uptown alignment assessment report
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
1/57
1
INTRODUCTIONCincinnati is one of a number of cities pursuing the construction of amodern streetcar system to
enhancemobilityandconnectivityaswellastocatalyzedevelopmentandredevelopment. Themodern
streetcaris
intended
to
connect
existing
and
future
destinations,
promoting
walkable
urbanism
and
creatingamorelivableenvironment. TheCityofCincinnaticompletedaninitialfeasibilitystudyinJuly
2007 that illustrated conceptual streetcar routes, and is now conducting more detailed analyses
regardingspecificalignmentoptions.
The initial focus area for modern streetcar in Cincinnati is Downtown and OvertheRhine, with a
connectiontotheUptownarea. Downtown isthecitysCentralBusinessDistrict(CBD),andservesas
thebusinessandgovernmentcenterof the region.
Inaddition,Downtownishometonumeroushotels,
restaurants, arts venues, and sports facilities. Just
north
of
the
Central
Business
District,
the
historic
neighborhood of OvertheRhine is home to an
emerging artsdistrict, the historicBreweryDistrict
and the venerable Findlay Market. Although the
neighborhood has struggled in recent years, its
proximity to both the CBD and Uptown makes it
primed for redevelopment. Indeed, some
redevelopmenthasalreadybeguntotakeplace,and
the streetcar can provide the additional spark
neededtogenerateadditionalinvestment.
Uptown,which takes itsname from its locationat the topof steephill separating thedistrict from
Downtown, ishome tomanyof thecitysmedicalcenters, theUniversityofCincinnati, theCincinnati
Zoo, and the surrounding vibrant,mixeduse neighborhoods. In fact, four of Cincinnatis six largest
employers are located in Uptown. Recognizing the significant concentration of population and
employment in Uptown, the City of Cincinnati amended the initial modern streetcar alignment to
includeaconnectiontoUptown.
The initial feasibility study illustrated severalpotentialUptownconnections,butdidnotevaluate the
meritsofspecificroutingoptions. Thus,thefocusofthisassessment isonthetechnicalevaluationof
alternative routes connecting Downtown and Uptown. Several alternative routes are available for
consideration,and
must
be
assessed
with
regard
to
numerous
planning
and
design
related
issues.
This
report describes the various alignment options that are available, the evaluationmethodology and
specifictechnicalandeconomiccriteriaforcomparingtheoptions,andtheresultinganalysis. Thenext
step in this process will be to thoroughly review the options through a public process and reach
consensus on the priorities to be used to arrive at an ultimate recommendation. Additionally, this
reportwillserveasaframeworkforfurtherexaminationaspartofthefederallyrequiredAlternatives
Analysis(AA)andEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)studies.
Cincinnatians gather at OvertheRhines
FindlayMarket
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
2/57
2
UPTOWNCONNECTOROPTIONS
HISTORICALROUTES
Streetcars
played
a
major
role
in
the
growth
of
Cincinnati
beginning
150
years
ago,
allowing
the
expansion of Cincinnati beyond the basin that defines presentday Downtown, OvertheRhine, and
surrounding neighborhoods. Horsedrawn streetcars began serving the downtown area in 1859, but
rapidpopulationgrowthledtotheconstructionofseveralinclinedrailwaystoenableexpansionbeyond
thebasin. Fiveinclineswereultimatelyconstructedbetween1872and1892,andthreeoftheseMt.
Auburn,Bellevue,andFairview were
built in the 1870s to connect the
basintotheneighborhoodsthattoday
comprise Uptown. Upon reaching
the inclines, streetcars in the basin
would
disengage
from
the
track,
be
driven onto the incline platform, ride
the incline up the hill, and at the top
of the hill, would reengage to
continuations of the lines extending
intothenewsuburbs. At first,horse
drawn streetcars used this technique;
later,electricstreetcarswouldfollow
thesameprotocol.
The
accompanying
map
and
inset
illustrates the horsedrawn streetcar
lines(showninrosecolor)andinclines(showninyellow)thatservedCincinnatiin1880. Withregardto
presentdayUptown,thefollowingconnectionswereavailable:
The Bellevue incline connected Elm Street (downtown) to presentday Ohio Ave. (uptown). Theroutethencontinuedtothezoo.
The Mount Auburn incline linked Main Street (downtown) to what is now Jackson Hill Park onEleanorPlace.
TheFairviewinclineconnectedwhatisnowMcMickenAvenueinthebasintoFairviewAvenue.Cable
cars
represented
avast
improvement
over
horse
drawn
cars
on
some
routes,
particularly
those
withsteepgrades. Acontinuouslyrunningcableraninanarrowslotinthestreet. Agripperfromthe
streetcarwouldextendunderthecar intotheslotand latchontothemovingcabletopropelthecar
forward. The gripper would then release from the cable to slow down and stop. This is the same
methodofpropulsionthat isstillusedtodaybySanFranciscosfamouscablecars. InCincinnati,three
cable car routes were opened between 1885 and 1887, including lines on Vine Street and Sycamore
Street.
The Bellevue incline transports an electric streetcar up the hill,
passingoverstreetcartrackonCliftonAvenue.(Source:Historical
Atlas of Cincinnati; http://www.nku.edu/~hisgeo/AtlasProject
/index.htm)
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
3/57
3
Aroundthe
turn
of
the
century,
cable
cars
and
horse
drawn
streetcars
quickly
became
obsolete
due
to
the emergence of electricity as a viable power source for transportation. Electric streetcars were
extended to new areas previously beyond the reach of horsedrawn cars, and development quickly
followed. Thestreetcarnetworkgrewtoinclude222milesoftrackinCincinnatiandNorthernKentucky,
andfordecadesconsistentlytransportedmorethan100millionpassengersperyear.
Historical map of horsedrawn streetcar
lines and inclines in Cincinnati circa 1880
(Source: Historical Atlas of Cincinnati;
http://www.nku.edu/~hisgeo/AtlasProject
/index.htm
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
4/57
4
Between the areas now known as Downtown and Uptown, a large number of streetcar connections
wereinplaceovertheyears:
VineStreet(originallycablecar;thenconvertedtoelectricstreetcar); CliftonAvenue(electricstreetcar); Bellevueincline,connectingtostreetcarroutesonElmStreetandOhioAvenue; MountAuburnincline,connectingtostreetcarroutesonMainStreetandEleanorAvenue; MountAuburncablecar,runningonSycamoreStreettoDorchesterandHighland; Highland Avenue (electric
streetcar, connecting to Liberty
Streetdowntown);
McMillan Avenue (electricstreetcar);
FairviewAvenueincline;and ReadingRoad(electricstreetcar).The bold lines on the map at right
illustratethevariousstreetcar,incline,
and cable car connections between
Downtown and Uptown throughout
Cincinnatisstreetrailwayhistory.
Thepopularityofstreetcarsbegan to
wanewiththerisingpopularityofthe
automobile, and the focus of transit
shiftedto
buses
and
trolley
buses.
The
last
streetcar
route
in
Cincinnati
was
discontinued
in
1951.
This overview is intended to illustrate theextent of formerstreetcaroperations inCincinnati and the
significant impact that streetcars had on the citys development. The fact that streetcars formerly
operatedonspecificstreetsshouldnotby itselfbe interpretedto indicatethatmodernstreetcarscan
also effectively and efficiently operate on the same streets. Modern streetcars are subject to rigid
technological constraints to ensure that not only can they operate, but they can operate in a safe,
reliable,andefficientmanner.
ALIGNMENTSCONSIDEREDFORMODERNSTREETCAR
Thehistorical
streetcar
routes
provide
some
perspective
for
the
consideration
of
potential
alignments
between Downtown and Uptown, and variations on several of these historic routes merit strong
considerationforusebythemodernstreetcar. Ingeneralterms,thegoalofthisstudyistoidentifythe
bestoptionforconnectingtheCentralBusinessDistrictandOvertheRhine(OTR)toCliftonHeights,
Corryville, the University of Cincinnati (UC) campus, the hospital superblock, and other Uptown
neighborhoods and destinations. To fully consider all potential routing options, a broad area was
definedforevaluation,includingallexistingthoroughfaresbetweenCentralParkwayandI71. Forthis
Map illustratingformer streetcar, cable car, and incline routes.
(Source:http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/map.html)
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
5/57
5
analysis,itisassumedthatonlyexistingstreetscouldbeusedbymodernstreetcar;noconsiderationis
giventoothermodessuchasinclinesorcablecars.
Withoutregardtospecificevaluationcriteriaotherthanthegeographicconstraintsnotedabove,eight
alternativerouteswereidentifiedasshownbelow.
EachofthesepotentialrouteswouldterminateatatransithubinthevicinityoftheexistingUniversity
Plaza shopping center, where connections could be made to future streetcar extensions circulating
throughUptown. Abriefoverviewdescriptionofeachofthecandidatealignments isprovidedonthe
followingpages.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
6/57
6
McMickenAve./McMillanSt.
Length:2.5milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)to
Calhoun/Vine(Uptown)
SurroundingLandUse:Industrial/residential(McMicken);openspace/residential(McMillianwestofClifton);commercial(McMillaneastofClifton)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoElm/RaceviaMcMicken
StreetcarHistory: Horsedrawn
andelectric
streetcars
on
McMicken;electricstreetcarsonMcMillan
Section1
Fourtravellanes;generally40'
crosssection
Noonstreetparking
Approx.1500'of6.6 6.7%grade
Section2
Fourtravellanes;generally40'
crosssection
Onstreetparkingincurblane
Relativelyflat
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
7/57
7
McMickenAve./RavineSt.
