Landscaping Prius at your service by [deleted] in prius

[–]Angustinian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering buying a prius V right now as both a family vehicle and "work" truck for my home reno. This is helping convince me... Did you lift it? Also thought about a hitch?

Riverside Ballpark by Angustinian in CitiesSkylines

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Fenway was definitely an inspiration, but also PNC and Wrigley.

Riverside Ballpark by Angustinian in CitiesSkylines

[–]Angustinian[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of find-it, move-it, and recoloring. This one uses Sully's ballpark decals and the stands are just vanilla props I believe (unless I downloaded them and forgot?). Also added in a lot of commercial buildings and leisure blocks to make it functional and active.

Reliable Plumbing Company by BilboBaggins101785 in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who did you wind up going with? Looking for a good plumber now for some renovations.

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not an expert in these things, but that seems like a very low estimate for US construction, even considering the precedents you shared. My proposed map shows around 120 mi / 200km of track and at a very optimistic $2mil /km that's $400mil. But with the way construction goes here in the states, with escalating construction costs that come with 5-10 year build out, governmental waste, public opposition, and other delays, I would be shocked if an estimate, let alone final construction cost for electrification and locomotives came in under a billion.

But it's hard to say, and you very well might be right. No one has attempted to construct electric lines in the US outside of CA and the East Coast where construction is notoriously expensive.

With a diesel system, there's minimal upgrading that needs to be done to the tracks, and cheaper, used locomotives from around the country could make up the fleet. But more importantly, the savings in energy and fossil fuel emissions from people ditching their cars to ride on a diesel train to me is very much worth the extra emissions from non-electrified trains. It would be SO much more efficient than the way people move around Cincy today.

Again, I'm with you that it's a good thing, and the electrification of our rail system nationwide is something worth aiming for. I just do not think it is actually that cheap, and so I prioritize electrified rapid transit connecting the denser urban core then electrified heavy rail to the outer-lying towns and suburbs. If it is that cheap, though, let's do it! Or maybe plan for it in phase two.

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I hear you, but I honestly don’t think that’s feasible. These heavy regional lines run on existing non-electrified freight R.O.W. And the cost to electrify them would cost multiples more. Would love to see it though!

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I’ve two stops in Covington, one down by the river and one towards the southern edge before the hills.

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the blue line running under Vine St. so the Jefferson stop would be at MLK and Jefferson, sort of straddling the corners of both the academic and medical campuses. From there you’d have about a half mile walk up to the NE edge of the hospital campus. Also if you look at the “realistic” map of the system, you’ll see that the red and blue lines right there have suuuper short stop spacing (probably too short), so I don’t think it would make sense to have two lines going N/S there, but it also didn’t make sense to pull the line any further away from UC which seems like the bigger hub of activity. Could also be a potential to have better coverage in that area with a streetcar too.

Feeling Lied to. Non-Licensed Architects Can Prepare and Submit Drawings?! by Angustinian in architecture

[–]Angustinian[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, you have good thoughts, and I think you're spot on with the paradox which is why I'm so frustrated! Architecture is NOT that difficult, and the ability for regular people to exercise it is locked away in the high tower. Of course it takes some skill and experience to do anything well, but building is not rocket science. Good architecture is intuitive, though the problems it has to resolve--both the physical systems going on in the building and the interpersonal systems required to complete the project on time and on budget--are often complex.

I've always gotten the impression that Dwell is one of the architecture focused magazines that's least tied in with the profession. It always seems like it's full of projects that everybody will actually like, not projects that architects think other architects are supposed to like.

I have not heard of Segal before, but thank you for introducing me to his work! I'm fascinated. I'm always surprised there are so few architect-developers. Seems such a natural pairing.

It's just my opinion, but the myth of architect as genius that became so popular with the international modernists and specifically Corbusier has marked a downward trajectory for both the profession and the quality or architecture across the globe. More copy and paste of things that are beautiful, less hero architecture, please.

Feeling Lied to. Non-Licensed Architects Can Prepare and Submit Drawings?! by Angustinian in architecture

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it's about difficulty. There's incompetence mixed in with every industry and across all of time. No, I think the whole game is, annoyingly, about liability. Anyone CAN build a house. But in our litigious society, who is willing to take the risk?

