^ They were recently appraised to be worth about $100 million for transit purposes. Offsetting that found money would be the cost to make them compliant with ADA and install ventilation, lighting, whatever. In the aggregate, that wouldn't wipe out the $100 million value of the tunnels, but it would materially reduce it.

 

Then there's this ... which part of Cincinnati would the tunnels serve? They're undoubtedly ideal for accessing the west side. But if you wanted to get to I-75 -- which would likely be built sooner -- we'd be better off with David Cole's plan to connect to I-75 at Mitchell via a series of tunnels (not a subway, per se) through Mt. Auburn, maybe some street-running around UC and another tunnel down through the Vine Street hill. It's a staright-line route that connects a lot of dots and gets you to, say, Tri-County, faster than the roundabout Central Parkway route. Or, if that were cost-prohibitive, a surface alignment using mostly Gilbert to Xavier, connecting to I-75 around Elmwood Place. Bottom line, I doubt the tunnels pencil out in the near future, though they're worth preserving. Ten-dollar gas someday may make a lot of this stuff feasible.

The change has to happen on the federal level before Cincinnati and other American cities start building extensive subways again.  The only time the federal government threw the kind of money that they threw at highways was during the 1970's.  It was a very brief period and only a few cities benefited while everyone else paid in, including us.  The whole move to the light rail mode by the early 1980s came as a result of federal funding cutbacks.  The streetcar phenomenon is quite separate from the move to light rail, since it is being initiated by cities themselves on its own merits, not as a substitute for fully grade separated regional rail transit systems like BART or the Washington Metro.   

 

The water main issue is a non-issue.  That water main was thrown in there back in the 50's so people could say we can't use it because it costs too much to move the water main.  That cost would be miniscule compared to the overall cost of a regional rail system and would be borne by the Waterworks anyway.  Also, the cost of building a 1/2 mile subway under Walnut can't be justified from West Side ridership alone, but if that part is combined with trains from UC, then a more serious conversation can take place.  That 1/2 mile tunnel would cost somewhere between $300-$500 million in today's money, or about the cost of a stadium or 1/6th of the new Brent Spence Bridge.   

 

Again, there was never any city ordinance preventing streetcars from being built on Central Parkway.  It was part of the lease of the canal from the state, and was according to what I've found motivated by the 1910-era campaign by the Association for the Improvement of the Canal, which succeeded in winning the lease in 1911.  They wanted this condition to be included as part of the lease in order to prevent it from being changed easily at the local level.  Basically the guys with property along the canal wanted to be able to sell it with the guarantee that it would become a parkway in order to command the highest property values possible.  There was a huge fear that the city would forfeit the lease due to some technical slip-up and lose control of the canal back to the state, as happened to Eggleston Avenue in the 1860's.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  "Ten-dollar gas someday may make a lot of this stuff feasible."

 

    This is a topic for another forum, but ten-dollar gas someday will more likely make a lot of this stuff unaffordable. 

Europe has $10 gas yet they are building new subway lines all the time. 

Aspects of this discussion has led me to believe that a double tracked 12th street alignment would be best.

I'm also doubtful that we'll ever see the Central Parkway tunnels used for trains. Subways are today only being constructed in principal cities of the world, and even that's become a formidable task -- see: NYC's Second Avenue Subway or LA's "Subway to the Sea." Not likely for Cincinnati because you'd still have to build new tunnels all the way through the CBD south from Central Parkway at $200 million a mile. Or more. Plus I dunno where you install the subway entrances and elevators along downtown's thirteen-foot-wide sidewalks. Not happening any time soon.

 

Correction:  Pittsburgh is currently building a subway extension under the river, and Pittsburgh is probably the most similar city Cincinnati has.  I agree that it's highly doubtful, but don't say never.

I'm also doubtful that we'll ever see the Central Parkway tunnels used for trains. Subways are today only being constructed in principal cities of the world, and even that's become a formidable task -- see: NYC's Second Avenue Subway or LA's "Subway to the Sea." Not likely for Cincinnati because you'd still have to build new tunnels all the way through the CBD south from Central Parkway at $200 million a mile. Or more. Plus I dunno where you install the subway entrances and elevators along downtown's thirteen-foot-wide sidewalks. Not happening any time soon.

 

Correction: Pittsburgh is currently building a subway extension under the river, and Pittsburgh is probably the most similar city Cincinnati has. I agree that it's highly doubtful, but don't say never.

 

A subway compared to a simple tunnel is a distinction with a difference.

