This story made my day. In my opinion, multi-modal transportation is exactly what Ohio needs to provide affordable transportation, healthier communities, attract an educated, creative work force, and create economic development. Okay, maybe as a transportation engineer/planner I’m being a little too idealistic about what transportation can do, but I really think it’s critical to creating a bright future for Ohio.
Transportation-policy group sees trains, bikes, boats in Ohio’s future
Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:12 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCHCars still may be king in Ohio, but James Beasley says that needs to change.
Beasley, the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation since March 2007, outlined a vision of a less car-centric state at a summit yesterday to plan Ohio’s transportation future.
Trains could carry more passengers and freight. Rivers aren’t used to their potential as conduits of goods. Even bikes ought to be seen as a means to commute rather than simply as recreation.
Those points were raised during the first meeting of the Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force, a 62-member panel that’s supposed to sketch the future of transportation in the state.
The buzzword was “multimodal” — a seamless web of roads, airports, rail lines, bus and bike routes, and even boats.
“I would definitely say it’s a big policy change,” Beasley said. “We’re talking multimodal. There are many choices toward moving people and freight.”About 250 people attended the summit at the Ohio Department of Transportation headquarters. They included local officials from throughout the state, economic-development leaders, building contractors, a handful of environmentalists and at least one Ohio resident.
The proceedings were shadowed by the high cost of gas and its one-two punch to transit planning in Ohio. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of construction — both to buy asphalt and to operate equipment — and discourage people from buying as much fuel. Gasoline is taxed by the gallon, not by price.
Those factors and others, such as Ohio’s sagging economy, make a case for broad changes to transportation planning rather than a few tweaks, said Ty Marsh, president of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the statewide transportation panel.
“We’re not talking about a better way to fix potholes,” he said. “We’re talking about a broad vision for our transportation system aligned for growth and prosperity.”
Beasley, with the support of Gov. Ted Strickland, has been nudging the state transportation agency toward a more rail-friendly future. Beasley appointed Jolene Molitoris, the chairwoman of the Ohio Rail Development Commission and a former federal railroad administrator, as his assistant director in March.
Strickland, speaking at yesterday’s summit, also suggested that big changes are afoot.
“This isn’t about doing a little more or a little less than what we’ve always done,” the governor said.
jnash@dispatch.com
[...] planning for bicycles and pedestrians may be to implement a Complete Streets policy. As noted in the story below this one, multi-modal transportation planning is looking more feasible than ever before in Ohio. Cycling [...]
I attended this initial Task Force meeting and it was a watershed moment in my estimation.
Consider the following:
1. There are 62 actuall members of the Task Force but over 250 people attended this first meeting. What does that tell you about the significant level of interest in creating more and better tranortation options.
2. Both ODOT Director Beasley and Governor Strickland repeatedly emphasized that this Task Force is NOT about more highways and/or maintaining the staus quo. They made it very clear that this Task Force will be an agent of change.
3. Moving more people and freight by rail repeatedly came up both in the opening speeches and in the afternoon commitee meetings. Improved mass transit, bikeways and walkable neighborhood also were mentioned frequently.
4. Changing the way we fund transportation projects was also a major topic on all three committees. Many comments were made that the current federal process for funding transportation projects is entirely too complicated and slow. Several participants also brought up the need to change Ohio’s motor vehicle fuels tax to allow revenues to be distributed for non-highway projects.
What I like about this Task Force the most is that they have been given a deadline of six months to issue a report and recommendations. It is not an open-ended process, so there can be no dawdling.
Public input will be crucial to this process, so I urge anyone reading this to visit the Task Force website and polan on attending the regional meetings and let your thoughts be known. If you can’t attend, e-mail your comments. Be direct and to the point. Don’t make a speech. Tell this task force what you think Ohio needs for transportation options.
Here’s some good thoughts to ponder as the Task Force moves ahead with it’s work: a very insightful column from Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Dick Feagler:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/dick_feagler/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1211044559121880.xml&coll=2
Past is forgotten; future is stalled on the interstate
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Dick Feagler
Plain Dealer Columnist
I used to live in Brecksville, and I always rode the bus to work dur ing rush hour. It was the only sane thing to do.
I’d board the bus around Ohio 82, open a book and read it as we motored down to Grant Avenue. There we would stop and inch the rest of our way downtown. That’s when I would turn the pages again and read more James Bond. And finally, when I got off the bus, I felt relaxed.
I had a friend in those days who was a traffic helicopter reporter. He broadcast the bad news about traffic jams and snarls. He was the angel of urban sprawl. His was a beacon who told his listeners what they already knew.
