Jump to content
David

Cincinnati: Bicycling Developments and News

Recommended Posts

^ Because they'd oppose the transit line even if it would ultimately be to their benefit.  Noise!  Blight!  Traffic interference!  Doesn't go where I want to go!  And of course, it'll bring in "those people!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

Everyone's been suspecting this about the Wasson line to begin with.  Anyone who owns property in Hyde Park or east of that point stands to gain massively from the transit line, yet those people are nowhere to be seen.

 

Bingo.  Cranley also successfully killed the Central Parkway bike path plan as it was(on the street). 

 

It's also interesting to note that Norwood developers are trying to buy up ROW near X to preserve future light rail while cincinnati is doing nothing.  The argument from the Cincy side is "There is enough room for the bike trail to co-exist with a future rail line". 

 

1) There are 2 narrow bridge points that cannot co-exist 2) There are few examples in the history of the US of a rail to trail path converting back to rail. That is why the reversion clause is important

 

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cranley holding a press conference now with bike enthusiasts about bike share and about building 3 trails in next 5 years...At least one over an existing rail line without a reversion to rail clause.

 

In doing this, I believe his plan is to create a wedge between rail & bike supporters as well as kill future chances for rail. Its a way to kill 2 birds with one stone

 

Everyone's been suspecting this about the Wasson line to begin with.  Anyone who owns property in Hyde Park or east of that point stands to gain massively from the transit line, yet those people are nowhere to be seen.

 

Bingo.  Cranley also successfully killed the Central Parkway bike path plan as it was(on the street). 

 

It's also interesting to note that Norwood developers are trying to buy up ROW near X to preserve future light rail while cincinnati is doing nothing.  The argument from the Cincy side is "There is enough room for the bike trail to co-exist with a future rail line". 

 

1) There are 2 narrow bridge points that cannot co-exist 2) There are few examples in the history of the US of a rail to trail path converting back to rail. That is why the reversion clause is important

 

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

 

Well they're going to be stuck having to dig a tunnel to Hyde Park, which has actually been proposed twice.  First in the 1912 Arnold Report, then again by OKI in 1970 (tunnel from Walnut Hills to Hyde Park Square to Mt. Lookout Square) right after UMTA 1970 passed and dropped truly huge money on transit that hasn't been seen since, thanks to Reagan not renewing it and instead spending money on firing up the nuclear weapons program for a nostalgic, vote-gathering reprise after it had been winding down.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wasson way is built as is without a reversion clause, and its being fast tracked by Cranley politically so it doesn't have that clause, the odds for future light rail east of I-71 are slim to none

 

So what can be done to prevent this?  Is it possible to get someone like Simpson, Seelbach, or Sittenfeld to suggest accepting Mann's modified Central Parkway bike plan in exchange for a reversion clause in the Wasson Way project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^While it would be nice to have a reversion clause (and demonstrate actual foresight), it's not that big a deal.  Property can always be taken for a public use through eminent domain.  In addition, as jmecklenborg has stated, for light rail to be effective along the Wasson route, a tunnel is likely needed from near Marburg through Rookwood Commons.  Also, there's the issue of how far the Wasson route would go- would it extend all the way through Ault Park, which is sort of pointless, or take that hard left at Erie Avenue and move along Murray Avenue, a much more useful route but one with far more political difficulties.  At least the route is still planned to stay intact as a continuous right-of-way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this idiot more and more every day.  I think every bike club in town should get together and ride back and forth in front of Cranley's house to make a point.

 

 

Cranley: Want to bike on Central Parkway? Use the sidewalk

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley has been notably reserved when it comes to his opinion as to whether there should be a protected bikeway along Central Parkway, sticking to generalities about needing to listen to business owners and potentially make changes.

 

At a news conference at City Hall on Friday to announce other biking initiatives, Cranley said he thought bicyclists could use the sidewalk alongside the road, at one point referring to it as a “highway.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/cranley-want-to-bike-on-central-parkway-use-the.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this idiot more and more every day.  I think every bike club in town should get together and ride back and forth in front of Cranley's house to make a point.

 

 

Cranley: Want to bike on Central Parkway? Use the sidewalk

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley has been notably reserved when it comes to his opinion as to whether there should be a protected bikeway along Central Parkway, sticking to generalities about needing to listen to business owners and potentially make changes.

 

At a news conference at City Hall on Friday to announce other biking initiatives, Cranley said he thought bicyclists could use the sidewalk alongside the road, at one point referring to it as a “highway.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/04/cranley-want-to-bike-on-central-parkway-use-the.html

 

I didn't think Cranley could continue to get worse in his role as a miserable excuse for a big-city mayor and I'm proven wrong. Again.

