Tom Luken Letter to the Enquirer:

 

I accept, gratefully, guest columnist Casey Coston’s undeserved accolade as lone vocal opponent (“Streetcar poll biased, misleading ,” May 30) , even though it just ain’t so. What about the 10/1 against streetcars in the newspaper’s incoming, unsolicited mail? Many, many opponents.

 

  There are precious few of us left who labored to get the behemoths off the streets and unsnarl the traffic. In the old days if we missed the bus to school (a 30 minute ride ), it took 11/2 hours on the streetcar, even 2 hours if the trolley wires got snarled, as usually occurred. These young whippersnappers at City Hall, whose main objective is to prevent citizens from getting to vote on streetcars, might benefit from a little wisdom from their elders.

 

Tom Luken

 

College Hill

 

Purcell High, class of ‘42

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2010/06/02/tom-luken-recalls-streetcars/#pluckcomments

 

Does he realize the streetcars of old are completely different than of today?

 

Whippersnappers? Snarled wires? Really? Sometimes I think he's actually a plant, working for the other side.

Here is the bike photo from Portland:

 

As you can see this guy is riding a mountain bike and is having no trouble crossing these streetcar tracks at about a 30 degree angle.  The issue with streetcar tracks is that if you're riding a mountain bike or hybrid bike, there is no issue.  It's these people on racing bikes who think cities should reconfigure around the needs of skinny bicycle tires who tend to represent the "bicycling community" (bikes as a primary form of transportation is inherently the domain of loan wolves) who are the cause of the problem.

 

Obviously when traveling fast, such as when coasting down a hill, you can't cross tracks at a sharp angle and risk spilling out.  But in my estimation only about 5 people bicycle down Vine per hour, and these people tend to be the more hard core people in town and aren't going to be scared away or fall victim to streetcar tracks.  The only way I can really picture a wipe-out happening is if an uphill car swerves into the downhill lane in order to pass someone parallel parking, which would force a downhill bicyclist hugging the yellow line or riding between the rails of the downhill tracks to swerve.

 

It's these people on racing bikes who think cities should reconfigure around the needs of skinny bicycle tires who tend to represent the "bicycling community" (bikes as a primary form of transportation is inherently the domain of loan wolves) who are the cause of the problem.

 

I ride a bike with 23c tires on Market St. in SF at least 5 days a week and have yet to have an accident that was my fault or a result of the streetcar tracks.  I'd recommend training wheels to those in Seattle who feel litigation is the best solution to their situation. 

 

Regarding the Luken comment, I seriously thought that was a joke. 

Tom Luken Letter to the Enquirer:

 

I accept, gratefully, guest columnist Casey Coston’s undeserved accolade as lone vocal opponent (“Streetcar poll biased, misleading ,” May 30) , even though it just ain’t so. What about the 10/1 against streetcars in the newspaper’s incoming, unsolicited mail? Many, many opponents.

 

There are precious few of us left who labored to get the behemoths off the streets and unsnarl the traffic. In the old days if we missed the bus to school (a 30 minute ride ), it took 11/2 hours on the streetcar, even 2 hours if the trolley wires got snarled, as usually occurred. These young whippersnappers at City Hall, whose main objective is to prevent citizens from getting to vote on streetcars, might benefit from a little wisdom from their elders.

 

Tom Luken

 

College Hill

 

Purcell High, class of ‘42

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2010/06/02/tom-luken-recalls-streetcars/#pluckcomments

 

Does he realize the streetcars of old are completely different than of today?

 

Whippersnappers? Snarled wires? Really? Sometimes I think he's actually a plant, working for the other side.

 

that was my first reaction.  Right out of Grampa Simpson's mouth.

^Yeah, you can't please everyone. Honestly, I'm not even sure why bicyclists are even getting so much attention in regards to the streetcar. They represent only a small faction of people, yet it seems like the city is bending over backwards for them all the time. I guess it's because biking is seen as a cool or hip thing these days, even though Cincinnati's topography and climate severely limit those able or willing to use their bike in place of a car.

