^Check the terms of the agreement with the feds.  Don't think they can cut the ops back to just certain days. 

I'm following up my "Uptown Five" post from last weekend with a composite map showing all the routes, including downtown, with stops and a quarter mile walkshed radius around each.  ICYMI this is of course not the official plan for uptown, just something I've been doodling with and incorporating feedback from UrbanOhio forumers.  The streetcar runs in both directions on most streets (except on Calhoun and McMillan in Clifton Heights and of course downtown) under this plan.  The plan involves converting McMillan, Woodburn and Taft from one way to two way streets east of Vine.  Each route, including downtown, ends at an Uptown Transit Center at University Plaza, where it is possible to transfer routes, tying the routes together. Finally the map includes the Clifton Shortcut through the woods west of Vine St. instead of going directly up Vine from OTR.  A zoomable version is posted here:

 

^ Excellent way of visualizing your plan, and a lot of the latest thinking on transit seems to favor establishment of a sort of grid like you've done here. But it's well beyond the financial capacity of Cincinnati to have four parallel streetcar lines in Uptown. How would you merge these into one N/S line and one E/W?

 

Good luck -- I think about it all the time and haven't had a breakthrough on the N/S serving all the important destinations yet. It's a tough puzzle.

 

I still haven't given up on the Mt. Auburn Tunnel with streetcars running on Walnut and Main north of 12th.

 

 

This is how John Cranley talks out of both sides of his mouth:

 

'Cranley said he's not sure where the money will come from, but there's still time to find it. Plans aren't expected to be finalized until October 2016'

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/08/29/cincy-state-project-dead-done/14824987/

 

$35 million for 2016 = relax guys. There's plenty of time.

 

1-3 million for streetcar operation in 2016 = Find it..NOW(Presumably Before it bankrupts the city, downgrades our credit rating, & turns us into detroit)

^Check the terms of the agreement with the feds.  Don't think they can cut the ops back to just certain days.

 

Cranley said there's no requirement on operating frequency

 

 

^ Looking out over the next two years of increasing repopulation and commercial activity along the streetcar line, I doubt there will be a majority of the 2016 City Council interested in qllowing a $133 million investment to be idle much of the time. And if there is, it will be one hell of a taxpayer's lawsuit.

 

^Check the terms of the agreement with the feds.  Don't think they can cut the ops back to just certain days.

 

Cranley said there's no requirement on operating frequency

 

 

 

The federal grant process requires minimum levels of operation in order to prevent just this sort of situation. 

 

 

 

^That's what my understanding was.  I guess the question is:  presumably this means a maximum headway (time/distance between scheduled cars at a given stop).  But is there also something mandating daily operation?  I would hope and assume so,  but then I never actually saw the grant agreement.

^Check the terms of the agreement with the feds.  Don't think they can cut the ops back to just certain days.

 

Cranley said there's no requirement on operating frequency

 

Cranley says a lot of things.

^ Excellent way of visualizing your plan, and a lot of the latest thinking on transit seems to favor establishment of a sort of grid like you've done here. But it's well beyond the financial capacity of Cincinnati to have four parallel streetcar lines in Uptown. How would you merge these into one N/S line and one E/W?

 

Good luck -- I think about it all the time and haven't had a breakthrough on the N/S serving all the important destinations yet. It's a tough puzzle.

 

I still haven't given up on the Mt. Auburn Tunnel with streetcars running on Walnut and Main north of 12th.

 

If I had to "value engineer" this plan down to one North South line, it would probably look like the map I posted earlier this summer.  I would get rid of the Uptown Transit Center and stay on Jefferson and Vine to the zoo, go over Erckenbecker to Burnet, take a right and then enter and end the line in the Hospital campus.  Reasons being: 

 

1.  There'd be little point in trying to get over to Short Vine without the transit center at University Plaza:  It would take additional turns to use Short Vine and slow things down.  Also, it sounds like the current plan for this street is a festival/tailgate area for UC and that wouldn't really work with streetcars coming through.  I think a good solid connection to UC on at least two sides is important.  If you look at the Uptown Five map there is actually a gap in the quarter mile walkshed in the heart of the UC campus, moving over to Jefferson would close this gap. 

