It seems every city is busy drawing up wish lists of infrastructure projects for President Obama’s economic stimulus plan. Apparently COTA has drawn up a plan to revive the North Corridor light rail line. Also included on the list is money to complete the Alum Creek bike path, replace the Town Street bridge, convert Front Street to two-way traffic, add a greenway along the Scioto, and various road and sidewalk projects.
Columbus seeks $334M from Obama plan for light rail, other projects
Regional line would run from Downtown to Worthington
Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:09 PM
By Robert VitaleColumbus has revived plans for a regional light-rail system as part of its request for $334.5 million from President-elect Obama’s economic-stimulus plan.The city’s wish list has many hurdles ahead — Obama’s plan needs congressional approval, first of all — but Mayor Michael B. Coleman said light rail fits in with the incoming president’s priorities of economic development, alternative transportation and reduced energy consumption.
Although Coleman pitched a Downtown streetcar line last year as the first step toward a bigger light-rail system, the new plan written by the Central Ohio Transit Authority “is the larger plan,” he said.
“It’s the best of streetcars and light rail,” Coleman said.
The trains would run from Downtown to the Delaware County line, following the streetcar plan’s High Street route before veering over to existing railroad tracks to the east. The route would pass through the Short North, University District, Clintonville and Worthington.
I’m anxiously looking forward to more details about this proposal. I’m a little confused because I thought the stimulus was looking for “shovel-ready” projects and I’m pretty sure neither the light rail line nor the streetcar proposal have been through the final design phase. Also, I’m sure that $200 million won’t cover even half of the project’s cost. So I’m not sure where the rest of the money will come from yet.
Lastly, I’m concerned about mixing elements of streetcars with light rail. I think both are important to the city and region, and they would be great complementary services, but I’m not sure one line can serve as both. These two forms of rail serve different purposes. Streetcars serve very short, local trips. Light rail is intended to move people around the region. Many light rail lines operate at street-level in downtowns, but for short distances. If you run at street-level for three miles from downtown to campus with stops every two blocks (like a streetcar), you risk creating a service so slow that people towards the end of the line won’t ride it all the way to downtown.
Let’s not jump the gun though. Like I said, I’m interested to see more details. This is exciting and could be a great thing. Keep your fingers crossed for better transit in Columbus.
Wow. Just wow!
John – Out here in Portland the Max (light rail) runs like a streetcar in the downtown area (probably 6-8 stops in 1 mile). I’ve heard complaints about it for being too slow, but it certainly hits all of the spots you’d want to go. Most complaints I’ve heard are from people who want to use it as a crosstown route and would rather bypass downtown altogether.
The Dispatch has published a second story about the light rail money request.
Although the article says, “The exact configuration, number of stops and even the style of trains have not been determined,” they did post a map of the line. I updated the map in this post to match the map shown in the Dispatch article.
As drawn, there are 15 stops in the 3.9 miles from High & Mound to 18th and the railroad tracks. That’s an average stop spacing of 0.26 miles, which seems too close to me for light rail.
To Eric’s point, Portland has 14 street-level stops in the 2.8 miles from Goose Hollow to the Lloyd Center (0.20 mile spacing) with a 24 minute travel time. That seems pretty slow to me (7.0 MPH), but it doesn’t seem to stop people from riding in Portland, so maybe I’m wrong about Columbus. Nevertheless, I think a goal of rail transit should be to be faster than an old woman on a cruiser bicycle with a banana seat.
What I think is different between MAX in Portland and this COTA proposal is that downtown is the center of the line in Portland. OSU would be the center of the line in Columbus. So as proposed, I could see suburbanites or downtowners taking the line to campus, or campus residents taking the line either direction. But I can’t see someone at the Crosswoods spending 20+ minutes on just the High Street portion of the route, plus time for the rest of the route, and waiting, and walking or a bus transfer, when they could do the full drive to downtown in 20 minutes (pending congestion of course). More realistically, if they want to use transit they would take the brand new #32 Crosswoods Express, which is scheduled to take 29 minutes from the Park and Ride to High & Broad.
