Many roads in parks are public rights of way just like any other street. I don't know about any of the roads in Burnet Woods in particular. It depends on whether the road was originally dedicated or not.

 

  Burnet Woods was acquired by the city in 1872. Before that, it was the estate of Judge Jacob Burnet. The 1869 atlas doesn't show those roads. My guess is that the roads were put in by the park board and were never dedicated.

 

  I'm not sure why the federal government has any jurisdiction over city parks. I guess if it's their dollar, they can do what they want with it, but if no federal funds are used, they shouldn't have any jurisdiction. Sometimes federal money is more trouble than it's worth.

"As a UC grad, I really would not have minded picking up the streetcar at the edge of campus."

 

  I would not mind it either, but many do. Some students park on campus and still complain about the walk, especially when the cost of parking is so high. Automobiles are seen as a door to door service.

 

  That said, the streetcar isn't targeted to the automobile commuters. How many of them even live within walking distance of a bus route?

its amazing how far people are willing to walk when they see walking as the appropriate or only alternative.  At OSU, my friends and I walked everywhere...long distances.  I look back and think how far we'd walk and it was crazy.  We walked because we had to, because there were no other options, and because no one wanted to be the DD.  I was visiting these friends last weekend, one lives in the Short North and 3 others live in the 'burbs now.  These 3 people seemed to complain all weekend about walks half as long as the OSU days because they are now used to an auto-oriented lifestyle.  They wouldn't have complained about such walks at OSU because it was seen as the primary option.     

It would seem that the roads through Burnet Woods are not dedicated.  In fact, the majority of the park is just one enormous parcel.  Still, I doubt that would have any bearing on the potential for routing the streetcar through there.  It's an interesting idea. 

 

 

    There is no technical or legal reason that I know of that would prevent a streetcar running through Burnet Woods. I would not be surprised if someone opposed it on a preservation issue, though.

 

  Our old streetcars ran through Eden Park.

 

  Our old streetcars ran through Eden Park.

 

 

... because they preceded the 1969 passage of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Our old streetcars ran through Eden Park.

 

It's funny how Eden Park had just about the only private streetcar right-of-way in the whole city.  The gravel parking lot that parallels Art Museum Drive is an obvious giveaway.  Some of the Kentucky lines had a private ROW too, as well as outlying lines that were originally interurbans, but within the city limits it was quite rare. 

its amazing how far people are willing to walk when they see walking as the appropriate or only alternative.

 

Agreed. People will walk from one end of Kenwood Towne Center to the other and back without batting an eye, but they'll scream bloody murder if they have to park more than a fifty feet from the entrance to the mall.

There's a lot of redevelopment potential in Northside...but is there really that much in Clifton gaslight?

Clifton is one of those neighborhoods that's hung on quite well over the years, but there's no shortage of neglect.  While there may not be a huge amount of "redevelopment potential", there's a lot that good transit can do to keep it from declining.  After all, Clifton's history is not all that much different from Avondale, Mt. Auburn, or Walnut Hills, and look how they've gone down the crapper.  Good transit isn't just about rejuvenating depressed neighborhoods, but also protecting strong ones from future trouble. 

Here is a Burnet Woods route meeting with a hospital route at University & Vine:

 

Not only are UC students lazy, so are hospital workers. The University Hospital/Holmes/Shriners/Children's/Jewish complex has a complicated layout. For example, Chilren's main entrance faces Burnet Ave., the ER is reached off of Erkenbrecher, and "Area S" is reached from Albert Sabin Way. The UC School of Medicine is on Albert Sabin in the middle of the complex and perhaps a single streetcar could run a dedicated route back and forth between UC and the hospitals to replace the current shuttles. 

 

I do see some trouble if one line travels through Burnet Woods and the other terminates on Burnet Ave.  They're a mile away from each other. 

 

    "Our old streetcars ran through Eden Park because they preceded the 1969 passage of the National Environmental Policy Act. "

 

  I just looked up that act.

 

  http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm

 

  It seems to me that the act does not prohibit anything in particular. It merely sets a policy to protect the environment, and specifically says that federal projects are to be assessed for environmental issues.

 

    If the federal governement provides money for a streetcar project in Cincinnati, then the federal governement can impose environmental restrictions.

 

    The Eden Park streetcar did not use any federal funds. In fact, it didn't use any government funds. It was a private enterprise. If it were built today, it shouldn't be subject to this act.

 

    I can't see how a streetcar on an existing road in a park would be harmful to the environment anyway, unless you say that the electricity came from a coal powered plant, which it would no matter where the alignment is.

