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

[WILWRadio]

Instead of Light Rail I do believe it would be wise to do a study to see if the subway tunnels could be refurbished and outfitted with a rail system. This would alleviate a lot of costly purchasing and demolition of properties above ground and avoid the hassle of Eminent Domain being used against private property owners. Only a handful of stops above ground would need to be created leaving little impact on the street scape.

[rrtechno]

Take Social Security out of the "takers" category. People have paid into that system for years, they should be able to get something back out without being looked at as a "leech on society". Widows and dependent children should be able to get payments. Heck, I've been paying into the system for 40+ years now and will probably never come anywhere close to getting back what I contributed, due to laws concerning other pension systems.

As for the idea that "you can get a job to get off assistance", that isn't always true. In some areas there are just NO JOBS AVAILABLE.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

Take Social Security out of the "takers" category. People have paid into that system for years, they should be able to get something back out without being looked at as a "leech on society". Widows and dependent children should be able to get payments. Heck, I've been paying into the system for 40+ years now and will probably never come anywhere close to getting back what I contributed, due to laws concerning other pension systems.

As for the idea that "you can get a job to get off assistance", that isn't always true. In some areas there are just NO JOBS AVAILABLE.

No I disagree. Your payments into the Social Security Sytem where meant for the ability to retire, plain and simple. Social Sedurity was intended as a Pay In - Take Out retirement insurance system. It was never designed to be a social welfare system. It has been twisted by Congress qand everyone else into something it was neer intended to be.

So yew, take the segment of Social Security never intended to be there and move them to the Takers catagory.

[WILWRadio]

Socialist Security has become a Ponzi scheme. And now that more people are receiving a check than paying into it is going to lead to its collapse in another one to two decades.

What does this have to do with rail transit?

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Socialist Security has become a Ponzi scheme. And now that more people are receiving a check than paying into it is going to lead to its collapse in another one to two decades.

What does this have to do with rail transit?

The simple comment that there are now more people taking out than putting in. Social Security is just one of several warped systems.

If you have more people taking out than putting in, how do you expect to finance a rail transit system?

[natininja]

Light rail, people! Gosh!

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Instead of Light Rail I do believe it would be wise to do a study to see if the subway tunnels could be refurbished and outfitted with a rail system. This would alleviate a lot of costly purchasing and demolition of properties above ground and avoid the hassle of Eminent Domain being used against private property owners. Only a handful of stops above ground would need to be created leaving little impact on the street scape.

Sounds good, and I would love to see those tunnels used. Alone, they aren't long enough to make a worthwhile system. Then there's the problem of the stations, which would have to be fixed to modern standards (including ADA requirements). It wouldn't be as cheap as it might seem at first to make use of them.

Much of the Cincinnati subway right-of-way has been lost to other projects over the years. It was originally going to be a loop, with the current tunnels on the southern end and the Norwood Lateral on the northern end (before the lateral existed, of course). I think some of the right-of-way was recently taken during the I-75 expansion which is currently ongoing.

By my estimation, the minimum useful system using the tunnels would go north to hit Cincinnati State and across the Mill Creek to hit Northside's NBD. Getting across the Mill Creek would take some expensive engineering, but probably not more than heading up Ludlow to Clifton's NBD, which might be another "cheap" alternative. Still, you're going to be building quite a bit of track through the valley which doesn't have a lot of potential for nearby development. Hence money spent for little ROI.

This isn't to say it shouldn't be done, but I don't think it's the most obvious place to start, because I don't think it has the highest potential ROI when all the expenses are factored in. I think the highest ROI would come from the Wasson line through the east side. There's already a decent density of residents, and plenty of areas where investors would not hesitate to build transit-oriented development. Additionally, depending on the specific alignment, it would serve some inner-ring downtrodden neighborhoods, which would become much more desirable and see investment. This would be an effective way to spread the momentum of Downtown investment and east side desirability into the places between the two.

