In the meantime, I want to point you to a site that is posting on a daily basis; Biking Columbus.  The site isn’t entirely about biking.  The author has created some very cool unofficial COTA maps using Google Fusion tables.  Note that the maps also show the frequent service portions of the bus network differently, as I did here and here.

Unofficial COTA Map from Biking Columbus

1. Traffic moves slow in the downtown areas.  There were very few multi-lane roads.
2. There was lots of on-street parking.  Angled parking was especially common.  Drivers looking for parking is part of the reason traffic moves slowly.
3. Street trees were usually abundant, large, and shady.
4. Buildings on the main commercial streets were intact.  There were solid street walls of buildings, not the gap-toothed building-parking lot-building-parking lot pattern.
5. Parking was on-street or behind buildings in public lots.
6. There was good signage directing people to main attractions and maps of the business district in many towns.

Here are some photos:

South Haven, MISouth Haven, MI

Holland, MI

Traverse City, MI

Charlevoix, MI

Petoskey, MI

Mackinaw City, MI

Mackinac Island, MI

Full Album Here

The issue is that the contract between CPS and COTA is changing in a way that could cost CPS more money.  They have budget problems, like everyone else, and want to limit their potential cost for transportation to just certain needs.  This essentially shifts some costs from the district to the students and their families.  I expect some, maybe even most, will be able to find another way to get to around.  They’ll get cars, get rides, take a school bus, bike, or walk.  However, some will probably have a much harder time participating in sports, work, or even getting to school.  I’m not sure I have much of an opinion on this yet, but it will be interesting to see how it works itself out.

Survey: Columbus students say they need COTA passes
By Rob Messinger
The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday September 27, 2011 8:30 AM

Three of four Columbus high-school students said they need a COTA bus pass this year in a survey the district conducted before the school board decides whether to dramatically scale back the program.

Superintendent Gene Harris last week presented a plan to revoke the passes of about 11,000 high-school students on Oct. 1, but the school board wanted more information before members made a decision. The topic is on the agenda for a meeting at 6 p.m. tonight.

More than 7,900 students responded to the survey conducted late last week, of which 60 percent said they don’t currently have a pass. Yet 76.2 percent said they needed a pass for the current school year, and the largest group (73.5 percent) cited transportation related to extracurricular activities as a need.

READ MORE

COTA board to debate fare increase for 2012
Despite surplus, riders expected to pay certain share
By Robert Vitale
The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday September 27, 2011 4:52 AM

Although they’ve piled up nearly $42 million in surpluses over the past three years, Central Ohio Transit Authority board members will begin discussions today about a potential fare increase in 2012.

The agency took in $10.9 million more than it spent last year, but officials said they want to make sure passengers pay their fair share for an operation that’s funded overwhelmingly by a portion of Franklin County’s 6.75 percent sales tax.

COTA long has sought to keep riders paying 18 to 20 percent of the agency’s yearly expenses, said spokesman Marty Stutz. With costs increasing faster than revenue, that share dipped to 17.6 percent last year.

READ MORE

First, I think it’s good that COTA considers fare increases on a periodic basis instead of waiting for a crises like many transit agencies.  Second, it’s also good that they have a standard for farebox recovery ratio, the percent of the operating costs covered by fares, that can be used to help determine when a fare increase is justified.  Given the goal of 18-20%, and the current ratio of 17.6%, I thought it would be interesting to see COTA’s historical farebox recovery ratios based on National Transit Database (NTD) data.

Note: 2010 data based on numbers in Dispatch article, not NTD data.

You can see that operating costs usually go up, although there is some variabilty based on the price of gas and amount of service provided.  If operating costs increase, and service levels, ridership, and fares all stay about the same, then the farebox recovery ratio slowly declines over time until fares are raised to generate more revenue.  That’s where COTA is heading now, with the ratio under 18% for the last three years.  So it’s probably a good time to consider a fare increase.  Either that, or radically rethink transit funding all together.

COTA upgrade: No more free bus rides for OSU alumni
By Robert Vitale
The Columbus Dispatch Monday September 19, 2011 4:42 AM

One of the perks of an Ohio State University diploma — free bus rides as long as the driver doesn’t notice that your student ID has expired — is coming to an end.

Technology upgrades by Ohio State and the Central Ohio Transit Authority mean students will have to swipe their BuckID at the fare box as they board COTA buses.

COTA isn’t imposing the requirement as a reaction to freeloading former students, spokeswoman Beth Berkemer said. “That’s just such a minute amount.”

The reason, she said, is that “when we created this contract, there was an understanding we both would make an investment to upgrade our systems.”

