Considering that it took me about an hour to drill 6 holes into concrete at my house yesterday, those water-jet trenches on 2nd, main, and walnut seem even more impressive (I have since purchased a hammer drill btw). I would have loved to have seen that in action, and I still really want to see the thermite welding in person too, but they don't exactly post a schedule for those kind of things.

During big events. Without a pedestrian bridge I can't see how the streetcar can navigate 2nd street. Unless they have extra cops and barriers to funnel people from the tracks. I'm assuming they have a plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpR4MHwfXb8

 

Start the video at 1:07.

Then there's this: http://www.maniacworld.com/Train-Drives-Through-Bangkok-Market.html

I was reading an article on Brookings last night on the big Ohio cities and it was written back in the mid 2000's, talking about how the big cities need to reinvigorate the downtown urban cores to boost the metropolitan areas.  Link below:

 

 

 

On the same article, it mentioned how cities in Europe went through the same de-industrialization but instead of the state and federal governments subsidizing sprawl, they put money back into the core.  Two of the cities in England mentioned were Sheffield, England and Manchester, England.  Two former heavily industrial cities.

 

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2007/06/29cities-katz

 

My boss's wife is actually from Sheffield and so I thought I would take a Google Streetview Tour.  I was blown away by the street level activity they have in their center city, all centered around, guess what, a street running tram.

 

Sheffield is a metro of 1.5 million.  If they can do it, I think Cincinnati can do it.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.382661,-1.4699054,3a,75y,118.21h,84.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90n8OhEmrmXeRIgaY7Eopw!2e0

^Shefield has all double track and runs through some low density area's. That's a long system they have.

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

Well it's a shame those track stubs are being built.  It's extraordinarily unlikely that they will ever be used, since provisions for future phases of rail transit projects are almost never used as planned.  The ground beneath NYC, Philadelphia, and Boston are full of 100 year-old flying junctions for system expansions that were never built.   

Well it's a shame those track stubs are being built.  It's extraordinarily unlikely that they will ever be used, since provisions for future phases of rail transit projects are almost never used as planned. 

 

They should use them to connect to the Uptown Four:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2010282014.pdf

 

This presentation reflects my latest thoughts on the uptown streetcar.  This version adds vehicles to increase frequency. It adds length to the Clifton and Avondale lines.  It combines two lines (That's why it's the Uptown Four instead of the Uptown Five from my previous posts.)

 

But by far the biggest difference is I don't think the Uptown Four lines described in the presentation even have to be, or should be, streetcar lines anymore.  In other words, I would rather have the Downtown streetcar go up the hill and then tie into a useful transit bus system instead of fighting for 10-15 years over where to run a single Uptown streetcar line.  You could always convert the Uptown lines into streetcar as ridership demands and the politics become more favorable over time.

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

Well it's a shame those track stubs are being built.  It's extraordinarily unlikely that they will ever be used, since provisions for future phases of rail transit projects are almost never used as planned. 

 

They should use them to connect to the Uptown Four:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2010282014.pdf

 

This presentation reflects my latest thoughts on the uptown streetcar.  This version adds vehicles to increase frequency. It adds length to the Clifton and Avondale lines.  It combines two lines (That's why it's the Uptown Four instead of the Uptown Five from my previous posts.)

 

But by far the biggest difference is I don't think the Uptown Four lines described in the presentation even have to be, or should be, streetcar lines anymore.  In other words, I would rather have the Downtown streetcar go up the hill and then tie into a useful transit bus system instead of fighting for 10-15 years over where to run a single Uptown streetcar line.  You could always convert the Uptown lines into streetcar as ridership demands and the politics become more favorable over time.

 

that auburn line sure would look good going through the mt auburn light rail tunnel ;)

 

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

 

I think without the use of "of" it would be cast although it would be great to start seeing headlines like "coast is in favor of advancing the streeetcar uptown" the sheeple would start going along with whatever they are told to do by their perceived puppet master.

 

That is what Mayor Mallory once referred to it as.

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

Yes that was done on purpose

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

Yes that was done on purpose

 

That's amazing.

^ It was a joke that Mallory made once. The building is called the Maintenance and Operations Facility (MOF), and I have seen it casually called the "depot" or "car barn".

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

 

You don't think they'd appreciate having a building named after them?

^ They would love it. They are the biggest attention whores around. They are getting off right now reading this thread because someone's talking about them.

