Streetcar systems can not work properly in all cities.  Primarily cities in the south that have been built in a more sprawled out fashion...and lack the dense urban cores that Midwestern/East Coast cities have.

 

What about the TODs that would follow?

Streetcar systems can not work properly in all cities. Primarily cities in the south that have been built in a more sprawled out fashion...and lack the dense urban cores that Midwestern/East Coast cities have.

 

As many areas of cities are currently designed and built? Maybe not. So if you want streetcars, want them to be effective and want their benefits, then change the setting....

 

http://www.urban-advantage.com/projects.html

 

And check out these, by the same outfit (Urban Advantage). The Denver/Colfax images are my favorite....

 

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/transformations/index.asp

 

 

I think most cities could, at least in their downtown, for certain routes.

 

Even Astoria, Oregon, with a population of around 10,000, has a streetcar.

That's incredible. And as you've mentioned, creating the street car inherently spurs valuable dense development.  I remember you talking to my planning class about what street cars have done for the pearl district, and I think cases like that would be very inspirational, even to cities that don't have the best land use already in place. Maybe in the near future, street cars can come before dense urban development, as opposed to density being a prerequisite, as street cars gain credibility and investors notice what has been happening recently.

That's incredible. And as you've mentioned, creating the street car inherently spurs valuable dense development.  I remember you talking to my planning class about what street cars have done for the pearl district, and I think cases like that would be very inspirational, even to cities that don't have the best land use already in place. Maybe in the near future, street cars can come before dense urban development, as opposed to density being a prerequisite, as street cars gain credibility and investors notice what has been happening recently.

 

Hi all, ive heard alot about the huge amount of investment in the pearl district in Portland following the installation of the streetcar (something like 2 billion) I am however, skeptical about the effect that the streetcar has had on this figure. Would these developments not occured without the streetcar? Now dont get me wrong i support mass transit, im just skeptical about the figures thrown around about portland and other streetcar systems

Streetcar systems can not work properly in all cities.  Primarily cities in the south that have been built in a more sprawled out fashion...and lack the dense urban cores that Midwestern/East Coast cities have.

 

As many areas of cities are currently designed and built? Maybe not. So if you want streetcars, want them to be effective and want their benefits, then change the setting....

 

http://www.urban-advantage.com/projects.html

 

And check out these, by the same outfit (Urban Advantage). The Denver/Colfax images are my favorite....

 

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/transformations/index.asp

 

That might all work if life was more like SimCity, but it's not.  There are limited funds, economic trends/forces, political systems and different mindsets for each area of the country.  To tell you the truth, some areas just don't have what it would take to set up a successful streetcar network.  It's a much more personal transit setup than a lightrail or what not where it can operate solely as a commuter line.

 

Streetcar systems are either functional from tourists or actual walkable living environments where people will be using it as the pedestrian accelerator in their daily life.  Sure you can change the built environment around, but it's going to cost a HELL of a lot more to make Phoenix a good community for streetcars than it would to make Cincinnati or Cbus.  Bottom line is that it's not cheap to substantially change the built environment.  That is why places with the infrastructure in place, for more sustainable living environments, will be the next boomtowns in America...hence the projection by many real estate experts that the Midwest is the next migration point.

I've heard presentations by the engineers (HDR) who developed the Portland Streetcar system and even they don't claim the streetcar is solely responsible for all of the dense development.  But it is clear that the streetcars have been a major contributing factor to such development and the extensions have done so as well.  The fact that it is integrated with both the Portland bus system and light rail also figures into the impact on development.

 

That might all work if life was more like SimCity, but it's not. 

 

Thanks for the cheap shot.

 

And, you mentioned Phoenix? Maybe Columbus and Cincinnati will have a local streetcar line or regional light-rail system someday. Or maybe you could move to Phoenix by next year, in time for the opening of their $1 billion, starter light-rail line. And, parts of which operate as a streetcar. I'm sure you are well aware of this, but even as you chide Phoenix for not having transit supportive land uses, they can chide Columbus and Cincinnati for not building rail transit of any kind. Maybe that will change in a few years. Phoenix doesn't have to wait for "maybe"....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then there's those car-crazy places where they said rail would never happen, and if it did, it wouldn't work -- like Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Minneapolis, Sacramento, San Jose, Orlando, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc. that are building or have built rail. Most are even investing in hugely expensive station-area developments. Change happens.

