I'm quite sure that we will never see the construction of another subway system again.  So for that reason alone it would be pretty cool to open up portions of a subway in the existing tunnels.

Question: Even it it cost no more than surface-running rail to build and operate, is a subway desirable for Cincinnati? Or, in other words, if you had your choice -- rail on the street or in a tunnel -- what would you prefer?

 

Just asking.

that would be awesome to use the tunnels, it would have such an old feel to it but would be used for the first time...

I totally agree. I was in Berlin shortly after the subway stations in the east were reopened. It was really cool to ride into a station that hadn't been touched in 50ish years, like time travel.

Question: Even it it cost no more than surface-running rail to build and operate, is a subway desirable for Cincinnati? Or, in other words, if you had your choice -- rail on the street or in a tunnel -- what would you prefer?

 

Just asking.

 

It seems like the light rail trains could move through the city faster with the tunnels than on the street.  Could they be used for longer haul trains, like for a possible connection between downtown Cincy and Dayton?

 

If the tunnels didn't exist at all, I think I'd prefer rail on the street.  But since they do, I'm going the other way on this.  Utilizing them would effectively erase the biggest missed opportunity in Cincinnati's history.  I think that would do a lot for the mindset of the city.  Also, the fact that they exist means that we're more likely to actually get a rail system built, since if they are incorporated they could be used as a match for federal funds.  If they aren't used, it's essentially just a waste. 

 

I totally agree with Rando about it being interesting because it's a subway.  It would go a long way towards making Cincinnati feel more urban, and in a fashion that doesn't seem "new".  I love Portland's light rail and streetcars, but there's just something special about the history of NYC's subway and Chicago's L.  Now that Rookwood Pottery is back, I'd love to see subway stations decked out the way they would have been 80 years ago.

I much prefer to have subway than at grade or elevated rail. I think that it is much more aesthetically pleasing as well as more efficient. I dont mind having elevated or at grade rail once it is outside the city center, but in the city center subway in my opinion is better

Fun fact of the day:

 

There are 210,000 jobs within a six minute drive from Fountain Square

 

It seems like the light rail trains could move through the city faster with the tunnels than on the street.

 

Second question: Is it good for the quality-of-life of Cincinnati to have trains moving through the city faster?

^For something like commuter rail, yes.  Something like streetcars that are meant to be circulators, no.

 

I would not want the trains moving faster through the city if they were at-grade, but having them below grade would seem to allow for faster/more efficient travel times thus making them more attractive to commuters.

I think surface rail is better for attracting the attention of tourists, but subsurface railways definitely have enormous advantages for a city's residents in terms of speed, safety, and aesthetics.  The term "subway" is thrown around for many systems around the world where the majority, usually in the suburbs, is actually above ground.  Much of the New York subway outside of Manhattan is elevated or surface rail, for example.  The only large system that is completely below ground is in Montreal, where the system can operate during the winter without any interruptions. 

 

I haven't read up on it recently, but I know Atlanta has studied modern streetcars for Peachtree St. despite it having had a 3-mile subway running beneath it since the late 1970's.  MARTA's stations and rolling stock are the ugliest I'm aware of in the United States and the downtown stations are not very visible to tourists.  Since so many of Atlanta's tourists are from other parts of the south, they're probably afraid of the subway anyway.       

IT would simply be great if Cincinnati could show the rest of the country that it can move foreward on many fronts including using the subway!! (is this the subway that Billy Batson used to become Captain Marvel of the comic strips?!  ):

I haven't read up on it recently, but I know Atlanta has studied modern streetcars for Peachtree St. despite it having had a 3-mile subway running beneath it since the late 1970's.  MARTA's stations and rolling stock are the ugliest I'm aware of in the United States and the downtown stations are not very visible to tourists.  Since so many of Atlanta's tourists are from other parts of the south, they're probably afraid of the subway anyway.

 

Atlanta's streetcar effort on Peachtree is still ongoing, but I personally don't see it going anywhere.  The street already is void of on-street parking and is congested as is.  There is no where to put a streetcar line, and with most of the structures being new and built at the street there is no room for major modifications to allow this to happen.  If they got rid of a moving lane of traffic then it could work, but I'm not sure the political will is there for that.

 

And yes, MARTA's stations and rolling stock are absolutely hideous and the functionality of the system for a metropolitan region the size of Atlanta is terrible.  The system basically shuts down around 9/10pm every night.  They start pulling off huge amounts of rolling stock at 9pm and the lag times become unbearable.  Considering Atlanta's great nightlife that goes until 3/4am you would think that the system would run later to accommodate that late night traffic.  As a result people rely on their own drunken driving abilities or the expensive taxicabs.