 

  That MLK / Jefferson / Short Vine / EPA building area is a mess. Too bad we can't turn back the clock and re-work that.

We don't know how 21st century Cincinnatians will behave towards fixed transit. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't lazy, eh? Within reason?

 

Chicagoans have horrible diets and winters similar to Moscow, but they will walk further than practically any other American city to transit stops, something like 3,000 feet. If you were to take away their rich transit history and try to predict their behavior based on personal observation and regional stereotype...well...you wouldn't. Because it wouldn't tell you anything.

 

I feel like putting that long of a section of the streetcar through Burnett Woods eliminates one of the most important aspects, which is the economic development potential.  If you run it on Clifton Ave instead, we add the possibility of redeveloping some of the lots on the west side of the road.  If you run it through Burnett Woods, there is no development potential on either side of the street.

I'm pretty sure that the Cincinnati Memory site has a couple postcards with pictures of a streetcar servicing Burnett Woods - the lake was considered an escape for the urban masses. That road was only shut down with in the last 10-15 years (I was going to say less, but I know it's been closed since the fall '00 which makes me feel damnably old), and it is fully paved. The biggest benefit I see is that it eliminates the grade issues that come with Clifton Avenue and especially if that intersection is redeveloped with under/overpasses at MLK, keeping the streetcar away would prevent a total clustercuss. Anything on Clifton would have serious grade issues (and to be honest, how much developable land are you really losing access to, since 75% is controlled by HUC and Good Sam. The rest would likely be inconvenienced by the MLK redo and the stuff at the bottom would still be accessible by a very short walk, especially if it rolled through the Ludlow district, esp. toward Northside. The Brookline, Ludlow intersection is ginormous, though they've shrunk it in the last couple years. Unimpeded travel through the park would add travel time and might be even have a good spot for a stop over @ Brookline, maybe even a storage track. They've been trying to monetize this park for years with a restaurant and the like, this would provide great service. It would be quiet and tie the campus to the Clifton Gaslight and take the pressure off the 17/18 buses.

There were never streetcars in Burnet Woods itself, just along Clifton and Jefferson/Ludlow.  Why the Jefferson/Brookline intersection is so huge, I have no idea, because there was never a streetcar loop or layover track or anything there.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gate or some other entrance structure of some sort back in the day.  Still, what's with the "grade issues" on Clifton?  It has much shallower grades than MLK, not to mention the grade required to climb Vine Street out of OTR in the first place. 

It is long and mostly empty of possible traffic is the biggest problem with Clifton. Metro strain and have failed to reach the top a number of times, I've been on the bus, so I figured the streetcar would have straining to do as well. Academics don't exercise enough and don't eat all that well.

Clifton's grade in front of Good Samaritan Hospital is surprisingly steep.  I calculated it once at around 8%.  It doesn't seem so steep because the street is wide. A line climbing up from MLK's dip to the MLK/Clifton intersection would be a nuisance.  The line already faces a very serious climb up from the basin that will put long-term strain on the vehicles so more climbing should be avoided if possible. I think this short route through Burnet could be a highlight of the line.       

 

Also, the Burnet/Jefferson intersection is a mere 1,500ft. as the crow flies (or the TBM digs) from the Zoo's Vine St. entrance.  The line could head east on Jefferson to Ruther then to the zoo's new lot, which would be about 3,000ft. of track.  Or it could enter a tunnel of just 950ft. (the approximate length of the Lytle Tunnel) and cut a straight line to Erkenbrecher Ave., then head east to Children's.

 

 

 

  The road through Burnet Woods was closed because the Park Board felt that so much through traffic was disturbing the park.

 

    A streetcar line could be built with some kind of barrier that would exclude cars but allow streetcars. This would make that road function as a private right of way.

 

    In the 1970's, the "Exclusive Guideway Plan" proposed something completely different: an East-West line on MLK. Can you imagine the grades? And that was part of a longer line from Downtown Cincinnati to Norwood!

The MLK light rail plan from that era was ridiculous.  I also was not a fan of the late 90's I-71 light rail line's use of MLK between Jefferson and Reading.  The grades are bad, the intersections are congested, the streetscape is bad.

I walked the proposed route of the planned first phase yesterday and was offered drugs (dog food, lol) 15 times and counted what looked like around 8 whores.  Two of them appeared to be men dressed as women. It makes me wonder if the police are still not really enforcing the law in OTR.  It was kind of sad and difficult for me to not break drug dealers noses near my house.  The blocks near the corner of Elm and McMicken was where most of the whores where.  Drug dealers where everywhere including right near Findlay Market where police where sitting inside near the coffee spot where i always see them.   

