From time-to-time, I read where MetroMoves didn't have a viable plan of serving the West Side with light rail.

 

That's untrue. It's was a suburban-oriented plan, and a lot of people objected to that, but it would have performed very well. It would have been third in line to be built after I-71 and I-75.

 

It would have used the tunnels and then followed Central Parkway to the edge of Northside and then out in the median of I-74 to Dent. It was by far the fastest of all the five light rail lines in the MetroMoves plan, and the ridership was decent. I can't remember the numbers anymore, but the travel speeds in I-74 were projected to decline a lot over this decade. Be interesting to compare the projections made in 2000 with where we are now. I digress.

 

It would have been a fast train, more along the lines of a rapid metro than Portland-style light rail.

 

I didn't like the idea that it failed to serve the traditional West Side. But there's never been a realistic plan that would get LRT to Price Hill and Westwood. You have density there, but the topography is too tough. It would be great if the Western Line served Camp Washington; might really change the dymamic there.

 

In his heart of hearts, Bill Seitz is a rail supporter.

 

Keep in mind, aside from 74 splitting the northern part of Green Twp., their are NO other interstates that divide westside neighborhoods like other parts of the city.  Some may see this as a negative, some don't!!!!  I personally LOVE that part of the equation.  Truth is, most of the western city neighborhoods were designed around a streetcar in the early 20th (Westwood, Price Hill).  All the more reason, it Should and Hopefully will be looked at once we get up and running in the basin.  The density is definitely there!      And Damn Straight, we don't give a $@#* what somebody from another part of town thinks of us!!!! 

I would venture to say that unless you get a route (streetcars) into and through East Price Hill, West Price Hill, and probably Westwood, you will never get the support of the west side for rail, and even then it would be tough.

 

To tell the truth I never liked the I-74 Metro Moves plan, it was too park and drive oriented and I-74 isn't the most accessible way to get downtown from the westside. Most people will use River Road, Glenway, Warsaw, and Queen City to get downtown or to Uptown. If westsiders feel like they are getting left out of a project they will come out in full force against it.

 

The commuter line down River Road I think would do well, but Price Hill needs a streetcar line. Every time I go to Price Hill Chili, I see a picture of a streetcar on the wall going by the restaurant on Glenway. Price Hill was built along a streetcar line and I believe it would make it thrive again. I think if the streetcar shows how much it can develop OTR, then westsiders would support one in Price Hill. I always hear from people back home how cool Findlay Market is or how fun Bockfest was. OTR is already changing some people's minds, and I bet when they drive through Price Hill on their way home they wonder if the same can happen in their neighborhood.

 

Even if they no longer live in Price Hill westsiders have pride in the area and they want to see it succeed. I think this would be a great catalyst project that could not only win the support of the residents, but make the history and tradition of the westside more accessible to the rest of the city.

 

^

It might be possbible to get a modern streetcar up into Price Hill, I dunno. The streetcars you see pictures of were much lighter, much more nimble. Really a different vehicle.

 

I doubt you could ever get multi-car trains there. Hence, the use of I-74 for LRT.

Yeah... while Warsaw was rebuilt at the end of the 1800s for streetcars, I would guess that the grade to high and the curves to tight to accommodate modern streetcars from Gest St, 8th street or River Rd.

If streetcars serve the passenger rail station at CUT, it wouldn't be very far from there to 8th and State, where an incline to the Incline District of EPH could really cause that area and LPH to explode.  There is so much potential over there if you can 1. create something that would be a regional draw (the incline, the exist in a favorable light in our city's collective memory) and 2. connect that area with the CBD (the streetcar; you could do it with a rapid streetcar on 8th or more cheaply if you make it a spur off of the CUT line)

To tell the truth I never liked the I-74 Metro Moves plan, it was too park and drive oriented and I-74 isn't the most accessible way to get downtown from the westside. Most people will use River Road, Glenway, Warsaw, and Queen City to get downtown or to Uptown. If westsiders feel like they are getting left out of a project they will come out in full force against it.

 

The drive up Quebec from Queen City doesn't strike me as any more steep than Vine Street.

... and Vine Street is, in my view, too steep for rail. You can build it, and modern streetcars can probably climb it with moderate loads in good weather, but over time, there will be a lot of operational problems with two directions of travel on a steep, winding street. Time will tell.

"From time-to-time, I read where MetroMoves didn't have a viable plan of serving the West Side with light rail.

