On 1/29/2024 at 10:07 AM, Dev said:

 

 

Here are my thoughts on this route:

 

1. The track separation in Corryville between University and Oak (~515 ft.) is far apart.  Also the Daniels/Oak/Eden intersection looks difficult to maneuver.  I would instead travel both directions on University if it is wide enough.  This may require eliminating parking on one side of University. 
    
2. This comes so close to the Innovation District, why not stay on Reading and up to the Innovation District (Reading & University intersection,) then head west and cross Jefferson directly on to UC's campus and have a terminus there?  That would create a direct connection between UC campus and the Innovation District, becoming the preferred travel mode between the two, instead of coming sort of close to both and being out of sight out of mind.  Then the route might gain support from both UC and Innovation District developers.
    

That map would look like this:

 

 

3. The connection between McMillan (a street with lots of development potential) and a streetcar on Reading is less than ideal.  At a minimum the stairs would have to be cleaned up and visibility improved.   
    
4. I cannot imagine how streetcars would traverse the dotted red section on the map above (Reading between Elsinore and Eden Park Drive) heading north with the highway entrances there.  Even if you had a dedicated separated counterflow lane, a car could drive the wrong way through it, which could be very bad.  One way to get around that would be to use Gilbert through this area instead, which would look like the following map.  In this map you cut into the downtown line a little further south using the Gilbert Viaduct.  You would lose front door stops at Downtown Kroger, Casino and Pendleton but you would gain a pair stops downtown (Kroger still close,) a stop at Court & Gilbert (potential Casino Hotel, soon to come big bike ramp to Mt. Adams,) and potentially you could add a stop if a new arena or other development was built to the north of the Casino parking garage. 

 

 

5. If the streetcar turns right from Main Street downtown (for either Reading or Gilbert,) it is likely going to need new track in the right hand lane on Main heading north from the switchover point between 5th and 6th.  

 

6.  Of course if you are using Gilbert and going to the Innovation District, using Gilbert all the way up to Lincoln would open up more area for development and get the support of Walnut Hills neighborhood groups:

 

Edited February 3, 20241 yr by thebillshark

6 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

 

Continuing up Reading Road to University is interesting, but it would add 4-5 minutes to the trip. We need to stay off Jefferson -- Metro is even having some doubts about getting the BRT through there at peak. Plus, there are some grades on both sides of Eden Avenue which might be hard to negotiate with ice.

 

On the segment of Reading Road between Liberty and Burnet, yeah, some see that as a problem. I see it as an opportunity to calm Reading Road traffic by installing protected transit lanes between Reading and Dorchester where there is plenty of room to do so. This route would be really fast from Main Street to Dorchester and potentially pretty fast north of Dorchester too. North of Reading is more problematic in terms of available street geometry, but MLK interchange has taken some traffic off Reading. Maybe the lanes can be narrowed to slow things down. Maybe the curb lanes can be reserved for buses and streetcars. 

 

I suspect the city's DOTE might see this as an opportunity to make Reading Road safer. As for Gilbert, the city doesn't want streetcars there, and it's way out of the way to get to UC. 

 

Here are my thoughts on this route:

 

1. The track separation in Corryville between University and Oak (~515 ft.) is far apart. I would instead travel both directions on University if it is wide enough.  This may require eliminating parking on one side of University. 
    
2. This comes so close to the Innovation District, why not stay on Reading and up to the Innovation District (Reading & University intersection,) then head west and cross Jefferson directly on to UC's campus and have a terminus there?  That would create a direct connection between UC campus and the Innovation District, becoming the preferred travel mode between the two, instead of coming sort of close to both and being out of sight out of mind.  Then the route might gain support from both UC and Innovation District developers.
    

That map would look like this:

 

 

3. The connection between McMillan (a street with lots of development potential) and a streetcar on Reading is less than ideal.  At a minimum the stairs would have to be cleaned up and visibility improved.   
    
4. I cannot imagine how streetcars would traverse the dotted red section on the map above (Reading between Elsinore and Eden Park Drive) heading north with the highway entrances there.  Even if you had a dedicated separated counterflow lane, a car could drive the wrong way through it, which could be very bad.  One way to get around that would be to use Gilbert through this area instead, which would look like the following map.  In this map you cut into the downtown line a little further south using the Gilbert Viaduct.  You would lose front door stops at Downtown Kroger, Casino and Pendleton but you would gain a pair stops downtown (Kroger still close,) a stop at Court & Gilbert (potential Casino Hotel, soon to come big bike ramp to Mt. Adams,) and potentially you could add a stop if a new arena or other development was built to the north of the Casino parking garage.  

