I think the "new questions" are supposed to elicit thoughts on how should it be run and what is the best way to make the system successful.  Just because it's running doesn't mean it can't be screwed up enough that it won't work (fares, schedules, etc.).

I think you're giving the Enquirer waaaay too much credit.

Just because it's running doesn't mean it can't be screwed up enough that it won't work (fares, schedules, etc.).

 

That's a good point.  We need only look at Metro and TANK for examples of how the same idea applies to bus systems.

I think the "new questions" are supposed to elicit thoughts on how should it be run and what is the best way to make the system successful.  Just because it's running doesn't mean it can't be screwed up enough that it won't work (fares, schedules, etc.).

 

I think that one of the problems is that to this point the focus of the Enquirer's articles on the streetcar have been the issue of "why is the city (Mallory and certain counsel members) pushing for the streetcar?"  I mean 90% of the articles about the streetcar over the past several years have been to report on criticism of the idea of building the streetcar. They have run very few articles that simply provide information about the proposal such as location of stops, proposed routes, schedules, fares etc.  In contrast, the Enquirer's reporting on QCS has mostly been informational on the building (size, construction schedule, tenants, etc.)  So the casual Enquirer reader can be forgiven for thinking that the streetcar supporters havent provided this information. 

 

In other words it is the Enquirer's fault.

^ Great observation.

How can they screw up the operating portion at this point? There is a sound enough plan in place that if the announced number of vehicles are put in place, its not like a bus route where someone is going to decide to cut service to a geographical area. It is static in that regard. Headways are going to be reasonable and robust neough to plan your daily habits around.

 

As far as operational snafus, at this point not purchasing enough vehicles or being able to employ enough people (not going to be an issue) are the big things I can think of that would smoosh this. There are smart enough people working on what lanes it will operate in or traffic signalling. And if not, well those kinks will work out in the beginning phases of operation anyway.

^ Fare policy and enforcement and integration with Metro would seem to be the biggest questions to me. And they're operating too many hours a day, at least to start -- like, do you think there will be a lot of riders at 6:00a on Sunday? Think it needs to run until 1:00a weekdays?

Maybe, maybe not.  It's been documented that owl service, while it may not carry many riders at those late hours, supports other trips during busier times of the day.  If the drunk college student or the janitor working second shift can't get home because there's no service, they're likely not going to bother using the system at all.  It's not just the late night fare to get home that's lost, it's the afternoon/evening fare to get there too. 

True, but people are talking about initial service.

Ok, so instead of losing those fares, you never get them in the first place.  I know it's a chicken and the egg situation, and it certainly requires some study to find that right sweet spot.  My gut feeling is that late night service is more valuable than early morning Sunday service, considering the residents and businesses along the line.

It would be smart to have later-night service on the weekends at the very least.  In Washington, DC Metro shut down at midnight during the week (may have changed since I lived there).  This made weeknight carousing a little more pleasant as you stopped early to get home. 

I would suggest something along these lines if you want to average an 18 hour service day

 

M-H: 6a-12a

F: 6a-2a

S: 8a-2a

U: 8a-10p

excuse my ignorance but what is that m-h f s and u ?

 

excuse my ignorance but what is that m-h f s and u ?

 

 

Lol, it took me a bit too...those are really short abbreviations for the days of the week.  M-Monday, T-Tuesday, W-Wednesday, H-THursday, F-Friday, S-Saturday, and U-SUnday.

Never seen H used before, always R.  Interesting.  In my opinion, Sunday nights should be treated like a weeknight, with service until midnight.  In thomasbw's example, that would take us to starting times of 6 or 8, and stopping times of 12 or 2; much easier to manage mentally.

Would running it to 2:30am on weekends pick up more of the bar crowd instead of the proposed 2am?  Or is it a wash?

^ Is this a legitimate public purpose? Just framing from the perspective of an average Cincinnatian.

In the interest of reducing the number of drunk driving accidents and public safety.  Perhaps.

Also, a big reason this is going up the hill is tie the campus district more closely to downtown and while some might use it for the downtown library or the Contemporary Art Center, I'd imagine it would get a very good use on weekend very late nights. Also, running to 2:30 or even 3:00 would allow workers at downtown establishments to take it home (I'd guess but have no idea that a fair number of folks who live around UC work in the entertainment sector dt).

