I had a similar though on the uptown connection earlier:

Okay, its 300 pages!  What's the announcement?  And yes, the deadline for the TIGER announcement is wednesday the 17th.  In fact, it could be today or tomorrow according to this little blurb: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/05/tiger-grant-winners-to-be-announced-by-february-17/

TIGER 1 is just one of the many pools of funds that we have applied for, keep that in mind.

Of course, but its the first one we'll be hearing news about soon

Ok, but focusing on the development benefits is a choice that was made when developing the project. Considering the state of Over-the-Rhine that does make some sense. However, I wouldn't say an 88/12 ratio is at all a "good balance," and this is where I disagree with the project's priorities.

 

I did a few "back of the envelope" calculations and if you switched it to straight up an down Vine St. both directions you change the balance to 83.9/16.1 but you also reduce the total amount of benefits by about 10%. 

 

Note: These calculations incorrectly assume that every mile is traveled as fast as every other mile and the monetized mobility benefits are solely a function of travel time.  They also assume that the streetcar will throw off exactly seven blocks of development impact with a one block spacing and six blocks running up and the same street, however, it incorrectly assumes that each block of development has the same amount of development potential as any other block and the monetized development benefits are solely a function of number of blocks impacted. (obviously the closer blocks would have more potential).

 

 

    John Schneider says that a route up Vine Street Hill is too steep for modern streetcars. The vehicle manufacturers say it's possible, but it is not comfortable for standing passengers and John thinks that it will be plagued by operational difficulties.

 

    Yet we are still talking about a route up Vine Street Hill. I don't get it.

It's Cincinnati, it's hilly, people will deal with it.  Busses go up it all the time, and I'd assume steeper hills elsewhere.  If the manufacture specs say the grade is fine, and it somehow causes actual difficulties (ie brake problems) wouldn't they be liable in some way, anyways?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If streetcars 100 years ago could climb Vine, Clifton, Liberty/Highland, West McMillan, etc., and modern streetcars can't, then something is terribly wrong with the world. 

I am told the TIGER applications will be announced Wednesday.....

Most streetcars light rail vehicles have electromagnetic track brakes the literally clamp the streetcar to the rails in order to slow it down. Chicago 'L' trains also have track brakes, and I've witnessed their use firsthand. If I had to go up the Vine Street hill on a day like today, I'd feel much safer doing it on a streetcar than on any bus or private car.

 

    ^---- None of this changes the fact that passengers will have to stand on a grade somewhere in the 8% range, and that's what John's concern was.

 

    Modern Streetcars are larger and heavier than historic streetcars. It's really a different vehicle.

 

    Vine Street was reconstructed for streetcars, by the way. The Vine Street that we know was specifically graded to accomodate streetcars in the 1920's. It replaced an earlier street that was even steeper.

As already mentioned, they have to stand on those same grades on busses, and do so on streets that are even steeper than Vine.  Besides, streetcars are supposed to have a higher capacity than buses, so standees shouldn't be as big of a problem.  The fact that modern streetcars are bigger and heavier is of little consolation.  Old streetcars were still extremely heavy beasts.  We have better traction motors and other technology to compensate, but still, why should it be necessary? 

 

This reminds me of one of the problems we have with high speed rail in this country.  For any route shared with freight trains, Federal regulations mandate very excessive crash ratings for the passenger train.  This means we can't buy ANY "off-the-shelf" trains from other countries because they don't meet our ridiculous standards.  We pay for that with much increased track wear, energy use, and poorer acceleration, since trains that meet the Federal regulations are so much heavier than their European or Asian counterparts.  It's a problem we shouldn't have, and it sounds like this streetcar problem is maybe similar.  Modern streetcars certainly don't LOOK heavier than old ones, so why are they?  What do we get for it? 

No offense, but why are you discussing brakes when the funding announcement is imminent? I'm more interested in discussing the prospects of winning this funding. Has anyone heard anything? Have any predictions??