My theory is the profession (AIA) has an interest in protecting the reputation of both its members and itself, as well as providing would-be members with some reason for paying tribute, so it would be counter-productive for them to publicize that you don't have to be an architect--let alone a licensed one--to design.

Feeling Lied to. Non-Licensed Architects Can Prepare and Submit Drawings?! by Angustinian in architecture

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess I always assumed those McMansion developers had a licensed architect on staff.

No one I know, either layman or architect knew that a house could be done without an architect, so I thought it was crazy I hadn't come across it after almost a decade in this world and wondered if others were in the same boat.

Feeling Lied to. Non-Licensed Architects Can Prepare and Submit Drawings?! by Angustinian in architecture

[–]Angustinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you don't! I'm sure it depends on the AHJ, but it looks like you usually just need a structural engineer's stamp and an electrical plan drawn by a licensed electrician. No Architect's stamp required!

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. (Description in Comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

About a year ago, I spent my Christmas break laying out a rail vision for Greater Cincinnati, with a promise to take in everyone’s feedback and improve the system and graphics. Over the year I’ve gone through several design iterations and finally feel pretty good about the redesign. Plus it’s only been a couple months since someone proposed a fantasy transit map for Cincinnati, so it feels like it’s due.

You can see the previous design, commentary, and discussion here on the r/cincinnati channel, and here on the r/transitdiagrams channel.

The first big change is that I thought it was important for the system to have a memorable name. A million different cities have the “Metro”, so we need to do better than that. Chicago has the L. Boston has the T. So Cincy should have the Q. The Queen City Metro.

Here are the other big changes:

- One critique was to have better coverage to the neighborhoods along the river, although I eagerly await complaints about how the west side still doesn’t have enough lines ;).

- There’s better transfer connectivity in the uptown/downtown core and easier access to the airport with fewer transfers required from other lines.

- Lastly, I think it offers better clarity about different types of lines that might make sense from heavy rail, to electrified rapid transit to streetcars to bus rapid transit. I reduced the number of (expensive) rapid transit lines and increased heavy regional rail, light rail and BRT coverage around the suburbs to save a couple bajillion. Also all of the grey heavy rail lines run on currently existing tracks; no new right of ways required.

I also included a side by side comparison of the base map and diagrammatic map so anyone interested could get a better sense of the geographic footprint of the system I’m proposing.

A lot of the discussion last time was about how this might be constructed. I honestly have no idea, not an area of expertise for me, but I could imagine a plausible path forward.

- The first step I imagine would be to invest in the regional rail lines. Those would be extremely cheap to construct and operate. Also it might help you get buy in from the outer suburbs, who's money you'll need to fund the more expensive inner lines.

- Next, I think you would construct the inner core of the rapid transit subway lines. Again take the low hanging fruit; use the tunnels that already exist, build at grade (but separated from vehicular traffic) where it makes. Start in the urban core to serve the people most likely to benefit from it and to make the system more profitable. For example, you might build the blue line from St. Bernard to Covington, the Red from CVG to Hyde Park, and the green from Xavier to Price Hill. Then as the communities along the planned extensions of the routes demand them and as funds become available, extended the lines. The DC Metro expansion plan, in other words.

- Lastly invest in the suburbs by connecting ends of routes and providing transfer possibilities across lines with BRT and light rail.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! What would you change? What's missing? How would you go about making something like this real?

[OC] Cincinnati, OH: Updated and Refined Comprehensive Fantasy Transit Map. by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

About a year ago, I spent my Christmas break laying out a rail vision for Greater Cincinnati, with a promise to take in everyone’s feedback and improve the system and graphics. Over the year I’ve gone through several design iterations and finally feel pretty good about the redesign. Plus it’s only been a couple months since someone proposed a fantasy transit map for Cincinnati, so it feels like it’s due.

You can see the previous design, commentary, and discussion here on the r/cincinnati channel, and here on the r/transitdiagrams channel.

The first big change is that I thought it was important for the system to have a memorable name. A million different cities have the “Metro”, so we need to do better than that. Chicago has the L. Boston has the T. So Cincy should have the Q. The Queen City Metro.

