For that Mount Carmel redevelopment.....I just want to be sure I'm understanding.....they're not tearing down what's there now, are they?

On 3/5/2019 at 10:14 AM, Zyrokai said:

For that Mount Carmel redevelopment.....I just want to be sure I'm understanding.....they're not tearing down what's there now, are they?

 

There They are keeping all the parking garages, the existing School of Nursing (and expanding it), and building a new 24/7 emergency center.  The main hospital building and some other smaller buildings will be demo'd.

 

Edit for correction:  "They are" not "There are" ? ??

On 1/7/2019 at 1:41 PM, Pablo said:

Took a walk around the River & Rich project today. It's nearing completion and a few residents have moved in already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^ Pablo gave us some colorful pics of the River & Rich project back in January.  CU included some River & Rich pics in their most recent Franklinton projects update at https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-franklinton-we1.  However, CU's pics were somewhat (shall we say) grayer:

 

 

On 11/19/2018 at 9:37 AM, aderwent said:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/11/18/franklinton-update-more-projects-lined-up-for-2019.html?ana=e_me_set1&s=newsletter&ed=2018-11-19&u=8jkupSw9zIRhc%2BySqW4WOQ0354f4c7&t=1542638046&j=85098971

 

^ Aerial of Gravity along West Broad Street from late last year.

 

March streetview of Gravity looking easterly from https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-franklinton-we1

 

On 9/30/2018 at 5:51 PM, Columbo said:

Out Of Town affordable apartment project from Town Street.  I have to say that I'm liking this project much more "as built" than in its original rendered form.  The original renderings used a black stucco-like exterior that sort of gave the building a rather lumpy appearance.  But with the battleship gray metal siding and the edging that helps define the sawtooth roof, it now a crisp/smart looking appearance:

 

Updated and closer view of the Out Of Town affordable apartment project along Town Street from CU's Franklinton projects update at https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-franklinton-we1.  Like I said previously, i wasn't sold on the original rendering for the project.  But the way the metal siding has been used vastly improved its appearance.  Now the restrained but effective use of the bright orange color to play off the dark gray siding can be seen.  Really nice use of ordinary materials in a stylish way for a good cause (affordable housing).  Well done!

 

12 hours ago, Columbo said:

 

^ Pablo gave us some colorful pics of the River & Rich project back in January.  CU included some River & Rich pics in their most recent Franklinton projects update at https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-franklinton-we1.  However, CU's pics were somewhat (shall we say) grayer:

 

I like color! The CU photos don't capture the vibe of the project.

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190321/city-plans-to-reduce-vehicle-lanes-add-bike-lanes-on-w-broad-st-in-franklinton

 

I mean, I like the idea of a road diet and bike lanes for West Broad, but I dislike how even on the widest street in the city, they still can't manage to do separated lanes.  They might as well do sharrows if they're not going to do it right.

Edited March 22, 20196 yr by jonoh81

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190321/city-plans-to-reduce-vehicle-lanes-add-bike-lanes-on-w-broad-st-in-franklinton

 

I mean, I like the idea of a road diet and bike lanes for West Broad, but I dislike how even on the widest street in the city, they still can't manage to do separated lanes.  They might as well do sharrows if they're not going to do it right.

 

Come on Columbus. A road diet of Broad should absolutely include protected bike lanes and could probably maintain parking even. Im thinking a Summit St style makeover would do wonders on Wes... All of Broad

59 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

 

Come on Columbus. A road diet of Broad should absolutely include protected bike lanes and could probably maintain parking even. Im thinking a Summit St style makeover would do wonders on Wes... All of Broad

 

Maybe they are thinking long term in terms of reductions because of dedicated transit? 

 

Nah, they're just being Columbus.

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Maybe they are thinking long term in terms of reductions because of dedicated transit? 

 

Nah, they're just being Columbus.

 

Who knows, Haha. 

Bike Lanes Planned for Broad Street in Franklinton

 

The City of Columbus is planning a redesign of a mile-and-a-half stretch of West Broad Street in Franklinton.

 

The new alignment will feature a center turn lane and bike lanes running in each direction. The two outside lanes – which are currently used for car travel in some places and on-street parking in others – will be eliminated.

 

The project will stretch from North Guilford Avenue – just shy of Franklinton’s western edge – to the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge, where the new bike lanes will connect to existing lanes put in place several years ago that extend past COSI and the National Veterans Memorial and Museum.

