Well, I contend that they ARE a big deal. Keep in mind that we would prefer to disturb existing traffic patterns as little as possible, we want to avoid collisions with automobiles, and we want to simplify trackwork as well as overhead wire work. Curves require a lot more wire work than straight sections, so curves are a disproportionately expensive part of the alignment.

 

    Plus, streetcars can squeal on curves. I heard it myself in Germany.

To be honest, I do kind of like option B.  It looks like a less confusing ride, since I've never been sure what passengers would do when they get to "the spur to uptown" in option A.  One thing that I prefer about rail over buses is that the routes tend to be easier for casual riders to grasp, so anything that makes a route simpler is a plus in my book.  Thanks Randy for whipping that up.  It does leave places like Music Hall and Findlay Market out though, but this really isn't bad.  Is there a reason that the line goes so far north?  It almost looks like it should end at MLK.  Also, it seems like less turns would translate into a faster ride over similar distance, just like when driving. 

Is there a reason that the line goes so far north? It almost looks like it should end at MLK.

 

Probably in order to get to the Zoo and the new Metro transit hub there.

Is there a reason that the line goes so far north?  It almost looks like it should end at MLK.

 

Yes, this brings it to the Zoo and gets it to the new Metro bus hub and an area where there is room for a turnaround.  There is no such room at MLK.

 

  The internal cirulation at Univeristy Hospital lends itself to a station north of M.L.K., not at the corner of M.L.K and Jefferson.

 

  The route picks up the southwest entrance to the Zoo, which happens to be the traditional entrance based on transit.

 

  Also, if I am not mistaken, streetcars traditionally made a loop on Vine Street at the zoo. There still exists room to turn around there.

Cool.  Thanks for the info.

  A circulator along the Riverfront in Covington.

 

(I believe I've made this comment before, but...)

 

Seeing as how Newport and Covington both support the Cincinnati Streetcar plan, I would expect that if the charter amendment passes and the Streetcar doesn't end up being built, NKY would develop their own Streetcar system linking Covington and Newport.  And the same people who oppose the Cincinnati plan would praise the NKY plan and say, "Wow, why doesn't Cincinnati have that? NKY is so much more progressive..."

 

But not to be negative...

I'll confess to preferring Option B myself; it's much more intuitive and direct than Option A. That said, Option A isn't enough of a deal-breaker for me to oppose the streetcar project altogether.

 

If I'm reading the map correctly, Findlay Market would still be fairly close to the streetcar in Option B. People would just have to walk a block or two further to get to it. The only real losers in Option B are Music Hall and Washington Park. Perhaps they could be included on a future streetcar loop that also serves Union Terminal and Northside.

 

ETA: Thanks for putting the maps together, Rando. Sometimes you really do need to draw people a picture.

  A circulator along the Riverfront in Covington.

 

(I believe I've made this comment before, but...)

 

Seeing as how Newport and Covington both support the Cincinnati Streetcar plan, I would expect that if the charter amendment passes and the Streetcar doesn't end up being built, NKY would develop their own Streetcar system linking Covington and Newport. And the same people who oppose the Cincinnati plan would praise the NKY plan and say, "Wow, why doesn't Cincinnati have that? NKY is so much more progressive..."

 

But not to be negative...

 

Maybe.  But NKY is still more likely to get a streetcar loop if Cincy can move forward.  Covington and Newport don't always place nice together.

^ Agreed. And any Convington-Newport streetcar would be far more successful if it also crosses the river into Cincinnati.

 

  Before Fort Washington Way was reconstructed, a traffic study showed that there was a lot of traffic between Covington and Newport via Fort Washington Way on the Ohio side. A new route across the Licking River would certainly be well used. A streetcar or other transit route somewhere along the riverfront between Covington and Newport would have no automobile competition and would certainly attract a lot of riders! A new bridge over the Licking is going to be a tough point. The bridge would need navigational clearance over the Licking River and would necessarily be fairly high.

I'm all for NKY building their own system... just as long as they use the same track grade and voltage to be integrated into a future regional system.