 

    
5.  Of course if you are using Gilbert and going to the Innovation District, using Gilbert all the way up to Lincoln would open up more area for development and get the support of Walnut Hills neighborhood groups:

 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 2:11 PM, RustyBFall said:

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.

If you want quality BRT, show up to the meetings to counter-balance the NIMBY's who will try to sabotage the whole thing, let alone removing parking to create bus lanes. The initial plan you have seen, is just the initial plan. It can easily change as it moves through the FTA pipeline but it takes people willing to show up and fight for it.

 

Attempting BRT was an explicit promise to voters. They have to try it. And yes, it won't meet the highest standards for BRT but that's okay. Sure we know what needs to be done to make for the best implementation but the typical resident has no idea and has to see it to believe it. The streetcar is really good example of that. The initial implementation was far from ideal, but that has created more supporters wiling to fight for an extension, let alone for the necessary steps to be taken to improve the existing service.

8 hours ago, Dev said:

Attempting BRT was an explicit promise to voters. They have to try it. And yes, it won't meet the highest standards for BRT but that's okay

 

This is the whole problem.  Nobody calls any train that isn't rapid transit "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a streetcar "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a light rail line with many grade crossings "rapid transit".  Nobody even calls the big-time light rail systems in Seattle and Dallas that have many miles of exclusive ROW, including many purpose-built grade separations, and trains that sustain 50+ mph between many stations, "rapid transit". 

 

Yet if it's a bus that has zero exclusive ROW, and no way to function substantially faster than the Metro Plus or any conventional bus, professionals can and do call it "rapid transit".  It's all a ploy to pretend that skip-stop buses running on surface streets are somehow doing the same thing that elevated and tunneled rapid transit rail lines do. 

 

Looking at the map and having watched the forum I have a few more opinions of the proposed expansions.

 

Red Line: This should be the first expansion and built simultaneously with the uptown pink line. This line should also be built to light rail standards up reading with dedicated center running lanes. There's a real opportunity to turn this into a true street-running LRT line in the future with a possible connection to the old PRR right of way that runs to Norwood. Build this to a higher standard at the beginning so you don't have to redo it later.

 

NKY Line: I really dislike the idea of using the riverfront transit center for this. It also seems like over-engineering getting the streetcars from street level on the bridges down to the RTC. In my opinion, the city/county should be pushing for commuter rail using the RTC. The startup cost isn't that high especially since it would be running on rail lines that aren't used that much. 

 

Camp Washington: This along with the Mohawk extension is exciting. This would be my priority No. 2. Anything expanding to the western side of the city is helpful.

 

Orange Line (North Faimount): This 100% needs to be built to LRT standards and then connect up to the Red Line as the county's first LRT line. There's a huge opportunity here to build the tracks in the median of Queen City Ave and have a nice transit center. The rest of the line can be built on the old C&O of Indiana right of way on viaducts. Yes, it's expensive but it addresses a big failure of MetroMoves which was leaving out the West Side. They can't afford to half-ass this line by making it street running on Queen City Ave.

 

Everything else looks good and I hope this is a catalyst for more conversations about true rail transit. 

12 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

This is the whole problem.  Nobody calls any train that isn't rapid transit "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a streetcar "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a light rail line with many grade crossings "rapid transit".  Nobody even calls the big-time light rail systems in Seattle and Dallas that have many miles of exclusive ROW, including many purpose-built grade separations, and trains that sustain 50+ mph between many stations, "rapid transit". 

 

Yet if it's a bus that has zero exclusive ROW, and no way to function substantially faster than the Metro Plus or any conventional bus, professionals can and do call it "rapid transit".  It's all a ploy to pretend that skip-stop buses running on surface streets are somehow doing the same thing that elevated and tunneled rapid transit rail lines do. 

 

Difference without a distinction. The quality of the service is what matters, not whatever phrase they choose to call it. The term will have no impact on ridership.