 

That's untrue. It's was a suburban-oriented plan, and a lot of people objected to that, but it would have performed very well. It would have been third in line to be built after I-71 and I-75."

 

    You just proved my point. The I-74 line would have been built after the I-71 and I-75 lines.

 

    Using the stadium analogy, voters were promised a football stadium, a baseball stadium, and a new jail. They built a football stadium, a baseball stadium, and whoops, we ran out of money to build the jail.

 

    West Siders were certain that the I-74 line would never be built. Plus, West Siders don't really have a reason to go to Oakley.

 

  I don't see the advantage of building rail parallel to an interstate, especially when the interstate is not normally congested. I-74 inbound backs up for maybe an hour in the morning rush each business day, and it already had decent bus service to downtown. In fact, I think the 74 bus from North Bend might be the most successful bus route in the entire system from the passenger's point of view. The bus commonly picks up 20 people - half of the bus capacity - at one stop at the West Fork Road park and ride - and takes them downtown at 60 mph with no additional stops. The only way that Light Rail is really going to improve this is a more comfortable ride and a little speed during the morning rush, since buses get stuck in traffic too.

Some historic Cincinnati West Side streetcar photos

 

Eighth Street

 

Elberon

 

Queen City

 

 

Sometimes I wonder what the advantage of modern streetcars over historic streetcars really is. ADA compliance? Capacity?  Energy Efficiency? Abilty to carry luggage and bicycles? I am dissapointed that the ability to climb hills and make sharp turns is apparently NOT an advantage of modern streetcars.

Some historic Cincinnati West Side streetcar photos

 

Eighth Street

 

Elberon

 

Queen City

 

 

Sometimes I wonder what the advantage of modern streetcars over historic streetcars really is. ADA compliance? Capacity? Energy Efficiency? Abilty to carry luggage and bicycles?

 

All of that. Plus ride comfort and they carry a lot more passengers spread over the cost of the driver. Labor is 70% of the cost of running a typical transit operation.

If streetcars serve the passenger rail station at CUT, it wouldn't be very far from there to 8th and State, where an incline to the Incline District of EPH could really cause that area and LPH to explode. There is so much potential over there if you can 1. create something that would be a regional draw (the incline, the exist in a favorable light in our city's collective memory) and 2. connect that area with the CBD (the streetcar; you could do it with a rapid streetcar on 8th or more cheaply if you make it a spur off of the CUT line)

 

 

I was thinking the same thing. I understand that it would be tough to get a streetcar to Price Hill, and the differences between the streetcars of then and now, but if something unique has to be built to get the line up the hill it will gain more support from the westside. Westsiders love to claim things as their own and it would add to the westside pride.

I wonder sometimes if the bloc-mentality of the Westside isn't what puts it at a disadvantage (supposing there in fact is one). I mean, if you were to say "Eastsiders love to claim things as their own and it would add to the Eastside pride," it wouldn't even make sense, would it? There is no such cohesive group, to my knowledge.

 

If Westsiders hadn't historically defined themselves as being apart from the rest of the city, and rather treated its neighborhoods more like Uptown does (as someone who was a longtime resident of Clifton, I can't say the idea of "Uptown pride" ever occurred to me..."Clifton pride", perhaps), would the rest of the city still treat the Westside as an "outside realm"?

 

Part of what I would hope for a streetcar connection to the Westside to accomplish would be to break down these barriers, so Westsiders could feel more connected with the rest of the city, and vice versa. I wonder if this wouldn't be welcomed about as much as sprawl creeping into a rural community. But then, if a line isn't constructed, it will just perpetuate the victim mentality. Would Westsiders even be ready for a potential yuppification of Price Hill? Or would that be perceived as being pooped on as well?

 

I don't mean to come off as anti-Westside; I just find it hard to pin down their perceptions.

 

    Westsiders perceive that the city government ignores them. Hyde Park gets a new square, Westwood gets nothing. Delhi township perceives that Hamilton County ignores them. The Hamilton County Sherriff does not regularly patrol Delhi Township, for example.

 

  The far west side, west of the Great Miami, wasn't even on the map published by the County Engineer in the 1980's!

 

    West Siders would welcome a yuppification of Price Hill. Property values have declined so badly there that Price Hill could absorb hundreds of yuppies without displacing anyone.

 

 

 

  "They carry a lot more passengers spread over the cost of the driver. Labor is 70% of the cost of running a typical transit operation."

