The editor of 614 magazine doesn't seem to enjoy the idea too much:

"Now, excuse me while I hop in the heated seat of my comfortable SUV and make the harrowing 14-minute, 9-mile journey home which the taxes sloshing around my gas tank paid for."

 

http://614now.com/2014/opinion/opinion-dont-be-railroaded-columbus

 

Ugh

The editor of 614 magazine doesn't seem to enjoy the idea too much:

"Now, excuse me while I hop in the heated seat of my comfortable SUV and make the harrowing 14-minute, 9-mile journey home which the taxes sloshing around my gas tank paid for."

 

http://614now.com/2014/opinion/opinion-dont-be-railroaded-columbus

 

Ugh

 

Gross.

It's great that an able-bodied middle (or upper) class white guy between the age of 18-59 feels that everyone else doesn't need rail transit. What part of town does he live in again?

That opinion piece by the 614 Magazine publisher strikes me as click-bait for his website/magazine.  614 Magazine has been a sparsely read free publication since it began - and it's profile has only diminished over time.  (I didn't even know they were still around!)  Maybe the 614 publisher really does believe every word in his anti-rail opinion piece.  But it runs counter to virtually every other public official and media publication in Columbus.  And would thereby get his struggling magazine noticed.  So it just seems a bit suspicious that it might be less than genuine.

 

However, the answer to his question of why rail transit is economically and developmentally desirable above the standard COTA routes was answered by the developer of the Portland Streetcar system in a June 2014 video from the Columbus Metropolitan Club forum on 'Return On Investment of Public Transit' previously posted HERE.

 

And in a way he's not wrong when he opines "Rail in (Columbus) is a want, not a need".  But as I've stated previously in this thread, Columbus wants to advance as an urban city.  The development side of this advance is doing quite well.  There is a huge building boom in the Short North and Downtown.  But the public transit side is lagging behind.  Although COTA's new CBUS circulator route that connects the Short North - Downtown - German Village/Brewery District is big step forward and a possible precursor to a future streetcar line.  So this want vs. need argument is also a red herring.

Don't know where he got his numbers on Cleveland's rapid transit, but per GCRTA, there were 6.4M on the red line and 2.9M on the blue/green/waterfront in 2013 (http://www.riderta.com/news/good-news-ridership-rta-rose-third-straight-year). That equates to over 25k/day and not the 8k/day he stated... Being from cleveland, I don't know all the ins and outs of cbus, but light right is definitely an option for all urban areas, and there are many areas that can benefit from it in Cbus! Port Columbus Airport included. For someone that's so against it such as he, well... It's those who will continue to promote sprawl instead of dense urban areas with availability to good public transportation.

 

Hope city council sees past individuals like himself, and I hope Cbus continues to progress!!

Wouldn't Columbus be better served by rail from Downtown to the north side? Connecting downtown with OSU and all the vibrant neighborhoods in between seems like a much more useful transit corridor than connecting downtown to the airport. The Cbus airport is small, and it doesn't seem like there would be great demand for this line. Maybe for a secondary line, but I think the first rail line should be along the corridor with the greatest potential ridership, and one that would be the most visible and active. It's the same reason why the Cincinnati streetcar is starting in the core, with the first expansion planned to the university area. Make the first line undeniably successful, sell people on rail transit, and then expand to other parts of the city. 

It was well before I moved to Columbus, but I'm pretty sure there was a streetcar proposal between downtown and OSU that had made it pretty far in the planning stages before something killed it. Too bad too, because I agree that is the logical spot for a first line IMHO especially with how parking in the short north is going to become even more scarce.

Honestly, I think people need to see that rail transit "works" in the midwest before there will be widespread support for such a plan. Fortunately Cincinnati went through the decade-long fight and will come out of the battle with a functional streetcar system in 2016. I predict that once it's been up and running for a year or so, and people can make a short drive to Cincinnati and experience it for themselves, you'll start to see support for streetcar and light rail systems in nearby cities. Right now rail transit is an abstract concept to most Ohioans and they don't understand how it could fit into their lives.

Cleveland rail transit ridership is 10 million per year, or one-fourth of all Cleveland RTA transit trips (not including all of the collar-county systems that operate into Downtown Cleveland). If you include the HealthLine as part of the dedicated "rapid transit" corridors, ridership increases to nearly 15 million trips per year. Total COTA ridership is about 18 million per year. And Cleveland is one of the lowest ridership rail systems in the USA.