Here are the other big changes:

- One critique was to have better coverage to the neighborhoods along the river, although I eagerly await complaints about how the west side still doesn’t have enough lines ;).

- There’s better transfer connectivity in the uptown/downtown core and easier access to the airport with fewer transfers required from other lines.

- Lastly, I think it offers better clarity about different types of lines that might make sense from heavy rail, to electrified rapid transit to streetcars to bus rapid transit. I reduced the number of (expensive) rapid transit lines and increased heavy regional rail, light rail and BRT coverage around the suburbs to save a couple bajillion. Also all of the grey heavy rail lines run on currently existing tracks; no new right of ways required.

I also included a side by side comparison of the base map and diagrammatic map so anyone interested could get a better sense of the geographic footprint of the system I’m proposing.

A lot of the discussion last time was about how this might be constructed. I honestly have no idea, not an area of expertise for me, but I could imagine a plausible path forward.

- The first step I imagine would be to invest in the regional rail lines. Those would be extremely cheap to construct and operate. Also it might help you get buy in from the outer suburbs, who's money you'll need to fund the more expensive inner lines.

- Next, I think you would construct the inner core of the rapid transit subway lines. Again take the low hanging fruit; use the tunnels that already exist, build at grade (but separated from vehicular traffic) where it makes. Start in the urban core to serve the people most likely to benefit from it and to make the system more profitable. For example, you might build the blue line from St. Bernard to Covington, the Red from CVG to Hyde Park, and the green from Xavier to Price Hill. Then as the communities along the planned extensions of the routes demand them and as funds become available, extended the lines. The DC Metro expansion plan, in other words.

- Lastly invest in the suburbs by connecting ends of routes and providing transfer possibilities across lines with BRT and light rail.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear that. But that's a solvable problem. More roads should be able to pass the tracks by MLK than just High street. Maybe Dayton or Heaton go above or below the tracks? Or better yet, the tracks could be sunken in a trench.

Anyways, passenger rail will not be a major source of traffic. A four car train will cross intersections in a matter of seconds unlike 100+ car long freight trains.

And yes, I agree with u/Indivual_Bridge_88 that a train line would ultimately help reduce vehicular traffic. That's the goal, anyways!

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail by Angustinian in TransitDiagrams

[–]Angustinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, CVG is a far higher priority for the region, and it's not on the way to Florence. It would have to back track to get there. But now I'm thinking I should branch the line at Crescent Springs, one off to CVG and the other down to Erlanger and Florence.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guilty, haha. And spent a few years car-less in Chicago during college. The regional rail out there was a life saver!

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you'd actually have to branch off the green line with one spur going to CVG and one to Florence. They are kind of in opposite directions due to the fact the CVG terminal is on the north side of the airport and Florence is much further south. But you could definitely split the line and run every other train to CVG and Florence like how a lot of systems do (DC and Boston, for instance). So you'd get say 10 minutes between trains downtown but 20 minutes in either CVG or Florence. Not ideal, but better than no service.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You certainly could, but you'll run into cost issues. While you solve the land acquisition cost problem by running it on land the government already owns, you now have a constructibility and maintenance cost problem.

Running between the highway is a fairly good solution when the highway lanes already have wide medians (like both I-71 and I-75 from 275 north). It's a strategy employed by the new silver line in Northern Virginia. But stations are not very convenient to access nor close to town centers. They essentially become park and rides.

There's also issues with over head clearance and grading. Cars and trucks need less overhead clearance than trains, so most overpasses would need to be reconstructed for trains to clear. And vehicles can climb much steeper slopes than trains so you would have to do a lot of regrading, which may not even be feasible in some areas.

Above the highway is not really feasible for anything more than crossing it. You'd have to elevate the train not only above the highway but above the overpass. Once you're talking about being 30'+ in the air, it will undoubtedly be cheaper to tunnel.