 

^Just to clarify the first phase goes all the way to UC.

^Just to clarify the first phase goes all the way to UC.

 

As I understand it, the stretch to UC is in fact phase two, a lot of it is still up in the air as far as the final route goes. However, the mayor and city counsel folks insisted that it be built in conjunction with phase one (the OTR loop).  I have to agree with them on that, since the connection to uptown has the potential to bring significant ridership pretty much out of the gate.  Without that connection, the circulator could flounder, especially if the economy continues to suffer.  That would give ammunition to the naysayers who'd point out that "look, ridership sucks, there's no reason to spend money to extend this "boondoggle" any further, it should be ripped up."

You understand incorrectly. The whole initial phase includes the loop from the Banks to Findlay Market AND the UC/Uptown Extension as Phase 1 (1a and 1b respectively). Either way, they are both part of phase 1. 

 

New People: Go to http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/ and take some time to review the materials regarding the streetcar.

The whole initial phase includes the loop from the Banks to Findlay Market AND the UC/Uptown Extension as Phase 1 (1a and 1b respectively). Either way, they are both part of phase 1.

 

That's not what I was told at one of those open houses a month or so ago.  It may all be phase one now, by default, but it sure didn't start out that way. 

From the OKI 2030 Plan: http://www.oki.org/elements/PDF/Transportation/2030RTP/2008_Plan_Update/Chapter_09.pdf

 

I was just talking about the northern OTR loop of up Elm, across W Mcmicken, down Race and across  Washington park near the new SCPA. 

^Just to clarify the first phase goes all the way to UC.

 

... the connection to uptown has the potential to bring significant ridership pretty much out of the gate. Without that connection, the circulator could flounder ...

 

 

It' s an article of faith among all of us that there's a huge travel market between Uptown and Downtown. I doubt that this is the case. Would be nice if it were, but there's never been any evidence to support what we'd all like to see. Hence, I suspect that the Uptown extension lowers, not raises, the rate-of-return on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

I still don't like the Vine Street Hill connection either.  That is a pretty long piece that will cost a lot and have very little return, especially if it just gets you to the Mad Frog.

Gotta climb the hill eventually though, and the choices are really only Vine and Clifton, both of which are about the same width.  Vine seems to have more redevelopment potential, and there's many options for where to go once it gets to the top.  Clifton is limited because it hits UC at the top and has to navigate an already highly congested area. 

I think, at the end of the day, it should go up one and down the other. Once solid ridership is reached, 2-way streetcar service could be established on both.

I think, at the end of the day, it should go up one and down the other. Once solid ridership is reached, 2-way streetcar service could be established on both.

 

Too far apart to work as a couplet.

That would really only work if it loops around McMillan or Calhoun.  It makes it difficult to extend in the future except as a separate route.  A one-way loop that spreads out so far only works at the end of the line where someone can ride all the way around it to get where they're going. 

I disagree with the Vine st connection because the CUF neighborhood just doesn't really connect to Vine on that hill.  If you want the students to ride the streetcar, it needs to come up W Clifton.  With all of those hills, the students at UC do not like walking far distances, and would much rather just jump in a car and go downtown than make their way over to vine street.

True, but part of the idea is also to connect with the hospitals and their jobs, at least ultimately.  A "western alignment" wouldn't work for that.  Though I think what we're seeing is a development pattern that really requires two lines.  A Vine-Clifton-Ludlow route to serve CUF, the west campus and the Ludlow/Clifton business district, and a Vine-Zoo line to serve Short Vine/Corryville, the hospitals, and the zoo.  It just doesn't seem possible to serve both properly with a single line zig-zagging all over the place.  Granted, the Vine Street Cable Railway did run a Vine-Jefferson-Ludlow route (see it at http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/map70.jpeg), but that still probably required a horsecar connection to get to west campus, what little of it there was at the time anyway. 

The phase I and II designations have me confused as well. At one time, the uptown connection was called phase II, correct?

 

Here are some facts about the University of Cincinnati from their website. 

 

Enrollment (2009-2010): 39,667 

Full Time  26,800

Part-Time 10,272

On-Campus Residents 3,121

 

Personnel Data (December 2009):

Faculty Full Time  2,627

Faculty Part Time  3,072

Staff Full Time  3,581

Staff Part Time      418

Total (Without students)  9,698

   

Student Workers and Graduate Assistants  7,049

Grand Total 16,747

 

What is disheartening is that the majority commute to U.C. by automobile.

