The Cincinnati region is not alone when it comes to providing adequate transit options to a growing aging population. Out of 48 regions studied with 1-3 million people, Cincinnati ranked as the 17th worst. Columbus and Cleveland, meanwhile, ranked as the 18th and 24th worst respectively.

The lack of transit options provided in the regions studied is matched by an increasing number of seniors utilizing public transit. A 2011 report from the AARP Public Policy Institute found that the total number of trips by seniors on public transit grew 51 percent between 2001 and 2009, and that seniors now account for nearly 10 percent of all trips taken on public transit in the United States.

St. Bernard bus stop photograph by Jake Mecklenborg for UrbanCincy.

Nancy Schuster, executive director of Independent Transportation Network of Greater Cincinnati (ITNGC), believes that these facts are on a collision course that will very soon result in transportation poverty for many Cincinnatians.

And the data comes as Cincinnatians face an important decision at the ballot box in November. Issue 48 would prohibit the City of Cincinnati from spending any money on rail transit for the next decade.

Schuster refrained from offering an official position on Issue 48, but did say that much of the focus has been on the price tag of mass transit, not on its benefits to the city and how transit serves the needs of seniors and those with disabilities.

“Hopefully we can find suitable, affordable transit options that will enable seniors and visually-impaired adults to remain independent, contributing members of our Greater Cincinnati community,” Schuster told UrbanCincy.

The Transportation for America report listed five best practices to help address the pending crisis for seniors and the disabled. Those practices include coordination between different levels of government for planning and service integration, promotion of mobility management, designing communities that accommodate all demographics, improved transportation safety, and encouraging community-based transportation programs.

“Failing to plan for mass transportation options will likely hinder the vision of Cincinnati as a retirement destination,” Schuster explained. A situation made even more troubling by the fact that more than 85 percent seniors have a strong desire to age in place.

The regional council released a presentation in August outlining the goals and plans meant to address Greater Cincinnati’s current and projected transportation needs. Citing objectives like mobility, environment, economic vitality and efficiency, the presentation describes OKI’s projections for both population and job growth in the future, and hints at how the council plans to address the region’s transit needs.

According to OKI’s projections, the regional population is expected to grow from 1.9 million (in 2005) to nearly 2.4 million people in 2040. Every county is expected to grow in population and job creation. With these numbers in mind, the council has planned, or is carrying out, a total of 33 highway projects and six transit projects, which include bus purchases, park and ride facilities, transit centers and the Cincinnati Streetcar project.

According to OKI, transit currently accounts for approximately two percent of trips taken throughout the region. Whether lack of ridership is due to an inadequate and struggling system remains to be seen, but for whatever reason, OKI appears to be putting the majority of their focus for the future into highway maintenance and construction, with multi-modal transportation options as an afterthought.

While the August presentation only mentioned freight rail, Robyn Bancroft with OKI had this to say about the future of commuter rail in Cincinnati:

“The current plan includes rail transit (Eastern Corridor and Cincinnati Streetcar) and right-of-way preservation for regional rail transit corridors,” Bancroft stated. “How the public feels about these issues is important to us and we hope the meetings may provide some feedback. It is our goal to produce a multi-modal yet fiscally constrained plan, so we have some limitations.”

OKI leadership expressed concern, to UrbanCincy, about the potentially harmful effects of Issue 48 (the anti-rail amendment on the ballot this election) could have on future systems.

Brian Cunningham of OKI said, “[passage of Issue 48] will absolutely have an effect on the streetcar project, but it’s very possible that projects like the Eastern Corridor, Oasis Line, and securing future right-of-way for multi-city rail is also in jeopardy.”

Cunningham emphasized the importance of public input to help shape the future of the region’s transportation system. “If regional commuter rail is a priority for Cincinnatians, they need to let us know. We very much value community input, and every form of communication – whether at public meetings or through email and mail – helps us to understand where the priorities are for our constituents.”

If an effective, regional commuter rail and transit system is something you would like to see in Cincinnati by 2040, please speak up and let the OKI Regional Council of Governments know. There are three community open houses coming up – one of them is today, September 15, at the Crestview Hills City Building (map) from 4pm to 7pm. The other two meetings will take place September 27 at Xavier University’s Cintas Center (map), and September 28 at Butler County’s Government Services Building (map).

Today also marks the official kickoff of the No on Issue 48 Campaign. Cincinnatians for Progress is looking for volunteers to help get the word out about this damaging amendment to the City’s Charter. Sign up here.

