State of the County Report: Mobility COMMUNITY COMPASS REPORT NO

State of the County Report: Mobility COMMUNITY COMPASS REPORT NO. 16-12

Hamilton County, Ohio

November 2004 Abstract Context Title: COMMUNITY COMPASS COMPONENTS State of the County Report: Mobility 1 Vision Community COMPASS (What do we want?) Report No. 16-12 2 Initiatives (What strategi es Subject: should we consider?)

Analysis of mobility fi ndings 3 Indicators The Planning Partnership Community COMPASS that affect Hamilton County, (What should we measure?) is a collaborative initiative (Hamilton County’s Com- Ohio and other counties of of the Hamilton County Re- prehensive Master Plan and 4 Trends the Cincinnati Consolidated (Where have we been?) gional Planning Commission. Strategies) is a long-range Metropolitan Region. The Partnership – open to all plan that seeks to address mu- 5 Projections political jurisdictions in the tual goals related to physical, (Where are we headed?) Date: County and to affi liate mem- economic, and social issues April 2004 6 Research bers in the public, private, and among the 49 communities (What's t he story civic sectors – is an advisory within Hamilton County. behind the trend?) board that works to harness Through a collective shared Synopsis: 7 Partners the collective energy and vi- vision for the future based This report presents exist- (Who can help?) sion of its members to effec- on the wishes and dreams of ing conditions and trends in tively plan for the future of our thousands of citizens, Hamil- Hamilton County related to 8 Strategic Pl ans County. Rather than engaging ton County now has direction mobility. The report identifi es (What can we do t hat works?) st in the Planning Commission’s to chart its course into the 21 six important fi ndings as well 9 Action Pl ans short-range functions such as century. as the importance of trends (How do we make i t happen?) zoning reviews, the Plan- associated with each fi nding, 10 Performance Measur es ning Partnership takes a In developing a broad vi- and provides key indicators (Are actions making a long-range, comprehensive sion with broad support, for measuring progress to- difference?) approach to planning, work- Community COMPASS ward the Vision for Hamilton ing to build a community that will help ensure that trends County’s Future. This Report works for families, for busi- are anticipated, challenges nesses and for the region. The are addressed, priorities are Source of Copies: STATE OF THE Partnership firmly believes focused, and our collective COUNTY REPORTS that collaboration is the key future is planned and achieved Hamilton County • Civic Engagement and to a positive, competitive, and strategically over the next 20 Regional Planning Social Capital successful future for Hamilton to 30 years. Through an in- Commission County. depth analysis of all aspects 138 East Court Street • Community Services of the County, the multi-year Room 807 • Culture and Recreation process will result in a com- Visit planningpartnership.org Cincinnati, OH 45202 • Economy and and communitycompass.org prehensive plan. 513-946-4500 Labor Market for more information. The State of the County www.hamilton-co.org/hcrpc • Education report series outlines condi- Download this report at • Environment tions, fi ndings, opportunities, communitycompass.org • Environmental and and key measures related to Social Justice improving and sustaining quality of life in twelve ma- • Governance jor systems in our community. • Health and The individual reports lay the Human Services groundwork for an overall • Housing State of the County analysis • Land Use and or report card, and provide Development Framework support for refining action strategies. • Mobility STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: MOBILITY Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... iii

Executive Summary...... v

Introduction...... 1

Finding 1: Congestion is growing as automobile dependency increases and more single occupancy vehicles crowd Hamilton County's streets and highways than ever before...... 2

Finding 2: Hamilton County continues to be impacted by road projects occurring outside the county ...... 5

Finding 3: Completion of "major investment" or corridor studies in various areas of the region may bring about changes in the road and transit networks...... 7

Finding 4: Current design standards and patterns of development focus on the automobile, limiting the transportation options of Hamilton County residents...... 8

Finding 5: Lack of an adequate regional, multi-modal public transportation system increases dependency on automobiles and limits mobility of transit-dependent residents...... 10

Finding 6: As the local economy grows, Hamilton County is facing pressure to accommodate increasing freight trafﬁ c...... 13

Appendix A: Endnotes ...... 15

Appendix B: Community COMPASS Publications...... 17

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT i ii HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: MOBILITY Acknowledgements

2004 Board of County Project Staff Reviewers Commissioners Principal Research: • Ted Hubbard, PE • John S. Dowlin, • Manning Baxter, Chief Deputy, President Senior Planner Hamilton County Engineer • Phil Heimlich Research and Forecast: • Dory Montazemi, • Todd Portune • Indraneel Kumar, Deputy Director, Senior Planner OKI Regional Council of • Manning Baxter, Governments 2004 Senior Planner Regional Planning • John Niehaus, MA • Amanda DeCort, University of Cincinnati Commission UC Planning Student College of Engineering • Robert F. Alsfelder, Jr., • Tim Reynolds, Chairman Graphics & Layout: Director of Strategic • Paul Smiley, Planning, • Hal Franke Senior Planner SORTA • Darrell Leibson • Karen Ambrosius, Administrative • Melvin D. Martin Coordinator • M. Larry Sprague • Kevin Sewell, • James R. Tarbell, UC Planning Student Vice-Chairman Editing: • Jerry J. Thomas • Caroline Statkus, AICP, Planning Services Administrator 2004 • Ron Miller, FAICP, Planning Executive Director Partnership Ofﬁ cers

• Steve Galster, Chair • Gwen McFarlin, Chair-Elect • Elizabeth A. Blume, AICP, Vice-Chair

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT iii iv HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: MOBILITY Executive Summary

