Tag: planning

Categories
Development News Politics Transportation

What is COAST’s plan?

When discussing transit issues with people who oppose transit you often hear the statement that they’re not against transit necessarily, they just don’t like the proposed plan that you’re discussing. It’s odd, because there never seems to be a plan that these people like.

In 2002, the regional transit plan was too big for COAST’s liking, while the current streetcar proposal is too small. COAST also argues that the proposed modern streetcar (video) is in fact outdated technology since two other American cities currently have it (Portland, Seattle). After hearing these arguments I have repeatedly asked for an alternative proposal of something COAST would support.

Finally Mark Miller let me in on the “latest technology” for mass transit – low-level buses that have an overhead electric power source. The response seemed shocking given the discussion was surrounding a Midwest Regional Rail plan that Cincinnati could be left off. Also shocking was the identification of an electric-powered bus as being the “latest technology” in transit.

The Ohio Hub portion of the larger Midwest Regional Rail Plan that would connect the Midwest’s population and job centers with high-speed rail service. COAST’s Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment would prevent Cincinnati from investing in “passenger rail transportation” without first getting voter approval – a process that would leave Cincinnati out of the funding loop and off of the regional rail network.

Miller did not identify MagLev’s 300+ mph Transrapid train (video) that utilizes magnetic propulsion to avoid friction resistance and attain higher speeds, or the enhanced MagLev systems that could travel within a vacuum tube (air-less) thus avoiding the sonic boom that would come with speeds in five to six times faster than the speed of sound. A “vactrain” would be able to travel at speeds of 4,000-5,000mph at-grade and in normal conditions due to the lack of air resistance. Such a system could take passengers from New York City to London, Brussels, or Paris in about an hour, and would cost less than what the U.S. Government has recently spent to bail out our financial sector.

COAST likes to suggest that an electric-powered bus would some how serve as an alternative to a modern streetcar system. This either/or proposition is based on a false premise, that either buses or modern streetcars should be pursued. In many cities with robust transit choices you will see modern streetcars (aka trams), heavy-grade rail like subways, electric-powered buses and much more.

Buses powered by overhead electric wires run all throughout Athens, Greece. Here one of those buses is running next to a modern tram at a station near Syntagma Square.

Miller went on to clarify what he was describing with an example from Lyon, France. These buses with modern designs are sleek and are powered by electricity like modern streetcar systems, but that is where the similarities end. They still have lower capacities (unless COAST is also advocating for articulated buses), have higher maintenance costs/shorter life spans, and should be used differently in an overall transportation system hierarchy.

Modern streetcar systems aren’t pursued because they somehow represent a fascination for trains and their modern designs. Modern streetcar systems are pursued because they are the best localized transit network for cities. They run smoothly, are ADA compliant, move people very efficiently, they’re durable, produce no pollution in the direct surroundings, and they’re proven to work.

I think Cincinnati is a world-class city, and that it deserves the best. And if COAST wants to advocate for a retooled bus system that operates with an overhead electric power source then great. I will be right there to help them push for an improved bus system, but for some reason I don’t think that COAST will be so jazzed about spending money on articulated buses, real-time arrival GPS systems, overhead electric power feeds, new bus rolling stock that can utilize said power source, or dedicated right-of-way for these new and improved buses.

Categories
News

This Week In Soapbox 8/11

This Week in Soapbox (TWIS) you can read about expanded business hours at an eclectic downtown eatery, new life for a historic structure in Dayton (KY), Brandt Retail Group’s new urban focus, Cincinnati’s new comprehensive plan, the new specialty cupcake shop in Bellevue, and the Cincinnati Counts campaign for the 2010 Census.

If you’re interested in staying in touch with some of the latest development news in Cincinnati please check out this week’s stories and sign up for the weekly E-Zine sent out by Soapbox Cincinnati. Also be sure to become a fan of Soapbox on Facebook!

TWIS 8/11:

  • Expanded hours compliment new menu items at Gilpin’s downtown – full article
  • $1M grant may inject new life into historic RayMee Building – full article
  • Brandt Retail Group opening downtown office, creating urban focus – full article
  • Cincinnati to begin work on first city-wide comprehensive plan in nearly three decades – full article
  • Specialty cupcake craze hits Bellevue with new shop – full article
  • City of Cincinnati intends to be fully counted for 2010 Census with new task force group – full article
Categories
News

Ohio’s 3C Rail Corridor Project Seeking Input

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) last week announced that they have jointly developed a website called 3CisMe, which will serve as the main hub for information surrounding Ohio’s proposed 3C (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland) rail corridor. Although the name of the site is admittedly lame, the site itself is quite useful.

3CisMe is meant to both inform the public as to the progress of Ohio’s 3C rail line and serve as a sounding board for critics and boosters alike. In addition to being one way that the ODOT and ORDC will disseminate information on the progress of the project, a “public comment” section will allow citizens an opportunity for their voices to be heard. Some of those comments will even be featured in the application for funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better know as the Stimulus Package). Ohio must turn in its application by October 1.

