The 11th and final Streetcar Open House will be held tomorrow:

 

Wednesday, November 18

6:30-8:30 pm

Price Hill Recreation Center

959 Hawthorne Ave 45205

 

Still wondering why it's being held in Price Hill, when the neighborhood won't even have a connection to even the next three phases of the streetcar.

 

I'd also like to see a bit more effort put into the streetcar banners.  I'm not really knocking your efforts (I think it's great that you take time at all to do them.)  Maybe it's the designer in me, but typeface choice, placement, and spacing really go a long way.  I guess the giant S throws me off a bit too.  But do believe that I thank you for putting in the time.

 

Now with more awesome:

Full disclosure: I had a graphic designer do this

Cross-posted at the "What others are doing with rail/transit" in the railroads section....

 

Trio of streetcars finally bound for nation’s capital

 

Washington, D.C. may finally see its three Czech-built Inekon streetcars within the district’s borders, four years after it ordered the cars for intended use on its Anacostia streetcar line, now finally entering initial stages of construction in the district’s southeastern quadrant.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/trio-of-streetcars-finally-bound-for-nation-s-capita.html

What would it take to get the spur running to the casino up to Mt. Adams/Eden Park? Is the grade too steep? Or could you get to Mt. Adams but it would be a very roundabout way?

If we use Federal funds, going through Eden Park woud require a "4F" review, which can take as long as four years. I think that's the only way you could get there. However, if the streetcar to Uptown uses Gilbert, you could get pretty close.

 

I personally think it's likely there will be a spur from Central Parkway and Main east through Broadway Commons, perhaps all the way to Gilbert, but that would require the casino developer's contributing a fair amount of money to get it done.

Mt. Adams has torn itself down and rebuilt itself with garages for residents building-by-building. Towers cannot be built on Mt. Adams and there are no significant parcels awaiting redevelopment.  So while such a line would be nice to have, the ROI would be low.   

 

I ran across the article from around 1940 when they decided to tear down the old bridge that carried streetcars over Eden Park Dr.  The quotes were straight out of today, but no doubt preservation of the Mt. Adams incline and the streetcar line that used it could have become a major, major tourist attraction.  Unfortunately I-471 now runs where the base of the incline was, so even if the interstate could have been built around it, the character of the incline would habe been muffled.

Mt. Adams has torn itself down and rebuilt itself with garages for residents building-by-building. Towers cannot be built on Mt. Adams and there are no significant parcels awaiting redevelopment. So while such a line would be nice to have, the ROI would be low.  

 

That sounds about right.  Also, I'm not sure how much demand there would be for something like this.  I've always thought that much of Mt. Adams' charm is that it is so near, yet so secluded from downtown.  For completeness' sake it would be nice to have, but it doesn't seem like Mt. Adams needs a streetcar at this point.  Still, I wonder if a long, gradually sloping ramp from 13th or 6th street could be built to accomodate streetcar (and foot) traffic only.  But that idea is right up there with building a tram to Mt. Adams.  Sure, it would be cool, but there are lot of far cheaper lines that would be more in demand.

The only thing separating Mt Adams from the streetcar is I-71. People could just walk right down to it. It's only 5 blocks. And a million stairs.

 

Telegraph Hill in San Fran is topographically cut off from the Embarcadero, but it's easy to get to because there's nothing in your way but a pretty green hill, that has stairs.

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.802153,-122.403563&spn=0,359.996516&t=h&z=19&lci=transit&layer=c&cbll=37.80217,-122.402975&panoid=w1WGRub37CUQFHqn774zvw&cbp=12,261.61,,0,-5.05

You know they could actually make some kinda bike trail bridge linking Mt Adams and one of the taller buildings. Would be cheaper than a full scale rail line up into that area. Im all about something unique.

Streetcar Routes are a Permanent Investment

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/streetcar-routes-are-a-permanent-investment/

    ^---- I was very surprised to learn how frequently Cincinnati's historic streetcars changed. See the Wagner and Wright series for 8 decades of changes.

Seems like the streetcar project has all its bases covered - great Cincinnatians for Progress campaign, listed in ODOT's TRAC projects, potential for stimulus $$, etc. 

 

Is there a strategy for making sure there are no roadblocks at OKI?  It seems like whenever someone wants to get a big transportation project built they serve as an officer on the OKI Executive Committee.  It would be great to get someone from the UrbanOhio universe on this committee.  OKI is taking nominations now (you can nominate yourself) with a deadline of December 4th.

FYI, Cincinnatians for Progress has not endorsed the streetcar proposal. Hence why the campaign signs were toting the jobs aspect.

