|
UncleRando
|
^Agreed with the whole Germany set-up...however to the average joe they see rail and apply whatever buzz word they have been hearing lately for it. Whether it be lightrail, streetcar, elevated rail, subway, etc. The good sign here is that when someone warms up to one of them...they seem to warm up to the idea of all the different modes.
|
|
|
|
osogato
|
I don't know what you want to call DC's rail system, all I know is that it works! I lived there for about a year and didn't own a car. The rail system was absolutely fabulous! No need for a car. While it's true the "subway" does travel above ground quite a bit, it is perfectly functional doing so, and the system is the easiest to get around out of any that I have been on.
|
|
|
|
CincyInDC
|
^ We just call it Metro.  It's a great system that's underfunded and sadly in disrepair right now. Delays abound especially on the oldest line (red), and the orange line cars are so packed it's driving people back to their cars (pun intended). If Cincinnati had a viable carless option, I'd seriously consider moving back.
|
|
|
|
UncleRando
|
^You should write a letter to the editor, or email/write the members of City Council about just that. I think many people don't fully understand the significance of having a rail transit system.
|
|
|
|
Sherman Cahal
|
^ Check out this month's issue of RAIL. It has a great piece on the Metro and why the system was so underfunded for years. The maintenance headaches have caught up to Metro and they are embarking on a program that will eventually replace the trains with modern replacements, and catch up on 10-15 years of deferred work.
|
|
|
|
CincyInDC
|
^ the first problem with Metro is that it serves three competing jurisdictions, so it's tough for anything to get done at the highest levels. It kills me that northern Kentucky (well, Newport at least) would be a willing, eager partner with Cincinnati, yet nothing is happening because one jurisdiction can't get it together. I like that progress is being made, but it's frustratingly slow. And I don't even live there.  I also have this fantasy that will never come true. When I fly to CVG to visit friends and family I'd like to not have to rent a car. I'll definitely write in to the Enquirer. Does anybody know if pen-and-paper letters have a greater probability of being published?
|
|
|
|
|
|
UncleRando
|
^^It is better to do pen/paper letters to politicians though. The Enquirer shouldn't matter either way.
|
|
|
|
dmerkow
|
Unfortunately, the DC story does point out the challenges in developing a true regional transit system. We don't have the feds who funded it in the first place and don't really want to pay up, but nonetheless we have two/three states along with numerous smaller gov'ts and all that means that it will take massive effort and constitutional amendments to get decent, reliable funding for a quality regional system.
|
|
|
|
jmecklenborg
|
BART was formed and started construction with no federal funding whatsoever. The system did receive federal funding after the Washington Metro fired up, however. There was at least one instance in the late 70's where Metro was nearly killed, even after the red line and part of the orange/blue line had begun operation. Obviously very difficult geography dictated the need for big-time rail in San Francisco but it didn't appear at the same time as the early east coast systems because the city was physically small and well-served by its streetcar system (which included a few tunnels) and the technology and need didn't quite exist for the transbay tunnel. San Francisco is still served by its streetcar/light rail system (Muni) and then BART is like the Washington Metro in that it functions somewhat like commuter rail.
MARTA suffers from similar funding problems and the downtown subway is looking shabby. The suburban counties keep playing games and nobody wants to get serious. If it costs money, people make excuses. But if it's "free", politicians jump all over it. The interestates were "free", esp in Cincinnati where the subway and canal ROW's served as so much of the 10% local match. Meanwhile even LA subway, with the benefit of being entirely within LA county, has been stymied by the outrageous tunneling ban spurred by methane fears. It might have been lifted recently, I don't keep up on it too closely.
|
|
|
|
lostincincinnati
|
Seattle
Minneapolis
Charlotte
Cincinnati
sorry...I HAD to post this...please direct all hate mail and anger towards me... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
Cool pics. As I've noted elsewhere, the population of the Washington DC area was around the 2 million mark at the time the Washington Metro master plan was adopted, roughly the same as the Greater Cincinnati area population today. A few European cities have healthy metro systems despite being significantly smaller than Cincinnati.
There's a couple spots on the Washington Metro, Chicago's 'L', and Portland's MAX where trains run either alongside or down the median of expressways. It has the advantage of already being grade-separated and designed for high speeds, and any added width to the highway for ROW construction is generally minimal. Worst-case scenario, it would be no different than adding another lane in each direction to the road. (If the highway already has a wide median, or if it's decided to eliminate one lane on each side in favor of rail transit, then so much the better.)
The disadvantage is that transit stations in highway medians tend to be isolated from the rest of the surrounding neighborhood, as customers have to walk across at least half the highway on an overpass or underpass to reach the station. Most of Chicago's 'L' stations in highway medians aren't particularly inviting for pedestrians. However, I think those shortcomings can be mitigated with proper design, and with transit-oriented-development occurring at the station.
