uptown alignment assessment report

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


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)


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


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)


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.


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


7/57

7

McMickenAve./RavineSt.



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


allowedon

one

side

only

39%grade


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


allowedon

both

sides

Generally40'crosssection


Section2


allowedon

both

sides


68%grade


9/57

9

WestCliftonAve./VineSt.Loop



via

WestClifton; 0.9milesviaVine

SurroundingLandUse:Residential/openspace(W.Clifton);commercial(McMillan);residential/openspace(Vine)


StreetcarHistory:Electric

streetcarson

W.

Clifton,

McMillian,andVine(cablecarspreviouslyoperatedonVine)

Section1


allowedon

both

sides



Section2

Fourtravellanes;36'crosssection

Onstreet

parking

allowed

in

curb

lane(exceptduringpeakperiods)

Continuous6.57%grade


10/57

10

VineSt.

Length:0.9milesfromMcMicken/Vine(Downtown)toCalhoun/Vine(Uptown)

SurroundingLand

Use:

Residential/openspace


StreetcarHistory:CablecarsoriginallyoperatedonVineStreet;thelinewaslaterelectrified

Section1


Onstreet

parking

allowed

in

curb



Section2


Onstreet

parking

allowed

in

curb




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


allowedon

both

sides


Section2

Twotofourtravellanes(varies)

Intermittenton

street

parking

(exceptduringpeakperiods)

05%grade


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


allowedon

both

sides

Approx.500'of9.6%grade;additional1000'of8+%grade

Section2


allowedon

one

side

of

street

only

Approx.5.5%grade


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


allowedon

both

sides

Approx.1000'of9.09.5%grade


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.


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


16/57

16

AdoptedGoals


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


17/57

17

AdoptedGoals


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


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.


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%



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%



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%


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%


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%


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%


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


24/57

24


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.


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)


26/57

26


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.


27/57

27


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).


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.


30/57

30

PersonswithDisabilities: OnlyafewblockgroupsintheCUFneighborhoodreportsignificantdensities

ofdisabledpersons. However,higherdensitiesofdisabledpersonsarelocatedinOvertheRhine.


31/57

31

MinorityPopulations: Minoritypopulationsarecenteredheavily intheOvertheRhineandWestEnd

neighborhoods. Of the four alignment alternatives, the Vine Street option has the highest

concentrationsofminoritiesintheblocksbetweenMulberryStreetandMcMickenAvenue.


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.


32/57


33/57

33


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.


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.


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.


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.


35/57

35

Objective:Linkkeydestinationsinthecorridor

ThisobjectiveisverysimilartotheobjectiveincludedinGoal#1toprovideconvenientaccessandlocal

circulation for major employment, commercial, recreational, and cultural activity centers. For

consistency,thesameratingsareappliedtothisobjective.


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.


McMickenAve./

McMillanSt. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.WestCliftonAve. A EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.

WestCliftonAve./

VineSt.Loop B EncouragesrevitalizationandenhancespedestrianenvironmentintheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict,butserviceisprovidedinonedirectiononlythroughhisarea.

VineSt. C Encourages revitalization in the University Plaza area, but thisalignmentoptiondoesnotreachtheheartoftheCliftonHeightsbusinessdistrict.


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.


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.


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:


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


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.


39/57

39


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


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.


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.


42/57

42


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.


43/57

43


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.


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.


McMickenAve./

McMillanSt. B Streetcarstopscanbeadequatelyprovidedbyremovingonstreetparking.WestCliftonAve. B Streetcarstopscanbeadequatelyprovidedbyremovingonstreetparking.WestCliftonAve.

/VineSt.Loop C StreetcarstopswouldbedifficulttoimplementonVineStreetgiventheneedforstreetcartooperateinthecurblaneiffourlanesoftrafficaremaintainedduringpeakperiods.

VineSt. D StreetcarstopswouldbedifficulttoimplementonVineStreetgiventheneedforstreetcartooperateinthecurblaneiffourlanesoftrafficaremaintainedduringpeakperiods.


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.


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.


46/57

46


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.


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.


47/57

47

Theobjectivessupportingthisgoalarebasedprimarilyonthecapitalandoperatingcostsofeachoption,

incomparison

to

the

transportation

and

development

benefits

generated.

Key

attributes

of

each

option

aresummarizedinthetablebelow:


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


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.


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.


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


50/57

50


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

uptown alignment assessment report

Documents