 

Cleveland's low rank may not last as development is popping up at a furious pace around rail/BRT stations: http://allaboardohio.org/2014/08/22/5-5-billion-in-development-built-or-announced-since-2012-wwith-2000-feet-of-cleveland-railbrt-lines/

I think rail makes sense in a lot of places, but it isn't the best fit for all areas.  It's hugely expensive to build rail, so the ROI has to be fairly high to justify the costs (ROI can be measured in many ways imo).  That a single, relatively new BRT line has a ridership equal to 50% of the entire Cleveland rail system is reason to second guess how and where we implement new transit investments. If I am not mistaken, development has been booming around the Healthline, so there is some evidence that BRT can also drive development in a way that rail was previously only thought capable.  For a fraction of the cost of a new light rail line, you're moving more people and driving development- the two goals of transit investment.  Outside of dense core areas that are best served by streetcar circulators, it seems that BRT (real BRT, not the weak Metro+ lines that Cincy has been trying out) makes the most sense for most of Ohio's cities. 

 

I can also see the desire and justification to create a rail "spine" for Columbus from downtown to the northern burbs, passing through the Short North, OSU, etc. as well, simply because that area has the density and destinations to support rail.  Anywhere else in Columbus, though, should be investigating BRT should they be seeking dedicated ROW transit in my opinion.  Pittsburgh seems to be a good model for Ohio in this regard.  They have a really solid network of BRT, limited rail to the burbs, and a solid rail network in (under) their core. 

Can anyone provide statistics illustrating ridership on Euclid Ave. buses before and after the Health Line?  What was the bus frequency before and after?

 

And it's insane to suggest BRT for High St. when it is so congested for 2-3 miles between the Arena District and OSU.  Signal timing is no advantage when there is total gridlock.  And Pittsburgh's BRT lines often travel on completely dedicated roads in ravines -- they don't mix with regular traffic at all. 

Can anyone provide statistics illustrating ridership on Euclid Ave. buses before and after the Health Line?  What was the bus frequency before and after?

 

And it's insane to suggest BRT for High St. when it is so congested for 2-3 miles between the Arena District and OSU.  Signal timing is no advantage when there is total gridlock.  And Pittsburgh's BRT lines often travel on completely dedicated roads in ravines -- they don't mix with regular traffic at all. 

 

I don't think there was any change in service frequency between the #6 and the HealthLine. The ridership on the #6 was 2.9 million trips in 2004. Then construction began in 2006 as ridership on the #6 fell to 2.6 million. The HealthLine began service in late 2008 near the worst of the recession. I don't know what the HealthLine's ridership was in its first year after (I'm sure the data is out there on google), but ridership in 2013 was 4.9 million.

 

Some of that is from trips diverted off the #32 (Cedar) and #9 (Mayfield) which no longer go all they way downtown (most trips terminate at UC), but that didn't account for the HealthLine's ridership growth as the #32's total ridership in 2004 was 592,587 and #9's total was 871,647 in 2004. After these routes short-turned back at UC into the Heights, ridership on the #32 fell to 435,125 and the #9 fell to 647,919. So the 260,000 +/- trips lost, some of which were probably diverted to the HealthLine didn't account for very much of the HealthLine's increase.

 

BTW, the Euclid Avenue signal prioritization for HealthLine buses was turned off by the city after it received complaints from motorists (allegedly from some influential ones) who had to wait at intersections for buses. GCRTA paid $15 million for HealthLine signaling and communications, much of which came from federal funds. So the travel time savings are less than what they should be, and the traffic signals can cause buses to bunch up if one bus gets caught by a series of signals and the bus behind it doesn't.

 

Probably the biggest benefit to the HealthLine is a complete rebuilding of the city's "main street" -- a very old street with very old infrastructure dating back to the early 1800s. All of that was rebuilt, from the new storm and sanitary sewers and high-capacity telecommunications interducts up to the overhead signals and signage. It is now a 21st century thoroughfare that is attracting tech companies because of its super-fast internet infrastructure: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_will_seek_to_become.html

Those ridership numbers are surprising!

 

Ridership Data from Ohio Transit Agencies (2013):

 

Cleveland: 45.6M

Cincinnati: 18.78M

Columbus: 18.76M

Dayton: 10.2M

Akron: 5M

Toledo: 3.1M

Canton: 2.3M

Portage County (Kent): 1.4M

Youngstown: 1.3M

 

Cleveland is definitely the big dog in the state.