Length:1.9milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)to
Calhoun/Vine(Uptown)
SurroundingLandUse:Industrial/residential(McMicken);residential/parkland(Ravine);residential/commercial(McMillan)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoElm/RaceviaMcMicken
StreetcarHistory: Horsedrawnandelectricstreetcarson
McMicken;no
streetcars
on
Ravine;electricstreetcarsonMcMillan
Section1
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Approx.1300'of1012%grade
Section2
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
one
side
only
39%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
8/57
8
WestCliftonAve.
Length:1.3milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)toCalhoun/Vine(Uptown)
SurroundingLand
Use:
Residential/openspace(W.Clifton);commercial(McMillan)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoElm/RaceviaFindlaySt.nearFindlayMarket
StreetcarHistory:ElectricstreetcarsonW.Clifton;electricstreetcarsonMcMillan
Section1
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Generally40'crosssection
Approx.1200'of89%grade
Section2
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Generally40'crosssection
68%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
9/57
9
WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop
Length:1.3milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)to
Calhoun/Vine(Uptown)
via
WestClifton; 0.9milesviaVine
SurroundingLandUse:Residential/openspace(W.Clifton);commercial(McMillan);residential/openspace(Vine)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoElm/RaceviaFindlaySt.nearFindlayMarket
StreetcarHistory:Electric
streetcarson
W.
Clifton,
McMillian,andVine(cablecarspreviouslyoperatedonVine)
Section1
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Generally40'crosssection
Approx.1200'of89%grade
Section2
Fourtravellanes;36'crosssection
Onstreet
parking
allowed
in
curb
lane(exceptduringpeakperiods)
Continuous6.57%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
10/57
10
VineSt.
Length:0.9milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)toCalhoun/Vine(Uptown)
SurroundingLand
Use:
Residential/openspace
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoElm/RaceviaFindlaySt.nearFindlayMarket
StreetcarHistory:CablecarsoriginallyoperatedonVineStreet;thelinewaslaterelectrified
Section1
Fourtravellanes;36'crosssection
Onstreet
parking
allowed
in
curb
lane(exceptduringpeakperiods)
Continuous6.57%grade
Section2
Fourtravellanes;36'crosssection
Onstreet
parking
allowed
in
curb
lane(exceptduringpeakperiods)
Continuous6.57%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
11/57
11
SycamoreSt./AuburnAve.
Length:1.2milesfromSycamore/Liberty(Downtown)
toCalhoun/Vine
(Uptown)
SurroundingLandUse:Residential/openspace(Sycamore);office/institutional(Auburn)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoMain/WalnutviaLibertySt.
StreetcarHistory:CablecarsoperatedonSycamoreStreet;horsedrawnandelectric
streetcarsoperated
on
Auburn
Avenue
Section1
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Approx.2400'of911%grade
Section2
Twotofourtravellanes(varies)
Intermittenton
street
parking
(exceptduringpeakperiods)
05%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
12/57
12
Highland/Dorchester/AuburnAve.
Length:1.8milesfromSycamore/Liberty(Downtown)
toCalhoun/Vine
(Uptown)
SurroundingLandUse:Residential/openspace(HighlandandDorchester);office/institutional(Auburn)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoMain/WalnutviaLibertySt.
StreetcarHistory:ElectricstreetcarsoperatedonLibertyandHighland;cablecars
operatedon
Dorchester
Ave.;
horsedrawnandelectricstreetcarsoperatedonAuburn
Section1
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Approx.500'of9.6%grade;additional1000'of8+%grade
Section2
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
one
side
of
street
only
Approx.5.5%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
13/57
13
ReadingRd./McGregorAve./AuburnAve.
Length:1.6milesfromReading/Liberty(Downtown)toCalhoun/Vine(Uptown)
SurroundingLandUse:Industrial/commercial(Reading);residential(McGregor);office(Auburn)
Downtown/OTRConnection:ConnectstoMain/WalnutviaCentralParkway
StreetcarHistory:HorsedrawnandelectricstreetcarsoperatedonReadingRoadandAuburnAve.;nostreetcarsoperatedon
McGregorAve.
Section1
Sixtravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedin
curb
lane
in
places
ReadingRoadsplitsnearI71
Relativelyflat
Section2
Twotravellanes;onstreetparking
allowedon
both
sides
Approx.1000'of9.09.5%grade
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
14/57
14
Forpurposesofthis
fatalflawanalysis,
routeswithgrades
exceeding9%were
eliminatedfrom
furtherconsideration.
EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGYTheeightalignmentoptionswereexaminedusingatwotieredevaluationprocess:
Tier 1 is a fatal flaw analysis that identifies options that are not technically feasible due todesignconstraints.
Tier 2 is a comparison of the attributes of each option in reference to specific planning anddesigncriteria;inthiscase,thegoalsandobjectivesfromtheearlierFeasibilityStudyservedas
theevaluationcriteria.
TIER1(FATALFLAW)EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY
The Tier 1 (fatal flaw) analysis was based on engineering constraints as defined by roadway grade.
Modernstreetcarsaregenerallylimitedtoamaximumgradeof9%. Forthisreason,alignmentoptions
with grades exceeding 9% are eliminated from further consideration where the grade cannot be
reduced
without
major
roadway
profile
retrofits
that
would
heavily
impact
adjacent
properties.
An
important caveat is that the specified maximum grade criterion is based on information provided by
UnitedStreetcar,LLC,whoiscurrentlytheonlymanufacturerofmodernstreetcarsintheUnitedStates.
This vehicle technology is based on the design originated by the European
manufacturerSKODA,whobuiltthemodernstreetcarscurrentlyoperating
inPortland,Seattle,andTacoma. Themaximumgradecriterionisbased
onageneralguideline,andtheactualmaximumgradevariesdepending
onlocalconditionssuchaslengthofgrade,climaticconditions,vehicle
loading,andotherfactors.
Aspart
of
this
comparison
of
options,
it
is
premature
to
request
detailed
analyses from streetcar manufacturers to fully verify the ability of their
vehicletonegotiateeachcandidatealignment. However,attheconclusionof
this evaluation process, a formal Requestfor Information should be issued to prospective streetcar
manufacturerstoobtaindutycyclesimulations,thermalsimulations,andother informationtoconfirm
the capability of their vehicle(s) to navigate the locallypreferred alignment based on the specific
characteristicsofthealignmentandconditionsspecifictoCincinnati.
Forpurposesofthisfatalflawanalysis,routeswithgradesexceeding9%wereeliminatedfromfurther
consideration. However,thiscriterionshouldnotbeinterpretedasconfirmationthatallrouteswith
grades
less
than
9%
are
automatically
viable.
Several
alignment
options
have
grades
that
arejust
under9%. While theseoptionsareconsideredtechnically feasibleforthepurposesofthisanalysis,
thedetailedanalysesthatwouldbeconducted laterbyprospectivevehiclemanufacturersaspartofa
formalRequestforInformationmayindicatethatthepreferredalignmentisinfacttoosteepformodern
streetcaroperations.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
15/57
15
TIER2EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY
Candidatealignmentswithgradesthatdonotexceedninepercentwerethenevaluated inrelationto
the specific goals and objectives that were established in the Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study,
published in July 2007. By using the same criteria, consistency is maintained between the guiding
principles
used
to
select
the
Downtown
/
Overthe
Rhine
alignment
and
those
used
to
identify
the
preferredUptownConnectorroute. Thespecificdatasourcesexaminedwithregardtoeachgoaland
objectivearesummarizedinthefollowingtable.
AdoptedGoals
fromCincinnatiStreetcarFeasibilityStudyDataExaminedforAssessment
1. Improve mobility and connectivity withindowntownCincinnati
Provide convenient access and localcirculation for major employment,
commercial,recreational,andculturalactivity
centers
Number/sizeofmajoractivitycenterson/withincloseproximitytoroute
Provide better connectivity betweenneighborhoodsandactivitycenters
Penetration into residential neighborhoods(populationdensity)
Provideanattractivemeansoftransportationforresidents,workers,customers,andvisitors
Cleanliness of connection to downtownalignment and potential maintenance facility
locations
Abilitytoaccommodatefutureextensions Abilitytocreatearationaloperatingplan
Improve access and opportunities for transitdependentpopulations
Servicetotransitdependentpopulations2. Support existing and proposed development in
downtownand
surrounding
neighborhoods
in
the
City of Cincinnati, creating a more livable and
morewalkableenvironment
Considertransit investmentthatsupportstheexisting and planned built environment and
whichminimizesadverseimpacts
Consistencywithproposeddevelopmentprojects Assessment of overall consistency with current
builtenvironment
Consider transit investment to help shapeurban form through reinvestment along
selectedcorridorsandneighborhoods
Assessmentofphysicalcharacteristicsofcorridorsthatimpacttheabilityofstreetcartoshapeurban
form
Encourage neighborhood revitalization andlivable and walkable communities through
development
of
good
streetscapes
and
pedestrianenvironment
Consistencywithneighborhoodplans
Linkkeydestinationsinthecorridor Number/sizeofmajoractivitycenterson/withincloseproximitytoroute
Capture the economic benefit resulting fromimprovedtransitserviceandmobility inthese
areas
Assessment of economic development potentialforeachoption
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
16/57
16
AdoptedGoals
fromCincinnatiStreetcarFeasibilityStudyDataExaminedforAssessment
Maximize energy efficiency of the transitoperation and minimize negative impacts on
historic, archaeological, traditional cultural
places,parklands,andotherpublicrecreation
areas
Identificationofanypotentialnegativeimpactsonhistoric,archaeological,traditionalculturalplaces,
parklands,andotherpublicrecreationareas
3. Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of thelocalandregionaltransitsystem
Attract new riders to the local and regionaltransit system by providing a convenient,
frequent, reliable, and attractive streetcar
transitservice
Comparison of travel time between Uptown andDowntown / OvertheRhine for various
alternatives
Potential ridership changes considering positiveimpacts from new markets served as well as
potential negative impacts from higher travel
times.