True. The BRT in Salt Lake is called the MaxBus I think. I'm sure Metro will name its BRT MetroExpress or something like that. Just like how the streetcar is called the Connector

14 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

This is the whole problem.  Nobody calls any train that isn't rapid transit "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a streetcar "rapid transit".  Nobody calls a light rail line with many grade crossings "rapid transit".  Nobody even calls the big-time light rail systems in Seattle and Dallas that have many miles of exclusive ROW, including many purpose-built grade separations, and trains that sustain 50+ mph between many stations, "rapid transit". 

 

Yet if it's a bus that has zero exclusive ROW, and no way to function substantially faster than the Metro Plus or any conventional bus, professionals can and do call it "rapid transit".  It's all a ploy to pretend that skip-stop buses running on surface streets are somehow doing the same thing that elevated and tunneled rapid transit rail lines do. 

 

 

Call it whatever you want but it's just not true that there is "no way to function substantially faster than the Metro Plus or any conventional bus." There is very real potential to build something that is faster and more frequent than anything we've seen in Cincinnati in our lifetimes.

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

True. The BRT in Salt Lake is called the MaxBus I think. I'm sure Metro will name its BRT MetroExpress or something like that. Just like how the streetcar is called the Connector

 

Cleveland missed out by not calling the HealthLine the "Rock 'N Roll Express"

11 hours ago, Dev said:

Difference without a distinction. The quality of the service is what matters, not whatever phrase they choose to call it. The term will have no impact on ridership.

 

Flag football is not football.  Foosball is not soccer.  Surface-running city buses are not rapid transit subways. 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Call it whatever you want but it's just not true that there is "no way to function substantially faster than the Metro Plus or any conventional bus." There is very real potential to build something that is faster and more frequent than anything we've seen in Cincinnati in our lifetimes.

 

More frequent?  Okay, do 5-minute frequencies (and try to keep the buses from bunching).  But faster?  The whole problem with the vague "BRT" concept presented by Metro is illustrated by the Metro Plus schedule:

https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/routes/maps_and_schedules/MetroPLUS.pdf

 

The Metro Plus route is 20 minutes slower during the rush hours and midday than it is at the off-peak extremes.  A rapid transit subway (or el) is the opposite - the endpoint to endpoint time is almost exactly the same 24/7, no matter conditions on the street surface (it is affected, however, by crush crowds that delay the trains at stations, switching movements caused by a lack of flying junctions, etc.). 

 

If the existing Metro Plus route were given Metro's nebulous "BRT" upgrade ($150+ million per line), how many minutes would be shaved off the 20 minute schedule variation?  I think we'd be lucky to see a consistent 5-minute improvement through the implementation of platform boarding and scattered signal prioritization, and a 10-minute improvement is impossible without building bus-specific grade separations. 

 

So here we are assuming that the matter of improving public transportation between Downtown and UC will be settled by Metro's as-yet undefined BRT plan, not a streetcar link.  But the as-yet undefined bus plan isn't going to be transformative.  It's not going to function anything at all like extending the existing streetcar line north from Findlay Market in a tunnel to UC. 

 

 

 

The five-minute headways for BRT which I spoke about at the Forum will only exist at peak and only within the segment between the RTC and MLK because both lines co-exist on that segment. North, east, west of MLK, and off-peak, the headways will be longer. 

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Flag football is not football.  Foosball is not soccer.  Surface-running city buses are not rapid transit subways. 

 

 

 

When I first met with Cam Hardy and Mark Samaan to discuss transit advocacy, they brought up the subject of Bus Rapid Transit. I told them there is nothing especially rapid about BRT. I told them they should think of it a "better bus" -- something transit agencies should have been doing years ago. A week or so later, they branded themselves the "Better Bus Company."

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

More frequent?  Okay, do 5-minute frequencies (and try to keep the buses from bunching).  But faster?  The whole problem with the vague "BRT" concept presented by Metro is illustrated by the Metro Plus schedule:

https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/routes/maps_and_schedules/MetroPLUS.pdf

 

The Metro Plus route is 20 minutes slower during the rush hours and midday than it is at the off-peak extremes.  A rapid transit subway (or el) is the opposite - the endpoint to endpoint time is almost exactly the same 24/7, no matter conditions on the street surface (it is affected, however, by crush crowds that delay the trains at stations, switching movements caused by a lack of flying junctions, etc.). 

 

If the existing Metro Plus route were given Metro's nebulous "BRT" upgrade ($150+ million per line), how many minutes would be shaved off the 20 minute schedule variation?  I think we'd be lucky to see a consistent 5-minute improvement through the implementation of platform boarding and scattered signal prioritization, and a 10-minute improvement is impossible without building bus-specific grade separations. 

