the pink one.  Spending all that money to not put the streetcar on campus or on med campus would be pretty stupid imo.  

 

I mean, the Red Line gets you within a block of most of the dorms on UC's campus. Plus a good chunk of students live within 1,000 ft of the proposed route. I think the Red Line and Pink Line will have the most political support and will get done first simply because they're so close to UC and it addresses on of the big criticisms that people have of the current system; that it doesn't go to UC. 

 

I also wish we didn't have to wait this long for BRT. If/when the BRT and Pink line get built, I'll have a ton of easy transit connectivity right next to my office. I can take the streetcar to lunch in Clifton or Walnut Hills or take BRT to downtown after work and not have to take my car out of its spot at UC.

"BRT" is going to be an expensive blunder.  It's going to be a micro-incremental improvement over Metro Plus. 

 

Rapid Transit means a fully grade separated railroad, powered by electricity, with stations spaced 2,000-4,000 feet apart.  The most important feature of that formula is the grade separation, especially in Cincinnati, which has innumerable narrow and complicated pinch points, especially around UC, between UC and Downtown, and crossing the river (where no bridges travel directly between the streets on opposite banks, leading to time-wasting meandering).   

 

A 3~ mile bus tunnel between the University of Cincinnati and Covington, KY with several subway-style stations would be transformative.  Numerous existing Metro bus routes could use it and travel all the way to a new Covington Transit Center.  Similarly, many TANK buses could travel north to UC and the hospitals.  

 

But we aren't talking about that.  We're talking about throwing a lot of money at new bus stations, articulated buses, and traffic priority lights that will soon be turned off (as they were in Cleveland) soon after they're installed.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lazarus said:

"BRT" is going to be an expensive blunder.  It's going to be a micro-incremental improvement over Metro Plus. 

 

Rapid Transit means a fully grade separated railroad, powered by electricity, with stations spaced 2,000-4,000 feet apart.  The most important feature of that formula is the grade separation, especially in Cincinnati, which has innumerable narrow and complicated pinch points, especially around UC, between UC and Downtown, and crossing the river (where no bridges travel directly between the streets on opposite banks, leading to time-wasting meandering).   

 

A 3~ mile bus tunnel between the University of Cincinnati and Covington, KY with several subway-style stations would be transformative.  Numerous existing Metro bus routes could use it and travel all the way to a new Covington Transit Center.  Similarly, many TANK buses could travel north to UC and the hospitals.  

 

But we aren't talking about that.  We're talking about throwing a lot of money at new bus stations, articulated buses, and traffic priority lights that will soon be turned off (as they were in Cleveland) soon after they're installed.

 

 

I have to agree. It seems like Metro isn't willing to go the distance to implement a BRT system that will actually meet the standard of rapid transit. Most of the buses on the BRT routes are not going to be grade separated, especially in places where it would help the most, ie. Hamilton Avenue in Northside and in Gaslight Clifton.  

 

I just feel like the money being spent on BRT would be better spent on further improving city-wide bus service and frequency, rather than building out a half complete "BRT" system that doesn't do what it's advertised to do.