…OSU students have logged more than 1.7 million rides on COTA buses over the past year, and students have paid more than $1.6 million for the service. That comes out to about 94 cents per ride, compared with COTA’s one-way fare of $1.75.

READ MORE

What interested me most about this article was the data in the last paragraph.  Students as a whole paid $1.6 million for COTA service and rode 1.7 million times for an average fare of $0.94 cents.  This is substantially less than the one-way local fare of $1.75 as the Dispatch noted, but it’s much higher than the average price per trip for the COTA system as a whole.

In 2009, COTA took in $13,817,908 in fare revenues and served 17,446,736 trips, for an average fare collected per trip of $0.79.  The reason the price per trip is so much lower than one-way fares is due to several factors.  First is transfers, which count as an “unlinked trip,” but are free between local routes and $0.75 to transfer from a local to express.  Monthly, weekly, and one-day passes can also offer riders a deep discount and reduce the cost per ride.  If you have a monthly local pass for $55 and ride every day to and from work (roughly 42 trips per month on average), then you only spend $1.31 per trip instead of $1.75.  Lastly, some riders such as seniors, children, and those with disabilities qualify for reduced fares.

There’s no doubt that some students utilize COTA much more than others, so some will get a great deal while others pay a nominal fee with little benefit.  On the whole, the OSU-COTA partnership look like a great deal for COTA by increasing their revenue and ridership.  Even the students who don’t ride COTA often though are probably not too upset about spending $27 a year (if attending for three quarters) for unlimited transit.  It’s negligible in comparison to all the other costs associated with tuition, room, board, and fees.  It’s a hell of a lot less than a parking pass.

This makes me wonder if implementing a similar system on a city-wide or sub-regional level would be a huge win-win.  Why not get rid of fares (or maybe just most fares) and add a small fee to every household’s property tax bill?  The 2005-2009 American Community Survey showed 453,580 households in Franklin County.  Again, the annual fare revenue collected by COTA was $13,817,908.  To balance the current revenue, those households would need to pay $30.46 per year on average.  The fee could be weighted based on the level of service in a community (it’s not really fair for someone in Canal Winchester or New Albany to pay the same fee as someone in Downtown).  Regardless though, I think the fees would be pretty small compared to a typical property tax bill of several thousand dollars.  They might even be small compared to the cost of a monthly pass ($55).  But now everyone can ride the bus as much as they want without the hassle of buying tickets,  monthly passes, or having exact change.  Just get on and get off, which is exactly how CABS works at OSU.  I think ridership would increase quite a bit just due to the simplicity of the system and the cheaper cost of riding.

An additional benefit would be faster service due to the lack of dwell time at stops.  There would be no more waiting for people to drop change into the machine, no more lines at the door waiting to board.  Just get on and sit down.  Lastly, I think this could be a more stable source of revenue for COTA, but there could be issues in making sure it’s easy to raise revenue as necessary.

In summary, COTA wins with higher ridership and lower costs (due to the smaller dwell times and less fare collection costs), transit riders win with cheaper and faster service, and non-transit riders win because the higher ridership would reduce congestion.  I’m sure many non-transit riders will say that COTA service isn’t worth even $30 a year to them, but I think a system like this has serious merits that should be discussed.

COTA Partners with CCAD, Brings Art to Transit

The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) has partnered with the Columbus College of Art and Design (CCAD) to create new bus stop shelters!
CCAD students in an industrial design class were challenged to craft a new passenger shelter that would replace existing shelters in the central business district.

Students were asked to incorporate innovative materials, sustainable or “green” features, protection from the elements and compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. They need to include all of these features in a unique, signature design that complements the urban environment and serves as an attractive focal point to the streetscape.

Without knowing anything about cost, materials, or amenities that would be included, it’s hard to pick a definite favorite. Based on design alone, I like Finalist A the best. It looks like it might have a lean bar in addition to a standard bench. Portland has these at some light rail stations and I thought they were a very good way to provide more comfort for many people in a small amount of space. I’m a little concerned about the channelization of water off of the roof though.

I also like the very modern and transparent look of Finalist C. Finalist B seemed a little too traditional for my tastes. That said, I have no problem with the existing COTA bus shelters in downtown. I think they’re pretty nice looking too.

Bus riders not thrilled with proposed COTA transit center
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:49 PM
By Robert Vitale
The Columbus Dispatch

A sweltering July afternoon failed to win over many Central Ohio Transit Authority riders today on the idea of a transit center that would consolidate Downtown bus stops.

A cool wait for the bus – or a warm wait or a dry one, depending on the weather – wouldn’t be worth the tradeoff of a longer walk to get there and a longer ride home, regular riders said.