^It wasn't meant to be a cheap shot at all.  I'm just saying that while change can happen in places like Phoenix and so on...it costs much, much more for those communities to alter their built environment to be able to properly sustain that kind of transit.  As I said, light rail is one thing...but streetcars are another.  Phoenix I'm sure can support a light rail/commuter line that turns into streetcar downtown...but could they support a streetcar only system just servicing inner-city neighborhoods?  I tend to think not...hence the light rail/streetcar hybrid you mentioned.

 

I'll just cover one of the others for the sake of time.  While LA is car crazy, as you put it, it is also one of the densest cities in the nation...and the rest of the Cali cities are pretty darn dense as well.  Once again, perfect for those TOD type developments, but maybe not so much of the more personal transit options like streetcar.  These are just my observations, maybe I'm wrong.

They didn't use to be that dense, and many of California's cities that gained light rail in the past 25 years still aren't dense away from where the light-rail lines are. And that's my point -- the transformative potential of light rail/streetcars. In my 20 years as a compensated transit advocate, I've seen rail transit and supportive land uses get built in cities where I never thought the culture would accept it. And I've seen rail transit repeatedly fail to materialize in cities where I thought the culture would embrace it but didn't.

Here's a phenomenal article that really backs up KJP's point about the transformative nature of rail transit.  Be sure to click on the interviews in the sidebar too. Good stuff.

 

http://www.governing.com/articles/6transit.htm

 

Charlotte is generally thought of in the same light as Columbus.  They've got similar average commute times (20-25 minutes), and always get labeled as having a "car culture".

 

Also...a few citizens and I have started up a transit blog called X-ing Columbus ( http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/ ).  If anyone would like to be a contributor (KJP and Noozer I'm looking squarely at you ;)), please drop us a line.  We'd like to have many contributors adding fresh content as possible.  Hopefully it'll prove to be accessible to our city leaders, transit planners, etc...  I'm thinking of adding a spot to sign online petitions on there as well (probably wouldn't be formal, but showing support is showing support).

My point is still that it is much easier and financially feasible to insert streetcars here in the midwest/eastcoast where you don't have to build the line and then build the buildings as well.  Sure you may have to renovate some buildings and do some infill...but have the actual infrastructure in place and ready to go is a comparative advatage over the alternative.

 

This is of course not taking social/political climates into the consideration...but that is another whole can of worms.

Of course it is, but what also matters is people believing in the potential of certain city neighborhoods. Downtown Columbus isn't very dense and could certainly use some infill but having a streetcar system going through downtown would provide more of an incentive to develop on surface lots, thus creating a more dense environment as a result of the street car. I think Columbus has a comparative advantage in the general attitude of inner city residents.

Yes Columbus does have a comparative advantage even in built environment.  They have the streets, sewer, water, electric, etc all in place for a development...many new growth cities are still building that stuff as they go since they are growing as cities and do not have it all in place yet.

 

It is low cost to plop a midrise building in the inner-city of Cbus, but it becomes much more costly when you have to build the roads, sewers, etc in addition to the actual project.  When the desirability of inner-city neighborhoods gets closer to that of suburban areas…then you will see the investment dollars shift.

One of the things that will actually help in terms of costs for Columbus is that almost the entire portion of North and South High Street that would serve as the "spine" of the streetcar line was completely re-built from the dirt up a few years ago.  And the engineering firm that helped do that work is the same one engaged in the streetcar planning process... HDR. That means they have the prior blueprints and plans and won't have to re-invent the wheel (no pun intended) at least for the High Street portion of the plan.

 

Columbus has the advantage that the connection between its downtown and major secondary area, OSU, is pretty much perfectly straight and level.  The only logistical problem facing it is that High St. is a very heavily used bus corridor and a streetcar between downtown would be doubling the task of the #2 bus and then all the approaches of the various other bus lines which fan out north of OSU.  There is the prospect of the #2 and some other bus lines simply terminating at Woody Hayes or another point on the north side of OSU with all riders transfering to a very frequent streetcar service at that point as to minimize the streetcar/bus conflict.  There would surely be some grumbling about the transfers but otherwise it's going to turn into a bit of a mess between downtown and OSU. 

 

 

That's probably an issue in most cities that have street cars.

