There will never be a bridge close to the Suspension Bridge. I wouldn't even want one there. It would ruin the aesthetic of the bridge. It will never happen.

 

Well, it almost did happen.  The bridge was fully funded 20 years ago.  I suspect the money was shifted away because there has been an effort to keep sensible crossings from connecting Ohio and Kentucky for 150 years.  The suspension bridge was purposefully thrown out of alignment with the street grid in order to increase its cost.  The bridge company was forced to buy expensive riverfront real estate for its approaches instead of it simply lining up with public right-of-ways.  The KY Transportation Cabinet banned TANK's buses from the bridge back around 2010 which has forced them to use the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge for every route, adding about two miles to every round trip.  It also hurt the utility of the TANK transit center in the parking garage right next to the Suspension Bridge. 

 

The continued lack of cooperation between Ohio and Kentucky is happening because DT Cincinnati interests don't want Covington or Newport to compete for Class A office tenants.  The recent completion of Queen City Square created a glut of office space in Cincinnati and a subsequent migration of tenants from the River Center towers to Cincinnati.  This loss of earnings tax revenue has been devastating for Covington.  The old FWW had a direct exit ramp to The Suspension Bridge, which made the River Center towers a lot more accessible.  I don't think it's any accident that access to the bridge was "hidden" from the expressway off ramps during the rebuild, or that a new bridge at Race St. was scuttled.

 

That's interesting, and makes a lot of sense.  In all honestly, the rationing of office space in downtown Cincinnati had some positive effects, even if it was meant to benefit a select group of private landowners.  If we were able to get the right parking/transit/right-sizing street mix, we probably wouldn't have these situations where one big project can destroy the economic viability of a bunch of older but perfectly serviceable buildings.

 

I don't think a direct streetcar connection between Cincinnati and Covington is all that important.  The benefit for Cincinnati if it contributed to a Northern Kentucky Streetcar loop would be to re-densify NKY.  That would the best plan for NKY as well.  Newport is never going to be a major employment area.  The only areas that actually make sense for Covington to have dense office towers are either right next to 75 on the river (which is basically a wasteland on the river right now) or that warehouse area north of the Fidelity campus.  The present Rivercenter development is pretty bad; it looks awful compared to the original buildings, and it cuts off the rest of downtown Covington from the Riverfront.

 

There could easily be a bus that goes from a streetcar stop at 5th and Main in Covington that only makes short runs across the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge and back on Second Street in Cincinnati.  There's no reason to put track that far west in Cincinnati because there's no development opportunity there.  Maybe a bridge from Main Street in Covington to Central Avenue in Cincinnati would work, but any further west than that is a waste.

Does anyone know when the final 3 streetcars are scheduled to arrive? I thought we were getting one a month starting last October and ending in February. Originally, I heard all would be delivered by February, but I doubt they'll deliver 3 within the next few weeks (unless they are?)

Streetcar arrival dates according to the brewery releases:

 

#1 - October (arrived)

#2 - November 23 (arrived on Nov 24)

#3 - December 11 (???)

#4 - January 7 (???)

#5 - February 5

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's weird because there's very little being said about it. There is no obligatory "everyone is mad at streetcar developer" from the enquirer.

The last 3 streetcars are being finished on time but they are holding them at CAF rather than shipping them to Cincinnati. That's because our Maintenance and Operations Facility is not yet fully staffed. We can only store 2 streetcars in the facility, the remaining 3 will need to be stored outside. Which means that as soon as we get #3, we need to have security on staff 24/7 to make sure that someone from COAST doesn't sneak into the yard and tag it with graffiti.

Oooh, I don't know if I've ever seen graffiti that said "boondoggle" before.

Google search turns up negative.

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1477136/1437-Elm-St-City-OH-45202

 

20x70 empty lot on Elm St. sale pending on a $92,000 listing price.  These types of lots were selling for less than the title transfer 10 years ago.