[...] development in Wooster, OH, that is being designed with 8,000 feet of sidewalk and a bike path. And Xing Columbus reports that the Central Ohio Transit Authority’s stimulus wish list includes a light rail project, [...]
I would imagine you will see, as you do on most rail-based systems, a mix of local and express service, the numbers of stops that exist is not as critical as how many trains stop there. In the system described above, you could run “local service only” from the OSU campus into downtown, Anywhere north of campus would immediate go into express mode.
But this is all logistics that can be worked out later, I’m just glad to see a bigger and better plan emerge with an aggressive funding proposal. It deftly answers many of the earlier critics of the streetcar plan who complained that it “didn’t go far enough”.
Stu,
You’re right that these are all details to work out later. I am excited about this idea.
Nevertheless, I can’t help wondering how an express train passes a local train on High Street without a second set of tracks? My only thought is to maybe run A and B service. I’m sure a lot of trains will short-turn around 17th, but I don’t think that solves the issue of an express getting stuck behind a local.
This also raises the question of what you do with the High Street bus lineup downtown. That’s something I don’t think I ever saw addressed by the streetcar plan either. And while the #2 could have shared the lane with streetcars, I haven’t seen that done with light rail before.
Ah, so many questions. I just need to sit back, relax, and wait for answers.
[...] Light-Rail, &/vs. ODOT By columbusite In recent news, Mayor Coleman is seeking funding for a light-rail line, which has also sparked some discussion. A [...]
I think that is a lousy idea, the light rail came up for a vote 3 different times and got voted down 3 times. Most of the voters that I have talked to that ride the bus, rather see the money spent on the buses.
I don’t know what the Mayor is thinking by asking for the money for the light rail, all he has to do is re-read the cota transportation records from before where cota got the money before for a study, and nothing happened.
Instead of the light rail, use the money to help the buses and the project mainstream keep updating the equipment that they need.
Columbus doesn’t need the light rail, it was supposed to be up and running for 2006 and nothing happened.
With people out of work, the light rail study is a lousy idea because of the economy.
I think that the money needs to be put on more of the jobs for people not the light rail.
I along with the other people of Columbus read all the stories in different formats about the light rail and the studies being done.
COTA got $440 million to do a study in 2002, all the people voted down the idea for the light rail before.
More of the monies needs to be put towards more training and also, more safety forces.
Brenda.
Three comments in a row, eh?
You may, as you recommend Mayor Coleman to do, need to do a little background study of the situation,too.
Fed stimulus money will not fund such purposes as increasing bus services or job training; I agree there are many areas that extra money can be helpful, but this money won’t do it.
The stipulation of receiving the money, at minimum, is mass (physical) transportation infrastructure that creates construction jobs and future economic development along side the structure. Also, COTA did not get “$440 million to do a study” of light rail feasibility; it was the projected cost. While tax hike proposal for light rail construction was voted down, this is requesting for federal money, so the situations are quite different (Not to mention the suddenly volatile gas prices since the last ballot or fast-increasing COTA ridership in the past year).
You can certainly make a persuasive case against the light rail proposal, but what you have presented are not good arguments.
Brenda,
Thanks for the opinions. I wanted to clear up a few issues.
1. From what I remember, light rail was only voted down once in 1999. When were the other two times?
2. The reason nothing happened in 2006 is because the project didn’t meet the FTA’s new cost effectiveness criteria, although it had previously received a recommended rating in 2002.
3. COTA never received $440 million to do a study. Studies don’t cost that much.
4. Construction of transportation infrastructure generates construction jobs. Companies may also decide to stay in or relocate to Columbus due to better transportation infrastructure.
5. Obama’s stimulus package will be for infrastructure, technology, and energy reduction measures. Job training and safety forces are not eligible expenditures for this package.
I don’t think anyone thinks that spending monies on safety forces, equipment, or police/fire stations would be a bad thing. Training programs are also needed for 21st Century “green” jobs. However, if there are no jobs created through infrastructure or capital investments, what is the point of training?