EDIT: Updated with 2013-14 numbers from OPTA (Source: http://www.ohiopublictransit.org/PDF_files/2013-14_DIRECTORYopta.pdf)

I believe TANK has an annual ridership of about 4 mil, which should really be added to Cincinnati's total, bringing it to 22 million transit trips in the region. Cleveland is still far and away the leader in transit in Ohio, but with TANK included, Cincinnati is more solidly in second.

The challenge with that, is then you can say the same about other suburban routes that bring people in - the Clermont Connection in Cincinnati, Laketran in Cleveland, etc. Where you draw the line is challenging, although TANK's proximity to downtown and the fact that so many of the lines are centered around downtown give your point extra weight. I think it would be beneficial to the region for TANK and METRO to merge and form and multistate RTA.

^I don't know about Laketran, but I can't imagine the Clermont County bus system (didn't even know they had one) accounts for very many trips at all.  Metro and COTA, and I'd imagine RTA, have suburban routes counted among their regular service as it stands.  I think the majority of TANK's ridership comes from park and rides from KY to Downtown Cincinnati and the Southbank Shuttle that just connects the river cities to downtown.  I think it'd be fair to include them in Cincinnati's numbers, though I agree that it would be much easier if the two systems merged.

Clermont County's system nearly solely provides commuter service in to downtown Cincinnati. They have 3 routes, two of which connect to downtown and the other connects the two routes via the county seat, and it provides nearly 80K rides on these three routes, which is pretty good, I think. It was their response to providing their own commuter service rather than pay in to Metro like Butler and Warren Counties do to provide suburban commuter routes. I see your point though.

Clermont Connection and Laketrain don't have their primary hubs in their core cities' downtowns. TANK's primary hub is the same as Metro's: Government Square. Merging the systems is, of course, long overdue.

 

Edit: guess I'm wrong about Clermont. Regardless, using only Metro to compare to COTA gives an inaccurate picture.

 

And it's insane to suggest BRT for High St. when it is so congested for 2-3 miles between the Arena District and OSU.  Signal timing is no advantage when there is total gridlock.  And Pittsburgh's BRT lines often travel on completely dedicated roads in ravines -- they don't mix with regular traffic at all. 

 

Idk if your statement was directed to me, but I never said anything about High Street having BRT.  I said that the High Street corridor would be the one in Columbus that I could see making sense for rail.  It does raise the question though, if High is already so congested, would the best transit fix be to have surface running light rail on a parallel street? A subway under High is obviously not going to happen, and it seems like the effectiveness of the line would decline fairly significantly the further it was moved away from High. While I think the northern corridor would be a fit for rail, I also think BRT could work- even on High.  If Wilshire Blvd. can accommodate BRT, I think Columbus could find a way to make it work on High.

 

As for Pittsburgh, I know that much of their BRT is in ravines, and that such a situation wouldn't be directly transferable to Columbus.  Their BRT is more of a system of busways, some in natural ravines, some in trenched roads, and some in blended traffic.  The MLK busway's first mile or so is on regular shared traffic city streets downtown. They're also planning a real (Cleveland-esque) BRT line from Downtown to Oakland.  Pittsburgh has been very innovative with their transit system, and it's in a completely different league than anything we have in Cincinnati.

Clermont Connection and Laketrain don't have their primary hubs in their core cities' downtowns. TANK's primary hub is the same as Metro's: Government Square. Merging the systems is, of course, long overdue.

 

Edit: guess I'm wrong about Clermont. Regardless, using only Metro to compare to COTA gives an inaccurate picture.

 

Yeah - combining the numbers for TANK, METRO, and CTC to get 23M is probably a more accurate ridership of fixed route bus service to Cincinnati for the metro area.

 

And it's insane to suggest BRT for High St. when it is so congested for 2-3 miles between the Arena District and OSU.  Signal timing is no advantage when there is total gridlock.  And Pittsburgh's BRT lines often travel on completely dedicated roads in ravines -- they don't mix with regular traffic at all. 

 

Idk if your statement was directed to me, but I never said anything about High Street having BRT.  I said that the High Street corridor would be the one in Columbus that I could see making sense for rail.  It does raise the question though, if High is already so congested, would the best transit fix be to have surface running light rail on a parallel street? A subway under High is obviously not going to happen, and it seems like the effectiveness of the line would decline fairly significantly the further it was moved away from High. While I think the northern corridor would be a fit for rail, I also think BRT could work- even on High.  If Wilshire Blvd. can accommodate BRT, I think Columbus could find a way to make it work on High.