 

So here we are assuming that the matter of improving public transportation between Downtown and UC will be settled by Metro's as-yet undefined BRT plan, not a streetcar link.  But the as-yet undefined bus plan isn't going to be transformative.  It's not going to function anything at all like extending the existing streetcar line north from Findlay Market in a tunnel to UC. 

 

 

 

 

This makes zero sense. You're saying that the BRT plan won't speed up the busses but then you're admitting that we don't get know what the full plan is. How can you know the impact without knowing the plan? 

1 hour ago, John Schneider said:

A week or so later, they branded themselves the "Better Bus Company."

 

Speaking of which, has there been any movement on the idea of turning the streetcar lane on Walnut into a transit-only lane?

If the demand is that a tunnel must be built from downtown to Uptown, or that the whole project has to be completely grade separated, that's the same asking to do nothing. It's not a reasonable demand as Cincinnati is not going to be able to pay for that by itself and would not win a FTA grant to help pay for it. Hell, there probably isn't the political support for the city to even try that. It's the equivalent of saying "do nothing, forever."

 

The only available path is an iterative one. We're not going to get a full metro network all-of-a-sudden. The existing plan will include features for buses we don't currently have such as 24/7 bus lanes, BAT lanes, signal priority, level boarding, off-board payment and higher frequencies. When the NIMBYs are proven wrong, SORTA can go back and get another FTA grant to improve sections. When it's time to do the next 2 projects on Montgomery and Glenway, they will be implemented better because the political coalition will be stronger to fight for them to be better. We have to start somewhere and perfection isn't a starting point.

49 minutes ago, Dev said:

If the demand is that a tunnel must be built from downtown to Uptown, or that the whole project has to be completely grade separated, that's the same asking to do nothing. It's not a reasonable demand as Cincinnati is not going to be able to pay for that by itself and would not win a FTA grant to help pay for it.

 

Also if you're going to propose a tunnel, it will probably need to be multi-modal. There's no reason to build a tunnel for buses alone when a tunnel for a train makes more sense. The tunnel ain't happening. I don't like the attitude that unless it's perfect, it's not worth doing. 

The 17 and 43 both average 11.7 mph in the "BRT" sections of their current route. 

Metro*Plus averages 13.2 mph from timepoints 2-7 (Downtown to Norwood). 

 

I think we can reasonably expect our BRT system to average 14.7 mph with signal priority.

 

The big benefit of BRT will be the trunk lines plus Metro*Plus, 78 and 46 creating a corridor where there's a bus every 4 minutes.

I don't understand the appeal of the Reading Road route, other than people really wanting to see a Downtown-Uptown streetcar. To me, it seems like the weakest of the proposed routes. It's alleged to have the best development potential of all Downtown-Uptown routes, but I have a feeling that is based on applying a buffer around the route within a specified distance, ignoring the fact that walking 1,000 feet or .25 miles or whatever across a highway or up/down a steep slope is a lot different than walking 1,000 feet in a less harsh environment.

 

Fundamentally, if the consensus is that the "BRT" routes make a more direct streetcar to Uptown redundant, then for route planning purposes we should just treat the BRT as though it is a planned streetcar route. Then revisit that assumption at a later date when BRT is established and people are more receptive to the idea of modes being complementary rather than in competition. If streetcar advocates don't wish to wait, then the move should be trying to work with BRT planners to create a win-win shared BRT/streetcar route rather than wedging tracks into the I-71 valley. Thinking dedicated shared transit lanes or a tunnel. With the Infrastructure Bill money expected to flow for the next several years, it's likely not a bad time to shoot for the moon (a tunnel), or at least have moonshot plans in place in case opportunity strikes.

 

There are good reasons why the Reading BRT doesn't follow the 43 route, despite it being the highest ridership transit route in the region. Most of those reasons are equally relevant to why it's not a good streetcar route.

 

Building the Ludlow-Woodburn route, with frequent BRT service connecting it to the Downtown loop, would make a lot more sense than building the Reading route.

1 hour ago, Robuu said:

With the Infrastructure Bill money expected to flow for the next several years, it's likely not a bad time to shoot for the moon (a tunnel), or at least have moonshot plans in place in case opportunity strikes.

