« Community and Business Leaders to Break Ground on Scioto Mile Park | Main | Postcards from the Past: Deshler Wallick Hotel »
Monday, April 14, 2008
Supporting Columbus Streetcars, Unofficially
On May 5th, 2008, the Columbus City Council is tentatively slated to vote on funding an initial 2 million dollars to allow the design and engineering phase of the proposed Columbus Streetcar System to move forward.
It's been more than a year since I talked about putting together a website to help promote the Columbus Streetcars. After collecting about 10 or so negative "Letters to the Editor" from the Columbus Dispatch about the system over the past several weeks, and subsequently getting a clearer picture of some of the gaps in understanding the concept behind the system which people seem to have, I've been moved enough to make that website a reality.
Later this week I will be launching an "Unofficial Columbus Streetcar" site through which I plan on providing a venue for some expanded perspective on the streetcars in short and simple terms. No lengthy diatribes, pontifications or rants. Just facts, perspectives, and examples of what other cities are up to. That's the plan.
I've been posting nearly all of the articles and press releases I've come across that have been written about the Columbus Streetcar System since the system was proposed in 2006, which will be cataloged on this new dedicated site. I'm already doing all this research and investigation on a daily basis, but it tends to get lost in the mix here on RetroMetro, so the streetcar is getting it's own satellite site.
I'll also be starting my daily hunt for the other cities across the country that are working on streetcar systems and keeping tabs on them in real-time going forward. I personally feel that it is important that we all start to get a look at the bigger picture of streetcars and the effects they have on economic development and the initiation of rail-based transit in cities across the country. It's one thing to hear random facts stated, but it's another to have some concrete examples of what this system could mean to Columbus, and not just the neighborhoods it will immediately serve.
One closing note, most of the negative letters I mentioned above seem more to state concerns about the proposed streetcar system and the investment into it as opposed to investments into other areas of the city. I haven't posted the negative letters to RetroMetro as of yet because I'm using them to pull out questions that the writers of those letters made assumptions about or didn't think to ask before making what seemed to be their final judgment on the streetcars.
I want to be able to share some answers, not counterpoints, to the letters, which will help act as starter fuel the Q&A section of the new streetcar site.
Look for the new "Unofficial Columbus Streetcars" site to launch this Friday...
Posted by Paul Bonneville on April 14, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Nice. Can't wait to see it! :D
Posted by: Walker Evans | Apr 14, 2008 8:44:31 AM
This looks and sounds awesome Paul! Let me know if I can help in any way.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 14, 2008 10:31:57 AM
What downtown Columbus needs is retail to fill in all the vacant storefronts up and down High Street, Broad Street, Gay Street. etc., not to mention city center, to create a vibrant downtown and attract central Ohioans and visitors alike. The conventional thinking that more downtown residents will bring more downtown retail has not panned out. While we have more downtown residents than ever before, we actually have less downtown retail. A recent article in the Dispatch suggests that it will take 40 years for the downtown retail market to return. Perhaps the $100 million proposed for the streetcars would be better spent providing tax abatements tor retail establishments that locate downtown, similar to the tax abatements given to developers of the numerous downtown condominiums. Or perhaps the $100 million proposed for the streetcars would be better spent on a performing arts center and an endowment to save the city's orchestra from extinction. I know that there are numerous other demands for the city's limited resources, such as parks and recreation, social services, etc.; I really do not hear any great demand for streetcars from central Ohioans.
Posted by: glenn kacic | Apr 17, 2008 1:17:31 PM
I think people keep confusing a streetcar, which is a demand-generating piece of infrastructure, with City Center, which was not. Think of the streetcar as a highway interchange. Would Polaris be what it is without that interchange? No way. You don't build Polaris FIRST, you build the interchange first, then Polaris follows. We have not added nearly enough people to our downtown to generate sufficient demand for retail. Our downtown will continue to be its own paved version of the cornfield Polaris used to be until we build the infrastructure necessary to develop it.
Imagine that Mayor Coleman decided to demolish I-270. What would happen to all of those malls out there? They would die off. THEN imagine if 50 years from now the Mayor proposes rebuilding the highway. And people come out of the woodwork to oppose it, because they see it as a waste of money!