 

When I think of a tunnel, it's something you have to build to get through a natural barrier like a mountain or a river. Generally, there's no station within the tunnel, hence no ADA, lighting or ventilation. Just a round bore hole with tracks and electrification in it.

 

Subways are quite different. They usually run under streets and so lots of deep utilities need to be moved. The costs  to maintain continuous movement of traffic above and access to adjacent businesses are significant. And they are active places, needing lots more investment than a tunnel if you're going to have people actually going down into them and boarding a train.

Don’t a lot of the light rail plans call for use of the existing tunnels? I seem to remember light rail using the tunnels, but limited new construction of subway.  Trains from the west side would stop at Race St. and people would transfer to the streetcar to get to destinations around the basin.  I would think with streetcar service, Liberty and Race would be the only stations necessary along the existing tunnels. The west side line could just terminate at Race St, since there’s enough room down there to switch tracks and head back out in the opposite direction.

 

Also, depending on the extent of renovations, existing stations wouldn’t have to be made ADA compliant. Although it wouldn’t be much trouble to add an elevator to one or two of the stations, particularly Race St (since it’s a center platform, it’d only need 1 elevator).

 

MetroMoves had the I-74 line using the tunnels with a couple of stations between downtown and the Western Hills Viaduct. The trains in the tunnels would have surfaced to meet up with tracks to be built on Main and Walnut leading into the CBD.

 

This was the truly ironic thing about re-using the tunnels -- you'd be running in a grade-separated configuration on Central Parkway where there's not a lot of traffic but then in mixed-traffic on streets through the core of downtown.

 

Also, SORTA estimated the tunnels to be "worth" $250 million in 2002. Turns out, they're worth a lot less.

 

We need to look at the tunnels in context. They were built at a time when Central Parkway -- before I-75 -- was a principal artery of our city. Not so much anymore. I doubt that anyone planning to build rail on Central Parkway today would call for new tunnels to be built there if they weren't there already.

 

I don't want to beat up on the Central Parkway tunnels. But they were built under a different set of circumstances for a much more dense central city. Jake, jump in here ... enlighten us.

  "Europe has $10 gas yet they are building new subway lines all the time."

 

  The reason why they have $10 gas is because most of it is taxes, and furthermore, they use that tax revenue to build rail, not just highways. I think that the single most important difference between the United States and Europe in terms of transportation is the difference in the way that fuel is taxed. Here, highways have an artificial advantage due to the funding situation; there, railroads do. 

 

  If our gasoline goes up to $10, Europe's will go up to $20, unless they change their tax policy.

In Europe much of the fuel tax is a VAT tax, which is typically 17%-19%, or typically at least 10% higher than most state sales taxes in the United States.  This tax fluctuates along with the price of gasoline, unlike the dumb way we do it here with a flat 18 cent per gallon federal tax (which, incidentally, hasn't been raised in almost 20 years despite inflation) and then a state tax that varies between 8 cents per gallon in Alaska to 43(?) cents per gallon in California.  Ohio's is around 24 cents per gallon. 

 

Obviously, if prices spike, driving goes down. The way Europe does it mitigates the loss in revenue due to the loss in miles driven and compensates for inflation.  Also, the actual cost of oil refined into gasoline and the cost of delivering it to gas stations is higher there than here.  The volume of gasoline used there is lower per capita, therefore the same investments in distribution pipelines haven't been made, therefore the price of the product is higher.   

 

John I think the reason why the estimated value of the subway tunnels is lower than what anyone expected is that that our subway was, by a long shot, the cheapest ever built.  Aside from the east-west section of Central Parkway, the canal acted as a utility barrier, and sewers and other utilities crossed beneath it at only a few locations north of the bend.  This meant building the subway in place of the canal was the same as building it across a pasture, or maybe even less, since the materials and crew could walk to work.  It cost about 1/3 per foot compared to subway construction under typical city streets. 

 

 

^Why would original cost to construct affect the tunnels' present day value?  It seems like they would assess materials used, current condition, and current cost to construct in the appraisal, but I'm no expert on this subject.  Unless they simply take the amount we paid for them originally and adjust for inflation...

^Im guessing that how much it would cost to move the huge water main and dig up another area and place it some where else.

I'd add to the Euro argument that they use diesel at much higher rates for their cars, which has a much higher energy density that gasoline (i.e. they get better gas mileage). Diesel has real problems because California has made it nearly impossible to make diesel engines that are affordable and pass emission standards.

I rented a "new" Honda Civic Diesel 6-speed in Germany two years ago.  The only reason I knew it was diesel was the stickers on the fuel filler and the smell when I opened the cap.  Considering performance, exhaust, noise -- the things people usually dislike about diesels -- I wouldn't have known it was a diesel. 