It might sound like a lot of money with the BIL, but there are still caps, both for total project cost and for the maximum Federal match. For any extension of the existing streetcar, total project cost is capped at $400 million, with a limit of $150 million Federal funds. Also, the funds end in 2026, so regardless of what project gets pursued, the city is running real low on time. For example, SORTA applied last summer, and expects to receive funding in 2025 with service beginning in 2027.

FWIW, there are 41 projects in the FTA Small Starts pipeline already, and only 6 are rail of any kind.

15 hours ago, thomasbw said:

The big benefit of BRT will be the trunk lines plus Metro*Plus, 78 and 46 creating a corridor where there's a bus every 4 minutes.

 

There is no way that signal priority can be granted to all buses since there are many intersections where bus routes cross or merge.  While it might be possible to grant signal priority to some inbound buses during the morning and some outbound buses during the afternoon, inevitably, priority given to the BRT buses will come to the detriment of crossing buses (i.e. the #31) or even ordinary buses traveling in the same direction on the same road as BRT buses.  

 

The problem with BRT people (like bike lane advocates) is that they don't understand that road and intersection characteristics determine the suitability of bus lanes or bike lanes.  Paradoxically, the places where bus (and bike) lanes are easiest to implement is where they are least needed.  We already saw push-back from Northside and Clifton - no way will bus lanes take away parking lanes on Hamilton Ave. or on Ludlow Ave.   No way will we see anyone suggest that Vine St. ought to go back to one-way northbound in Over-the-Rhine so as to take a cycle out of the Schwartz's Point signaling sequence. 

 

Here is the SL3 bus in Boston - it travels through two busways (one in Chelsea and one in the Seaport) and has a dedicated subway tunnel between the Seaport and South Station.  It has two underground stations in the Seaport area and one at South Station.  Even despite all of this purpose-built infrastructure, the route stops as a ghastly number of red lights:

 

Boston's Silver Line BRT network came about as a way to incorporate the new Ted Williams Tunnel (the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension that opened around 1997) into the local bus network.  Unfortunately, the budget for the dedicated bus tunnel beneath Downtown Boston was a victim of cuts, and so what exists today is a truncated but nevertheless quite useful piece of bus-specific infrastructure.   It illustrates that it it takes a lot of money and effort to create bus-specific infrastructure, but that even when it is done fairly well, it doesn't compare in the least to a fully grade-separated route.  Which is central to the definition of the term...rapid transit.

 

We have always had armchair Cincinnatians who want to apply top-down stuff that doesn't acknowledge the physicality of the place.  This city has narrow streets, hills, and odd intersections.  The BRT stuff seen on the wide, flat avenues of Cleveland, Indianapolis, etc., isn't going to work here (and it barely works in those places). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

There is no way that signal priority can be granted to all buses since there are many intersections where bus routes cross or merge.  While it might be possible to grant signal priority to some inbound buses during the morning and some outbound buses during the afternoon, inevitably, priority given to the BRT buses will come to the detriment of crossing buses (i.e. the #31) or even ordinary buses traveling in the same direction on the same road as BRT buses.  

 

The problem with BRT people (like bike lane advocates) is that they don't understand that road and intersection characteristics determine the suitability of bus lanes or bike lanes.  Paradoxically, the places where bus (and bike) lanes are easiest to implement is where they are least needed.  We already saw push-back from Northside and Clifton - no way will bus lanes take away parking lanes on Hamilton Ave. or on Ludlow Ave.   No way will we see anyone suggest that Vine St. ought to go back to one-way northbound in Over-the-Rhine so as to take a cycle out of the Schwartz's Point signaling sequence. 

 

Here is the SL3 bus in Boston - it travels through two busways (one in Chelsea and one in the Seaport) and has a dedicated subway tunnel between the Seaport and South Station.  It has two underground stations in the Seaport area and one at South Station.  Even despite all of this purpose-built infrastructure, the route stops as a ghastly number of red lights:

 

Boston's Silver Line BRT network came about as a way to incorporate the new Ted Williams Tunnel (the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension that opened around 1997) into the local bus network.  Unfortunately, the budget for the dedicated bus tunnel beneath Downtown Boston was a victim of cuts, and so what exists today is a truncated but nevertheless quite useful piece of bus-specific infrastructure.   It illustrates that it it takes a lot of money and effort to create bus-specific infrastructure, but that even when it is done fairly well, it doesn't compare in the least to a fully grade-separated route.  Which is central to the definition of the term...rapid transit.

