Cincinnati Light Rail News

[David]

The proposal I saw had a lot more stations in the suburbs.

[UncleRando]

The main complaint was that the route went up I-71 and not I-75...other than that though it had everything to do with anti-transit suburbanites and anti-tax individuals.  It's okay to build highways that in no way shape or form recoup their construction costs, but an actual transit system with both revenues/expenditures is clearly too socialist for this country.  Highway funding is essentially taxation without representation in my humble opinion.

[John Schneider]

The main complaint was that the route went up I-71 and not I-75...

Actually, it did go up I-75 via Xavier to Tri-County. There was a route to northern Blue Ash along I-71. There was also a route along I-74 to Dent and a route to Newtown via Xavier that used the same tracks as the I-75 and I-71 alignments for the first first five miles. There was also a cross-connector than linked the I-74 route with the Newtown alignment via a short connection between Northside and Xavier.

There were two streetcar routes in the plan leading out from downtown to the UC Medical Center and to the Northern Kentucky, the latter stopping at the Ohio side of the river.

All in all, the plan included about sixty miles of light rail and six miles of streetcar. Together with a vast expansion of the bus system, it would have brought transit to within a mile of 95% of the households in Hamilton County.

If you want to see the plan that was on the ballot in 2002, plus the eventual extensions beyond Hamilton County that weren't on the ballot then, go to www.protransit.com.

[cramer]

The mistake that was made with the MetroMoves was to try to make it all things to all people. Had they just proposed a starter line with a smaller price tag I think the measure would have failed by less. Expanding the ballot measure to a multiple line, county wide system may have made sense as a transportation policy, but it was a failed political strategy. It gave people too much to find fault with and inflated the cost.

The lesson: start smaller and let it prove its worth to voters.

[cincyimages]

Cramer said it perfectly.

[UncleRando]

The main complaint was that the route went up I-71 and not I-75...

Actually, it did go up I-75 via Xavier to Tri-County. There was a route to northern Blue Ash along I-71. There was also a route along I-74 to Dent and a route to Newtown via Xavier that used the same tracks as the I-75 and I-71 alignments for the first first five miles. There was also a cross-connector than linked the I-74 route with the Newtown alignment via a short connection between Northside and Xavier.

There were two streetcar routes in the plan leading out from downtown to the UC Medical Center and to the Northern Kentucky, the latter stopping at the Ohio side of the river.

All in all, the plan included about sixty miles of light rail and six miles of streetcar. Together with a vast expansion of the bus system, it would have brought transit to within a mile of 95% of the households in Hamilton County.

If you want to see the plan that was on the ballot in 2002, plus the eventual extensions beyond Hamilton County that weren't on the ballot then, go to www.protransit.com.

I'm familiar with the www.protransit.com system...and what was finally pitched to voters, but throughout the process the plan changed (as cramer mentioned primarily to try to appease everyone involved).  Essentially that backfired and we know the ulitmate fallout.  If they would have just had one vision ready to go and pitched that heavily from the beginning it would have had a better chance.  But the MetroMoves campaign was dealing with timetables and wanted the proposal to be on that ballot in order to be able to take advantage of some key federal funding at the time.

It might have proved to be more beneficial to wait another year and have a solid/cohesive plan that they could market hard/heavy to the masses.  But it is what it is...we have to start working on the next effort now.

[jmecklenborg]

^Actually I believe the vote had to be in 2002 because of the federal funding cycle.  Some states have actually stepped in and funded lines in order to circumvent the federal process, in fact I believe there is a pretty long and underused line in New Jersey that was built recently with no federal funding.  And state governments do this quite frequently with highway proposals that fail to meet federal guidelines, for example the proposed I-840 loop around Nashville as built is State Rt. 840 because the traffic predictions were so low that it did not receive federal funding. 

Also it wasn't until construction of the Washington Metro that the federal government offered any money for local transit projects.  BART started construction with only county and state funding a few years earlier, then I believe finished construction with federal subsidies. 

As I've proposed here before, if Ohio had any sense about it, the federal process could be bypassed if the state government allocated $1 billion each to Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus for light rail & streetcar construction, with shared equipment purchases for new systems in Cincinnati and Columbus. 