Integrate the planned streetcar line or lineswith
the
overall
transportation
system,
complementing and ensuring compatibility
with the existing and planned street and
roadwaynetworkandtransitsystem
Design considerations including maximum grade,lane
widths,
on
street
parking
impacts,
restrictive
turns,hightrafficareas,potentialutilitiesconflicts
Otherengineeringchallengesthataffectcost Provide convenient access to the transit
system using various modes and means of
travel (e.g. pedestrian, bicycle, bus,
automobile)
Levelofduplicationwithexistingbusservice
Develop safe, comfortable, and convenienttransitfacilities,includingstationsandstops
Ability to incorporate stops in available rightofway
Provide viable mobility options to discourageincreased single occupancy vehicle use in the
CBD
and
already
congested
roadway
network
Comparison of travel time between Uptown andDowntown / OvertheRhine for various
alternatives
Potential ridership changes considering positiveimpacts from new markets served as well as
potential negative impacts from higher travel
times.
Complement previous planning studies andplannedmultimodaloperations
Subjective assessment of how each optionsupportspreviousplanningefforts
Identify suitable sites for a streetcarmaintenancefacility
Subjective assessment of potential additionalmaintenance facility sites adjacent to alignment
options
4. Provideatransitinvestmentthatisaffordable,interms of capital and operating expenses, and is
implementedon
afast
track
Select and implement the most effectivestreetcar starter line that is affordable and
manageable while yielding significant
transportationanddevelopmentbenefits
Relativecapitalcostsofoptions Benefitsofoptionsasdiscussedwithreferenceto
Goals1,2,and3
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
17/57
17
AdoptedGoals
fromCincinnatiStreetcarFeasibilityStudyDataExaminedforAssessment
Minimize capital costs (e.g. not designelaborate stations and systems, generally
street running operation, no grade
separations,noparkandridelots)
Relativecapitalcostsofoptions
Develop sustainable systems which maximizerevenues and minimize net operating and
maintenancecosts
Relativeoperatingcostsofoptions
Fasttracktheplanninganddesignperiod Subjective assessment of unique planning ordesign challenges that may impact the project
implementationschedule
Leverage other public and private fundingwheneverpossible
RelationshipofroutestoTIFareas Maximize publicprivate partnership
opportunities
Relationshipofroutestopotentialprivatefundingpartners
PROCESSTOIDENTIFYAPREFERREDALIGNMENT
The options advanced to Tier 2 analysis were examined with reference to each specific goal and
objective. Theseassessmentswereconductedusingthesupportingdatanotedinthetableabove,and
theresultsandsummarydescriptionsarepresentedonthefollowingpages.
Basedontheseassessments,agradewasassignedtoeachalternativeforeachgoal,usingthefollowing
ratingscale:
A=Significantlyexceedsgoal B=Exceedsgoal C=Meetsgoal D=Doesnotmeetgoal F=Detrimentaltogoal
Thisratingscaleservestwopurposes first,anabsolutegradeprovidesanoverallassessmentofhow
eachoptionaddressesthespecificgoalsandobjectivesdefinedbytheCityanditsstakeholders;second,
bycomparingthegradesforeachoption,aspectsinwhichtherearemajorandminordifferencesamong
thealternativesareclearlyillustrated. Forexample,underonecriterion,alloptionsmayhavearatingof
AorB, indicating littledifferenceamongthem. Underanotherperformancemeasure,oneoption
mayreceiveanArating,andothersmaybeuniformlysplitbetweenC,D,andFgrades. Inthis
case,oneoptionisclearlysuperior.
No attempt has been made to apply any weighting to the various goals and objectives; thus, no
composite score has been calculated to produce a final ranking of alternatives. As the options are
considered, the relative level of emphasis placed on specificgoalswillplaya major role inhelping to
selectapreferredalignment. Forexample, ifonegoalreceivesheavyemphasis,onealignmentoption
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
18/57
18
may be deemed to be the best; if another goal is stressed, a different alternative may emerge.
Ultimately,itistheresponsibilityoftheCity,inpartnershipwithitsstakeholdersandthepublicatlarge,
to identify the relative importance of each goal and use the information provided herein to select a
preferredalignment. Additionally,asarequirementforfederalSmallStartsfunding,theseoptionsmust
befurtherconsideredinaformalAlternativesAnalysisstudy. Toaidinthisdecisionmaking,thisreport
presentsaseries
of
summary
tables
with
compilations
of
the
various
ratings
for
each
option,
as
well
as
thekeyadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachalignment.
ANALYSISANDRESULTSThissectiondescribestheevaluationofeachalignmentoptionusingthetwotieredprocessdescribed
above.
TIER1(FATALFLAW)ANALYSIS
Aninitialexaminationwasconductedonalleightcandidatealignmentstoidentifygradesincomparison
to themaximumof9%. Gradeswere calculatedby comparing thegroundelevationsat intersections
alongthealignment. Becausethegradeswerecalculatedoverdistancesofseveralhundredfeet,there
may be short segments within each alignment with a slightly different grade than those shownhere.
Thefollowingalternativeshadgradesinexcessof9%,andthuswereeliminatedfromfurtheranalysis:
McMickenAve./RavineSt.(upto11.9%grade);
SycamoreSt./AuburnAve.(upto10.6%grade);
HighlandAve./DorchesterAve./AuburnAve.(upto9.6%grade);
ReadingRd./McGregorAve./AuburnAve.(upto9.4%grade).
Foreachoftheseoptions,thegradesexceeding9%aresustainedoveradistanceofapproximately500
orgreater.
Inaddition,severalotheralternativeshavegrades thatapproachthemaximumof9%,andshould be
treatedwithcautionastheplanningprocesscontinues. Ifoneoftheseoptionsisultimatelyselectedas
the preferred alignment, final verification of its viability can only be achieved after one or more
prospectivevehiclemanufacturersconfirmthattheirvehiclecannegotiatethesubjectalignment. The
alternativesthatshouldbetreatedwithparticularprudenceincludethefollowing:
WestCliftonAve.(upto8.9%grade);and
WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop(upto8.9%grade).
Thetableonthefollowingpageillustratesthecalculatedgradesforvarioussegmentsofeachoption.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
19/57
19
Alignment
OptionIntersection
Elevation
(ft)
Changein
Elevation(ft)
Distance
(ft)Grade
McMicken/Ravine 571
McMicken/McMillan 613 42 3120 1.3%
McMillan/Clemmer 730 117 1780 6.6%
McMillan/Ravine 796 66 980 6.7%
McMillan/WClifton 863 67 1770 3.8%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 20 2800 0.7%
McMicken/Ravine 571
Ravine/Warner 730 159 1340 11.9%
McMillan/Ravine 796 66 1170 5.6%
McMillan/WClifton 863 67 1770 3.8%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 20 2800 0.7%
Findlay/McMicken 547
Vine/WClifton 574 27 600 4.5%
WClifton/Ohio 602 28 373 7.5%
WClifton/Eastendofresidentialparkinglot 656 54 613 8.8%
WClifton/Zier 683 27 304 8.9%
WClifton/Hastings 705 22 270 8.1%
WClifton/Emming 740 35 478 7.3%
WClifton/Warner 782 42 752 5.6%
McMillan/WClifton 863 81 1130 7.2%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 20 2800 0.7%
Findlay/McMicken 547
Vine/WClifton 574 27 600 4.5%
Vine/StJoe 654 80 1230 6.5%
Vine/Thill 718 64 910 7.0%
Vine/EHollister 794 76 1130 6.7%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 49 1170 4.2%
ELiberty/Sycamore 563
Sycamore/Mulberry 654 91 920 9.9%
Sycamore/Excelsior 747 93 880 10.6%Dorchester/Auburn 803 56 570 9.8%
Auburn/McGregor 877 74 1900 3.9%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 34 2070 1.6%
ELiberty/Sycamore 563
LibertyHill/CumberSt 606 43 857 5.0%
LibertyHill/DeckerAlley 651 45 532 8.5%
LibertyHill/Highland 699 48 500 9.6%
Highland/Boal 738 39 466 8.4%
Highland/Ringgold 754 16 518 3.1%
Highland/Dorchester 729 25 1014 2.5%
Dorchester/Auburn 803 74 1380 5.4%
Auburn/McGregor 876 73 1900 3.8%
UniversityPlaza
Shopping
Center 843
33 2070
1.6%
ELiberty/Reading 602
Reading/Dorchester 640 38 2750 1.4%
Reading/McGregor 712 72 1720 4.2%
McGregor/Highland 752 40 610 6.6%
McGregor/Maplewood 772 20 286 7.0%
McGregor/Auburncrest 833 61 681 9.0%
Auburn/McGregor 876 43 458 9.4%
UniversityPlazaShoppingCenter 843 33 2070 1.6%ReadingRd.
/McGregor
Ave.
/AuburnAve.
SycamoreSt./
Auburn
Ave.
McM
ickenAve.
/
McMillianSt.
McMicken
Ave.
/Ravine
St.
WestClifton
Ave.
(alsoapplies
toWestClift
on/VineSt.Loop)
VineSt.
HighlandAve.
/Dorchester
Ave.
/AuburnAve.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
20/57
20
TIER2ANALYSIS
AttheconclusionoftheTier1examination,fouroptionsmetthecriteriaforfurtheranalysis:
McMickenAve./McMillanSt.