 

Update...same lot from earlier this month back on the market for...$650k:

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1478704/1437-Elm-St-City-OH-45202

That lot sold for $2000 in 2000.

 

2016 99790 92,000

2015 0 4/8/2015

2000 241 2,000 1/5/2000

2000 0 0 1/5/2000

1900 0 0 1/1/1900

 

 

Public record.

 

http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/realestateii/ROVER30.ASP

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1477136/1437-Elm-St-City-OH-45202

 

20x70 empty lot on Elm St. sale pending on a $92,000 listing price.  These types of lots were selling for less than the title transfer 10 years ago.

 

Update...same lot from earlier this month back on the market for...$650k:

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1478704/1437-Elm-St-City-OH-45202

 

You're being a little disingenuous here. It's not a lot for $650k. It's a build-to-suit for $650k. It'll be a townhouse for that much, not an empty lot. This is pretty typical pricing based on nearby townhomes.

 

BiLT Architects/developers, who did the neighboring three townhomes, purchased the lot and have a design that they'd like to build there that I've posted before. They'll likely find a buyer and modify the design from there.

 

http://www.biltarchitects.com/project/1437-elm-street

For those of you doing the math at home, a $90,000 appreciation on a $2,000 purchase is about 27% over 16 years and about 25% after paying a 15% capital gains tax. 

 

For people who look back and imagine how "obvious" it was to buy vacant lots back then, they are forgetting that the stock market was going nuts with some IPO's gaining 400% in a single day and that nobody was paying attention to any Cincinnati real estate whatsoever.  Also, the first 3CDC foray into OTR, the Gateway condos, was a flop.   

Not that anyone on this board needs this confirmation, but I was happy to see that the new development at "Hillman Point" -- a.k.a. Wade and Elm St. in OTR -- joins the list of new developments using proximity to the streetcar as a key amenity of the neighborhood:

 

http://www.hillmanpointotr.com/street-car-route/

 

 

Let's keep the discussion streetcar related, please.

From this article: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/02/02/some-council-members-sweating-bullets-over.html

 

Meanwhile, two of the three remaining streetcar vehicles are projected to be delivered by the end of February, with the last vehicle delivered in March, according to project manager Chris Eilerman.

The city continues to tally up damages it has a right to charge manufacturer CAF USA under its contract b ecause the vehicles have been delayed, Juech said, and will present a bill later for everything to which it is entitled.

 

Any sense of how much in damages the City might claim? How much to the delays actually hurt the City?

After UC builds a new law school at the Banks, which now seems likely, that will tie UC operationally to downtown and uptown for the first time. Seems to bode well for future transit connections, especially if Ono gets interested in getting support from the other hospitals.

That and they've just appointed Rob Richardson, a very strong streetcar proponent, to chair of UC's Board of Trustees. Pretty big potential impact there.

The Crancelator is squirming.

From this interview with Richardson: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2016/02/ucs-new-board-leader-weighs-in-on-fundraising.html?ana=twt

Your predecessor, Tom Humes, told me recently that he favors an expansion of the city’s streetcar to Uptown and that the university does as well but it’s unlikely UC could contribute financially to that effort. You’re a noted streetcar supporter. How do you see UC positioning itself on that issue?

 

I don’t think we can give or should give money to the streetcar. I do think we can be a supporter and a cheerleader for it. Connecting the 44,000 students to the rest of the community makes sense. If we have this (law school) project, it makes even more sense.

I think the only way UC provides money to the streetcar is if a portion of student fees go to the operating budget and in return, students get to ride for free. UC has had a similar agreement with Metro in the past and has a similar subsidizing structure for the Bearcat Transportation System shuttles. There's a lot of work there to consolidate transit resources in my opinion. But honestly it probably wouldn't be a board of trustees decision but a student government / SACUB (student advisory committee for the university budget) decision. They've made all transit spending decisions related to the student fee in the past, albeit sometimes with heavy administration influence.