[GCrites80s]

The mistake that was made with the MetroMoves was to try to make it all things to all people. Had they just proposed a starter line with a smaller price tag I think the measure would have failed by less. Expanding the ballot measure to a multiple line, county wide system may have made sense as a transportation policy, but it was a failed political strategy. It gave people too much to find fault with and inflated the cost.

The lesson: start smaller and let it prove its worth to voters.

Take a look at D.C. Metro. It still isn't "done" even after 30 years, because it's such an undertaking. Once a city has had a suburban build-out, any transit system will take a loooooong time to reach all areas.

[Jimmy_James]

One of the problems is that most people love their cars, and in a city whose traffic isn't really that bad (yet), it's easy for county voters to view a multi-million dollar transit program like Metro Moves, as an unnecessary expenditure.  I just don't think that the desire is there for people in the suburbs to agree to another tax.

I think the streetcar plan is much more realistic.  People living in downtown, OTR, Clifton, Covington, & Newport would actually like to have rail.  It would encourage development in those areas and drive more people to live in the urban core.  After that happens, then you might be able to sell light rail to the suburbs, because they would be able to see the benefits that rail brings.  And if they don't and Cincinnati never gets a regional rail system, at least you have rail within the heart of the city, where you need it most.

I've also always thought that having the stadium deals happen the way they did in the late 90s hurt Metro Moves tremendously.  I don't have any numbers to back that up, but I seem to remember a lot of people complaining about "another tax hike" for something they'll never use.  I actually like both of the stadiums a lot, so I'm glad they were built, but not at the expense of light rail. 

[John Schneider]

One of the problems is that most people love their cars, and in a city whose traffic isn't really that bad (yet), it's easy for county voters to view a multi-million dollar transit program like Metro Moves, as an unnecessary expenditure.  I just don't think that the desire is there for people in the suburbs to agree to another tax.

I think the streetcar plan is much more realistic.  People living in downtown, OTR, Clifton, Covington, & Newport would actually like to have rail.  It would encourage development in those areas and drive more people to live in the urban core.  After that happens, then you might be able to sell light rail to the suburbs, because they would be able to see the benefits that rail brings.  And if they don't and Cincinnati never gets a regional rail system, at least you have rail within the heart of the city, where you need it most.

I've also always thought that having the stadium deals happen the way they did in the late 90s hurt Metro Moves tremendously.  I don't have any numbers to back that up, but I seem to remember a lot of people complaining about "another tax hike" for something they'll never use.  I actually like both of the stadiums a lot, so I'm glad they were built, but not at the expense of light rail. 

Absolutely right on target in every respect.

[Jimmy_James]

Take a look at D.C. Metro. It still isn't "done" even after 30 years, because it's such an undertaking. Once a city has had a suburban build-out, any transit system will take a loooooong time to reach all areas.

True.  But that's why it's folly to build a transit system that will attempt to reach all areas.  All you really need is a comprehensive streetcar system that runs through the dense urban areas, and a couple of rail lines leading to "hot spots".  These would include, but not necessarily be limited to, the airport and universities like UC, XU, & NKU.  As far as servicing the suburbs goes, you just run one line near each expressway with minimal stops, and use Park&Rides.  For example I think 4 or 5 stops between downtown and 275 on I-71 would probably be enough.  You'll never get people in the outermost suburbs to live car-free, so you shouldn't try.  Just give them the ability to avoid sitting in rush hour and call it a day.  Eventually, people who don't want to own a car will gravitate towards the urban core or to developments that spring up around light rail stops.  Those that like driving will happily live in an area that isn't serviced by rail, just as they do now.  And over the course of several decades, the shape of the entire city will change, building around the new infrastructure.  People often fall into the trap of trying to build a system that will service the city as it exists now, instead of the city as it will look in 20 to 30 years.

[David]

Take a look at D.C. Metro. It still isn't "done" even after 30 years, because it's such an undertaking. Once a city has had a suburban build-out, any transit system will take a loooooong time to reach all areas.