 

If roadways are designed to be multi-use paths, and the city has only a handful of basin-to-uptown routes -- especially ones that are marked to receive a shared lane or dedicated bike lane, then extra consideration must be made for cyclists who are only growing in numbers in this city. To discount them is foolish and backwards -- and it's not "cool or hip" -- it's healthy, safe and efficient. I guess you can say the same about streetcars -- it's "cool or hip" to spend a major amount of money and not think of the cyclists.

 

And no, Casey, it's more than 35 cyclists on Vine. At any speed, especially when you are adding in a mix of automobile traffic and streetcars, you are putting yourself in danger by mixing in the tracks with bikes. Having a dedicated bike lane, both up and downhill, can help remedy this. I hope they are planning on this if the route takes Vine (or Clifton).

 

Actually, do you really think there are more than maybe 50 people who bike up and down Vine on a regular basis? A few people I know attended the "bike and dine" thing recently, and I don't think even 50 people attended.

 

Anyhow, in my opinion, bike lanes in a Vine Street redesign: rational. Opposing the streetcar route because of bike safety: irrational.

 

There were 50 (the maximum) for Bike+Dine. There were 65 for April's Critical Mass. We get anywhere from 15-35 people for the Thursday Social Ride. We have 10-30 for the Monday Mayhem. And our last Alleycat, we had 60 show from a 130-mile radius. There are a lot more cyclists than you think, but they either stay in the basin or stay on top of the hill, unless you have the leg strength to take any of the hills back up. I know people who will go as far east as Delta and take that, versus Gilbert or any of the other roadways.

 

According to the DOTE, there are a heavier amount of cyclists on Vine, when the surveys for the initial bike plan were being done.

 

And no one is really opposing the streetcar, Marshall, on the basis of cyclists. That's not what I, or others, have said. But it would be stupid to think that you need to ignore the needs of a growing transportation segment. I'm curious that if bike lanes are added on Vine, does that raise the cost of the project given that the roadway would need to be widened? At the least, the sharp bends would need to be softened.

I doubt it's even possible to widen Vine Street, since so many of the buildings are right up on the sidewalk.  The only real possibility I see is to eliminate street parking on one side and use that for bike lanes each way.  Eliminating any street parking is a tough sell in this city, and the standard solution of providing some city-owned off street lot nearby is not something we'd want to encourage along this route anyway. 

 

As long as the corridor isn't made hostile towards cyclists, then I think it'll ultimately be fine.  There has to be some consideration to all users (complete streets and all), but no heroic interventions are probably necessary.  At some point you do have to just suck it up and realize that the streetcar is the best thing that can be going on there.  It's sort of like the people in Washington DC who are all up in arms about the overhead wires.  They need to get over themselves and realize that this is what has to happen to put a multi-modal transit system in place.  A few wires or some inconvenience to a certain segment of the cycling population (I'm disappointed in some of the stereotyping going on in the comments above though) is worth the other benefits the transit system will bring.

Tom Luken Letter to the Enquirer:

 

I accept, gratefully, guest columnist Casey Coston’s undeserved accolade  as lone vocal opponent  (“Streetcar poll biased, misleading ,” May 30) , even though it just ain’t so. What about the 10/1 against streetcars in the newspaper’s incoming, unsolicited mail? Many, many opponents.

 

    There are precious few of us left who labored to get the behemoths off the streets and unsnarl the traffic. In the old days if we missed the bus to school (a 30 minute ride ), it took 11/2 hours on the streetcar, even 2 hours if the trolley wires got snarled, as usually occurred. These young whippersnappers at City Hall, whose main objective is to prevent citizens from getting to vote on streetcars, might benefit from a little wisdom from their elders.

 

Tom Luken

 

College Hill

 

Purcell High, class of ‘42

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2010/06/02/tom-luken-recalls-streetcars/#pluckcomments

 

Does he realize the streetcars of old are completely different than of today?

 

My response to it, sent to Enquirer this afternoon:

 

 

 

Tom Luken's complaint about the "young whippersnappers" behind the Cincinnati Streetcar is a tad off the mark. Introduced to Cincinnatians by three "fifty-somethings" several years ago, the streetcar has now become the vanguard of a multi-generation effort aimed at restoring balance and increasing travel choices in our region. Streetcar supporters range from teenagers to seniors well into their Eighties.