 

What a joke he's become. A modern charicature of the old "Boss" mayors of the past.

 

It's so sad that this city is singularly held back by a complete moron like John Cranley.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's pretty clearly got a chip on his shoulder for some reason and just wants to try and undo as much of what was done during the previous 4 years when he wasn't on Council.  It's really weird, because he and Mallory were always on the same side of every budget dispute between 2005-2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is literally suggesting people break the law, unless he plans to designate those specific sidewalks as shared paths. Even then, people have the right to bike on the street even if a bike path is present.

 

Central Parkway is ridiculously wide in places, and never near capacity (I commute on it during rush hour every day to and from Ravine to downtown, sometimes on bike and sometimes in a car). A bike lane would be better for everyone because the space is there for one, and people drive way over the speed limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I get the feeling that he realizes that the people who support this project are largely the same as those who support the streetcar.  I don't put it past him to kill this just to spite those who thwarted him back in December.  He's a small man, and I'm not talking about stature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I get the feeling that he realizes that the people who support this project are largely the same as those who support the streetcar.  I don't put it past him to kill this just to spite those who thwarted him back in December.  He's a small man, and I'm not talking about stature.

 

Starting to get that vibe as well from him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“[The new Winton Road sidewalks] are the most beautiful sidewalks I’ve ever seen,” Cranley said.

...

“I drove it yesterday, and I noticed that the sidewalk all the way down the highway is a beautiful sidewalk that is not used because it’s on the highway side of the road,” Cranley said. “My gut instinct is that you’ve got this amazing sidewalk all the way along the highway side of Central Parkway – that’s my preference.”

 

Beautiful sidewalks! Amazing sidewalks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related...

 

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

April 24, 2014

Michael Andersen, Green Lane Project staff writer

 

Every city that's ever considered removing auto parking to make room for a protected bike lane has been, understandably, nervous. North America's best city for biking wasn't immune.

 

But when it was planning its signature downtown bike project in 2005, Montreal got past those concerns with a very simple tactic. Instead of counting only the change in parking spaces on the boulevard De Maisonneuve itself, a measure that might have led to headlines and perceptions that "half of the parking" was being removed, it counted the total number of auto parking spaces — public and private, on-street and off — within 200 meters of the project.

 

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-montreal-built-a-bike-lane-by-debunking-fears-of-autoparkolypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati Council votes on Central Parkway bikeway

Apr 30, 2014, 3:19pm EDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/04/30/cincinnati-council-votes-on-central-parkway.html

The Cincinnati City Council approved a modification to the plan on a 5-4 vote. The city will pave part of a tree-lined right-of-way near a building in the 2100 block of the road. Between 15 and 23 on-street parking spaces would be preserved along the route under the approved alternative proposed by the city’s transportation director and pushed by Vice Mayor David Mann.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related...

 

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

April 24, 2014

Michael Andersen, Green Lane Project staff writer

 

Every city that's ever considered removing auto parking to make room for a protected bike lane has been, understandably, nervous. North America's best city for biking wasn't immune.

 

But when it was planning its signature downtown bike project in 2005, Montreal got past those concerns with a very simple tactic. Instead of counting only the change in parking spaces on the boulevard De Maisonneuve itself, a measure that might have led to headlines and perceptions that "half of the parking" was being removed, it counted the total number of auto parking spaces — public and private, on-street and off — within 200 meters of the project.

 

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-montreal-built-a-bike-lane-by-debunking-fears-of-autoparkolypse

 

Interesting article.  Unfortunately the premise that a fact will influence the debate doesn't seem to relevant to our situation when the process gets hijacked by a politician whose sole concern is presenting himself as the most reasonable guy out there because he "balances" both sides.  I'm speaking of David Mann of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

Per Central Parkway, it wasn't brought up much that there was a lot more parking behind the Mohawk Building but I am pretty sure the owner's main objective was to get rid of the trees so as to make his building more visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Montreal built a bike lane by debunking the autoparkolypse

Per Central Parkway, it wasn't brought up much that there was a lot more parking behind the Mohawk Building but I am pretty sure the owner's main objective was to get rid of the trees so as to make his building more visible.