WestCliftonAve.
WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop
VineSt.
Thecharacteristicsoftheseoptionswerethenstudiedwithregardtothestatedgoalsandobjectives.
Ingeneral,theWestCliftonAve.andMcMickenAve./McMillanSt.optionsofferenhancedmobilitytoa
greaternumberoflocalresidentsandemployeesthanthealternativesusingVineStreet. Additionally,
these twooptionsprovide better connectionsbetween residential areas, business districts,and other
activitycentersinUptown. Keyattributesofeachoptionaresummarizedbelow:
AlignmentOption Analysis
McMickenAve.
/McMillanSt.
Along with West Clifton Ave., serves the most Uptown residents(includingtransitdependentresidents).
Provides good access to UC campus and Clifton Heights businessdistrict.
WestClifton
Ave.
Along with McMicken Ave./McMillan St., serves the most Uptownresidents(includingtransitdependentresidents).
Provides
good
access
to
UC
campus
and
Clifton
Heights
business
district.
Mostefficientoperationally.WestClifton
Ave./VineSt.
Loop
Servesalargenumberofresidents,butlevelofaccessislimitedduetolooproutestructure.
Loop structure becomes even more problematic operationally asfutureextensionsarebuilt.
VineSt. Direct routing to University Plaza forces longer walks to the UCcampusandCUFneighborhood.
Not as many residents are within walking distance of Vine Street,limitingtheeffectivenessofserviceinthisarea.
Goal#1:Improvemobilityandconnectivitywithindowntown(anduptown)Cincinnati
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
21/57
21
Objective:Provideconvenientaccessand localcirculationformajoremployment,commercial,
recreational,andculturalactivitycenters
The land use between Findlay Market and Uptown is primarily residential in nature, with a strip of
commercial development on McMillan and Calhoun Streets in the Uptown district. A primary
destinationfor
streetcar
service
to
Uptown
is
the
University
of
Cincinnati,
with
an
annual
enrollment
of
approximately 35,000 students and over 15,000 faculty and staff. Additional destinations include
UniversityPlazaandthesurroundingcommercialandresidentialarea,andHughesCenterHighSchool,a
magnetschoolwithanenrollmentofover1,400students. Futureextensionsareenvisionedtoserve
more Uptown destinations, including the massive medical center area and the Cincinnati Zoo. The
McMicken/McMillanandWestCliftonalternativesprovidethemostdirectaccesstoboththeUniversity
of Cincinnati campus and theHughes Center High School. The Vine Street alternative providessome
accesstotheUniversityofCincinnati,butonlyatthesoutheasterncornerofthecampus.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
22/57
22
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversityofCincinnatialongCalhounStreet.WestCliftonAve. A ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversity
ofCincinnati
along
Calhoun
Street.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversityofCincinnatialongCalhounStreet,butbecausethealternativeisaloop,thedestinationsareonlyaccessibleinonedirection.
VineSt. C Requires longerwalks(1/4miorfurther)toaccessmostoftheUniversityofCincinnaticampus.
Objective:Providebetterconnectivitybetweenneighborhoodsandactivitycenters
TheMcMicken/McMillan
and
West
Clifton
alternatives
almost
exclusively
serve
the
CUF
neighborhood,
agroupingoftheCliftonHeights,UniversityHeightsandFairviewcommunities. Thesecommunitiesare
predominantly populated with University of Cincinnati students and employees. The
McMicken/McMillan alignment
provides coverage along both
the bottom and the top of the
hill,includingthenorthernarea
of OvertheRhine. The West
Clifton alternative also serves
the CUF neighborhood with
expanded
penetration
into
the
residential areas along West
Clifton Ave. The Vine Street
alignment runs between the
CUF and Mount Auburn
neighborhoods, but due to the
topography on the northern
side of Vine Street, residences
in CUF are largely inaccessible.
The Mount Auburn
neighborhood
is
accessible
from Vine Street via a few
east/weststreets(MulberrySt.,
St. Joe St. and Thill St.), but
access beyond these areas is
limited.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
23/57
23
All alignment options serve University Plaza, but as noted earlier, the McMicken/McMillan and West
CliftonalternativesalsoprovidedirectservicetotheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrictandaffordcloser
accesstotheUCcampus. TheWestClifton/Vineloopservestheseareasaswell,butinonedirection
only.
TheCUF
neighborhood
is
one
of
the
more
densely
populated
areas
in
Cincinnati,
with
the
area
between
RavineandWestCliftonStreetsapproachingadensityof25personsperacre. TheareawestofRavine
Street is less dense, primarily due to a large neighborhood park, Fairview Park. The Mount Auburn
neighborhoodalongVineStreettendstobelessdensethanCUF,duetosomedifficultterrainandtwo
parks, Jackson Hill Park and Inwood Park. Because of the number of stops on their alignments, the
McMicken/McMillanandWestCliftonalternativesserveamuch largerpopulationbasethantheVine
Streetalternative.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
24/57
24
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A Provides good connectivity between CUF neighborhood andotheractivitycentersinUptown/Downtown.WestCliftonAve. A ProvidesgoodconnectivitybetweentheCUFneighborhoodand
other
activity
centers
in
Uptown/Downtown.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B Provides connectivity between the CUF neighborhood andUptown/Downtown, but because the alternative is a loop, theUptownneighborhoodsand destinationsareonlyaccessible in
onedirection.
VineSt. C Provides no direct connection to the CUF neighborhood andlimitedconnectionstotheMountAuburnneighborhood.
Objective:Provideanattractivemeansoftransportationforresidents,workers,customers,and
visitors
Attractiveness is typically defined to include convenience, efficiency, safety, costeffectiveness, and
othercharacteristics. Manyofthesetraitsarediscussedelsewhere inthisanalysis inconjunctionwith
otherperformanceobjectives. Forthisobjective,thecleanlinessofthealignmentandopportunities
toincorporatefutureextensionsareaddressed.
AlloftheprimaryalignmentshaveaworkableconnectiontothebaseDowntowntoOTRalignmentand
potentialmaintenancefacilitylocationonHenryStreet. TheMcMicken/McMillanAlternativeisslightly
cleanerthantheWestCliftonandVinealternativesbecause itextendstheElmSt.andRaceSt. loop
throughOvertheRhineuptoMcMickenAve. Forthe
West Clifton and Vine options, northbound
passengersmustbacktrackslightlyonRaceSt.when
travelingpastthemaintenancefacilityfromHenrySt.
toFindlaySt.(atightturningradiusprohibitsadirect
turnfromnorthboundElmSt.ontoeastboundFindlay
St.). Thisoutofdirectiontravelisshort(1block),but
will require clear signage to indicate where patrons
shouldboardtotravelinaparticulardirection.
Future Uptown extensions were conceptualized
during
the
previous
Feasibility
Study
and
include
potential service on the Calhoun Street/McMillan
StreetcoupletaswellasserviceonJeffersonAvenue
and Vine Street north to the hospitals and the
Cincinnati Zoo. If implemented as such, the Vine
Streetalternative(illustratedhere)wouldrequirethatserviceextend inonedirectiononlyoroperate
withalternatingtripsbetweenthetwoextensions.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
25/57
25
TheWestCliftonAve./VineSt.LooprestrictsaccesstoUptownattractionstoonedirectiononly,which
limits the effectiveness of service to this area. This issue becomes more pronounced when future
extensionsareconstructed,becausemoreoutofdirectiontravelwillberequiredforsomepatrons. For
example, with anextension to the CincinnatiZoo, passengers originating downtown and destined for
WestCliftonAve.wouldbeforcedtotravelallthewaytotheZooandbackbeforetheroutereaches
WestClifton
Ave.
TheDowntowntoOTRstreetcarserviceplanassumeda10minutepeakperiodservicefrequencyanda
20minuteoffpeakperiodservicefrequency. Thesesameservicefrequencieswerecarriedovertothe
UptownConnectorserviceplan. Basedonpreliminaryruntimeestimatesforthefouralternatives,the
WestCliftonalternativeprovidesthemostefficientservice,withamanageablelayoverduringboththe
peakandoffpeakperiods. Thelayoverisascheduledperiodoftimewherethevehicleisattheendof
its route and the time is used to prepare the vehicle for its return trip and give the operator an
opportunitytorest. Ifavehicle isearlyor latecoming intotheendoflinestop,the layovertimealso
enablesthevehicletostayonschedule. Asafeestimateoflayoveristypically15percentoftheround
triprunning
time.
BasedontheDowntowntoOTRservicefrequencies,theWestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loopwasthemost
inefficientserviceduringthepeakperiod,withapproximatelyfiveextraminutesoftimebuilt intothe
layover period. During the offpeak periods, the VineandMcMicken/McMillanalternatives were the
mostinefficient,withnineandsevenextraminutesoflayover,respectively.
Alternative
RunTime
(RoundTrip) CycleTime
LayoverTarget
(15%ofRunTime) ActualLayover
Vine 0:44:34 0:50:00 0:06:41 0:05:26
WestClifton 0:51:16 1:00:00 0:07:41 0:08:44
Vine/WCliftonLoop 0:46:51 1:00:00 0:07:02 0:13:09
McMicken/McMillan 1:03:39 1:10:00 0:09:33 0:06:21
Alternative
RunTime
(RoundTrip) CycleTime
LayoverTarget
(15%ofRunTime) ActualLayover
Vine 0:44:34 1:00:00 0:06:41 0:15:26
WestClifton 0:51:16 1:00:00 0:07:41 0:08:44
Vine/WCliftonLoop 0:46:51 1:00:00 0:07:02 0:13:09
McMicken/McMillan 1:03:39 1:20:00 0:09:33 0:16:21
PeakPeriodService(10minfrequencies)
OffPeakPeriodService(20minfrequencies)
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
26/57
26
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. B ProvidesopportunitiesfornorthernexpansiontohospitalsandCincinnati Zoo. Operating plan is less efficient in the offpeakperiods.