That's probably an issue in most cities that have street cars.

 

the cincinnati plan has the streetcar using the left hand lane and the buses on the right side on the heavily bus traveled main and walnut.  in cincy the whole route, (except for a small portion at 12th and mcmicken) is one way streets.  I think the columbus line would be on two way streets, but I am not certain.

If it runs on High St. it would be a 2-way street. But from dowtown to OSU wouldn't it occupy the center portion used as a turn lane on both sides? Wouldn't it still allow for 2 lanes on each side?

Nevermind. I can see why that wouldn't work. But I wonder if they could add an extra lane on the side of the road that the streetcar occupies and eliminate that center turn lane?.

It would be a DISASTER, to elimante the turn lane, in columbus car is still king, and if you get rid of the center lane, just put streetcars in there, then you are forced to get rid the of the meters that line high st. through the short north.  Those business cannot afford to loose those meters. The lanes need to stay the same, on the high st. portion of the street car line.  I go to Toronto a lot and there the street cars just run in the same lane as the traffic and when they must make a stop they stop even if the lights green, or cars in front are going.  People are just aware of the street cars and realize they need to be watching in front of them to make sure they dont hit one.  It becomes part of the driving culture. 

You say disaster, I say opportunity. 

 

Why not use it as an opportunity to get more cars off of High St. and onto 3rd/Summit/4th where they belong.  It might even spur development off of the High St. corridor (I always find it amazing that we can only support one commercial street through the heart of this town).

 

I do agree that part of the beauty of a streetcar line is that they can run along with traffic, but for the stations, eliminating a portion of the turn lane, or a few parking spaces will hardly be the end of the Short North as we know it.

I thought I heard that once the streetcars were in place, bus travel on those roads would cease.

Bus travel would still be needed for longer routes. Maybe they could bypass certain parts of High street via one of the streets that runs paralelll to High. I don't even want street cars to run up High! I want it to run up and down Broad St into Franklinton and Old Town East. Those areas need community development the most!

What I meant was that people would transfer to streetcars if they were going south on say High Street and hit campus. When the streetcar tracks begin, people wishing to stay on High would transfer to the streetcar while the bus would move to other southbound streets.

Streetcars on High Street would allow COTA to re-configure their bus service to better serve downtown corridors along 4th, 3rd and Front Street.

Not quite true, the streetcar could not replace the service on High St., perhaps make it more streamlined but it would still have to run down High.  The #2 also serves Main St. so people wanting to go from north of the street car service area to main street wouldn't want to transfer two times just to finish their trip.  All in all I don't see the streetcar alleviating too much pressure off of the #2 since most of the business comes from commuters going to work and not other trips and most of those people come from the north.  It certainly would fill in for the less frequent weekend service of the #2 but next year COTA is suppose to expand its service, which includes revamping service along High st, 4th, and 3rd.

 

I could see the streetcar serving as a mini-collector for people wanting to use the #2.  Eliminate some bus stops along the streetcar route and pick them up in a few places so the bus can travel faster than the street car. 

 

Really I don't support a street car on a dedicated track idea but rather a dedicated street car bus that looks similar and serves a similar purpose but doesn't function on a dedicated track.  We can even make it electric but it would be able to change its route if anything were to happen that required a change.  This would be easier to not only put into effect but maintain.

 

 

Really I don't support a street car on a dedicated track idea but rather a dedicated street car bus that looks similar and serves a similar purpose but doesn't function on a dedicated track.  We can even make it electric but it would be able to change its route if anything were to happen that required a change.  This would be easier to not only put into effect but maintain.

 

The whole object of streetcars (and light rail for that matter) is that it is a fixed guideway system and thus a major reason reason it attracts new riders to transit.  There is a certainty to where it goes, as well as a reliability in terms of when the next one comes along.  This is something that buses have a difficult time doing, precisely because their routes (with the exception of major trunk routes like COTA's #2, 4 and 10 for example) are so circuitous.  Most potential new riders won't take the bus for exactly that reason: if they are not familiar with the system and are at all unsure of where it goes, they will likely not ride.