 

We have always had armchair Cincinnatians who want to apply top-down stuff that doesn't acknowledge the physicality of the place.  This city has narrow streets, hills, and odd intersections.  The BRT stuff seen on the wide, flat avenues of Cleveland, Indianapolis, etc., isn't going to work here (and it barely works in those places). 

 

 

I've said this a bunch of times on the relevant Cleveland threads: without signal prioritization, BRT is an oxymoron.

Edited February 8, 20241 yr by E Rocc

Here's the average speed (computed by VRM/VRH) for every FTA recognized BRT system in the country that reported data in a timely fashion for the 12/23 data release. 

Is Pittsburgh's not considered BRT (even though it's the ultimate BRT)?

17 hours ago, Dev said:

It might sound like a lot of money with the BIL, but there are still caps, both for total project cost and for the maximum Federal match. For any extension of the existing streetcar, total project cost is capped at $400 million, with a limit of $150 million Federal funds. Also, the funds end in 2026, so regardless of what project gets pursued, the city is running real low on time. For example, SORTA applied last summer, and expects to receive funding in 2025 with service beginning in 2027.

FWIW, there are 41 projects in the FTA Small Starts pipeline already, and only 6 are rail of any kind.

That doesn't preclude including a tunnel as an alternative in a study of how to get BRT and/or streetcars to Uptown. Having preliminary studies and cost estimates available could prove fruitful eventually, without much commitment in the short term.

I know the city can't take the rail sale money and build a tunnel, but both SORTA and the city's finances are in the early stages of improving, and it can't hurt to think bigger than in the past. As @ColDayMan alludes to, Pittsburgh has transit tunnels bored into hillsides. This isn't crazy fantasy stuff.

Anyway, my larger point is that either streetcar advocates should concede that BRT is at least temporarily a substitute for a Downtown-Uptown route or should push to share right-of-way. A hybrid approach of "BRT took the direct route but we still need a streetcar to Uptown so we're going to build a long, crescent-shaped route, with a large portion of unwalkable catchment area, bypassing the University Heights business district and Christ Hospital entirely" is the worst of both worlds. Financing a tunnel is tangential.

Additionally, I'll push a related point that advocating for the best possible BRT (or closest to actual BRT) corridor to Uptown will be the most reliable way to get the fastest and most frequent Downtown-Uptown transit connection for the foreseeable future. I'd also like to see both BRT and streetcar lines thought of partially as rough drafts for LRT lines, and making some design decisions toward the end of having the infrastructure be upgradeable as such.

44 minutes ago, Robuu said:

That doesn't preclude including a tunnel as an alternative in a study of how to get BRT and/or streetcars to Uptown. Having preliminary studies and cost estimates available could prove fruitful eventually, without much commitment in the short term.

 

Back in the late 1990s, when Martin Luther King Dr. was widened and rebuilt between Eden Ave. and Jefferson Ave., UC expressed interest in building a full-on expressway-type grade separation at this big, ugly, and complicated intersection.  There hasn't been a peep on this concept in the 25 years since. 

 

With the ugliness of this intersection configuration now 25 years old, there is potential to rebuild Vine/Jefferson into something much better than what we have today.  That reconstruction could include grade separations and a busway/transitway.

 

But a north/south BRT and/or streetcar corridor between Over-the-Rhine and UC is confounded by two masters - Short Vine and the UC campus, which is mostly far west of Jefferson Ave.   A new service just on Jefferson Ave. would be okay but not the best solution.   A comprehensive project would serve both.  It's not hard to picture a tunnel concept that splits south of McMillan St., with one fork serving Corryville via Short Vine and the other the UC campus.  Buses or streetcars need to get into the middle of the UC campus. 

 

I was heavily involved in city transportation issues in the late 1990's, and I am unaware of anyone proposing a freeway along the alignment of the current MLK.

 

There was, however, a short-lived proposal advanced by OKI which would have converted Liberty Street into a freeway connector between I-71 and I-75. This would have enabled the conversion of Fort Washington Way into a parkway-like grand boulevard entrance into downtown. OKI later suggested the freeway could be in a tunnel under Liberty.

 

It didn't go anywhere.

41 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

But a north/south BRT and/or streetcar corridor between Over-the-Rhine and UC is confounded by two masters - Short Vine and the UC campus, which is mostly far west of Jefferson Ave.   A new service just on Jefferson Ave. would be okay but not the best solution.   A comprehensive project would serve both.  It's not hard to picture a tunnel concept that splits south of McMillan St., with one fork serving Corryville via Short Vine and the other the UC campus.  Buses or streetcars need to get into the middle of the UC campus. 