Your voice makes a difference. Speak up for Cincinnati and let it be heard.

The Twin Cities boast two unique transport items. The first is the bicycle highway connecting bicycle commuters with downtown Minneapolis and other job centers. The second is a growing light rail system that taps into regional commuter rail. The Minneapolis light rail system is still young, but this has benefitted its operations.

Hiawatha Light Rail at Franklin Avenue Station (January 2011). Photograph by Randy A. Simes.

Unlike St. Louis and Denver, Minneapolis’ light rail system has low-floor vehicles that do not have awkward steps right when you enter the train. The more modern rolling stock used in Minneapolis is also more visually attractive and at least seemed to be quieter.

Presently the light rail system extends from the famous Mall of America, through the region’s international airport eastern suburbs, and into downtown Minneapolis eventually terminating at the recently completed Target Field (home of the Minnesota Twins).

The good thing about the line is that it is there and that it has been able to improve on earlier designs incorporated elsewhere throughout the United States. The problem is that the route runs through a very suburban-designed part of the region and offers very little in terms of walkability immediately surrounding the stations. Transit-oriented development will certainly help this situation, but significant time and money will be needed to right the ship.

Much like Atlanta, Minneapolis seemed to sacrifice urban connectivity so that their early system connected major nodes like their airport, stadiums and mega mall. As a result much of the large population nodes are left off the map, and thus out of reach of this young light rail system.

Articulated bus in the Warehouse District [LEFT], and Hiawatha Light Rail running through downtown Minneapolis. Photographs taken by Randy A. Simes in January 2011.

What will help this issue immensely will be the system’s growth. Fortunately, the region’s rail transit system is about to grow and expand into St. Paul. Under construction now is the $957 million, 11-mile Central Corridor light rail project. This will tap into the existing Hiawatha light rail line at its Metrodome Station in downtown Minneapolis.

The 16-station Central Corridor light rail line will connect downtown St. Paul and the University of Minnesota with the rest of the overachieving transit system. Current projections call for the first passengers to start riding in 2014.

While Minneapolis and St. Paul are not there yet when it comes to transit, they have been investing in a system for years that is beginning to become regional and comprehensive. These moves already seem to be paying nice dividends for the Twin Cities, and have placed it among one of the few good economic performers in the Midwest. Where would Cincinnati be today had it began investing in regional rail transit in 2002 when MetroMoves put regional light rail before voters?

As the plan moves forward, project leaders are holding three community open houses this week to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the project and offer feedback at the midpoint of this planning phase. But because there will not be any official decisions concerning track alignment, vehicle type, etc., until 2012, those who attended the April 5 open house at the Leblond Recreation Center on Riverside Drive were frustrated by the inability of planners to answer specific questions.

The primary concern of open house attendees was the proposed use of diesel locomotives. Area residents are familiar with the sound of the line’s periodic freight trains and the Cincinnati Dinner Train, and fear that frequent high-speed diesel commuter train service will significantly impact their neighborhoods. Most expressed that they would be more welcoming to the proposed commuter service if it took the form of electric light rail or modern streetcar technology similar to that of the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar.

Several concerned citizens, including Arn Bortz, Managing Partner of Towne Properties, observed that the Oasis Commuter Rail is designed to serve far eastern Hamilton County and Clermont County to the detriment of those who live in Cincinnati. Thayne Maynard, President of the Cincinnati Zoo, said that he moved to Newtown to be close to the Loveland Bike Trail, and is worried that the Oasis commuter rail might scuttle plans for the Ohio River Trail between Downtown and Lunken Airport.

Planners assured those in attendance that “No Build” is a possible outcome of the Tier 2 work, in which case all of these concerns can be forgotten. But the completion of Tier 2 work will not determine how capital funds are acquired or which local entity will operate the line. The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) is the most likely operator. With the vast majority of SORTA’s funding coming from a .3% Cincinnati earnings tax, it appears that a special source of revenue will be needed for the Oasis Line as it is expected to terminate near I-275 in Clermont County.

Further complicating the issue, UrbanCincy investigated the Eastern Corridor plan in August 2010 and discovered several significant flaws that have yet to be addressed by project planners.

Two more open houses are scheduled to be held. The first will take place on Wednesday, April 6 at the R.G. Cribbet Recreation Center (map), and the second on Thursday, April 7 inside the Milford High School cafeteria (map). Both open houses will take place from 5pm to 8pm, and will include an open comment/Q&A session beginning at 7pm.