This argument is used again and again but its not really a fair comparison.  A fixed route trolley bus would serve the same purpose as a streetcar and look like one. The path would be the same on usual days as would the frequency, but it has the ability to go around any issues in the way and can be put into play alot faster.  Bus routes are only circuitous due to route design not because of any inherent characteristic of the bus.  The #2 is a prime example of a bus route that is frequent and highly used.  The street car's use comes from its easy access, frequency, and open design not because it runs on rails.  Can't really call a bus route that goes up and down a small portion of high street circuitous.

I'm not 100% convinced the research conducted for the streetcar is unbiased enough.  I had to read some of it and it just seemed like they found data that screamed for a street car over buses, and other alternatives; ignoring alternate research.  I really think using a fixed route bus trolley would be better overall, not only would it be more flexible but it wouldnt cost the huge infrastructure cost of a street car and would be more easily supported by politicians and the like.

This argument is used again and again but its not really a fair comparison.  A fixed route trolley bus would serve the same purpose as a streetcar and look like one. ... I really think using a fixed route bus trolley would be better overall, not only would it be more flexible but it wouldnt cost the huge infrastructure cost of a street car and would be more easily supported by politicians and the like.

 

This has been tried all over the United States many, many times with very poor results. Some group scrapes enough money together to buy a few fake truck-trolleys, and they are heavily promoted but used sparingly until the vehicles start to wear out or the two or three years of operating money runs out. Right now, lots of these vehicles can be had for virtually nothing because, after the initial euphoria runs out, the sponsor group moves on, there's no sustainability for a fake streetcar that "looks like one." No one wants them anymore except maybe high-demand tourist cities where most people fly in or the parking costs a bunch.

 

And the "flexible" argument? The truth is that the value of any transportation improvement is its inflexibility, the idea the it will always be there to be counted on. Who would value Port Columbus if it were "flexible"? Should I-71 be "flexible?" Should your own street be "flexible"?

 

People crave authenticity in their cities these days -- that's a key driver of the back-to-the city movement around the country. They're too smart to be happy with the fakes.

Part of the problem with High St. is that it capriciously varies in width from block to block from downtown, where it is very wide, up to Clintonville where it again becomes consistantly wide.  Sometimes it only widens by 5 or 10 feet for a block or two, then it narrows again.  This makes it difficult to come up with a simple plan for where the tracks would be located in the street throughout the route and what to do about on-street parking.  An idea to consider is to have it as it approaches downtown shift over to Park St. at Buttles through the most congested part of Short North, although this causes problems with the many large parking garages in the Arena District that empty out all at once after events. 

 

I think the better idea is to simply declare High St. more of a side street and pedestrian street and attempt to shift as much traffic as possible onto Summit and 4th, which is where that traffic should be to begin with.  Everyone knows driving down Summit or Neil is faster than High St. and with more barriers to that traffic fewer people will continue to use High St.  Also there is a lot of motorcyle cruising and juvenile car cruising that congests High St. that could be ended by retarding traffic.

 

This is geared towards cincinnati streetcars, but the gist is the same

 

The Streetcar As part of a larger transit system: Why busses and streetcars are different

If the only purpose of building the streetcar was to act solely as people mover, then substituting busses instead of the streetcar might be worth studying. However, the streetcar has a dual purpose, both to move people around Downtown and Over-the-Rhine and to focus and spur economic development. The streetcar’s ability to revitalize urban neighborhood sets it apart from any bus system or electric bus trolleys.

 

Downtown Cincinnati is already traversed by dozens of bus lines. Busses are an important part of any transportation system, but due to their impermanence they do not focus economic development like a streetcar does. To change a bus route, all you need to do is re-paint a few different telephone poles. To change a streetcar route you need to tear up the track and move it—an unlikely event.

 

The streetcar is a more comfortable ride on smooth, freshly laid tracks. It is easier for the disabled to use. On busses, people in wheel chairs have to wait for the lift to be extended, board, and then be strapped into place by the driver. On the streetcar, someone in a wheelchair needs only to press a button on the outside of the car, a ramp extends and they roll right on.

 

The capacity of streetcars is greater than busses, especially important on days when there is a Reds or Bengals game. A streetcar can carry 130 passengers. It would take about three fully loaded busses to reach that same capacity. Vintage Trolley busses carry even fewer riders. It would take four or five trolley busses to equal the capacity of a single streetcar.  Each trolley bus would have to have its own driver as well, adding to the operational costs of the system.  Streetcars also last much longer than busses.  Busses last for about twelve years, but streetcars can easily be in service for 30 or 40 years, some refurbished streetcars have been in service even longer.