 

As for Pittsburgh, I know that much of their BRT is in ravines, and that such a situation wouldn't be directly transferable to Columbus.  Their BRT is more of a system of busways, some in natural ravines, some in trenched roads, and some in blended traffic.  The MLK busway's first mile or so is on regular shared traffic city streets downtown. They're also planning a real (Cleveland-esque) BRT line from Downtown to Oakland.  Pittsburgh has been very innovative with their transit system, and it's in a completely different league than anything we have in Cincinnati.

 

 

The Wilshire Blvd BRT does not have a dedicated lane like Cleveland.  Moreover you don't want anything traveling fast on High St. or on 4th or Summit because they are residential streets.  I've suggested before that High should have streetcars AND a subway, just to get people stirred up.

 

 

 

My preferred plan would actually have light rail on surface streets downtown then move to the existing rail corridor east of 4th then peel back toward campus on surface streets. High being only two lanes through the Short North makes it a no go for rail.

I've suggested before that High should have streetcars AND a subway, just to get people stirred up.

 

Confine your "stirring up" to the Hipsters thread, Jake.  The projects threads are for more factual posts.

Clermont Connection and Laketrain don't have their primary hubs in their core cities' downtowns. TANK's primary hub is the same as Metro's: Government Square. Merging the systems is, of course, long overdue.

 

Edit: guess I'm wrong about Clermont. Regardless, using only Metro to compare to COTA gives an inaccurate picture.

 

FYI, Laketran, Akron Metro RTA, Stark Area RTA and Portage Area RTA contribute a total of about 300,000 annual trips into downtown Cleveland. Laketrans runs frequent service on a half-dozen routes into downtown, while Akron Metro runs two routes with 11 weekday round trips from Akron while SARTA and PARTA run only 2-3 weekday RTs from Canton and Kent, respectively.

 

My preferred plan would actually have light rail on surface streets downtown then move to the existing rail corridor east of 4th then peel back toward campus on surface streets. High being only two lanes through the Short North makes it a no go for rail.

 

High Street is five lanes -- two through lanes each way and a center turn. This street was wide enough for streetcars and it's wide enough for modern, street-running light rail. The old LRT plan had the tracks heading from High Street over to the CSX corridor along I-71 via Iuka Ravine (Iuka Avenue) so that it can serve both OSU and the Fairgrounds/Crew Stadium.

 

This map over-simplifies the routing.....

 

http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/light-rail-on-columbus-wish-list/

 

I actually feel that running it through the SN is too much of a double-down.

Good luck getting it on the busy NS/CSX route. Those two railroads are notoriously difficult to work with just on passenger rail in general, much less comuter rail.

Good luck getting it on the busy NS/CSX route. Those two railroads are notoriously difficult to work with just on passenger rail in general, much less comuter rail.

 

COTA had a signed agreement with CSX to build an intermodal facility in/near Marion in exchange for CSX giving COTA its entire right of way from Columbus north to Galion where its Indianapolis Line splits off to the west via Marion and Bellefontaine. COTA would then retain two strips within the ROW -- one for LRT and the other for 3C intercity passenger rail.

"Columbus is already a growing, successful city. What do we need rail for?"

 

Ever hear that question or something comparable? I have, a few times. My gut-based answer was "perhaps it could grow faster if it had rail." But I had no data or comparison to back up that gut feeling.

 

I do now....

 

Two Capitals: 1 w/LRT, 1 w/out How Has Transit Fared in Each?

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/LRT/JSchuman2.pdf

 

That's a document worth saving and using in the future. It doesn't offer a guarantee that Columbus would be a bigger big city with rail because local politics and/or community culture can block it (as it has), but it does provide some fact-based, real-world guidance on achieving a certain outcome.

I actually feel that running it through the SN is too much of a double-down.

 

I would tend to agree with that. High St in the Short North is very congested. My thought would be to run up High St. as far as Goodale, turn east to 3rd/Summit, turn north and run to Weber Rd. The Weber/3rd/Summit area could become a TOD node. North of Weber, I would NOT go on CSX/NS, but instead would run up Indianola to Morse, where another TOD node could be developed. From Morse, we would stay on Indianola for a short distance and then shift over to former Columbus, Delaware and Marion right of way to Rt 161. Save going further north for a second phase which would be more like a light rail line than a streetcar.

 

I actually feel that running it through the SN is too much of a double-down.

