Cincinnati Light Rail News

[jmecklenborg]

In 2012 the stadium bonds might be over half paid off (actually the principal could still be well over 50%), but that 1/2 cent tax is scheduled to continue until 2026.  Even if sales tax receipts go through the roof, a scenario where the stadium can be paid off earlier than about 2024 seems unlikely.  This doesn't help when selling a sales tax to the population. 

There was a lot of skepticism that the 1/2 cent tax was enough for a complete build-out of the Metro Moves plan, and I concur with that.  As the first lines become active, annual operating costs cut into the agency's ability to pay off bonds and issue new ones. So if the tax is gathering an average of $60 million per year and annual operating costs are $20 million, only enough debt can be accrued that can be paid off without risking a dip into the general fund, so probably something like $35 million per year in bond payments.  How much debt that permits is entirely dependent on conditions at the time the bonds are issued.

This is why transit agencies (sometimes) can't be blames when capital projects don't happen, since often there is a perfectly logical reason to not build a 7 mile line instead of 9. Seattle ran into this problem big-time with their light rail line because of all the engineering hurdles -- unknowns way beyond what we have here.  Specifically it was a bad idea to built the line short of University of Washington due to super-high tunneling cost but poor ridership, so they had to wait for a special federal grant before they could proceed with the project to U of W. 

I good analogy would be if Cincinnati and Dayton agreed to connect themselves with a high speed rail line, but some condition changed and we only had enough money to build it between downtown Cincinnati and Middletown.  Putting that into operation would lose a ton of money and the line would need to be maintained while waiting around for a new funding source.  The cost of steel and concrete, the strength of the dollar, and the cost of muni bonds all factor into the ability of transit agencies to get stuff built.  This is why you want *huge* contingencies in any budget. 

[thomasbw]

I've heard 2012.  This is to coincide with the federal funding cycle. 

I have also heard that as well.

If you look at the original 2002 light rail plan, the first line that would have been constructed was a streetcar running from Uptown to Downtown, with light rail being built after the streetcar line was completed.

Eh? I thought the first piece was the minimum operable segment from downtown to blue ash?

Nope. Project Phasing in order

*Bus Expansion
*Streetcar (Uptown/Downtown; Southbank Loop)
*I-71 Light Rail
*I-75 Light Rail
*Westside Light Rail
*Eastside Light Rail
*I-471 Light Rail
*Crosstown Light Rail

[Living in Gin]

Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to conduct deep-bore tunneling in the Cincinnati area compared to say, Seattle, in geological terms? Seattle, of course, is an active seismic zone with bedrock consisting of (IIRC) very hard granite and/or volcanic basalt.

Cincinnati has relatively porous and crumbly limestone and shale, which seems like it would be easier for a tunnel boring machine to eat through, but may also be less stable without proper reinforcing of the underground structures.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Regarding a new light rail measure, I hope Cincinnati learns from what went wrong with Metro Moves and adapts accordingly. It would be a disaster to trot out the same plan, use the same tactics, and get the same election results. It helps that the overall political climate is much different now than it was in 2002 and that gas is much more expensive (what the climate is like in 2012 remains to be seen), and hopefully the streetcar will be a proven success by then. Having the full backing of the mayor, council, state, and congressional delegation will also be crucial. But we can't afford to be caught off-guard when COAST fights the light rail plan with everything they've got. You know the same cast of characters will be as dishonest then as they were in 2002 and in 2009.

In your opinions, what should be done differently in 2012, compared to what was done in 2002 and in 2009? What, if anything, should be different about the light rail plan itself, and what should be different about the process of selling that plan to the public?

[jmecklenborg]

My guess is that deep-bore is somewhat easier in Cincinnati for the reasons you mention.  Also, the area is geologically consistent throughout.  They definitely were not anticipating any big problems with the Mt. Auburn Tunnel.

The vote would be straight-up and yes would mean yes because the county commissioners would put it on the ballot.  The Bengals and Reds winning along with success with the Banks and riverfront park are essential. 

[NBow37]

Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to conduct deep-bore tunneling in the Cincinnati area compared to say, Seattle, in geological terms? Seattle, of course, is an active seismic zone with bedrock consisting of (IIRC) very hard granite and/or volcanic basalt.

Cincinnati has relatively porous and crumbly limestone and shale, which seems like it would be easier for a tunnel boring machine to eat through, but may also be less stable without proper reinforcing of the underground structures.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Regarding a new light rail measure, I hope Cincinnati learns from what went wrong with Metro Moves and adapts accordingly. It would be a disaster to trot out the same plan, use the same tactics, and get the same election results. It helps that the overall political climate is much different now than it was in 2002 and that gas is much more expensive (what the climate is like in 2012 remains to be seen), and hopefully the streetcar will be a proven success by then. Having the full backing of the mayor, council, state, and congressional delegation will also be crucial. But we can't afford to be caught off-guard when COAST fights the light rail plan with everything they've got. You know the same cast of characters will be as dishonest then as they were in 2002 and in 2009.