FINDING 2 FINDING 1 Congestion is growing as automobile Hamilton County continues to be dependency increases and more single impacted by road projects occurring occupancy vehicles crowd Hamilton outside the County. County's streets and highways than • The congestion of new interchanges, roads, along with ever before. widening of highways in nearby counties is spurring outward growth for new residential, commercial, and • Hamilton County commuters driving alone to work in- industrial developments. creased from 68.3 percent to 78.9 percent between 1980 and 2000. At the same time, usage of other modes of • In OKI's 2030 highway transportation plan, 23.63 miles of travel such as walking, bicycling, carpool, and public interstate highway widening projects are planned in the Cin- transit-decreased. cinnati metropolitan region at a total estimated cost of $404 million, excluding the costs for planned replacement of the • Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) in the Cincinnati Brent Sprence Bridge. metropolitan region has been increasing steadily over the past 20 years, from 19,640,000 in 1982 to 33,000,000 in • As highways expand, DVMT and congestion decrease in the 2000. In 1982, the Cincinnati Metropolitan Region aver- short run, but ﬁ nally increase as more and more commuters aged 2.9 hours per day of congestion conditions, which use the road increasing the annual congestion cost. increased to a span of 7.2 hours per day in 2000. • The total annual congestion cost, which includes loss of work • It is projected that the annual cost of congestion to Cin- hours and fuel, has been increasing continuously in the Cincin- cinnati metropolitan region's drivers more than doubled nati metropolitan region. In the year 2000, annual congestion in ﬁ ve years, increasing from $250 million in 1995 to cost was $505 million, and excess fuel consumed was 44 $505 million in 2000. million gallons.

• Nationally, the Cincinnati Metropolitan Region ranks th 24 out of the 75 urban areas studied by the Texas Trans- portation Institute in terms of overall trafﬁ c congestion. Amongst the peer metropolitan areas of Indianapolis, Louisville, St. Louis, Columbus, Cleveland, and Pitts- burgh; Cincinnati has the highest freeway DVMT (daily vehicle miles traveled) per lane mile; and Indianapolis and Cincinnati have the worst congestion conditions, as shown by the Roadway Congestion Index.

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT v FINDING 3 FINDING 5 Completion of "major investment" or Lack of adequate regional, multi-modal corridor studies in various areas of the public transportation system increases region may bring about changes in the dependency on automobiles and limits road and transit networks. mobility of transit-dependent residents.

• Major Investment Studies (MIS) to evaluate alterna- • The current public transit system does not access all the tives to meet future transportation capacity have been employment, retail, and ofﬁ ce centers in the Cincinnati done or initiated for most of the County's major thor- Metropolitan Region, thereby contributing to "spatial oughfares. mismatch," where low-income households in the inner city cannot access entry-level job openings in the sub- • In 1998, the I-71 Corridor Transportation Study exam- urbs. ined the transportation needs of the highway from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport to • Metro ridership remained fairly stable changing from southern Warren County, proposing a light rail on the 28.3 rides per capita per year in 1990 to 28.9 rides per corridor. A ballot initiative to provide partial funding capita per year in 2001, despite a decrease in Hamilton for the I-71 light rail was defeated by county voters in County's population. 2001.

• MIS studies underway are the North South Initiative on FINDING 6 I-75 and the Eastern Corridor Project in Hamilton and As the local economy grows, Hamilton Clermont Counties. County is facing pressure to • A Western Corridor Study is proposed for the western accommodate increasing freight trafﬁ c. part of Hamilton County, focusing on I-74. • The Cincinnati Region's economy beneﬁ ts from our increasing levels of freight movement. Warehousing FINDING 4 shipments are focused by ODOT and the FHWA to Current design standards and patterns increase at an average rate of 3.8 percent per year from of development focus on the 1998 to 2020. automobile, limiting the transportation • The Cincinnati Metropolitan Region, with its three inter- options of Hamilton County residents. state highways, is likely to gain jobs in the transportation sector due to increasing freight movement. • Suburban style subdivisions with multiple cul-de-sacs and few collector streets make the automobile a necessity for almost all trips.

• Limited transportation options and increased automobile dependency result in more congestion and higher household expenditures on transportation.

vi HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: Mobility

THE VISION FOR HAMILTON COUNTY'S FUTURE: The Vision Statement for Mobility, a component of The Vision for Hamilton Accessible, efﬁ cient and economical regional travel. Clean, safe, multi- County’s Future, is based on recommen- modal transportation choices including mass transit, bike lanes, pedestrian dations from 12 Community Forums in the Fall of 2001 and the Countywide Town walkways, and vehicular travel to reduce congestion. Meeting held January 12, 2002.

The Vision for Hamilton County’s Future was reviewed and approved by: INTRODUCTION • Community COMPASS Steering Team, July 30, 2002 • Hamilton County Planning Partner- This report presents existing conditions and trends in Hamilton County related to mobility. ship, Dec. 3, 2002 The report identifi es six important fi ndings as well as the importance of trends associated • Hamilton County Regional Planning with each fi nding, and provides key indicators for measuring progress toward the Vision Commission, Feb. 6, 2003 • Hamilton County Board of County for Hamilton County’s Future. Commissioners, Nov. 26, 2003

This report presents existing conditions and trends in Hamilton County related to mobility. The report identifi es six important fi ndings as well as the importance of trrends assocaited with each fi nding, and provides key indicators for measuring progress toward the Vision for Hamilton County's Future.

Transportation and mobility issues are both local and regional in scope. They affect not only trafﬁ c levels and patterns, but population growth, the character of nearby land uses, and economic development.

This report considers how both transportation facilities like roads and public transit, and the level of people’s mobility impact the region. The report focuses on levels of passenger and freight congestion, and examines how increasing trafﬁ c may affect our region’s physical and socioeconomic environments. It also evaluates the links between the design of transportation infrastructure and housing developments in suburban counties, and their larger effects on the region.

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 1 FINDING 1 CONGESTION IS GROWING AS AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY INCREASES AND MORE SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES CROWD HAMILTON COUNTY’S STREETS AND HIGHWAYS THAN EVER BEFORE.