 

I also suspect (but have no proof) that Europe's emission requirements are in line with California's. 

We're still talking about the water main?  I think this shows just how valuable it was as a political tool to kill the subway. 

 

I believe the URS study from 2008 pegged the cost at $15 million.  It would cost upwards of $300-400 million to build a line from downtown to Western Hills on the C&O line or on I-74 to Harrison Avenue -- more if a downtown subway is built.  Its not a major cost relative to the rest of any conceivable project.  And it would be paid by the Waterworks, as I stated previously, which is supported by its own income outside that of City Hall. 

 

^You're still using facts and actual research to refute groundless pontificating?  I'll pray for you.  In nomine patri, filli et spiritus sanctus.

 

Seriously though, is the C&O line still intact and unbuilt?  I've probably asked this of you before.

I think parts of the C&O line were sold off piecemeal, but Jake would know more about that than I

^You're still using facts and actual research to refute groundless pontificating?  I'll pray for you.  In nomine patri, filli et spiritus sanctus.

 

Seriously though, is the C&O line still intact and unbuilt?  I've probably asked this of you before.

 

Being a Westsider and knowing where the C&O traveled, I can tell you that while large portions are still undeveloped, a couple major sites are now developed. The first is where the train yard was, where Glenway and Crookshank meet. Now the site of the Applebees, abandoned Target store, and some other various retail. Across the road from that, the route up the hill is blocked now by the Western Hills Walmart complex.

 

Additionally, the route crossed Glenway near Westbourne and at Bridgetown, this entire stretch has been developed since.

 

Aside from those spots the line looks like it is in pretty good shape from a development standpoint. (at least from satellite views). I don't know who owns any of the old ROW and I'd bet it would be more difficult to convince anyone on the west side that opening the C&O line back up would be a good idea. It was not exactly aesthetically pleasing when it was open. Also, to get it back up, I'm guessing it would now need to be rerouted around western hills in some way to get to Dent / Bridgetown where the old ROW looks to be in better shape and could be potentially usable.

 

  The important thing about the fuel tax difference is this:

 

  1. The final cost of fuel including taxes is higher in Europe than it is in the United States. This will discourage more people from driving in Europe compared to the United States.

 

  2. A portion of the fuel tax revenues in Europe are used to fund rail transit, which encourages more people to use transit. A portion of the fuel tax revenues in the United States are used to fun highways, which encourages more people to drive.

 

    I don't think that planners, engineers, etc., are any smarter in Europe for constructing more transit, but they have a fundamentally different perspective based on the fuel tax. Besides the fuel tax, there are other factors, of course. If the real world was SimCity, we could turn back the clock and reverse the tax policy and see what happens.

 

    Back to streetcars, streetcars in Europe are a whole lot more effective when they are complimented by high speed rail, regional transit, etc. The same streetcar in Europe will do a whole lot better than the Cincinnati streetcar due to the rest of the environment.

 

 

I rented a "new" Honda Civic Diesel 6-speed in Germany two years ago.  The only reason I knew it was diesel was the stickers on the fuel filler and the smell when I opened the cap.  Considering performance, exhaust, noise -- the things people usually dislike about diesels -- I wouldn't have known it was a diesel. 

 

I also suspect (but have no proof) that Europe's emission requirements are in line with California's. 

 

Overall, they are slightly less stringent than the U.S., but Europe is more stringent on some aspects of emissions where the U.S. including California is more lenient. California just has it out for diesel because of soot. Europe can get away with dirtier emissions standards because on average their cars use a lot less fuel than ours and spend less time on the road. They don't have to drive everywhere. They even still sell two stroke street bikes and have street legal quads.

On another note, when will the TRAC II and TIGER II grant decisions be announced?

The Alliance for Regional Transit is leading its 30th trip to Portland on October 22nd -- streetcars and light rail. Airfares are cheap, the hotel's cheap. Write if you'd like to go.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24490

 

USDOT notes 'overwhelming' response to call for TIGER II grant applications

Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) received about 1,000 applications for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II grants citing projects worth more than $19 billion. Applications poured in from all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.

The Alliance for Regional Transit is leading its 30th trip to Portland on October 22nd -- streetcars and light rail. Airfares are cheap, the hotel's cheap. Write if you'd like to go.

 

I would highly recommend going out to Portland to see the streetcar and their light rail and tram systems for yourself.  John leads a great tour and there are plenty of things to explore out there. 

Anyone know of Melissa Kramer? She wrote "The inclines of Cincinnati". She was murdered.

That is very tragic, unusualfire, I read that story the other day but did not correlate it.