 

Modern streetcars bear no resemblance to the vintage trolleys Mr. Luken remembers, just as a 1940 Packard is fundamentally different from a 2010 Prius. Modern streetcars have six doors; these enable them to load and unload faster, so they hold up traffic less than buses do. The overhead power wire is barely visible and doesn't spark like the ones you see in the movies. Modern streetcars are sleek, quiet, smooth-running and comfortable -- a joy to ride and to have in your neighborhood.

 

Don't believe it? Go to the "PICS" section of http://www.protransit.com/ and watch the brief slide show there. You'll like what you see.

 

John Schneider

 

Downtown

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent response.  All eyes are on the Enquirer now to see if they publish it.

 

There are many valid concerns against the streetcar and some of the people against the project bring up very valid points that need to be discussed(Eigth and others on here). But here are the amusing ones I've come across in the last couple weeks from the Enquirer and people in general:

 

1) We have different "demographics" (I.E. code word for more black people) than Portland so it won't work

2) We will have too much business and not enough people

3) The studies and research firms were paid off by pro-streetcar lobbyists

4) This is only a project to get the city council members rich

5) The city bungled Paul Brown stadium and the Freedom Center

6) Mallory is not as effective as a leader as Mao Zedong

7) Mallory is a communist

8) Supporters are "non tax paying hippies that love smoothies, hate America, and are not based in reality"

9) Streetcars have failed nearly everywhere else in the US except Portland.

10) There's a reason why streetcars failed in the past.  Nobody wanted to ride them.  Americans want freedom, not confinement

*11) God will punish us if we build the streetcar and it will be Armegeddon (I really hope this is sarcasm on this persons part.  I think it is judging by their other posts in the comment section)

12) Paint the buses as trolleys and see if it works

13) Streetcars will be safe havens for criminals to attack, rape and murder innocent civilians

14) OTR is the most dangerous neighborhood in America

15) Lets spend the money on a jail

16) Portland has different laws that are better for business.  Cincinnati is anti-business

17) Portland has more hippies

18) We have as much development as the city can hold right now.  Its over-saturated

19) I hate the city and hope it fails

20) It won't work.  Why?  It just won't.  Cincinnati is different than those other cities mentioned

21) Lets just have a vote on the streetcar

22) I accept, gratefully, guest columnist Casey Coston’s undeserved accolade  as lone vocal opponent  (“Streetcar poll biased, misleading ,” May 30) , even though it just ain’t so. What about the 10/1 against streetcars in the newspaper’s incoming, unsolicited mail? Many, many opponents.

 

    There are precious few of us left who labored to get the behemoths off the streets and unsnarl the traffic. In the old days if we missed the bus to school (a 30 minute ride ), it took 11/2 hours on the streetcar, even 2 hours if the trolley wires got snarled, as usually occurred. These young whippersnappers at City Hall, whose main objective is to prevent citizens from getting to vote on streetcars, might benefit from a little wisdom from their elders.

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, there have been unusual and uncivil discourse from both sides, but the longer this thing drags out, and the longer the enquirer/a select few of prominent opponents continue to not try to educate the public in an honest manner, the more outrageous it will get with all the misinformation being spewed. 

The anti-business comment for Cincinnati is pretty funny as we will have more Fortune 500 companies on our streetcar line than every other modern streetcar system in the country combined.

There were 50 (the maximum) for Bike+Dine. There were 65 for April's Critical Mass. We get anywhere from 15-35 people for the Thursday Social Ride. We have 10-30 for the Monday Mayhem. And our last Alleycat, we had 60 show from a 130-mile radius. There are a lot more cyclists than you think, but they either stay in the basin or stay on top of the hill, unless you have the leg strength to take any of the hills back up. I know people who will go as far east as Delta and take that, versus Gilbert or any of the other roadways.

 

According to the DOTE, there are a heavier amount of cyclists on Vine, when the surveys for the initial bike plan were being done.