The portion of the stimulus package that these projects would be funded out of is an “infrastructure only” portion. That means that road, transit, bridge, school facilities, etc are to be considered for this portion – not operating expenses. The other thing to consider is that this money is to not go unspent – some city, state, county agency is to get this money – why not have that investment be Columbus. I’d say the only error on the Mayor’s part was to not ask for more $$ for additional projects. More money spent in Columbus or Central Ohio creates more jobs for this area. More jobs = more tax revenue, which creates more funding for our safety forces and training programs.
As for light rail being a bad idea…I disagree wholeheartedly. My experience of light rail comes from the short time I spent near Dallas. The construction of the light rail lines kickstarted $3 billion worth of investment in the Dallas area. Hospitals, research facilities, Fortune 500 companies, residential developments all planned and constructed new investments to be near light rail stations. Secondly, increased public transportation in this heavily congested corridor is sorely needed. I bet those folks stuck idling in I-71 rush hour traffic watching their $2-$4 gasoline disperse into the air would enjoy an alternative.
Well put, Ty.
There was another article in the Dispatch talking about how heavy construction companies (those that build major transportation & infrastructure projects) are predicting tens of thousands of their employees nationwide will be laid off unless this nation starts investing more $$$ in major projects like light rail, intercity passenger rail and repairs and upgrades to our highways and airports. Here’s the link:
http://dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2009/01/10/construction.ART_ART_01-10-09_C8_QBCGB93.html?sid=101
That same story is stating that construction employment could RISE by 25% if the Obama Administration’s economic stimulus package is passed and enacted.
[...] 10, 2009 by johnwirtz The Dispatch article below discusses some of the funding questions for COTA’s newest light rail proposal. It mentions a new type of rail vehicle that’s cheaper and lighter than light rail vehicles, [...]
[...] gets mad props from me for a very professional and informative interview with Bill Lhota about the new light rail proposal. I’ll let him answer for why he hasn’t posted it here himself already Bill Lhota [...]
The biggest question I have is why do they propose to use 18th St. to get from the railroad to High. St? That’s not a thru street and it runs thru a congested area.
I hope that idea isn’t set in stone and we get a chance for some input. I’d much rather use the Summit/fourth St. corridor to head toward downtown and switch over to High St. further down the line.
Although buses would be a cheaper solution to alternative transportation, many people have a negative perception of buses but view trains positively.
Studies have found that for every taxpayer dollar spent on public transportation, it generates generates $6 or more in economic returns. That’s more than double the return for highway construction.
http://www.transact.org/library/factsheets/jobs.asp
Also from that website is another stat: A recent survey by Jones Lang LaSalle in Property Futures found that 77 percent of New Economy companies rated access to mass transit as an extremely important factor in selecting corporate locations. Columbus is the largest metropolis in the country without a train public transportation system. This could influence more corporations to relocate here when you couple it the region’s low cost of living.
Portland started out with one light rail line running east from the downtown area in the 80’s. They’ve been adding lines ever since. Initially, downtown wasn’t the center of their system either.
The quarter mile stop spacing downtown is similar to portland, but people are right that the stops might be a little too close to each other for such a long distance.
As for voting no on the light rail: At the time of that 1999 vote, people hadn’t yet experienced $4/gallon gas. It’s very volatile right now, and most don’t expect it to stay cheap in the long term. Also, I think that if people in rural areas understood light rail’s potential development patterns and the ability to save farmland and their way of life, then that vote might be different.
Rapid rail, not light rail, is a better idea for shovel ready projects in Columbus: 1) existing rail tracks, many of which are little used, need no planning phase, 2) existing tracks go across the whole city and like those found in Chicago or Toronto would then compliment and interface COTA bus lines, 3) existing track would be accesable to citizens and neighbor-hoods that would use and pay for it, 4) rapid rail would reinvigorate business and residency in those neighborhoods, and 5) it would not put all of our money into a rail service running at surface street speeds, that of a bus, from a favorite mall, to a favorite outdoor Starbucks, to a favorite downtown office building.