I asked him once what happened on those cloudy days when he couldn’t fly in the traffic copter.
“I say the same thing,” he said. “Traffic is backed up all the way from Grant Avenue.”
“Yeah,” I said, “but how do you know?”
“Hell,” he said, “it’s backed up to Grant Avenue every morning.”
And so it was. And so it is. And here’s where the column starts.
There was a spur railroad line that ran from Cleveland toward Akron. This line paralleled Interstate 77. It could have easily carried light rail. Like commuter trains. The track bed was dug, the tracks were laid. It was the thought that was missing.
One day I noticed that the interrupted railroad track stopped at a missing trestle on Alexander Road. That train could have carried people next to that crowded freeway, but nobody thought of that. Or if they had thought of it, they threw it away, thinking it was useless.
Now we know we’ve abandoned things that we thought were useless. Maybe some of this was carelessness. Or maybe a misshapen idea that we had something better. Or maybe we just have been too cheap too long.
We sold our trolley cars to Toronto, thinking perhaps that we had progressed beyond the days of trolley cars. Now we wish we had them back. Toronto uses them as a valuable tourist attraction. Who would have thunk it?
I love this city. We soar when it comes to artistry. We have the best orchestras in the world, both classical and jazz, and one of the best art museums. But when it comes to public works, we have no vision.
The best example of no vision is the Euclid Corridor project. What imagination did we see there? Before it was built, we had a bus line from downtown to University Circle. When it is finished, we will have a bus line from downtown to University Circle. Why not a gleaming subway like Washington, D.C.? Or a high-speed monorail like Dallas? Why just a bus that confounds traffic and wiggles its hips? Is this the best we can do?
Once the United States had the best rail system in the world. We let that go to hell and cast our lot with airplanes. And now the planes are terrible and the trains are unreliable.
We live within a six-hour trip – by car – to Chicago, a seven-hour trip to Washington, and within two hours of Columbus and four hours of Cincinnati. That would be even faster if we had high-speed rail to get there.
Europe has such rails. Once we had the best in the world. But we threw them away.
Now when I fly to Chicago, I’m inserted into a seat like a sardine so I can’t move. When the stewardess comes around to ask me to please return my seatback to the full, upright position for landing, I ask her, “This thing’s only going to come up 1 inch. Is that going to save my life?”
Trains, which are more comfortable and better, are things that have been left behind, replaced by things that are far less comfortable and far more annoying.
Rail. Maybe this is just another example of how we are lost in the present and should find instruction from the past.
To reach Dick Feagler:
dfeagler@plaind.com, 216-999-6801
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080901/business/transport_social_costs
Transport Canada study puts price tag on social costs of cars, planes, trains
Mon Sep 1, 1:47 PM
By Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA – A groundbreaking federal study has calculated the “social costs” of operating cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats across Canada at up to $40 billion a year.
The study for the first time attempts to put a national price tag on the unwanted byproducts of transport, that is, accidents, pollution, congestion, noise and greenhouse gases.
The findings, released without fanfare in late August, are the result of a five-year project that drew widely on experts from academia, industry and the provinces.
Using statistics for the year 2000, the task force found that the often-hidden social costs for all modes of transport ranged between $24.4 billion and $39.5 billion – or up to 17 per cent of the total costs of transport that year.
Automobile accidents represented the largest single source of social costs. Researchers determined that a Canadian life was worth about $4 million on average, based on insurance and court settlements, and that fully disabling accidents cost an average of $260,000.
Altogether, road accidents accounted for an estimated $16 billion in social costs in 2000, compared with just $370 million for accidents involving planes, trains and boats combined.
Road congestion and air pollution on the roads cost another $5 billion each, while greenhouse gases emitted by road vehicles cost $3.7 billion, based on a carbon-trading market price of $29 a tonne. Noise costs, difficult to estimate, were pegged at just $220 million.
Congestion was generally measured in terms of productive time lost while drivers were idled by traffic jams.
The air, marine and rail modes accounted for just a fraction of these social costs, the study found. The worst social impact of aircraft was in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, calculated as costing almost half a billion. The worst impact in the rail and marine sectors was air pollution, each also calculated at about a half billion.
Lack of data prevented the researchers from estimating congestion costs for the rail, marine and air sectors.
The authors caution that the complex methodology is a still work in progress but that “another tool has been added to the analytical toolbox of transportation analysts.” Further related studies are planned.
A spokeswoman for Transport Canada said the $1.4-million study was designed “to allow for a better understanding of the relative full costs of the different modes of transportation.”
“Those social costs are borne by all members of society,” Maryse Durette said in an interview.