I'm guessing the 4th Street Bridge probably wouldn't be able to handle the load of a streetcar, as that bridge is about as old as dirt. If they end up replacing that bridge at some point, though, it would only make sense to design the new bridge with streetcars in mind.

The notion that extending the streetcar to Uptown ensures its success sounds logical, but it falls into the category of an urban myth.

 

During the early part of this decade, The Uptown Transportation Study estimated travel patterns within and around the several Uptown neighborhoods using the OKI Travel Demand Model.

 

You know what? It showed hardly any O & D travel between Downtown and Uptown. Sure the buses running on Vine Street and Clifton are full, but those passengers are mainly coming and going somewhere else, not traveling between Downtown and Uptown.

 

Surprised everyone.

 

With respect to the Dowtown/OTR loop's being a risky investment -- say like a house or a credit card -- far from it. The Risk Analysis estimated there was less than a 2% chance that the Downtown/OTR loop would fail to produce present value benefits in excess of its costs. And there was only a 10% chance that it would fail to produce benefits equal to at least 160% of its costs. So the idea that the OTR/Downtown route is some kind of risky venture and has to be altered is a little inconsistent with the facts.

 

Then there's this. Everyone takes it as an article of faith that connecting our region's two largest job centers is absolutely essential for the streetcar's success. Why, exactly, is that important? Sure you want to connect large reservoirs of potential housing demand with job centers, like OTR to the CBD. But how much potential travel is there, really, between job centers? Think about it.

 

 

  Maybe true, but the U.C. line has a better chance of getting built if it has more support.

 

  I keep saying that a plan without a source of funding is just a dream. The Over-the-Rhine loop has already suffered a serious setback: the feasibility study called for it to open in 2010, which it clearly will not.

 

    It doesn't matter what any study says if there is no funding. Any line can be more or less successful than anticipated. But only a line with funding will be built.

 

    It is my opinion that the U.C. line has a chance of being built. It may or may not be successful. But it is my opinion that the Over-the-Rhine loop has a small chance of being built.  Does that make sense?

 

   

^

 

I believe that the money to build the Downtown/OTR starter line is now within the City's reach. You have to start somewhere.

I don't see it as a connection between our largest job centers, as much as I see it as the spine of the entire operation.  Everyone within walking distance has a straight shot to either terminus without having to take the loop through the dreariest part of town.  As development occurs along the route, it clearly will expand into other areas.

 

 

^ OTR is definitely not the "dreariest" part of town.

Well, I didn't want to say most dangerous, but ok.

>But only a line with funding will be built.

 

We heard you the first time. 

 

Are you John Cranley?

 

 

 

I guess it is the lack of public announcements regarding funding that has people nervous.  But to assume that companies like P&G, Kroger, Macy's, 5/3 and others don't want to see OTR turned around I think is a bad assumption to make.

 

I know first hand that many of these companies are very serious about making Cincinnati an attractive place for young talent.  They have historically had a problem bringing these people here which was embodied by the whole Gillette acquisition where very few chose to relocate to Cincinnati from Boston.  These companies want to stay in Cincinnati, but there are certain things that have to change in order for them to stay relevant and make that work.

No, and I am sorry if I come across as too negative. I don't mean to. I want Over-the-Rhine to be successful.

 

    It is going to take at least a year to design the streetcar, and as much as another year to build it. The 2010 opening date will not be met. At the very least, the cost estimate needs to be adjusted for inflation.

 

 

As development occurs along the route, it clearly will expand into other areas.

 

 

 

 

Actually that's the problem, or rather -- one of the problems, with using Vine or Clifton to get to Uptown -- there is little potential for development along the route. You're essentially building a mile of non-revenue track that will have high operating costs.

 

 

 

It was suggested that I draw up a third compromise option between Options A and B.  In this scenario there is about 7.2 miles of tracking, with a cost of around $158 million.  If you want to see Options A and B again go here.

 

Option C (compromise):

 

 

As development occurs along the route, it clearly will expand into other areas.

 

 

 

 

Actually that's the problem, or rather -- one of the problems, with using Vine or Clifton to get to Uptown -- there is little potential for development along the route. You're essentially building a mile of non-revenue track that will have high operating costs.