 

More below:

https://www.columbusunderground.com/bike-lanes-planned-for-broad-street-in-franklinton-bw1

 

Personally, having tried to ride around the bike lanes downtown, I only feely comfortable biking/scooting in this city in protected bike lanes.  Drivers simply aren't aware of pedestrians/scooters/cyclists enough for it to be a safe commute in an unprotected lane.

The absurdity of the city arguing that protected bike lanes won't fit on literally the widest street in Columbus is breathtaking.  If, as the city claims, that they won't fit because they don't have the right equipment to clear snow in any lane less than 10 feet wide, why not invest in the right equipment so that they can create bike lanes that don't need to be 10 feet wide?  That type of equipment not only exists, it's utilized in many cities already.  This type of halfa**ery is becoming legendary. 

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by jonoh81

^Not a Gator with a blade in the house!

According to a commenter on CU, they eventually want to put BRT (or at least COTA’s version of faux BRT), so that’s why they aren’t doing protected bike lanes, or really anything at all to actually make the road smaller. 

25 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

The absurdity of the city arguing that protected bike lanes won't fit on literally the widest street in Columbus is breathtaking.  If, as the city claims, that they won't fit because they don't have the right equipment to clear snow in any lane less than 10 feet wide, why not invest in the right equipment so that they can create bike lanes that don't need to be 10 feet wide?  That type of equipment not only exists, it's utilized in many cities already.  This type of halfa**ery is becoming legendary. 

 

My question is how does the city not already have this equipment with the Summit bike lanes being that already. I remember reading one of the reasons the Summit St protected lanes was so expensive was because they had to purchase said equipment. Uhm, can it not be used on multiple roads or something? 

 

PS... I love this excuse most though because I have not once seen any bike lanes cleared this winter anyway. Always full of now or ice thats been plowed off of vehicle lanes. 

5 minutes ago, FudgeRounds said:

According to a commenter on CU, they eventually want to put BRT (or at least COTA’s version of faux BRT), so that’s why they aren’t doing protected bike lanes, or really anything at all to actually make the road smaller. 

 

Actually, while I don't love the ambiguity of it, that makes sense.

 

However look for rail instead of BRT. 

1 minute ago, DevolsDance said:

 

Actually, while I don't love the ambiguity of it, that makes sense.

 

However look for rail instead of BRT. 

 

Somebody help me understand (and I know this is probably better suited for a different thread), how is light rail any better than an actual BRT line. It seems to me that the cost of constructing a light rail line far exceeds the cost of a BRT line (with true bus designated/protected lanes and the whole 9 yards) without providing much additional value. Commuter rail or actual subway/elevated lines obviously far exceeds anything a BRT line could do, but I'm struggling to see the value light rail brings that BRT cannot provide. 

1 hour ago, FudgeRounds said:

According to a commenter on CU, they eventually want to put BRT (or at least COTA’s version of faux BRT), so that’s why they aren’t doing protected bike lanes, or really anything at all to actually make the road smaller. 

 

That doesn't make any sense, either.  They're unlikely to make the BRT protected lane, so they wouldn't be taking up lanes of traffic for it.  Also, it's entirely possible to have curbside BRT stations and also bike lanes.  They can also put stations in the center of the street without protected lanes, without sacrificing turn lanes and without sacrificing bike lanes.  There are actually quite a few possible configurations.  Ultimately, I just think city leaders care that much.  Their primary focus is and always has been catering to cars.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Somebody help me understand (and I know this is probably better suited for a different thread), how is light rail any better than an actual BRT line. It seems to me that the cost of constructing a light rail line far exceeds the cost of a BRT line (with true bus designated/protected lanes and the whole 9 yards) without providing much additional value. Commuter rail or actual subway/elevated lines obviously far exceeds anything a BRT line could do, but I'm struggling to see the value light rail brings that BRT cannot provide. 

 

If it's done correctly, BRT can be very effective.  A few of the advantages of rail, however, would be that they can carry more passengers and are much more likely to spark development along their routes.  Even dedicated-lane BRT lines are not nearly as effective as rail in this regard. BRT is a good option for some routes, rail for others.  Mixed-traffic routes tend to have the most problems in both cases. 

Yeah, I was thinking there's enough room for protected bike lanes, Columbus-Style BRT Lite and two automobile travel lanes and maybe even a center lane.

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

If it's done correctly, BRT can be very effective.  A few of the advantages of rail, however, would be that they can carry more passengers and are much more likely to spark development along their routes.  Even dedicated-lane BRT lines are not nearly as effective as rail in this regard. BRT is a good option for some routes, rail for others.  Mixed-traffic routes tend to have the most problems in both cases. 