 

    This is the untold history of transit. The first cable car line in Cincinnati had a crew of two, held 12 passengers, and had a frequency of every 12 minutes during the day and 2.5 minutes during rush hour! The relative expense of mechanical power and labor made that arrangement economical. Gradually, transit vehicles got bigger to hold more passengers, and lost the conductor to save labor costs. Meanwhile, mechanical power became cheaper, and the number of passengers per vehicle went down to one - in an automobile.

 

    The trouble with larger vehicles is that for the same capacity, the frequency goes down. Imagine the frequency that Queen City Metro would have if they replaced all of their 48 passenger buses each with four 12 passenger buses! The frequency would go up by having 4 times as many vehicles, and the running speed would go up by having fewer stops per vehicle. Ridership would undoubtedly increase. Of course, the labor cost would go up 4 times. Where is the optimum arrangement? Queen City Metro has considered operating smaller vehicles, not larger ones, on many lines. They have also switched to larger articulated vehicles on Reading Road.

 

   

The red vehicles are 12-passenger buses in Chiang Mai, Thailand. They have a frequency of one per minute or better on main roads. They are very heavily used.

Where is the optimum arrangement? Queen City Metro has considered operating smaller vehicles, not larger ones, on many lines. They have also switched to larger articulated vehicles on Reading Road.

 

The ideal arrangement would be high-capacity vehicles (streetcar) on the heaviest-traveled routes.  Other heavy routes would have articulated Metro buses.  Normal routes would have normal Metro buses.  For very light routes, Metro or other orgs could run small shuttles -- such as the ones Clermont Transit runs on the routes they took over from Metro.

It's unfortunate that there's such a big divide between east and west, but quite frankly, the east side is where most of the population is.  The bulk of industrial and commercial development is on the east side as well, while the west side is mostly residential.  This is assuming you make I-75 or the Mill Creek Valley the dividing line, instead of Vine Street.  The west side was historically too rugged and difficult to get to for intensive urban and industrial development. 

 

It's interesting how the problems of linking various parts of the city together are coming back into the forefront with "modern" public transit technology.  Historic streetcar corridors like Elberon or Glenway/Wilder/Warsaw are quite steep.  The shallowest climb to that area of town seems to be Quebec or Sunset/Rapid Run.  Unfortunately, those routes don't really serve East Price Hill, and either way, having to go through South Fairmount to get downtown from West Price Hill is pretty silly.  Harrison Avenue is pretty tame, but that only serves Westwood. 

 

I'm still not satisfied at the recurring notion that modern streetcars are so much less capable than their historic counterparts.  Ok, they're bigger and thus heavier.  Why?  They can't be that much wider, and in fact should be narrower.  There's no point in them being taller, so they must be longer, right?  Well, a single car can't be much longer than they used to be otherwise tight corners become a problem, so we must be looking at articulated or multiple unit "trains".  Ok, so more cars means more trucks (wheel assemblies) and thus more traction motors.  More motors means more power, so maybe what we need to be asking is not how much the cars weigh, but what sort of power/weight/length ratio they have.  If a modern streetcar weighs twice as much as an old one, but it's twice as long with twice as much horsepower, then shouldn't it be just as good, if not better, since it has better braking technology and torque control, etc.? 

 

The numbers have been thrown around that Skoda cars weigh 61,000 lbs, PCC cars from the 1930s weighed 35,000 lbs, and (to add some of my own) early 20th century Cincinnati Traction Company cars weighed in below 20,000 lbs (still double-truck cars though).  If the weight/length factor isn't enough to reconcile the difference, then maybe Skoda cars are simply too heavy for Cincinnati.  What about Alston or Bombardier, or maybe someone else?  If they say they can do a 9% slope then why shouldn't we believe that?  Vine Street averages 6.5% between Clifton and Calhoun, and it's pretty consistent, so it seems pretty doable. 

If the weight/length factor isn't enough to reconcile the difference, then maybe Skoda cars are simply too heavy for Cincinnati. What about Alston or Bombardier, or maybe someone else?

 

Good question!  I know we are early in the game, but is Skoda the ONLY one being looked at?

 

     The trouble with larger vehicles is that for the same capacity, the frequency goes down. Imagine the frequency that Queen City Metro would have if they replaced all of their 48 passenger buses each with four 12 passenger buses! The frequency would go up by having 4 times as many vehicles, and the running speed would go up by having fewer stops per vehicle. Ridership would undoubtedly increase. Of course, the labor cost would go up 4 times. Where is the optimum arrangement? Queen City Metro has considered operating smaller vehicles, not larger ones, on many lines. They have also switched to larger articulated vehicles on Reading Road.

