Cincinnati Commuter Rail (Dayton, Montgomery, Mariemont: shop, light rail, housing)

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by Dayton Sux

You just dont have this to the degree that would make commuter rail viable. Yes, there is an employment concentration downtown but is it enough to make sense for commuter rail? To the point that the pain and cost of parking makes commuting downtown by car unviable.

Hi Dayton Sux--

The only way I could see a local commuter rail working is if the residential population within a three mile radius of downtown drastically increased - tripled or more, with a lot of those residents working either on the riverfront or perhaps near UC or the hospitals. Otherwise the density (or lack thereof) will never justify commuter rail or indeed any kind of transit beyond buses.

A scaled down version of MetroMoves (covering downtown, stretching north to UC, possibly Xavier or the zoo, east to Mt. Adams, and south to include Covington and Newport - I'm imagining to 12th St. or so in both cases) could possibly work, and cost less than the 2002 proposal. Plus since it would cross state lines it would have a better chance of getting federal funding.

Alternatively, toss the 'hub and spoke' system of mass transit in favor of several smaller regional hubs - with main lines going from hub to hub, and then local ones serving that neighborhood. If the cost (and lack of ridership) doesn't justify using a big ole bus, then use a van instead.

[natininja]

I think you guys don't realize just how dispersed population and jobs are in many regions where commuter rail is not only viable but very well used.

[unusualfire]

Hmm Albuquerque to Santa Fe seems to be doing alright. Salt Lake City system is doing well. The Nashville is the only one that i heard of is not doing so great.

Those above metro's don't have the density of Cincinnati and Dayton.

[CinciFan]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

A scaled down version of MetroMoves (covering downtown, stretching north to UC, possibly Xavier or the zoo, east to Mt. Adams, and south to include Covington and Newport - I'm imagining to 12th St. or so in both cases) could possibly work, and cost less than the 2002 proposal. Plus since it would cross state lines it would have a better chance of getting federal funding.

I agree with this strategy. That's why I think the streetcar is a good first step toward achieving this goal.

Also, I have always thought that a hub system, one downtown and the other uptown, would be a good plan. I think metro is currently being reorganized in line with this idea as well. They just built the West side transit hub a couple years ago and they will begin the uptown transit district soon.

[Chemistry_Guy]

The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.

The root of the problem (from a rail supporter's perspective) is that housing in general is way too cheap. You don't have to pay any kind of appreciable premium to live within a mile of anything. Sure, certain streets are desirable, but you can generally find cheap housing within a mile (often a quarter mile) of any destination in the city. This is changing a bit with the rise of the riverfront and the development of OTR, but until you can't find 1 bedroom apartments for less than $1000 within a mile of downtown, the transit demand won't spike. Middle class people that want to be downtown can simply afford to live there.

[unusualfire]

^Transit is not just for workers.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.

Hi Chemistry_Guy--

When I read this first paragraph, I thought you were going to go after the low opinion that many in the middle class have of mass transit (quality of service, convenience, clientele, etc.) instead of the housing stock. Some of it's perceived, some of it's reality and both would need to be addressed if you wanted to increase the popularity of any mass transit.

Which I would argue is a bigger issue because housing prices aren't going to appreciate that drastically in the city (drastically enough that living in the city is unaffordable for middle-class) unless the population doubled or more.

In essence, changing public opinion of Metro is far easier than (and could arguably facilitate) population growth in the city on the scale you'd need.

[natininja]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.

The root of the problem (from a rail supporter's perspective) is that housing in general is way too cheap. You don't have to pay any kind of appreciable premium to live within a mile of anything. Sure, certain streets are desirable, but you can generally find cheap housing within a mile (often a quarter mile) of any destination in the city. This is changing a bit with the rise of the riverfront and the development of OTR, but until you can't find 1 bedroom apartments for less than $1000 within a mile of downtown, the transit demand won't spike. Middle class people that want to be downtown can simply afford to live there.

1) I don't see why anyone would expect rail to operate without subsidy, when every other mode, from planes to cars to pedestrians, requires a significant subsidy.

2) If people were interested in living within a mile of X (presumably their job in most cases), roads would not be nearly so congested. This bizarre argument could equally well be used to argue that people will not drive.

Another thing you guys miss is that land development patterns are influenced by available transportation options. Density develops around rail stations because there is rail access. While a certain threshold of density is required to make rail viable, rail can and will increase that density when it is implemented, creating a virtuous cycle of development which makes the rail more useful to more people.

[TomJones123]

Having transit from the suburbs into downtown in Cincinnati would be a win/win. It would give people an alternative to driving, decrease commuter congestion, encourage development along transit lines, and increase density along stops. Why people in Cincinnati do not get that is beyond me. Coming from NYC, where I depended on the subway, Metro North, and LIRR for years, is a no brainer.

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Having transit from the suburbs into downtown in Cincinnati would be a win/win. It would give people an alternative to driving, decrease commuter congestion, encourage development along transit lines, and increase density along stops. Why people in Cincinnati do not get that is beyond me. Coming from NYC, where I depended on the subway, Metro North, and LIRR for years, is a no brainer.

We do have some suburban park and ride locations, but we certainly could use more.