The number of single-occu- The result of these trends is (TTI)1, DVMT in the pancy vehicles on the road an increase in Daily Vehicle Cincinnati metropolitan in Hamilton County and the Miles Traveled (DVMT). region has been increas- Greater Cincinnati region DVMT is an indicator ing steadily over the past has been steadily increas- that measures the daily 20 years, from 20,180,000 ing since the 1980’s. This volume of trafﬁ c utilizing in 1983 to 33,000,000 is occurring as population the roadways. Increases in in 2000 ( See Figure 1).2 density decreases in central the number of people in an This means that Hamil- areas and commuters move area can affect DVMT, as ton County’s roadways to outlying communities. well as changes in driving are accommodating more People are making more habits. trips, more vehicles, or and longer trips to work, both. Hamilton County’s school, shopping centers, According to the 2002 roads face an ever-greater and other activities as part Urban Mobility Report demand for efficiency in of their daily routines. conducted by the Texas order to get drivers to their Transportation Institute destinations in a safe and timely manner. Figure 1 DAILY VEHICLE DVMT has increased most TRAVELLED IN THE on the area’s freeways, and CINCINNATI has remained more constant METROPOLITAN on primary surface roads. STATISTICAL AREA This may be due to several Freeways Miles Travelled reasons, including a rise Principle Arterials in regional commuting, a

Remainder of Road System build-up of economic activ- ity along the I-275 beltway, Source: Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2002 increased through trafﬁ c on

WORK FOR WORKERS Drove Alone 68.3 77.2 78.9 Daily commuting in par- AGED 16 AND OVER IN ticular has a major effect HAMILTON COUNTY Carpool 17.3 11 .0 9.72 on congestion in Hamil- Public Transit 8.1 5.8 5.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ton County. Most com- Walk 4.2 3.4 2.9 muters prefer to drive to work alone, resulting in Bicycle n/a 0.1 0.1 dominance of the single Other Means 0.9 0.4 0.5 occupancy vehicle (SOV). Work at Home 1.2 2.2 2.8 As shown in Figure 2, the

2 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP percentage of Hamilton but cross it every day, such transportation system” sec- County workers over the as a worker driving from tion of this report. age of 16 who drove alone Boone County to Warren to work increased from County. The effects of congestion 68.3 percent in 1980 to 78.9 are problematic across the percent in 2000. Workers Why Is This United States. In 2000, the Cincinnati region aver- who carpooled, used pub- Important? lic transportation, walked, aged 7.2 hours per day of congestion conditions, up or used other means of Congestion wastes time from 2.9 hours in 1982. transport to get to work and money through longer From 1998 to 2000, the generally decreased over commute times, increased number of rush hours per the same time period. gasoline consumption, in- day in the Cincinnati region creased vehicle wear and Commuters also increase has remained constant, but tear, and time spent sitting DVMT by traveling longer this has much to do with in trafﬁ c. As more drivers distances to work. Many of the study’s assumption of make more trips on Ham- Hamilton County’s work- seven hours of peak travel ilton County’s roads, the ers are driving to jobs in time that occurs each day. length of rush hours and surrounding counties. Ac- The levels of DVMT are time spent in congestion cording to the 2000 Census, used to determine what also climb. the number of Hamilton percentage of this seven- County residents aged 16 Increased congestion also hour window is spent in and older who worked contributes to more air pol- congestion. DVMT has decreased by 931 persons lution, as idling engines and been generally increasing, between 1990 and 2000 starting and stopping a car and new road construction (See Figure 3). In the same contributes more pollutants has been keeping pace with time period, the number of into the air than a car oper- this rise, but increased pop- Hamilton County workers ating at a constant speed. ulation, additional cars on who commute to jobs out- More information on the roads, and longer com- side of the county increased congestion’s contribution mutes can further increase by 19,222 persons, up to air pollution is provided DVMT, thereby rendering from the 12,997 persons in the “multi-modal public the seven-hour peak travel who worked outside of the County in the previous de- Figure 3 Number of cade. New entertainment Number of Percent HAMILTON COUNTY Workplace County Workers Workers 2000 Change and retail opportunities also 1990 RESIDENTS' PLACE OF draw trips to surrounding WORK, 1990 AND 2000 Hamilton (OH) 356,399 336,246 -5.7% counties, especially on Source: U.S. Census Bureau weekends. Butler (OH) 10,859 18,452 69.9%

Warren (OH) 3,798 9,303 144.9% Hamilton County residents are not the only drivers af- Clermont (OH) 6,993 8,240 17.8% fecting DVMT and conges- Kenton (KY) 7,178 7,937 10.6% tion. According to the 2000 Census, 166,005 workers Boone (KY) 3,044 6,505 11 3.7% 3 from CMSA counties Campbell (KY) 2,604 2,739 5.2% commuted to Hamilton County to work in 2000. Montgomery (OH) 1,972 1,747 -11.4% Additionally, some com- Dearborn (IN) 860 1,335 55.2% muters may not live or Other Counties 5,689 5,961 4.8% work in Hamilton County

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 3 time assumption moot (See 31 percent. Nationally, the the Roadway Congestion Figure 4). Cincinnati area ranks 24th Index than all of the other out of the 75 urban areas cities in the region. Cin- Over the same period, the studied by TTI in terms of cinnati is above both the percentage of daily travel overall trafﬁ c congestion national average and the that occurs in congestion (See Figure 5). Cincin- large urban area average in the Cincinnati Metro- nati ties with Indianapolis, for DVMT per lane mile politan Region has in- and is ranked higher on on freeways. However, creased from 8 percent to the region is below aver- Figure 4 age for DVMT per lane NUMBER OF RUSH 8 mile on principle arterials, HOURS PER DAY IN 7 indicating that the bulk of THE CINCINNATI 6 the congestion occurs on METROPOLITAN 5 freeways. STATISTICAL AREA, 1982-2000 4 Congestion results in not 3 only wasted time, but also Source: Texas Transportation Institute Rush Hours Per Day Urban Mobility Report 2002 2 wasted dollars and wasted

1 fuel. TTI’s 2002 Urban

0 Mobility Report calcu- 3 9 0 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 0 8 9 9 99 99 99 00 1982 19 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 198 199 1 1992 1 1994 1 199 19 199 19 2 lates that the annual cost

Cincinnati Large 16,150 5,101 1.13 24 2000. Thus, congestion re- * Out of 75 urban areas Indianapolis Large 15,530 6,765 1.13 24 sults in an average cost of Source: Texas Transportation Institute Louisville Med 14,985 6,525 1.09 32 $855 per person, paid for in Urban Mobility Report 2002 fuel, repair, and time costs. St. Louis Large 14,460 5,675 1.03 39 For example, excess gal- Columbus Large 13,940 6,555 1.02 40 lons of fuel consumed have Cleveland Large 13,505 5,615 0.97 49 increased from 26 million Pittsburgh Large 9,355 5,940 0.77 70 to 44 million in the same 75 urban area average 14,120 6,220 1.15 period (See Figure 6).