^Well, certainly that was because of the volunteerism from pro-streetcar people as well as pro-rail people but not necessarily pro-streetcar.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they endorsed them.  If the funding comes, the streetcar will be built.  There's no need draw fine lines between proponents of slightly different future investment.

 

    The City of Cincinnati just announced their plan for dealing with next year's projected $50 million dollar gap. Among other things, the city wants to start charging for garbage collection and lay off some city workers.

 

    I know that funds come from different budgets and all that, but the news does not look promising. Politically, it is going to be tough to spend money on a streetcar while laying off city workers at the same time.  :-(

^Pretty much it has to do with financial planning. It is near impossible to do long-term planning and line up bonds and other funding sources for capital projects if the money weren't separate from operations.

 

    The City of Cincinnati just announced their plan for dealing with next year's projected $50 million dollar gap. Among other things, the city wants to start charging for garbage collection and lay off some city workers.

 

    I know that funds come from different budgets and all that, but the news does not look promising. Politically, it is going to be tough to spend money on a streetcar while laying off city workers at the same time.  :-(

 

Building the Streetcar will not use funds that could be spent to pay City Worker’s Salaries. The Streetcar will be funded with funds from the Capital Budget (the budget used to make investments in bridges, roads, rail, etc.) City Workers are paid with funds from the Operating Budget (the budget used to pay salaries and fund the pension). The Capital Budget can only be used to pay for ‘permanent improvements’ defined as assets with a  useful life of at least five years and a value of at least $10,000. By law, Capital Budget cannot be used to pay Operating expenses.

FTA Announces $280 Million For Urban Circulators

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/fta-announces-280-million-for-urban-circulators/

That could mean good news for Cincinnati!

  "By law, Capital Budget cannot be used to pay Operating expenses."

 

    I know that and you know that, but many city workers do not know that, and they vote! And so do their families!

 

  "By law, Capital Budget cannot be used to pay Operating expenses."

 

    I know that and you know that, but many city workers do not know that, and they vote! And so do their families!

 

We voted.

 

    What did we vote for?

 

   

   

 

   

^Please--no one answer that question.  YOU voted for what the amendment text read.  YOU did not vote for a streetcar.  Done.

 

    The City Manager just announced a hiring freeze while the city determines which employees are to be laid off.  :|

^Thank you for posting that in the STREETCAR thread!

Please cool it with the budget debate. This is the streetcar topic; it has been established that the city has separate budgets and if you want to talk about how that bothers you, take it to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,11021.0.html

 

If anyone can't do this, I'm going to start doing it for you. Just a heads up.

 

Sorry. Just sharing some news. In my humble opinion, everything about the streetcar comes down to budget issues. The budget will determine whether the streetcar is built or not. 

 

Wish I had better news to share, but I don't.

 

  I bought a book called "The Cincinnati Car Company." Did you know that streetcars used to be manufactured in Cincinnati? The factory was next to Chester Park on Spring Grove Avenue, where the Cincinnati Water Works building is now. They manufactured a model commonly known as "curved siders" that were sold mostly in the Midwest. Cincinnati was one of their customers, and curved siders manufactured in Cincinnati travelled on Cincinnati streets. How cool is that? All of this was well before my time, and I only learned about it in books.

 

    Cheers

 

 

Streetcars in the Snow

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/streetcars-in-the-snow/

 

    I have some streetcar news.

 

    First, I should say that I work with utilities in the Cincinnati area. Up to now, I knew about the streetcar from the media and from UO, but I have not heard anything "official" as to actual construction plans being produced.

 

    Today I got the word that Cincinnati Water Works is thinking about relocating some utilities in preparation for the streetcar. There are no definite plans, no budget, and no schedule, so in the eyes of the Cincinnati Water Works, the streetcar is just a dream at this point, but it's got their attention.

 

    I know some on this board have official connections. I understand that they may not want to share everything. However, if they could share it on this board or PM me, it will make my job a little easier.

 

    Figure at least a year for design of utility relocations, and at least a year for construction of utility relocations. The streetcar is not something that can be built quickly. The ironic thing is that in many of Cincinnati's streets, the existing utilities run down the sides of the street to get away from the old streetcar lines, which were in the center. Assuming that the new streetcar runs down the curb, the utilities at the curb may have to be moved to the center, requiring the old streetcar lines to be removed.

  Figure at least a year for design of utility relocations, and at least a year for construction of utility relocations. The streetcar is not something that can be built quickly. The ironic thing is that in many of Cincinnati's streets, the existing utilities run down the sides of the street to get away from the old streetcar lines, which were in the center. Assuming that the new streetcar runs down the curb, the utilities at the curb may have to be moved to the center, requiring the old streetcar lines to be removed.

