|
|
|
kendall
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2004, 03:34:44 PM » |
|
Alas....
How sweet it would be to have a rail system like that! The Xavier-UC-Downtown- N KY streetcar would be especially useful to me.
|
|
|
|
CiNYC
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2004, 12:09:43 AM » |
|
that, coupled with the completely assinine bus route i'd currently have to take to get from my place in oakley to uc, makes me want to cry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
cincinnatizach
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2004, 04:00:11 PM » |
|
Cincinnati is the largest city in the US without a light rail system. 
|
|
|
|
buildingcincinnati
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2004, 04:06:58 PM » |
|
I would take a streetcar or light rail downtown at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, the #17 bus doesn't help me so much. I could walk diwntown as fast.
|
|
|
|
Magyar
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2004, 05:02:13 PM » |
|
Cincinnati is the largest city without a light rail system? What does that make us up here in Columbus?  :" title="huh" border="0" class="smiley" /> Or do we have a rail system that I've never known about in my 20+ years up here? (Mind you, Columbus politicians always say 'We're the largest city without....')
|
|
|
|
the pope
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2004, 05:11:39 PM » |
|
no, largest city without a rail system is detroit, unless you count the people mover and its 3 mile loop around the CBD
|
|
|
|
Magyar
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2004, 05:31:41 PM » |
|
Granted we're bordering on schmatics now, but the "people mover" (formerly known as the unirail) counts as fixed or rail transit. Mind you, I've been brainwashed by the talking heads in our capital after all these years.... 
|
|
|
|
unusualfire
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2004, 06:36:23 PM » |
|
Well metro Houston didn't get their rail until the metro area reached over 4.5 million. Cincinnati has a ways to go to reach that plateau. However Cincinnati was one of the first citys to even construct mass transit rail. but the depression stopped contruction. So we have rail but it's not working.
So the correct way would be to sayit's one of the largest metro without a running(working rail system). And the biggest is Phoenix, But they do have one in the works.
|
|
|
|
cincyimages
|
No money for light rail
Post staff report
Light rail is no longer a priority of Greater Cincinnati transportation planners because money can't be found to pay the estimated $2.6 billion such a rapid transit system would cost.
...
"One day we hope to get there. It's a great idea, but we can't finance it right now."
...
OKI's updated transportation plan retains only two parts of the original rail plan and neither is actually light rail -- a streetcar route that would connect downtown Cincinnati, Covington and Newport and a diesel train passenger route from downtown Cincinnati through eastern Hamilton County to the junction of U.S. 50 and Interstate-275 in the Milford area.
Streetcars in the $132 million streetcar system would be electric-powered from overhead lines and run on rails embedded in existing streets and bridges. The streetcars would share the roadway with cars.
...
The $265 million, 18-mile diesel train passenger route would run on existing Oasis line railroad tracks, but would have to share them with freight trains.
No link available for article.
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
The proposed light-rail line for Louisville was also cancelled due to lack of funding. The light rail system I'm familiar with, in Sacaramento, California, is pretty sucessfull, and is expanding. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_sac003.htmSacramento MSA is actually around the size of Cincinnati, but is mostly low density post WWII suburbia. There are older areas that predate WWII, but they are not large vis a vis the rest of the built-up area. So its interesting to see the sucess of light-rail there.
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
Oh big surprise, the only light rail/streetcar/heavy rail in the state of ohio is cleveland's rapid. And even that is pretty low in ridership. ohio likes cars and roads, so thats what ohio will build.
cincinnati really needs a light rail system, i think its one of the few cities that could greatly benefit from it.
but wow 2.6 billion?!?! even the proposed subway in cleveland was cheaper than that. wow
|
|
|
|
buildingcincinnati
|
^ I'm with you.
Of course, I posted this in the TRANSPORTATION forum around 11:30 A.M. It was an Enquirer article that said the same things, except that light rail though not funded was at least mentioned in the report.
|
|
|
|
WhoDey
|
I moved this to Transportation since this is where it really belongs. Grassy, you can go ahead and delete it if you want, since it is a duplicate, but I thought I'd leave it up to you, since this thread has responses in it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
I think its interesting that the Cleveland system survived into our time. Most rapid transit systems outside of the East Coast (exception being Chicago) where abandoned in the postwar years.
Both Milwaulkee and I think Rochester, New York had something similar to the Cleveland system, but abandoned them in the late 40s or early 50s.
I think the Cleveland system actually expanded during the postwar era, with an extension to the airport?
|
|
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
yea Cleveland expanded to the airport, it was actually the first train system in the country to do so. It even got a new line in the mid 90s, but no one rides it (sometimes the tourists do?) since it only goes to the rock hall instead of looping back around downtown.
There had been plans to expand it to the suburbs, but i guess those fell through when the economy went to crap in 2001.
|
|
|
|
unusualfire
|
When you say no one rides it? What's the daily riders for just the rail alone?
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
Annual heavy rail ridership (2003): 4.6 million
Annual light rail ridership (2003): 2.7 million
I only know of the statistics for Heavy rail (tower city/airport)
and light rail (shaker heights, downtown, waterfront line)
Personally i know whenever im downtown i look at the train going by and no one is on it. Not a soul. The project been used by anti-transit people in Charlotte as an example of why they shouldnt add light rail to their downtown.
But really it lies in the fact that the WL starts out going through the flats and terminates at the municipal parking lot at the rock hall rather than actually looping back through the densest area of downtown (this would have made it useful to go from the strictly business areas back home to the Warehouse District residential areas)
|
|
|
|
unusualfire
|
^ what's was it's peak? how many riders did it have it's first year. It's called the RTA right?
|
|
|
|
cincydrewinclifton
|
|
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2004, 08:22:05 PM » |
|
nobody rides it? can cincy have it ?!  we have the perfect little cubby hole for it and everything  just playin buddy we won't steal your train as tempting as it is.