 

I would tend to agree with that. High St in the Short North is very congested. My thought would be to run up High St. as far as Goodale, turn east to 3rd/Summit, turn north and run to Weber Rd. The Weber/3rd/Summit area could become a TOD node. North of Weber, I would NOT go on CSX/NS, but instead would run up Indianola to Morse, where another TOD node could be developed. From Morse, we would stay on Indianola for a short distance and then shift over to former Columbus, Delaware and Marion right of way to Rt 161. Save going further north for a second phase which would be more like a light rail line than a streetcar.

 

 

...or run light rail up High Street and remove all automobile traffic.

...or run light rail up High Street and remove all automobile traffic.

 

Now we're getting back into "Jake's subway" territory.  Keep it to reality people.

...or run light rail up High Street and remove all automobile traffic.

 

Now we're getting back into "Jake's subway" territory.  Keep it to reality people.

 

We're not talking about the Youngstown pedestrian mall here.  High street is a high density, very pedestrian, linear shopping corridor.  There are dozens of case studies around the world (and a few in the US) that show how adding high capacity transit and then removing traffic can actually aid further growth.  Baltimore and Buffalo added light rail to try and save a dying corridor, Madison, Boulder, Minneapolis and Denver did it to ease growing pains.  Columbus is in the latter category.

We're not talking about the Youngstown pedestrian mall here.  High street is a high density, very pedestrian, linear shopping corridor.  There are dozens of case studies around the world (and a few in the US) that show how adding high capacity transit and then removing traffic can actually aid further growth.  Baltimore and Buffalo added light rail to try and save a dying corridor, Madison, Boulder, Minneapolis and Denver did it to ease growing pains.  Columbus is in the latter category.

 

I'm sorry.  But that's missing the point (except for the 'easing growth pains' part).  Those examples don't replicate what we've been discussing about Columbus.  High Street is a major north-south vehicular street in the entire central ohio region.  You can't just remove it from the system without causing major disruptions elsewhere.  That's the "reality" I was referring to.

 

I went into more detail previously in this thread - HERE - about what streetcars would add to Columbus.  But in brief, streetcars will get built here on a business and quality-of-life basis.  Having a streetcar system connecting Short North to Downtown to German Village/Brewery District would benefit both existing and future convention business and the many hotels spread throughout downtown.  As more and more people are living in the Short North and Downtown - not to mention those already living in the tony German Village and the grittier Brewery District - they are looking for convenient transportation options within the Short North, Downtown and German Village/Brewery District areas.

 

A route similar to the Cbus shuttle that has been operating since May 2014 would be welcomed.  Indeed, the Cbus/proto-streetcar route has been exceeding ridership expectations with nearly 350,000 trips to date.  A share-the-road streetcar system similar to what Portland has been doing for many years would be welcomed.  And I personally feel that once Cincinnati's streetcar system is up and running - and more and more people in Columbus will be able to see it "first-hand" - a groundswell for a streetcar system will become undenible (if it isn't already underway by then).

We're not talking about the Youngstown pedestrian mall here.  High street is a high density, very pedestrian, linear shopping corridor.  There are dozens of case studies around the world (and a few in the US) that show how adding high capacity transit and then removing traffic can actually aid further growth.  Baltimore and Buffalo added light rail to try and save a dying corridor, Madison, Boulder, Minneapolis and Denver did it to ease growing pains.  Columbus is in the latter category.

 

I'm sorry.  But that's missing the point (except for the 'easing growth pains' part).  Those examples don't replicate what we've been discussing about Columbus.  High Street is a major north-south vehicular street in the entire central ohio region.  You can't just remove it from the system without causing major disruptions elsewhere.  That's the "reality" I was referring to.

 

I went into more detail previously in this thread - HERE - about what streetcars would add to Columbus.  But in brief, streetcars will get built here on a business and quality-of-life basis.  Having a streetcar system connecting Short North to Downtown to German Village/Brewery District would benefit both existing and future convention business and the many hotels spread throughout downtown.  As more and more people are living in the Short North and Downtown - not to mention those already living in the tony German Village and the grittier Brewery District - they are looking for convenient transportation options within the Short North, Downtown and German Village/Brewery District areas.

 

A route similar to the Cbus shuttle that has been operating since May 2014 would be welcomed.  Indeed, the Cbus/proto-streetcar route has been exceeding ridership expectations with nearly 350,000 trips to date.  A share-the-road streetcar system similar to what Portland has been doing for many years would be welcomed.  And I personally feel that once Cincinnati's streetcar system is up and running - and more and more people in Columbus will be able to see it "first-hand" - a groundswell for a streetcar system will become undenible (if it isn't already underway by then).