We've been over this before, but yes modern streetcars are heavier:

 

Modern Streetcars are about twice as heavy and hold a lot more people (who are also heavy).

 

The Skoda 10 T3 weighs 61,600 lbs empty.  Throw in 130 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 19,500 lbs.  Total= 81,100

 

The PCC cars weighed about 35,000 lbs empty.  Throw in 75 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 11,250 lbs. Total= 46,250

^

 

All correct. Also, the light rail was designed to bracket Metro's bus facilities at Government Square which runs between Main and Walnut.

No offense, but why are you discussing brakes when the funding announcement is imminent? I'm more interested in discussing the prospects of winning this funding. Has anyone heard anything? Have any predictions??

 

Agreed, discuss funding!  We are supposed to find out this week! 

Okay, so assume we get all the money we requested...Whats the next step?  Are there any additional hurdles to worry about or will it be a go?  What kind of time frame would we be looking at before the first tracks are being laid?

I know nothing about funding but am hoping for the best.

 

Maybe Cincinnati should look into lighter weight cars for the hills?  Dare I say...cable car?

 

 

Too bad Cincinnati's climate doesn't allow for open air cars.

Well we used to have cable cars.  Sycamore is one hill that the cable cars climbed, but which was too steep for the electrics.  There were open air cars too, they just switched them out in the spring and fall.  There were even high water cars too for the occasional flooded routes.

 

  Vine street used to have a cable car route. In fact, when they reconfigured Vine Street in the 1920's, they found some of the original cable car conduits.

 

  Cable Cars were extremely wasteful of energy. They were basicly made obsolete with the introduction of electric streetcars.

 

    Cable cars have an advantage that they can handle the steepest hills. That is why they survived long enough in San Francisco to become tourist attractions. The City of San Francisco has tried to end cable car service several times due to high operations and maintenance costs, but they decided to keep them based on the ability to attract tourists.

 

    The technological drawback of cable cars is that they do not do well on curves. The OTR loop is pretty much out of the question for cable cars. A straighter alignment that does not have as many turns might be feasible. A cable car line will invariably be more expensive both to build and operate than an electric line.

 

    The Cincinnati airport train is technically a cable car. It has no curves.

Assuming that the funding happens... as long as they know that the funding is secure, it seems like they could start construction at the southern tip and work northward while the details of the OTR portion of the loop are hammered out.  They're confined to the two reinforced bridges anyway right?  Just a thought.

 

  I'm amazed that this discussion has come this far and we are still talking about routes. That just shows how complicated this thing is. Route selection is the most important decision to be made.

 

  So, can a "modern streetcar" such as the Skoda vehicles negotiate the Vine Street hill or not? The manufacturers say it can, but John Schneider thinks it will have operation problems. If the vehicle can't negotiate the hill, then there is no point about talking about a Vine Street Hill route unless we decide to look at a different vehicle.

Tunnel from the top of Elm to McMillan/Calhoun or a second line on-grade through Broadway Commons to Gilbert to Taft/McMillan to Hughes Corner. Either probably more expensive, but both faster and more worthy.

 

 

Or maybe look for better equipment. 

Is anyone on here familiar with how far along the city is with being ready to start construction?  Was the "end of the year or next spring" comment legit or just a guess?  I know they have picked out the contractors so I would think they'd be able to get moving fairly soon, at least on the downtown portion

Is W Clifton out of the question?  I still think that route would get the most ridership out of UC Students

Clifton is steeper than Vine.  I think the easiest grade is Gilbert, which is basically a whole different route altogether. 

Just because the Vine corridor may not be the best "development-ready area" the streetcar still needs to get up the hill somehow.  The whole point is to connect Uptown with OTR and Downtown, and a Gilbert Avenue alignment is really too far east to be of any use for that purpose. 