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
|
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2004, 09:24:42 PM » |
|
^ well thats a good point. Theres cities dying to have a light rail added to their downtown. And what happens to ours? The head of the RTA makes fun of it. Im hoping it plays a part in developing the lakefront though.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
|
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2004, 12:52:47 PM » |
|
Peak ridership on the Waterfront Line was in 1999, at more 800,000 rides for the year. The decline of the Flats was a big reason for ridership falling into 200,000's annually. Several major development projects were proposed for the line, including a World Trade Center at Dock 20 (near the mouth of the Cuyahoga), the DoubleTree Hotel near the West 3rd station, and a large residential development in the vicinity of Davenport Bluffs at the end of the Waterfront Line. But the problem of the Waterfront Line is it was originally designed to be a single-track, tourist trolley, running back and forth between the lakefront and Tower City for special events only. Former RTA GM Ron Tober wanted it to be a full-blown light-rail transit line, causing costs to balloon from $10 million to more than $70 million. When RTA and city officials opted for the more extravagent project, there was no consideration for tying the Waterfront Line's construction into a land use/development strategy with incentives for encouraging transit-friendly development along the route. Instead, the Waterfront Line was considered to be the end result of their efforts, rather than be one of several tools to achieve an end result - more downtown development and ridership generators. Now, the outcome is what you see - a $70 million special-event, tourist trolley. And, I take exception to the comment that Ohioans love cars so they won't ride trains. That's a lazy comment that avoids taking a look at the bigger picture. It's like saying a couple stranded on a deserted island love only each other. We have no alternatives to cars for nearly every trip we wish to take in Ohio. That's not a love affair. It's a shotgun marriage. They use to think in California that residents were so in love with their cars that they wouldn't use rail service. Today, as many people (55 million per year) use the San Diego light rail system as ride the entire Cleveland RTA rail AND bus system despite the two metro areas having comparable populations. For LA's Red Line, people said no one would use it. Today, more than 150,000 people ride that line -- per DAY. The Los Angeles to San Diego, and Bay Area to Sacramento rail lines are the second- and fourth-busiest Amtrak corridors in the nation, each carrying more than 1 million riders per year. Similar success stories have occured for new rail transit services in San Francisco, Sacramento, San Jose, and other rail lines in LA. Give people attractive alternatives and they will use them. California does just that, by investing more per year on rail capital improvements in that state than does the federal government for the entire nation. In Ohio? ODOT spends 95 percent of its budget on highways (thanks to a constitutional restriction that forbids it from spending state gas taxes on transportation modes other than highways) while it has cut investments in transit 40 percent since 2002. And, guess what? More than 95 percent of our daily trips are by car because we are forced to drive. But, if we're too old, poor or disabled to drive, we remain at home, left out of Ohio's economy. If you want trains in Ohio, go to www.allaboardohio.org and help us out. I'll step off my soapbox now. EDITED to update the web address
|
|
|
|
MayDay
|
|
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2004, 01:13:36 PM » |
|
Actually, I'm glad you're on your soapbox - as someone who has voluntarily been car-free in Cleveland for almost 2 years now, I wish our transit system was 1. funded properly and 2. managed/operated properly. It's good to hear the facts and information from someone in the know, so please soapbox away! And if I recall correctly, wasn't Cleveland the first airport-to-CBD transit line in not only the country but the western hemisphere?
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
|
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2004, 06:39:37 PM » |
|
Thanks. Now I understand why your forum name is "mayday"! Yes, Cleveland's was the first downtown-to-airport rail transit link in the Western Hemisphere. But, there were anomalies before that. Cleveland Hopkins had an air-rail link in the 1920s and early 30s, when the Cleveland Southwestern interurban line between Bucyrus, Medina, Berea and Cleveland stopped along Rocky River Drive to serve Hopkins. The line then continued north to Kamm's Corners, then on Cleveland Railway streetcar tracks along Lorain Avenue into downtown. Columbus also had a rail link between downtown and Port Columbus in the 1920s and 30s, but it existed as part of a larger service between St. Louis and New York City/Washington D.C. Port Columbus had a train station at Fifth Avenue and Hamilton Road, across the street from the old air terminal (still standing). Because runways didn't have navigational aids back then (like lighting!), flights from the west would land at Port Columbus in the evening and travelers would transfer to trains, then be in East Coast cities by morning. But, you could still board a Pennsylvania Railroad train at Union Station in downtown Columbus and ride out to Port Columbus, if you really wanted to. Here's how air-rail stations look nowadays in Frankfurt Germany....  Or in Amsterdam.....  Or could be in Cleveland.... 
|
|
|
|
zaceman
|
|
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2004, 07:39:38 PM » |
|
^ is that last one an actual rendering for the high speed "cleveland hub" thing?
I have to agree that we dont ride trains because we dont have them. But ill tell you, when indians games, christmas shopping, or any other special event comes my family (average ohioans) will drive 5 miles to the park'n'ride rapid station and take the train into the city.
|
|
|
|
Robert Pence
|
|
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2004, 08:47:21 PM » |
|
I read recently that there's a plan at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to put an Amtrak station at the airport. Fifteen years ago when I flew into Harrisburg on business and watched a Keystone Service train pass just on the other side of the fence from the terminal parking lot, I wondered why they hadn't done it already.
|
|
|
|
MayDay
|
|
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2004, 10:08:03 PM » |
|
"Thanks. Now I understand why your forum name is "mayday"!"
Slightly off-topic but my forum name is derived from my birthday (May 1st, or May Day). Back on topic, I'd love to see the rendering you posted actually come to fruition at Hopkins- that looks incredible!
|
|
|
|