 

 

 

I always felt that on many routes Cincinnati buses were too large for the terrain, sharp turns and narrowness of the streets. I guess that I'm not totally bonkers after all!

If the weight/length factor isn't enough to reconcile the difference, then maybe Skoda cars are simply too heavy for Cincinnati. What about Alston or Bombardier, or maybe someone else?

 

Good question! I know we are early in the game, but is Skoda the ONLY one being looked at?

 

If Cincinnati wants to buy American, I'm not sure there is an option other than United Streetcar, which uses a Skoda-based design.

 

 

  If the weight/length factor isn't enough to reconcile the difference, then maybe Skoda cars are simply too heavy for Cincinnati.  What about Alston or Bombardier, or maybe someone else? 

 

Good question!  I know we are early in the game, but is Skoda the ONLY one being looked at?

 

Nope. They are looking at several manufacturers. I was with them on one trip when they did so.

Of course, if Cincinnati finally got this thing moving and it became successful. We would a market for someone who wanted to design a more hill climbing friendly system. I've got to imagine there are other cities around the world that would be in the market for something like this. If we don't start, no market, no reason to design such a system.

 

For instance, the modern standing streetcar just might not be an option for west-side streetcars.

Of course, if Cincinnati finally got this thing moving and it became successful. We would a market for someone who wanted to design a more hill climbing friendly system. I've got to imagine there are other cities around the world that would be in the market for something like this. If we don't start, no market, no reason to design such a system.

 

For instance, the modern standing streetcar just might not be an option for west-side streetcars.

 

Okay, what's the grade of the streetcar that Pittsburgh has going up Mount Washington?  That's not a small train.

There's gotta be some hilly cities in Europe that use streetcars.  I can't imagine there isn't already some market for lightweight or otherwise hill climbing cars.  Of course, the Cincinnati Car Company was a big innovator in lightweight cars in the 1920s and into the 30s, both for the street railway system as well as interurbans.  The lightweight cars built for the Cincinnati & Lake Erie made extensive use of aluminum to reduce weight for instance. 

Okay, what's the grade of the streetcar that Pittsburgh has going up Mount Washington?  That's not a small train.

 

According to http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm the Mt. Washington Transit Tunnel has a grade of 6.8%  Wikipedia reports it as 6%  The line up Arlington Avenue averages 6.3% between the Liberty Bridge and E. Warrington, though from the bridge to Hartford Street it's 8.3%.

 

    To reiterate a point that John Schneider brought up earlier, the fact that a vehicle can negotiate a certain grade might not necessarily be the limiting factor. If there are people standing, bicycles parked in the vehicle, lots of luggage, wheelchairs, etc., then grades are problematic for another reason.

 

    John thinks that the Skoda vehicles will be able to climb and descend Vine Street Hill, but there will be operation problems. This single fact changed the way I think about modern streetcars.

 

   

It's no less of a problem on buses though.  The advantage to the streetcars is that they can be longer, so can hold more people with fewer standees.  There's no getting around the fact that Cincinnati is a very hilly city, and it's one of the things that makes this such a fascinating place.  Hills certainly can be problems, but you just have to buck up and deal with it.  Fortunately the climbs aren't all that long. 

 

    Can we get a firm number on the maximum grade that a Skoda vehicle can handle without operation problems? Then we can take some of the uncertainty out of route discussions.

I doubt it's something that's easily quantifiable.  Steeper grades might mean more wear on the traction motors and brakes, and perhaps even more wear on the tracks and wheels.  It would require more electricity to climb, but less when descending, so maybe that's a wash.  The cars might need more powerful motors than otherwise, but I don't buy that such a thing is a big problem as suggested.  The extra power would help acceleration along the rest of the route, for instance.  Most of those are things that don't really show up until after years of operation though.  The fact that standees might be a little uncomfortable, bikes might need an extra restraining strap, or luggage (is that really a big factor?) might need a slightly reconfigured rack is very minor and subjective. 

 

  Well I was really starting to warm up to a Vine Street route from downtown to the zoo until John Schneider opposed it on grade issues.

 

    From an operations standpoint, a straight, level route is ideal. This is how Salt Lake City, Denver, etc, got their routes built.