 

And no one is really opposing the streetcar, Marshall, on the basis of cyclists. That's not what I, or others, have said. But it would be stupid to think that you need to ignore the needs of a growing transportation segment. I'm curious that if bike lanes are added on Vine, does that raise the cost of the project given that the roadway would need to be widened? At the least, the sharp bends would need to be softened.

 

I gave you credit for a rational response of bike lanes, I didn't say you opposed it. So don't put words in my mouth. But it sure looks like those bikers in Washington are very much opposed to their route since the case they are making in their lawsuit is that the city "ignored" the planning study when it suggested a different route as one way to address bike safety.

 

I will however point out the discrepancy when you say that many bikers avoid Vine because of leg strength (perfectly understandable) but then jjakucyk claims that most bikers would ignore a free streetcar ride up Vine. I cannot imagine that this would be true.

 

And if bike lanes could not be added to Vine because there simply is not enough space, I would hope the biking community would be rational enough to accept that as a reasonable excuse.

But isn't the negative of Vine that it doesn't have enough marketable properties - there is a whole stretch where the right side of the road is a school and a park. Couldn't you eliminate parking on those stretches and separate the streetcar and bicycles from car traffic?

But isn't the negative of Vine that it doesn't have enough marketable properties - there is a whole stretch where the right side of the road is a school and a park. Couldn't you eliminate parking on those stretches and separate the streetcar and bicycles from car traffic?

Or rather couldn't you eliminate parking for the stretches where the road cannot be widened, putting a bike lane/path there, then widening the road to support both parking and bikes where widening is possible?

I can bunnyhop a 12-pack of beer on my BMX and I'm not even in good cycling shape.

^ I don't know about separation, but I think bike lanes would be a higher and better use than a lane of parking on the east side of Vine, considering the existing uses.

 

Based on CAGIS, I'm getting a standard 60' ROW on Vine in front of the school, and about 38' curb to curb. You could take out a parking lane and add bike lanes, and be AASHTO compliant, to the inch, without rebuilding the curbs:

 

 

 

 

    I don't think a separate bike lane in the OTR section of Vine is appropriate. Traffic is already slow on Vine, and a bicycle should be able to ride in the center of the lane and keep up with traffic. A separate lane will make confusion more confused.

 

  There is a drawback associated with streetcar rails, and that is for bicycles coasting down Vine. They will just have to slow down and be more careful. At any other place, the rails shouldh't be an issue.

 

Why not just have the streetcar and bike lanes take separate paths up the hill? If the streetcar runs up Vine, add bike lanes on Clifton and/or Auburn, or even a side street like Loth with a fully separated path through Inwood Park.  Trying to have so many forms of transportation compete for the same space on such a steep hill, where speeds of bikes, cars, and the streetcar are going to vary much more dramatically than level surfaces, just seems a bit too precarious. 

 

    I don't think you want to go there. Prohibiting bicycles is like prohibiting firearms: you are going to make a certain special interest group very angry, to the point of holding up your streetcar project.

 

    Instead of banning bicycles, why not ban automobiles instead?  :lol:

 

    We could use MORE traffic on Vine Street, not less.

 

    For that matter, there should be bike racks at streetcar stops.

 

   

 

   

See that picture illustrates what I wish we could do with Vine Street in OTR.  I think it'd benefit from having 2-way streetcar traffic, then make it a sort of car-unfriendly zone, but still allowing all forms of traffic.  The way the sidewalk and bike lanes and roadway all sort of blend together is great for traffic calming, and it would really soften the environment. 

^

Except for banning cars (consider the people who live there), this is probably close to what you're going to have to do. Plus, build a fair amount of off-street parking every 800 or so feet between Clifton and McMillan - six or seven lots maybe. Not a lot of flat land to do that.

^ I don't know about separation, but I think bike lanes would be a higher and better use than a lane of parking on the east side of Vine, considering the existing uses.

 

Based on CAGIS, I'm getting a standard 60' ROW on Vine in front of the school, and about 38' curb to curb. You could take out a parking lane and add bike lanes, and be AASHTO compliant, to the inch, without rebuilding the curbs:

 

 

That's not a bad idea actually.