 

To your point about passengers, most cities similar in size to Columbus that have streetcars (Cincy, KC, etc.) do not have streetcars that are much larger than an extended bus similar to Cleveland's Health Line. Is the extra millions of dollars really worth it for just a small increase in capacity?

 

To your point about development, how exactly does a light rail rail line spark development at a level that a BRT line could not? They both serve the exact same function, but one is on wheels and the other is on a rail. Do you know of any actual studies that have been done which prove the difference in effectiveness? 

 

I'm trying to be snarky at all, I'm genuinely curious. I've thought a lot about this and I've really struggled to understand how light rail is a better option than a true BRT system when factoring in the cost of implementation and upkeep for both. If both systems yield the same/similar results, I would hate for Columbus to sink millions and millions dollars into one light rail line that could have been used to implement two or three BRT lines. 

 

All that being said, Broad Street desperately needs one of the two options. 

I remember when I opened my first store (at Northwest and Chambers) three bus lines stopped in front of it. Only four years later zero did. That doesn't happen with rail. Stories like that take place all over the world and is why every comparable city to Columbus in the entire First World has rail transit except us.

4 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I remember when I opened my first store (at Northwest and Chambers) three bus lines stopped in front of it. Only four years later zero did. That doesn't happen with rail. Stories like that take place all over the world and is why every comparable city to Columbus in the entire First World has rail transit except us.

 

OK, but we are talking BRT lines, not regular bus lines. 

 

Of course regular bus lines can move often. It costs very little to do so. You just spend some man hours to determine your new route, then spend some man hours to remove the old bus stop signs and place the new ones and you are done. With a BRT line, you considerably more infrastructure built up that is specific for the BRT line which would need to be removed if the line needed to move. Additionally, on a road like Broad St. in Columbus, you won't be moving a bus line any time soon. It's the main East-West road running through downtown and it has been that way for 100+ years. 

 

Look, I'm all for rail transit. I think commuter rails coming in from Lancaster, Marysville, Delaware, etc. would do wonders for the city. I'm simply skeptical of the cost of implementing a light rail system. I would love to see some studies that have been done on the matter though. I see a lot of people suggest things such as what you've suggested, but I rarely see the statements being backed up. That's not a dig at you either, just an observation of mine based on the conversations I've had. 

The risk is that if you let the current Columbus mindset at the helm of BRT you wind up with BRT Lite instead of something like the Health Line in Cleveland. Columbus needs to be stabbed with the REAL STUFF deeply and not allow any discussion of fake "innovation" slip in and distract it from fixing the problem for real. No negotiating down to something weaker that doesn't do anything. No wine cooler crap that makes you giggle for 5 minutes then pee. This is not a job for wine coolers, it's a job for whiskey!

7 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

The risk is that if you let the current Columbus mindset at the helm of BRT you wind up with BRT Lite instead of something like the Health Line in Cleveland. Columbus needs to be stabbed with the REAL STUFF deeply and not allow any discussion of fake "innovation" slip in and distract it from fixing the problem for real. No negotiating down to something weaker that doesn't do anything. No wine cooler crap that makes you giggle for 5 minutes then pee. This is not a job for wine coolers, it's a job for whiskey!

 

This doesn't address any of points. I simply want to know how a light rail line brings enough additional value in comparison to a legit BRT line to justify the much higher cost. Saying "the Columbus mindset won't implement a real BRT line" doesn't answer any of my questions. Heck, by that logic, who is to say the "Columbus mindset" won't totally screw up a light rail line similar to what has happened in Cincinnati. 

 

I want to see proof that a real BRT line is not part of the "real stuff", is "weaker", and is "fake innovation". I think this is an important conversation to have because if we can implement a transit line that accomplish what the ideal light rail line would accomplish at half the cost, why wouldn't we do that? However, if light rail truly is the best bang for your buck, we certainly need to go that route. 

Off the top of your head, name some famous and economically important subway lines, streetcars and light rail lines. The kind that make for famous business districts and the kind of apartments people are on waiting lists for. The kind that make people want to live in a city.

 

Now, also off the top of your head,  do the same for BRT lines.

Before I address any of these points, I’m having an interview with SmartColumbus to find out what’s going on on their end.  Maybe there’s some additional insight into the long term plan even if they are not necessarily directly related.  

While I am a large supporter of BRT when done correctly, we in the US very rarely do that. Through all of my research, I have seen that BRT only come close to rail if given the power and money that rail requires, ultimately making it not as much of a cost saver in the long run as one would imagine. 

 

I'm going to attempt (hang with me) to break this down to as equal of a comparison as one can with the information publicly available. 