 

Streetcars are easier to navigate than busses. Many people don’t know where the 47 or 16 busses go, but the streetcar has rails in the ground. You can look down the street and see the direction they run.

 

The streetcar attracts riders that would otherwise not ride the bus. When traveling to New York City or Chicago, may people will ride the subway or the “L”, but few visitors ride the busses. People have a preference for fixed track transit.

 

In Portland when the streetcar line opened, bus ridership fell by around 1000 per day but the streetcar had 5300 total riders per day. More than 4000 people who didn’t regularly ride the bus, chose to ride the streetcar.

 

Many people ride the bus because they have to. People ride a streetcar because they want to.

 

Sadly busses are badly stigmatized. Erasing this stigma is important, and the streetcar will help this cause. The Streetcar will expose new riders to public transportation. After riding the streetcar, people might be more likely to branch out and try other forms of public transportation

 

^Yes...but clearly that is coming from all that liberal propaganda down in Cincinnati.  :laugh:

This has been tried all over the United States many, many times with very poor results. Some group scrapes enough money together to buy a few fake truck-trolleys, and they are heavily promoted but used sparingly until the vehicles start to wear out or the two or three years of operating money runs out. Right now, lots of these vehicles can be had for virtually nothing because, after the initial euphoria runs out, the sponsor group moves on, there's no sustainability for a fake streetcar that "looks like one." No one wants them anymore except maybe high-demand tourist cities where most people fly in or the parking costs a bunch.

 

And the "flexible" argument? The truth is that the value of any transportation improvement is its inflexibility, the idea the it will always be there to be counted on. Who would value Port Columbus if it were "flexible"? Should I-71 be "flexible?" Should your own street be "flexible"?

 

People crave authenticity in their cities these days -- that's a key driver of the back-to-the city movement around the country. They're too smart to be happy with the fakes.

 

Roads are flexible, by nature they have lanes and you can move about them. I'm not talking about running times as far as flexibility goes, I'm talking about mobility and ability to move around the many Hight St. obstacles that come up not frequency and reliability.  Buses and trolleys can have the same frequencies, poor or great, I don't argue that fact.  My point is the bus trolley would be cheaper, quicker to implement, flexible as far as mobility is concerned, and can be used elsewhere during off peak times or construction.  What if the trolley fails!? Then we are stuck with it and political skirmishes start. 

 

Also, where has this been tried and failed?  I'm sure it has but probably not because its a bus trolley, probably because it was put into an already dying area and a true trolley would cost too much.  They are cheaper and more likely to be utilized as an experiment in dying areas thus showing that they fail more than very costly trolleys which are usually put in areas that have high potential for growth, excluding historical ones.  I don't quite see why you said it will fool people, are you really that sure that a trolley is going to be better transportation than a trolley with wheels?  Is a bus trolley not a testament to the midwest, ohio inparticular as it has a rich history in automobiles, as a place of autos and innovation? I dont see how a trolley relates to us at all, unless we attach horses to the front and pretend its 1880.

 

Again, I don't buy the whole "not knowing where it is going".  I find it an excuse unfounded in reality.  The argument is that tracks exist so they know where they are going, but what if a trolley line ran the length of a full dedicated bus route.  You don't know where the tracks go now, once they turn a corner or are out of your neighborhood.  Its a bunk excuse comparing a full length bus route to a short range trolley route.  I dont buy that its easier for the disabled to use, all of COTA's buses have ramps and osme of the buses can kneel for the elderly and those that need it.

 

Now don't get me wrong I'm all for doing something to boost the economic growth and communities along the proposed trolley line.  I just don't think it is the best use of our dollars.    I agree with Jmecklenborg that High St. should be turned into a slow traffic, community and shopping oriented strip.  Some of our money can go towards diverting traffic instead of spending it all to build a trolley line that iwll create more traffic and have to spend more later fixing that issue.

Columbus already has bus trolleys, or did until recently.

Dayton also uses them today I believe.  It is still not a rail option and therefore you miss out on a potential user base that won't ride public transit other than rail.  Look at it this way...McDonalds has its burgers and that's what they're known for.  Sure they could keep selling only burgers or they could expand their reach and also sell chicken sandwiches.  Why would you not want to do that, even if it may not generate the revenue as the other or may be more expensive to produce.