 

High Street is a major street, but vehicular traffic on it is not vital.  There's Neil St for OSU-Downtown traffic, US-23 (4th and Summit) for Clintonville and Worthington-OSU-Downtown traffic) and Olentangy and I-71 for people further North.  Personally, I think the map 10 posts ago is a near perfect light rail alignment. 

ProkNo5, if you are serious about this (and not being like Jake with his facetious subway proposal) then I'll treat it seriously.  It sounds like you mean well and see this as a way forward to adding streetcars/light rail in C-Bus.  But it would be counter-productive to that goal.  Here's why:

 

"High Street is a major street, but vehicular traffic on it is not vital."

 

--- Tell that to those who just opened the new Le Meridien hotel along High Street.  Or to the retail/office/parking garage portion of the Joseph Project across High Street from the hotel.  Or to the Hubbard mixed-use development (retail/residential/parking garage) that opened last year along High Street.  Or to the Jackson residential tower that opened a few years ago along High Street.  Or to the Fireproof mixed-use development (retail/residential) that is close to completion along High Street.  Or to the many other renovations along High Street.  Or to the many infill developments being proposed along High Street.  Or to the small businesses, restaurants and retailers that depend on the visibility they get from multiple transportation modes along High Street, vehicular being a major component.  (You can view all these Short North developments at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2062.msg736649.html#msg736649)

 

"There's Neil St for OSU-Downtown traffic, US-23 (4th and Summit) for Clintonville and Worthington-OSU-Downtown traffic)"

 

--- The residents of Neil Avenue, Fourth and Summit Streets aren't interested in additional traffic on their neighborhood streets.  In fact, they want less traffic, at lower speeds, in a new road diet configuration with less lanes going through their neighborhoods.

 

"Olentangy and I-71 for people further North"

 

--- Olentangy and I-71 are already being used for that purpose.  High Street is mostly local intra-city traffic.  Closing High Street to all vehicular traffic would divert massive traffic flows onto side streets in the city, where it is neither wanted or needed.

 

"Personally, I think the map 10 posts ago is a near perfect light rail alignment."

 

--- I like it too.  But the poster never advocated closing High Street to vehicular traffic.  In fact, KJP said this: "High Street is five lanes -- two through lanes each way and a center turn. This street was wide enough for streetcars and it's wide enough for modern, street-running light rail."  That makes sense to me as well.

 

Certainly there would be issues with adding streetcars/light rail to High Street in the Short North.  But removing all vehicular traffic is not the way to get it done.  That kind of proposal would make adding streetcars and/or light rail DOA.  Again, I'm taking your suggestions in a well-meaning, helpful light and not in a facetious light.  We both want the same thing, and there's a way to do it.  But removing all vehicular traffic on High Street isn't it.

I think it'd be a disaster to turn High Street into a transit only corridor. Increasingly, we are seeing a move more towards integration of uses rather than separation.  While dedicated ROW is certainly advantageous for regional systems, I don't think it should come at the expense of removing another form of transportation (the dominant one, at that) all together.  Actually, Buffalo is reverting their pedestrian and transit mall back to a fully functioning, two way street while maintaining current transit (https://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/Home/City_Departments/Public_Works_Parks_Streets/CarsSharingMainStreet) 

 

I think there is a way to make a mixed traffic system of cars and streetcars on High Street, even if it means getting rid of on street parking on one side of the street.  The other thing that I think makes the transit possibilities in Columbus interesting are all the one way streets that exist far outside of downtown.  Before spending much time around OSU, I never knew how prevalent the one-ways are in Columbus.  4th and Summit are both really wide, fast moving arterials, and it seems like they would both be prime candidates for transit, although both seem to be fairly residential, and a bit of a walk from the main commercial artery of High Street.

Yeah I don't think that turning High St. into a pedestrian mall is a good idea.  I also don't think that regional transit works if trains are in mixed traffic on what is sometimes the most congested three miles in the state.  A streetcar line is fine, but that can't be the trunk line between OSU and DT Columbus.  Also Summit/4th are a distraction -- I don't see how someone can suggest a trunk line that avoids OSU and the Short North area.   