 

So based on availability of information, alignments connecting downtown to an adjacent neighborhood, city size, and capacity, I will be using the Cleveland Health-line for BRT since it's a true BRT and the Oklahoma City Streetcar. Where I will break from this formula is with the ridership numbers (since OKC is new) and route length and number of stops. 

 

CLE BRT 

Year completed - 2008

Distance - 6.8 Miles

Total Stops - 39

Construction Cost - $200 Million (2008), 235 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) 

Cost per mile - 29.4 Million (2008), 34.5 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) 

Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes

Vehicle Capacity - 57 Persons

 

Now, where the fun starts 

Avg lifespan of Pavement - Max 15-20 years (Based on being dedicated but a heavier vehicle)

Avg lifespan of Bus - 12 years

 

OKC STREETCAR/LRT

Year completed - 2018

Distance - 4.8 Miles

Total Stops - 22

Construction Cost - 135 Million

Cost per mile - 28.2 Million

Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes

Vehicle Capacity - 150 Persons

 

Avg lifespan of of Street Rail - 100 years

Avg lifespan of LRT/Streetcar Vehicle - 40 years

 

Now, there are a lot of factors in this that are necessarily represented by the cost breakdown above, however from here I believe we have a starting point. It is often touted that BRT is insanely cheaper and quicker but thats not always the case, these factors do depend on the city itself but overall they honestly come out fairly equal. Where they differ drastically is in terms of investment around the lines, while deciding factors are a bit ambiguous, rail tends to see a larger ROI but I will say, this is a much harder factor to truly grasp because it depends on so many factors. Yes BRT can be done cheaper, but so can rail, it's kind of just all about ROW and what a transit agency is trying to do. 

 

Overall, I would say I still favor rail because it carries a lower stigma, always feels more integrated into neighborhoods and culture, has a significantly higher capacity, and tends to run more efficiently in all weather situations. I think there may be a lot to discuss here, but as for a breakdown I hope I was able to help. 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

This doesn't address any of points. I simply want to know how a light rail line brings enough additional value in comparison to a legit BRT line to justify the much higher cost. Saying "the Columbus mindset won't implement a real BRT line" doesn't answer any of my questions. Heck, by that logic, who is to say the "Columbus mindset" won't totally screw up a light rail line similar to what has happened in Cincinnati. 

 

I want to see proof that a real BRT line is not part of the "real stuff", is "weaker", and is "fake innovation". I think this is an important conversation to have because if we can implement a transit line that accomplish what the ideal light rail line would accomplish at half the cost, why wouldn't we do that? However, if light rail truly is the best bang for your buck, we certainly need to go that route. 

 

Rail is better than bus (even BRT) when it comes to spurring development. Rails in the ground are not able to be moved in the same way that a bus route can, so they offer a nearly guaranteed amenity to developers along the line. If the goal is just to move mass amounts of people in the cheapest way possible, BRT is the way to go. That is, until you run into capacity issues like what is happening in LA's massively successful Orange Line BRT. The buses- even the articulated ones- are often at or over capacity, so the line will probably be converted to light rail in coming years, as LRT has higher capacity than BRT. 

 

BTW, I'm not sure you can say Cincinnati 'totally screwed up' a light rail line. Cincinnati has a streetcar circulator, so it's not fair to compare it to a light rail line that is used for transport across the city or region. Many of the issues affecting the streetcar are fixable, but the politics in Cincy are so toxic that the mayor would rather sabotage the streetcar to gain political points than actually make the modest improvements it would take to improve performance. But if you look at where investment is occurring in OTR, especially in the portions north of Liberty where 3CDC isn't involved, it's very closely tied to the streetcar. Also, having the rail in place I think made it possible for the city to eliminate parking requirements downtown and in the basin neighborhoods, which is a huge step forward for encouraging development. Even though most people would admit that the streetcar hasn't met its initial expectations, the very presence of rail and having a circulator that can take people from big garages around the riverfront and throughout downtown enabled that progressive policy decision, and I don't think it would have been made had there only been bus transit.

Edited March 28, 20196 yr by edale

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

This doesn't address any of points. I simply want to know how a light rail line brings enough additional value in comparison to a legit BRT line to justify the much higher cost. Saying "the Columbus mindset won't implement a real BRT line" doesn't answer any of my questions. Heck, by that logic, who is to say the "Columbus mindset" won't totally screw up a light rail line similar to what has happened in Cincinnati. 

 

I want to see proof that a real BRT line is not part of the "real stuff", is "weaker", and is "fake innovation". I think this is an important conversation to have because if we can implement a transit line that accomplish what the ideal light rail line would accomplish at half the cost, why wouldn't we do that? However, if light rail truly is the best bang for your buck, we certainly need to go that route. 