 

Can we get a firm number on the maximum grade that a Skoda vehicle can handle without operation problems? Then we can take some of the uncertainty out of route discussions.

 

9%

  Well I was really starting to warm up to a Vine Street route from downtown to the zoo until John Schneider opposed it on grade issues.

 

From an operations standpoint, a straight, level route is ideal. This is how Salt Lake City, Denver, etc, got their routes built.

 

It seems like there's no possible way to get these things up hills.  Maybe we should just move Cincinnati to Dayton.  That seems like it would work a lot better.

 

And we all know that standing on buses is different from standing on rail because no one wants to ride buses so those people are you to dealing with inconveniences, but the folks who we are building the streetcar for need free wifi and ice cream sandwiches along with someone to hold their hand to get them up the harrowing 6% grade.

 

  Ok, anyone know what the maximum grade that Portland or any other city with modern streetcars uses?

Ok, anyone know what the maximum grade that Portland or any other city with modern streetcars uses?

I think the examples I gave before are pretty relevant.  It may not be the maximum, but that stretch of Arlington Avenue in Pittsburgh is very steep.  That's basically the same slope as Stanley, Kroger, or Heekin in Mt. Lookout.

 

Okay, what's the grade of the streetcar that Pittsburgh has going up Mount Washington?  That's not a small train.

According to http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm the Mt. Washington Transit Tunnel has a grade of 6.8%  Wikipedia reports it as 6%  The line up Arlington Avenue averages 6.3% between the Liberty Bridge and E. Warrington, though from the bridge to Hartford Street it's 8.3%.

Well I was really starting to warm up to a Vine Street route from downtown to the zoo until John Schneider opposed it on grade issues.

 

From an operations standpoint, a straight, level route is ideal. This is how Salt Lake City, Denver, etc, got their routes built.

 

It seems like there's no possible way to get these things up hills. Maybe we should just move Cincinnati to Dayton.  

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! ;)

 

  Are there any operations problems with the Pittsburgh line?

 

San Francisco is the place to study about such issues.

 

  Does San Franciso have any steep traction lines with modern streetcars? I know they have cable cars, which is a completely different technology that is not being considered in Cincinnati, and also historic streetcars such as Brill and PCC cars.

Unfortunately I don't have any pictures, but I remember the 22 tram line in Prague navigating a serious hill. I don't know the actual grade but it is worth some research. There are some other serious hills in that city as well. Prague has an old system and is upgrading to new Skodas from what I know. It could give some insight in terms of maintenance of streetcar lines on hills and the ability of Skodas to navigate those hills beyond just a theoretical maximum grade.

 

  Does San Franciso have any steep traction lines with modern streetcars? I know they have cable cars, which is a completely different technology that is not being considered in Cincinnati, and also historic streetcars such as Brill and PCC cars.

 

SF doesn't have modern streetcars.  It does have LRT though, with the steepest grades being 9%.  Anything steeper is  currently served by bus or cable car.

This is a rough draft:

This is a rough draft:

NICE!!

It's a bit like the Cincinnati flag, so why not go ahead and make the blue lines on the side wavy, like in the flag:

 

I like the lines straight in the logo.  They make me think of track.  Wavy lines make me think of water, which makes sense in the flag.

Vine Street, it is.

 

The City has decided on Vine Street as the route to Uptown and will no longer study any of the other seven alternatives for getting there. While no one likes it or will say that it will be trouble-free, Vine Street narrowly fulfills the City Council mandate to "get to Uptown." Other, better alternatives would cost as much as $80 million more, and the City just doesn't have the money.

 

This is what economists and management experts call "satisficing." Decide for yourself if the following describes the process at work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

Wow I never knew there were that many alternatives, can you tell us what they were? Im guessing gilbert and maybe West Clifton but what were the others?

^ Every path between Ravine and Gilbert. Some, like Ravine, were even less feasible than Vine.

Vine Street, it is...While no one likes it...

 

I like it just fine, thank you very much!  :lol:

Vine Street, it is.

 

The City has decided on Vine Street as the route to Uptown and will no longer study any of the other seven alternatives for getting there. While no one likes it or will say that it will be trouble-free, Vine Street narrowly fulfills the City Council mandate to "get to Uptown." Other, better alternatives would cost as much as $80 million more, and the City just doesn't have the money.

 

This is what economists and management experts call "satisficing." Decide for yourself if the following describes the process at work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

 

Hold on to your strollers, ladies!