True.  But that's why it's folly to build a transit system that will attempt to reach all areas.  All you really need is a comprehensive streetcar system that runs through the dense urban areas, and a couple of rail lines leading to "hot spots".  These would include, but not necessarily be limited to, the airport and universities like UC, XU, & NKU.  As far as servicing the suburbs goes, you just run one line near each expressway with minimal stops, and use Park&Rides.  For example I think 4 or 5 stops between downtown and 275 on I-71 would probably be enough.  You'll never get people in the outermost suburbs to live car-free, so you shouldn't try.  Just give them the ability to avoid sitting in rush hour and call it a day.  Eventually, people who don't want to own a car will gravitate towards the urban core or to developments that spring up around light rail stops.  Those that like driving will happily live in an area that isn't serviced by rail, just as they do now.  And over the course of several decades, the shape of the entire city will change, building around the new infrastructure.  People often fall into the trap of trying to build a system that will service the city as it exists now, instead of the city as it will look in 20 to 30 years.

Exactly! I like you Jimmy.

[UncleRando]

Jimmy's 13 posts thus far have been 13 of the most spot on comments you could possibly have, great to have you around.

[GCrites80s]

Take a look at D.C. Metro. It still isn't "done" even after 30 years, because it's such an undertaking. Once a city has had a suburban build-out, any transit system will take a loooooong time to reach all areas.

True.  But that's why it's folly to build a transit system that will attempt to reach all areas.  All you really need is a comprehensive streetcar system that runs through the dense urban areas, and a couple of rail lines leading to "hot spots".  These would include, but not necessarily be limited to, the airport and universities like UC, XU, & NKU.  As far as servicing the suburbs goes, you just run one line near each expressway with minimal stops, and use Park&Rides.  For example I think 4 or 5 stops between downtown and 275 on I-71 would probably be enough.  You'll never get people in the outermost suburbs to live car-free, so you shouldn't try.  Just give them the ability to avoid sitting in rush hour and call it a day.  Eventually, people who don't want to own a car will gravitate towards the urban core or to developments that spring up around light rail stops.  Those that like driving will happily live in an area that isn't serviced by rail, just as they do now.  And over the course of several decades, the shape of the entire city will change, building around the new infrastructure.  People often fall into the trap of trying to build a system that will service the city as it exists now, instead of the city as it will look in 20 to 30 years.

I agree, and your plan sounds very realistic and maybe even profitable. As locals begin to discover the benefits, "infill stops" can open up at later dates. Basically, what I was saying is that some voters may have known that deciding to do it all at once would be difficult (but really awesome).

[jmecklenborg]

>But that's why it's folly to build a transit system that will attempt to reach all areas.

Therein lies the whole problem, that attempting to fund the local matches for these systems with ballot issues requires support from an entire municipality or county.  It's much tougher to convince a person in the far eastern and western parts of Hamilton County to vote for a tax that would only build the CL&N I-71 line, which was the original plan, because those people would only benefit from the echoes of the line, not from actually riding it. 

Interstate construction never required this because it was primarily a federally initiated and funded program, and as I've stated before enormous grassroots efforts were required to stop certain highways from being built whereas enormous grassroots efforts have since been required to build rail systems. 

[Jimmy_James]

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

Basically, what I was saying is that some voters may have known that deciding to do it all at once would be difficult (but really awesome).

Yeah, I think that they just didn't see the need for additional taxation and the hassle of construction all over the city for many, many years to implement this.  I still contend that having a world-class rail system would be a huge benefit for the region, but getting enough votes for that is tricky.

>But that's why it's folly to build a transit system that will attempt to reach all areas.

Therein lies the whole problem, that attempting to fund the local matches for these systems with ballot issues requires support from an entire municipality or county.  It's much tougher to convince a person in the far eastern and western parts of Hamilton County to vote for a tax that would only build the CL&N I-71 line, which was the original plan, because those people would only benefit from the echoes of the line, not from actually riding it. 

Interstate construction never required this because it was primarily a federally initiated and funded program, and as I've stated before enormous grassroots efforts were required to stop certain highways from being built whereas enormous grassroots efforts have since been required to build rail systems. 

That's actually a really good point.  Federal funding would be key to getting a project of this scope completed, especially in Cincinnati, where much of the population lives in another county and/or another state.  Hopefully, that type of funding will be a real possibility in the near future.  Focus placed on aging infrastructure by the recent, tragic, bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the politicization of the "global warming issue" may combine to create a rail-friendly political environment.  It could just be wishful thinking, but hopefully someone, somewhere is realizing now that the answer to all of our traffic problems isn't simply adding lanes.