 

Cincinnati has a streetcar, one designed to be a circulator through the city center just like the one in Kansas City, Portland, OKC, Milwaukie, Atlanta etc. Toronto also has a streetcar but they run much longer lines, sometimes in their own ROW, and connect to multiple bus and subway stations. The vehicles are often the same as the ones used in light rail system, however light rail is designed with stops separated wider distances, run at higher speeds, and often serve an entire region not a city or just a neighborhood. Light rail is a large investment that attracts more development around the stations and has a much larger capacity than a streetcar line.

 

As other comments have stated light rail or streetcars attract greater investment / density along the route because they can't easily be removed. If COTA decided the CMAX wasn't working out they could probably get rid of it with minimal barriers, it would take a lot to dismantle an entire rail based system that cost billions to construct. 

 

Light rail most of the time runs in a dedicated ROW unlike a streetcar or BRT system and has fare gates like a subway and sometimes have sections that are underground or elevated. You can find examples of BRT or Streetcars that do go underground or elevated but that's uncommon. There's really no set definition for each because they can all contain some or all of the elements you'd find in a regional high capacity system like a subway line. 

4 hours ago, DevolsDance said:

While I am a large supporter of BRT when done correctly, we in the US very rarely do that. Through all of my research, I have seen that BRT only come close to rail if given the power and money that rail requires, ultimately making it not as much of a cost saver in the long run as one would imagine. 

 

I'm going to attempt (hang with me) to break this down to as equal of a comparison as one can with the information publicly available. 

 

So based on availability of information, alignments connecting downtown to an adjacent neighborhood, city size, and capacity, I will be using the Cleveland Health-line for BRT since it's a true BRT and the Oklahoma City Streetcar. Where I will break from this formula is with the ridership numbers (since OKC is new) and route length and number of stops. 

 

CLE BRT 

Year completed - 2008

Distance - 6.8 Miles

Total Stops - 39

Construction Cost - $200 Million (2008), 235 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) 

Cost per mile - 29.4 Million (2008), 34.5 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) 

Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes

Vehicle Capacity - 57 Persons

 

Now, where the fun starts 

Avg lifespan of Pavement - Max 15-20 years (Based on being dedicated but a heavier vehicle)

Avg lifespan of Bus - 12 years

 

OKC STREETCAR/LRT

Year completed - 2018

Distance - 4.8 Miles

Total Stops - 22

Construction Cost - 135 Million

Cost per mile - 28.2 Million

Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes

Vehicle Capacity - 150 Persons

 

Avg lifespan of of Street Rail - 100 years

Avg lifespan of LRT/Streetcar Vehicle - 40 years

 

Now, there are a lot of factors in this that are necessarily represented by the cost breakdown above, however from here I believe we have a starting point. It is often touted that BRT is insanely cheaper and quicker but thats not always the case, these factors do depend on the city itself but overall they honestly come out fairly equal. Where they differ drastically is in terms of investment around the lines, while deciding factors are a bit ambiguous, rail tends to see a larger ROI but I will say, this is a much harder factor to truly grasp because it depends on so many factors. Yes BRT can be done cheaper, but so can rail, it's kind of just all about ROW and what a transit agency is trying to do. 

 

Overall, I would say I still favor rail because it carries a lower stigma, always feels more integrated into neighborhoods and culture, has a significantly higher capacity, and tends to run more efficiently in all weather situations. I think there may be a lot to discuss here, but as for a breakdown I hope I was able to help. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diesel or propane buses also cost a lot more to run on a daily basis than streetcars due to maintenance and fuel, especially at 1/3rd the passenger capacity. Also the drivers are a lot more expensive when you cut capacity by 66%. Drivers are a major cost.

 

13 hours ago, cityscapes said:

 

As other comments have stated light rail or streetcars attract greater investment / density along the route because they can't easily be removed. If COTA decided the CMAX wasn't working out they could probably get rid of it with minimal barriers, it would take a lot to dismantle an entire rail based system that cost billions to construct. 

 

Light rail most of the time runs in a dedicated ROW unlike a streetcar or BRT system and has fare gates like a subway and sometimes have sections that are underground or elevated. You can find examples of BRT or Streetcars that do go underground or elevated but that's uncommon. There's really no set definition for each because they can all contain some or all of the elements you'd find in a regional high capacity system like a subway line. 