 

2.  I'm assuming routing on MLK is taboo:  it’s a fast moving, wide auto oriented street that the streetcar would have to make a right onto from Jefferson and then a left onto Burnet.  This would be awkward for catenary wires.  And this would be a challenge for ambulance access to the Hospitals during construction- if you really wanted to have WCPO write a "Streetcar Kills" story that would be the perfect opportunity.  In contrast Erckenbecker is kind of a "back way" to the Hospitals. 

 

3.  Coming up the hill, if you tried to zig zag from Vine St. over Hollister to serve Christ Hospital you're adding a lot of turns (more complicated trackwork) and time but you're not really getting that close to Christ Hospital either. 

 

The downside to the Jefferson/Vine north /south route is I don’t think this route has that much room to spark much development uptown- there's the one surface lot by the VA and that's it.  Maybe you're helping some of the single family homes up there by the Zoo hold their value.  I think it would primarily serve to drive development in north OTR because you're adding employment centers those folks could easily access.  It would also help college kids get downtown and tourists get to the Zoo. 

 

As far as East/West goes I would go McMillan and Calhoun by UC, even though it would have been infinitely easier to have installed the track when the area between them sat empty as a vacant lot for years and years.  Then I would probably chose McMillan over Taft to extend east into Walnut Hills.  Although there are a lot of employment centers in south Corryville like Trihealth etc. that you would miss by doing this, I feel like the traditional NBD for Walnut Hills is more centered on McMillan than Taft and may be helped the most by a streetcar.

 

One thing to note about my "Uptown Five" routing is that once you secured the Transit Center at University Plaza you could take your time adding lines as funding becomes available, over decades if need be.  Perhaps you could serve the unbuilt lines with buses in the meantime.  I haven’t really thought about which lines among the five would take priority. 

 

  ^ What should the end-point Uptown destination be? The prevailing assumption is that it should be Childrens via the Zoo. But, you know, the entire stretch north of MLK along Vine and Erkenbrecker to Childrens will be dead as doornail after, say, 6:00p especially in the winter. There will be very little ridership.

 

I've been thinking the sweet spot is Jefferson to Clifton Ludlow, which sets it up nicely to go on to Northside.

^That's interesting.  You add a great NBD, Clifton Gaslight.  Then you pass through a pretty long stretch of single family housing that really doesn't need any help, economically speaking, but then gain a major destination, Cincinnati State.  And then Northside is already established as a growing neighborhood with lots of affordable housing for young people but still has a lot of room to expand to meet it full potential.

I think a lot of the Uptown route will have to be determined by interested parties. Who's willing to be on a special taxing district? Who wants to sponsor a station at their place? Who absolutely doesn't want a streetcar?

 

Jefferson would make much more sense if it cut through the EPA parking lot. I don't see that happening. There's also a lot more to be developed if the streetcar turned up Hollister to Auburn to Euclid to University to Burnet. Then would it turn to p to Forest and Reading, or down Erkenbrecker to the Zoo?

 

I could also see UC stepping up and suddenly wanting a station the middle of campus. Then it might make sense to tunnel through the hill from Thill and Vine to CCM Village, or maybe they'd want to have it come over the Vone and Calhoun intersection down Jefferson to University where he could cut across the campus green. Would Good Sam then want a stop?  Is Clifton going to aggressively pursue an extension?

 

There are a lot of question marks that need to be answered before real planning beyond Vine St can happen.

Northside seems like it would be pushing the limits of streetcar and getting into light rail territory.

^ Doubt you'd get LRT through Ludlow.