Question: Even it it cost no more than surface-running rail to build and operate, is a subway desirable for Cincinnati? Or, in other words, if you had your choice -- rail on the street or in a tunnel -- what would you prefer?

 

Just asking.

 

Both.  They would potentially serve two different purposes.

The lag time of overnight running doesn't even make late night running worth it.  In New York if you need to change lines, which is typically the case, it can literally take over an hour to travel a short distance.  Aside from that there are usually maintenance crews with jackhammers and other loud equipment to keep you company, although if you're lucky you get to see the money train and a bunch of guys with machine guns. 

 

Most systems start running around 5am, so most people just stay up until the trains start running again.  Unfortunately I think union contracts might make late-night running of a streetcar line on weekends too expensive and college students would probably get out of control anyway.   

Fun fact of the day:

 

There are 210,000 jobs within a six minute drive from Fountain Square

 

How did you figure that up?

Considering Atlanta's great nightlife that goes until 3/4am you would think that the system would run later to accommodate that late night traffic.  As a result people rely on their own drunken driving abilities or the expensive taxicabs.

 

You'd think that groups like MADD would be huge advocates of mass transit systems, for this very reason, instead of continually lobbying for lower BAC limits and higher penalties for first time offenders.

There are things like Care Cab and other free cab services, but people abuse them.  They're supposed to only be for rides home, but people tend to use them for free rides to parties or other bars.  Also there are major problems with hooligans on trains in England after sporting events, so there is no obvious answer. 

The streetcar is recommended in the OKI 2030 plan.

http://www.oki.org/elements/PDF/Transportation/2030RTP/2008_Plan_Update/Chapter_09.pdf

 

I want to pass along some thoughts on reusing Cincinnati's subway tunnels for light rail. I'm sort of agnostic on the question, seeing pluses and minuses, but I'd like to convey some of the thinking I've come across on many trips to Portland over the last decade.

 

Portland runs its east/west light rail lines on two one-way streets, Yamhill and Morrison, which frame Pioneer Courthouse Square. You can go to Tri-Met.org to see a map. The line that crosses the entire region from Gresham on the east to Hillsboro on the west follows this course. So does the airport line between the Gateway Transit Center of the east side of town and the Beaverton Transit center on the west side of town.

 

The Gresham-Hillsboro line probably has headways of seven or so minutes at peak, and the airport service runs at least every fifteen minutes throughout the day, maybe more frequently as some times, I don't really know. But the effect is that at certain times of the day, trains pulse into and out of downtown Portland with little separation between them. It's kind of nice really -- if you want to get anywhere close-in east and west of downtown, or simply to cross downtown, you'll never wait long. I've caught eastbound trains at 5:00p, and you can look west on Yamhill and see one set of train lights after another coming down off the hills west of Portland. It gives you confidence that you won't have long to wait. But, I digress.

 

There's been an interesting debate going on among Portland transit advocates about whether to put all these trains into a subway through the CBD. Portland's problem is compounded by its 200-foot downtown blocks (Cincinnati's are 400 feet). Because of these short blocks, they can only run two-car trains because three-car trains can't fit within a block. The last car of the longer trains would block the intersection behind when the train stopped to board passengers. So they have to run more trains to begin with. Also, more short blocks means more stops, so train travel across downtown Portland can be pretty slow at peak -- just when you want it to be fast. The idea is that a subway would enable longer trains, and the trains would have fewer conflicts with traffic. I really don't think the traffic conflicts are serious because motorists seem to avoid Morrison and Yamhill and instead use parallel streets. The two-car trains don't block cross traffic any more than a string of cars would.

 

Others feel a subway would be the worst thing for the character of Portland. Their view is that the trains' running at street level is what makes Portland feels comfortable. Downtown retail along Yamhill and Morrison is quite robust, and people feel that a lot it is due to passengers' walking to stops and waiting browsing at the stops. You'll hardly ever see a blank wall or empty storefront along the light rail lines as a result. Plus people riding on the train provide eyes on the street. It's comfortable to be walking around Portland late at night and be seen by the train operator and passengers. And finally, advocates of the status quo worry about the safety of persons if all this activity were taken below the surface.

 

I thought this debate was a little "inside baseball" -- harmless, but meaningless -- until I watched the Portland Streetcar develop and expand over the years. The streetcar is slower, and it stops every few blocks. It performs less well from a regional transportation perspective. But the economic development resulting from the streetcar, adjusted for the dollars spent on it compared to light rail, is much more powerful. I think it's precisely because the passengers on it never really disconnect much from the sidewalk and the activity around them. They get on for short periods, get off, walk a little -- there's an amazing give and take with the urban fabric.