^I guess it comes down to the goal of the transit. If the intent is to move people between OSU and Downtown, why wouldn't a streetcar on High St work?  If the goal is to be more of a regional/commuter system aimed at getting folks from north side neighborhoods and suburbs to downtown, then hitting the commercial district wouldn't be as much of a concern.  How about both? A streetcar to serve as a connector from say, German Village to OSU, and a light rail spine on 4th and/or Summit.  That would probably be the optimal solution.

I'd think it would be better to have a slightly slower moving streetcar on High, than a faster one on Summit, 4th, or Neil. The walk to High St would probably take longer than having the train sit through some High St traffic. Also, if a rider's destination is near Neil and the train runs up Summit, or vice versa, the walk would take a prohibitively long time for many people. Another reason -  South of campus there are more people West of High, whereas at campus and points North, there are more people East of High. Due to High St's angle.

 

Get rid of the street parking and build the thing on High St. They could even build garages on the city surface lots in the Short North to pacify people who complain about the loss of parking.

 

Construction would be a nightmare though. Remember when everyone freaked out about Euclid Corridor in CLE and all those business supposedly shut down and whatnot? There would be a lot of resistance from Short North and Campus business owners.

I think the ideal rail transit system for American cities that don't currently have them is light rail that runs in mixed traffic in the urban core and dedicated ROW once it gets out into surrounding neighborhoods. And I wish we'd just call them "trams" like Europe instead of making a somewhat arbitrary distinction between "streetcars" and "light rail". A Seattle-style system (light rail that's completely grade separated & streetcars running in mixed traffic) is really nice as well, but prohibitively expensive in states like Ohio that refuse to invest in transit.

I'd think it would be better to have a slightly slower moving streetcar on High, than a faster one on Summit, 4th, or Neil.

 

Yes, I agree.  Station locations matter more than speed.  But as a regional trunk line the congestion delays in Short North will be a big problem.

 

I disagree about eliminating on-street parking and loading zones.  Build the tracks in the driving lanes, maybe have the driving lanes divert into the center lane at stops.  Get rid of buses on High St. between Lane and Downtown, have buses either turnaround at that point and transfer all riders to streetcars. 

 

In Cincinnati, we are running the Streetcar up and down Elm & Race in OTR.  When that was first proposed it was  heavily criticized.  Main street (3-4 blocks away) had most of the businesses & Vine Street 1-2 blocks away was under redevelopment.  People said, why are you putting over there where there are blocks of boarded up buildings and no body to ride it, run it up main or vine where the actual businesses and people are. 

 

Fastforward 7 or 8 years and Elm & Race are seeing tons of redevelopment because of the line.  Main & Vine are still fine and growing, but we've created demand a few blocks further. 

 

I only say this because while High through SN obviously makes a ton of sense from a current connectivity standpoint, it would be great to see a new route help revitalize something nearby (if there even is anything nearby that needs help). 

 

If High through SN is the final route I would definitely demand signal priority for the rail cars. 

 

Very exciting though and I hope it moves forward!

Maybe it could work South of Fifth Avenue on 3rd and Summit. These are the "roughest" areas of the Short North, and also relatively close to High St. (North of 5th, I think Summit and 3rd are too far from OSU's campus.) A big difference however is that while OTR and presumably the streetcar route have a lot of old mixed use buildings, the alternative streets in Columbus are 90% residential, detached houses. The Short North and OSU are incredibly High Street-oriented. There is almost no other retail/restaraunts/offices/etc anywhere else.

 

German Village is a bit more like many CLE and Cinci neighborhoods, with less of a 'main strip' and more of business and restaurants scattered on random corners.

Well I stand corrected.  I would have bet money that Summit and 4th are consistently wider than High St., and that High is consistently wider than typical Cincinnati streets, but it turns out that they're all typically 66ft between property lines north of DT Columbus, which is the exact same as most Cincinnati streets.  The difference is that most Cincinnati sidewalks are slightly wider, resulting in 40-42 foot wide 4-lane streets whereas Columbus has many 45-foot 5-lane streets. 

 

That said I don't think that doing a pair of somewhat speedier tracks on Summit/4th is an acceptable compromise to a pair of tracks on High St.

 

^ It's essential that Columbus advocates gain consensus on a streetcar alignment, at least among themselves, early-on in the process. This is what Cincinnati did. Before our streetcar plans went public, we figured it was good to connect the busiest part of the CBD -- where the center of the office space is, where the Great American Ball Park is, where the cultural and entertainment assets are -- with Findlay Market and the less-occupied western half of Over-the-Rhine.