As a UC student, I can tell you that I would have used the hell out of Metro if it was free for students. I just really hate leaving my car alone for extended periods of time if I'm out taking photos downtown or NKY or wherever. The campus shuttles take such circuitous routes, and the North shuttle (which runs along Ludlow and Whitfield) is so jam-packed that they run between 2 and 3 buses, one right after the other so that they arrive at each stop at the same time. It's super inefficient and it would make a lot more sense to just have everyone who lives off of Ludlow hop on the 17 to get to campus.

Metro was free my freshman and sophomore years. I used the crap out of it then. I'd take it all over the place just to explore new places. When it stopped being free I stopped exploring as much. It was super convenient since I didn't have a car in Cincy for 6 years and getting around for free when I was working on an ultra limited budge was really convenient. Mindless wandering wasn't a justifiable expense though so once it stopped being free I stopped using it for anything other than essential travel.

UC's student body president had a series of tweets about how he wants the University to use its political capital to support the streetcar extension:

 

Yesterday, @uofcincy Board of Trustees voted to create a committee to explore moving @UCincinnatiLaw to the @TheBanksCincy. I hope, when the

...

Decision is made, @uofcincy uses its political capital to support the @CincyStreetcar and to leverage affordable housing opportunities for

...

the @UCincinnatiLaw students. Affordability and safety must be kept in mind as we proceed. Students and faculty must be involved in process.

 

So the city lead the metro in housing permits. That in itself is amazing. I blame the streetcar. ;)

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/02/05/rebound-new-home-construction-last/79830898/

^I don't think you're interpreting that correctly, probably because the article is worded a bit ambiguously.

 

Here's what the article says:

There were 2,245 single-family residential permits issued during 2015 in Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties, up nearly 10 percent from a year ago, according to the association.

 

Liberty Township accounted for two of every five permits issued. Warren County communities accounted for another two in five permits.

 

That means Liberty township accounted for 40% of new permits, Warren County another 40%, and the remaining permits (20%) were split between the rest of the region.

 

Here's what is said about Hamilton County:

Hamilton County, led by strong activity in the city of Cincinnati, showed the greatest overall increase in 2015. Permits issuances in the county rose 20.5 percent in 2015 compared to a year earlier.

That just means that Hamilton County rose 20% over its 2014 levels. But that doesn't mean it was the "leader" in the metro area... unless you're giving the award to "most improved" (which usually goes to the lowest performing).

^ I agree, but I'd also like to know what counts in terms of "single family residential" permits. Does that include apartment units and condos?

It does not.

Yes as I suspected. Once again statistics are held hostage by interest groups, in this case the home builders association, and the public is clueless.

The city has been losing people since the 50's when the streetcar left. Now that the streetcar is here the city is having more economic activity than seen before in recent years. It's obviously making an effect on the city in a good way.

^Keep in mind that new housing permits does NOT equate to new population, or even new housing.

 

 

• In Liberty Township, a new housing permit in a greenfield likely equates to one new single family house, and one new family, which likely moved in from somewhere else in the Cincinnati or Dayton metro.
  
• In the Cincinnati core, a new housing permit in an established area likely equates to a replacement of one housing unit torn down or rehabbed, with no new net gain of housing units or population.

 

The long time owner of 11 surface parking lots (the Goodman family has owned the lots since the '50s) in downtown Portland is looking to re-develop them as mid-rise and high-rise construction: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/02/11_new_buildings_15_billion_in.html

 

The property owner is calling the overall project <a href="http://theankenyblocks.com">The Ankeny Blocks</a>. This isn't Cincinnati news... but it's relevant since so much of our streetcar vision is based on lessons learned from Portland. This is good news for Portland... but it also shows how long the cycle takes for the owners of surface parking lots to see the light. I'm thinking of the Joseph family in Cincinnati that owns several large surface along Sycamore and Main. In the "Letter from the Owners", you can hear the tone of reluctant admission to the fact that downtowns should serve residents, not commuters. My guess is that there has been a major generational divide between the Goodman's regarding how to view their surface parking lots:

We believe that urban densification is here to stay: people, particularly young creative individuals, prefer to live and work downtown. Portlanders are no exception – they would much rather spend their time enjoying the city’s nationally renowned culinary, scenic, and outdoor offerings than battling traffic during their daily commutes!

http://theankenyblocks.com/

The next streetcar is on its way. http://m.wlwt.com/news/third-streetcar-on-the-move-toward-cincinnati/37921380

"Traction" Ale beer tapping at Rhinegheist at 4pm after the car shows up.

Did the other two streetcars come with the "C I N C I N N A T I" text on the side of the cars? I like it.

I heard that the "CINCINNATI" and the logo will be retroreflective as well, so they'll give the streetcar more visibility at night.

Potential streetcar crisis & talk radio freak out...2-way street conversion impossible between 12th and Central Parkway because of the streetcar track placement.  Or "experts" will recommend rebuilding that section of the streetcar system in order to enable a full 2-way conversation.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/02/18/otrs-main-may-become-two-way-street/80500580/

The thing is, converting Main to two-way will prevent the installation of rail on it and Walnut, thereby condemning rail to uptown to having to use Vine Street, which is very indirect and which has all kinds of problems. The Main/Walnut alignment built to light rail standards would make it part of a spine, via a tunnel through Mt. Auburn, that could eventually host multiple alignments between downtown and uptown and on to Xavier. So what you gain is a more user-friendly street. What you lose is the possibility for an 11-minute trip between Fountain Square and University and Jefferson. And eventually a network that serves a large section of our region between, say, Tri-County and Milford. So if you want more than a slow streetcar that never gets beyond uptown (and perhaps not even that far) converting Main to two-way is a bad idea.

^All part of a plan to sabotage this very thing.

^All part of a plan to sabotage this very thing.

 

The proposed conversion of Main to two-way is definitely not being pushed to sabotage future LRT. It is being pushed as a way to slow traffic on a section of road that many drivers treat like a highway. Many of the community members backing the two-way conversion would gladly support running rail on Main. If a LRT plan were pursued in the future that used Main and Walnut, it wouldn't be that hard to convert those streets back to one-way (with potential transit-only lanes where the tracks are/would be). And a two-way Main would be better for the neighborhood in the mean time.

^All part of a plan to sabotage this very thing.

 

The proposed conversion of Main to two-way is definitely not being pushed to sabotage future LRT. It is being pushed as a way to slow traffic on a section of road that many drivers treat like a highway. Many of the community members backing the two-way conversion would gladly support running rail on Main. If a LRT plan were pursued in the future that used Main and Walnut, it wouldn't be that hard to convert those streets back to one-way (with potential transit-only lanes where the tracks are/would be). And a two-way Main would be better for the neighborhood in the mean time.

 

Doubt the city will want to make all the changes in signals and a few years later convert it back to one-way. Two-way Main will be used as a reason not to consider the Main/Walnut couplet. I know how our traffic engineers think. They are loathe to make changes. What's more valuable for the future -- two-way traffic, which I agree is desirable, versus, say, 20,000 pairs of eyeballs that could be passing through that part of OTR most days, connected to the two most dense areas of the region? I think it's short-sighted.

 

Looks like Washington Park is installing a little pond/fountain/water feature directly behind the Music Hall streetcar stop? Nice touch!

^All part of a plan to sabotage this very thing.

 

The proposed conversion of Main to two-way is definitely not being pushed to sabotage future LRT. It is being pushed as a way to slow traffic on a section of road that many drivers treat like a highway. Many of the community members backing the two-way conversion would gladly support running rail on Main. If a LRT plan were pursued in the future that used Main and Walnut, it wouldn't be that hard to convert those streets back to one-way (with potential transit-only lanes where the tracks are/would be). And a two-way Main would be better for the neighborhood in the mean time.