Large area average 15,450 6,210 1.12 Controlling the growth of congestion is a key compo- Figure 6 nent of improving the ﬂ ow CONGESTION COST VS. 600 50 of trafﬁ c. Road expansion EXCESS FUEL 45 500 — indeed any transporta- CONSUMED IN THE 40 tion improvement — does CINCINNATI 35 400 ease congestion in the en- METROPOLITAN 30 STATISTICAL AREA, 300 25 tire transportation network 20 in the short term, but ex-

1982-2000 Millions of Dollars 200 Millions of Gallons 15 pansion alone is not enough 10 Total Annual Congestion Cost 100 to be fully effective. The Total Annual Excess Fuel 5 continued addition of lanes Consumed 0 0 4 5 6 7 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 8 98 99 99 is expensive and is not sus- 1982 1983 198 198 19 19 1988 1 1 199 1 199 199 199 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Texas Transportation Institute tainable over the long term. Urban Mobility Report 2002 Expansion may also result

4 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP in “induced travel” — a Key Indicators: phenomenon which will • Daily vehicle miles • Travel time index be explained in the next traveled (Figure 1) (Texas Transportation section of this report. • Means of travel to work Institute for CMSA) Hamilton County, like (Figure 2) • Percentage of streets many other urban areas, • Commute patterns and highways with faces a major challenge in (Figure 3) congestion (Texas improving the capacity and Transportation Institute efﬁ ciency of its transporta- • Daily rush hours for CMSA) tion network within budget- (Figure 4) • Percentage of lane- ary constraints. As analysis • Roadway congestion miles with congestion of the past 20 years shows, index (Figure 5) (Texas Transportation demand for more capacity • Excess fuel consumed Institute for CMSA) has been increasing rapidly. (Figure 6) Projections show that this demand will only continue to rise. Continued comprehensive planning efforts that integrate transportation and land use decisions, both locally and regionally, are essential to choose effectively and implement appropriate actions.

FINDING 2 HAMILTON COUNTY CONTINUES TO BE IMPACTED BY ROAD PROJECTS OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE COUNTY.

The links between trans- Growth outside of Hamil- develop — including ac- portation and economic ton County continues today cessibility and visibility development have been and will continue in the — as well as location in studied for many years. future. Stronger education growth corridors. Many cities in the United systems, reduced crime, States and the world would and higher standards of According to the NCHRP, not have developed were it living have long been fac- transportation investments not for their locations on tors contributing to subur- infl uence land use because major rivers, deep har- ban growth. This growth accessibility is very im- bors, or rail lines. From is being sustained in part portant to households and ship transport in the 18th by the rapid access to jobs businesses. Transportation centuries to road and air and recreational activities projects such as new inter- transport today, the suc- that the interstate highway changes can create nodes cess of a region is related system makes possible. of development, or change to the number and character The National Coopera- or hasten the development of connections it has with tive Highway Research process.4 This process is the outside world. Program (NCHRP) identi- evident in the suburban fi es factors that infl uence counties just to the north decisions about where to

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 5 of Hamilton County. The 23.63 miles of roadway at Why Is This new Interchange Boule- a total estimated cost of Important? vard of Union Center has $403.65 million.7 spurred tremendous growth As highway improvements Researchers are uncovering in ofﬁ ce spaces, manufac- make suburban land more evidence showing that as turing, distributing, and attractive to large-scale highways expand, DVMT upscale retail. Clearly new private investment and de- and congestion decrease in interchanges increase the velopment, central cities the short-term, but increase accessibility and develop- are, more often than not, in the long term. This ef- ment of these suburban lo- negatively impacted. Ac- fect, often referred to as cations. Another example, cording to White, Binkley, “induced travel,” may be the controversial expansion and Osterman, employment caused by a host of rea- from a westbound only to in suburbs usually flows sons. 8 a full interchange between from central cities, as Interstate-75 and the Mi- Some researchers think business owners - particu- chael A. Fox Highway in that “induced travel” is larly manufacturers - need southern Butler County is a normal response from larger, more efﬁ ciently de- anticipated to create a great drivers, as they all wish to signed buildings with good deal of new development in take the “path of least resis- truck access to compete in the area. The interchange tance” — that is any path the global marketplace. would open over 600 acres that gets the driver to his Finance, insurance, and of commercially-zoned or her destination quickly real estate offices also 5 land to Interstate-75. Lib- and easily. As more driv- migrate to suburban areas erty Township and Butler ers discover this path, to be closer to the growing County officials say the DVMT on the roadway population there.9 In the interchange is necessary increases and congestion case of the Cincinnati met- because Liberty Township often worsens. The prob- ropolitan region, that sub- — a jurisdiction wherein lem of “induced travel” is urban population growth is population increased 147 exacerbated when new in- largely fueled by residents percent between 1990 and terchanges or intersections leaving Hamilton County 2000 — needs the business are built, as land near those for nearby counties, not revenue. They predict that intersections increases in persons from outside of the new interchange could commercial value. The the region moving in. generate 15,000 jobs and business establishments a lot of tax revenue for that eventually settle in Key Indicators: 6 Butler County. However, the area create new desti- • Commute times (U.S. opposition to the inter- nations for drivers, more Census Bureau for change cites sprawl, poor time spent in congestion, County) land use, congestion and and - others argue - more increased crime. sprawl away from the city • Roadway congestion center. index (Figure 5) This outward growth • Level of service (OKI contributes to highways for Major Roads) becoming increasingly congested over longer pe- riods of time. In its 2030 highway transportation plan, OKI plans interstate highway widening projects in the metropolitan area of

6 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP FINDING 3 COMPLETION OF “MAJOR INVESTMENT” OR CORRIDOR STUDIES IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE REGION MAY BRING ABOUT CHANGES IN THE ROAD AND TRANSIT NETWORKS.