 

CMAX is not BRT so, quite frankly, that's not an argument that can be made. CMAX is just a regular bus line with a lot of additional branding and slightly fancier bus stops. CMAX has very little built up infrastructure compared to a true BRT line with protected lanes, stations with fare gates, ROWs, etc. 

 

There are many BRT systems that have the same amenities as subways and other rail lines. Just because it's a bus rather than a train doesn't mean you can't build similar stations. We aren't even talking about a subway line though, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up. We are talking specifically about a streetcar on Broad Street vs a true BRT line on Broad Street. 

 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

CMAX is not BRT so, quite frankly, that's not an argument that can be made. CMAX is just a regular bus line with a lot of additional branding and slightly fancier bus stops. CMAX has very little built up infrastructure compared to a true BRT line with protected lanes, stations with fare gates, ROWs, etc. 

 

There are many BRT systems that have the same amenities as subways and other rail lines. Just because it's a bus rather than a train doesn't mean you can't build similar stations. We aren't even talking about a subway line though, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up. We are talking specifically about a streetcar on Broad Street vs a true BRT line on Broad Street. 

 

 

 

Exactly, the CMAX cost about $50 Million to build but offers little to no advantage over an express bus. The CMAX isn't spurring development, isn't creating a transit corridor, and isn't significantly faster. While, I believe BRT lite systems like CMAX do have a place in urban transit planning because of their fantastic ability to gauge ridership demand and build a transit user base, they will never be able to achieve much more than that.

 

Something interesting to consider is the Orange Line BRT in LA. The orange line is true BRT built in 2005 at a cost of about $350 Million (2019 cost of $453 Million) with dedicated lanes all the way from North Hollywood to Chatsworth. The line has been increasing ridership since its inception and is now being considered for a conversion to rail to help increase capacity and influence denser development. While it is looked at as a success, I think it should also be looked at as a slight mistake. Metro, now only 14 years after sinking the equivalent of $450 Million into the line, is going to pay an additional few hundred million to put down rails where they should have been in the first place.

 

Long winded response to why rail would be a better solution for Broad Street than BRT? Streetcar/LightRail is a permanent solution with environmental, capacity, development, and ongoing maintenance benefits that surpass those of true BRT at a virtually equal cost point. Ultimately every major city in the world has figured out that it will always come back to rail, either pay the money now or later. The only true benefit of building a BRT over rail is construction time; the cost benefits of BRT are overblown and will likely just end up back at a solution that has been around for centuries. 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 20196 yr by DevolsDance
Oxford Comma

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

CMAX is not BRT so, quite frankly, that's not an argument that can be made. CMAX is just a regular bus line with a lot of additional branding and slightly fancier bus stops. CMAX has very little built up infrastructure compared to a true BRT line with protected lanes, stations with fare gates, ROWs, etc. 

 

There are many BRT systems that have the same amenities as subways and other rail lines. Just because it's a bus rather than a train doesn't mean you can't build similar stations. We aren't even talking about a subway line though, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up. We are talking specifically about a streetcar on Broad Street vs a true BRT line on Broad Street. 

 

 

 

But we can't guarantee that a BRT line on Broad will end up any differently than the CMax on Cleveland Avenue.  As has been discussed, Columbus tends to take the "good enough" position on infrastructure and transit, and there's really no reason to think that's going to change for Broad Street.  The fact that they punted on the bike lanes strongly supports this conclusion. 

 

As for whether BRT can be as good as rail... no.  As I said, I do think well-done BRT lines can be very effective, but even at their best, they just do not have the same advantages. 

1. Rail has greater capacity than BRT.

2. Rail promotes far more development.

3. BRT doesn't necessarily cost less to build, especially if it's a fully fleshed out line.

4. Rail infrastructure and cars lasts far longer than bus infrastructure and the buses themselves. 

5. Rail has no emissions.  BRT may or may not depending on the type of bus.

6. Rail is more likely to have consistent schedules of arrival and departure, even when compared to BRT in dedicated lanes. 

7.  Weather is far less disruptive of rail service than BRT.

8. There is no social stigma attached to rail like there is with buses.  People who may not ride the bus may ride a train.

9. Rail can cover larger distances than buses are used for.  A rail system connecting Columbus with Delaware or Newark or any other major metro suburb would be far more effective than a bus would be. 

10. Rail doesn't have to use existing roadways to function.  Tracks can be laid both on and off-road.  This is important when connecting areas that don't exist on a grid pattern, like suburbs and newer subdivisions. 