Unusualfire that's tragic news.  Did you know her personally?

Casino $$ goes to streetcars and the fish wrap cries foul:

 

Casino to pay for streetcars

 

By Jane Prendergast • [email protected]  • September 30, 2010

 

Up to a quarter of the $20 million a year Cincinnati expects to get from the casino will be spent to operate the streetcar.

 

The money won’t start flowing in until 2013, but City Council on Wednesday – in a meeting full of confusion and delays – set its priorities for spending it.

 

Half the revenue will go to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for economic development projects. That was expected because the measure passed out of committee Monday.

Casino to pay for streetcars

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100930/NEWS0108/309300053/Casino-to-pay-for-streetcars

 

"Up to a quarter of the $20 million a year Cincinnati expects to get from the casino will be spent to operate the streetcar...Half the revenue will go to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for economic development projects. That was expected because the measure passed out of committee Monday."

 

This is the epitome of what is wrong with modern journalism. Instead of putting what the majority of the revenue will be spent on, or listing a few or all five of the programs it will fund, the enquirer puts the most controversial program in the headline. It's such a shame that journalism is no longer about the facts,but instead about getting higher readership.

Our great Mayor is kicking ass for this city and couldnt care less what the old Republicans at the Enquirer say about it. 

^ They're focusing on the issue that the public cares most about.  And of all the people I know that work for the enquirer, none of them are Republicans.

^Do you know members of the editorial board?

 

It's questionable that this is the "issue the public cares most about," but even if that were true, the headline is still wrong.  To pay for streetcarS speaks of paying for the actual cars themselves.  Those will certainly be paid for by capital funds, and it's clear from the body of the article that the Casino funds will go to operating the system.  In fact, it says just that in the first line in the body of the article!  At the very least, they've got bad copy editors in the Headline Department over there.  At worst they are doing exactly what bbrown claims.

Great. So the city decides to violate the Open Meetings law (aka "Sunshine Law") and has attempted to decide what is best for the city without public input or a public agenda. People don't seem to care that the law was violated, and that there are inconsistencies with the process. Sure, it is a win for the streetcar, but this is going to be (rightfully) challenged, and I hope that it does. I don't mind the money being diverted from the casino revenues to help pay for a streetcar, but for sculptures? Caps? Can we use the money to help pay off the ailing stadium fund? What about pensions? Isn't there more pressing matters?

Isn't the stadium fund something that the County is responsible for?

 

I'd like to see the exact wording of the Open Meetings Law because in the article the Enquirer stops from claiming outright that it's a violation:

"Those meetings might have violated Ohio’s open meetings law."  Key word is might.  The Attorney for the Enquirer is unsure but the article implies heavily that there is a violation.  Implications that have basis in suspicion and not facts.

 

Then there is this little gem at the end, "City Council’s votes were taken on motions rather than ordinances. Motions are not binding, which means that by the time the money comes in, council members and the mayor at the time could change the priorities."  It's basically an admission that this is not binding.  Therefore there may be no issue.  If it was an ordinance this would be a huge problem. 

^^Why would the City pay for the County owned stadiums?  I suppose the City could pay the County for more ownership in things that have joint City/County ownership, such as Union Terminal.  Nevertheless, the County is independently getting $6 million a year from the Casino, which gives the City even less cause to give them anything.

 

Public input comes every other year when people elect their Council members, whenever they go to a council meeting to speak, and when they petition their members individually.  Those things haven't changed.  In addition, this is a non-binding motion, not an ordinance.  So really the only thing that is happening is that all Council members are taking positions on what the revenue should be spent when it starts arriving in 2013.  They are actually taking positions on which voters can judge them next year.

 

Even if it were an ordinance though, it could be revoked by another ordinance.

I'd like to see the exact wording of the Open Meetings Law 

 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/121.22

 

The definitions are in subsection (B).  The general standard is in subsection ©.  And the exceptions follow.  Note that subsection (A) demands that the section be "liberally construed" in favor of open meetings, so any doubts should be resolved against doing business out of the public eye.  That said, there are many, many scenarios where a public body can hold a meeting in private.  Two types of challenges typically arise - (1) whether the meeting had to be public; and (2) whether the public body followed proper protocol to make the meeting private.

 

There may also be applicable provisions of Cincy's charter and/or ordinances that might need to be taken into account.

I don't see why they didn't just do it in the public eye, if they knew this was an issue. The members could still have voted in the way they did, anyway. Likely, with the support of Thomas.