Yeah. I agree. I really like what you're proposing there, Civvik.

Does that bike lane cut through the curb or ramp up onto the curb?  Obviously we need to respect handicap accessibility.

^^That's a great idea, but wouldn't it make more sense to put to the bike lane next to the sidewalk so you have the line of parked cars as a buffer from the street?  Then you would also have less interference with the boarding stations.

Nooooo, because then you have no escape if a parked car opens a door...you either crash into the car/door or you flip over upon hitting the curb.  Whenever you have a bike lane on the curb with street parking, you need an extra buffer between the bike lane and the parked cars, like another 5-6 feet of unusable pavement.

^okay, what about having the bike lane be level with the sidewalk then so you can just jog over into the sidewalk if you need to avoid a door?

There's too many other things to hit, like utility poles, parking meters, sign posts, fire hydrants, garbage cans, whatever.  You also can't escape that the storm drains are also in that zone as well. 

^ Yes the bike lane would ramp up to the station bulb-out. Everything in the section is AASHTO and bike standard. The southbound bike lane is 5', the extra foot helps avoid car doors.

 

It's definitely a lot going on. In fact, it's about the maximum you would WANT going on. Here is an example in Portland:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.530034,-122.684892&spn=0,0.001742&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=45.53003,-122.685014&panoid=2lGRHYEfoXOjpu15IJm2ng&cbp=12,107.11,,0,21.14

Also keep in mind that a bicycle is a vehicle. While not as fast as a car, it is a machine, and can move pretty fast, and pose a danger to pedestrians. The parking lane serves as a buffer for pedestrians first and foremost.

To repeat: a totally insignificant number of people bicycle up and down the hills at present.  That's not going to increase with a streetcar.  This is a total non-issue. 

 

If the local "bicycling community" organizes in opposition to the streetcar, I'm going to be their worst enemy.  I have a helmet cam and know how to use it, aside from biking much more than almost any of them.  To recall a comment made by LinconKennedy, I grew up biking as real transportation in an environment both physically and culturally much more hostile to bicycling than Cincinnati proper or certainly the vicinity of the Seattle SLUT, and I never consciously thought about any of these minutia that the "bicycling community" is rallying around to raise their profile in Seattle.   

 

 

Jake, we're just trying to discuss the ways that this project can minimize the potential impact on cyclists, and maybe even help encourage more bike use along the corridor.  It looks like you're trying to pick a fight, but nobody's stepped up to the plate yet because there's nothing to fight over. 

Why are you so hostile Jake? No one here or anywhere has made any threat to organize opposition to the Cincinnati streetcar; in fact, Queen City Bike and other relevant organizations and clubs have shown their support for the streetcar proposal. But it is wise and thoughtful to consider ideas from these groups and individuals in the planning process for the streetcar, and not to outright dismiss them. The project should minimize impact to cyclists, and to help spur additional bicycle usage along the corridor, and the two can be mutually beneficial.

I think Jake's issue is less about bicyclists organizing in opposition and more about that Vine street probably does not need to be reconfigured to accommodate bicycles because there is not a significant amount of people that use that street as a bicycle route.

 

IMO I am opposed to removing on-street parking in favor of bike lanes.  On-street parking helps along with street trees to provide a better buffer from traffic for the pedestrian.  If we want to make Vine St even remotely attractive for any development improvement we have to remember that the streetcar is about increasing walking and biking for the casual person.  I for one, wouldn't bike up any of those hills unless I was training for something or in exceptional physical shape.  And if the streetcar is that much of a problem, Auburn Ave and W. Clifton both present adequate route alternatives.

The reason Vine is the best route for the streetcar (direct and the shallowest grade) also makes it the preferred route for cyclists.  Clifton might be ok for going downhill, though the sharp bend at Hastings is a little hairy.  Auburn isn't an option because it doesn't go down the hill.  Sycamore is basically impassible, and Highland/Liberty isn't much better. 

I think Jake and Sherman should settle this with a bicycle race up and down Vine.

I would pay to watch this!!

I think Jake and Sherman should settle this with a bicycle race up and down Vine.