 

 

 

 

DanB ... your response?

There's ton of potential along Vine from OTR to Uptown. Probably half of the buildings are boarded up and the rest are pretty dingy.

Well, I didn't want to say most dangerous, but ok.

 

I believe that title goes to Avondale.

 

    Does every foot of track have to have development potential?

 

    Obviously, we want to maximize development potential, but we have to choose between viable alternatives. This route on  Vine street optimizes travel time.

 

    Compare an express bus route such as the 74 to a corridor route such as the 3 (If I remember right.) The 74 carries suburban commuters from a park and ride to downtown. You could say it acts like a parking shuttle. As many as 30 people get on at one stop, and 30 people get off at one stop. The ride is fast and pleasant; that's why the "choice" riders use it.

 

    The 3 stops every block for miles. One person gets on, and one gets off. It is slow and unpleasant. The "choice" riders don't use it. But all miles are revenue miles.

 

    I think that the "choice" riders will tolerate 10 stops. Any more, and it will be easier to drive. From the rider's point of view, miles do not matter as much as minutes. From an operation point of view, driver salary is a large part of operation cost; again, minutes matter more than miles. Only for the track maintenance guys do miles really matter.

 

      If we assume consistent numbers for ridership, track costs, etc, we can evaluate alternatives by the numbers. I can't say whether Vine Street is the best route, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is.

 

   

 

There's ton of potential along Vine from OTR to Uptown. Probably half of the buildings are boarded up and the rest are pretty dingy.

 

 

Less than meets the eye. Certainly not enough to pay for the $25 million cost of building that section and the $700,000+ annual cost of operating it. And the buildings are abandoned and dingy for a reason -- it's a noisy, under-parked, bus-choked street. I don't think the streetcar makes those problems go away.

 

Wish there were more to work with there. Anyway, that's just one of the problems.

 

  ^--- I'm surprised to hear such unkind words.

 

  You are correct that the development potential is less on Vine Street, but do you not also agree that the cost to construct and operate will also be less than other routes? And, do you agree that a shorter travel time will attract more riders? All of the factors need to be taken into account when choosing between alternative.

 

   

^

 

I did not mean to be unkind, just frank.

 

Vine Street and Clifton, especially considering the awkward pivot around Findlay Market and reversing the direction of travel southbound to get to Uptown, do not have shorter travel times. To see this for yourself, drive Vine and Gilbert between Fountain Square and University Plaza. You'll find both are ten minutes going downhill from University Plaza to Fountain Square. But Vine Street is thirteen minutes going uphill from Fountain Square to University Plaza, while Gilbert remains at ten minutes. I've won a few bets with people who didn't believe this.

 

From an economic development point-of-view, if each dollar spent on a mile of track gets you 2.7 dollars in return, why limit the amount of track? We really should be thinking about more track-miles, not fewer.

 

The discussion we're having is really about the difference between corridor-level transportation (where you are focused solely on mobility) and circulator-type transportation where you are promoting mixed-use, walkable communities. To me, we have plenty of the former, hardly any of the latter. Vine and Clifton between downtown and uptown are more of the same -- auto-focused with no possiblity of scaleable commercial or retail projects, just marginal residential uses.

 

 

Has the proposed route via Washington Park and Findlay Market pretty much been set in stone by the city yet, or is it still subject to change?

 

  Why does Vine Street take longer? Because of traffic?

 

  Certainly I hope that the streetcar project would make adjustments to the traffic control. I don't want my streetcar to have to stop for any traffic light. I don't want it to stop for any other reason than to load or unload passengers. I have read that in some other rail projects, a large amount of the money was used for streetscape and traffic improvements which is then counted as "track". That's why it cost $26 million a mile for streetcar track; the track itself doesn't cost that much. $26 million a mile is about $5000 per foot! Certainly no one thinks we are just going to lay rail in the street and be done with it?

 

    Minimizing track length minimizes construction cost, which in turn gives the project a better chance of being built. If the numerator is ridership and the denominator is cost, then either number will influence the ratio.

 

    I total see where you are coming from with your route up Gilbert. I'm not really disagreeing, I'm just saying I haven't seen a fair comparison, with numbers.