[UncleRando]

It is key to be in line with federal funding cycles, but that does not assure you (or anyone) that, that particular money is even going to be there when it comes time to sign on the dotted line.  The feds have notoriously cut the legs out from rail projects.

[jmecklenborg]

I don't think the prevailing political climate is going to change to pro-rail.  It's still the case that many, many people in government (and the public) see growth as validation.  Most suburban areas point to growth in their area as proof that they make and have made good decisions.  An exception in Hamilton County is Indian Hill, but that is definitely the exception.  The entire South points to recent growth as proof that there was always something special about their area and everyone else only figured it out recently.  The way people think about and celebrate growth is a big part of the problem.       

The problem is that most politicians consider attracting a big auto or auto-related plant to their district as a career-capping or career-making achievement, not mass transit expansion.  Since the US car companies aren't growing much if at all, now they seek the foreign companies.  Well what happens in 30 years when someone or something comes along and usurps Honda and Toyota?  Those small towns are back to being small towns, tons of people out of work, property values plummet, apartments and homes are bulldozed.  Suddenly the school district is out of money, police and fire out of money, all that.  Greensberg, IN is going to be just another exit with some decaying stuff in 2040 when Honda pulls out.  Even now, even after all that's happened with the US auto industry, people seem to be convinced that these Honda and Toyota plants are going to be around forever.  As a politician, how do you go golfing with a car company exec while working on a mass transit project?

Obviously being car-free in the distant suburbs is impossible but with a good mass transit system living with one car is possible.  When I was a kid we only had one car as did most families around us because either the dad took the bus to work or the mom stayed at home.  So much of the growth in traffic is a direct result of women driving to work who wouldn't have had jobs 50 years ago.  But there are many cases where married couples work nearby and still drive separately, I even worked next to a woman whose husband worked on another floor in the same building but they drove separately because their schedules were 30 minutes different.  That kind of attitude is totally ridiculous and over the course of a decade cost them $40-50,000.   

 

[GCrites80s]

I even worked next to a woman whose husband worked on another floor in the same building but they drove separately because their schedules were 30 minutes different.  That kind of attitude is totally ridiculous and over the course of a decade cost them $40-50,000.   

Maybe they hated each other. That's the only way to justify that sort of waste, and also the abuse of a perfectly good automobile.

[Mr. Anderson]

Speaking of rail/transit coverage - from Opinion Section of Enquirer.

Group behind transit study has rail agenda
BY JIM EMERSON

Forbes magazine lists Cincinnati as the sixth most expensive city for commuters, with "annual expenses devoted to transportation to work" equaling 20 percent of household expenses ("Commuting expense? We're No. 6," Aug. 20). "Forget taking the train," laments Forbes, "there is no commuter rail system."

When I read this in The Enquirer something didn't seem right. We use our cars to get to lots of places, not just work, so car payments and maintenance will not go away with light rail. Gasoline costs come nowhere close to 20 percent of household expenses.

Click on link for article.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070829/EDIT01/708290311/1090/EDIT

[UncleRando]

Thanks for sharing that...and likewise putting me in a bad mood.  There is a reason I don't read to opinion section of the Enquirer.  I have written them numerous times on the topic of transit...and not once have they published my thoughts/ideas.  They did however have the audacity to ask me contribute to some forum they were holding.

I politely responded with "I'm sorry, but maybe I missed it.  Have any of my comments ever been published?" (something along those lines)

The guy responded and said, well no...but we do appreciate your thoughts/ideas and I am not sure why they haven't been published.  Needless to say, I rejected their invitation to further contribute to that lousy excuse for a news publication.  They print the flavorful and rarely educated comments for nothing more than the entertainment.

[jmecklenborg]

Arguing that having everyone drive their own cars is more cost-effective than everyone taking the bus or trains is absurd.  I'm certainly not advocating it, but the housing blocks and transit lines in Moscow are probably the best existing case of 10+ million people living and moving in the most efficient way possible.  A big reason why transit lines are so expensive is that part of that expense is the vehicles themselves, whereas the expense of the thousands of vehicles that will travel a highway is not a capital expenditure.  A transit line also includes shop facilities for the vehicles and operating expenses include every last thing since local transit systems are islands of activity and it's much easier to precisely tabulate expenses and cost-effectiveness.  Few people calculate the insidious expenses associated with car ownership and when confronted with the true figures either act like something's wrong or roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders. 