It's quite obvious to the average citizen that highway interchanges generate development, because we have seen it with our own eyes. It's not as evident that a streetcar will, because we haven't seen it yet. That's why I am such as supporter of this idea. We need to re-install the basic infrastructure on which our urban neighborhoods were built, and people need to see the impact it will have. If we don't, we will never see downtown flourish.
Posted by: George | Apr 18, 2008 7:45:37 AM
Well put George. Handing out more subsidies to businesses to relocate downtown would be a waste of money if there's no people there to support the businesses. People always have to come before retail. And rail systems spur Transit-Oriented-Development.
Give downtown a modern infrastructure and the retail and residents and offices will follow.
Posted by: Walker | Apr 18, 2008 8:50:54 AM
Perhaps this is before your time, but the COTA link performed the exact same function as the proposed streetcar route for a fraction of the cost. High street is well served by COTA buses between OSU and downtown. They run every ten minutes. It's not as though the streetcars are going to provide new access to downtown or the university area that does not already exist through COTA.
Posted by: glenn Kacic | Apr 18, 2008 9:55:20 AM
It's not before my time. The major difference is this: buses are NOT infrastructure improvements, rail lines are. Plus, there is an inherent bias against buses by the general population, rightly or wrongly.
To use my analogy above, a bus line is like a 2-lane country road. A rail line is like a major highway interchange. Just because you have access doesn't mean it's the kind of access that will generate development. There were country roads at Polaris before the interchange went in, but that didn’t stimulate major development, and a road’s more of an infrastructure improvement than a bus, which can be eliminated at any time.
I do appreciate your arguments, though. We should be questioning all aspects of this plan, as any plan, to ensure that we get the best outcome.
Posted by: George | Apr 18, 2008 12:12:18 PM
Are you familiar with the 16th Street Mall in Denver which was designed by the renowned architectural firm IM Pei and Associates? It is primarily a pedestrian mall with a transit lane for regular buses that are free to the public. It has been fully developed not only on both sides of the street, with shops, cafes, movie theatres, etc but also surrounding blocks. Therefore, I simply do not accept your argument that development is only possible with streetcars. Denver has proven otherwise and has a much more progressive, cultural and people friendly downtown than Columbus, filled with activity and people around the clock.
Posted by: glenn | Apr 18, 2008 2:37:18 PM
A pedestrian mall would be very cool, but if people are stressing about the possibility of losing a few parking spaces on High St., imagine the uproar about closing the road to traffic alltogether. Oy!
Posted by: Eric | Apr 21, 2008 7:19:35 AM
Yes, I love the 16th Street Mall, it's great. However, the improvements done there were infrastructure improvements, more akin to a streetcar than a regular bus. The buses run one route all day long, with fixed lanes. You could argue that a dedicated bus lane might do what a Streetcar would do for High Street and I might agree. But I bet that if you removed the bus lanes from the 16th Street Mall and just used regular buses that ran city-wide routes as circulators for the Mall, it would suffer greatly. Many cities have done similar concepts to the 16th Street Mall and NOT done dedicated bus lanes, and they have failed.
Posted by: George | Apr 21, 2008 7:29:35 AM
To further clarify, I knew when I got on the 16th Street Mall bus exactly where it was going, because it was a fixed route. If it were not, I would be very nervous that the bus would turn at the next corner and take me blocks away from my destination. The fixed route aspect is essential.
Posted by: George | Apr 21, 2008 7:31:56 AM
You could use double decker buses to distinguish them from all other COTA buses which might give streetcar supporters the novelty or cool factor they're seeking.
Posted by: glenn | Apr 21, 2008 9:07:28 AM
I'm suggesting that a pedestrian mall could be developed on High Street from Nationwide to the Court House (downtown) which currently does not allow any parking and is in need of economic development given all the vacant storefronts gracing our main street downtown. There is hardly a lack of economic development in the Short North and exending beyond to Gateway in the university area. The Short North is full of boutique shops, restaurants, bars, etc., with economic development continuing further north each year as evidenced by upscale Jackson on High condominium project just north of Fifth Avenue. There is no shortage of parking in the downtown core; however, parking is much more problematic in the Short North and the University areas which are largely designated as permit parking only. The proposed streetcar would only exacerbate the problem, especially in the Short North, and make it more hazardous for the many bike riders that travel to and from downtown to either the Short North or University.