 

And so I'm persuaded that if you want to bring your city back, you should be more interested in rail running at street level and stopping often and not moving particularly fast. If you're interested in regional mobility, a subway is probably better. It's a value judgment.

 

One other simple truism: if you're building light rail, it will cost you "X". If you want to elevate it to avoid conflicts with traffic -- in Cincinnati, to the third level because of the skywalks -- that would be at least "2X". And if you want to bury it in subway, that's about "3X". Operating costs for an elevated system will rise because of escalators and elevators. With a subway, add those costs plus lighting and ventilation and probably more security.

 

Anyway, it's an interesting choice for our city going forward. Like I said, I'm kind of agnostic on it.

Others feel a subway would be the worst thing for the character of Portland. Their view is that the trains' running at street level is what makes Portland feels comfortable. Downtown retail along Yamhill and Morrison is quite robust, and people feel that a lot it is due to passengers' walking to stops and waiting browsing at the stops. You'll hardly ever see a blank wall or empty storefront along the light rail lines as a result. Plus people riding on the train provide eyes on the street. It's comfortable to be walking around Portland late at night and be seen by the train operator and passengers. And finally, advocates of the status quo worry about the safety of persons if all this activity were taken below the surface.

 

Many times I've noticed stores and restaurants while riding the streetcar in Portland and have made it a point to come back to check them out when I have more time.  It really does help travelers discover the city.  I guess a subway wouldn't have that benefit.  I still think it would be perfect for regional rail, though, since those travelers would be at the end of a long haul and would prefer to get downtown as quickly as possible.

Streetcars are slow, light rail is better for certain stretches in non dense environments, heavy rail does a better job at getting people place to place quickly.

Here is a promo bit on DART's 10 year anniversary.  DART runs in-street in downtown Dallas and has a 3.5 mile tunnel directly beneath an expressway.  I believe the tunnel was built at the same time that the interstate was being reconstructed and allows trains to run at their maximum 55-60mph speed. 

 

The decision has to be made with Cincinnati's tunnel to do one of two things.  Either the tunnel should be a high-speed commuter route out of the city to Northside and then suburban routes or it should be the underground portion of a line traveling in-street through Camp Washington then to Northside, with the goal of attracting investment to those two neighborhoods.  I think with rail and the reconstruction of the Hopple St. interchange that Camp Washington could become the site of some office development and more residential. 

john schneider very well stated. portland is the prime example in america of the interaction of these forms of transit.

 

how would you add busses into this equation? perhaps "-X" due to lowered costs? and what about BRT? how are busses talked about in portland these days?

Portland's bus service is great, maybe in a class by itself in America.

 

The problem is, you don't get the economic development with buses to the degree that you get it with rail, because the rail is permanent and never going away.

 

Anyone who has every been to Portland knows the difference between the quality of retail and other development of the Fifth/Sixth Avenue Bus Mall compared to the streets the LRT travels on. On Fifth and Sixth, you've got discount drug stores, sandwich shops, coffee bars, that sort of thing -- not totally, but mainly. There is an entrance to the main downtown mall on Fifth. But the light rail frames Nordstrom -- as it does with two other Nordstrom stores within a mile of Pioneer Square. You've got the new Brooks Brothers store, Tiffany, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Mario's -- a really great local clothing store, plus on the fringes you've got some really great ethnic restaurants, bookstores, vintage clothing stores and so on.

 

What really proved it for me was when the announced they would add the north/south light rail line to the formerly bus-only Fifth and Sixth Avenues. Now almost every other building on Fifth and Sixth is being renovated. It's a profound difference based on expectations.

Oh, BRT ... sorry. I regard BRT is simply "better bus" -- something transit agencies should have been doing for years. We kind of have it in Cincinnati on Reading Road and lower Gilbert. BRT is evolutionary, not revolution. It won't move the meter much in terms of bringing wealth back to our city.

 

I've never heard or read where a BRT-booster tried to claim that is promotes economic development the way rail does. It's simply about providing more friction-free mobility.

Cincinnati already has 25 BRT lines, we just call them express busses.

Express buses providing point-to-point transportation are really a little different than BRT which does make intermediate stops, only fewer of them.

 

Whereas a bus might stop every three of four blocks in the city, BRT might stop every five or six blocks. The driver might have the ability to "hold green" -- keeping the traffic signal open in his direction by sending a radio signal to it. BRT often uses larger coaches, ones that bend in the middle and can carry maybe 60 or 70 passengers instead of 40 or so.

 

Because of all the mainly undeserved hype around BRT, I like to call it Bus Vapid Transit.