 

All that said, I still think BRT can work in places that wouldn't make sense, such as in lower-density areas and shorter trips.  I've ridden my share of BRT, where it had center-street raised platforms, dedicated lanes, pay kiosks, articulated buses, etc. and it was nice.  But it wasn't without issues.  Even with dedicated lanes, it could easily become stuck in traffic at intersections (and with other buses that had become bunched up together) and suffered from overcrowding.  Those problems could affect rail, but they are less likely when done correctly. 

 

I'm not sure why so many people have a severely negative reaction to even the idea of rail.  Sure, it's an old technology, but so is the car.  So is the bus.  So is the airplane. 

6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But we can't guarantee that a BRT line on Broad will end up any differently than the CMax on Cleveland Avenue. 

 

My initial question clearly stated that my assumption was a true BRT line would be implemented. As I've stated, CMAX is not a BRT line. 

 

Along that same line of thought, we can't guarantee a streetcar line will be properly implemented. This is beside the point though. I simply wanted to have a discussion about the merits of a properly implemented BRT line and a properly implemented streetcar line along Broad Street in Columbus. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to remain on that specific topic. Oh well, let's get this thread back to Franklinton developments. 

2 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

My initial question clearly stated that my assumption was a true BRT line would be implemented. As I've stated, CMAX is not a BRT line. 

 

Along that same line of thought, we can't guarantee a streetcar line will be properly implemented. This is beside the point though. I simply wanted to have a discussion about the merits of a properly implemented BRT line and a properly implemented streetcar line along Broad Street in Columbus. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to remain on that specific topic. Oh well, let's get this thread back to Franklinton developments. 

 

We all have very much remained on topic.

 

You asked "How is light rail any better than an actual BRT line? t seems to me that the cost of constructing a light rail line far exceeds the cost of a BRT line (with true bus designated/protected lanes and the whole 9 yards) without providing much additional value."

 

I think we've all put a fair and valid effort to answer your question. A few of us have provided everything from price breakdowns to comparisons, rider and public experience, and retail ownership POV, all points of view really. The merits are that it would cost about the same (maybe more long term), have lower capacity, lower development potential, but  be constructed quicker. Was there a more specific thing you were wanting?

50 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

 

We all have very much remained on topic.

 

You asked "How is light rail any better than an actual BRT line? t seems to me that the cost of constructing a light rail line far exceeds the cost of a BRT line (with true bus designated/protected lanes and the whole 9 yards) without providing much additional value."

 

I think we've all put a fair and valid effort to answer your question. A few of us have provided everything from price breakdowns to comparisons, rider and public experience, and retail ownership POV, all points of view really. The merits are that it would cost about the same (maybe more long term), have lower capacity, lower development potential, but  be constructed quicker. Was there a more specific thing you were wanting?

 

Again, let's get back to talking about Franklinton development. This discussion should probably be shifted to a transit thread. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

My initial question clearly stated that my assumption was a true BRT line would be implemented. As I've stated, CMAX is not a BRT line. 

 

Along that same line of thought, we can't guarantee a streetcar line will be properly implemented. This is beside the point though. I simply wanted to have a discussion about the merits of a properly implemented BRT line and a properly implemented streetcar line along Broad Street in Columbus. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to remain on that specific topic. Oh well, let's get this thread back to Franklinton developments. 

 

Um, several people, including myself in the very post you’re quoting, have given quite a few reasons why rail is the better option. That was the topic of discussion, so why are you acting like it wasn’t addressed? 

Also, the discussion is related to Broad Street in Franklinton, is it not?  

Edited March 29, 20196 yr by jonoh81

Broad Street in Franklinton had streetcars the first time around, I'd imagine. The Broad Street corridor is definitely the kind of environment where a streetcar (or the streetcar portion of a light rail system) is likely to result in economic development and a restoration of the mixed-use street wall. Both BRT and BRT Lite would be much more of a question mark in creating those same things. As it stands right now several spaces are underutilized such as the old Easyriders, old Graham Ford and old David Hobbs BMW.

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Broad Street in Franklinton had streetcars the first time around, I'd imagine. The Broad Street corridor is definitely the kind of environment where a streetcar (or the streetcar portion of a light rail system) is likely to result in economic development and a restoration of the mixed-use street wall. Both BRT and BRT Lite would be much more of a question mark in creating those same things. As it stands right now several spaces are underutilized such as the old Easyriders, old Graham Ford and old David Hobbs BMW.

It actually had a couple lines, including the Camp Chase interurban.  

Edited March 29, 20196 yr by jonoh81

5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Also, the discussion is related to Broad Street in Franklinton, is it not?  

Well this is a thread for development and news for Franklinton, and there is no news regarding BRT or light rail or streetcars, and there is no development proposals either for any of these. It does kind of get off topic in a way. JMO. 