I'd like to change my answer.  I really like the west most route of the Uptown Five ( ), the one that goes up Clifton Avenue.  Enough to say maybe forget the Zoo and the Hospital campus, if I only had to choose one, pending data that shows those would really strengthen the system as a whole.  My reasoning is as follows:

 

1.  When I did my quick tally of adjoining census districts, it had the most people per mile of track of the five routes, and I'm sure it has a greater seasonal population when school is in session that the census didn't capture. 

 

2. If you ever go up to one of the upper floors of Good Sam and look out, it's obvious the neighborhood is dense dense dense.  It can’t really accommodate many more cars and traffic that would come with future growth.  (Like trying to cram ten pounds of stuff into a five pound bag.)

 

3. Combining 1 and 2, I think a streetcar in this corridor would stay true to the neighborhood circulator role of a streetcar and maintain ridership at all times of the day. 

 

4.  There is a need for a neighborhood connector to tie Clifton Heights to Clifton.  Trying to get on bike or on foot from the corner of Ludlow & Clifton to the UC campus is tough.  That's a really big hill!

 

5.  It could be really special if you redid a portion of Burnet Woods into an event/gathering space like Washington Park, as the mayor suggested. 

 

6.  You still connect to two hospitals- Deaconess and Good Sam.

 

The drawback would be finding space for future growth, because we're already to the point where they're demoing historic structures like the old Lendhardt's to accommodate it.  Also, the area doesn’t really need a "kickstart" from the streetcar to drive development, although the streetcar may help reduce traffic as the area becomes even more dense.

 

I had this one drawn as going across Ludlow and ending , but you could really take a left onto Ludlow and go through the whole NBD if you wanted too. Also you could easily begin the route coming up the Hill by simply taking a left onto Calhoun, there's no need for the Transit Center I have drawn in the diagram.

 

 

 

^ Doubt you'd get LRT through Ludlow.

 

That's 5 1/2 miles one way. Is that within the extent of what modern streetcars are doing? Not that the vehicle can't handle it, but such a fine resolution in terms of stops...

If someone we're traveling end-to-end, yes, that would be a long time to stand through a lot of frequent stops. But the average trip on an American streetcar is about a mile.

I see. So how would that work, ideally? Would you have one physical line but a few different operational segments that shuttled back and forth? With maybe an express route during rush hour?

Wait, express wouldn't work. The express couldn't get around the locals without another track.

Y

I see. So how would that work, ideally? Would you have one physical line but a few different operational segments that shuttled back and forth? With maybe an express route during rush hour?

 

You would have one alignment, but few people would ride end-to-end. I mean, how many people travel the entire length of I-75 from Michigan to Florida? More like Downtown Cincinnati to, say, West Chester.

^ Looking out over the next two years of increasing repopulation and commercial activity along the streetcar line, I doubt there will be a majority of the 2016 City Council interested in qllowing a $133 million investment to be idle much of the time. And if there is, it will be one hell of a taxpayer's lawsuit.

 

Just to be clear, because of 4 year terms we won't have a "new" council till 2018.  The same folks, minus winburn if he beats Thomas, will be in office until Dec 1 2017.

Enquirer is a little late to the party

 

Cranley 'We don't have to run the streetcar every day'

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/02/cranley-run-streetcar-every-day/14964839/

 

Its pretty obvious what they are trying to do. 

 

Plan A) Delay the streetcar using any means possible and continue to raise costs for construction so Smitherman can bring his ballot initiative for the 3rd time to stop it

 

If that doesn't work then:

 

Plan B) Minimize the effectiveness of the streetcar by limiting the hours to bizarre times or use a variety of random schedules so limit ridership

 

Plan C) Terminate the streetcar operations citing low ridership(as cranley loudly stated could happen, which I doubt, to cunningham) after a certain amount of years

Big News:

 

Kevin Flynn is agreeing with Cranley about limited streetcar operations now on 700wlw

 

They think it could be just a weekend streetcar...or lower frequency

 

To be honest, and this is just my personal opinion with nothing backing it up, I think this is a leverage play for more private money into the operations of the streetcar

All Aboard Ohio @AllAboardOhio 

This would ensure CincyStreetcar[/member] 's demise: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/02/cranley-run-streetcar-every-day/14964839/ … Feds will weigh in on this. They didn't invest in a part-time streetcar.