Posted by: glenn | Apr 21, 2008 9:52:31 AM
Glenn, I think you may not be considering the whole picture when it comes to the parking situation. Indeed there is a lack of parking in the Short North, however there is an excess of parking at the City Center Garage. If the streetcar is built, people would be much more likely to park at City Center or perhaps at the South Campus Gateway garage which also usually has space available.
Even if they decide to eliminate on street parking on High Street to run the streetcar, it would probably only eliminate a few dozen spaces. There are so many driveways, cross streets, and loading zones there now, few spaces exist to park on the street.
Streetcar tracks can be a hazard to the uninformed biker. However, the Olentangy trail runs basically parallel to High Street, and Neil Avenue would also be another north south alternative for bikers to take. Thus I don't think it will affect bike travel significantly.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 21, 2008 11:40:02 AM
Ben,
People can park at either garage now, take the number 2 bus and achieve the same result without spending $100 million on a streetcar.
Posted by: glenn | Apr 21, 2008 1:01:03 PM
George,
What do you mean by "fixed route?" Do you mean that the buses only run on the 16th Street Mall and don't travel beyond that? I ask because in transit lingo, nearly all COTA bus services are considered "fixed route," meaning they run a set route according to some pre-determined schedule. The alternative to fixed route services are demand responsive, which is more like dial-a-ride paratransit service.
Posted by: John | Apr 23, 2008 8:13:32 AM
Perhaps I used the wrong phrase. I meant that the buses on the 16th Street Mall function essentially like a streetcar. They have a dedicated lane that was installed which directs their route. This is much more than the Diamond lane on High Street that has restrictions during rush hour. It's basically a short Bus Rapid Transit lane. It's a physical infrastructure improvement that 1) gives visual certainty of the route so you know where you will end up and 2) lets developers know the bus is there to stay. Once you invest that much money in a mode of transit, it provides everyone assurances that it will be there for a long time and it will follow the exact same route every day, so people tend to trust it more than a regular bus.
Posted by: George | Apr 24, 2008 7:38:40 AM
It's interesting to me how much talk I hear about general uncertainty regarding bus routes. I wonder how COTA can make improvements, not just for 2.8 miles on High Street, but system-wide to make the buses less confusing for a novice rider. If painting a lane red is all it takes, then that could be done a lot cheaper than the streetcar. Maybe that should be done immediately as Phase 1 until the construction starts in 2010. Here are some other ideas:
1. Real-time arrival information - This tells you when the bus is coming, thus eliminating uncertainty about if it will come. I'm pretty sure OSU researchers are working on this with COTA.
2. Simpler route structure - Straighter paths and less winding through neighborhoods would speed up service and make the routes less confusing.
3. Fewer stops - This could allow you to label stops on maps, which would make the service seem more like BRT or a train.
4. Consider branding the routes as colored lines - Example: Call the #2 the Red Line and label it as such on maps. Name the other busiest routes as orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink, silver, gold, brown, etc... You could even paint the actual buses the same colors as the route. Alternatively it might be easier to manage the fleet if you created one color for all premium services like MetroRapid in LA. So you would have one bus color for local service and one for Rapid service.
Posted by: John | Apr 24, 2008 9:49:44 AM
What enery is the streetcar planned to run on, Electricity? I thought part of this project was to provide environmently friendly public transportation which Buses do not currently provide.
Say what You wish about the ability to use the COTA buses to the same purpose, but Streetcars will be much more popular with the public. Curb-level access (for physically challenged) to new, scheduled, reliable, environmently friendly transportation is much better than catching a bus at a bus-stop. As a downtown worker and former OSU student, I do have some experience with the use (or lack or use) of the COTA busses.
Posted by: Kyle | May 3, 2008 10:52:03 PM
I agree that streetcars will be more popular, but transportation isn't a popularity contest. It's about providing the best service possible given cost constraints. If all we cared about was popularity, we'd build a 300 mile underground Metro system for about $100 Billion dollars or we'd replace every COTA bus line with a streetcar line. But neither of those options are practical.
That said, I think a streetcar will be great for economic development and will fit within the cost constraints, but I really don't think it is "needed" for transportation purposes. If the only goal is to provide "curb-level access (for physically challenged) to new, scheduled, reliable, environmentally friendly transportation" for 2.8 miles on High Street, that could be done for a lot less than $100 Million. That's a good goal though. We should strive for frequent, reliable, handicapped-accessible, environmentally friendly bus service on every COTA route.
