The 'basin' stops are from city documents. The hill and uptown stops are projections

  I've been meaning to do this for a while. Special thanks to David Cole for permission to modify his excellent map.

 

    This alignment is the same except it follows Main and Walnut all the way to McMicken instead of Elm and Race. This alignment eliminates 10 right angle turns and two crossings compared to the other alignment, and it still covers almost the same amount of area. I think this one is superior from an operations point of view. The drawback is that it is 3 blocks farther from Music Hall and one block farther from Findley Market. The track length is about 12 blocks shorter, with a corresponding shorter running time. 

 

  Short tunnels under MLK and Taft would improve running time. The turn-around at the zoo will have to be a larger loop than what is shown, but that's a detail that can be worked out later.

 

    I know the reason for the Elm and Race alignment was to maximize development potential, but this route has a lot of development potential also.

 

I still stand behind my feeling that these split routes are a bad idea, but I do like the straight alignment regardless.  As far as the zoo turnaround, there's an old loop still in place from 1930 about 200 feet west of the zoo entrance.  It was built to replace a big circular loop right in the middle of the Vine/Erkenbrecher intersection.  It would be really cool if they could use that again. 

 

http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/loops/large-4.html

 

 

There's no need for a loop at all. The streetcars are double-ended, which means all you need are a pair of stub tracks and a crossover.

There's no need for a loop at all. The streetcars are double-ended, which means all you need are a pair of stub tracks and a crossover.

 

Pffft, what fun is that? 

It means the layover point has twice the capacity of a loop, and the neighbors won't have to put up with squealing wheel flanges.

  I've been meaning to do this for a while. Special thanks to David Cole for permission to modify his excellent map.

 

This alignment is the same except it follows Main and Walnut all the way to McMicken instead of Elm and Race. This alignment eliminates 10 right angle turns and two crossings compared to the other alignment, and it still covers almost the same amount of area. I think this one is superior from an operations point of view. The drawback is that it is 3 blocks farther from Music Hall and one block farther from Findley Market. The track length is about 12 blocks shorter, with a corresponding shorter running time.

 

  Short tunnels under MLK and Taft would improve running time. The turn-around at the zoo will have to be a larger loop than what is shown, but that's a detail that can be worked out later.

 

I know the reason for the Elm and Race alignment was to maximize development potential, but this route has a lot of development potential also.

 

 

Here are the respective two block "development sheds" of the two routes.  Red is Elm/Race; Blue is Main Walnut; Purple is covered by either route.

 

 

 

 

  To be sure, the red area is larger than the blue. But there's got to be something said about the purple area being about 6 blocks closer to U.C. and 2 blocks closer to downtown with the McMicken alignment. The shorter the trip time is, the more people will use it.

 

 

 

   

   I've been meaning to do this for a while. Special thanks to David Cole for permission to modify his excellent map.

 

    This alignment is the same except it follows Main and Walnut all the way to McMicken instead of Elm and Race. This alignment eliminates 10 right angle turns and two crossings compared to the other alignment, and it still covers almost the same amount of area. I think this one is superior from an operations point of view. The drawback is that it is 3 blocks farther from Music Hall and one block farther from Findley Market. The track length is about 12 blocks shorter, with a corresponding shorter running time. 

 

   Short tunnels under MLK and Taft would improve running time. The turn-around at the zoo will have to be a larger loop than what is shown, but that's a detail that can be worked out later.

 

    I know the reason for the Elm and Race alignment was to maximize development potential, but this route has a lot of development potential also.

 

 

The route looks cleaner and would be easier for both residents and nonresidents alike to figure out, but I think leaving out findlay market and music hall/SCPA is a big mistake.  Could the southbound streetcar turn right onto Findlay, left onto Race and stay southbound on Race until 12th or Central Parkway?  The major downside is the loss of one block spacing through OTR north of the GQ, but with current momentum is the one block spacing still considered a "necessity"?

 

Here's the Metro bus route map from their website, www.go-metro.com:

 

 

  There are 11 bus routes that go to the U.C. area. Some of these bypass U.C. during rush hour.