Portland's bus service is great, maybe in a class by itself in America.

 

The problem is, you don't get the economic development with buses to the degree that you get it with rail, because the rail is permanent and never going away.

 

Anyone who has every been to Portland knows the difference between the quality of retail and other development of the Fifth/Sixth Avenue Bus Mall compared to the streets the LRT travels on. On Fifth and Sixth, you've got discount drug stores, sandwich shops, coffee bars, that sort of thing -- not totally, but mainly. There is an entrance to the main downtown mall on Fifth. But the light rail frames Nordstrom -- as it does with two other Nordstrom stores within a mile of Pioneer Square. You've got the new Brooks Brothers store, Tiffany, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Mario's -- a really great local clothing store, plus on the fringes you've got some really great ethnic restaurants, bookstores, vintage clothing stores and so on.

 

What really proved it for me was when the announced they would add the north/south light rail line to the formerly bus-only Fifth and Sixth Avenues. Now almost every other building on Fifth and Sixth is being renovated. It's a profound difference based on expectations.

 

i agree with you and have been to portland, although not lately. i do recall bus vs rail streets.

 

i am just trying to pin down if recent redevelopment downtown in portland is for sure more tied to lightrail & streetcars than busses and its not in part a matter of the routes and the 'ses' of who rides them. that is, are the busses geared toward poorer neighborhoods and rail toward wealthier 'hoods?

 

also, that what you see there isn't just representative of all cities redeveloping their downtowns due to what started as a real estate trend & is now pushed forward by rising energy costs. that rail is truly the driving force behind certain redevelopment.

 

any thoughts on that?

 

 

 

^ I dunno if you can say rail is the prime factor that's bringing back a lot of American cities. The person who first got me interested in rail, a Top-5 partner of an international accounting firm, once told me that, "I don't really understand all this light rail stuff. But I travel around a lot, and I see very few cities that are improving that are not investing in rail." Which got me thinking. So for the next three years, I traveled around the country looking at rail systems. After which, I pretty much concluded that he was right.

 

Whether or not rail is the prime mover will be left to economists and their time-series analyses of drivers of economic development over a long period of time. But I do believe that investment in rail is emblematic of cities that have decided to play for the long run, to break with convention and offer something that's different to a demographic which is increasingly questioning what goes for progress in America today.

 

And I think many trends are converging to amplify the rates of returns on rail investments. Time will tell.

 

 

I need to do a Venn diagram sometimes with circles that say

 

1."successful cities"           

2."cities with rail"

3."unsuccessful cities"         

4."cities without rail"

 

I would imagine there would be a lot of cities in 1&2 and 3&4, a few in 1&4, and virtually none in 2&3

I need to do a Venn diagram sometimes with circles that say

 

1."successful cities"

2."cities with rail"

3."unsuccessful cities"

4."cities without rail"

 

I would imagine there would be a lot of cities in 1&2 and 3&4, a few in 1&4, and virtually none in 2&3

 

1 & 4 - Las Vegas, if you view it as "successful" -- many do. Also, Austin, though it's building rail. Cincinnati, Lexington, Louisville, Madison, Indianapolis and Columbus are successful by some measures too. It's a pretty short list.

 

2 & 3 - Buffalo, New Orleans

 

Here's another comparison someone asked me to make once: name the cities with at least two professional sports teams (not including hockey) that don't have rail. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit.

I need to do a Venn diagram sometimes with circles that say

 

1."successful cities"

2."cities with rail"

3."unsuccessful cities"

4."cities without rail"

 

I would imagine there would be a lot of cities in 1&2 and 3&4, a few in 1&4, and virtually none in 2&3

 

1 & 4 - Las Vegas, if you view it as "successful" -- many do. Also, Austin, though it's building rail. Cincinnati, Lexington, Louisville, Madison, Indianapolis and Columbus are successful by some measures too. It's a pretty short list.

 

2 & 3 - Buffalo, New Orleans

 

Here's another comparison someone asked me to make once: name the cities with at least two professional sports teams (not including hockey) that don't have rail. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit.

 

Umm...Detroit and Las Vegas both have rail (albeit crappy monorail) and I would definitely add Cleveland to the 2&3 category (sorry) even though the Shaker Rapid is one of the most elegant light rail executions I've EVER seen. 

^ I don't view monorail as "rail" in the traditional sense. Many monorails are more akin to a bus on a bridge.

 

Cleveland was a glaring omission though.