You left out one very important factor: these existing rail corridors are owned by the freight railroads, so it would take some serious negotiations to get local “rapid rail” trains on these corridors. And there would still have to be some environmental work done to make such a project shovel ready.
The reason COTA’s light rail plan would be shovel-ready (of at least close to it) is that all of that environmental work has been done and would just need to be updated.
True, running at street grade would present some challenges, but it’s not impossible and not as slow as some would think. LRT vehicles actually accelrate very fast and can maintain good headways in street service.
TK
I know how many times the light rail was voted on, because I was on the Transit Legacy Council Committee when the light rail was proposed.
The Mayor seems to think that the people of Columbus are stupid when the economy is lousy, people are loosing jobs, health insurance, and jobs are hard to come by.
That is the reason that the people that are un-employed needs to be put in training for possible jobs that President-Elect Obama is talking about in his stimulus package.
I think that the people are not ready for the light rail right now because of the fact that the traffic on High Street would be disrupted.
Brenda,
When were those three public votes? Again, I only remember the one in 1999. Was there one in 2004? If so, when was the third?
I haven’t heard of the Transit Legacy Council Committee. Who – or what government organization – organized the committee? Does it still exist? If so, is there a website?
Brenda,
I have no problem whatsoever government investing in job training, and I am (who isn’t?) well aware of unemployment rate in central Ohio and elsewhere.
But what Coleman is requesting is a stimulus funding SPECIFICALLY for “shovel ready” public construction works, NOT for training and education, because the public construction works are considered the best way to create employment (this premise, you can dispute/criticize, but that doubt/criticism should be directed at Fed govt/White House, not the Mayor). The city of Cbus or state of OH can, and should, invest in education IN ADDITION TO requesting the Federal funding for public construction works. These are not incompatible, either/or projects at all; the federally funded rail construction is requested at this moment PRECISELY for job creation.
As for disruption of High Street traffic, I would leave the question to the traffic designers/experts; having ridden Boston T, Portland streetcar, San Jose light rail, Minneapolis Hiawatha light rail, all of which run through, at least partially, busier streets than High St., however, I doubt that would be a deal-breaker.
There has actually been only one vote… in 1999..and it was more of a commuter rail plan than light rail. Amazing how LRT critics keep bringing this up how the public has supposedly repeatedly rejected light rail.
To Stu Nicholson, thanks for the response, but I don’t see that negotiating right of way agreements (common to the industry), or building concrete platforms and sidewalks would be any sort of an environmental impact. (The tracks are already there and would pose no environmental impact at all.) The background issue here is ’smart growth’ whereby suburban sprawl is contained and density is increased. For an example, Portland Oregon would not be the same fun place with its MAX light rail and downtown street cars were it not for strong land use planning. We don’t have a land use policy, so Columbus citizens drive around both the problem and the solution every day. Blighted and abandoned neighborhoods here will be rejuvinated and rebuilt, providing a more urban atmosphere, real economic development, and individual savings, with urban rail (on this we all agree). The Portland system started with existing track and so should we. The tracks are already there. Have a good day.
Well I am very interested in seeing what happens with this. Though I do not live close enough to use the proposed light rail (and probably will not live in Columbus by the time it is completed) I would definitely use it if I did live closer. My only concern is that light rail works great in cities with bad road congestion, but not so well in cities with only moderate congestion. That corridor certainly gets bad in the morning and evening, but it is usually only 2-3 hours total of traffic. Unless gas prices skyrocket again, would it be faster to ride the light rail over driving? I suppose that would depend on how close you live to a rail stop / how far you are traveling, but generally people will not want to ride a rail that takes longer to get to your destination than driving would. I rode a light rail in Baltimore that seemed pretty similar to this proposal, except Baltimore has a lot more traffic and a lot more tourists. A light rail in Columbus would have to support itself on local commuters only. Again, I think it is a great idea on paper, but if no one is going to ride the thing then it is just a waste of time and money.
If you look at a map of columbus, you will see the railroads appear much as spokes on a wheel. The idea for having rapid rail, as opposed to street cars, is that they would be used for regional or more long distance travel. I.E. you live in Polaris area but work downtown. Existing buses would then be used to run smaller, more frequent routes, taking peole from their homes to the platforms, then the rapid rail, which moves quite fast, takes them to the city center, across the city, what have you.