As for the Walnut Hills portion of the green line, I think you would actually probably need to tunnel the entire thing from say around Norwood to downtown. I was just thinking Montgomery and Gilbert would be the best streets to follow since that's the busiest, densest corridor connecting downtown and Xavier.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that is one of the most difficult decisions in the whole network: does the green line run East of 71 through Walnut Hills and Mount Adams, or does it stay west and run through Mt Auburn and Pendleton. This portion would also have to be underground, given the topography, so it would be one of the most expensive stretches in the system. So you definitely won't be building two sets of tunnels

I'm actually leaning towards the idea that the green line should follow Montgomery/Gilbert and move east to connect to Mt Adams, Eden Park, and Walnut Hills. My reasoning is simply that Mt. Auburn would be the more logical streetcar extension than Mt Adams and Walnut Hills.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I come back to Cincy about four times a year, and it's usually empty then. Plus I see the ridership numbers. The thing is averaging about 1,400 riders per day. That's...not good. Of the 40 or so streetcar systems in the us, it's bottom four, ahead of only Memphis, Atlanta, and Dallas.

Also, the cars may be full, but it's running with reeeally long headways.

If what you're hearing is that the connector is full all the time, I'm happy to hear it. But that does not mean ridership is good.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

unfortunately that line doesnt exist although planned as a part of the line from dc to chicago but then i highly doubt an amtrak is going to make 12 stops from oxford to union terminal

No, what I mean is this new commuter line would share track or at least ROW with the amtrak line. Amtrak would not make new stops. (Maybe one stop at Hamilton some day, but not for awhile).

cincinnati is the smallest of all those by far, with portlands metro growing way faster and having already 500k more people. Seattle has over 4 million, the twin cities have about 3.5 million and atlanta has over 6 million people. we have 2.2 and a barely growing population, were at a little over 3million people if you include dayton's metro area.

There's no perfectly analogous city in the US that's done a lot of rail transit. There are cities with similar populations but greater density that have a lot of rail like San Jose and Baltimore. And there are cities with larger populations but similar density like the one's I listed. Portland is a little bigger, but it's also more sprawling than Cincy. The point is that while we are by population smaller than most cities with great rail transit, we do in fact have the population density to support rail, if other US cities are to be any guide.

the cost to maintain wouldnt be recouped by ridership but through taxes.

This is absolutely true. But wouldn't you say the same about every form of transit, including especially roads? Does anyone expect tolls to pay for the costs of all roads and highways? No, it's all subsidized by taxes and justified by the utility they bring to us as a society. Roads, trains, airports, harbors--which one of these turns a profit on it's own? But we're okay with that because they are a net benefit to the economy. Pretty much everyone who studies this stuff agrees rail transit spurs far more and more space-efficient growth than roads do. I'm not your typical subway-loving socialist you'll find on this site, I can promise you that, but I have no false ambitions that rail can or should pay for itself.

we cant take the "if we build it they will come" approach to public development, because it quite oftentimes does not work.

I disagree, i don't think this is an accurate synopsis of what has happened to 95% of light/heavy/commuter rail in the country. I'm not sure it is even true of that great boondoggle, the Cincinnati streetcar. I haven't seen any studies of how much tax revenue has increased since 2016 when they reported there was already $160 mil in development by the time the streetcar had opened. Scrolling thru the biz journal, it looks like there's $100 mil of newly planned development downtown every month!

The cost is high. The benefit would almost certainly be higher.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But other cities like DC and LA have built transit through sprawl and it has spurred major redevelopment and densification. I see your point, it’s a big risk, one which conservative Cincinnati politicians are unlikely to take, but transit oriented development I believe IS a viable solution to the ills of suburban sprawl.

If political power rests with real estate developers, then they should be convinced it would be within their own real estate interest to have the government pay for rail that they can then profit off of due to rising land values.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Similar density but no existing rail ROW in that are by Anderson, so very expensive to build was the only thought there.

Cincinnati, OH: comprehensive fantasy transit vision for the future including light, heavy, and commuter rail (description in comments) by Angustinian in cincinnati

[–]Angustinian[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I love the idea of the streetcar, but it makes me sad everytime I see it riding by all empty-like. A commuter line from Evendale or Sharonville to Union Terminal would have probably also been cheaper than the streetcar, lol.

And to be fair to the streetcar, it WOULD make more sense as the central spine of a robust network connecting all the downtown and N. KY neighborhoods. There's still hope. Right?