 

Whoever in the city is keeping track of developments & making the map of developments near the streetcar line needs to start coming out with some data publicly like every other city has done. 

It's irresponsible for the Enquirer to report that without fact-checking whether it's consistent with federal contracts.

 

To be honest, and this is just my personal opinion with nothing backing it up, I think this is a leverage play for more private money into the operations of the streetcar

 

That's probably what Flynn's angle is; he's done it before.

Yep, I can just about guarantee this is what Cranley and Flynn are doing right now.  Things have been going well lately with the streetcar construction (on time and on budget); therefore, this is simply a measure by them to "stir the pot".

Cranley 'We don't have to run the streetcar every day'

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/02/cranley-run-streetcar-every-day/14964839/

 

Sherry Coolidge: "Travis, I am working on fact checking that now. Will update the story when I find the answer."

 

It would've been nice if they would have fact-checked Cranley's claim before using it as the headline of an article. But, better late than never, I guess.

Enquirer is a little late to the party

 

Cranley 'We don't have to run the streetcar every day'

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/02/cranley-run-streetcar-every-day/14964839/

 

Sherry Coolidge: "Travis, I am working on fact checking that now. Will update the story when I find the answer."

 

It would've been nice if they would have fact-checked Cranley's claim before using it as the headline of an article. But, better late than never, I guess.

 

People were fired from my college paper for slip-ups much smaller than that. 

 

^ Looking out over the next two years of increasing repopulation and commercial activity along the streetcar line, I doubt there will be a majority of the 2016 City Council interested in qllowing a $133 million investment to be idle much of the time. And if there is, it will be one hell of a taxpayer's lawsuit.

 

Just to be clear, because of 4 year terms we won't have a "new" council till 2018.  The same folks, minus winburn if he beats Thomas, will be in office until Dec 1 2017.

 

The whole council serves the same 4 year term?  I was under the impression that there would be a council race every 2 years, with only half council members defending their seats in any given cycle.  That way, even with 4 year terms you get some turnover every 2 years.  Is that not the case?

Nope. All nine were elected to a 4 year term in November 2013.

^Well that's the dumbest thing ever.  I don't live in Ohio, so I wasn't paying close enough attention.  I thought it was 5 in one cycle, with 4 and the mayor in the alternating cycle.  Oh well.

^Well that's the dumbest thing ever.  I don't live in Ohio, so I wasn't paying close enough attention.  I thought it was 5 in one cycle, with 4 and the mayor in the alternating cycle.  Oh well.

 

Everyone can thank Laure Quinliven for that brilliant plan. She trumpeted it because she did not like campaigning and was sure she would win her seat because of name recognition but ended up being one of the few incumbents to lose last fall. It couldn't have happened to a better candidate;

Can we please redirect the never-ending debate about City Council terms to the City Council thread?

Kevin Flynn, Lisa Wells & Bill Cunningham Interview Recap:

 

'I agree with the mayor' - KF

 

'I will not take money from the general operating budget' - KF

 

'Maybe I was snookered' - KF

 

'I believed the people that told me we would cover the operating cost' - KF

 

'We've been giving them opportunities. I've reached out repeatedly...I believed the top federal official who told me personally there would be millions for streetcar operations from the federal gov' - KF

 

'The mayor told me I was crazy to believe those people and maybe the mayor was right' - KF

 

'I was wrong' - KF

 

'We've continued to meet & we've continued to search for those dollars. There will be some federal dollars coming, some private money coming...But...Its not too late. People can still step up. But its time to stop all the frilly talk. It's time to stop saying we have plenty of time...I'm laying it down today' - KF

 

'PG Sittenfeld and other liberals just say we'll take it out of the general fund' - BC

 

'If you knew exactly then what you know now, would you have voted yes' - BC

'I'd say no' - KF

 