Since 1993, federal regu- nati per day. Moreover, Eastern Corridor area, all lations have required that the rail lines that parallel planned improvements planning organizations un- Interstate-75 carry about now focus on Ohio. 11 dertake “Major Investment 250 freight trains a day.10 Studies” (MIS), or “corri- The Eastern Corridor Proj- dor studies” in areas where Preliminary recommenda- ect took a unique approach proposed transportation tions for the North-South by analyzing current and changes will signiﬁ cantly Initiative include: upgrade future land use along with impact a community’s the highway and rail, ex- possible transportation quality of life. In this re- pand Interstate-75 to four improvements. This “land gion, MISs are conducted lanes through the length use visioning method” by OKI with continual pub- of the study area, modify looked at existing patterns lic input. The results of the interchanges to improve of land use and, through studies are usually a set of traffic flow, utilize high- examining land capability, alternatives addressing fu- occupancy vehicle (HOV) environmental concerns, ture transportation, transit, lanes, and incorporate planned transportation and land use issues. light rail in some capacity improvements, market through the corridor. conditions and public in- One important MIS under- put, determined a desired way is the “North-South The Eastern Corridor MIS “template” for future land Initiative” - a joint effort recommends a variety use in the Eastern Cor- between OKI and Dayton’s of alternatives including ridor.12 The current land metropolitan planning highway improvements, use vision analysis and organization, the Miami expanded bus service, rail recommendation calls for Valley Regional Planning transit service, and trans- an increase in residential, Commission (MVRPC). portation system manage- light industrial, greens- Both groups - in addition ment measures. Covering pace, commercial and ag- to the Ohio Department of nearly 200 square miles in ricultural uses in the area, Transportation, the Ken- parts of Hamilton and Cler- with less vacant residential tucky Transportation Cabi- mont Counties in Ohio and and industrial space. net, and at least 20 commu- parts of Campbell County nities - are evaluating the in Kentucky, the project Another MIS that was needs of the Interstate-75 area extends east from completed in 1998 was the corridor from the I-71/75 the Cincinnati Business I-71 Corridor Transporta- split in Boone County, District to Milford, Bata- tion Study. This study ex- Kentucky through Miami via and Amelia, and into amined the transportation County, Ohio. Interstate- Northern Kentucky along needs of the highway from 75 is the busiest trucking I-275 and I-471. Although the Cincinnati / Northern route on the continent with the initial planning phases Kentucky International more than 100,000 trucks included improvements to Airport to southern Warren passing through Dayton, be made in the Northern County. It recommended Middletown, and Cincin- Kentucky region of the the development of a light rail line along the corridor

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 7 between the two points. Why Is This Key Indicators: The local transit agency, Important? SORTA, included the light • Number of MISs rail suggestion in its “Me- funded (OKI for Eight Transit and transportation troMoves” plan, but the Counties OKI Region) enhancements occurring plan did not receive the in Hamilton County • Percentage of MIS necessary funding. More clearly have an impact recommendations information on the Metro- on the social, economic, implemented (OKI for Moves Plan can be found and cultural aspects of the Eight Counties OKI in the “multi-modal public community. Region) transportation system” section of this report. Such enhancements oc- In the future, an MIS will curring in adjacent coun- be initiated for a Western ties also impact Hamilton Corridor Study. This County -- and not always study will examine the for the better. The increase Interstate-74 Corridor and in single-family housing much of western Hamilton units on the urban fringes County and Boone County. necessitates road improve- OKI is currently awaiting ments, but those road funding from the Federal improvements in turn ac- Government to implement celerate residential growth this study. and attract commercial development. Such suburban and exurban growth is usually accomplished at the expense of the central city and county.

FINDING 4 CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS AND PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT FOCUS ON THE AUTOMOBILE, LIMITING THE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS OF HAMILTON COUNTY RESIDENTS.

Urban and suburban de- development – a big-box ing lots and landscaping signs that focus on the infill development in to move from one store to automobile make it difﬁ - an urban setting. Long another. The more likely cult for residents to walk, commercial strips often scenario, though, is that bike or use other forms feature large parking lots a driver must enter and of transportation in both in front of the stores that exit the highway to access commercial and residential pedestrians and transit rid- two unconnected adjacent areas. This occurs in both ers must cross. Individual businesses. Multiple curb the residential development retail businesses that are cuts for automobile access - an isolated suburban sub- not connected can force to each business increase division - and commercial pedestrians through park- hazards for both drivers

8 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP and pedestrians. These County are increasing at an system also increases types of development not even faster rate. congestion on collector only discourage alternate roads by requiring many forms of transportation, Suburban style subdivi- residents to use only one they make it dangerous. sions with multiple cul- access point. Vehicle miles Mobility and connectivity de-sacs and few collector traveled are increasing not suffer as a result. streets tend to make the just because of commuting, automobile a necessity but also short trips to the In addition to commercial for almost all trips. Ad- store, school, recreation, growth, new residential ditionally, some of these and other household ac- subdivisions continue to neighborhoods are built tivities. grow in size and number without sidewalks. Large in the expanding com- minimum lot size zoning Why Is This muter zone. Between 1997 requirements reduce pop- and 2002, the Hamilton ulation density and thus Important? County Regional Planning public transit feasibility. Recent land use patterns Commission has approved Fixed-route public transit make us dependent on 91 major subdivisions for needs high concentrations automobiles. Many com- residential development in of people and commercial mercial strip developments the unincorporated areas activities, so accordingly, and residential subdivision that fall under its admin- far-fl ung housing and com- designs are not pedestrian- istration (See Figure 7). mercial strip development friendly. These areas lack During that time, a total of make transit diffi cult. The connectivity, internally 2,707 acres were approved “cul-de-sac and collector” and to each other, making for subdivision into 2,890 design patterns isolate walking or biking between new lots. Subdivisions neighborhoods from each destinations diffi cult. De- in the suburban and rural other and other land uses, signs that do not consider counties that ring Hamilton forcing residents to drive transit limit access and even for short trips. This