 

Amen.

That would be hilarious. Actually, just come out to the Mayhem ride, Garfield statue 8 PM every Monday! Lots of chicks and guys with skinny tires with lightweights! :lol: 20 MPH minimum, 35 mile ride, easy stuff.

The reason Vine is the best route for the streetcar (direct and the shallowest grade) also makes it the preferred route for cyclists. Clifton might be ok for going downhill, though the sharp bend at Hastings is a little hairy. Auburn isn't an option because it doesn't go down the hill. Sycamore is basically impassible, and Highland/Liberty isn't much better.

 

when I was in my 20s and rode my bike more regularly, I always took Liberty to Highland to go up.  The combination of traffic and curves and the hill kept me off Vine.  Highland seemed the most gentle way to get to Clifton.  Today, I only travel flat ground.

I was reading up on some automobile news and came across this http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100601/RETAIL03/100609990/1186 article about the declining number of drivers licenses being issued.

 

A lot of interesting bits like:

"His theory is that almost everything about digital media and technology makes cars less desirable or useful and public transportation a lot more relevant."

 

"Real-estate markets that have been less affected or quicker to recover include Boston and San Francisco, which have strong urban rail systems. In New Jersey, Connecticut, Boston, Denver and Chicago, housing prices near new or existing train stations have either been among the first to recover or have seen less depreciation during the bursting of the housing bubble."

And this is on a auto news site.

 

I know my sister in Boston specifically picked a home in walking distance to a T station.

Hey, slackmar. Welcome to the forum!

 

That's a cool article, especially for being on an auto site. It's practically suicide for them to officially recognize (and thereby advertise) the shift! LOL

 

Anyway, since this is the Cincy Streetcar thread, that article is probably better posted in the Decline in Driving thread, since it doesn't directly relate to the streetcar. Thanks for sharing it, though.

^ Yes the bike lane would ramp up to the station bulb-out. Everything in the section is AASHTO and bike standard. The southbound bike lane is 5', the extra foot helps avoid car doors.

 

It's definitely a lot going on. In fact, it's about the maximum you would WANT going on. Here is an example in Portland:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.530034,-122.684892&spn=0,0.001742&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=45.53003,-122.685014&panoid=2lGRHYEfoXOjpu15IJm2ng&cbp=12,107.11,,0,21.14

 

Okay then.  Tough to tell in a rendering.  Looks great, though!

 

Actually, I like the one that you linked to even better, because the bike lane goes behind the streetcar stop, instead of between the stop and the train.

Hey, slackmar. Welcome to the forum!

 

That's a cool article, especially for being on an auto site. It's practically suicide for them to officially recognize (and thereby advertise) the shift! LOL

 

Anyway, since this is the Cincy Streetcar thread, that article is probably better posted in the Decline in Driving thread, since it doesn't directly relate to the streetcar. Thanks for sharing it, though.

Oh, I dunno about that. I think this article totally relates to the Cincinnati Streetcar. And helps to justify it. In fact, the Cincinnati Streetcar is mentioned in it.

I think jmeck is just emphasizing that having the Streetcar on Vine is far more important than any potential impact on cyclists, a non-trivial if redundant and perhaps generally accepted point.  If he's expressing any hostility it seems to me that it's toward the idea that cyclist need or even want separate lanes.  I'm sympathetic to that position, mostly because I don't think it's particularly hard to watch out for stuff as a cyclist, and because the bicycle lanes that do exist in Cincinnati are terrible and pointless (the recently added bike lanes between the 71 interchange and Madison Road on Dana are a perfect example).

 

That being said, I'm not sure what sort of grade is ideal for bikes or what, but there is certainly a ROW of two that could potentially be redeveloped for bikes- the old incline ROWs and Ohio Avenue Steps.  Not sure if it would work, or what would be done to make it work (particularly getting across Clifton Avenue) but those things are there.

 

Of course, cyclists could always travel from Clifton downtown by taking McMillan to Gilbert and then Gilbert downtown.  I hear the grade on Gilbert is even more comfortable than on Vine Street.

^

More comfortable for a streetcar too.