^

 

Tunnel would require a lot less track mileage to be built, maybe $10-15 million less. Because the route would be so much faster, it would require fewer streetcars to hold the same headways and thus fewer drivers, less power. And less wear and tear on the equipment. It would be weatherproof, a fatal flaw of Vine Street, I'm afraid. Plus, most important, it would make the trip between Downtown and Uptown faster than driving. Much faster. It would be a breakthrough project, finally bringing OTR into the mainline orbit.

 

We need to break out of the box of conventional thinking in this city.

^

 

Dunno. Needs to be tested.

The Skoda 10 T3 weighs 61,600 lbs empty.  Throw in 130 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 19,500 lbs.  Total= 81,100

 

The PCC cars weighed about 35,000 lbs empty.  Throw in 75 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 11,250 lbs. Total= 46,250

 

If you are saying that heavier means harder to go up hill, I don't think it is that obvious (and I know you didn't say that, but in context that's what it means).  The equation needs to involve the number of wheels under power that are pulling that weight.

 

I'll accept whatever the experts say, of course.  But from an engineering perspective it is not as simple as "heavier is harder".  Divide those weights by the number of power axles used to propel them and then at least I'd know something about the relative friction forces generated and the motor power required.

John, here is a modification of the "Elm St. Tunnel" idea.  Aligning the base of the tunnel with Ravine St. allows light rail new tunnel to use the existing subway tunnel in the future, and also brings streetcars into the Brewery District, which was the original idea of the streetcar line north of Findlay Market:

<img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/fashion/ravinesttunnel.jpg">

 

The tunnel would be approximately 6,200ft long. This tunnel alignment brings people right into the center of UC's campus, very close to classroom buildings, and also allows a station deep beneath Hughs Corner which I think is a very exciting possibility. 

 

The one catch is that a tunnel in this location would require a flying crossover to be built if the subway is ever to be used north of this point.  The flying crossover would be necessary for the inbound tube, and either pass under the existing subway or emerge from the hillside at McMicken and bridge over the Parkway.  Either way it needs to be constructed so that the streetcar could get to Mohawk Corner immediately south.  Obviously the existing subway could be rebuilt in this area cheaply as part of this project.  This is not a luxury they have in operational subway systems.

 

Also, the Skoda cars can operate on the same tracks as light rail.  Portland is planning to do this as part of the East Side extension. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure UC would be in favor of deliberately bringing that many of the public directly into the heart of campus

This may be a bit of a long shot, but if getting up the hill is such a problem, what about building a new Bellevue incline (from Elm/McMicken to Bellevue Hill Park at the end of Ohio Avenue)?

Jake, why swing it to the west? Why not just trace a path under Clifton Avenue, say?

 

It wouldn't have to land on UC, but that would be one way to solve UC's intractable parking problems.

 

It could land on the vacant site between McMillan and Calhoun that's been cleared for redevelopment. Wouldn't consume much land and could be a real amenity for whatever ends up there.

Jefferson Avenue is also wide enough that you could probably have a pair of tracks coming up from below-ground in the middle of the street and continuing on the surface toward the zoo. It might mean eliminating street parking on Jefferson for a couple blocks, but that would be a small price to pay.

Nothing like a snowy Monday holiday to get this list all cranked up.

 

Jefferson's a great choice, and Metro wants to put an Uptown hub there. Imagine how much time you could save people who simply wanted to go from, say, Westwood to Oakley without having to go downtown.

>I'm not sure UC would be in favor of deliberately bringing that many of the public directly into the heart of campus

 

The Portland Streetcar goes right through a building on the Portland State Campus.  Dozens of rail systems around the country have stops/stations on streets immediately abutting their buildings. 

 

 

>Jake, why swing it to the west? Why not just trace a path under Clifton Avenue, say?

 

The problem is that Elm St. does not allow a streetcar tunnel to become a light rail tunnel and use the existing subway as its approach to downtown.  Also, the ridership at Hughs Corner would be tremendous.  It is already one of the busiest areas of the city because many people in Fairview don't own cars. 