COTA ran a fleet of "fake trolleys" and beyond being a curiosity, people saw them as what they were: a sham.  I think COTA only runs them in charter service now and for special events.

 

As for the concern over being "stuck" with it if streetcars fail:  not much chance of that happening.  Almost every city that has put streetcars in operation has found them to be successful and generating growing ridership.  Developers (again look at Portland and other cities) are investing in adjacent properties and vacant land because the tracks mean this is a long-term investment.  The track record (no pun intended) suggests otherwise for buses.

 

Now one could say recent development in Downtown Columbus is taking place in a bus environment, but I believe there's more to it than that.... namely that most of this development is happening at least in part in anticipation of a downtown streetcar being established.  To be sure, there are other factors, but the Downtown Residents Association of Columbus (DRAC) is even now circulating petitions in favor of the streetcar and many of the members of the original Streetcar Working Group were key members of the Downtown business and development community.

 

BTW: Ohio not only has a "rich history of automobiles", but it also has a rich history of interurban trolleys and streetcars that preceded most Ohioans ownership of private automobiles.  The automobile may be the mode of choice for many today, but it's not entirely by choice. We've funded and built a system that is predisposed toward the automobile and discourages the use of public transportation.

 

Given the price of gasoline ($3.09 at my local Sppedway station this morning), I would much rather have the option of a streetcar, light rail or commuter rail.

Now one could say recent development in Downtown Columbus is taking place in a bus environment, but I believe there's more to it than that.... namely that most of this development is happening at least in part in anticipation of a downtown streetcar being established.  To be sure, there are other factors, but the Downtown Residents Association of Columbus (DRAC) is even now circulating petitions in favor of the streetcar and many of the members of the original Streetcar Working Group were key members of the Downtown business and development community.

 

Now that would be some speculation.  What is the timeline currently for the Cbus streetcar system?  I would guess at the earliest 5 years out, and you're saying that current projects are coming online in anticipation of that route that may or may not happen 5 years down the road.

 

I don't think that has started happening in Cincy yet and that is with a system potentially coming online in 3-4 years.  Once it is all approved and a done deal then I would expect to see the speculation buyers start to pop up like crazy in both cities.

The most recent info I have is that the Mayor wants the system up and running in time for the Columbus Bi-Centennial in 2012. 

 

Like I said, downtown development may not be entirely due to anticipation for the streetcar line, but I believe it certainly is a factor in the most recent projects. 

Polis, I would encourage to do on-site comparisons of "trolley buses" and streetcars in various cities before commenting further. Talk to merchants along the routes, to public officials and, of course, to riders. I realize this is probably something you're not willing or able to do in a short period of time. But experience with these different systems over a number of years and even decades might cause you to change your mind. If you still feel the same way after the experience, then you've at least done the due diligence. I encourage to read the following:

____________

 

Consider Tucson, AZ, where riders pay one dollar to ride the city's historic streetcar line while a rubber-tired "trolley bus" with a 25-cent fare got half the streetcar's ridership.

 

Visit Kenosha, WI, where a 1.1-mile heritage streetcar circulating downtown and linking to Chicagoland's Metra regional rail system is credited with spurring significant housing development at a former auto plant site along the lakefront (see image below).

 

 

And this, from APTA's website:

 

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS OF VINTAGE/HERITAGE TROLLEY AND STREETCAR LINES

 

The street railway was a major catalyst of urban development in the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th. Streetcars provided mobility that enabled workers to reach their factory jobs while living further than walking distance from their places of employment.  They enabled growth of suburbs and then brought people to city centers in sufficient density to support the development of department stores, major league sports, large theaters, and even created America's classic amusement parks, where streetcars could take workers on weekends.

 

But the decline of American cities in the 20 years after World War II was paralleled by the decline of electric streetcars.  Paved roads and affordable autos sent workers and often jobs further from downtown, and buses were developed that could transport the few who couldn't afford cars, but consequently helped give public transit a down-market image.  But a renewed interest in America's downtowns, spurred in part by ever-longer commutes on traffic choked arteries, and by the soullessness some found in suburban life, served to reverse that trend.

 

Full story at http://www.heritagetrolley.org/Overview.htm

Thanks KJP. :clap:

 

 

What made Kenosha's so much cheaper than Tampa's or Portland'?