^Hook, line & sinker.

I'm sympathetic to that position, mostly because I don't think it's particularly hard to watch out for stuff as a cyclist, and because the bicycle lanes that do exist in Cincinnati are terrible and pointless (the recently added bike lanes between the 71 interchange and Madison Road on Dana are a perfect example).

 

That being said, I'm not sure what sort of grade is ideal for bikes or what, but there is certainly a ROW of two that could potentially be redeveloped for bikes- the old incline ROWs and Ohio Avenue Steps. Not sure if it would work, or what would be done to make it work (particularly getting across Clifton Avenue) but those things are there.

 

Of course, cyclists could always travel from Clifton downtown by taking McMillan to Gilbert and then Gilbert downtown. I hear the grade on Gilbert is even more comfortable than on Vine Street.

 

The lanes are useless when they are not properly planned -- e.g. Victory Parkway lanes. But in other spots, like along Erie Avenue, they serve as perfect climbing lanes. The ones on Dana are the first part of the lanes along the roadway from Madison to Xavier, and the remainder of Dana will be under construction for the next few months as the roadway is widened to accommodate the bike lanes and a center median. To the east, Erie and Observatory are both receiving bike lanes, so the Dana Avenue example is only isolated in that the remainder have not been finished yet. The newly paved roads still have temporary striping.

 

As for the climbing, I'm probably more aware of the grades than most on this board since I use a variety of routes to commute from downtown to Xavier. Vine, Sycamore, Liberty Hill, Reading, Gilbert and Eden Park are on my frequented route lists, and out of all those, Gilbert is the easiest and shortest for me. A minimal number of traffic lights, and a gentle but firm grade. Vine isn't terrible and I've never had an issue on it, but the traffic lights at the base really do add up time. Liberty Hill is easy for me, but it's steep but not all that long. Eden Park is easy for me since I can keep a steady and fast pace up the hill, but others will struggle, especially on the curves where it is two-lanes. I've been nearly smacked in the rear by a car on that curve twice.

 

There are alternatives, but they are not as convenient. When I'm too tired to climb the hills going from the basin to uptown, I usually just carry my lightweight up the Ohio Avenue steps.

My personal feeling is that bike lanes up the hill with the streetcar would complement it rather than be redundant. You can't control where people will bike, but you can provide them "an offer they can't refuse" with bike lanes if they choose for some reason to ride the streetcar route. If someone, even a child, were to coast down Vine and catch the track that's a pretty hard fall going downhill.

 

To me it just seems like a very easy thing to add, especially if you don't have to rebuild the curbs.

 

"To me it just seems like a very easy thing to add..."

 

  In my humble opinion, you underestimate the difficulty involved in making changes to established infrastructure. Nothing is easy.

 

  Adding streetcar rails and overhead wires is a very big deal; I think some folks on this board appreciate that. Adding special bike lanes, changing the parking situation and other modifications will only make a complicated project more complicated.

"To me it just seems like a very easy thing to add..."

 

  In my humble opinion, you underestimate the difficulty involved in making changes to established infrastructure. Nothing is easy.

 

   Adding streetcar rails and overhead wires is a very big deal; I think some folks on this board appreciate that. Adding special bike lanes, changing the parking situation and other modifications will only make a complicated project more complicated.

 

Utility relocations make everything horrifically more difficult. Modifying neglected signal timing to allow coordination for the streetcar is complicated. ADA compliance makes everything more complicated. The list can go on and on. This project is not just rails in the ground. It is a very complicated project. Nothing is truly easy.

Um, actually if you're not moving the curbs, redistributing lanes via new striping is easy. Trust me, I've worked on plenty of one way conversions, road diets and bike lane retrofitting. We had municipalities do "paint only" projects specifically to avoid the difficulty and cost of curb reconstruction and moving utilities.

Yes, but those aren't streetcar systems. Rails impact utilities. Full depth reconstruction to accommodate the concrete around the rails impacts utilities. My experiences also suggest that restriping projects can also be complicated. Having the right crew makes all the difference in the world. As someone who works for a government agency, I can assure you that simple restriping projects can be anything but simple.