 

It should be in a transportation thread if there is no news of it or plans set forth for it. This is beyond the discussion of the bike lanes and road changes-that is news and a proposed development in the area. BRT and light rail are not.  There is no news or development proposals for either. Everything is just speculation regarding BRT and rail-again, there is no news of it, no development proposals for it-see title of thread. JMO.  And a commenter on CU is NOT news!-especially given the comments there lately and that troll Wyatt something-or-other.

 

*Should be part of a Central Ohio public transit thead or something...will have to see if some such thing exists lol.

Edited March 29, 20196 yr by Toddguy

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Um, several people, including myself in the very post you’re quoting, have given quite a few reasons why rail is the better option. That was the topic of discussion, so why are you acting like it wasn’t addressed? 

 

Yeah that's what I thought the question was: 

On 3/28/2019 at 3:09 PM, cbussoccer said:

 

This doesn't address any of points. I simply want to know how a light rail line brings enough additional value in comparison to a legit BRT line to justify the much higher cost. Saying "the Columbus mindset won't implement a real BRT line" doesn't answer any of my questions. Heck, by that logic, who is to say the "Columbus mindset" won't totally screw up a light rail line similar to what has happened in Cincinnati. 

 

I want to see proof that a real BRT line is not part of the "real stuff", is "weaker", and is "fake innovation". I think this is an important conversation to have because if we can implement a transit line that accomplish what the ideal light rail line would accomplish at half the cost, why wouldn't we do that? However, if light rail truly is the best bang for your buck, we certainly need to go that route. 

 

After it was answered you've said everyone was going off topic... 

59 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Well this is a thread for development and news for Franklinton, and there is no news regarding BRT or light rail or streetcars, and there is no development proposals either for any of these. It does kind of get off topic in a way. JMO. 

 

It should be in a transportation thread if there is no news of it or plans set forth for it. This is beyond the discussion of the bike lanes and road changes-that is news and a proposed development in the area. BRT and light rail are not.  There is no news or development proposals for either. Everything is just speculation regarding BRT and rail-again, there is no news of it, no development proposals for it-see title of thread. JMO.  And a commenter on CU is NOT news!-especially given the comments there lately and that troll Wyatt something-or-other.

 

*Should be part of a Central Ohio public transit thead or something...will have to see if some such thing exists lol.

 

There was news about remaking Broad street, including bike lanes, which brought up the transit issues for that section.  I don't think it was off-topic, though maybe some of the rail debate was.

 

Who is Wyatt?

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There was news about remaking Broad street, including bike lanes, which brought up the transit issues for that section.  I don't think it was off-topic, though maybe some of the rail debate was.

 

Who is Wyatt?

Well I did go back and look at the thread on CU where the COTA stuff was mentioned, and if someone could verify that it would fall then at least under a vision, which would actually make it ok then for this thread. Anyway it is only really "borderline" off topic since it is about street improvements as you mentioned. I wish we could verify any plans or "visions" COTA might have for it.  I guess it just lead to where it did sort of organically.

 

The discussion is good, I just wonder if there is a better or broader(no pun intended)place for it. There is not a general "Columbus mass transit thread" in the Transit section-just separate threads for COTA and light rail, so there is no place for general mass transit discussion. Not surprising given this is Columbus we are talking about.

 

*Wyatt is a CU commenter who seems to be against anything that is indicative of/goes along with growth in Central Ohio.  Very "anti" but not in the lamentionish given-up-all-hope way, just in the annoying condescending way.

Edited March 30, 20196 yr by Toddguy

17 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There was news about remaking Broad street, including bike lanes, which brought up the transit issues for that section.  I don't think it was off-topic, though maybe some of the rail debate was.

 

Who is Wyatt?

Spoiler Alert: Wyatt is really Dolores

On 3/30/2019 at 12:59 PM, 17thState said:

Spoiler Alert: Wyatt is really Dolores

OK...help me out on this...?

 

Whomever it is, they are annoying.

 

*Nevermind..google is my friend.

Edited March 31, 20196 yr by Toddguy

12 hours ago, 17thState said:

Spoiler Alert: Wyatt is really Dolores

 

these violent delights have violent ends 

I might know how to get us back on topic..

 

 I cannot wait to see some updates on Gravity 2.0 or the new CoverMyMeds HQ. I feel like I never saw any actual hard dates for when these projects were supposed to break ground. I know there was some preliminary work being done at the Gravity 2.0 site around mid-February, but I think they still had some permits to clear. Likely the same for the new CoverMyMeds HQ. Does anyone know the latest on these projects?