WestClifton
Ave.
A ProvidesopportunitiesfornorthernexpansiontohospitalsandCincinnatiZoo. Operatingplan isthemostefficientofthefouralternatives.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop D ProvidesopportunitiesfornorthernexpansiontohospitalsandCincinnatiZoo,butbecausethealternativeisaloop,directtripsfrom Calhoun Street to the hospitals or Cincinnati Zoo would
notbepossible. Operatingplanistheleastefficientinthepeak
periods.
VineSt. C Provides an opportunity for either a western expansion onCalhoun St./McMillan St or a northern expansion to hospitalsand the Cincinnati Zoo. However, the operating plan is less
efficientin
the
off
peak
periods.
Objective:Improveaccessandopportunitiesfortransitdependentpopulations
Using 2000 U.S. Census data, the following socioeconomic factors were mapped to identify potential
transitdependentmarkets:
Zerocarhouseholds Personsage65orolder Populationwithincomesatorbelowpovertylevel
Personswithdisabilities Minoritypopulation
Zerocar Households: While the highest densities of zerocar households are in OTR and West End
neighborhoods,severalblockgroups inCUFhavemoderatedensitiesofzerocarhouseholds (2.5to5
per acre), giving the McMicken/McMillan and West Clifton alternatives the opportunity to improve
mobility for these households in their respective corridors. Portions of the Vine Street corridor also
havemoderatezerocarhouseholddensities,withhigherconcentrationsneartheVineStreet/Findlay
StreetintersectioninOvertheRhine.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
27/57
27
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
28/57
28
Persons Age 65 or Older: Because much of the CUF neighborhood is oriented around University of
Cincinnatistudentandstaffhousing,mostblockgroupsintheareadonothavehighdensitiesofelderly
population. One block group between Ravine Street and West Clifton Avenue did have densities
exceeding1elderlypersonperacre. Comparatively,theVineStreetcorridorhaslowelderlyresidential
densities(lessthan1elderlypersonperacre).
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
29/57
29
PersonsAt or Below the Poverty Level: Severalblockgroups inCUFhaverelativelyhighdensitiesof
impoverishedpersons(10to20personsperacre)withoneblockgroupexceeding30personsperacre.
The neighborhoods impoverished persons are primarily students, as most likely reported little to no
income.
TheVine
Street
corridor
also
has
significant
densities
of
impoverished
persons
in
the
blocks
between
MulberryStreetandMcMickenAvenue;however,fewerstudentsliveinthisarea.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
30/57
30
PersonswithDisabilities: OnlyafewblockgroupsintheCUFneighborhoodreportsignificantdensities
ofdisabledpersons. However,higherdensitiesofdisabledpersonsarelocatedinOvertheRhine.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
31/57
31
MinorityPopulations: Minoritypopulationsarecenteredheavily intheOvertheRhineandWestEnd
neighborhoods. Of the four alignment alternatives, the Vine Street option has the highest
concentrationsofminoritiesintheblocksbetweenMulberryStreetandMcMickenAvenue.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A Provides good access to elderly, minority, lowincome, anddisabledresidentsofCUF.WestCliftonAve.
AProvides good access to elderly, minority, lowincome, and
disabledresidents
of
CUF.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B ProvidesaccesstotransitdependentresidentsalongbothVineandWestClifton,butthe looprestrictsaccesstoonedirectiononly.
VineSt. B Provides good access to elderly, minority, lowincome, anddisabledresidentsalongVineStreet,buttheoverallpopulationbaseissmallerthantheCUFneighborhood.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
32/57
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
33/57
33
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A Provides good access to development projects on UC campusand in Clifton Heights business district; minimal changesrequiredtoexistingroadway.
WestClifton
Ave.
A Provides good access to development projects on UC campusand in Clifton Heights business district; minimal changesrequiredtoexistingroadway.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B Provides some access to development projects on UC campusand inCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict;significantcrosssectionchangesrequiredtoVineStreet.
VineSt. C Terminus location limits access to UC campus and CliftonHeights business district; significant crosssection changesrequiredtoVineStreet.
Objective: Consider transit investment to help shape urbanform through reinvestment along
selectedcorridorsandneighborhoods
StreetcarcanclearlyhelptoshapeurbanforminDowntownandOvertheRhine,andcanalsodosoin
Uptown. However, reshaping opportunities are somewhat limited for the connection between Over
theRhineandUptown. VineStreetisinneedofreinvestment,buttheopportunitiesforadditionalnew
developmentareconstrainedbythesmallareaofdevelopablelandalongthecorridor,duetothesteep
hillsides and shallow lot depths. West Clifton Ave. also can benefit from reinvestment along the
segments that have already been developed, near the bottom and top of the hill. There are some
redevelopment opportunities along McMillan St., but a significant portion of this alignment passes
through Fairview Park, where no development will occur. Conversely, at the bottom of the hill,
McMickenAve.affordsopportunitiesforredevelopment. TheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrictcontinues
toemergeasasignificantactivityhub,andstreetcarwillcontinuetohelpshapeurbanforminthisarea.
All alignment options offer some opportunity to help shape urban form, but the extent of these
opportunitiesislimitedprimarilybythegeographyofthehillsidebetweenDowntownandUptown.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A Createsopportunitiestoreshapeurban form inCliftonHeightsandinthenorthernportionofOvertheRhine.WestCliftonAve. B CreatesopportunitiestoreshapeurbanforminCliftonHeights.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B Expanded coverage area promotes redevelopment on WestCliftonAve.andVineSt.VineSt. C Redevelopment opportunities are available along Vine St., butnewdevelopmentsitesarelimited.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
34/57
34
Objective: Encourage neighborhood revitalization and livable and walkable communities
throughdevelopmentofgoodstreetscapesandpedestrianenvironment
TheCliftonHeightsCommunityUrbanRedevelopmentCorporationisworkingtoredeveloptheCalhoun
/McMillanStreetcorridorintoavibrant,pedestrianfriendly,mixedusebusinessdistrict. Anumberof
newprojects
have
already
been
completed
in
this
corridor,
and
more
are
planned.
These
projects
will
transform the Clifton Heights business district into a major activity center. Efforts to revitalize this
corridorappeartobewellaheadofredevelopmentplansforothercorridorsinthearea,includingVine
Street.
The streetcar has the ability to catalyze additional revitalization efforts, and supports the goal of
enhancing the streetscape to create a more pedestrianoriented focus. Because of the revitalization
emphasis in the Clifton Heights business district, the streetcar alignment options that serve this area
haveabetteropportunitytomeetthisobjective,andratingswereassignedaccordingly. TheVineStreet
option also creates the opportunity to reshape this corridor into a more pedestrianfriendly
environment,ifanew
cross
section
with
areduced
number
of
travel
lanes
is
identified.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.WestCliftonAve. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict,butserviceisprovidedinonedirectiononlythroughhisarea.
VineSt. C Encourages revitalization in the University Plaza area, but thisalignmentoptiondoesnotreachtheheartoftheCliftonHeightsbusiness district. Streetscape opportunities are available on
VineStreetwithamodifiedcrosssection.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
35/57
35
Objective:Linkkeydestinationsinthecorridor
ThisobjectiveisverysimilartotheobjectiveincludedinGoal#1toprovideconvenientaccessandlocal
circulation for major employment, commercial, recreational, and cultural activity centers. For
consistency,thesameratingsareappliedtothisobjective.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversityofCincinnatialongCalhounStreet.WestCliftonAve. A ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversityofCincinnatialongCalhounStreet.WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B ProvidesconnectivitywiththeentirefrontageoftheUniversityofCincinnatialongCalhounStreet,butbecausethealternativeisaloop,thedestinationsareonlyaccessibleinonedirection.
VineSt.
C Requires longerwalks(1/4miorfurther)toaccessmostoftheUniversityofCincinnaticampus.
Objective:Capturetheeconomicbenefitresultingfromimprovedtransitserviceandmobilityin
theseareas
The economic benefit of improved mobility is directly linked to the objective above to encourage
neighborhood revitalization and livable and walkable communities through development of good
streetscapes
and
pedestrian
environment.
For
consistency,
the
same
ratings
are
applied
to
this
objective.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.WestCliftonAve. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict,butserviceisprovidedinonedirectiononlythroughhisarea.
VineSt. C Encourages revitalization in the University Plaza area, but thisalignmentoptiondoesnotreachtheheartoftheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
36/57
36
Objective:Maximizeenergyefficiencyofthetransitoperationandminimizenegativeimpactson
historic,archaeological,traditionalculturalplaces,parklands,andotherpublicrecreationareas
Because all options consist of alignments that are completely instreet, very few impacts on any
adjacenthistoric,archaeological,orculturalresourcesorparklandscanbeexpected,withthepossible
exceptionof
areas
located
around
streetcar
stops.
No
major
historic
or
cultural
sites
are
adjacent
to
the
candidate options. The McMicken/McMillan alternative runs through Fairview Park, but few (if any)
streetcarstopsareanticipatedalongthehillside. However,thevisualimpactsoftheoverheadcatenary
infrastructure (while fairly minimal) shouldbe considered. The Vine Street alternative passes next to
InwoodPark,butimpactsofanystreetcarstopsservingtheparkareanticipatedtobeminimal. Rather,
thestreetcarwouldprovideabenefit to the parkbyprovidinganewmeans ofaccess to thisactivity
center.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMicken
Ave.