 

Doubt the city will want to make all the changes in signals and a few years later convert it back to one-way. Two-way Main will be used as a reason not to consider the Main/Walnut couplet. I know how our traffic engineers think. They are loathe to make changes. What's more valuable for the future -- two-way traffic, which I agree is desirable, versus, say, 20,000 pairs of eyeballs that could be passing through that part of OTR most days, connected to the two most dense areas of the region? I think it's short-sighted.

 

Definitely don't think anything will be happening in regards to rail on Main in the next couple years. It's kind of like the argument about keeping the Wasson Way corridor abandoned to preserve the future possibility of light rail. Yeah, it might make future rail development easier, but in the next 10-20 years we have to deal with an unused eyesore instead of a bike trail. In the absence of a firm plan or any political leadership championing the idea, I think it's silly to nix ideas that would bring real, immediate benefits.

No rail supporter I know wants to keep bikes off Wasson Way to preserve a path for future light rail. We do, however, want the path designed for that rail can be added later. Actually, I think almost everyone feels this way.

^ But nobody will admit to just how difficult that really would be for the amount of space required versus what's available.  There's a lot of glib hand waving and dismissive "we can make it work" retorts that ring very hollow. 

 

As to Main/Walnut, I don't buy the notion that the streetcar or light rail must be on a one-way couplet.  Signal priority/preemption would likely be a requirement in a two-way configuration, and even designating a street as more of a transit mall with limited access by private automobiles is a possibility.  There's more than one way to make it work.  I do think that any left-running track is a mistake regardless. 

^ But nobody will admit to just how difficult that really would be for the amount of space required versus what's available.  There's a lot of glib hand waving and dismissive "we can make it work" retorts that ring very hollow. 

 

As to Main/Walnut, I don't buy the notion that the streetcar or light rail must be on a one-way couplet.  Signal priority/preemption would likely be a requirement in a two-way configuration, and even designating a street as more of a transit mall with limited access by private automobiles is a possibility.  There's more than one way to make it work.  I do think that any left-running track is a mistake regardless.

 

In fairness, you're now playing the same, dismissive "we can make it work" game with a two-way Main Street.  Limited access to Main Street for private automobiles is kind of a silly place to start.

 

In general, making any kind of change is an uphill battle. Still, there's no reason why every street has to also be a motorway. Here's a photo of a street with limited automobile access.

 

I proposed an actual idea, it may not be the best, but it's much better than "you have nothing to worry about, look over there a squirrel!"

I think a two-way Main Street is a great idea.  First of all because it should slow down traffic.  Secondly, now that we have the streetcar in place, it's time the City starts doing all the ancillary things to make the whole purpose of the streetcar more likely to happen.  That purpose is to densify the areas adjacent to streetcar service.  And if we change the orientation on the street, maybe we make it more bike friendly or even try removing vehicular traffic from it altogether.

 

I'm not saying all these thing are ideal or even desired, but the City needs to get serious about doing all it can to densify the core and get people moving around the Center City without having to use cars.  They can use cars to get there, but we should be making it more convenient not to move around in them once you're there.

The group wanting to bring the Cincinnati Streetcar to NKY are heading to DC to explore fund options for a feasibility study.

 

http://rcnky.com/articles/2016/02/23/team-hoping-bring-streetcar-northern-kentucky-heads-dc

Is everything turning out ok with the the streetcars we got so far?

 

This quote raised an eyebrow.

 

"The same company has come under scrutiny in the past couple of years in Houston, Cincinnati and Kansas City, Mo., for delivering rail cars late and providing some that didn’t meet specifications. In Houston, for example, the company’s cars ended up 8,000 pounds heavier than the maximum weight sought, leading to higher electricity costs to operate the city’s light-rail system."

Thought this was interesting, Cincinnati mentioned:

 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/10/hey-streetcar-critics-stop-making-perfect-the-enemy-of-good/380913/?utm_source=SFTwitter