I need to do a Venn diagram sometimes with circles that say

 

1."successful cities"

2."cities with rail"

3."unsuccessful cities"

4."cities without rail"

 

I would imagine there would be a lot of cities in 1&2 and 3&4, a few in 1&4, and virtually none in 2&3

 

1 & 4 - Las Vegas, if you view it as "successful" -- many do. Also, Austin, though it's building rail. Cincinnati, Lexington, Louisville, Madison, Indianapolis and Columbus are successful by some measures too. It's a pretty short list.

 

2 & 3 - Buffalo, New Orleans

 

Here's another comparison someone asked me to make once: name the cities with at least two professional sports teams (not including hockey) that don't have rail. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit.

 

So Cincinnati is the only successful MSA in the country without rail and a population over 2 million

^ You have nailed it, sir. We salute you!

I need to do a Venn diagram sometimes with circles that say

 

1."successful cities"           

2."cities with rail"

3."unsuccessful cities"         

4."cities without rail"

 

I would imagine there would be a lot of cities in 1&2 and 3&4, a few in 1&4, and virtually none in 2&3

 

1 & 4 - Las Vegas, if you view it as "successful" -- many do. Also, Austin, though it's building rail. Cincinnati, Lexington, Louisville, Madison, Indianapolis and Columbus are successful by some measures too. It's a pretty short list.

 

2 & 3 - Buffalo, New Orleans

 

Here's another comparison someone asked me to make once: name the cities with at least two professional sports teams (not including hockey) that don't have rail. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit.

 

So Cincinnati is the only successful MSA in the country without rail and a population over 2 million

 

Ah, watch yourself.  Milwaukee's right behind Cincy in the number of Fortune 500 companies per capita:

 

http://www.choosemilwaukee.com/milwaukee_region_fortune_500_headquarters.aspx

 

AND we're the leader in the burgeoning fresh water research field.  The Great Lakes WATER Institue is a fast growing and powerful field.

 

Regardless I'm still moving from Milwaukee to Cincinnati next summer.

 

...AND you guys are actually making progress on a streetcar.  We don't even have anything on the table right now.

^ I really believe that Milwaukee is a city on the rise. The state and regional politics are pretty screwy, but Milwaukee -- the city -- seems to have a lot going for it.

 

Its prospects may be better than Cincinnati's. We'll see.

But you see...I, the holy purveyor of optimism and civic pride, am headed toward Cincinnati. 

I spent a week in Milwaukee for the first time 2 years ago and I was very impressed.  I'm not sure what I expected, but I ended up liking that city a lot.  I could never live there though, for the same reason I could never live in Chicago... those winters.

Can anyone tell me the progress the city has made in getting funding for the streecar project?  Also, what is the latest in regard to the potential use of the abanded subway?

Can anyone tell me the progress the city has made in getting funding for the streecar project?

 

I can't speak for everyone, but right now many people are not at liberty of talking about how much money has or has not been raised.  For that answer you're probably going to have to wait for Dohoney to make an official statement about it in the coming months (before the end of the year).

Way to go, Brad! Great timing!

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080929/EDIT02/809290330/1019/EDIT

^^^and comments (so far) are positive.  Let's get this thing built.

Cincinnati got a somewhat negative mention in the Overhead Wire, a blog I read regularly. 

 

Places like Cincinnati and Indianapolis will never be havens for the creative class unless they start investing money in their cities instead of being misers.

 

Follow the link and read the whole post to get better context.  I don't fully disagree with the author.  It does bug me that there's no acknowledgment of the progress so far...but I guess it's been such an up and down saga, who can blame him? 

I think this answers why older rust belt cities are doomed to die a slow painful death. Places like Cincinnati and Indianapolis will never be havens for the creative class unless they start investing money in their cities instead of being misers.

 

Since when is Cincinnati a rust belt city?  I've never considered it such, but maybe I'm the one who's wrong.  To be honest, I don't know why the author even mentioned Cincinnati, since all of the cited articles, quotes, etc were from Indianapolis.  I also disagree with the author's implication that high taxes and big spending are a panacea and explain why Seattle and Portland are, in the author's view, better than Cincinnati and Indianapolis.

^ Notwithstanding whatever the article says or implies, my sense is that the national light rail mafia views Cincinnati and especially Indianapolis as two of the most anti-rail, anti-transit cities in the nation -- at least among cities outside the Deep South. You travel enough and talk to enough transit advocates from other cities, and you just pick that up over the years. It's a fairly pervasive view, I think.

Nice blog post

 

http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-streetcar-connection.html

"Sometimes to move forward, it is a matter of stepping back."

 

Good quote!

When is Dohoney supposed to make a statement about the financial status of the streetcar?

^ It will be discussed in the budget process this December.

John, realistically ... how much of a reality do you see this thing having the necessary financing -in time?