 

I don't think that timetable is accurate.  Everything I have ever heard about utility relocation in preparation for the streetcar stated that utilities could be relocated in a matter of months.  Remember, the entire system could be up and running in less than two years.

I have no connections to the City anymore at all, but I can tell you as someone who's worked for many city governments in transit planning, having one department or another start thinking about accommodating transit is no indication that it's imminent. I think we will know more after the stimulus appropriations, which are in just a few months at the most.

 

 

 

    If you have a schedule, I would appreciate it if you would share it.

 

 

 

Detailed planning of the utility relocations has been underway since September or October, from what I understand. Can't remember his name but one guy moved here this past fall to do this work full-time. I have met him in person.  He exists.  This work is actually happening.       

My source is Andrew Bench, who is the person Jake mentioned above.  He gave several examples of where utilities would need to be moved and what engineering challenges remain.  Unfortunately I don't think this information has been posted publicly, but rest assured that they have taken all of this into consideration and planned ahead.  His firm already has a game plan for where construction would start, how long utility relocation and other phases would take, etc.  If the last bit of funding is secured and we order the materials and rolling stock tomorrow, we could have the system (Downtown/OTR loop) up and running in 18-24 months.

The streetcar won't be running in the curb lane. It will be in one of the two middle lanes, and the sidewalks will be bumped-out to meet that lane every two or three blocks. Its path through downtown has been designed to minimize conflict with utilities.

 

  Can you share the name of the design firm? Just curious. This is the kind of work that the company I work for normally gets, and I just now got the word that Water Works is starting to look at it, but I was specifically told that there is no schedule.

 

 

What underground utilities need to be moved in the first place?  It's not as if water, gas, and sewer lines are so shallow that they'd interfere with streetcar track construction.  Besides, with the exception of Race Street, Central Parkway, and Jefferson Avenue (btw, it makes NO sense to me why they'd split the route between Jefferson and Short Vine), all the streets the new line is planned to run on are ones that ALREADY HAVE OLD STREETCAR TRACKS in them.  If anything, it's these old tracks that are going to be a problem for construction, especially ones rebuilt in the 1920s, when they started embedding them in steel-reinforced concrete. 

 

If the utility relocations are planned because the respective companies don't want to have their pipes underneath the tracks (whether new tracks on Race or replaced tracks anywhere else), then that makes some sense, but it's not as if this is some new paradigm they have to deal with. While the old tracks will need to be pulled up to lay new ones, their presence means any other utilities are already arranged around them, and thus are mostly out of the way.

I thought I read somewhere that major upgrades needed to be done to some of downtown's utilities.  Would it not be prudent to do that work first if it might be on streetcar streets or cross streets?

They need to move manholes in the path of the streetcar to one side or the other so workers can access them while the streetcar is running.

 

Some old streetcar tracks will have to come out. Others may still remain where they are.

 

They won't always move pipes and conduits. Instead, they will often install sleeves under the trackway adjacent to the pipes and conduits. If and when they leak or break, they will just abandon the old ones, and put new ones through the sleeves. They will install sleeves at strategic points around vacant sites in preparation for future development.

 

You generally want to split the route onto two streets to expand the streetcar's zone of influence. Probably better if both of them are one-way. Running both directions on narrow two-way streets is, in my view, very problematic for each of the Vine and Clifton alternatives.

 

The contractor the city has hired, Stacy and Witbeck, is a total first-class operation. Once they get utilities hogged-out, you'll be amazed how fast the trackway is built. I wouldn't worry about any of this.

http://www.stacywitbeck.com/streetcar.htm

 

Isn't Stacy and Witbeck the firm that is opening an office in Cincinnati?

You generally want to split the route onto two streets to expand the streetcar's zone of influence. Probably better if both of them are one-way. Running both directions on narrow two-way streets is, in my view, a fatal flaw for each of the Vine and Clifton alternatives.

 

This is something I really disagree with.  From the point of view of spurring development, due to "hey look, the track is right out front" thoughts then you have a point.  It falls flat on anything else though.  It makes it less convenient for everyone, and doesn't actually help it as a mode of transportation.  I wrote a bunch about it on my website, in the 11/4/09 update.

You generally want to split the route onto two streets to expand the streetcar's zone of influence. Probably better if both of them are one-way. Running both directions on narrow two-way streets is, in my view, a fatal flaw for each of the Vine and Clifton alternatives.

 

This is something I really disagree with. From the point of view of spurring development, due to "hey look, the track is right out front" thoughts then you have a point. It falls flat on anything else though. It makes it less convenient for everyone, and doesn't actually help it as a mode of transportation. I wrote a bunch about it on my website, in the 11/4/09 update.

