treesketcher

This would be huge if it passes. I really hope we see a statewide transit plan that shows various scales of rail transit (High Speed, light rail, streetcars) in conjunction with improved bus/van transit in more rural areas. I dont think people will support a big idea without a visual representation of it.

has anyone compared the annual cost of snow removal (labor, equipment, salt, etc.) in one of the C's to the total cost of the operating subsidy? We need something tangible that puts the relatively minor subsidy cost in perspective for the public.

Did you see the presidents budget today? Another $1 Billion (at least) for high speed rail in 2011 and several other financial mechanisms for funding transit systems. There will be more funding in the coming years to potentially increase speeds along the 3-C and to add additional legs of the Ohio Hub. Be patient folks!

Congrats to all that worked tirelessly on this! Great thanks to you!

looks like Florida has early signs. does this help or hurt our chances?

any word on when we might hear about a decision? Ive heard that all the remaining transportation grants were supposed to be announced by the end of the month. i assume that the President being in Lorain tomorrow might be a good sign that the Midwest will be a focus for job creation and a good chunk of the funding.

maybe i should clarify what i meant. I am totally in support of the plan as it stands, it is realistic, feasible, and well-vetted. Believe me, i will be on the first train when it rolls into town. I wish we could build a 110-220 mph system and have it be done in 2 years; but that, as far as i understand in my limited view as bystander, is impossible to both fund and construct. Id rather have a train soon and watch it get incrementally faster year over year as funding permits. I couldnt agree with you more about the gas thing. I dont even want to think about the price of gas in 10 years. Having rail service open soon with perpetual improvement is the right thing to do. Transportation is a HUGE selling point for Ohio in attracting businesses. The prospect of a one or two hour train ride between the 3C's and to pittsburgh, detroit, chicago, louisville, indianapolis etc. would be huge in getting more companies to move jobs here.

strike while the iron is hot! If we plan to build something for the next ten years without any kind of actual useability, i doubt it will happen (esp. in Ohio), regardless of the potential of a 110+ mph system. I don't think the public has that kind of patience, and that is an impossible sell for our political leadership.

How do we become a high speed rail manufacturing state if we don't even have real passenger rail here? If you want passenger rail of any speed, we have to start with what we can get done NOW and upgrade it as we go along. Get it started in the next few years with the Quick start plan and upgrade it as we go along. In five or ten years, who knows, maybe it will only take an hour or less to get to Cleveland or Cincy from Columbus. Then everyone will be praising this as "visionary" and a game-changing economic engine for connecting Ohio Cities.

i assume that with the potential for additional stimulus money being passed in the house, our chances of potential funding are going up. will this also help us out? http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/18/lowering-cost-effectiveness-guidelines-will-limit-the-ftas-effectiveness-in-choosing-projects/

In the the right places (high street) and where market forces allow (SN), Columbus is trying to promote density, not kill it. If a developer is willing to add density, why would the city discourage it with additional fees? Negotiating for public amenities (parking) and a reasonable scale at the street is a decent compromise. City planners can only negotiate to a point where they risk economically killing the project altogether; or the developer walks and builds some crap in suburbia where he knows he can easily make money without the p.i.a factors of a complicated urban site.

so youre only response is that the massing setback doesnt work? ok... most folks could care less about the perfection of the architectural rhythm i'd take a reasonably well designed - albeit imperfect to some - building that adds density to our most important urban corridor than an empty lot any day...

by setting the tower back off of high street, the building massing actually creates a nice pedestrian scale that is consistent with the rest of the surrounding buildings. Vancouver has been very successful with a similar strategy...the first 3-4 stories of the building are at a zero setback while the residential tower (20+ stories) is set back from the street. Also, the architect at least tried to compliment the finish materials of the neighboring buildings. The finish height of the building is no doubt a departure from the rest of the short north, but the additional density will only aid the surrounding businesses and help to support the city's mass transit improvement efforts. If we want a great mass transit system and strong urban retail in Columbus, we need to support high-density development in appropriate places, especially when the developer is able to supply the required parking and ROW improvements that go along with it.

David, what's easy about starting local passenger rail from scratch? To make a change this massive, you have to start with something that have the best chance of working. Once its proven, then it can be expanded. If we start an east-west line and it has terrible ridership...there will be no chance of getting federal money for other streetcar/lrt projects. Again, i agree with you that an east-west line would be fantastic, but we gotta start with something that will work. Back to Columbus Commons, I think as the design of the park is developed further, it will be better to understand the designer's vision. Its always tough to spit out renderings and not have a chance to discuss the intent behind them, as was the case with this last set of drawings. I drove by the site today, the mall structure is almost 1/3 gone. Very cool to watch the demolition.

Since were still on this topic on this thread...I would love to see a downtown circulator streetcar that makes it way over to OTE and Franklinton with two major downtown terminals, Columbus Commons and the transit terminal at the convention center. This could connect those neighborhoods with the library, high street, arena district (possibly) several hospitals, grocery stores, art museum, CCAD & CSCC, the CBD & jobs, etc. IMO, with the north corridor light rail in place, this would be the most appropriate starting point for a streetcar system in Columbus; similar to Portland's streetcar which runs perpendicular to the regional light rail system. It would be much harder to get this off the ground though as it most likely would have to be locally funded unless the feds loosen their rules. The reason the north corridor is feasible is because it is the most dense corridor in the region, so is most likely to receive federal funding. And even then with downtown, OSU, and the SN along the route, it is still (according to various members of city council) in need of additional density to make the case stronger. If we want local rail at all that serves more than commuters, this is our best shot at getting it started. If both are built with Columbus Commons having some streetcar link to the east and west, then the park and the surrounding development I believe would have a shot to become the true urban "center" it was always meant to be.

The short north is hardly tapped out...there are still a significant number of parking lots and low density buildings on high street that could be redeveloped. A streetcar/light rail system will solidify the short north even more and help to create a true "urban" link between OSU and downtown. As far as short north business owners not supporting this, I sat in a city council streetcar meeting last year where a SN business owner submitted a letter of support on behalf of the majority of small business owners there. Not everyone will be happy with any infrastructure project, but think about all those SN business owners whole will have exposure to all the commuters coming into the SN from points north who would usually bypass it on 71. The only negative affect may be the removal of a few parallel parking spots, that remains to be seen.

This is a fascinating issue that will do more to change the development patterns of the columbus region than any other single economic development incentive or land-use policy. There are so many brownfield industrial sites adjacent to rail lines in columbus that could easily become transit oriented developments. Some of these are in center city neighborhoods, but many are in established suburbs. This could make denser development feasible to even those folks that would never consider downtown or the first ring neighborhoods. we have to get this done...what could help push to it? i think the political stars are aligned, but it seems like there are very few concrete plans...or even plans to make plans...to get this done in Columbus (is my impression wrong?) Im worried that we will get pushed to the back of the line when other cities have much more visible ongoing public outreach efforts (cincy, kansas city, LA, dallas, etc.)

Rail experts, a question for you: How would the new light rail line interface with freight rail and the 3-C passenger corridor. Eventually, there would potentially need to be 3 seperate sets of tracks in that corridor: freight (shared NS & CSX), high speed passenger rail to Cleveland, and light rail. I think the ROW is 100 feet wide or so, but they might need to completely reconfigure the existing tracks to make it work for all three.

question for everyone: did any local transit agencies or municipalities apply for a tiger grant? i haven't seen anything.

ok, so the amtrak study and the fta tiger discretionary grant applications are due tomorrow. I haven't seen any coverage in the media - will we see something tomorrow from ORDC, COTA, or otherwise?