Here's when the Portland Streetcar operates:

 

5:30am to 11:30pm Monday-Friday

7:15am to 11:45pm Saturday

7:15am to 10:30pm Sunday

 

Portland's had nine years to experiment with this schedule, and so I assume it's perfected by now. And Portland's bar/restaurant scene is much more robust than Cincinnati's - can't remember the closing hours, but it's pretty late and we've closed a few over the years. Portland's downtown population appears to be a lot younger than Cincinnati's, and the streetcar passes through the largest college campus in Oregon. Ten thousand people live in the Pearl District alone, probably at least 5,000 more in downtown, around Portland State and at the South Waterfront. And Portland Streetcar Inc. seems to have adequate funding for operations.

 

I've been on the last streetcar of the day in Portland many times, and seldom see more than a handful of passengers unless I'm leading a group that's ending up its tour for the day. I also ride it a lot on Saturday and sometimes on Sunday mornings. Again, hardly anyone ever on it until 9:00a or after.

 

There are always trade-offs. Do you want greater frequency of service, longer hours or operation, or lower fares? To me, just from experience, after-midnight operation seems to be a stretch. There are always cabs for that.

 

 

Depends on demand and how vibrant the area is. 

^^One difference will be the largest attraction on each city's line.  For Portland I would guess it is Powell's or a performing arts venue of some sort.  For us it will be Casino which is a later night type attraction.

^ I wonder how many casino players would use public transportation. The Las Vegas Monorail, which connects directly to many of the casinos on the Strip never achieved even half its projected ridership, defaulted on its bonds, and is now in receivership.

 

^John, in your opinion, do you think the streetcar will have more appeal though than a system like the vegas monorail? I'm not too familiar with the monorail, but the streetcar being right at street level and seeming somewhat more easy to navigate and board would seem to me to be less intimidating of a public transit option.

 

^^One difference will be the largest attraction on each city's line. For Portland I would guess it is Powell's or a performing arts venue of some sort. For us it will be Casino which is a later night type attraction.

 

Personally, I think the streetcar is going to help immensely with Reds and Bengals game. Biggest attraction on the line? I don't know, there are many, but as someone who has attended 18 Reds home games so far this season and usually partakes in enjoying an alcoholic beverage or two, the streetcar is going to be an awesome way to get from the stadium to various bars to celebrate a Reds victory.

 

Earlier in the summer I went to the Famous Neon's Unplugged, my new favorite bar in the city and was planning to attend a Reds game with friends after. As a responsible adult, I felt it was not in my best interest to drive from 12th street to somewhere on the riverfront and pay an  audacious amount for parking. I have no problem walking, but it was incredibly hot. I ended up splitting a cap with some nice random folks and that was great. After the game I tried to convince some friends to walk with me back to Neon's, they were not interested in the walk though or splitting a cab. I made the walk, the whole time thinking about how I couldn't wait for the streetcar.

 

 

The Vegas monorail travels behind the casinos on one side of the Strip.  From what I know of it it was privately built and operated and so charged $5/ride.  At that point a cab is really competitive, especially for a group. 

^John, in your opinion, do you think the streetcar will have more appeal though than a system like the vegas monorail? I'm not too familiar with the monorail, but the streetcar being right at street level and seeming somewhat more easy to navigate and board would seem to me to be less intimidating of a public transit option.

 

^^One difference will be the largest attraction on each city's line. For Portland I would guess it is Powell's or a performing arts venue of some sort. For us it will be Casino which is a later night type attraction.

 

Personally, I think the streetcar is going to help immensely with Reds and Bengals game. Biggest attraction on the line? I don't know, there are many, but as someone who has attended 18 Reds home games so far this season and usually partakes in enjoying an alcoholic beverage or two, the streetcar is going to be an awesome way to get from the stadium to various bars to celebrate a Reds victory.

 

Earlier in the summer I went to the Famous Neon's Unplugged, my new favorite bar in the city and was planning to attend a Reds game with friends after. As a responsible adult, I felt it was not in my best interest to drive from 12th street to somewhere on the riverfront and pay an audacious amount for parking. I have no problem walking, but it was incredibly hot. I ended up splitting a cap with some nice random folks and that was great. After the game I tried to convince some friends to walk with me back to Neon's, they were not interested in the walk though or splitting a cab. I made the walk, the whole time thinking about how I couldn't wait for the streetcar.

 

 

 

I doubt monorails are our future. We need to restore the level of life to grade in our city. I'm guessing the skywalk system in Cincinnati will gradually be taken down as parts of it need substantial repairs and few people will see the need to keep it going. I hope so. I know lots of people who hope so.