/
McMillanSt. C Alignment passes through Fairview Park. Streetcar stop andoverhead catenary impacts should be minimal, but should beconsidered.
WestCliftonAve. B Alignment does not pass any significant historic facilities orparklands.WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B Alignment passes Inwood Park on Vine St. Streetcar stopimpactsshouldbeminimal,andimprovedaccessisprovided.VineSt. B Alignment passes Inwood Park on Vine St. Streetcar stopimpactsshouldbeminimal,andimprovedaccessisprovided.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
37/57
37
Many objectives under this goal focus on compatibility with the existing transportation system,
particularlyintermsofdesignconstraintsassociatedwiththecandidatealternatives. Thesteepnessof
gradesremains
aconcern
for
all
options,
and
narrow
lane
widths
provide
additional
challenges.
Travel
time, and its associated impact on the attractiveness of streetcar service, is a primary differentiator
amongthealternatives. Keyattributesofeachoptionaresummarizedinthetablebelow:
AlignmentOption Analysis
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt.
Longestoptionresultsinhighesttraveltime. Comparativelygentlegrade,thoughitissustainedoverasignificant
distance.
WestCliftonAve. Grades closely approach the theoretical maximum of 9%, and aresustainedoverasignificantdistance.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop
Grades closely approach the theoretical maximum of 9% on WestClifton,andaresustainedoverasignificantdistance.
The existing 36 crosssection on Vine Street, using four 9 travellanes,willnotsafelyaccommodatestreetcar. Analternativecross
section with a wider lane for streetcar (at least 10.5 11) is
required. If widening is not a viable option, a reduction in the
numberoftravellaneswillberequired.
VineSt. Shortestoptionresultsinquickesttraveltime. Comparativelygentlegrade,thoughitissustainedoverasignificant
distance.
The existing 36 crosssection on Vine Street, using four 9 travellanes,willnotsafelyaccommodatestreetcar. Analternativecross
section with a wider lane for streetcar (at least 10.5 11) is
required. If widening is not a viable option, a reduction in the
numberoftravellaneswillberequired.
Objective:Attractnewriderstothelocalandregionaltransitsystembyprovidingaconvenient,
frequent,reliable,andattractivestreetcartransitservice
When deciding whether to use streetcar for a particular trip, potential patrons will consider the
convenience of the trip, how long it takes, and if streetcar takes them where they want to go. It is
assumedthateachofthealignmentoptionswouldoperateatthesamefrequencyandduringthesame
hoursofoperation. Forplanningpurposes,a10minutepeakperiodfrequencyand20minuteoffpeak
frequencywasassumed,tobeconsistentwiththe levelofserviceproposedfortheDowntowntoOTR
segment.
Goal#3:Maximizetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofthelocalandregionaltransitsystem
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
38/57
38
AkeydifferentiatoramongthealternativesisthetraveltimebetweenUptownandDowntown/OTR. It
isenvisionedthatthestreetcarwouldoperateasasingleroute,withalltripsservingDowntown,OTR,
andUptown. TheVineStreetoption isthemostdirect,andthushastheshortest traveltime. Using
WestCliftonAve.wouldaddaboutthreeminutesineachdirectiontothetriptime,andusingMcMicken
Ave./McMillan St. would add another 67 minutes in each direction. Conceptual round trip running
timesare
summarized
below.
AlignmentOptionRoundTripRunning
Time
OneWayTripTime(from
UniversityPlazatotheGreat
AmericanBallPark)
McMickenAve./McMillanSt. 64minutes 32minutes
WestCliftonAve. 51minutes 26minutes
WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop 49minutes 2326minutes
VineSt. 45minutes 23minutes
Although the Vine Street option has the shortest travel time, the destinations served must also be
considered. As currently envisioned, the Vine Street option would terminate at a redeveloped
UniversityPlazashoppingcenter. Thisiscertainlyahubofactivity,butitisremovedfromtheheartof
the University of Cincinnati campus and adjacent residential neighborhoods,andwould requiremany
patrons to walk, bicycle, or drive to University Plaza. Conversely, by serving the Calhoun / McMillan
corridor,theotherthreealignmentoptionsprovideahigherlevelofdirectaccesstotheUCcampus,the
Clifton Heights business district, and surrounding communities. Thus, when considering total travel
time,includingtimeneededtoaccessthestreetcar,theoptionsservingtheCalhoun/McMillancorridor
are
likely
to
be
more
attractive
to
many
patrons.
The
Vine
Street
option
has
the
shortest
in
vehicle
traveltime,butbecauseitstopsshortoftheactivitycenterswestofUniversityPlaza,itmaynotattract
as much ridership as the other options. An additional consideration is that although all routes are
currentlyenvisionedtoterminateatUniversityPlaza,theVineStreetoptioncouldbeextendedtoserve
theCalhoun/McMillancorridoraspartoftheinitialphaseofimplementation. Alsotheviabilityofthis
option could increase if considered from the perspective of its connections to future extensions
elsewhereinUptown.
TheWestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loopistheleastattractiveoptionfromthisperspectivebecausestopsare
notprovided inbothdirectionsalongthesamealignment. Thisroutedesign increasesthetraveltime
formanytrips. Forexample,patronsdestinedforresidencesintheCUFneighborhoodmusttravelfrom
DowntowntoUniversityPlazaandthroughtheCalhounSt.businesscorridorbeforereturningtoWest
Clifton Ave. This routing functions differently than the proposed couplets downtown. Because the
pairedstreetsontheDowntown/OTRsegmentareonlyablockapart,pedestrianscaneasilywalkto
accessthestreetcartraveling ineitherdirection. There isnoaccessbetweenWestCliftonandVine in
theUptownarea,sothisroutingoptionfunctionsasaloopratherthanacouplet.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
39/57
39
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C ProvidesgoodaccesstoUptowndestinations,buttraveltimebetween Uptown and Downtown is significantly higher thanVineorWestClifton.
WestClifton
Ave.
A Provides good balance of reasonable travel time and accesstoCliftonHeightsandUCcampus.WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop C Loop system, while providing a balance in service coverage,resultsininefficientserviceforbothVineandWestClifton.VineSt. B NotasattractiveasWestCliftonduetolackofpenetrationinthe Clifton Heights business area and significant distance
fromtheheartoftheUCcampus.
Objective:
Integrate
the
planned
streetcar
line
or
lines
with
the
overall
transportation
system,
complementingandensuringcompatibilitywith theexistingandplanned streetand roadway
networkandtransitsystem
Decisions related to the preferred streetcar alignment must be made not only within the context of
planning issues, but also in consideration of specific design challenges that impact how (and if) the
streetcar infrastructure physically fits into its surroundings. As compared to other railbased modes,
streetcarisquiteflexible;however,therearedesignchallengesandlimitationsthatmustbeconsidered:
Grade As discussed earlier, streetcars can typically operate on a grade up to 9%. TheMcMicken Ave./McMillan St. and Vine St. options both have long (approximately 3000 feet)
sustainedgradesof6.5%7%. Thisgradient iswell within thegeneral technicalcapabilitiesof
modern streetcar, but the long length of the grade presents a unique challenge. The two
options thatuseWestCliftonAve.areevensteeper,withnearly1000 feetof8.88.9%grade,
and 2000 feet continuous of grades
higherthan7%. Anyoftheseoptionswill
require verification from prospective
vehicle manufacturers regarding their
ability to handle the grade, but the
options that use West Clifton have a
higherriskofnotbeingabletonegotiate
thehill.
Lane width Modernstreetcarsarejustover 9 feet wide (including mirrors), and
thelanesidentifiedforstreetcarusemust
be wide enough to safely accommodate
Streetcar lines can accommodate existing onstreet
parking
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
40/57
40
thevehicle. Accounting forthedynamicenvelopeofthevehicleanda factorofsafety,1112
feet is the preferred width of a lane used by streetcar. In restricted situations, it may be
possibletoreducethislanewidthto10.5feet. Additionally,intersectionwidthiscriticalwhere
thestreetcarwillbeturning,andmustaccommodatethevehiclesturningradius.
Thelane
widths
on
the
streets
included
in
the
Tier
2analysis,
and
the
impacts
of
these
widths,
are summarized below. The most significant impact is on Vine Street, where the number of
travel lanes will need to be reduced to provide adequate width forsafe streetcar operations.
ThisisasignificantimpactforboththeVineSt.andWestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loopoptions.
Street/
AlignmentOptionExistingLaneWidths ImpactsonStreetcarCompatibility
McMickenAve. Crosssectionof3642
includesonetravellanein
eachdirectionplusonstreet
parkingon
both
sides
Streetcarshouldbeabletobe
accommodated;someonstreet
parkingmayneedtoberemovedin
mostnarrow
places
McMillanSt. Crosssectionisgenerally40
(four10travellaneswith
parkingallowedinplaces)
Lanewidthswillneedtobeadjustedto
allowan11laneforstreetcaruse(9
forthesecondlane). Onstreetparking
mayneedtoberemovedinsome
areas.
WestCliftonAve. Crosssectionisgenerally40
(includesonetravellanein
eachdirectionplusparkingon
bothsides)
Streetcarcanbeaccommodated,with
an11laneforstreetcaruse(9foron
streetparking)
VineSt. Crosssectionis3638(four
9
travel
lanes
with
parking
allowedduringoffpeak
hours)
Streetcarcannotbesafely
accommodated
within
the
existing
crosssection. Analternativecross
sectionwithareducednumberof
travellaneswillbenecessaryto
providetheadequatewidthfor
streetcar.