The data provided does not discern that. Many of the students walk from their residences in Uptown, or they can take the bus. There is also the option to drive, but it is not inclusive to say that all commuters drive.

 

    35% of the U.C. student population is able to travel to campus without an automobile.

 

  http://www.eng.uc.edu/sue/white%20paper%20is%20UC%20a%20commuter%20campus.pdf

 

  This study considered students only. Assume that the faculty follow the same proportion.

 

        The U.C. east and west campus contains a daytime population of some 50,000 in round numbers. 35%, or 17,500 either live on campus, live near campus and walk, or take the bus. The other 65%, or 32,500, drive.

 

   

   

   

 

 

What is disheartening is that the majority commute to U.C. by automobile.

 

Probably because our public transit here sucks.

^Chicken and egg.

 

35% of the U.C. student population is able to travel to campus without an automobile.

 

  http://www.eng.uc.edu/sue/white%20paper%20is%20UC%20a%20commuter%20campus.pdf

 

  This study considered students only. Assume that the faculty follow the same proportion.

 

The U.C. east and west campus contains a daytime population of some 50,000 in round numbers. 35%, or 17,500 either live on campus, live near campus and walk, or take the bus. The other 65%, or 32,500, drive.

 

 

What's the quality (service frequency, reliability, route identifiability, passenger facilities, amenities, etc) of the service? lThe report didn't indicate the quality of transit on the affected Metro routes. If the bus runs only once per hour (or less!), lacks signal prioritization, has poor spacing between stops, pulls up to stops where passengers have no protection from the elements, poor lighting, marking, etc. then the purpose of the transit route is not to serve people but to make politicians feel good about themselves. I would like to see that report re-done with analysis of what makes an auto-competitive transit route and how many of those routes serve UC.

 

    ^--- The purpose of the study was to figure out how many people are driving to U.C. now. This study was not intended to critisize the transit authority.

 

  Transit in the U.C. area is really not that bad. Bus stops are well marked, well lighted, and many of them have shelters. Service is frequent. The trouble is that service declines the farther from the core.

 

    In general, transit in Cincinnati is limited by lack of coverage. Most of the students and faculty who go to U.C. do not live within walking distance of a bus route. And since the farther from the core, the less frequent the service is, even fewer live withing walking distance of an effective bus route. Finally, the bus routes are arranged in such a way that rush hour service to U.C. takes longer than regular service because express routes bypass U.C. in favor of downtown commuters.

 

    Obviously, if service were expanded, more people would ride the bus. Right now, 65% have to drive.

 

    In round numbers, the City of Cincinnati urban core has a population of 300,000, while the metro area has a population of 1.5 million or more, depending on where you draw the boundaries. So, roughly 20% of the population has access to decent transit. This is the heart of the problem.

 

My comment wasn't intended to criticize the transit authority. It could only be a criticism of Metro if Metro was unique in its lack of quality service over a larger area. Since it's not, then it is a criticism of larger transportation policies. Wouldn't ya think?  :wink:

My guess is that the casino owner makes a proposal to extend the streetcar to Broadway Commons. I've been thinking through how to do that and maximize the benefits for others along the route.

 

Seems like just sending it along the Seventh/Eighth couplet to Gilbert would be a waste. Sure it would get there really fast, but there are bridges around which you really can't do much. It wouldn't really contact the city that much.

 

So I've been thinking it needs to go up Main north of Central Parkway and turn right on short Reading behind the Alms and Doepke Building and follow short Reading Road across Sycamore to Reading Road and Broadway Commons.

 

Returning, I think you'd want to use short Reading again and continue west on 12th Streeet across Main to Walnut and then turn left from 12th onto Walnut to meet the mainline on Walnut South of Central Parkway. This would give MSED and Gateway quarter (some) exposure to the casino precinct, assuming they wanted it.

 

  "It is a criticism of larger transportation policies."

 

  Larger transportation policies have favored automobiles since about 1930. There is an entire generation of suburban commuters that has never been on a city bus or transit of any kind, barring a few exotics like Riverfest specials or a trip to Europe. The fact that Queen City Metro is still operating at all shows how deep the transit culture is in Cincinnati.

 

 

 

UO's own David Cole produced this new streetcar transit map:

 

  Very nice, David! You do good work.

Nice job David.  Did you estimate the stop locations yourself, or are those listed in one of the studies?  They make sense, and my only thought is that additional stops could be added on the Vine Street hill as that neighborhood begins redeveloping.

Thanks... The stop locations were based on a schematic map provided by Brad, although I think I may have added the VA Hospital stop on my own. Of course, none of this is carved in stone, so take it with a grain of salt until the city publishes an official map.