The current 3C proposal would allow travelers to travel between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, and Toledo, collectively home to 60% of the state’s population. With stimulus funding, Ohio’s “quick-start” plan would be operational by 2011.

This system will link in with a larger mid-west network, servicing Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Louisville, Omaha, and Kansas City. The Chicago Network Hub would serve as the gateway to the west. The 3C corridor is well suited to link with the Keystone corridor, a network of rail lines servicing New York, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the rest of the east coast.

A March 2009 Quinnipiac University Poll showed that nearly two thirds of Ohioans favored re-establishing passenger rail in the 3C Corridor. Some want to see it happen because they know the economic development potential it creates, while others think the 3C corridor would be useful because they don’t want to put the mileage on their car, or they don’t have a car at all. While some want to travel by train because it is more relaxing than traveling by car or plane, others like the idea because it will allow them to be more productive, like this commenter from the site:

“Several times per year, I have to travel to Columbus for meetings and training. Whenever I go now, I lose at least 5 hours of productivity per trip. On the train, I could use a laptop to keep up with my e-mail, tend to paperwork, have telephone conferences, and sometimes even meetings with coworkers. These things can’t be done in a car.”

Just one parting thought: There is a proposed amendment to the Cincinnati City Charter that would require a vote each and every time the city wanted to invest in a new phase of planning or constructing passenger rail. If it passes in November, neither the State nor the Federal government would be able to count on Cincinnati as a stop on the system. The timeline on this project is one that will require cities and states to efficiently compile an application for funding. If Cincinnati cannot commit in a timely manner (and it would not be able to commit without going to another vote if this passes), the Federal dollars will go to one of the other 278 projects in 40 states that have already submitted pre-applications as of July 17.

Cincinnati would be offered another transportation choice with rail, but the city could easily be left out if the amendment passes. Passing the amendment would reduce travelers’ choices, and leave Cincinnati at a competitive economic disadvantage. For more information on the potential negative implication of the proposed amendment, please see the Cincinnatians for Progress web site. Though I disagree with them, for the other perspective on the amendment, please click here.

Note: to visit the 3CisMe site directly, go to http://3cisme.ohio.gov/ and please note that it does not include the www in front like many sites. Source for this post.

Categories
Development News Transportation

Mt. Lookout Square transformation visually represented

In Soapbox this week I wrote about the plans for renovating Mt. Lookout Square. Below you can view the three-phased approach to implementing those changes. The work is still preliminary and is still trying to work itself out in terms of funding and overall scope. Click on any of the images to open up a larger version in a new window.



Categories
News

Higher densities not necessarily the answer to our sustainability questions

When one thinks of sprawl the first thought that comes to mind is the spread out, low-density suburbs that have eaten away at our nation’s fertile farmland and natural environment. An immediate reaction is that density is in fact better, but is this so?

There is an assumption made that density would somehow reduce the amount of land needed for sprawling suburbs, and that greater amounts of land can be preserved. This is true in theory, but does not always happen once the market has its way. Furthermore, preserved land is not the same land it once was; meaning that the preserved “greenway” connecting your neighborhood to another community feature may or may not be beneficial to the natural systems that exist. Does it serve as a corridor for wildlife, is it farmable or is the preserved land serving any significant purpose outside of additional trees that are reducing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? Most likely not.

What has happened in Atlanta is something that should be learned from. Atlanta is arguably the king of sprawl in modern day America, but some might say, well Fulton County has a higher population density than does Hamilton County. Similar arguments can be applied to other less urban regions than Cincinnati. The fact is that Fulton County is just about built out with the exception of some land in the far southern reaches of the county. Furthermore, this built-out county has extraordinarily dense suburban areas including the central Perimeter area which includes 30 story office towers, residential towers and 12 lane highway systems to boot. The traffic is abysmal like much of the rest of Atlanta and the problem is only going to get worse.

Midtown, Buckhead and Perimeter skylines in Atlanta – photo from mattsal88 on ImageShack

The reason is a combination of densities and form. The suburban areas of Atlanta, and even much of the urban areas, are almost entirely car-dependent. So a low-density suburban area that is car-dependent is one thing, but a high-density area of the same makeup is nightmarish. The “spatial mismatch” is exacerbated to a degree seen nowhere else in America than Atlanta and Los Angeles (Los Angeles County is the most populated county in the country at 9+ million). The people living in one area are working in another creating a spatial mismatch that is exacerbated by the high densities. They are not walking, biking or taking transit to a level enough that would offset its densities.

When you hear of the next “new urbanist” neighborhood on the fringes of a metropolitan area, or the next lifestyle center that pitches itself as being the next best thing to an authentic urban shopping experience, be wary. These are not real communities where store owners live in addition to running their business. The residents are most likely hopping in their car that is parked nicely within one of their two (or more) dedicated parking spaces and driving into the center city for work.

Higher densities in our suburban areas are not the answers to our sprawl issues. A correction of the spatial mismatch is what’s needed to truly create a sustainable metropolitan area. Natural systems need to be preserved in their truest form and our most fertile food-producing regions need to be maintained for their highest and best use. Higher densities in the core with high density satellite neighborhoods connected by high-quality transit options are the best possible solutions.