Withregardtoturningmovements,therearenoturnsonanyoftheTier2optionsthatpresent
asignificantdesignchallenge. Sometrafficchangesorcurbextensionsmayberequired,butthe
minimum turning radius appears to be achievable at all intersections where the alignment
changesdirection.
Utilities Consideration of impacts on underground utilities is paramount. Although designelements will minimize stray current leakage, the ability to access underground utilities for
maintenance is a concern. The streetcar track slab placement and design should enable
maintenance access to underground utilities without negatively impacting the streetcar
infrastructureandoperations.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
41/57
41
AllTier2alignmentoptionsareonmajorroadways,andthushavevariousutilitiesunderneath
the surface. The utility relocation impacts are determined largely by the proximity of the
underground lines to the streetcar track slabs, as well as the level of mitigation that will
ultimatelybeemployedbytheCityofCincinnati. Atthispoint,extensiveutilitylocationanalysis
hasnotbeenperformed. Asdesignworkproceeds,extensivework to identifyutilityconflicts
willbe
required.
OnstreetparkingDependingonthelocationofthetrackwithinthestreetandtheassociatedstreetcarstops,existingonstreetparkingspacesmaybeimpacted. Eachofthestreetsincluded
intheTier2alignmentoptionsallowsonstreetparkingtosomeextent. Thenotableexception
isonVineStreet,whereonstreetparkingisallowedonlyduringoffpeakperiods.
Where parking is allowed on street, some spaces will need to be removed to permit an
extendedcurbforstreetcarstops. Dependingonstopdesignandlocationspecificconditions,4
6parkingspacesmaybeimpactedatstreetcarstoplocations. Additionally,parkingspacesmay
beimpacted
near
intersections
where
the
streetcars
proceed
around
acorner.
Since onstreet parking is allowed on McMicken, McMillan, and West Clifton, the parking
impactswillbesimilaracrossthethreealternativesthatusethesestreets. VineStreetparking
impactswouldneedtobedeterminedinconjunctionwiththeconsiderationofalternativecross
sectiondesigns,sincethestreetcarwillnotsafelyfitwithintheexistingcrosssectionanyway.
Other engineering issues In addition to the design challenges described above, severaladditional engineering considerations are apparent, and other issues may emerge as the
planninganddesignprocessproceeds. Mostnotably,theconnectiontotheDowntowntoOTR
segment for the alternatives using West Clifton and Vine Streets is proposed to be made via
Findlay St. between Vine St. and Race St. / Elm St. This connection will require Findlay St.
betweenRaceandVinetobeconvertedtotwowayoperation,ratherthanthecurrentoneway
westboundoperation. Streetcarscannottravelagainsttheflowoftrafficinasharedlane;thus,
thisblockwillneedtobeconvertedtotwowayoperation,oranalternateconnectionwillneed
tobeidentified.
Also,severalareas inwhichroadwayreconstructionmaybeneededhavebeenidentified. The
complex intersectionofVine/McMicken/Findlaymayneed tobe reconstructed toprovide the
proper crossslopes for streetcar slabs. Additionally, the large curve on West Clifton at Zier
Place may need to be reconstructed to remove the crown on the roadway and provide the
proper cross slopes. These issues do not necessarily impact the selection of a preferred
alignmenttoanygreatextent,butrepresentcoststhatwillbeincurredduringconstruction.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
42/57
42
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. B The grade is comparatively gentle and the lane width isadequate(thoughsomerestripingisrequired).WestCliftonAve. C Thesteepnessofthegrade isariskfortheabilityofmodern
streetcarto
navigate
West
Clifton.
Confirmation
from
vehicle
manufacturerswillbenecessary.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop D ThesteepnessofthegradeonWestCliftonisaconcern,andtheinadequatelanewidthonVinerequiresareductioninthenumberofthroughlanes.
VineSt. D TheinadequatelanewidthonVinerequiresareductioninthenumberofthroughlanes
Objective:
Provide
convenient
access
to
the
transit
system
using
various
modes
and
means
of
travel(e.g.pedestrian,bicycle,bus,automobile)
Streetcarpassengerstypicallywalktoandfromthestreetcarroute. Assuch,pedestrianaccessibilityof
arouteisanimportantfeature. Althoughsidewalksarepresentalongallthecandidatealignments,Vine
St.isnotaspedestrianfriendlyattheotheroptions,duetoitsnarrowsidewalks,narrowcrosssection
that places sidewalks at the back of curb adjacent to travel lanes, and the lack of penetration of
pedestrianconnectionsintothesurroundingneighborhoods. Ontheotherhand,WestCliftonAve.has
good pedestrian and vehicular connections into the surrounding neighborhood, and the onstreet
parking helps to slow traffic and provide a buffer between vehicular traffic and pedestrians. The
McMicken
St.
/
McMillan
Ave.
option
also
has
good
connections
into
the
adjacent
neighborhoods,
particularlythoseaboveFairviewPark,andtheonstreetparkingbenefitspedestrians. TheWestClifton
Ave./VineSt.LoopenjoysgoodpedestrianaccessalongtheWestCliftonAve.portionofthealignment,
butnotalongtheVineSt.section.
WhileeachofthealignmentalternativesduplicatessomeofSORTAslocalbusservice,theoverlapping
segments are relatively short, when compared to the overall lengths of the local bus routes. The
streetcarservicewouldnotreplacethelocalbusservice,butrathersupplementit,providingadditional
connectivitybetweenthestreetcarserviceareaandtheregion.
The McMicken/McMillan alternative provides the highest level of connectivity with SORTAs local bus
network,as
it
would
overlap
Routes
21
and
64
on
McMicken
Ave.,
Route
31
on
McMillan
St.
and
Routes
17,18,19and51ontheCalhounSt./McMillanSt.couplet. Itwouldalsoprovidetransferopportunities
atUniversityPlazatoRoutes24,46and78. TheWestCliftonalternativewouldoverlapRoutes17,18
and19onWestCliftonaswellasRoute31ontheCalhounSt./McMillanSt.coupletandprovidetransfer
connectionsatUniversityPlazatoRoutes24,46and78. TheVineSt.optionwouldoverlapRoutes46
and78,andprovidetransferconnectionstoRoutes31and46atUniversityPlaza.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
43/57
43
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. A Regular blocks enable good connections from surroundingneighborhoods, andonstreetparkingprovidesapedestrianbufferfromtraffic. Goodbusconnectivity.
WestCliftonAve. B Regular blocks enable good connections from surroundingneighborhoods, andonstreetparkingprovidesapedestrian
bufferfrom
traffic.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.LoopC Good access is provided from neighborhoods surroundingWestCliftonAve.,but access to and from areas alongVine
Streetislimited.
VineSt. D VineSt.hasnarrowsidewalkslocatedadjacenttothebackofcurb, along with few connections into surroundingneighborhoodsduetotopographicconstraints.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
44/57
44
Objective: Develop safe, comfortable, and convenient transitfacilities, including stations and
stops
Asillustratedearlier,streetcarstopsaretypicallyaccommodatedthroughacurbextension(bulbout)
intoaparkinglane. Thisdesigneliminatesonstreetparkingatthestoplocation,butdoesnotintrude
ontothe
existing
sidewalk.
If
aparking
lane
is
not
available
for
acurb
extension,
then
the
stop
must
be
placedonthesidewalk(withthestreetcarrunningadjacenttothecurb). Inmanycases,thesidewalk
can be rerouted behind the streetcar stop, but this approach may not be viable in areas where the
sidewalkcannotbemodifiedduetoproximityofbuildingsorgeographicissues.
The McMicken/McMillan and West Clifton corridors typically have onstreet parking that can be
removedtoprovidesafeandcomfortablestationstops. However,stopsarenotasconducivealongthe
VineStreetcorridor,atleast initsexistingcrosssection. Becausetwolanesoftrafficineachdirection
aremaintainedduringpeakperiods,thestreetcarwouldberequiredtooperateinthecurblanetostop
atanystationstops. Thesestopswouldbedifficult toconstructgiven theexisting narrowsidewalks,
steepslopes,
and
close
building
faces
in
some
areas.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. B Streetcarstopscanbeadequatelyprovidedbyremovingonstreetparking.WestCliftonAve. B Streetcarstopscanbeadequatelyprovidedbyremovingonstreetparking.WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop C StreetcarstopswouldbedifficulttoimplementonVineStreetgiventheneedforstreetcartooperateinthecurblaneiffourlanesoftrafficaremaintainedduringpeakperiods.
VineSt. D StreetcarstopswouldbedifficulttoimplementonVineStreetgiventheneedforstreetcartooperateinthecurblaneiffourlanesoftrafficaremaintainedduringpeakperiods.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
45/57
45
Objective:Provideviablemobilityoptionstodiscourageincreasedsingleoccupancyvehicleuse
intheCBDandalreadycongestedroadwaynetwork
As discussed with regard to the earlier objective of attracting new riders to the transit system, the
streetcarmustbeconvenient,efficient,andreliabletoencouragepeopletoshiftfromsingleoccupant
vehiclesto
transit.
The
same
considerations
as
discussed
earlier
also
apply
to
this
objective,
and
for
consistency,thesameratingsareappliedtothisobjective.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C ProvidesgoodaccesstoUptowndestinations,buttraveltimebetween Uptown and Downtown is significantly higher thanVineorWestClifton.
WestCliftonAve. A Provides good balance of reasonable travel time and accesstoCliftonHeightsandUCcampus.West
Clifton
Ave.