 

    Ideally, we could draw as many routes as we want to. Then, using some traffic demand model, we could estimate the ridership as well as the cost, and from those calculate the rate of return. We can make any assumption we want about development, gas prices, etc., but the assumptions should be consistent between alternatives.

 

    Without seeing any numbers, my feeling is that the Vine Street route, option "B" as Randy calls it, is going to have a strong showing, in large part due to the shorter route between two activity centers and lack of 90 degree bends. Some of the "short lines" that I mentioned may do well also.

 

    Thanks for reading.

 

    And Gin - the route isn't set in stone. Nowadays they use concrete, but in the old days they literally set the routes in stone.  :-D  We are a long way from having a real plan yet, and by plan I mean construction drawings. At this point, it's not much more than a line on a map.

   

John, getting back to what you were talking about with regards to eventual runs to Knowlton's Corner and Peeble's Corner...I might have posted this video a year or more ago, but when the "this is not light rail" criticism comes up, it's important to mention to people that the modern streetcar format is in many cases now being built where light rail would have been built 20 years ago. 

 

Specifically, various companies are building vehicles much larger than Skoda's double-articulated streetcars.  This is a quadruple-articulated tram in Barcelona:

 

This is something that Cincinnati could eventually upgrade to for routes that will take over the many redundant Downtown > Northside bus routes and the #4 Gilbert Ave. bus.

 

Downtown to Walnut Hills is a very straightforward route, but the downtown > Northside route is more complicated.  Routing through Camp Washington offers more ridership and redevelopment, but misses Cincinnati State and has a slower transit time.  A Central Parkway routing should be faster, but the slope of the Ludlow Viaduct would not be friendly.

 

The other really important thing to mention is that modern streetcar and light rail operate on the exact same catenary system. This means that in a scenario where true light rail (as opposed to larger trams) is chosen to replace modern streetcar, the tracks will be replaced and the substations might be upgraded, but there would be no need to touch the overhead wire.  This is a significant cost savings, and in the case where the substations can be retained, a huge cost savings. 

 

Portland's next light rail expansion will include a new bridge over the Willamette River near the South Waterfront.  On this new bridge the new light rail extension will share track and electrical with an extension of the modern streetcar. 

 

I don't want my streetcar to have to stop for any traffic light. I don't want it to stop for any other reason than to load or unload passengers.

 

 

So far, city of Cincinnati traffic engineers have not agreed to give the streetcar signal pre-emption, and so the streetcar will stop for traffic lights.  Some of the stops outside of downtown may be call-stops, where you signal for the streetcar to stop, like on a bus.

 

 

 

DanB ... your response?

 

Last Friday we had dinner at Pomodori's and drove to the game via Vine St.  As someone said, there seems to be a lot of potential.  Boarded up buildings, unpleasant looking characters, and so on, and so on.

"So far, city of Cincinnati traffic engineers have not agreed..."

 

This is the kind of thing that bothers me. Clearly, the streetcar does not yet have full support of the City.

^Actually that's more emblematic of many engineers not liking anything in their rights-of-way that doesn't have to do with moving vehicles.

 

Additionally, city workers are not politicians and work as servants to the public in a way.  It really doesn't matter matter if all the city staff loves the streetcar proposal, hates it or is indifferent.  They work at the pleasure of their boss, who works at the pleasure of the City Manager, who works at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, who work at the pleasure of the citizens of Cincinnati which they may or may not be a part of.

^

 

Not really. I've taken most of them to Portland over the years, and they are all big supporters of it. They just don't see the need for it.

 

Our traffic engineers have actually come up with something that really benefits the streetcar. Where it has to cross from one side of the street to the other -- it does this a few times in the 3.9 mile Downtown/OTR loop -- they give the streetcar a five- to ten-second head start to pull ahead of the rest of the traffic and make the lateral move when the light goes green.

"They don't see a need for it."

 

Well given your experience, do you see a need for it?  Why or why not?  Is this five- to ten-second head start enough to make the operations work in a preferred way?