A transportation expert who was consulted throughout the study praised the results.
“I have been quite impressed at the care taken in the analysis,” said David Jeanes, spokesman for Transport 2000, a non-profit research and advocacy group.
“We urgently need this ‘level playing field’ information for governments to make intelligent decisions about investment among the various modes (of transport).
“It has been a very challenging exercise and cannot be absolutely complete and perfect, but I think the report is a good one.”
The study also tried to compare social costs in Canada with other countries. Canadian accident costs, for example, were generally in line with those in Britain and Europe but were less than half the level for the United States.
“The high transportation accident cost in the United States can be explained in part by the higher rate of transportation accident related death observed in that country … more than 15 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to about 10 per 100,000 for Canada,” the report says.
On the other hand, the estimated costs of transportation “noise” in Canada were much lower than in any other country, perhaps reflecting a less-dense population in Canada or differing methods of determining the cost, the authors said.
Noise costs were generally calculated as the damage to residential property values from the constant sound of vehicle traffic, trains and aircraft.
Ohio transportation priorities: more options for shippers and travelers, panel says
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/task_force_delivers_gov_strick.html#more
COLUMBUS — Ohio has to integrate its transportation system to give travelers and shippers options, including road, rail, water and public transit, concluded a study released today by a statewide task force.
The 62-member group was challenged by Gov. Ted Strickland to set transportation priorities for the 21st century.
After seven months of meetings, including talking to people across the state, it established four strategies.
• Ohioans need more options for moving people and goods than cars and trucks, so rail, waterways and public transportation should be expanded.
• Public and private agencies that manage transportation need to collaborate to be responsive to businesses as well as people who are transit dependent, such as senior citizens and the disabled.
• The state needs to adapt innovative technology, such as alternative fuels and multi-modal systems.
• New funding sources are needed, including a bond financing program, as well as exploring a new fuel tax for all transportation purposes, not just highways. Money could also be raised by increases in vehicle registration fees, and driver’s license fees.
Final Report is at…
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/groups/tft/Documents/21stCenturyTransportationPrioritiesTaskForceReport-Web.pdf
Columbus will not benefit from public transportation as long as parking costs the same as your ticket for that day and transit times are about same as with car.
When I was working downtown, my monthly parking costs in the Arena District was near $50 per month. That was even after splitting parking costs 50/50 with the company I worked for. A friend of mine that works for Huntington pays nearly $120 at the City Center garage. My thought is that it will be tough to beat a monthly parking pass for under $100.
As a comparison, the transit fare for the light rail line in Minneapolis is $2.25 per ride. The Hiawatha line is similar to the proposed North Corridor line in distance (both are 12 – 13 miles) and combines exclusive right-of-way and streetrunning rail. At $2.25 per ride, the monthly cost to ride the light rail to work and back would be roughly $100 (assuming 2 riders per day on 22 working days per month). In only comparing parking costs versus transit fare, the comparison is a push. I still haven’t filled up my car yet with that $2 – $4 gasoline. The bottom line is that the cost of light rail/bus should beat car/parking costs.
One thing to also consider about parking costs is that they will be increasing as the cost for downtown lots increase. In my last two years working downtown the parking costs increased $15 – the reason being the land was becoming more attractive. I’d say that trend would increase exponentially with the construction of a light rail line.
As for travel time comparisons, I think that more study is needed in the North Corridor proposal to make an accurate comparison. My guess is that from the Polaris area to downtown Columbus (High/Broad), the goal should be 30 minutes, which would be very competitive with car travel times.
You don’t have to try and guess the costs vs. cars.
COTA currently offers 2 monthly passes, a $45 local, unlimited option per month. You pay the .50 cents extra for any express bus you use. Or choose a $60/month pass for express and local service with no additional charge. I can imagine the price for passes will stay within this range given the national average seems to be around $50-80 a month for an unlimited use rail and bus pass.
As Ty pointed out, don’t forget the cost of gas. Or insurance. Or depreciation if a new vehicle. And if new, the interest on the loan. Repair cost. And the productivity you lose driving. If you’re sitting on a train for a 40 minute commute vs. 40 minutes in traffic, there is a lot of free time to review notes for a presentation, whip the Blackberry out to get a head start on emails, read the paper etc.
By the way, Shawn, can you tell us where this sweet deal is for $3 a day parking? When I had my car I was lucky to pay that for an hour or two downtown.
[...] by johnwirtz In a state with pressing budget problems and a stated objective to focus on more multi-modal transportation, should a new four-lane, grade-separated highway parallel to an existing interstate really be a [...]