Actually, Brad Thomas pointed out a great reason why it makes sense to split up the tracks in Corryville and go North on Short Vine and South on Jefferson.  UC students going from campus to Downtown would get picked up right at the edge of campus on Jefferson; and people coming from Downtown to Corryville would get dropped off right in the heart of the Short Vine business district.  Win-win.

Generally speaking utilities that are in line with and directly below new streetcar tracks will be moved whereas utilities running perpendicular to the tracks, especially at intersections, are either placed in a sleeve in the streetcar track concrete pad or remain untouched.  The cross-street savings might not seem like a big deal until you consider that the line just between the river and Findlay Market will cross approximately 40 streets. In streets where there were previously two streetcar tracks, one will be torn up and removed and the other can remain.

 

This utility relocation business pales compared to what happens during cut-and-cover subway construction.  Part of the reason why subways are so expensive to build is because utilities often need to be relocated multiple times during different phases of construction.  Sometimes major water and sewer work is necessary a significant distance from the actual subway. 

 

Also, the amount of concrete used to build subway tunnels is incredible.  To build a one mile tunnel, imagine a 100ft. high mile-long concrete wall.   

 

 

  I don't doubt that someone is working on the utility issue. What surprises me is that I haven't heard anything about it until now.

 

  If I were a utility owner, I would NOT want streetcar tracks running parallel to and directly over my utility. I can't get to my utility if I need to.

 

  I don't think splitting between Jefferson and Short Vine is a bad idea. If a passenger wanted one street or another for some reason, he can ride all the way around the loop if necessary.

 

    I think a Jefferson Avenue stop is still a bit far away for some students. I would prefer to have the stop right in the middle of campus, near TUC. Of course, there is no easy route there. I know for a fact that students were known to pay $5.00 more for a book at the UC bookstore rather than walk to DuBois on Calhoun. UO forumers would walk that far, but not everyone will. That said, a stop anywhere on the perimeter of the UC superblock is better than no stop. The recent construction should help; at least the east side of the UC west campus isn't a sea of parking lots anymore.

 

   

 

   

 

I would prefer to have the stop right in the middle of campus, near TUC.

 

 

Stay tuned ...

 

I would prefer to have the stop right in the middle of campus, near TUC.

 

 

Stay tuned ...

 

no way, really?

I wouldn't bet on it, but the Uptown study will probably take a look at all the alternatives for serving UC, and that would be something they ought to take a look at. There are several rail systems in operation or being planned now with stops on or tangent to college campuses -- San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Tucson, Phoenix come to mind. Most urban college campuses are land-constrained and can't dedicate any more real estate to parking, so it's a logical thing to do. Here, it could become part and parcel of a strategy for repopulating the area of OTR north of Findlay Market, which is closer to UC than it is to Fountain Square.

I know it goes against the goal of maximizable investment along the route, but I wonder if this could go either through Burnett Woods or perhaps along the edge of the EPA land and connect up Ludlow at the bend and thus on through campus on its way toward Jefferson/Vine.

I do think Ludlow is the best end-point for the Uptown service. If the line served the Calhoun/McMillan, Corryville and Ludlow business districts, you'd have a pretty powerful asset for repopulating our city. You could easily get to Nothside from Ludlow too.

 

One problem with going through a park is that if you use Federal funds, there is a very time-consuming process to endure. I think it's a non-starter.

Dave I like that idea, since the whole Vine/Nixon/MLK area is a mess, and the EPA is not about to sell their property for redevelopment. The line could travel on Jefferson/Short Vine, then turn east on University Ave. into the campus, then turn north at the Engineering building. This road passes between the library and a parking garage before crossing MLK into the park.   

 

Also, the blocked off street through Burnet (apparently called "Burnet Woods Drive") meets Ludlow at a nice calm spot opposite Brookline Ave. (reviewing a map, apparently Brookline Ave. extends into Burnet Woods -- who knew?).  I believe this is the spot where Ludlow turns into Jefferson (contrary to popular belief, Jefferson DOES NOT reach the famous Skyline Chili intersection, although there is a "Jefferson Ave.-->" sign there since it's only a block away). What I also like about this idea is that the streetcars could pass through the Skyline Chili intersection in line with Ludlow instead of turning from Clifton, a situation which I was always a bit skeptical of.   

 

It seems like this city park and federal funding situation is a roadblock installed years ago intentioned not to save parks the ignominy of crisscrossing rail lines but to stop rail altogether.  Could the park board sell the roadway through Burnet Woods to the city, making it an ordinary piece of city property, thus avoiding this review? It seems as though a strip of Burnet could be sold to hypothetically widen Clifton Ave. without a huge process, so does anyone know if there is a legal distinction between these two hypothetical situations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a UC grad, I really would not have minded picking up the streetcar at the edge of campus. It's only a few minutes' walk. But that's just my opinion.