 

The consultants don't think the streetcar will be heavily used by Reds and Bengals fans. I forget the number of projected game-day passengers -- it's in the report on the City's site -- but it's expected to be less than 1% of attendees for both. I think they're wrong. They're using a "limit model" which assumes that everyone will only want to come an hour or less before the game and leave immediately after. So ridership is limited by the capacity of the several cars that would travel in those narrow time frames. But I can imagine a lot of people coming to the new beer garden or just enjoying the new park before and after the game, kind of drifting in and out of the riverfront precinct over a long period of time. That was always the idea behind the Banks -- to prolong visits and capture more dollars in the city. I can really see the incentive for Bengals games -- parking for free in OTR and avoiding $20 parking charges near PBS. And what kid wouldn't want to go to a Reds game on a train? From time-to-time, there are stories of SuperBowls held in modern light rail cities where a huge percentage of fans come by train -- like 25 to 50%. So I agree with you.

 

On the episodic example you gave of a late  night walk that could have been avoided by the presence of a streetcar, I don't doubt that will happen. But this is sort of the converse of the argument for high-capacity transit serving our stadia. To run rail efficiently, you need high volumes most of the time. Especially with a piece of equipment that probably costs $150 an hour or so to run. Have three of them running until the bars close, that's $500 an hour. I doubt the benefits of accomodating those kind of one-off trips come anywhere near covering the costs.

 

And here's the real risk. If the ridership turns out to be scarce at late at night, management will take notice, and sooner or later, the hours will be cut back. Then you'll wake up to this Enquirer headline: "Low ridership forces streetcar service cutbacks." Anybody want to take that risk?

 

Better to start with a more conservative schedule so we get this kind of headline" "Streetcar expanding hours of operation."

 

 

  "Portland's downtown population appears to be a lot younger than Cincinnati's"

 

  I told you Portland is different. In my humble opinion, the percentage of foreign-born residents is the more telling statistic, but a demographic comparison reveals some striking differences.

 

    Just wanted to note that. Carry on.

 

   

I think it would be wise to understand that Portland had smaller hurdles than Cincinnati has.  Check out a map of the Portland streetcar here: http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/map.php

 

One could compare Portland State to UC but really, their position on the route and the geography of the area contribute to totally different interactions to the streetcars, I presume.

 

All that being said, Cincinnati has some major leverage along its route if it can successfully bridge the gap from downtown to UC.

I agree completely.  I was living in Boston when the T's "Night Owl" bus service was started, which ran buses on the weekend overnights above the subway lines.  It was a disaster at the beginning because it turned out nobody knew quite where the subway actually physically was because the entrances could be more than a block and perpendicular to the tunnels.  There was little signage and people all ended up just hopping in cabs. 

 

 

Have they looking into a route along Central Pky connecting with Cincinnati state then up to UC? The hill is more gradual than Vine St.

^But there are probably fewer destinations along a Central Parkway route than any other option, until you get to Cincinnati State. It's very much low-density development.

 

  ^--- A route along Central Parkway to MLK Drive to U.C. was proposed in 1976; the only difference was that the subway was proposed instead of a surface route.

 

  The intersections of Central Parkway and Hopple and Central Parkway and MLK are two of the highest traffic intersections in Hamilton County, and two of the highest accident intersections. Adding rail to those intersections will only make things worse.

 

    Indeed, a Ludlow Avenue route would have a lower grade than Vine Street, but look how much farther it is!  A different route between Northside and U.C. via Ludlow may be appropriate, but not a route between downtown and Cincinnati via Ludlow. Any of the present bus routes would be faster!

Current plans for MLK/Central Parkway are an overpass of Central Parkway.

It's still a completely backwards way to get to UC from downtown. 

 

   ^--- A route along Central Parkway to MLK Drive to U.C. was proposed in 1976; the only difference was that the subway was proposed instead of a surface route.

 

   The intersections of Central Parkway and Hopple and Central Parkway and MLK are two of the highest traffic intersections in Hamilton County, and two of the highest accident intersections. Adding rail to those intersections will only make things worse.

 

    Indeed, a Ludlow Avenue route would have a lower grade than Vine Street, but look how much farther it is!  A different route between Northside and U.C. via Ludlow may be appropriate, but not a route between downtown and Cincinnati via Ludlow. Any of the present bus routes would be faster!

Isn't one of the things for the street car is to reduce traffic? I could see high rises along Central Parkway being built if a line went through the area. The distance maybe longer but the streetcar can travel at a faster speed through this stretch.

See this article regarding transit and reducing traffic: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion.html

^Was just about to post the same article.

