Light Rail - Where and how do we get started! (Cincinnati: casino, floor)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Please clarify for me just what the mixed-use designation applies to, as you lost me. On the one hand we have a bike trail, which obviously walkers, runners, and joggers can use. But that is true of any bike trail. One the other hand we have a reserved rail corridor which has no active component nor a schedule to establish one. So what is the mixed-use?

The mix of uses in these plans is bike/pedestrian and rail. So while the bike use can be completed soon, the rail part has no timetable, but the designs are in place that it could still happen at some point.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Why can't such things as the Wasson Way project be streetcar all the way? I thought Cincy was buying one of the most advanced streetcar designs available. Why is it not suitable for the Wasson Way line? Too Slow? Ask the manufacturer to build us some higher geared trains with greater top speed. Might be a little slow on the takeoff but the top speed should more than make up for it. Run a few express routes. With fewer stops on a rail should still beat car commute times.

The sharing of parts, maintenance training, etc. should more than compensate against a one-off, one-track, rail line still requiring maintenance, service, trained technicians, etc.

I can envision streetcars running as far as Kenwood with no problem. After all, when I was young I rode streetcars from Silverton to downtown.

But even that has to wait until the uptown link gets built. Anyone want to guess how long that is going to take?

Since the Cincy streetcar is also light rail capable, the only real difference in what I was talking about is where the tracks are. In this case it would be separate from the street through the Wasson Way corridor, but physically sharing the streets most of the rest of the way into downtown. Some would probably want longer trains for commuter routes, but given the turning limitations these trains would have downtown, I don't know how possible that is.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

The mix of uses in these plans is bike/pedestrian and rail. So while the bike use can be completed soon, the rail part has no timetable, but the designs are in place that it could still happen at some point.

So at this point it is a fake. The if-come-maybe of the rail component is just that, if-come-maybe. But they are going to apply for federal money based on mixed-use. And when you say designs, you mean conceptual schetches. How many architectural drawings exist, with detailed station designs, grade levels, ready to build details. No, I didn't think so.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

So at this point it is a fake. The if-come-maybe of the rail component is just that, if-come-maybe. But they are going to apply for federal money based on mixed-use. And when you say designs, you mean conceptual schetches. How many architectural drawings exist, with detailed station designs, grade levels, ready to build details. No, I didn't think so.

When I say designs, I mean those for the bike trail only, no actual rail designs in the city exist outside the current streetcar route to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't expect there to be here until a regional rail plan was a lot farther along in the process than it currently is and more funding and political capital was in place.

That doesn't necessarily mean planning for rail is a fake, though. Rail projects almost always take decades to bring to fruition, especially if there are political headwinds.

[mike1003]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

A TIGER grant for a bike trail. How interesting. How is the bike trail construed as public transportation? Public recreation yes, but transportation?

I agree fo a change, but isn't that what Cincy City Council got for bike lanes downtown??

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by mike1003

I agree fo a change, but isn't that what Cincy City Council got for bike lanes downtown??

I can understand that for bike lanes in a dense downtown neighborhood where a number of people may actually be biking to work, and that is transportation. But a bike trail out in the countryside where few people even have the stamina to consider biking to work? It is a recreational trail.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

I can understand that for bike lanes in a dense downtown neighborhood where a number of people may actually be biking to work, and that is transportation. But a bike trail out in the countryside where few people even have the stamina to consider biking to work? It is a recreational trail.

The East Side neighborhoods aren't exactly the country. While I somewhat agree that this trail will probably have more recreational users than commuters, there are a bunch of examples of urban rails-to-trails projects that are being used as commuter links. Look up the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis or the Oak Leaf Trail in Milwaukee for some good examples. I'd imagine the federal government is using these examples as a rubber stamp on any urban rails-to-trails conversion.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

The East Side neighborhoods aren't exactly the country. While I somewhat agree that this trail will probably have more recreational users than commuters, there are a bunch of examples of urban rails-to-trails projects that are being used as commuter links. Look up the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis or the Oak Leaf Trail in Milwaukee for some good examples. I'd imagine the federal government is using these examples as a rubber stamp on any urban rails-to-trails conversion.

Where this route runs is country, virtually no population density. Now you are trying to tell me someone in Newtown will be looking to bike to work in Oakley? But you are right in one thing, the federal government is looking to rubber stamp things.

Oh, another poster said a separate bike trail only project would cost $36 million while the compromise run the trail over a portion of the rail would only cost $11.2 million. A difference of $25 million? Sounds so me like selling out the long term for the short term. Let's say the rail get's a go ahead, I know a real long shot. But then you have to produce the money to also rebuild that section of the bike trail. Did somebody build a money tree along the trail?

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Where this route runs is country, virtually no population density. Now you are trying to tell me someone in Newtown will be looking to bike to work in Oakley? But you are right in one thing, the federal government is looking to rubber stamp things.

Oh, another poster said a separate bike trail only project would cost $36 million while the compromise run the trail over a portion of the rail would only cost $11.2 million. A difference of $25 million? Sounds so me like selling out the long term for the short term. Let's say the rail get's a go ahead, I know a real long shot. But then you have to produce the money to also rebuild that section of the bike trail. Did somebody build a money tree along the trail?

Are you looking at the same trail we are? It's going through Norwood, Evanston, Oakley, Hyde Park, Fairfax, and Mariemont. It's also connecting a few relatively large shopping areas. I'm not arguing that someone will commute from Newtown to Oakley, but I am arguing that people will commute from Xavier to Hyde Park Plaza, or Fairfax to Rookwood.

Also, I'm not exactly understanding your issue in the second paragraph. They can either build a trail next to the current rails but use the current bridges until the rail gets built, or they can build new bridges now while letting the current bridges sit there empty. Seems like a wise and frugal compromise to me.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

Also, I'm not exactly understanding your issue in the second paragraph. They can either build a trail next to the current rails but use the current bridges until the rail gets built, or they can build new bridges now while letting the current bridges sit there empty. Seems like a wise and frugal compromise to me.

No, it is not a frugal compromise, it is called taking advantage of the circumstances.