 

  There are 67 total routes, plus 26 more operated by TANK, and almost all of them go to downtown Cincinnati. So, only 11 of 93 routes, or roughly 11% of the bus system goes to U.C. without a transfer.

 

    A fast link to downtown will expand the usable system to almost all 93 routes with access to U.C. and uptown. My point is that the traffic between downtown and U.C. may not be that great, but the traffic from all points on those 93 routes and U.C. might be significant.

Rudimentary Photoshopped map added for discussion purposes...

The more I think about it, I would want to extend the southbound Race route all the way to fifth, then cross over past fountain square and turn right onto southbound walnut.  It makes the one block wide footprint virtually non-existant, but  for arguement's sake if development is proven to mostly occur within one block of the streetcar wouldn't the best way to maximize ROI be to extend the route to 2-3 blocks wide?

But the more you widen the distance between the tracks, the more inconvenient it gets to actually use the thing.  It's already confusing enough if where you get on is a block away from where you got off, but if it's three blocks then it actually becomes a real impediment.  Imagine you go to Findlay market from somewhere in Uptown, and you think "oh perfect, I'll get dropped off right at the market's doorstep."  You do your shopping, come out with several bags of produce, then realize "oh crap, now I have to walk 2-3 blocks away to catch a northbound car."  It's the same thing with the weird split route up in Corryville that doesn't have one-way streets to really warrant such a thing. 

 

    Still has 4 bends, but covers more area. I find it interesting.

 

    As I understand it, the real reason for the couplet one block apart is to keep streetcar traffic coordinated with one-way streets. Using the standard 3 block catchment area, that is, a passenger will walk no farther than 3 blocks, the real catchment area is 2 blocks west of the southbound track, the block between the track, and 2 blocks east of the northbound track, for a total of 5 blocks.

 

    However, when you consider that the passenger has the option to ride around the loop, the catchment becomes 6 blocks. If the tracks are more than 6 blocks apart, the catchment is a full 12 blocks! Of course, this is 12 blocks for 2 tracks, or 6 blocks for one track. Since riding around the loop invariably adds distance to the trip, fewer people will use it. So, you have to make an assumption about the sensitivity to trip length to see which is better: more coverage with a smaller ridership percentage, or less coverage with a higher ridership percentage.   

 

    I guess it would take a detailed analysis of trip times between each pair of stops. I don't have time to do that tonight...

 

    In any case, the assumptions are just a guess, and we will never really know if we made the correct choice.

 

       

 

  Almost every line in Cincinnati's old streetcar system was two-way on a single street, with some odd exceptions and allowances for one-way streets. Also, most of the turn-around points were tight balloon-loops, with a wye or two where conditions warranted.

 

  However, in other cities looping one-way tracks are fairly common. I saw one in Germany that was well used.

 

    Think of the zoo train. Of course, it has only one stop, but it has model-railroad simplicity.

But the more you widen the distance between the tracks, the more inconvenient it gets to actually use the thing. It's already confusing enough if where you get on is a block away from where you got off, but if it's three blocks then it actually becomes a real impediment. Imagine you go to Findlay market from somewhere in Uptown, and you think "oh perfect, I'll get dropped off right at the market's doorstep." You do your shopping, come out with several bags of produce, then realize "oh crap, now I have to walk 2-3 blocks away to catch a northbound car." It's the same thing with the weird split route up in Corryville that doesn't have one-way streets to really warrant such a thing.

 

Unless all riders live directly along the streetcar route, the argument is moot... at one point or another someone is going to have to carry groceries more than one block, otherwise the streetcar isn't nearly the successful development tool we champion it as.  Three blocks should hardly discourage someone from taking the streetcar, that from a guy who walks/ carries groceries to Hyde Park Kroger and back a mile each way.

 

Also, they could walk one block across Findlay to Vine and get the NB car there.

 

292 pages of it. 

 

What would you suggest we discuss?  I happened to find it valuable.

This is great, all these new guys questioning the "wisdom" of the old guys!