And that figure doesn't even include the 10+ parking spaces that exist for every car.  Whenever you bring up the fact that free parking isn't free people get upset.  Obviously you are paying for a strip mall's parking lot through the purchase of items at the stores.  Calculate that times the myriad places any car parks in a year and suddenly car ownership is actually indirectly pays for land ownership.  And not just the spaces -- the space needed to turn into spaces as well in lots or garages.  I've always kind of wondered what the collective "parking footprint" of the average American car is, I'd guess it's something like 100X100 feet.  I suppose you could then divide that expense by 60 years of driving for each individual, but nevertheless it means every person with a car is not only taking up the space in which they live and work but also this related parking space.       

[cincijohns]

Another important "open house" is on Monday, September 17th, from 4-7 at XU's Cintas Center.

At the open house OKI will unveil the population projections they use for the Long Range Transportation Plan.  The Plan is used to identify transportation needs in the year 2030 and recommend transportation projects to meet those needs. All transportation projects are required to be listed in the Plan to receive federal dollars.

OKI is using population projections that show Warren and Boone Counties more than doubling their population between 2000 and 2030.  This growth is coming, in part, at Hamilton County’s expense.  The same projections show Hamilton County’s population declining by 114,730 people between 2000 and 2030. 

When these projections are used to model the future transportation needs for our region, they indicate a need for huge transportation investments in outlying counties leaving little for the improvements needed to rebuild and revitalize existing communities. 

OKI’s own Land Use Commission proposed a better, less costly way to grow our region. My organization, Citizens for Civic Renewal, is advocating that OKI explore projections that show stable or growing urban areas which can take pressure off the suburbanizing fringe and redirect transportation investments toward needs in existing communities.

[UncleRando]

OKI’s own Land Use Commission proposed a better, less costly way to grow our region. My organization, Citizens for Civic Renewal, is advocating that OKI explore projections that show stable or growing urban areas which can take pressure off the suburbanizing fringe and redirect transportation investments toward needs in existing communities.

From what I have experienced...CCR is a GREAT organization.  It's great to have you on the forum.  As for your comments, I agree...OKI has been primarily suburban-oriented for many, many years.  There are quite a few flaws in OKI that need to be resolved.  Hopefully CCR can help lead this charge of better operations from OKI.

[Civvik]

Arguing that having everyone drive their own cars is more cost-effective than everyone taking the bus or trains is absurd.  I'm certainly not advocating it, but the housing blocks and transit lines in Moscow are probably the best existing case of 10+ million people living and moving in the most efficient way possible.  A big reason why transit lines are so expensive is that part of that expense is the vehicles themselves, whereas the expense of the thousands of vehicles that will travel a highway is not a capital expenditure.  A transit line also includes shop facilities for the vehicles and operating expenses include every last thing since local transit systems are islands of activity and it's much easier to precisely tabulate expenses and cost-effectiveness.  Few people calculate the insidious expenses associated with car ownership and when confronted with the true figures either act like something's wrong or roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders. 

And that figure doesn't even include the 10+ parking spaces that exist for every car.  Whenever you bring up the fact that free parking isn't free people get upset.  Obviously you are paying for a strip mall's parking lot through the purchase of items at the stores.  Calculate that times the myriad places any car parks in a year and suddenly car ownership is actually indirectly pays for land ownership.  And not just the spaces -- the space needed to turn into spaces as well in lots or garages.  I've always kind of wondered what the collective "parking footprint" of the average American car is, I'd guess it's something like 100X100 feet.  I suppose you could then divide that expense by 60 years of driving for each individual, but nevertheless it means every person with a car is not only taking up the space in which they live and work but also this related parking space.       