 

 

It takes 10 minutes to walk across campus from Clifton Avenue to Jefferson.

Instead of Reading, why not go up Liberty Hill to Highland Ave to the Medical Campus.

 

Highland is at the center of West Campus (Main Campus) and East Campus (Medical Campus/Innovation District) and gets you close to the hospitals, zoo, and Jefferson/Ludlow.

 

 

Liberty Hill was considered for light rail in the early-2000's, and it failed. Dunno a modern streetcar can do i

45 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

Instead of Reading, why not go up Liberty Hill to Highland Ave to the Medical Campus.

 

Highland is at the center of West Campus (Main Campus) and East Campus (Medical Campus/Innovation District) and gets you close to the hospitals, zoo, and Jefferson/Ludlow.

 

 

How much time would that add?

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Back in the late 1990s, when Martin Luther King Dr. was widened and rebuilt between Eden Ave. and Jefferson Ave., UC expressed interest in building a full-on expressway-type grade separation at this big, ugly, and complicated intersection.  There hasn't been a peep on this concept in the 25 years since. 

 

With the ugliness of this intersection configuration now 25 years old, there is potential to rebuild Vine/Jefferson into something much better than what we have today.  That reconstruction could include grade separations and a busway/transitway.

 

But a north/south BRT and/or streetcar corridor between Over-the-Rhine and UC is confounded by two masters - Short Vine and the UC campus, which is mostly far west of Jefferson Ave.   A new service just on Jefferson Ave. would be okay but not the best solution.   A comprehensive project would serve both.  It's not hard to picture a tunnel concept that splits south of McMillan St., with one fork serving Corryville via Short Vine and the other the UC campus.  Buses or streetcars need to get into the middle of the UC campus. 

 

 

I don't know if UC is as hell-bent on getting the maximum amount of commuter students in and out of the main campus super easily as they were 15 years ago. It seems that UC has shifted to focusing more on traditional age students at the main campus and recommending the branches to commuters/non-trads. Good urbanism is key to attracting traditional students these days. Oh and a lot of international students don't come from car-culture nations so the whole idea of having to buy a car and learn to drive on top of everything else...

Edited February 8, 20241 yr by GCrites

Yeah, UC doesn't need a stop in the middle of campus. Logistical nightmare. If we aren't going to tunnel under Short Vine (we aren't going to) then surface running along Jefferson is perfectly fine for any BRT or streetcar. If it's 10 minutes from one end of campus to the other end, you're only going to save an average of like 1-2 minutes of walking time by diverting the line through campus. Complete waste of money when you can just run a straight route through Jefferson and someone can walk and extra minute or two to get to the College of Business. People are used to walking around campus. Even if you drive, you're parking in a garage on one corner of campus and walking across the length of it.

12 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It takes 10 minutes to walk across campus from Clifton Avenue to Jefferson.

 

Tons of UC students take Uber from one side of campus to another. I know because I used to be an Uber driver. 

12 hours ago, John Schneider said:

I was heavily involved in city transportation issues in the late 1990's, and I am unaware of anyone proposing a freeway along the alignment of the current MLK.

 

It was an underpass for MLK at this spot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1357338,-84.509812,345m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

 

I remember that plan, can't find it on the internet anywhere though, albeit a quick search.

 

8 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Tons of UC students take Uber from one side of campus to another. I know because I used to be an Uber driver. 

 

I don't doubt you experienced that. UC has tens of thousands of students. If less than 1% take Ubers across campus daily that's hundreds of trips. It's also meaningless in this conversation. 

8 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Tons of UC students take Uber from one side of campus to another. I know because I used to be an Uber driver. 

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

3 hours ago, The_Cincinnati_Kid said:

I remember that plan, can't find it on the internet anywhere though, albeit a quick search.

 

 

I haven't been able to find it for many years, either.  I remember there being a balsa wood model of it in a storefront on McMillan St. until about 2005.  There was also a model of the original infill between McMillan and Calhoun, which was going to be partly condominiums w/underground parking, plus a Findlay Market-type market in a north-south orientation in place of Hartshorn St.  The replacement for Hartshorn is "South Market St.", named after that never-built market house. 