/VineSt.Loop C Loop system, while providing a balance in service coverage,resultsininefficientserviceforbothVineandWestClifton.VineSt. B NotasattractiveasWestCliftonduetolackofpenetrationinthe Clifton Heights business area and significant distance
fromUCcampus.
Objective:Complementpreviousplanningstudiesandplannedmultimodaloperations
TheoriginalCincinnatiStreetcarFeasibilityStudy(2007)mentionedonlyVineStreetasanalignmentto
connectUptown
with
Downtown
/OTR.
However,
Uptown
alignment
options
were
not
studied
to
any
appreciable levelofdetail inthe initialfeasibilitystudies. Acirculatorroute inUptownwasshownon
theCalhoun/McMillancouplet.
The 2006 Uptown Transportation Study, conducted by the OhioKentuckyIndiana Regional Council of
Governments, was a comprehensive assessment of transportation needs in and around the
neighborhoods comprising the Uptowndistrict, and although it didnotspecificallymention streetcar,
includedamongthegoalsofthestudywasthedesiretoIdentifytransportationsystemimprovements
to enhance accessibility of existing institutions and support new economic development. Transit
recommendations includedthedevelopmentofRapidBusservicebetweenUptownandDowntown,
usingthe
West
Clifton
Ave.
and/or
Vine
St.
corridors.
Although
streetcar
does
not
necessarily
serve
the
samepurposeastheRapidBusconcept,itwillcertainlyenhancetheconnectionbetweenUptownand
Downtown.
The City of Cincinnati completed a University Village Urban Renewal Plan in 2005, but there is no
mentionoftransitotherthansomediscussionaboutthepotentialforatransithubinthearea.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
46/57
46
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C ThisoptionhasnotbeenmentionedpreviouslyasaprimaryconnectorbetweenUptownandDowntown.WestCliftonAve. B West Clifton and Vine have been acknowledged as the
potential
corridors
for
implementation
of
a
Rapid
Busservice.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B West Clifton and Vine have been acknowledged as thepotential corridors for implementation of a Rapid Busservice.
VineSt. B West Clifton and Vine have been acknowledged as thepotential corridors for implementation of a Rapid Busservice.
Objective:Identifysuitablesitesforamaintenancefacility
SeveralmaintenancefacilitysitesarebeingevaluatedalongthebaseDowntowntoOTRsegment,andit
ishighly likelythatasuitablesitewillbe identifiedalongthisportionofthealignment. However,the
Uptownextensionpotentiallyprovidesadditionalsiteoptions foramaintenance facility. No indepth
siteanalysishasbeenundertaken forthesealignments,butageneralreviewofthecandidateoptions
wasundertakentoassessthelikelihoodofidentifyingsuitablemaintenancefacilitysites.
Itisunlikelythatasuitablemaintenancefacilitysitecanbeidentifiedalonganyofthestreetsstudiedin
the
Tier
2
analysis,
due
to
the
steep
grades,
limited
depth
of
building
lots,
and
existing
viabledevelopment. Effortsshouldcontinuetofocusonidentifyingamaintenancefacilitylocationwithinthe
Downtown/OTRarea.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. D Steep grades, limited depth of building lots, and existingviable development limit opportunities for maintenancefacilities.
WestCliftonAve. D Steep grades, limited depth of building lots, and existingviable development limit opportunities for maintenancefacilities.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop D Steep grades, limited depth of building lots, and existingviable development limit opportunities for maintenancefacilities.
VineSt. D Steep grades, limited depth of building lots, and existingviable development limit opportunities for maintenancefacilities.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
47/57
47
Theobjectivessupportingthisgoalarebasedprimarilyonthecapitalandoperatingcostsofeachoption,
incomparison
to
the
transportation
and
development
benefits
generated.
Key
attributes
of
each
option
aresummarizedinthetablebelow:
AlignmentOption Analysis
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt.
Longest option results in highest capital and operating cost(approximately$40millionmorethanlowestcostoption).
Servesmoreneighborhoodsandactivitycentersthanotheroptions,butsignificantadditionalcostmaynotjustifythetransportationand
developmentimpacts.
WestCliftonAve. Capital cost estimated at $18 million higher than the lowest costoption.
Provides key transportation and development benefits by servingtheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop
Capital cost estimated at $14 million higher than the lowest costoption.
Provides key transportation and development benefits by servingtheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict,butservicewouldbeprovided
inonedirectiononly.
VineSt. Shortestoptionresultsinlowestcapitalandoperatingcost. Comparatively lowcostmustbeweighedagainsttheimpactofnot
servingthe
heart
of
the
Clifton
Heights
business
district.
Objective:Selectand implementthemosteffectivestreetcarstarter linethat isaffordableand
manageablewhileyieldingsignificanttransportationanddevelopmentbenefits
As discussed with regard to Goal #2, the alternatives serving the Calhoun / McMillan corridor clearly
have a greater potential impact on transportation and development, due to the greater proximity to
majoractivitycentersthatisaffordedbytheseoptions. However,thesebenefitsmustbeconsideredin
conjunctionwith
the
cost
of
extending
streetcar
service
to
this
area.
The estimated capital cost of each option is shown in the following table. These figures represent
incremental costsbeyond the current estimatedcost of thebasesystem in DowntownandOverthe
Rhine. Thesecostsarepreliminaryestimatesonly,andwillberefinedasthedesignprocesscontinues.
Goal#4:Provideatransitinvestmentthatisaffordable,intermsofcapitalandoperating
expenses,andisimplementedonafasttrack
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
48/57
48
AlignmentOption PreliminaryCapitalCostEstimate
McMickenAve./McMillanSt. $69million
WestCliftonAve. $46million
WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop $42million
VineSt. $28million
As the shortest alternative, the Vine Street alignment has the lowest cost. At the other end of the
spectrum,theMcMickenAve./McMillanSt.optionhasacostthatisapproximately$40milliongreater
than the Vine Street option. While the McMicken/McMillanalignment offers access to more activity
centers and greater neighborhood penetration, the added value may not be commensurate with the
additionalcostof$40million. However,theWestCliftonAve.andWestCliftonAve./VineStreetLoop
optionsalsoofferaccesstotheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict,butthe incrementalcostascompared
totheVineStreetoptionisapproximately$1418million. Thisadditionalcostmaybemorepalatablein
comparisontothedevelopmentandmobilitybenefitsgenerated.
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C This option serves additional areas, but the added cost ofapproximately$40 millionmore than theVine Street optionmaynotjustifythebenefitsreceived.
WestCliftonAve. A ThisalignmentservestheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrictatamore manageable incremental cost of approximately $18millionmorethantheVineStreetoption.
WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop A ThisalignmentservestheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrictatareasonable cost of $14 million more than the Vine Streetoption,
but
the
loop
service
is
not
as
effective
and
efficient
as
bidirectionalservice.
VineSt. B Thisoptionhasthe lowestcostof implementation,butdoesnotproducethetransportationanddevelopmentbenefitsoftheotheroptions.
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
49/57
49
Objective: Minimize capital costs (e.g. not design elaborate stations and systems, generally
streetrunningoperation,nogradeseparations,noparkandridelots)
Thisobjectiverankstheoptionsstrictlybycapitalcost,basedonthefiguresillustratedabove.
AlignmentOption
Rating
Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C The longdistanceofthisoptionresults inthehighestcapitalcost.WestCliftonAve. B This option, while more expensive than the Vine Streetoption,iswithinanacceptablerange.WestCliftonAve.
/VineSt.Loop B This option, while more expensive than the Vine Streetoption,iswithinanacceptablerange.VineSt. A Thisoptionhasthelowestcostofimplementation.
Objective:Developsustainablesystemswhichmaximize revenuesandminimizenetoperating
andmaintenancecosts
UniqueoperatingplansweredevelopedforeachoftheUptownConnectoralternativestoevaluatethe
overallcosttooperateandmaintain theserviceextension. The inputsandcostestimatesareshown
below.
TheMcMicken/McMillanalternativewasnearlyonemilliondollarsannuallymoreexpensivetooperate
and maintain than any of the other alternatives. The West Clifton and Vine/West Clifton loop
alternativeswere in themiddle range,withan incrementalannualcostofapproximately$1.2million.
The Vine Street alternative would be the least expensive, with an additional cost ofjust under $1.0
millionperyear.
SystemCharacteristic Base
McMicken/
McMi llan W estClifton
WestClifton/
VineLoop Vine
PeakCars 4 7 6 6 5
FleetCars 5 9 8 8 6
Rev.CarMiles 90,300 215,600 171,600 160,300 149,500
Rev.CarHours 16,190 30,850 24,280 24,280 22,760
Directional RouteMiles 3.72 8.88 7.07 6.62 6.16
SystemCost $2,640,000 $4,830,000 $3,840,000 $3,900,000 $3,590,000
Incremental Cost n/a $2,190,000 $1,200,000 $1,260,000 $950,000
-
8/9/2019 Uptown Alignment Assessment Report
50/57
50
AlignmentOption Rating Comments
McMickenAve./
McMillanSt. C Mostexpensivetooperateandmaintain.WestCliftonAve. B Moderately more expensive to operate and maintain than the
VineStreet
alternative.
WestCliftonAve./
VineSt.Loop B Moderately more expensive to operate and maintain than theVineStreetalternative.VineSt. A Leastexpensivetooperateandmaintain.
Objective:Fasttracktheplanninganddesignperiod
Minimizingthe
length
of
the
project
will
enable
the
implementation
to
proceed
as
quickly
as
possible.
Astheshortestoption,theVineStreetalignmentwillhavetheshortestconstructiontime. Conversely,
theMcMickenAve./McMillanSt.alignmentwill