Figure 7 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS # # # 75 71 IN UNINCORPORATED # # # 74 # # ### # # AREAS, 1997-2002 # # ## # # Major Subdivisions # # # # Incorporated Areas # # # # 275 # ## Unincorporated Areas ## # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # Source: Hamilton County Regional Planning # #### # # Commission ## # #### ### # # # # # # # 275 ## ## # # # # # 471 # ## # 75 # 71

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 9 make expansion of public Key Indicators: transportation challenging. Limited transportation op- • Percentage of streets tions and increased auto- ending in cul-de-sacs mobile dependency result or dead-ends (CAGIS in more congestion and and HCRPC for higher household expendi- county) tures on transportation. • Miles of roadway without sidewalks (CAGIS and HCRPC for County) • Persons per square mile (HCRPC for County)

FINDING 5 LACK OF AN ADEQUATE REGIONAL, MULTI-MODAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INCREASES DEPENDENCY ON AUTOMOBILES AND LIMITS MOBILITY OF TRANSIT-DEPENDENT RESIDENTS.

There have been numerous small portions of Butler pattern of Cincinnati until forms of public transporta- and Warren Counties with circa 1970, since a large tion in Cincinnati in the approximately 500 bus- concentration of residents 19th and 20th century, ses on 51 routes. It also still lived and worked there, including streetcars, trol- owns 53 Access vehicles, and most households had ley busses, and inclines. which provide service to only one worker and one However, today, busses people with disabilities car. However, the region provide the sole means of who are unable to ride has changed considerably public transportation in regular busses. Addition- in the last three decades. the Cincinnati Metropoli- ally, Metro transports many Today, population and tan Area. of Cincinnati’s public and employment have shifted parochial junior and senior outward into the suburbs Two major public transit high school students during and adjacent counties. systems exist in Greater the school year. While most of the region’s Cincinnati — the Southern jobs are still located in Ohio Regional Transit Au- The Metro bus lines operate downtown Cincinnati, em- thority, or SORTA (which on a traditional “hub and ployment has become less operates “Metro”) and the spoke” system radiating centralized, contributing to Transit Authority of North- from downtown Cincinnati. a “spatial mismatch” be- ern Kentucky (TANK). They run primarily in a ra- tween low-income house- dial pattern, with only two TANK serves Boone, holds living in the central true cross-town routes and Campbell, and Kenton city, and many new entry- little connection between Counties in Kentucky level jobs being created in suburbs. with connections to down- suburban jurisdictions. town Cincinnati. Metro The Metro system was Ridership has not been primarily serves much well suited to the land use immune to population and of Hamilton County and

10 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP employment shifts. Ac- often the least economical. in the region today, nor is cording to the 2000 Cen- The public costs of road it positioned to meet the sus, 19,959 workers above con struc tion and continual region’s future transporta- the age of 16 in Hamilton maintenance throughout the tion needs.” County used public trans- Cincinnati region will total portation as their primary nearly $5 billion from 2000 The “Metro Moves” Plan means of transportation to 2030. The private costs proposed the addition of to work — down from each per son pays to use the light rail service and ex- 22,362 workers in 1990. system — the costs of the panded bus service, with However, Metro ridership vehicle, its mainte nance, additional suburb and has remained fairly stable fuel, insur ance, and health cross-town connections throughout the 1990s even care costs resulting from di- along with a regional fo- as the county’s population min ished air quality — are cus. The Plan also called has declined, and as the per- not in clud ed in this $5 bil- for the formation of new centage of households with lion fi g ure. Public transpor - neighborhood transit hubs. no vehicles has decreased ta tion costs less (estimated SORTA hoped to finance from 15.5 percent of all at $3.2 billion over the 30- the plan’s implementation households in 1990 to 13.5 year pe ri od for busses and with a half-cent sales tax percent in 2000 according $1.2 billion over the same increase. As such increases to the Census Bureau. Ac- period for light rail) but fed- must be approved by refer- cording to the agency’s eral and state subsidies to endum, the increase was put farebox revenue, in 1990 roads continues to exceed up for public vote and was there were 24,567,169 to- subsidies for transit.13 defeated by a wide margin tal passenger trips, equal- in November 2002. ing 28.3 rides per capita In hopes of improving its per year.. In 2000 there service throughout the Why Is This were 24,409,853 passen- area, making pubic trans- Important? ger trips, or 28.9 rides per portation more competitive, capita. The largest dip in and receiving subsidies for As signifi cant portions of ridership occurred in 1993, transit initiatives, SORTA our population are not able concurrent with the last fare developed the Metro to operate their own vehi- increase. Ridership was Moves Regional Transit cles (due to fi nancial and/ again climbing until 2001. Plan in 2001. The plan or physical constraints), SORTA attributes this drop states that “Metro’s current public transit is necessary to the economic downturn service confi guration does to ensure the mobility of that occurred during this not refl ect the population every citizen in the com- period (most bus riders take and employment trends the bus to work), the riots Figure 8 which occurred in April of 25,000,000 METRO SERVICE AREA that year, and the relatively 24,500,000 ANNUAL RIDERSHIP, low gas prices that existed 24,000,000 1990-2001 throughout much of that 23,500,000 Source: Southwest Ohio Regional Transit year (Figure 8). 23,000,000 Authority 22,500,000