In the Cincinnati area, running transit lines in highway medians would be most effective in the suburbs where people would be more likely to drive to the station and use Park & Ride facilities. Within urban areas, transit works best when it's as close to neighborhood business districts as possible, either in the form of street-running light rail or underground subway lines.
|
|
|
|
jmecklenborg
|
Where cheaper median-running rail could work is if there were direct high-speed tunnel connections into the uptown area. This would give these lines a big time advantage over cars bound for that same area of town.
The I-74 light rail would probably be the worst-performing line in the region if it simply ran downtown. But if it tunnels from about Montana Ave. to stations under northside, Cinti State, and UC, then it becomes a very viable alternative to driving to those same places.
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
^ Word. I looked up some info about the TransPerth regional rail system shown in the two photos above, and it looks like a pretty sweet system that does pretty much as you describe: Runs in expressway medians in low-density suburban areas, and then dives into subway tunnels as it approaches the high-density urban core. The fact that it uses overhead catenary means it wouldn't necessarily need to be fully grade separated. (The trains look too big for street running, but you could still have grade crossings in lower-density areas.) If the rolling stock were made to be FRA-compliant, it could run on mainline tracks with freight traffic. In many ways, it combines the speed and capacity of a heavy-rail system with the upfront cost savings of a light rail or commuter rail system. On top of all that, those trains look pretty cool. Here's a YouTube video of TransPerth in action, possibly along the same stretch of highway as shown above:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johio
|
High speed rail lines in highway medians just makes sense. It probably cost significantly more than using existing infrastructure but it would also put the rail lines in closest proximity of existing development. Probably not going to happen in the US anytime soon but those pics were cool.
|
|
|
|
taestell
|
After the Streetcar, I think Cincinnati should focus on building light rail within the city itself. Instead of making it a Hamilton County issue, keep it within the city and I bet it would pass. Then let Hamilton County and surrounding counties vote later on whether they want to extend the system. (This is similar to how the 2002 proposal worked... If Hamilton County passed the issue, only the portions within HamCo would have been built, and surrounding counties would have had to vote separately to extend it into their neighborhoods.)
Is there any reason this couldn't work? The only issue I can think of is that the cost of rolling stock would be divided by only the city instead of the whole county.
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
That would be one option, and I'm sure Newport and Covington would be eager to play ball, too.
In the long term, I think there needs to be a true regional transportation authority modeled after a multi-state port authority such as the Port Authority of NY & NJ. In addition to transit service (including buses, streetcars, light rail, etc.), this agency would also be responsible for CVG and Lunken airports, Union Terminal, and the bridges between Ohio and Kentucky. Highway tolls, airport user fees, rents from airport retail and concessions, and profits from real estate developments at transit nodes would fund regional transit. The agency would be free of petty local politics (COAST, Smitherman, et al), long-term transportation planning would take place with the good of the entire region in mind, and if it's set up properly, its operational budget would be entirely self-sustaining. For example, the Port Authority of NY & NJ manages three major airports, several major bridges and tunnels, and a rapid transit system without receiving a dime of local or state funding.
The creation of such an authority would most likely require legislative action in both Frankfort and Columbus (and maybe Indianapolis if southeast Indiana wants to join the party), but I think it's an idea worth considering.
|
|
|
|
Jeffery
|
It would be nice for a regional system to extend up through Warren & Bulter up into Dayton. Then you'd have something like the German "regionalvehrkersverbund', serving a multinucleated urban region.
|
|
|
|
Jeffery
|
Interesting to see the US-style green & white signage in Oz.
|
|
|
|
Sherman Cahal
|
France has a similar signage setup, including the "stackable" guide signs that we use, although their background is white with black text. Their "exit" is a "sortie" with a KM reference number, with FHWA-Series E-Modified font. I really like that Ohio is finally switching over to Clearview, like Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
Carbody-wise, the Transperth trains remind me a lot of the O-Train in Ottawa (which is also deployed on lighter-density railroad lines throughout Germany). The O-train is diesel powered so its start-up costs are less than the Transperth train, but Transperth has a higher passenger capacity. If you haven't ridden the O-Train, I recommend it. You'll want one, too....
|
|
|
|
unusualfire
|
With Tuesday's victory. I hope they would put light rail back on the ballet next year.
|
|
|
|
CincyInDC
|
How was the MetroMoves plan to be paid for? Sales tax or the like?
|
|
|
|
jmecklenborg
|
Never-ending 1/2 cent countywide sales tax to cover capital and operations. This would, I believe, have raised approximately $60 million per year and reorganized Metro to provide comprehensive countywide service. Queen City Metro is funded by a 3/10 of 1% city earnings tax.
|
|
|
|
Weedrose
|
I would think that light rail wouldn't be on the agenda to the Streetcar is built, maybe get light rail by 2015, if we're not all dead by 2012
|
|
|
|
jmecklenborg
|
I've heard 2012. This is to coincide with the federal funding cycle.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Civvik
|
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?
|
|
|
|