'Were not going to raise taxes to operate the streetcar, that means cutting expenses' - KF

 

'They won't be running as much' - KF on streetcar operations to save money

 

'These advocates got you out on a limb...Just walk the plank...Now you're the only one out there & you're having the plank sawed off' - BC

 

'If I knew that we weren't going to come any farther with operations money, I would have said no' - KF on streetcar decision

 

'I've made a mistake' - KF on streetcar decision

 

'The people who want to save the streetcar, just as in december, there's always opportunities...The jury is out. Its time. The gauntlet is down' - KF

 

'I made the opponents of the streetcar mad in december. I've made all the streetcar supporters mad today' - KF

 

'I've met with property owners in OTR. I've met with Believe in Cincy...I'm out there now saying its time' - KF

 

'The advocates for the streetcar identified the one person on council they could flip bc the guy has a heart as big as the outdoors' - BC

 

'They(streetcar supporters) targeted him because they know they could promise him things and not deliver...The sharks circled, they bit kevin flynn, and politically, they killed him' - BC

 

'The operating deficit is $5m/year...That's a whole lot of cops/ff' - BC

 

'Really the deficit is closer to 8/9m/year bc not that many people will ride it' - LW

 

'What if we keep have winters like we've had and we lose like 3-4 months of the streetcar' - BC

 

'The streetcar is not going to get very close to the Reds/Bengals games' - BC

 

http://www.700wlw.com/media/podcast-bill-cunningham-bill_cunningham/streetcar-union-terminal-adrien-broner-90214-25238445/

People would be dumb to do an assessment zone now.  First of all it sets a terrible precedent for the rest of the city.  Second, Cranley will surely move the goalposts once more even if the assessment zone passes. 

I like Cranley's idea of using parking meter revenue. Very logical.

The Streetcar will not be cancelled nor will its operations be kept to weekends or almost nothing hours. Construction is wayyyy too far along and when it's done it will be very popular. Do we really need to post 700 wlw scripts everyday it's getting silly yes it's on topic but my gosh it's the same info from the same sources. The debate about a phase 2 is very valid but for Mayor Cranley and others to waste so much time still talking about phase 1 is a joke it's a DONE DEAL.

^ Ditto.

I live in the area and am intrigued by the parking proposal, mainly because this could be a means to siphon siphon from CBD which can't do a SID and which will see the greatest taxable value gains. I would be concerned however on its ability to be a mechanism to fund future legs: specifically what the parking situation would be around clifton and UC students.

 

For the SID, I would be for it if it came with a  commitment of council at least planning and applying for grants for the next phase. If the city leadership is not committed to it being successful after phase1a(not just the mayor) I struggle with agreeing to tax myself more - of course this depends on the amount and other benefits it could be used for.

 

I am curious if this could be passed for a set term, then use increased revenue metrics in the area to see if it needs renewed or at what amount.

 

Ideally these wouldn't need to happen, but it seems like some skin needs to be in the game to make it a success.

 

My thoughts after the initial read.

From Eric Avner:

 

It's time for people to tone down this damaging rhetoric. We (and others) have spent the last several months quietly coming up with options for a funding plan for the City and Metro and the community to discuss and debate. We all know a funding plan is needed, we appreciate the Mayor's position that a plan can't rely on the City's general fund, but there's no imminent crisis. There's time to do this right. There's time to contemplate a whole range of options. There's no need to be making (or over-reacting to) panic-inducing comments like these in the Enquirer or on WLW. It's not helping anyone. It's just a gratuitous ratings boost for media.

 

If you want to be mad, direct that anger at OKI Regional Council of Governments' decision to not allocate any of the Federal CMAQ dollars for the first couple of years of operations. That decision is an entirely local one. It makes the timeline to secure the full operating plan a little shorter, but it's still not a crisis. We'll get there. Take a breath, people. — feeling frustrated.

I would be concerned however on its ability to be a mechanism to fund future legs: specifically what the parking situation would be around clifton and UC students.