 

Mass transit doesn't do much for reducing traffic but instead allows for increased density.

A Central Parkway route wouldn't work because the weight limits on Central are too low due to the subway tunnels.  Although, I lived just west of the UC campus near Probasco and Marshall to Central Parkway was the way I always took to get downtown.  Backwards or not, it was the quickest way to get there. 

Except Probasco, Marshall, Riddle, Straight, MLK, etc., are too steep to get a streetcar to UC from Central Parkway.  If you already live half way down the hill at Probasco and Marshall then it's easy to get downtown via Central Parkway like the subway planned, or like the old streetcar line on McMicken, but it still doesn't serve UC at all. 

I don't think there's any issue with the subway tunnels not being able to support streetcars or light rail trains.  This past year they had heavy equipment sitting on top of the tunnels for months as part of the joint reconstruction project. 

 

Sometimes you hear claims that the subway was built cheaply as part of a scam, but from what I've seen that's not correct.  Specifically there was a shortage in nearly every construction material in 1920 -- steel, concrete, even lime and burlap -- and they were not able to get concrete or rebar of the exact specs called for in the construction contracts.  Basically for the stuff built in 1920, they substituted a cheaper rebar but more of it, which increased labor costs but decreased material costs.  This happens all the time on construction projects.     

The time to ask this question was three years ago- http://cincinnati.com/blogs/opinionati/2010/07/26/routing-the-streetcar-whats-best-for-cincinnati/

The time to ask this question was three years ago- http://cincinnati.com/blogs/opinionati/2010/07/26/routing-the-streetcar-whats-best-for-cincinnati/

 

Since they know project will be built, the naysayers are now jumping on board and trying to dictate where it should go.  I don't know if that is a tactic to stall the project in the hopes that it will ultimately not get built but its getting to be absurd.  The 1st phase has been studied, critiqued by all, and nitpicked ad nauseam for years.  They had their chance to add their two cents.  Instead, they spent it deriding the project, using misinformation to scare people, and calling everyone names.  I don't know about Mcknight's prior position, but judging on his previous letters to the Enquirer, I would venture to guess he was/is against the streetcar project.  I also don't know why the Enquirer picked him out of everyone in the area to quote.  If he is sincere in his critique of the plan, I sincerely apologize.  But given the Enquirer's track record against this project, I have my doubts

^ Remember: whatever the plan is, they will always demand another plan.

That plan is only marginally more useful than the Detroit Peoplemover. 

Except Probasco, Marshall, Riddle, Straight, MLK, etc., are too steep to get a streetcar to UC from Central Parkway. If you already live half way down the hill at Probasco and Marshall then it's easy to get downtown via Central Parkway like the subway planned, or like the old streetcar line on McMicken, but it still doesn't serve UC at all.

 

The only street that seems at a cursory glance to be gradual enough to take accomodate a Streetcar up from Central Parkway in that area is Lowell, which doesn't actually connect to CP but dead ends where the Frisch's is.  But obviously that is a silly way to get to downtown, and doesn't serve the University well either.

^ McMicken to McMillan to Hughes Corner is very doable. In fact, were it not for the additional cost -- an extra two miles of track -- it scores highest among all the alternatives.

Just to refresh our memories of how far we've come ...

 

U.S. and Canadian Streetcar and Light Rail Cities

 

Systems Now in Operation:

 

1) Baltimore

2) Boston

3) Buffalo

4) Calgary

5) Camden/Trenton

6) Charlotte

7) Cleveland

8) Dallas

9) Denver

10) Edmonton

11) Houston

12) Kenosha

13) Little Rock

14) Los Angeles

15) Memphis

16) Minneapolis

17) Newark

18) New Orleans

19) Northern New Jersey

20) Philadelphia

21) Phoenix

22) Pittsburgh

23) Portland

24) Sacramento

25) St. Louis

26) Salt Lake City

27) San Diego

28) San Francisco

29) San Jose

30) San Juan

31) Seattle

32) Tacoma

33) Tampa

34) Toronto

 

Systems under Construction:

 

1) Norfolk

2) Tucson

3)  Washington D.C.

Sheriff Leis supports the streetcar- http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100726/EDIT02/7270358/Sheriff-Leis-I-support-streetcars

^I think that is huge.

Well I was gonna do an over/under of 10 comments with COAST (how many posts before COAST chimed in the comment section) and on that comment whether or not they use the word "boondoggle".  Looks like I was too late.  COAST was the first comment and said something about the sheriff always liking tax paid boondoggles