 

I don't know enough to really judge the merits of the Enquirer's complaints, but even if their claim is legitimate, I find it curious that this is something they want to be sticklers about (particularly since it's non-binding), when they are such a horrible soldier for the public most of the time.

 

As for the actual content of what they voted for, two things come to mind. One is that making FWW caps a priority is GREAT. The other is that the proximity of the FWW caps and the sculpture funding in the same motion makes me giddy, as I've mentioned a few times in the FWW capping thread that I would like to see sculptures put on the caps. Putting sculptures to public vote, on the other hand, makes me skeptical. Especially considering how public voting for the B$ Bridgedoggle seemed to go -- I have to take the elitist position that the general public's aesthetic taste is lacking.

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/portion-of-new-casino-funds-to-operate-the-streetcar/

 

As for the actual content of what they voted for, two things come to mind. One is that making FWW caps a priority is GREAT.

Why is this such a great idea?

 

As for the actual content of what they voted for, two things come to mind. One is that making FWW caps a priority is GREAT.

Why is this such a great idea?

 

To psychologically connect the Banks/river with the rest of downtown (primarily for pedestrians). With the completion of the Banks, the riverfront park, and the streetcar, it's the next logical step to tying together the downtown area into a cohesive whole.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/07/fort-washington-way-caps-to-provide-valuable-real-estate/

 

Weren't you one of the key people pushing for the burial of FWW? Of all people, I would think you would be into this idea. Do you have a problem with it?

Just never thought caps were needed, even less so now that the street wall along the south side of Second Street is finally coming together. Not crazy about tunnelizing the gateway to our city.

The gateways for cars are the bridges. Once physically into downtown, I believe we should prioritize more humanized modes of transportation. Making people walk over the retail/greenspace desert of FWW to get to the stadiums, banks, park, and river does not further that goal. Not capping FWW quite frankly inhibits the movement of people around downtown.

 

Adding caps physically doubles the amount of available space where they are located. Downtown is where space is most at a premium. Why not make more space?

^ I dunno, I walk over those bridges early every morning, and I've never felt inhibited. Space a premium in downtown? Not really, not yet. Maybe someday. I'm guessing that the $10 million worth of piles we sunk in 1999 to support the eventual construction of the FWW caps are the 21st Century bookend to the Central Parkway subway tubes.

Oh please John, the money spent on the foundations is a brilliant example of thinking ahead.  Imagine how much more expensive it would be to try to cap the highway now if they weren't in place.  $10 million is a pittance.  It's no more of a boondoggle than the Riverfront Transit Center.  It may be underutilized now, but it's there for future use and it was much MUCH cheaper to do it as part of the bigger FWW project than it would be to do later. 

 

Also, just because you don't feel inhibited by something doesn't mean it's not a problem.  It takes very little break in the built environment to put up a virtual wall to pedestrian traffic.  Even a less-than-ideally articulated building frontage on a sidewalk can make people turn back.  That happens markedly to 5th Street east of Sycamore.  The road gets a bit wider, and the emptiness of P&G's park/plaza totally kills the pedestrian environment, and that's still HUGELY better than a noisy highway in a trench.  Sure the streetcar will help connect downtown with the rest of the riverfront development, but not taking advantage of the opportunity to cover up some of that chasm would be a mistake to say the least.

Enquirer going all out today. 

 

An article, an opinion piece, and a 8 letters(and counting) so far all against this latest meeting and/or the streetcar

My question is what can be built on the caps?  Would it be too noisy for residential?

^I wouldn't think so, at least not on the inner two caps.  They'd be perfect for parks, if there wasn't already so much park land nearby.

If I recall correctly they could built a 4 or maybe 5 story building on them.  Formal flower/sculpture gardens would be fine by me because while there is a lot of park land nearby, that would be directly accessible by the lunch crowd working in the high rises on 3rd and 4th streets.  Buildings would be good too of course, and the presence of the streetcar through that area might warrant that more than anything, but either would be preferable to just leaving it open. 

^I wouldn't think so, at least not on the inner two caps. They'd be perfect for parks, if there wasn't already so much park land nearby.

Most people will want to go to the real park, the one they're building on the river. If you built parks over the two center blocks, that would be over four acres of new parks, mostly wind-swept hardscape. That's over twice the area of Fountain Square, which the city could never manage nor maintain until 3CDC got involved.

 

They will be seldom-used "viewing parks" and I suspect a lot of people won't like what ends up getting viewed there.

 

If you put buildings on the end-blocks, I wonder how those would comport with the "cable-stayed" -- actually cantilevered -- bridges at Main and Elm, which were suggested earlier to be the gateways to our downtown.

 

I just think the caps are a push.