As articulated in Com- Passenger Trips 22,000,000 mu ni ty COMPASS’s 21,500,000 External Influences Re- 21,000,000 port, au to mo bile-based 20,500,000 trans por ta tion regimes are 20,000,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 11 munity. Public transit does tomobile and truck travel. Key Indicators: not access all employment Ozone is beneﬁ cial in the and retail areas in the re- upper atmosphere; between • State and Federal gion, however, and so in 6 and 25 miles above sea expenditures on transit that sense, ownership of at level, ozone absorbs harm- in Hamilton County least one car has become a ful ultra-violet radiation (OKI for Eight Counties desire for many in the nine that comes from the sun. OKI Region) percent of Hamilton County At ground level, however, • Annual Metro ridership households with no avail- ozone irritates the human (Figure 8) able vehicles.14 As jobs respiratory system and in- • Transit ridership per and entertainment venues hibits plant growth. capita (SORTA) move beyond the reach of public transit, the problem While federal mandates • Vehicle miles of transit of “spatial mismatch” will on vehicle emissions and routes (SORTA) undoubtedly increase. gasoline volatility have • Means of commuting to helped reduce the amount work (Figure 2) Public transportation is of hydrocarbons released in also important in that it the atmosphere, people are • Level of air quality helps reduce air pollu- driving further and longer (Hamilton County tion. While the Cincinnati and are spending more time Department of Metropolitan Area meets in congestion — thereby Environmental Services air quality standards for off-setting the gains made for County) ﬁ ve pollutants outlined by by strict emission controls. the federal Clean Air Act Though we are currently Amendments, it exceeds seeing a wave of vehicles the limit on ozone — the that use alternative, cleaner primary component of fuels, mass use of these fu- smog. Ozone is formed els is some years away. In when sunlight reacts with the meantime, increased hydrocarbons and nitrogen use of public transporta- oxides. A major source of tion is seen by many as an both of these gases is au- important way of reducing air pollutants.

12 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP FINDING 6 AS THE LOCAL ECONOMY GROWS, HAMILTON COUNTY IS FACING PRESSURE TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASING FREIGHT TRAFFIC.

As our local economy con- cent per year from 1998 to States in terms of tonnage, tinues its steady growth, the 2020.” 16 Areas with a large much of which comes from demand to move goods and number of employees in the the receipt of coal and coke people from place to place trucking and road support used to generate power. grows in tandem. Accord- businesses, like Colum- ing to a report released in bus and St. Louis will The Cincinnati/Northern June 2002, Freight Impacts undoubtedly benefi t from Kentucky International on Ohio's Roadway System, this increasing truck traffi c. Airport is also an impor- the Ohio Department of Greater Cincinnati — with tant component in freight Transportation (ODOT) its three interstate highways transportation in the region. and the Federal Highway — likewise stands to gain The airport is a domestic Administration (FHWA) jobs in this sector. More- hub for DHL, the world’s stated that freight traffi c in over, Hamilton County’s largest air express carrier. the state is increasing, but warehousing and trucking Delta Airlines also uses the the infrastructure (specifi - sectors have increased em- airport as a hub, providing cally, road) improvements ployment by 419 from 1998 direct passenger flights needed to keep pace with to 2000 (Figure 9). to gateways around the this increase were occur- world. As shown in Figure ring too slowly. These de- Rail and water modes are 9, Greater Cincinnati’s em- mands upon infrastructure also important in freight ployment in air transporta- and other pressures — such transportation. According tion is relatively high for as freight-related fatalities, to the Greater Cincinnati comparable Midwestern increasing regulation to Chamber of Commerce, cities, with a maximum manage public health, and the Cincinnati Metropoli- of 25,500 jobs in the Year the need for intermodal tan Region is serviced by 2000. terminals — “may increase 175 miles of mainline costs and reduce productiv- train track. Three major Why Is This ity in the next years.”15 railroad freight companies also operate in the area.17 Important? Figure 9 Hamilton County and the With regard to river traffi c, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF Levels of freight and con- Greater Cincinnati Re- Cincinnati is the fi fth busi- EMPLOYEES IN nections to other cities are INDUSTRY BY gion are likewise feeling est inland port in the United important indicators of a METROPOLITAN AREA, the pressure of increased 2000 freight traffi c. With regard to truck freight, much of the 30,000 Cincinnati traffi c destined for or pass- 25,000 Cleveland ing through this area along 20,000 Columbus Interstate-75 is delivering 15,000 Indianapolis to or picking up goods from 10,000 Louisville warehouses. According to Number of Employees 5,000 Pittsburgh ODOT and the FHWA, 0 n d io on n n ti tion o Saint Louis a a ti t “warehousing shipments rtat t rt ort ruck rt a n ga o r Water p T o t p o p r e sin s u Freighto u ge pp nspoS nsp ad Support o a an u a a o h are forecast to increase at r r e or dS T T ansp r n and Tr St a an average rate of 3.8 per- Air Tr and R Arrangem Wa Source: Metro Business Patterns, NAICS, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 13 city’s or region’s economy. over, increases in truck By those measures, the freight raise the likelihood Cincinnati Metropolitan of accidents with local non- Region is quite well off, truck traffi c. considering that the usage of all transportation modes Key Indicators: throughout the region (as measured by tonnage or • Freight tonnage for passengers) has steadily goods shipped by air, increased since the end of rail, road, and water the 1970s. (U.S. Census Bureau for CMSA) In Ohio, however, rail, • Number of air, and ship traffic are warehousing projected to increase at establishments (U.S. rates slower than the in- Census Bureau for crease in truck traffi c, ac- County) cording to ODOT and the FHWA. These changes in • Number of employees rates refl ect “a shift in the in interstate economy toward produc- transportation fi rms tion and trade of lighter, (Figure 9) higher-value goods and • Number of accidents more frequent shipment involving trucks of smaller loads that travel (Ohio Department of primarily by truck.” Transportation for County) If increases in the level of truck freight are not effectively managed, it could have economic consequences. Greater Cincinnati is an important mid-way point between major markets in the United States and Canada. Much of the truck traffi c in this area drops off products in warehouses, or takes products from the warehouse to the market. If non- truck traffi c congestion increases and improvements such as the construction of truck lanes or bottleneck reduction projects are not undertaken, it may make the region less attractive to warehousing and transportation industries. More-