 

I’d suggest every single one of those Central Parkway spots be occupied for that Park(ing) day thing if that still exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking back at my notes from the Central Parkway session last week and the presentation that Michael Moore gave, and one slide in particular is very puzzling. The traffic count at Ravine for morning rush hour shows only 900 vehicles, which (according to this slide) would mean 1 lane would be sufficient (since 1 lane accommodates 700-1000 vehicles per hour). So... they should be able to preserve the on-street parking during morning rush hour without it having any impact on travel time... isn't that correct? Or am I mis-reading the slide? If those numbers are accurate, there should just be one lane of inbound traffic in the morning. If at some future point, traffic becomes miserable for driving commuters (it won't!), then the city could always tweak the parking restrictions (and implement Mann's Bend if they still think that crazy idea is helpful). Doesn't that solve everybody's problems, without adding any cost, or hurting commuters? Keep the bike lane as is. Keep the on-street parking during morning rush hour.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Moore's slide is poorly formatted, so it is confusing. The only relevant numbers are these:

 

Inbound Morning Traffic (1 lane is optimal):

Ravine - 900

Western Hills Viaduct - 880

 

Outbound Afternoon Traffic (2 lanes are optimal):

Ravine: 1240

Western Hills: 1200

 

The logical conclusion from this is that during afternoon rush hour, parking would be prohibited in the outbound parking lane, allowing for two lanes of traffic. Inbound traffic is never high enough to warrant a second lane dedicated to traffic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow the fact that we're gaining a lane on I-75 has in no way entered the conversation.  If a lane is being added to the parallel I-75, but it's of no benefit, why is it occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jwul and jmeck are both right, but opposition to this plan was never rational.

 

There's also the fact that McMicken could handle some of the traffic if it actually gets so bad. Wouldn't hurt to have a few more eyes on that street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are putting roadblocks on McMicken

cars can use Spring Grove Ave.

 

Good point.

 

Putting straight-up roadblocks in is somehow less controversial than a cycle track. :wtf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know more details on the bikes that'll be used by Cincy Bike Share? I saw a photo of the bright red bikes, but I'd love to get more specs and see how they compare to other bike shares. The bikes need to be extremely rugged, so I'm sure they're going to be heavy and clunky. I hope they include reliable components (like internal geared hubs). Also, have station locations been published yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard it was going to be B-Cycle who operates the system, but I'm not sure if that has changed since Cranley injected money into it.

 

I would imagine B-Cycle uses a standard bicycle in every city, but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No real "news" here, but nice article in the NYT on lessons learned from Sweden in regards to building safer streets: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html

 

I especially like this bit:

Street overhauls that provoked significant community turmoil under Mr. Bloomberg, like the expansion of bike lanes, appear less politically divisive when framed in the context of public safety.

 

Bike lane advocates here in Cincinnati should learn a lesson from this. It's very politically difficult to be opposed to "safety", so framing the road diets and bike lanes in terms of safety will make it more politically tenable than framing it as drivers-vs-bikers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the B-Cycle in Kansas City, worked out really well. These bikes aren't going to be great on the hills, but they are three speeds with internal hubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riding up Cincinnati's hills is never going to be mainstream, but one of the reasons I'm excited about the bike share is that I think it will make riding down the hills a bit more practical, since you could pick a bike up near UC, ride down the hill, dock the bike, and then take a bus/taxi/whatever home at the end of the evening.

 

But, the vast majority of the bikeshare usage will be within the downtown area and within the uptown area, not between the two. And I think that's fine! Getting around Uptown will be so much easier with the bike share. The not-fun-to-walk distances around Uptown (Ludlow to Calhoun to Short Vine to the Hospitals) are very easy on bike, especially if some of the roads (MLK-cough-MLK-cough) are reconfigured to slow traffic down a bit. If it's implemented well, I expect the bikeshare will persuade more Uptown employees to want to live in Uptown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Whenever I think about this bikeshare, there is a broken record in my brain saying "NKY NKY NKY NKY NKY." Occasionally, a portion of that chant makes it into one of my posts on UO. Now is one of those times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^And in that median in Saratoga Street in Newport between 3rd and 4th, right at the foot of PPB.  (I'd say anywhere on the southern approach to the PPB, but I don't know what parts are private property and what's public.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I honestly think that a bikeshare station in Bellevue would do really well.

 

Working on it.


“All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Whenever I think about this bikeshare, there is a broken record in my brain saying "NKY NKY NKY NKY NKY." Occasionally, a portion of that chant makes it into one of my posts on UO. Now is one of those times.

 

I totally agree. I think there'd be a lot of usage between downtown and NKY (Covington, Newport, Bellevue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^And in that median in Saratoga Street in Newport between 3rd and 4th, right at the foot of PPB.  (I'd say anywhere on the southern approach to the PPB, but I don't know what parts are private property and what's public.)

 

Newport had a plan at one point (possibly shelved) to add bike lanes on Saratoga from 3rd to 10th Street, where they would be relocating a small historic structure from 5th & York to serve as a waypoint and information stand for cyclists.  I haven't heard it mentioned in years, but it would be great if they could tie that old plan into the bike share somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...