This is interesting b/c then all of our UA’s and Dublin’s and Grandviews, Bexley’s…are connected (WELL) through this train system that moves people around the city at a quick pace. Consider Berlin Germany, they use this as well, buses (and street cars in the east) run shorter routes, to collect people and move them to the long distance train platforms as well as their homes and grocery stores.
The difficulty w/ streetcar’s and convenience is that streetcars must abide by the rules of the road. Therefore, they already move as slow as buses do, so the mobility of a bus can be well used, if this “rapid rail” is developed.
I propose, take the existing plan and run w/ it! We need it! its a start, but keep in mind, regional development is key here. The movement of a population from one area of the city, to center, or another area of the city, QUICKLY, is important. Yes negotiations for the railways are needed, and MUST happen, the hurdle is not too high there…but I can’t think of a better way to move people at good pace, around this city. Can u?
Food for thought.
Jeff/Bruce,
By rapid rail, do you mean commuter rail? In the Berlin example, are you referring to the S-Bahn? If so, you may be interested in this MORPC report that discusses the status of the region’s freight lines and their suitability for alternative transportation such as commuter rail, light rail, or bikeways:
http://www.morpc.org/transportation/freight/rail_inventory.asp
I agree that commuter rail for regional service, coupled with improved bus service or higher capacity streetcars where necessary for local service would be optimal.
Would that it could be as simple as you describe above…. but most of these freight rail corridors are carrying growing numbers of trains. The forecast is for even more traffic as both CSX and NS see Columbus as a hub of intermodal freight traffic.
Not saying it can’t be done, but negotiating shared rights-of-way are not that easy. It may not be an environmental impact in the “snail darter” sense of the word, but negotiating such agreements and all of the other engineering requirements are part of what the Feds require to move forward on any kind of an LRT, commuter rail or intercity passenger rail project that proposes to share a freight rail corridor. This is why COTA’s LRT plan is in good shape to be a “shovel ready project…because they’ve completed that work.
I favor all of the benefits both Jeff and Bruce R mentioned above. I’m just saying there is a lot of legwork that needs to be done before that kind of vision can be realized. Is it worth the effort? Absolutely.
I think this is a great idea by Mayor Coleman. What’s the worst thing that could happen? Obama’s administration could say no, but I still believe that this is a step in the right direction.
Anyway to start getting people to reduce carbon emissions from their vehicles, is great by me.
Yes I agree w/ the “shovel ready” aspect of this project. But remember it combines both the 3C corridor study and the mayor’s streetcar proposal. One of the problems I see there is finding the capability of the “car” to travel both on regular rail, while being streetcar compatible.
John, by “rapid rail” I believe the 3C study defined it as light rail (operating on existing railroad track) the Berlin example was to highlight the point that they are not abiding by traffic lights and stop signs. Both the Sbahn and Ubahn operate independent from traffic, and are able to therefore operate w/ high efficiency/speed. The streetcars (only in the east, buses are used in the west) must move w/ traffic and are annoying in majority of public eye. I enjoyed the link you attached.
Also, I agree that negotiating right of way, and competing w/ freight rail will not be an easy task. Though the streetcar would have to negotiate through traffic, at a slower pace, and also, construction will be expensive, burdensome for drivers, pedestrians, bikers alike.
I think the “shovel ready” aspect for COTA, the Mayor and MORPC are of top priority to achieve funding. In my vision though, I would like to see existing buses operate more frequent routes, to transport the population from their neighborhood streetcorners, to platforms – to board trains that are able to operate at high efficiency/speeds (like the norther proposal going alongthe I71 track). The funds that would go into tearing apart roads, could be used effectively in freight/passenger negotiation.