14 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: MOBILITY Appendix A Endnotes

1. Texas Transportation Institute's study area covers U.S. Cen- 14. Figure taken from the 2000 Census. sus designated urbanized areas of metropolitan regions. In the Cincinnati Metropolitan Region, urbanized area consists 15. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. June 2002. Freight Impacts of part of Hamilton, Warren, Butler, Clermont, Dearborn, on Ohio's Roadway System. Report commissioned by Ohio Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra- tion. 2. Texas Transportation Institute. 2002. 2002 Urban Mobility Study. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/. 16. Ibid. 3. Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) in- 17. Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. 2002. "Rail Ser- cludes Hamilton, Butler, Warren, Clermont, Brown Coun- vice." Created by Cincinnati USA/Partnership for Greater ties in Ohio; Kenton, Boone, Campbell, Grant, Gallatin, and Cincinnati. Accessed May 15, 2003. Pendleton Counties in Kentucky; and Dearborn, and Ohio www.cincinnaiusa.org/pdf/trans/rail.pdf. Counties in Indiana. 4. Transportation Research Board. Land Use Impacts of Transportation Guidebook. NHRP Report 423A. 1999. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 112. 5. Edwards, Jennifer. 19 October 2002. "City vs. Suburbs? Friction Heats Up: Highway Opposition Riles Leadership." The Cincinnati Enquirer. 6. Edwards, Jennifer. 23 October 2002. "Butler Ready to Fight for Fox Interchange." The Cincinnati Enquirer. 7. This ﬁ gure does not include the planned replacement of the Brent Sprence Bridge. 8. See DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, and Harry Cohen. "Account- ing for Induced Travel in Evaluation of Urban Highway Expansion." White Paper Session No. 9. Federal Highway Administration. www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/doc.htm for more information on "induced travel." 9. White, Sammis B., Binkley, Lisa S., and Jeffrey D. Osterman. 1993. "The Sources of Suburban Employment Growth." Journal of the American Planning Association. 59.2. 193-204. 10. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Inc. 2003. North South Transportation Initiative. www.nsinitiative.com. 11. HSR Business to Business, Inc. 2003. The Eastern Corridor PE/EIS Project Web Site. www.easterncorridor.org. 12. Ibid. 13. Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission. 2003. External Inﬂ uences Report. Community COMPASS Report 14. pp. 54-55.

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 15 16 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT: MOBILITY Appendix B Community COMPASS Publications

The following Community COMPASS reports are components of 11. Planning Partnership Recommendations on The Vision for Hamilton County’s Comprehensive Master Plan and Strategies. Hamilton County’s Future (Jan. 2003) The reports are available at the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and can be downloaded at www.comm 12. The Vision for Hamilton County’s Future (Brochure) unitycompass.org. (Feb. 2003) 13. Initiatives and Strategies 1. Project Design -- Scope and Process (Oct. 2001) 13-1. Steering Team Recommendations on Community 2. The Community Values Survey (Jan. 2001) COMPASS Initiatives and Strategies (2002) 3. Special Research Reports 13-2. Steering Team Prioritization of Initiatives – Method- ology and Recommendations (Aug. 2002) 3-1. Inventory of Research (2002) 13-3. Planning Partnership Recommendations on Com- 3-2. Confl icting Views on Suburbanization (Sept. 1999) munity COMPASS Initiatives and Strategies (revi- 3-3. Spreading Out: The March to the Suburbs (Oct. 1999; sions, fi ndings and reservations) (Dec. 2002) revised 2003) 13-4. Community COMPASS Initiatives and Strategies 3-4. Summary Report -- Spreading Out: The March to the -- Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Suburbs (Oct. 1999; revised 2003) Recommendations (Jul. 2003) 3-5. The Use of Public Deliberation Techniques for 14. External Infl uences: The Impact of National Trends on Building Consensus on Community Plans: Hamilton Hamilton County’s Future (Mar. 2003) County Perspectives on Governance (A Guide for Public Deliberation) (Dec. 2002) 15. Population 3-6. Hamilton County’s Comparative and Competitive 15-1 Summary Report (Nov. 2004) Advantages: Business and Industry Clusters (Oct. 15-2 Atlas / comprehensive report (2005) 2003) 16. State of the County Reports (Key trends, Issues, and 3-7. Census 2000 Community Profi les: Political Jurisdic- Community Indicators) (Nov. 2004) tions of Hamilton County 16-1 Civic Engagement and Social Capital 3-8. Community Revitalization Initiative Strategic Plan 16-2 Community Services (Aug. 2003) 16-3 Culture and Recreation 4. The Report of the Community Forums --Ideas, Treasures, 16-4 Economy and Labor Market and Challenges (Nov. 2001) 16-5 Education 5. The Report of the Goal Writing Workshop (2001) 16-6 Environment 6. The Countywide Town Meeting Participant Guide (Jan. 16-7 Environmental and Social Justice 2002) 16-8 Governance 7. Hamilton County Data Book (Feb. 2002) 16-9 Health and Human Services 8. A Vision for Hamilton County’s Future --The Report of 16-10 Housing the Countywide Town Meeting (Jan. 2002) 16-11 Land Use and Development Framework 9. The CAT’s Tale: The Report of the Community COM- 16-12 Mobility PASS Action Teams (June 2002) 16-13 Executive Summary 10. Steering Team Recommendations on The Vision for Ham- 17. Master Plan and Strategies (Nov. 2004) ilton County’s Future (Jan. 2002) (Implementation Recommendations, Authority and Re- sponsibility)

COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 17 18 HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION / PLANNING PARTNERSHIP COMMUNITY COMPASS - STATE OF THE COUNTY REPORT 19 Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission 138 E. Court Street, Rm 807 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 946-4500 www.communitycompass.org