^

 

I think so. It's a 15-16 minute streetcar trip from the riverfront to McMicken and Elm, depending on the time of day and day of the week. If you had to leave your riverfront condo, retrieve your car from an underground car park, drive this distance, park it and walk to the destination, it would probably take you about that long. In terms of door-to-door travel-time, it's pretty competitive.

 

It would be a good idea to look at the maps in the Appendices of the city's streetcar report and see how much care has been given to lane assignments and the like.

 

    The City Manager and City Council don't have absolute authority. City traffic engineers are subject to state law as well as working for the city manager. Plus, the City of Cincinnati in particular has a reputation for doing things their way, and they do not like to experiment with new things. Getting things done in the City is much harder than it needs to be.

 

    Portland has a reputation for experimentation.

 

    And yes, traffic engineers typically favor cars. Signals are timed for cars first, pedestrians second. It doesn't have to be that way. They say that engineering is a big ship: it does not turn quickly. I had the pleasure to visit a foreign country where the infrastructure was designed for people first and cars second. What a world of difference! They had an excellent rail transit system, too.

Last Friday we had dinner at Pomodori's and drove to the game via Vine St.  As someone said, there seems to be a lot of potential.  Boarded up buildings, unpleasant looking characters, and so on, and so on.

 

The biggest change I have seen in city development policies since 1990 (when I came to live here) is a turnaround from hiding OTR under the rug, to saying that the redevelopment and repopulation of OTR is a keystone to Cincinnati success and growth.  The explicit acknowledgment that 1 sq. mile of squalor (hey, I live there, and love it) adjacent to the CBD is unsustainable took remarkably long for this city to process and get installed as policy.

 

Yea, DanB, we all know that OTR has boarded up buildings.  Ho Hum.  Fortunately there are people who are laser-focused on NOT having that be part of our future.

 

Please, tell us something interesting.

 

Moderator edit: Please refrain from ad-homiem characterizations. Thanks.

From an economic development point-of-view, if each dollar spent on a mile of track gets you 2.7 dollars in return, why limit the amount of track? We really should be thinking about more track-miles, not fewer.

 

I think that a lot of people have trouble buying the return on investment offered by the streetcar.  While it very while may be true that private investment may occur in a 2.7:1 or higher, it seems like some would prefer to see it actually occur here once before investing in a larger system.  I don't blame them, but I'd rather trust the studies and build as much as possible while materials and labor are cheap.  Projects like this tend to get more expensive if you put them off.

>Clearly, the streetcar does not yet have full support of the City.

 

Name something that has 100% support of any city. 100% of city government, 100% of its residents, 100% of non-residents who work within its borders.  If you consider something less than 100% "full support", then name a percentage and stick to it. 

 

The streetcar has the support of the mayor and a supermajority of council. Monzel and Cranley were the only nay's, Cranley was replaced by Harris who is a yeah. Ghiz changed from a yeah to a nay. 

 

 

  Then build it then!

 

    I don't know, maybe the optimism on this board is just too much for me. John, thanks for all your time. Randy, keep smilin'.  :laugh:

^

 

Hey, it's a big project. These things don't happen overnight. Portland's streetcar took eleven years from concept to opening. We've been at this about two years now.

Just for the hell of it, and because I was bored, I decided to take PATH over to Hoboken and do some riding on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) system. The first phase of the HBLR began operation in April 2000, and several phases have been completed since then.

 

Typical of many light rail systems, it runs on surface streets in the downtown core before running on its own dedicated right-of-way beyond downtown. While it extends beyond the downtown area, though, the segment within downtown Hoboken operates much like a streetcar.

 

I grabbed a few pics with my iPhone. Keep in mind that these photos were taken at around 7 PM on a holiday. Most of the surrounding businesses cater to the financial industry, so the streets were pretty much deserted.

 

As you can see by the last photo, HBLR is clearly a boondoggle and nobody rides it except for crack whores and homeless people.

 

 

Here might be one rejoinder to the notion that a streetcar is a necessity for OTR full Renaissance, Mt. Adams. A neighborhood that one could argue is even less car friendly that OTR was massively transformed in a livable urban area with very limited mass transit. I will note that I am aware that the disinvestment was never as dramatic though it was fully working class into the 60s.