I honestly enjoy these conversations, and look forward to further eductating myself on this matter, as well as debate the best plan that us citizens see for this important city/regional project
Who is going to pay for this light rail system aka(money pit) after the feds put up only the initial starting cost? The 200/300 Million that is being requested won’t even finish the beginning steps. This project would be dragged out till it drains the already empty pockets of the Columbus tax payers. We are talking Billions here people with a “B” !! Not to mention Security cost, and upkeep Maintenance costs which also would be doubled because of union favors owed from some of our friendly Columbus elected officials.
Who is going to ride a light rail system, when you can drive and save half the time spent riding the rail system? I don’t know about you but my time is more valuable then a few extra bucks on gas. And if I were to ride the proposed rail system to work, I’m still going to have to drive to one of the stops pay for parking and then pay another pricy fee to ride.
The rail system is not needed. It would still not be needed if gas was back up to $4 or even as high as $6 a gal.
Mayor Coleman tried to have this passed and it was voted down for many reasons. And that was with little debate. If the mayor and city council sneak this by the Columbus tax payers with fed money with out a vote or even telling us the future full cost. They will be putting the first nail in the coffin of the city of Columbus’s future.
How about some healthy debate on the logistics, longevity, finance and viability of this mistake?
And if they do go ahead with this why not put a huge garbage incinerator right off south 71 Columbus? That would just as brilliant.
Joe Thaler
I’m not sure that light rail vehicles can travel on regular rail. I think there’s a Federal Transit Agency requirement for train that run on freight lines that takes streetcar trains off the table as commuter rail vehicles.
I believe the North Corridor project proposed building a light rail line adjacent to the freight line in the existing railroad right of way. It seems like COTA’s proposal would be similar to Portland’s MAX. It built an additional rail line within existing freight right of ways for light rail lines. When the trains get close to downtown they run on the streets in their own dedicated lane, like a streetcar. Traffic lights give them a priority for the most part.
I’m unfamiliar with the “hybrid” trains that the article referenced, but Portland is implementing new railcars. Maybe they are similar?
http://www.trimet.org/max/newtrains.htm
I completely agree with an earlier comment about land use planning in relation to transit. Cars are very well subsidized currently; light rail alone won’t change current development patterns, but it will provide central Ohio with a strong planning tool. Developers won’t reinvent the wheel on their own. I think if the light rail proposal goes through, MORPC will need a bigger role. Portland has Metro, which I believe has some policy power in the region. They’ve posted a few good quick videos for anyone curious about transit oriented development:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=27280
Sorry about all the Portland references, it’s just what I’m familiar with…
To John Wirtz, thank you for the MORPC site as it is a treasure of technical information. A first read indicates right of way could be visualized per Section III Central Ohio Operations, pg. 24, fig 5, ‘trains per day’ especially five or fewer. This may be where the fantasy maps came from. Thanks to Stu Nicholson for reminding us of the intricacies of this part of the endeavor but almost every at grade rapid I’ve ever ridden goes right along beside freight at some point.
The present economic crisis encourages job investment in infrastructure, but which projects get the nod is critically important. Green cities are generally more compact in area as illustrated by Portland, Oregon and Madison, Wisconsin. Columbus already has the 270 beltway and any further outward expansion would be environmentally irresponsible (Atlanta). Investment in rapid rail using existing rail lines and perhaps new downtown connectors would provide massive incentive to develope a vibrant new metropolitan center. The route proposed by Mayor Coleman would be better served by a bus line. But busses ain’t cool. The Mayors project would service the (already developed) powers that be and would sadly be used most as a backdrop for group photos in a wanna be city. It would be a monument to the status quo. That’s why the proposal was rightly voted down, thank you.
Joe,
I’m all for a healthy debate about the long-term finance of this project. To some extent, we’re still waiting on those details, so it may be premature to oppose it as vehemently as you have.
I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that the operating costs of a rail line would definitely be higher than that of buses. It might be, but we need more study first. We can look at other existing systems though to get an idea of what to expect. The National Transit Database has reports by transit agency that measure cost-effectiveness split out by transportation mode:
http://204.68.195.57/ntdprogram/cs?action=showRegionAgencies®ion=0
If you look at other cities with light rail like Cleveland, Minneapolis, Portland, and Dallas, you’ll find that the cost per vehicle-revenue-mile or vehicle-revenue-hour is higher with light rail than with bus, but the cost per passenger-mile or passenger-trip is much lower. Baltimore, on the other hand, spends more per passenger-mile on light rail than with bus.