“I’d go for the quickest option,” said Moten, waiting for a Broad Street bus in the not-too-helpful shade of a Statehouse parking-garage entrance.

…A COTA study of its Downtown operations suggested that rerouting more than a third of High Street buses a block west to Front Street bus stops would accomplish the same development goals with less cost to taxpayers and less disruption for passengers.

A transit center – with restrooms, stores and food service – would cost between $20 million and $40 million to build and $5 million a year to run, COTA consultants estimated. The most likely location would be at Gay and High streets, just a block north of Broad and High, but the consultants said routing buses through a center would add up to six minutes to some riders’ trips.

COTA executives prefer diverting 32 of 89 evening rush-hour buses to Front Street, but the plan would require converting Front Street to two-way traffic north of Broad. Consultants estimated that option would cost $1.6 million to build new shelters and $1.2 million to run annually.

It would mean an extra minute or two on the bus for passengers.

Neither plan would require a fare increase, COTA Vice President Doug Moore said. The agency hasn’t budgeted for either option, though, he said.

COTA President and CEO Bill Lhota said the agency likely will pursue one of the two plans instead of sticking with the status quo.

“We want to work with the leaders of this city,” he said.

READ MORE

So does that mean some buses are moving to Front Street?  Will COTA wait for transfer data from new fare boxes before making decisions?  Or is it back to square one to generate new ideas?

I think the volumes on Lane Avenue should probably be okay for a road diet.  It’s notable that three-lane roads are generally much safer than four-lane roads too.  Add to that Upper Arlington’s need for a “main street,” and that data indicate this area can support it economically, and I really like the road diet idea.  My only concern is that a 25 MPH speed limit seems a little low for a major road, but it is good for pedestrians.  More from ThisWeek:

Traffic calming, on-street parking

Upper Arlington to act on Lane Ave.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 08:41 AM

By LIN RICE

ThisWeek Community Newspapers

If most or all of AECOM’s recommendations are put in place, Lane Avenue will see some significant changes. The company suggests instituting permanent on-street parking on the north side of Lane, with a proposed consistent three-lane restriping design. Intersection crosswalks should be “tightened,” the report suggests, increasing both sight distance for drivers and allowing more on-street parking spaces.

The study suggests reducing the speed limit on Lane to 25 miles per hour between Northwest Boulevard and North Star, and that the city rethink its restriction of three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of development.

The study supports a revision of Upper Arlington’s 48-foot maximum height restriction on new buildings, adjusting the code to allow for four occupied floors of 10 to 12 feet each. The company also recommends keeping lot sizes to a minimum of one acre, and that the city explore shared parking options and even off-site parking agreements.

READ FULL ARTICLE

SEE FULL STUDY AND PRESENTATION MATERIALS

Why do we want to remove buses and passengers from High Street?  The Downtown Columbus 2010 Strategic Plan wants to “restore High Street,” and the bus congestion and lack of on-street parking are given as two reasons why there are tens of thousands of square feet of vacant storefronts.

High Street has always been a primary commercial corridor of Downtown Columbus, and the City as a whole. High Street is the hub of government, commercial and entertainment activity, however it faces numerous challenges. Despite recent reinvestment and redevelopment, High Street has tens of thousands of square feet of vacant storefronts and is pock-marked with surface parking lots. The bus transit mall that occupies High Street increases bus congestion, blocks storefronts and prevents on-street parking. The streetscape is aging and new street trees and street furnishings are badly needed.

One solution pitched by the plan is to build a transit center to replace the transit mall.

This new downtown transit center could have numerous positive spin-off effects. Reducing the bus congestion on High Street will allow for the proposed streetscape improvements and the return of on-street parking. To more efficiently serve the downtown area, cities such as Nashville have also instituted free, aggressively marketed and branded downtown circulator buses. With the advent of a transit center, there is an opportunity to revive COTA’s “Link” service within Downtown Columbus.

Alternatives

I have mentioned before that I don’t really agree with the concept that buses are the problem or that on-street parking would solve the retail vacancy problems on High Street, but COTA is playing nicely and evaluating the impacts it would have to their operations and their passengers.  They also evaluated several other concepts:

• Bus stop consolidation
• Skip-stop service
• Diversion of some local routes to 3rd Street and 4th Street
• Diversion of some local routes to a two-way 3rd Street
• Diversion of some local routes to a two-way Front Street
• Diversion of some local routes to Front Street and 3rd Street.
• Build a transit center at High Street and Gay Street
• Build a transit center at Long Street & 3rd Street
• Terminate routes at the existing north and south terminals and use a free shuttle service on High Street to connect the two.