Kenosha bought five second-hand streetcars from Toronto. Portland and Tampa bought new ones (though the Tampa streetcars were designed to look old). And I believe much of Kenosha's streetcar line is actually built next to the road, not in it.

I believe it was a pre-existing right of way

 

From Tim Doulin's "Cranky Commuter" blog in the Columbus Dispatch:

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/blogs/blog_commuter.html

 

All aboard?

 

During the state of the city speech last year, Mayor Michael B. Coleman floated the idea of streetcars for Downtown.  That was about 18 months ago. And a decision whether to have streetcars is probably several months off.  Last November, a 40-plus member working group appointed by the mayor to study the feasibility of such a system told Coleman that it was doable and even identified some potential routes.

 

Early this year, the mayor appointed a steering committee to identify funding.  This summer, the city hired a national consultant to help out.  They are expected to present their findings to the city in four or five months.  Some are worried that the streetcar will go the way of efforts to bring light rail to central Ohio.  Something that looks good on paper, is fun to sit around and talk about, and even spend some money studying, but ultimately, doesn’t get built.

 

Posted by Tim Doulin on September 5, 2007 9:51 AM

 

So we already got the green light to go ahead with streetcars, why are they looking for funding? Wasn't that mostly already taken care of by the streetcar working group? I just can't believe they're letting it just sit there on the shelf. You know what's going to happen, it's going to be the Main St. bridge all over again. The blue line will cost $100 million or more and if only they had secured funding to get it built sooner they could have built the red line all the way up to OSU for the same price. I'm pretty frustrated with this city, in case you couldn't tell.

How are they supposed to have a "green light" for streetcars when they don't have the funding? The working group was an advisory group and empowered only to make recommendations. It doesn't have the legislative authority to assess fees, raise taxes or reallocate resources among governmental authorities. Only the governmental authorities can do that. This is the discussion that's happening now. The fact that this discussion is happening is a cause for rejoicing, not for frustration.

 

Major construction projects take years -- even longer when governments (in Columbus and every city) are involved because of legislatively proscribed processes they must follow. There are road, rail, airport projects in just about every city that are still considered "active" but have been in the planning stages for decades. If Columbus can get a streetcar operating in a few years, that will be tremendous! And considering how fast this project is developing, there's no reason to doubt that will happen.

1000 Friends of Central Ohio Invites You To

 

"Give Yourself a Pay Raise:

                  Smart Transit Mean $$$$ in Your Wallet”“

 

  Wednesday, October 10, 6:00 pm- 8:00 pm

                              The Venue at Smith Brothers

                580 North 4th St.

                  $50 Ticket Price - Hors d’oeuvres & cash bar

 

Guest Speaker Michael Reese, Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Coleman

          “Progress on the Downtown Streetcar Project”

 

Get engaged!  We want your input, Central Ohioans!

 

This is an exciting networking event. Be part of the public discussion on how more

transportation choices benefit us all!

 

The Columbus Streetcar is the first link to better choices in transportation, a critical issue 

if Columbus - and your own household - are to stay economically viable.

 

As an added benefit, your ticket will count towards your annual membership dues! (A $50 value)

 

Register today! [email protected]

Send check to: 5423 Wine Tavern Lane

Credit card on-line at www.1kco.org

Cash or check at the door

I'd love to be more engaged, but I don't know about paying $50 to do so.  :(

That's part of the cost of making sure the advocacy effort stays strong and diverse.

Just a reminder of tonight's opportunity to ask questions about the Downtown Columbus Streetcar Plan:

 

"Give Yourself a Pay Raise:

                  Smart Transit Mean $$$$ in Your Wallet”“

 

  Wednesday, October 10, 6:00 pm- 8:00 pm

                              The Venue at Smith Brothers

                580 North 4th St.

                  $50 Ticket Price - Hors d’oeuvres & cash bar

 

Guest Speaker Michael Reese, Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Coleman

          “Progress on the Downtown Streetcar Project”

 

I'm also hearing that one new option being considered is to change the initial route to go further north into the OSU campus and hold off on running into German Village until after the I-70-71 Split project is done.  Makes some sense since such a massive project would disrupt the streetcar line into that part of the near-downtown.  But I'm also told nothing firm has been decided.