In your opinions, what should be done differently in 2012, compared to what was done in 2002 and in 2009? What, if anything, should be different about the light rail plan itself, and what should be different about the process of selling that plan to the public?

I would show how were the 2nd largest metro without any form of passenger rail...Then list all the cities around our size or smaller that have rail.  Maybe list the economic impacts.

In another commercial I would show an average cost of maintaining an automobile combined with past to projected gas prices. 

At the end of both commercials, show modern light rail in various cities.  Show families and all sorts of people from all backgrounds boarding.  Show the interior, how quiet it is, smooth, etc. 

People just need to start being introduced to what it really is, not what they perceive it to be.  The majority of arguments I hear against rail can all be dismissed easily:
1) It's not profitable
1a) If it is profitable a private company will invest in it
2) It's ancient technology and outdated
3) Its subsidized and a never ending money pit
4) It will never work here.   We are too small and besides we have highways

Just gotta keep spreading the word. 

On a side note, I really like the high speed rail they are going to construct in California...I wish that's what they were proposing for Ohio.  Sacramento to LA in 3.5 hours!  Unbelievable. 

[KJP]

On a side note, I really like the high speed rail they are going to construct in California...I wish that's what they were proposing for Ohio.  Sacramento to LA in 3.5 hours!  Unbelievable. 

All past attempts since the 1970s to build that high-speed system failed. But others decided to incrementally ramp up existing Amtrak services from almost nothing to where there are now a dozen daily San Joaquin valley trains, two dozen Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego trains, and three dozen San Jose-Sacramento trains. They built up ridership, station-area developments, local/regional transit circulation systems and therefore a support system and a political constituency for the scale of investment for high-speed networks we all want.

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

To bring this discussion back to its topic, a light-rail system can be part of that support network for a high-speed rail line.

[Living in Gin]

The vote would be straight-up and yes would mean yes because the county commissioners would put it on the ballot.  The Bengals and Reds winning along with success with the Banks and riverfront park are essential.

Agreed. The city needs to have a few successes under its belt so that Finney, et al can't scream "boondoggle!" as easily. I certainly haven't heard any New Yorkers complaining about the cost of the new Yankee Stadium this morning. (Well, maybe some Mets fans, but they've got their own expensive new ballpark to play around in...)

[Living in Gin]

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

To bring this discussion back to its topic, a light-rail system can be part of that support network for a high-speed rail line.

True. I'd much rather see 220 MPH high-speed rail than conventional 79 MPH, and I'd much rather see a fully grade-separated heavy rail metro system than surface-running light rail. But conventional passenger rail and light rail are positive steps in the right direction. In the future, if ridership warrants (and I'm confident it eventually will), conventional intercity rail can be upgraded to high-speed rail, and light rail can be upgraded to heavy rail. I just hope that the rail systems being proposed today are built in a manner so that future upgrades can be achieved with a minimum of headaches.

[jmecklenborg]

Light Rail ROW is being preserved parallel to I-75 as part of the reconstruction. This is a big difference between 2012 and 2002. I know it will be there north of the Norwood Lateral, but I don't know about between that point and the subway. 

It makes an awful lot of sense to have a high speed park & ride commuter light rail line parallel I-75 in the suburbs and use the subway. There are no good stops between Northside and Norwood, and the trains could have 2-3 mile gaps between stations north of Norwood.       

The big ? is and always will be a Northside station, which is an engineering nightmare. It's easiest to just skip it, which is what they did with the original subway project. 

[Jimmy_James]

I'd put 2 plans on the ballot instead of 1 this time.  Have Plan 1 which handles funding for light rail within the city of Cincinnati itself and Plan 1A which includes light rail service to other parts of the county.  1A could include suburbs near 275 and stops in Norwood.  Plan 1 gets voted on by Cincinnati residents, and Plan 1A gets voted on by Hamilton county residents (contingent, obviously, on the passing of Plan 1).  That way the city's fate isn't tied to the suburbs like it was back in 2002.  If Plan 1A fails, then the city can proceed with Plan 1 and people living in Mason, West Chester, etc can keep driving to downtown.  Oh, and if KY wants extensions, they should fund a Plan 2 themselves.

[Living in Gin]

^^ That's good to hear. It's also being preserved on the Kentucky side of the Brent Spence, correct? Any idea if the new bridge will be built with a provision to carry light rail?