Race & Findlay intersection and back of the Center Of Advanced Streetcar Technology building from Pleasant & Eton:

 

Um.  Are we really calling that building COAST?

 

No, it's really called the Cincinnati Streetcar Maintenance and Operations Facility.  Everyone calls it the MOF for short on official documents.  The name Cygnus wrote is a joke we were discussing on here last fall.

 

At Metro, we're casually calling it the Streetcar Division.  Treating it like a third arm next to our Queensgate and Bond Hill Divisions.

The MOFO.

New version of the Uptown Four presentation:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2011012014.pdf

 

What's updated since my last post: 

1.  cleaned up Why the Uptown Four?

2.  corrected # of stops mistake on Line Lengths and Times

3.  Added a section on Northside extension to Clifton route

4.  Added a section on Goals

Don't expect state funds for another 5 years. The governor was re-elected.

Don't expect state funds for another 5 years. The governor was re-elected.

 

That goes for a lot more stuff than just the streetcar though.  And with a gerrymandered General Assembly not much is going to change until past 2020 anyways.  The best they can do is just stay out of the way.

Proposed 24-mile light rail line between St. Petersburg and Clearwater lost big today.

Yikes.  Kasich reelected, gop take over statewide and in Congress. Combine that with cranley, Harry black,  smithermam, murray, Flynn, winburn... can pretty much kiss any talk of streetcar expansion goodbye for awhile

Austin urban rail plan lost by a sizable margin. Not a good plan. Many rail advocates opposed it.

How the heck did their current rail line get built? Talk about a train to nowhere.

Across the nation, county commissions love diesel commuter rail. Serves their suburban constituencies with long commutes. Doesn't contact urban areas much.

 

Can you think of a rail project in Greater Cincinnati that shares these characteristics?

Midterms are a very different electorate than presidential elections. Long term trends are not in the Republicans favor.

Here's the city's 3-part plan to cover streetcar costs

 

 

Councilman Kevin Flynn is rolling out a streetcar operating plan that would run the streetcar all day, every day; include neighborhood participation and wouldn't cut into the city's core services.

 

And he has support from the majority of council.

 

Under the new plan, the burden for paying for the streetcar operations would ultimately fall most heavily on people who buy and develop property along the streetcar route.

The tax abatement portion of Flynn's plan is pretty interesting and seems to be somewhat innovative. (Has this idea been used anywhere else?) Essentially, on properties that quality for a tax abatement, the owners of those properties would get a slightly smaller tax abatement, and the different would go towards streetcar operating costs. What's great is that increased property values near the route, which are partially due to the streetcar, will go to pay for a big chunk of the streetcar operating costs. If this works as expected, this could be the model that we use to pay for operating costs of future expansions as well.

 

It's great that parking meter rates will be raised in both OTR and CBD and a part of that revenue will go towards the streetcar. I would rather see market-based parking rates, instead of arbitrarily capping them at $2.25 and $1.25, though.

The parking rates are going to be dynamic pricing that's capped, so it's a hybrid system.

 

Overall a good plan.

At first glance this seems great. I'll hold final judgement until it is further analyzed.

The parking rates are going to be dynamic pricing that's capped, so it's a hybrid system. 

 

Huh, that sounds good. Now I am not so concerned about the meters being active until 9 on Sundays.

 

I like that the plan is designed to capture property value increases brought on by the streetcar itself. Lots of smart stuff going on here.

 

I would love to see a similar funding structure considered for highways.

It's a great plan, we should all get behind it.

The parking rates are going to be dynamic pricing that's capped, so it's a hybrid system.

 

Overall a good plan.

 

Dynamic like SFPark? We'll see meter rates adjusted based on demand? 

The parking rates are going to be dynamic pricing that's capped, so it's a hybrid system.

 

Overall a good plan.

 

Dynamic like SFPark? We'll see meter rates adjusted based on demand? 

 

Sounds like it! Could it be Cranley's plan turns out better than Mallory's?

 

BTW, SFPark caps increases but not overall rates.

Not to diminish the role others have played to this point, but I think Mr. Flynn is doing a good job of finding solutions, rather than politicking.  If we had more Flynn's and fewer sticks in the mud, the city would be much better served.

Not to diminish the role others have played to this point, but I think Mr. Flynn is doing a good job of finding solutions, rather than politicking.  If we had more Flynn's and fewer sticks in the mud, the city would be much better served.