Here's the problem with David Cole's map on Page 291. Actually, there are no problems with the map per se -- it's the best map of the Cincinnati Streetcar route anyone has ever produced. But it illustrates the problems perfectly.

 

In order to get from Elm and McMicken to UC, which is only 3,000 feet away as the crow flies, you have to travel east for a block, then reverse direction and go two blocks south, then go another block east, and finally travel two blocks north to more or less get back to where you were heading when you were at Elm and McMicken. This is an extra six blocks of travel with at least six traffic signals. It will take the streetcar at least five minutes, maybe ten, to make this reverse and continue on its route. Buses coming up Vine Street will do this in a minute or so.

 

There are other problems. While the track crossings look simple on the map, they are extremely expensive. Each piece of cross-track is specially fabricated from a solid piece of metal. The company in Austria that does this -- I think that's where they are -- charges about $250,000 for each section of track like this. Plus, wherever tracks cross you tend to get the spider-web of wires -- not only from all the power wires but also from the structural cables put in place to carry all that weight.

 

Turns are problematic wherever they occur. Oilers have to be installed to prevent wheel-squeal, and the track usually wears unevenly between the low side of the curve and the high side. San Diego is now replacing all of the curved track on the first line it opened in 1980.

 

In my view, what needs to happen to get to UC is to find the flattest, straightest approach possible. It's either a tunnel or Gilbert.

Bravo John, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks there's too much unnecessary zig zagging.  I don't agree though that a tunnel or Gilbert Avenue alignment are necessary.  If streetcars from 100 years ago could climb Vine and Clifton without issue, then there's no reason we can't do it today.  That said, the simplest and straightest route is by far the most convenient and cost effective, and should really be given more consideration than it's currently getting.  There's been way too much focus on it as merely a redevelopment tool, while ignoring its transportation functions, which in the end will only hurt both aspects of it.

 

If streetcars from 100 years ago could climb Vine and Clifton without issue, then there's no reason we can't do it today.

 

 

Problem is, there is no comparison between vintage streetcars and modern streetcars. Modern streetcars are much, much heavier, they're longer, they carry three or four times as many people. They are not as nimble as the ones from 100 years ago. Of the three modern streetcar systems that exist in America today, only one of them has a slope equal to Vine Street, and it's only about 1,000 feet long compared to 5,000 or so feet between South Clifton and McMillan.

 

The Skoda 10 T3 weighs 61,600 lbs empty.  Throw in 130 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 19,500 lbs.  Total= 81,100

 

The PCC cars weighed about 35,000 lbs empty.  Throw in 75 passengers at 150lbs each and that is another 11,250 lbs. Total= 46,250

That's still a pretty lame excuse though.  Are we really so inept that a simple hill is going to stand in the way?  Maybe we'll just have to build a modern cable car instead, and that'll shut up the power line whiners too. 

The Skoda cars can handle up to a 9% grade. As far as I know, no part of the Vine Street hill exceeds 9%.

Hey, it may be lame, so blame Sir Isaac Newton: "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest."

 

The first sentence describes what's going to happen to passengers as they get thrown back and forth on the steep, twisty Vine Street or Clifton Avenue hills. The second describes what's going to happen when a streetcar tries to start moving from a standing stop on one of those hills during a snowstorm.

If you want to avoid traveling out of direction you can just do this

You can then add an extension farther into the brewery district/west end later and have  a UC route and a basin route.

Looks good to me.

This is great, all these new guys questioning the "wisdom" of the old guys!

 

Please explain.

Yeah, I like that.  To me, including the Vine St. Hill is imperative to the success of the streetcar.  Gilbert seems to indirect a connection between UC and the basin, and may discourage some riders.

 

Gilbert seems to indirect a connection between UC and the basin, and may discourage some riders.

 

 

True, but it would do wonders for the "Empty Quarter" of Uptown east of I-71. That's an important area for reinvestment, maybe with as much potential as OTR.

 

Remember, a streetcar isn't intended to be corridor-level transportation. It's a circulator. Its route could literally be a circle. A one-seat ride passing as many origins and destinations as possible is what's really importnat.