Posted by: John | May 4, 2008 8:15:32 AM
People can be skeptical about the development that will occur because of the streetcar, but I don't see any real studies to support the idea that streetcars won't bring benefits, and that simple improved bus service will bring similar levels of development. Rather, all the studies seem to be in favor of a streetcar.
And, the city is contributing $20mil, and the benefit zone will contribute $80, so yea, you can do a lot with $100mil elsewhere, but where else will you come up with that additional $80mil? There isnt a pot of money just laying around - you'd have to come up with some sort of bus benefit zone to get the same sort of funding.
Posted by: fg | May 4, 2008 12:05:05 PM
fg,
You issue bonds. How do you think the mayor plans to fund all of his bicentennial projects, including the streetcars? Issue bonds.
Posted by: glenn | May 5, 2008 8:47:22 AM
Glenn - how do you repay those bonds? I think FG was referring to the surcharges derived from the benefit zone not being interchangeable with other improvement projects.
For example, COTA has it's own pot of money that comes from the sales tax. They don't have the ability to levy surcharges in the benefit zone and come up with an additional $100 million to improve their bus system. They could issue bonds (i think), but they'd have to repay them with something...presumably their existing pot of sales tax money.
Posted by: Eric | May 5, 2008 9:11:20 AM
Eric,
Any type of financing plan to pay off the bonds will necessarily require a tax increase of some type, approved by the City Council, if general revenue funds are insufficient. The surcharge is simply a tax on parking or event tickets. The city is currently looking to increase the city income tax as a means of generating more revenue which can be used to pay off bonds also.
Posted by: glenn | May 6, 2008 1:51:06 PM
George wrote earlier about the comparison of the streetcar and Polaris Interchange as infastructure that needs to be in place before the people showup. I think you may believe that Columbus and the state paid for that interchange. Wrong. The developer of Polaris contracted and paid for that interchange. Yes you couldn't have Polaris without it, but the developer did it himself. It would follow that the landowners and builders who will benefit from increased land values should pay for the streetcars.
FG - who has the money to fund a study to prove a negative?
Posted by: Ken | May 6, 2008 4:36:47 PM
How about I270-160 interchange (cost $120+ mil)? Or proposed I70-71 split (expected to cost $1bill)? Was it/will it be financed by private developers as well?
Posted by: TK | May 8, 2008 5:55:34 PM
tk,
I do know that the interchanges at Tuttle Mall, Polaris Mall and Easton - all of which are off of 270 - were paid for by the private developers of those malls.
Posted by: glenn | May 9, 2008 7:53:21 AM
???
I am talking about the interchange of Interstate 270 and State 161 that was completed last summer, and the on-going project designing of I70-I71 split. Were they / will they be paid by New Albany and Licking County residents and businesses, and by the River South businesses and residents, who receive direct benefits of the projects?
Posted by: TK | May 9, 2008 10:15:56 AM
TK,
The 161-NExT project (as it's officially called) was paid for by a combination of state and federal transportation funds. Unfortunately, it's a very difficult task determining where EXACTLY funding for a project like that is coming from. No funding was provided by New Albany AFAIK, despite that city receiving a majority of the benefits.
Therein lies the problem I think with our priorities. Citizens have very little input when it comes to deciding what road construction projects will be funded. So they just assume it must be a good idea and nobody objects to it. With their noble goal of involving the public, most rail transit projects inevitably meet up with a large (or at least very vocal) public opposition. Ironically, the opposition quickly disappears once the system is up and running, as seen in St. Louis and Charlotte. See this story for example: http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/376318.html
Posted by: Ben | May 14, 2008 1:25:19 PM
Thanks Ben,
My questions were actually rhetorical ones, in response to those who insist on privately funded streetcar/light rail on this board and others. I am, by the way, not objecting these highway projects -- sure these are important, too -- I just wish the public give the same amount of benefit of doubt to public transit project funding.
I lived in Minneapolis, when their light rail (longer than the proposed High St. Streetcar, but certainly not connecting downtown with the multiple suburbs) was proposed and constructed. The plan took the exactly same criticism that Columbus streetcar proposal is currently receiving (i.e., What a useless, money-wasting amusement park ride!), and ended up in a huge success.
Posted by: TK | May 14, 2008 1:42:36 PM