 

 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I don't doubt you experienced that. UC has tens of thousands of students. If less than 1% take Ubers across campus daily that's hundreds of trips. It's also meaningless in this conversation. 

 

It's not meaningless.  Uber has made it harder than ever for public transportation to win over choice riders.  That means public transportation needs to be outstanding. 

 

Despite the many problems with individual uber rides (drivers cancelling rides, not being able to find passengers, passengers getting in the wrong car, etc.), hope springs eternal.  People always assume that uber will work, no matter how many bad experiences they have had.  Meanwhile, people give up on public transportation after their first bad experience.

 

We also have people expressing the incorrect notion that Jefferson Ave. needs bus lanes.  Again, this is an example of a wide street and wide streets don't need them.  Meanwhile, narrow streets like McMillan or Calhoun could benefit from them in theory but they'll never get built.  No way is the Thai Express block going to give up its on-street parking for the benefit of the #17 and #31 bus. 

 

 

19 hours ago, John Schneider said:

Liberty Hill was considered for light rail in the early-2000's, and it failed. Dunno a modern streetcar can do i

 

How do we determine this?

30 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

 

How do we determine this?

I believe Cincinnati's engineers view 7% as the max slope modern streetcars can reliably do. Ice, wet leaves can be problems. Can anyone calc. Liberty Hill's slope? The turn @ Liberty Hill and Highland could be problematic. 

19 minutes ago, John Schneider said:

I believe Cincinnati's engineers view 7% as the max slope modern streetcars can reliably do. Ice, wet leaves can be problems. Can anyone calc. Liberty Hill's slope? The turn @ Liberty Hill and Highland could be problematic. 

 

I did a quick calc from the Liberty Hill/Liberty intersection to the turn at Liberty Hill and Highland. Looks about like 9% but I might be wrong.

6 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

 

I did a quick calc from the Liberty Hill/Liberty intersection to the turn at Liberty Hill and Highland. Looks about like 9% but I might be wrong.

 

I just did a calculation from Liberty/Sycamore to Liberty/Highland and the slope is 7%.

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by Miami-Erie
typo

The other thing about the Liberty Hill/Highland alignment is that it is mostly built out and served now by pretty good bus service that goes to UC. On the former point, if an extension will be in part financed by VTICA contributions from developers, there's not much left to develop on those streets. Better, I think, to follow a "hit 'em where they ain't" strategy (to use an old baseball term). Pick routes with lots of vacant buildings and sites, especially large sites, with the objective of repopulation. That's not Liberty Hill and Highland.

What about the "forest route" connecting to the pink route? Would serve CUF and not conflict with BRT.

1 minute ago, thomasbw said:

What about the "forest route" connecting to the pink route? Would serve CUF and not conflict with BRT.

Can you draw it?

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

It's not meaningless.  Uber has made it harder than ever for public transportation to win over choice riders.  That means public transportation needs to be outstanding. 

 

Despite the many problems with individual uber rides (drivers cancelling rides, not being able to find passengers, passengers getting in the wrong car, etc.), hope springs eternal.  People always assume that uber will work, no matter how many bad experiences they have had.  Meanwhile, people give up on public transportation after their first bad experience.

 

We also have people expressing the incorrect notion that Jefferson Ave. needs bus lanes.  Again, this is an example of a wide street and wide streets don't need them.  Meanwhile, narrow streets like McMillan or Calhoun could benefit from them in theory but they'll never get built.  No way is the Thai Express block going to give up its on-street parking for the benefit of the #17 and #31 bus. 

 

 

 

We have a lot of UC interns and they all take the bus and like it. So you can add my anecdote to your store of knowledge.

1 hour ago, John Schneider said:

Can you draw it?

Here's a possible route. 

 

I cut the trackage from Ludlow to Hughes since that will be covered by BRT and condensed the couplet after Vine. I think we can easily do a two way conversion for McMillan now that the MLK interchange is open. 

 

Money saved from the above cuts (plus not needing a second MOF) might even cover the cost of the "forest route." You could have two routes, red+blue and purple 

 

Edited February 9, 20241 yr by thomasbw

Another thing to keep in mind is that if we did take the streetcar up Vine, it would result in more robust BRT infrastructure for Vine St. 

 

Currently the BRT proposal is a non-exclusive curb running bus lane on the east side of Vine and *nothing* on the west side of Vine. If we did streetcar/BRT on vine you'd likely have two transit-only lanes.