Good points, hopefully the Walnut Hills area will see some redevelopment if they are able to return McMillan and Taft to 2-way streets after the new uptown interchanges are built.  They've been trying to include that.  The old theater building at the corner of McMillan and Gilbert is one of my favorites in Cincy.

I think two-way streets are terrific and the wave of the future (past, actually). But they do complicate on-street operations for rail.

 

    The former CL&N right of way is the least steep route between downtown and uptown. The grade is 4%. The CL&N has other drawbacks, but any other route is going to have a slope of more than 4% except a new tunnel.

 

    The corner of McMillian and Clifton or thereabouts is the highest point in the area. Any grade to this corner is necessarily going to be not only steep, but long. A Vine Street route is slightly shorter in elevation difference, and a short tunnel under Taft would reduce this even more.

 

    John, in your opinion, what is the maximum slope that will work? Various vehicles can make the grade at 7, 8, or 9%, but you seem to be saying that the grade is controlled by comfort of the passengers rather than by the capability of the vehicle. Is that correct?

You can size the motors and gears to be able to climb steeper than normal grades, but then you carry that hardware penalty around on the flat parts of the route. So say we're building six track-miles to start, and a mile of that is an 8-9% slope, the remaining five miles of (relatively) flat track has to live with the ruling grade solution. Might not be very efficient from a systems approach.

 

That said, passenger comfort is an important aspect. After graduating from UC, I rode the #46 bus downtown to work, and you never wanted to be standing on that bus especially carrying a briefcase (back when people carried briefcases). Almost everyone stands on a modern streetcar at peak. I think it's problematic.

 

I watch people on the 8% slope from Portland State to the South Waterfront. Over the several years that I've been doing that, I often see people standing as they start to ascend or descend that slope. Because that's near the end of the line, a seat is generally available. And by the end of the ascent or descent, I see that a number of the former standees have grabbed a seat.

 

Throw a few curves in there, and you may not have a very comfortable journey.

 

If you want to see for yourself, we're going to Portland again in mid-January. The air fares and hotel rooms are scandalously cheap, and the weather is really crappy. But the wine's good.

   

    So do you think Vine Street is feasible at all, or should we rule it out based on grades? Is there a maximum grade that you are comfortable with?

 

 

I suspect Vine is constructible but will present lots of operating problems.

 

Back in the days of the Mount Auburn Tunnel, a 5% grade was no problem.

 

UC is about 500 employees away from being the fifth largest employer in the state of Ohio. In truth, we should be talking about serving our city's largest employer with mainline light rail, multi-car trains. A stop at Jefferson and, well, University. If it takes a tunnel to do that, that's what we should do.

 

How would an attorney put it? Let's see. Oh yeah, "a streetcar is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success." So to speak.

All of this debating of the exact route is worthwhile, but I think it's kind-of a moot point.  Because as John pointed out, the ideal rail transportation to connect Uptown and Downtown is light rail, potentially even with a short subway segment.  Build the streetcar to get people around in the neighborhoods -- and warm Cincinnatians up to the idea of rail -- and then build light rail to get people between Downtown and Uptown, in addition to all of our other neighborhoods.

 

With that being said, I like Brad's slight modification (red/blue lines) that better connects Phases 1A and 1B.

But the more you widen the distance between the tracks, the more inconvenient it gets to actually use the thing.  It's already confusing enough if where you get on is a block away from where you got off, but if it's three blocks then it actually becomes a real impediment.  Imagine you go to Findlay market from somewhere in Uptown, and you think "oh perfect, I'll get dropped off right at the market's doorstep."  You do your shopping, come out with several bags of produce, then realize "oh crap, now I have to walk 2-3 blocks away to catch a northbound car."  It's the same thing with the weird split route up in Corryville that doesn't have one-way streets to really warrant such a thing.