From the cost savings standpoint, light rail could replace many bus trips – both express and local – between the suburbs and downtown. Running one larger rail vehicle, with one driver, could be cheaper than running several buses with multiple drivers. Also, you may not care about gas prices, but COTA does. Relying on buses and diesel fuel will hurt COTA’s bottom line when the prices hit $4/gallon again. Just like you’re 401K or other investments, diversification is important.
Did you have any ideas for other infrastructure projects that would you would prefer be built to stimulate the economy?
Joe, I also agree that public involvement/discussion needs to occur with this project. However, I agree with John in that it is premature to be so against this project. I think a basic premise to start a debate is that additional capacity is needed in this corridor – whether that be via light rail, additional highway capacity, increased bussing. The congestion issues on this corridor has a ripple effect that influences traffic operations on I-270, I-670, and I-70 to name a few.
Future funding will come from some mixture of federal, state, and local monies. The advantage to getting these federal funds is that local matching funds (local taxpayer money) is not needed at this time. By securing the $200M requested in the stimulus package, the future local match to complete construction will be lessened.
There is no doubt the cost of any project in the North Corridor will be hefty. The last cost estimates I remember for the light rail project was near $500 – $550 million. However, there have been significant highway investments (I-71/I-270 was ~$150M, I-71/Polaris Parkway was ~$75M) that have had little effect on the overall congestion issues. I-71 would need an additional lane in each direction (at least) to accomodate today’s traffic volumes, let alone future traffic volumes. That highway expansion would carry the “billions with a B” price tag you speak of – as we have already spent over $200M in the two interchange projects mentioned previously.
I’ll admit that in this corridor I am biased for the light rail option. Any transportation project will have maintenance and operational costs. The question is what benefits will be realized as a result of that investment. With highway expansion, I question what additional economic development benefits can be realized given that adjacent right of way will be consumed by a larger highway and equally larger interchanges. Developers fully admit that a bus line carries only a fraction of the development potential of fixed guideway transit. Light rail (IMO) gives relief to commuters, is environmentally superior, and has a significantly higher “upside” for development.
In the United States diesel/electric multiple unit (DMU) cars are allowed on freight rail corridors. They are used here and worldwide for suburban rail lines and would be well suited to the sprawling conditions of central Ohio. Each car is a self propelled “hybrid” diesel/electric unit just like future automobiles. They “permit passenger capacity to be matched to demand…(and)… because of the self contained nature of the diesel engines, there is no need to run overhead electric lines or electrified track which can result in lower system construction costs” (wikipedia). DMUs would provide convenient rapid transportation on existing tracks from Hilliard to Groveport to Delaware, and the airport, unimpeded by automobile congestion, but most important, they would go through and make stops in Columbus, making it a more valuable development proposition, and they would interface with existing COTA services. I’m sorry, but the Mayor’s entire light rail budget would only replace a single bus line.
Check out http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/dmu.html for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of new DMU systems operating in New Jersey and Ottawa Canada. Among other urban areas in North America that are considering using DMUs on existing non-electrified rail lines are Boston, Chicago, Austin TX, Los Angeles, San Diego, North Carolina, South Florida and Seattle”. Don’t want to seem like the lone wolf here folks.
Bruce,
I think John et al. are all aware of the successful DMU commuter rail services (you should add Minneapolis and Nashville on the list, too). The only matter seems to be ROW issue in the central city area, where the freight rail traffic is quite heavy, and thus may require a lengthy negotiation (i.e., not quite “shovel-ready” for this stimulus package request).
Once the North Corridor LRT is in place and (fingers crossed) proves to be successful, DMU commuter train service b/w Polaris (the end of NC-LRT) and Delaware would be a logical extension.
[...] Here’s the list for Franklin County. I’m sure you’ll notice that the new light rail proposal and the streetcar are both on the list separately. There’s also a lot of bike paths on the [...]