I’m not going to try to outline the details of all of these, but I’ll cut and paste the evaluation matrix here.  If you want more details, I would encoruage you to look at the report.  It’s 49 pages long, but the text is actually quite concise, written in a reader-friendly way, and supplemented with lots of nice graphics.

Other than perhaps a comfort factor of waiting at a transit center, virtually all of these are bad for transit riders because they increase delays, transfers, or walking distances.  Financially, the transit center is obviously going to be expensive to construct and maintain.  The diversion options, including the transit center, also represent out-of-the-way travel for COTA, so they cost more operationally too.  The “impact on the pedestrian environment” category assumes that fewer people on High Street would be good.  I think that’s debatable, but it’s what the steering committee for the study wanted.  The only alternatives to advance beyond the preliminary evaluation stage were diverting buses to Front Street and building a transit center at High & Gay.

Route Diversion

The Front Street diversion would move six local routes to a two-way Front Street, leaving six on High Street.  There would still be up to 57 buses on portions of High Street during the peak hour compared to 34 on Front Street.  The lines were chosen based on the ability to provide a transfer as the route crosses High Street.  They mostly come from the east or down High Street itself.  The cost would be $1.2 million annually for extra buses on the #1, 11, and 16 routes to maintain reliable service due to the extra travel time, as well as another $2.0 million in capital costs (new buses and shelters).  This could potentially allow on-street parking on High Street during off-peak hours.

Transit Center

The report says the site for the Gay Street transit center would only be big enough to provide 14 bus bays, but 24 would be needed to serve all local buses on High Street.  So they allowed southbound buses to stay on High Street and stop adjacent to the transit center on the west side of the street while northbound buses and the #10 would divert to enter the transit center from Front Street and exit onto Long.  This would allow the removal of three northbound bus stops between State and Long for local routes, but express routes would still use those stops.  This could allow on-street parking on the east side of High Street during off-peak hours.  Several lines would require additional buses due to the lost time from the transit center diversion, costing $4.1 million extra in annual operating costs.  This is in addition to the $20 to $40 million cost of the transit center and $6 million for new buses.

Summary

The report doesn’t really make a recommendation.  It is just meant to provide information for the decision makers.  The Steering Committee apparently isn’t in favor of the transit center idea due to the cost and limited movement of buses and people off of High Street.  The next steps will be to gather public input on both of the final alternatives.  There were meetings Tuesday, July 19 and Wednesday, July 20.  There will be two additional meetings next week on Tuesday, July 26.

My opinion is that given the costs and questionable benefits, I don’t like either of these options much.  Ignoring the capital cost of the Front Street two-way conversion, which should be done anyway, even $1.2 million in annual operating costs is a blow to COTA service.  At an operating cost of $106.93 per vehicle revenue hour, $1.2 million could be used to provide 11,222 new service hours, or a 1.6% service increase.  That’s not huge, but I’d rather have that than a less congested High Street or a transit center that increases travel times  for riders so we can add three blocks of on-street parking (about 51 parking spaces by my estimate).

If the goal is to improve retail, and we had $1.2 million or more to burn, we could just spend that money on grants for businesses like the Mile on High Incentive District is doing.  Hell, at a rent of $17.84 per square foot per year, we could just pay the rent for over 67,000 square feet of retail space with $1.2 million.  Think any businesses would move into High Street for free rent?  Yes, please.  Think they could make a profit if they didn’t have to pay rent?  How could they not?  The city could even choose exactly which businesses they want on High Street.  That would take care of the  problem of “tens of thousands of square feet of vacant storefronts.”  I don’t see why pay more for worse transit service in the hopes that 51 on-street parking spaces will revitalize High Street.  If you want retail on High Street, give the $1.2 million directly to businesses.  Have a business plan competition to see who gets the money.  Make it good for only a year or two.  After that, the businesses have to stand on their own.  The possibilities are endless really, but it seems like more of a sure thing than diverting buses to Front Street or building a transit center.

I have a couple of quick thoughts, but you can do your own analysis on these. Cleveland is more or less as I would expect. Ohio City, Lakewood, and Cleveland Heights are at the high end. Shaker Heights is also very high, and has some retail, but not much of a walkable urban main street (parts of Chagrin Blvd are close).  I would suggest that Beachwood has successfully capitalized on Shaker’s potential, not to mention attracting drivers from farther east.  Shaker Square (in Cleveland) has a high value though.

I really don’t know Cincinnati well enough to comment, but it looks like the Hyde Park area and downtown are the high end of the aggregate income density figures.

‘