 

Unless all riders live directly along the streetcar route, the argument is moot... at one point or another someone is going to have to carry groceries more than one block, otherwise the streetcar isn't nearly the successful development tool we champion it as.  Three blocks should hardly discourage someone from taking the streetcar, that from a guy who walks/ carries groceries to Hyde Park Kroger and back a mile each way.

 

^Your point is completely valid, and will be the manner in which the streetcar will in fact be used.  But that actually strikes me as validating Jeff's point.  You want to make the thing as user friendly as possible, and that means taking into account the way people will conceive of it, and that inevitably means that folks will assume that they can get on it to go uptown the same place they got off it to go downtown.  Walking is an integral part of the success of this plan, as higher property values will be the closer one is to the thing.  Make it as simple to understand as possible.

I've changed my mind.  I now support going up Gilbert.  Build the basin circulator and build success around Findlay Market development.  There is so much vacancy and so much potential for a vibrant business area around the Market, that I think it is more key to the Streetcar success than getting to Clifton.  After the basin is successful, then work towards a phase 2 that hits the casino and keeps going up Gilbert to Peebles Corner and then back to UC.

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/study-counts-40000-lunch-time-pedestrians-along-the-streetcar-line/

Perhaps we can get Bill Butler to pay for a mega-phase two - he can connect all his developments at Gilbert and Eden Park with Ovation and the Ascent in NKY.

 

I think I'd like to know how serious the casino folks are about chipping for an extension to Broadway Commons, because if they are serious then I'd be all for Gilbert instead of Vine/Clifton.

 

I wish more of the ROW for the inclines were left near UC - not for full inclines but for some kind of powered hill climbing apparatus.

 

Perhaps we can get Bill Butler to pay for a mega-phase two - he can connect all his developments at Gilbert and Eden Park with Ovation and the Ascent in NKY.

 

 

Bill Butler is a long-time rail opponent.

I wish more of the ROW for the inclines were left near UC - not for full inclines but for some kind of powered hill climbing apparatus.

 

Aerial tram from the Findlay Market North Lot to the Christie's lot at McMillian and Clifton.

 

It is a straight shot right over Bellevue Hill Park, it solves the comfort level, and utilizes Findlay Market as a natural transfer point.

I wish more of the ROW for the inclines were left near UC - not for full inclines but for some kind of powered hill climbing apparatus.

 

Aerial tram from the Findlay Market North Lot to the Christie's lot at McMillian and Clifton.

 

It is a straight shot right over Bellevue Hill Park, it solves the comfort level, and utilizes Findlay Market as a natural transfer point.

 

If you end up taking the Streetcar up gilbert and then to Clifton by Taft/McMillan an incline to that location would 'close the loop'

 

Perhaps we can get Bill Butler to pay for a mega-phase two - he can connect all his developments at Gilbert and Eden Park with Ovation and the Ascent in NKY.

 

 

 

Bill Butler is a long-time rail opponent.

 

 

I know. I just think it is ironic that his main core developments would all benefit for high quality rail transit in the core basin/hilltop/river cities.

I wish more of the ROW for the inclines were left near UC - not for full inclines but for some kind of powered hill climbing apparatus.

 

Aerial tram from the Findlay Market North Lot to the Christie's lot at McMillian and Clifton.

 

It is a straight shot right over Bellevue Hill Park, it solves the comfort level, and utilizes Findlay Market as a natural transfer point.

 

You've got a big hill. Either you go over it, or you tunnel through it. I love the idea of an aerial tram.

Streetcar Will Create $80 Million in Additional Funding for Cincinnati Public Schools

By Brad Thomas, CincyStreetcar | December 23, 2009

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/streetcar-will-lead-to-80-million-in-additional-funding-for-cincinnati-public-schools/

 

The City of Cincinnati has produced an updated version of this video promoting the streetcar.  As a result of the increased property values and new development along the line, building the streetcar will create $80 million of additional funding for Cincinnati Public Schools, benefiting all 52 neighborhoods.  Support CPS–Build the Streetcar.

 

 

    Very nice video. I like the renderings, and I like how all the people appear when the streetcar comes.

 

   

Whats wrong with Miltons hair. Does he dye his hair?