I can tell you that the "car footprint" is close to what you have guessed. On that same note, I can also tell you that developers don't love or hate parking stalls any more than the average person. They simply see demand for them from the jurisdictions that they build in and from the tenants that they build for. Usually the tenant demand is higher. One of the things that would revolutionize urban design in America is a smaller median vehicle size. If I could design a mixed-use block that had a resonable parking ratio (even 3 spaces per 1,000 SF instead of 5) and could do it for a car the size of a Yaris instead of an F-350, i could literally cut my car-related land use and infrastructure cost in half.

Little things add up so much. It's amazing.

[John Schneider]

CRANLEY: I don’t see light rail on the horizon."

SORTA plans in works...sorta

Some ambitious plans are in the works to revamp the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA).

But the changes aren't anywhere near to the point of rubber hitting road (pun intended).

In fact, it may be still be quite awhile before the city and the county even agree on exactly far-reaching the overhaul should be, let alone getting the plan ready to present to surrounding counties, and the masses served by mass-transit.

Here's the deal. Hamilton County Commission President Todd Portune is on a small group of city, county and SORTA folk who are working on this re-organization. Last week Portune told the Enquirer about the plans in the works (read Enquirer story). Then, on Monday he outlined in a two-page memo to his colleagues, Commissioners David Pepper and Pat DeWine, exactly what the "SORTA Revision Process" would entail.

Portune said he thinks its "time to test the water" and see if this is what the full city council, county commission and SORTA board were envisioning when they began the re-organization talks six months ago.

But some of Todd's plans (like light rail and a high-speed rail line between Cincinnati and Dayton) may stretch a little beyond what others in the revision group are interested in tackling right now.

Said Councilman John Cranley (he's part of the re-organization group) last week: "If it wasn’t for David and Todd’s approach, this change would never have happened. Hamilton County is willing to be partners with us and they are very progressive."

But....

"My first goal is to make sure we have the highest level of service in the city. I don’t see light rail on the horizon."

SORTA board member Melody Sawyer Richardson (not part of the re-organization group)came to the Monday meeting because she read about it in the paper. She said (speaking as a resident, not on behalf of the board) that the first goal should be to protect the existing system and the people who use it. That said, "regionalism is fabulous," she noted. And she thinks considering different modalities (like trains and trolleys) is important.

So we'll see where how it boils down in a few weeks. City Council will take up the issue at some point. It meets again in two weeks. County Commissioners said they'll schedule a work session in three weeks on the issue.

Read Portune's memo: sorta.pdf

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/

[Neville]

It seems like Cranley isn't getting the big picture. Light Rail does serve the city because it makes it easier for people to get to the city...

[Demone]

It seems like Cranley isn't getting the big picture. Light Rail does serve the city because it makes it easier for people to get to the city...

I wouldn't say Cranely doesn't get the big picture, I believe he is being realistic about the current transportations issues and what City Council is willing to prioritize.  Let's face it, any light rail project which involves multiple counties will be a circus in terms of funding and political in- fighting.  He might be thinking his top priority for transportation is the street cars for the city core.  Our region needs short term wins; consequently, the streetcars would provide not only a new and successful mode of transportation but also the catalyst for investment along the street car routes.

Building on the success of the streetcar, the natural progessing is extending the streetcar lines futher out to UC, HP, West side, etc. Eventually the idea of light rail will gain political and popular support, until then we have to walk before we run. (pardon the pun)

[John Schneider]

It seems like Cranley isn't getting the big picture. Light Rail does serve the city because it makes it easier for people to get to the city...

ILet's face it, any light rail project which involves multiple counties will be a circus in terms of funding and political in- fighting. 

Light rail doesn't have to go to multiple counties to be successful. You could build light rail on a line from downtown to UC to Xavier and out through Hyde Park to the city limits and have 20,000 riders per day. Within a half-mile of so of that alignment, those neighborhoods, in the aggregate, voted in favor of light rail in 2002. So you could build it wholly within one jurisdiction, to start. The 2002 plan was wholly located within Hamilton County.

[jmecklenborg]

Still with the I-75 reconstruction looming, there's great opportunity to lay commuter tracks in the median or alongside it as part of one project but due to the silliness of US transportation policy it's ridiculously complicated and nobody seems to have even brought it up as part of preliminary planning and I suppose it's already far too late.  Such tracks could serve dually as a dedicated approach for intercity trains and for local commuter service.