Northside is a tough one. My thesis project proposes a tunnel from the existing subway under Mill Creek, a subway station under Harrison Avenue in the Northside business district, and the line continuing north to Harrison. The I-75 corridor north of St. Bernard would be served by another line coming from Vine Street. But then, those are the advantages to designing a hypothetical project with no budget constraints and no NIMBY or COAST opposition.

[Civvik]

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

To be fair, lots of high-speed networks were preceded by lower speeds because the technology wasn't there yet.

[taestell]

A few thoughts.

* Issue 9 failing shows that Cincinnatians support some type of rail, although maybe not the streetcar.  Bring together the people who support high speed rail, light rail, and Streetcars, and unite them by focusing on a comprehensive regional system.
* Once the economy picks up, gas prices will go back up.  Who knows, gas could be $4.50/gallon by 2012.  Focus on the cost of auto transportation compared to the cost of rail.  The Brent Spence Bridge should be in the news, if not under construction, at that point.  Point out the multi-billion dollar boondoggle and the number of people who use it just to get from NKY to Cincy and back.
* Point out other cities, especially the ones SMALLER or less dense than us, that have successful light rail.
* Do everything in our power to have the Streetcar up and running by then.  Some people won't believe the results until they see them.
* Include the public from the very beginning with well-advertised public meetings.  Include the west side in the plan and get them to support it.
* Keep Cincinnatians for Progress, The Phony Coney, and CAAST up and running to shoot down all of the nonsense that COAST puts out there.
* Light rail?  Heavy rail subway!

[thomasbw]

Here's what I would do.  Run a Streetcar (green lines) from Northside, past Cincninati State up to Ludlow (Clifton Ave is much wider than needed for this section, so you could have a deticated ROW).  Then continue to link up with the initial streetcar line, then use those tracks to get down to the Walnut Hills spur. This not only provides access to Uptown from the I-71 and I-75 lines (and likely the Eastside and Westside Lines as well) without tunneling, you effectively create a crosstown route.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116909587482079229860.000461ba7bebeb9de19da&ll=39.136851,-84.516792&spn=0.056854,0.110378&z=13

[Living in Gin]

A few thoughts.

* Issue 9 failing shows that Cincinnatians support some type of rail, although maybe not the streetcar.  Bring together the people who support high speed rail, light rail, and Streetcars, and unite them by focusing on a comprehensive regional system.
* Once the economy picks up, gas prices will go back up.  Who knows, gas could be $4.50/gallon by 2012.  Focus on the cost of auto transportation compared to the cost of rail.  The Brent Spence Bridge should be in the news, if not under construction, at that point. Point out the multi-billion dollar boondoggle and the number of people who use it just to get from NKY to Cincy and back.

And once the bridge and I-75 are ripped apart with construction work, traffic delays through that whole corridor will be a hundred times worse than they are now. That will help our cause.

* Do everything in our power to have the Streetcar up and running by then.  Some people won't believe the results until they see them.
* Include the public from the very beginning with well-advertised public meetings.  Include the west side in the plan and get them to support it.

Agreed, especially about the streetcar. If the streetcar fails, forget about light rail for another 20 years.

* Keep Cincinnatians for Progress, The Phony Coney, and CAAST up and running to shoot down all of the nonsense that COAST puts out there.

Absolutely agreed. Now isn't the time for them to fold up their tents, or to rest on their laurels. I have no doubt that Issue 9 would've passed without their efforts. The blogosphere and netroots activism may well be the biggest advantage we have now that we didn't have in 2002.

* Light rail?  Heavy rail subway!

Yeah, baby! [/Austin Powers voice]

[taestell]

Here's what I would do.  Run a Streetcar (green lines) from Northside, past Cincninati State up to Ludlow (Clifton Ave is much wider than needed for this section, so you could have a deticated ROW).  Then continue to link up with the initial streetcar line, then use those tracks to get down to the Walnut Hills spur. This not only provides access to Uptown from the I-71 and I-75 lines (and likely the Eastside and Westside Lines as well) without tunneling, you effectively create a crosstown route.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116909587482079229860.000461ba7bebeb9de19da&ll=39.136851,-84.516792&spn=0.056854,0.110378&z=13

Phase 3 of the Streetcar could be a casino-to-Union Terminal route using Central Parkway & Ezzard Charles.  Phase 3B could extend this route north on Central Parkway, and over the Ludlow Viaduct to Northside.

[unusualfire]

Honestly i think it should be a Multi-county vote. I think Hamilton county is being short changed, because the outer ring counties uses it's services. Eg sewer, hospitals, coroner, etc. AND 90% of the congestion. If the three  counties were combined. It would be the size of King county in Washington state. And the taxes would be less to pay for it.

[Living in Gin]

Honestly i think it should be a Multi-county vote. I think Hamilton county is being short changed, because the outer ring counties uses it's services. Eg sewer, hospitals, coroner, etc. AND 90% of the congestion. IF the three were counties combined. It would be the size of King county in Washington state. And the taxes would be less to pay for it.