 

 

 

  HA! Back in 2002 or thereabouts I was playing around with light rail alignments and came up with the same one that Jake just presented, with a diagonal line across U.C. connecting to the subway at Mohawk. If my geocities site was still online I'd show you.

 

  Deep stations are problematic for a number of reasons. It can be done, but at a price.

 

  I have always been in favor of a station right in the middle of U.C., not on the periphery along Jefferson or one of the other streets. U.C. is a large campus, surrounded by four somewhat pedestrian-unfriendly highways. A station right in the middle of campus would allow for the shortest walking path for the most people. U.C. at one time was talking about a system connecting the east and west campuses along the diagonal alignment with just two stops.

 

 

Deep stations are dug routinely around the world.  Barcelona's Line 9 is all deep stations, and the two tracks operate on different levels of a single bore (watch the ramp at 1:35):

 

There are dozens and dozens of subway lines under construction around the world right now.  We have zero under construction currently in the US, except for short line fragments in New York and various extensions.

 

 

 

In many cases deep-bore tunneling is less expensive than cut-and-cover, since utility relocation is not a factor. Local geology may also favor deep bore tunnels. The Porter Square station on the MBTA Red Line (built to the same specs as the Cincinnati subway, btw) was built in a deep-bore tunnel because it was less expensive than tunneling through unstable bedrock closer to the surface.

I love the idea of tunneling, but my question what makes Cincinnati worth this investment?

 

I don't mean that question in a negative sense, but rather we need some sort of a 'big reason' for this, beyond, wouldn't this be convenient and Cincinnati's has pain in the arse hills.

I love the idea of tunneling, but my question what makes Cincinnati worth this investment?

 

I don't mean that question in a negative sense, but rather we need some sort of a 'big reason' for this, beyond, wouldn't this be convenient and Cincinnati's has pain in the arse hills.

dmerkow, you're overlooking Cincinnati's grand and successful history of subterranean rail transit.

The uptown area is served poorly by the highways because of the hills.  Construction of a big-time subway in Cincinnati would take advantage of this and have a huge time and ridership advantage over cars.  It makes sense for a streetcar tunnel to be used by countywide light rail in the future, which is why I suggested aligning it with the existing subway tunnel.

 

I think growth of UC will stagnate since the state's birthrate is not growing but employment at the hospitals will grow as the population grows older.  Better transportation will keep the hospitals from abandoning Pill Hill, as will more population in the city. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

I'm starting to see Tweets about various places receiving word on TIGER money today....I have no idea how these people know this, but one even mentioned Cincinnati!  Any official reports yet??

 

http://twitter.com/streetsblog

http://twitter.com/DSmith_Tucson

http://dc.streetsblog.org/

Looks like tomorrow sometime. Announcements to be made in Kansas City.

If Cincinnati received the $60 million it was asking for, what would that mean?

The uptown area is served poorly by the highways because of the hills.  Construction of a big-time subway in Cincinnati would take advantage of this and have a huge time and ridership advantage over cars.  It makes sense for a streetcar tunnel to be used by countywide light rail in the future, which is why I suggested aligning it with the existing subway tunnel.

 

I think growth of UC will stagnate since the state's birthrate is not growing but employment at the hospitals will grow as the population grows older.  Better transportation will keep the hospitals from abandoning Pill Hill, as will more population in the city.

I don't know about your UC projections but I do agree with you 100% about the subway/underground.

Who can show some pretty pictures of streetcars in tunnels, or tunnel stations?

 

Boston and Philadelphia both have active streetcar tunnels, but they're both old as dirt and not particularly photogenic.

 

For more recent light rail tunnels, do a search for the Weehawken station on New Jersey's Hudson-Bergen light rail system, the newly-opened light rail line in Seattle, and one deep-bore station on the Portland MAX light rail system.