 

He has not been above politicking (far from it). However, if he had a big role in coming up with this plan, that deserves respect.

^ Kevin's been the key actor in this. Mayor Cranley and City Manager Black deserve a lot of credit too.

I predict a COAST lawsuit for the portion of this plan that uses parking revenue to pay for the streetcar.

 

The legal precedent that prevents the city from doing this doesn't deal specifically with parking, though, so it'd actually be an interesting case. The precedent was that a municipality can't tax one group of people specifically and spend the money elsewhere, but I could easily see a court agreeing that transportation fees and expenditures can include both parking and mass transit.

^ Kevin's been the key actor in this. Mayor Cranley and City Manager Black deserve a lot of credit too.

 

Interesting that Cranley would be involved in developing a plan which conceptually depends on the streetcar working as intended.

I predict a COAST lawsuit for the portion of this plan that uses parking revenue to pay for the streetcar.

 

The legal precedent that prevents the city from doing this doesn't deal specifically with parking, though, so it'd actually be an interesting case. The precedent was that a municipality can't tax one group of people specifically and spend the money elsewhere, but I could easily see a court agreeing that transportation fees and expenditures can include both parking and mass transit.

 

Parking revenue now goes into the General Fund and is spent in a thousand different ways. I doubt there's a problem. Plus, parking meters are voluntary. You don't have to use them.

Does anyone know what streetcar fare was assumed for this proposal?

$1!

$1!

 

$1 for 2 hours.

I predict a COAST lawsuit for the portion of this plan that uses parking revenue to pay for the streetcar.

 

The legal precedent that prevents the city from doing this doesn't deal specifically with parking, though, so it'd actually be an interesting case. The precedent was that a municipality can't tax one group of people specifically and spend the money elsewhere, but I could easily see a court agreeing that transportation fees and expenditures can include both parking and mass transit.

 

Parking revenue now goes into the General Fund and is spent in a thousand different ways. I doubt there's a problem. Plus, parking meters are voluntary. You don't have to use them.

 

You don't have to purchase a residential permit, either, but it would only be OTR residents subject to such a fee -- whereas meters could collect money from anyone. My understanding is that "people who live in OTR" is not considered a fair group to target with fees extending beyond the minimum required to sustain a service, while "people who choose to park at an OTR meter" is not (likely to be) seen (by the courts) as a "targeted group."

 

This is my interpretation of John Curp's interpretation re: parking fees as revenue generators.

$1!

 

$1 for 2 hours.

 

Niiiiice. Do you feel like that is the likely fare we'll be looking at in September '16?

I predict a COAST lawsuit for the portion of this plan that uses parking revenue to pay for the streetcar.

 

The legal precedent that prevents the city from doing this doesn't deal specifically with parking, though, so it'd actually be an interesting case. The precedent was that a municipality can't tax one group of people specifically and spend the money elsewhere, but I could easily see a court agreeing that transportation fees and expenditures can include both parking and mass transit.

 

Parking revenue now goes into the General Fund and is spent in a thousand different ways. I doubt there's a problem. Plus, parking meters are voluntary. You don't have to use them.

 

You don't have to purchase a residential permit, either, but it would only be OTR residents subject to such a fee -- whereas meters could collect money from anyone. My understanding is that "people who live in OTR" is not considered a fair group to target with fees extending beyond the minimum required to sustain a service, while "people who choose to park at an OTR meter" is not (likely to be) seen (by the courts) as a "targeted group."

 

This is my interpretation of John Curp's interpretation re: parking fees as revenue generators.

 

When I met with city officials on this, I learned that the yield from residential permits in OTR would be so small it would have almost no impact on funding the operations of the streetcar. If they do implement such a system, it will be because they want to make more parking available for residents there, not to pay for the streetcar.

 

I suggested something else: install meters in some parts of OTR that have 24-hour durations and cost, I dunno, 25 cents, 50 cents, maybe a dollar for 24 hours. This would keep people from simply storing there cars on the street for long periods of time. This should not be a burden if you really need to use your car most days. If not, you should bury it in a lot or a garage somewhere and make the curb space available to others who really need it.

Even suburban neighborhoods where nobody parks on the streets have ordinances against one "storing" a car on the street beyond say, 48 hours, without moving it.

Cincinnati has such a law - you can't leave your car on the street without moving it for more than 14 hours. But imagine if we gave out 500 residential parking permits in OTR. How would meter readers ever keep track of who's been where for how long?