The question would be how to get out of Downtown. My favored way, which I've mentioned before but I'd have to see some studies, would be to dig through Mt. Auburn up to the University area. Hitting UC and Xavier on one line would be a great benefit, plus this tunnel could be used for most future lines heading out of Downtown. All that frequency between Downtown and Uptown via multiple lines would yield a high ROI eventually, though it would take a while since the initial capital investment would be pretty high.

[natininja]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

The simple comment that there are now more people taking out than putting in. Social Security is just one of several warped systems.

If you have more people taking out than putting in, how do you expect to finance a rail transit system?

You guys are reaching a lot tying these topics together. But the answer is that the rail system will eventually bring a big enough economic impact to pay for itself. Similarly to the idea behind the Brent Spence companion bridge. It's supposed to create economic impact.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by natininja

You guys are reaching a lot tying these topics together. But the answer is that the rail system will eventually bring a big enough economic impact to pay for itself. Similarly to the idea behind the Brent Spence companion bridge. It's supposed to create economic impact.

No I don't believe that. The Brent Spence companion bridge is not expected to bring a substantial new economic impact to the area. It is required to prevent the deterioration of an already huge economic impact to the area. Like it or not, I-75 is the major economic transportation artery from northern Michigan to southern Florida. Just look at the flow of goods which goes up and down it each day. If Cincinnati and KY does anything to disrupt that flow, they will be the ones to suffer.

When I hear about the toll propoals I cringe. One of the few major Interstates crossing a river in the US with a toll bridge? How many toll bridges are across the Mississippi at St Louis?

If a toll is deemed necessary, terminate car traffic across the bridge on I-75 in Cincinnati. Route the car traffic around I-75 and I-471 to cross the river. Charge them a toll if you must. They will quickly find another route, including moving out of the area if necessary.

But do not disrupt that commercial economic traffic flow through this city. Look at the alternatives. If a study says a refurbished Brent Spence can handle the commercial traffic then look at a brand new span which is cars only. Again if tolls are required to pay for it, OK, just recognize the effect on the area.

But we cannot afford to keep taking the attitude of dumping all the costs on the commercial users. There is a point where they simply leave Cincinnati out of the loop. That is when we go on a backslide which makes our recent problems appear minor.

[natininja]

This thread is not about the Brent Spence, so I won't take that bait. The point is they work in a similar way. You could also look at light rail as a way to keep what's in existence viable as well. It makes existing infrastructure more economical to maintain, by increasing the number of businesses and residents it serves, and may keep the strong business centers of Downtown and Uptown more viable in a 21st century economy. But keeping what exists versus bringing new investment is, in the end, the same. The costs are justified because the economic impact of having is better than that of not having.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, which light rail route do you think would be the most politically viable? If your answer is none, then I don't understand why you're commenting in this thread.

[jmecklenborg]

This conversation is getting totally out of control.

As someone who has studied the evolution of light rail in the United States for the past 15 years, here are my observations:

1. Low platform light rail technology has advanced so profoundly as to render high platform heavy rail virtually obsolete. Low platform light rail with overhead wire vs. electric third rail is the way to go. The light rail lines are cheaper to build and cheaper to expand. Cities with small heavy rail systems like Atlanta and Baltimore can't afford to expand their lines because the mode is so much more expensive and now provides virtually zero advantages.

2. Counter-intuitively, slow light rail lines that function much light streetcars are getting much higher ridership and ROI than are faster light rail lines built on old abandoned freight ROW's or alongside freeways. The prime comparison is Houston vs. Dallas -- Houston is getting much more in return for its in-street line than Dallas is from its various fast grade separated lines.

Why?

Two reasons: in-street running always has station locations in the heart of existing neighborhood business districts AND they were able to largely eliminate redundant bus service.

3. In every city where light rail has recently been introduced, more neighborhoods want it and that motivation has motivated passage of temporary taxes that enable the transit companies to build their systems faster. For example Salt Lake City and LA County passed extra taxes that are allowing 30-year build-outs in 5-10 years.