 

The thinking was, connect the large employers -- there are six Fortunre 500 companies within two blocks of the Cincinnati Streetcar as it runs through the CBD -- with a lot of vacant housing and downtown's once and future grocery store, Findlay Market, as a means of repopulating OTR. Not only the Fortune 500's, but also their law firms, accounting firms and other companies that support them and are are clustered around them.

 

The result was, the alignment never changed throughout six years of intense debate on our streetcar except that four blocks of the westbound direction shifted one block north from Central Parkway in order to penetrate OTR sooner. So opponents were never able to exploit disagreement on the route into general opposition to the project. No one ever produced any credible criiticism of the route, and this was a wind at our backs. Sure there was plenty of other opposition, but the route was never the center of it.

 

The opposite happened in Fort Worth. The city set up a planning process to evaluate five or so routes radiating in several directions from the center of the CBD to the close-in, improving neighborhoods around it. Each route has its advocates and detractors, and there seemed to be great debate among the merits and shortfalls of each of them (it's been a few years, and I don't recall the specifics of each of them.)

 

This fight-in-the-family gave opponents the ammunition and time to get their act together. And they eventually won over the Bass Family, which pretty much runs Fort Worth and owns a large mall in the CBD. What I gather is that they didn't want the competition from the emerging neighborhoods outside the core, neighborhoods like Over-the-Rhine and Short North. It suffered a sudden and unexpected death.

 

There's a lesson here. It may or may not be applicable to Columbus, but I'd at least think it through. This forum is probably a good building block for doing that.

The nice thing is, in Cincinnati, I imagine there was practically only one choice. You could argue about which route to take, but West of downtown is rail yards, East of downtown is freeways and a steep hill up to an isolated (albeit nice) neighborhood. South is Kentucky. The only way to go was North.

 

In Columbus, I would hope it is also a similar no-brainer. East/West Broad is unlikely at this stage. German Village is great, but the gravity of OSU as not just a place where people live (many of them without cars), but also an employment center, would hopefully pull consensus to going North. The fact that the neighborhoods to the North of Downtown really only have one major commercial street, hopefully would make that street the no-brainer as well.

 

If Ft. Worth couldn't even agree even on which neighborhood to go to, seems like that would lead to a very simple case of divide & conqueror.

The nice thing is, in Cincinnati, I imagine there was practically only one choice. You could argue about which route to take, but West of downtown is rail yards, East of downtown is freeways and a steep hill up to an isolated (albeit nice) neighborhood. South is Kentucky. The only way to go was North.

 

In Columbus, I would hope it is also a similar no-brainer. East/West Broad is unlikely at this stage. German Village is great, but the gravity of OSU as not just a place where people live (many of them without cars), but also an employment center, would hopefully pull consensus to going North. The fact that the neighborhoods to the North of Downtown really only have one major commercial street, hopefully would make that street the no-brainer as well.

 

If Ft. Worth couldn't even agree even on which neighborhood to go to, seems like that would lead to a very simple case of divide & conqueror.

 

What you really want to do is observe Willie Keeler's saying: "Hit 'em where they ain't."

 

Don't go to the neighborhood that's already arrived and is functioning well unlless your objective is purely transportation. Connect an established center with an under-populated area where there are development opportunities galore.

Yes, the neighborhoods North of downtown are certainly chugging along fine, that's for sure. But, a North High Streetcar would certainly be used and appreciated by the people in those neighborhoods. Plus, it is an employment center similar to what you described about Downtown Cincinnati.

 

East Broad/Old Towne East would probably be the best option for development opportunities galore. Maybe a giant L from OSU down to the statehouse and then Eastward along Broad.

I agree you want to go north. I'd just pick a route where it can have a material impact on the built environment in addition to fulfilling its mobility mission. You're not gonna get much of the former on High Street -- it's pretty well developed. Plus I suspect the traffic engineers would never let you on there.

Yes, the neighborhoods North of downtown are certainly chugging along fine, that's for sure. But, a North High Streetcar would certainly be used and appreciated by the people in those neighborhoods. Plus, it is an employment center similar to what you described about Downtown Cincinnati.

 

East Broad/Old Towne East would probably be the best option for development opportunities galore. Maybe a giant L from OSU down to the statehouse and then Eastward along Broad.

 

I've often thought that an L-shaped route which followed the current #2 bus alignment would work well, taking High to Downtown, and then going out Main to Capital University as an anchor on the other end. Main was historically much more of a commercial/mixed-use street than Broad was on the East side, and is already quite healthy and densifying in the Bexley area.