TK, game theory suggests win-win possibilities always exist. The MORPC site clearly indicates rail lines in use fewer than five times per day (read it). I’m not a professional, maybe they really don’t exist. They seem to coincide with certain fantasy maps on the subject. Maybe in this economy the owners of those lines would be happy to ‘accomodate’ ($$$) other parties. It’s been known to happen. We might have regional alternatives to The Car by hooking up with the very unsexy and available COTA system. Would we like to know? Maybe not. Did you read the web site I posted as regards DMU transportation and its economy and suitability to suburban environs? Meanwhile light rail is currently popular so Mayor Coleman streches his proposed project from 5 miles to 15 miles when money becomes politically “available” so to speak. This is beyond the optimal length of light rail because it is tied to surface street conditions. But it manages to approbate the money. So this proposed line turns to an existing ROW rail bed which happens to run through developed neighborhoods to an existing mall. Now we all want light rail because it would serve The Short North, The Ohio State University, The Unincorporated Neighborhood of Clintonville, The City of Worthington, The Crosswoods and The Polaris Mall. What I hear is not metropolitan or state agencies developing regional economic stratagem, but an alumni in the worst sense of the term. This chorus is not singing to alternative transportation and good works, but regalia.
Bruce,
I agree that the proposed high capacity transit route isn’t going to reshape central Ohio growth. I think the biggest benefit of the proposed route is that it could get people more comfortable with taking transit. Ottawa was able to post very high transit ridership in their first operational year because they built a transit route to serve existing development initially. Once a wider population demographic viewed public transit more positively, they began using their transit as a growth and development tool along with land use regulations.
Despite the light amount of rail freight currently, MORPC is promoting central Ohio as an “international freight center.” http://www.morpc.org/transportation/freight/freight.asp
Half of the US and Canadian population is within 500 miles of Columbus, and increasing rail freight can promote more options to ship goods to all those people. Rail freight might not be part of that intermodal freight transportation network, but I would think that central Ohio might want to provide that option in the future as well.
You are absolutely correct that commuter rail could work. I’m just not sure that it’s the best way to achieve central Ohio’s long term passenger and freight transportation goals.
Here’s a couple other stories on this light rail proposal.
The Other Paper:
http://www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2009/01/16/cover_story/doc496f3f2b05393944590324.txt
Columbus Local News:
http://www.columbuslocalnews.com/articles/2009/01/15/multiple_papers/news/alllightra_20090115_1100am_2.txt
Hey Justin, thanks for the reply. You are absolutely right that the biggest benifit of the proposed route is that it could get people more comfortable with transit. Perhaps it’s a necessary step. I lived in Toledo and Cleveland and had an uncle who lived in New York and an aunt in Chicago. Public transit was considered free entertainment because you could sit next to anybody vis a vis Studs Terkel. They each moved out of ‘the city’, to Floram Park NJ and Schiller Park IL. You can still go to the city anytime you want. Now, I know Columbus is not a major metropolitan center, but it does have a good bus system in the city…sooo? Maybe I’d like to fast foreward the discussion.
Bring the light rail to Columbus!! I am a student and live downtown and feel it would bring more new development to the inter city…I have been to many cities where light rail and streetcars are used and it def make a better impact. Something we need to spruce up columbus!
“Ohio’s amount for infrastructure, from which most of the mayors’ wish lists would draw, is about $1.4 billion: $914.6 million for road and bridge repairs, $282.9 million for water and sewer projects and $203 million for mass transit.
That infrastructure pot would have to be shared by everyone in the state: the governor, the Ohio Department of Transportation, county commissioners, mayors and anyone else who has an eye on the stimulus pot.
So, for example, for Coleman to pull in enough federal stimulus money to pay for the light-rail project, he would have to snare all the mass-transit money sent to Ohio.”
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/02/08/ohio_stimulus.ART_ART_02-08-09_A1_5PCR88J.html?type=rss&cat&sid=101&title=Ohio+mayors+dream+big+for+stimulus+cash