 

Agreed. The chances for support from UC would be much less if parking fees (in Uptown, paid by students) are planned to fund the streetcar. Just look at what happened to Cranley's plan to raise parking prices and extend hours Uptown.

Maybe some students, their reach extended by the streetcar, will choose to give up their cars and live somewhere along the streetcar line. I doubt we're talking about a huge increase here.

 

The reaction to the parking plan in Uptown was pure theater.  Nobody was talking about anything close to reality during that whole little kerfuffle. 

 

 

Maybe some students, their reach extended by the streetcar, will choose to give up their cars and live somewhere along the streetcar line. I doubt we're talking about a huge increase here.

 

 

This is very true, and the ones who choose to drive and park everywhere would benefit from a reformed parking program.

I can go into more detail on this, but I sat on Student Government when UC abandoned its old partnership with Metro. The old deal gave somewhere between $250-$300k to SORTA in exchange for free student ridership on the bus system. At that time, student ridership was something like 45,000 rides per month (really need to investigate that number...). Was maybe 10% of that after they did away with the system.

 

The reason I bring this up is the deal was killed in the midst of economic turmoil. With the economy back and UC doing better than ever, it may be worth pursuing a similar partnership for the streetcar (and maybe buses again too) when the time is right.

The Streetcar will not be cancelled nor will its operations be kept to weekends or almost nothing hours. Construction is wayyyy too far along and when it's done it will be very popular. Do we really need to post 700 wlw scripts everyday it's getting silly yes it's on topic but my gosh it's the same info from the same sources. The debate about a phase 2 is very valid but for Mayor Cranley and others to waste so much time still talking about phase 1 is a joke it's a DONE DEAL.

 

The problem is, nearly every media outlet picked up this "story" and ran it today. For the people in Cincinnati who only read headlines don't understand the details, they now think that it's a possibility to only run the streetcar for special events... even though that's completely false. I'm not sure how this typical WLW conversation became newsworthy, but it did, and these are the types of things that must be defeated by forcing the media to look into the actual facts. I'm pretty sure my complaint was one of the reasons that the Enquirer actually investigated Cranley's claim and totally rewrote the article.

Thanks to taestell's comment on cincinnati.com, Sharon Coolidge cleaned up and edited the original edition of her story, and included details about the city's responsibility to the feds vis a vis streetcar operating hours, etc.

 

Thank you Travis!  I swear, the original read like something ghostwritten by the late Barry Horstman (pun intended).  All it lacked was an inane, nasty quote from "former council member, mayor and congressman" Tom Luken.

The original headline was "Cranley: We don't have to run the streetcar every day." Here is the original text of the article:

 

Part-time streetcar?

 

Maybe.

 

That's what Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley – who has never been a fan of the project – told radio host Bill Cunningham in the wake of Friday's Enquirer examination of where the money will come from to operate the streetcar.

 

"We don't have to run it all day, every day," Cranley said. "Remember there is no obligation that we have to run it on a certain level of frequency. So if it doesn't end up having a lot of ridership we can reduce the rides on it.

 

"Maybe we just do it on the weekend or days when something is going on - Reds games, Bengals games, that kind of thing," he added.

 

Streetcar operations are estimated to cost $3.8 million a year. That money isn't needed yet, but sources must be identified by next April. So far supporters haven't secured the entire amount needed to run the streetcar.

 

Cranley said now that the project is being built, supporters – as they promised – "really need to think about how they are going to pay for it."

 

"It will not comes at the expense of police and fire and basic services," Cranley said. "They will have to find another way to pay for operations."

 

In particular, Cranley pointed out there is no plan to put a special taxing district in place, something he said was promised during the council vote to re-start the streetcar project.

 

The new title is "Cranley: Create promised streetcar tax in OTR," and you can read the rewritten article for yourself.

Only mildly related and I know it has been explored here but this article is further instructive.  AM talk definitely knows it's listeners are auto drivers. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fi-am-death-20140902-story.html#page=1