Eastern Corridor Open House photograph by Jake Mecklenborg for UrbanCincy.

The fundraising and kickoff event was organized by Cincinnatians for Progress – the group that won with voters in 2009 when the same opposition groups threatened to change Cincinnati city governance into a California-style government by referendum. Now, the same group is mobilized to defeat a similar yet more pointed attack on rail transit.

In 2009 the non-profit group organized thousands of Cincinnatians to campaign with them. It appears the same group is ready and willing to fight against a new measure that would prohibit the city from spending any money on light rail or streetcars for the next decade.

“It’s great for us,” says CincyStreetcar.com founder Brad Thomas. “We have a broad-based coalition of support that is still fired up from Issue 9 and is ready to go to battle for the future of light rail and streetcars in Cincinnati.”

The broad-based coalition of support Thomas speaks of includes the likes of prominent business groups, community councils, prominent politicians and community leaders, labor unions, environmental groups, minority groups, regional planning authorities, and transportation groups.

At the first kick-off meeting for what will be a fight leading towards another November ballot item, Cincinnatians for Progress raised more than $11,000.

“This is evidence that while there may be a small group of individuals that want to limit Cincinnati’s growth, there are more people who are passionate about the future of our city,” exclaimed CFP co-chair Rob Richardson. “This will be another long and hard fought campaign, but Wednesday demonstrated that we are up for the fight.”

To get involved in the second rail transit fight in two years sign up with Cincinnatians for Progress, donate to the effort, get registered to vote, and tell your friends and family how important light rail and streetcars are to the future of Cincinnati.

The anti-spending group COAST evidently did not get the message from Cincinnatians who voted nearly 2:1 in November 2009 when they voted in support of passenger rail. So, after asking if city residents wanted to vote on every passenger rail investment, and getting a resounding no, they are doing what they want and asking city residents to vote on passenger rail investments. Specifically at hand would be any investments in streetcars or light rail for the next decade.

The vote that will decide whether or not to ban passenger rail in Cincinnati for the next decade, whether it is fully funded by whatever funding source, will more than likely occur this May in a special election that will cost taxpayers $400,000.

So for those that have yet to see a modern streetcar, you can check out this video on the modern streetcar design that may be used for Cincinnati’s fully funded streetcar system that is about to begin construction and be operational by 2013. If you need more information on Cincinnati’s streetcar project, check out the CincyStreetcar Blog for regular updates and information or CincinnatiStreetcar.com for official project details, studies and reports.

Cincinnati Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls is proposing a robust network of bus rapid transit (BRT) that would connect the region’s commuters with major employment centers like Uptown and Downtown. Qualls believes BRT is a cost-effective and innovative transit strategy.

“Bus rapid transit incorporates many of the advantages of light rail, but is cheaper and can be implemented quickly,” Qualls said in a prepared statement. “Cities around the world and the country are giving commuters a great transit option now with rapid transit.”

Many cities around the United States and internationally are beginning to look at BRT more closely as a cheaper alternative to building dedicated rail transit systems. After first being popularized in Bogota, Columbia, bus rapid transit now exists in 33 cities throughout the world with an additional 22 systems planned.

What differentiates BRT routes from other bus routes is the dedicated lanes they use. These dedicated corridors are often complimented by signal prioritization and timing that allows for faster travel times over long distances.

“Cities are looking to rapid transit to meet increased commuter demand and to spur development,” Qualls stated. “Because the conversion to rapid transit is faster and cheaper than developing light rail, it is an important interim step that helps build transit ridership and provides a great service in the near term.”

While some transit experts agree that BRT can serve as an integral part of an overall transit system, others believe that BRT can be compromised when pitched as an inexpensive alternative to light rail.

“If you look at Oakland, who was studying BRT, they’ve been working on the project for a long time and recently had the City of Berkeley decline to even study dedicated lanes even though that was the plan all along,” explained Jeff Wood, Chief Cartographer, Reconnecting America.  “They felt like they could do it cheaper than light rail, but now they aren’t even going to get any of the benefits of bus rapid transit.”

As part of Vice Mayor Qualls’ motion, BRT would be a portion of a larger multi-modal transit plan that would include the streetcar and light rail according to Cincinnati’s existing rail plan. Major corridors would include I-75, I-71, Queen City Avenue, Harrison Avenue, Vine Street, Reading Road, Madison Road, and Martin Luther King Drive. Qualls suggessted the city aggressively pursue state and federal funds to pay for the development of bus rapid transit.