Agreed, and this gets back to my idea for a regional transit authority that includes Northern Kentucky. Something like this will be needed if light rail is to serve NKY and the airport. Precedents to consider would be the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and/or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, both of which provide transit service that serves multiple states and counties. The Port Authority was created in the 1920's by legislative action in New York and New Jersey, while the WMATA was created in 1967 via referendum in the proposed service area.

About Metro:

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 to plan, develop, build, finance, and operate a balanced regional transportation system in the national capital area. The Authority began building its rail system in 1969, acquired four regional bus systems in 1973, and began operating the first phase of Metrorail in 1976. Today, Metrorail serves 86 stations and has 106 miles of track. Metrobus serves the nation's capital 24 hours a day, seven days a week with 1,500 buses. Metrorail and Metrobus serve a population of 3.4 million within a 1,500-square mile jurisdiction.

[KJP]

To be fair, lots of high-speed networks were preceded by lower speeds because the technology wasn't there yet.

The U.S. and Europe were running 100+ mph trains more than 80 years ago. While Europe continued to evolve its passenger rail system, we de-evolved ours.

Would you, as a politician or businessperson, invest $10 billion to $100 billion for a single rail line when the public's last action involving passenger rail was to abandon it for other modes? That's why a conventional-speed precedent is needed -- to show that people will use it at the level asked of them, even with just a few daily trains traveling at 79 mph. It's happened in 26 other states, so far.

This can be done with intercity rail because freight rail corridors exist and passenger trains are sturdy enough to safely mix with freights. It cannot be easily done with light-rail because the technologies and vehicle/weight ratios are incompatible. So with light rail everything has to be built from scratch.

How's that for a futile attempt at bringing this back on topic??

[Ram23]

Light Rail ROW is being preserved parallel to I-75 as part of the reconstruction. This is a big difference between 2012 and 2002. I know it will be there north of the Norwood Lateral, but I don't know about between that point and the subway. 

It makes an awful lot of sense to have a high speed park & ride commuter light rail line parallel I-75 in the suburbs and use the subway. There are no good stops between Northside and Norwood, and the trains could have 2-3 mile gaps between stations north of Norwood.      

The big ? is and always will be a Northside station, which is an engineering nightmare. It's easiest to just skip it, which is what they did with the original subway project. 

From plans I've seen, ROW is preserved in every future highway construction project.  I've heard from city officials that there consultants have essentially stated that the only way to relieve congestion on I-71 is to add a parrallel light rail. Thus, whatever they do on I-71 will also preserve ROW. 

Sadly, the new interchange at McMillan/Taft and MLK will destroy the Oak St. tunnel and instead preserve an at grade ROW parallel to I-71.  I have some PDF's of the plans for 71 and 75 through uptown, that show the ROW's. I'll see if I can find them and post them here, if anyone's interested.

I can't seem to locate the I-71 plans, but here's the draft I-75/I-74/Hopple St. plan showing the ROW and Northside station: http://zfein.com/pics/OPT-B LRT at 75 hopple.pdf

[Living in Gin]

I have some PDF's of the plans for 71 and 75 through uptown, that show the ROW's. I'll see if I can find them and post them here, if anyone's interested.

Please do. They would also be very helpful for my own thesis project, as long as you include the author's information so I can properly cite the source.

[dmerkow]

Could you do high level light rail like they are building some of the highways these days - the Powhite in Virginia for instance? For instance, could you run a light line through the Mill Creek Valley along 75 at the height of the top deck of the Western Hills Viaduct?

[Ram23]

^ The snippet of plan above calls for a minor extension of the subway, and then an elevated portion through Northside.  Elevated is very expensive in comparison to at grade, though.

[jmecklenborg]

That's almost a mile extension of the subway, so not a minor project, and one that would exhaust the federal match.     

Every station location in this diagram is terrible.  People wonder why rail underperforms in the US and then we see garbage like this designed by highway guys. The Forum Apartments get their own subway station; a Cincinnati State station is at the base of a hill making it useless for old people and the handicapped; the "Northside" station is over by Spring Grove Cemetery, and the I-74 station is on one side of the berm, creating a bad Cleveland Rapid-type station.   

People wonder why the Portland Streetcar is so successful and the Cleveland Rapid has no TOD's, and it has everything to do with station locations, not speed.  What we're looking at here is clearly designed for suburban trains, in which case it would be better to build just one real subway station under Knowlton's Corner and skip the rest of these stations. 

[dmbfanatpsu]

Pittsburgh has a light rail transit system called the T.  From what I recall it's not used very heavily either.  Maybe you can use that system a reference to avoid any pitfalls.