Cincinnati Union Terminal

If you haven’t checked out the new transportation blog in town yet, now’s a great time to head over to CBus Transit. There’s a very good post explaining attempts to thwart Cincinnati’s streetcar, and in the process the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati inter-city Amtrak route too.

Could Cincinnati Derail Ohio’s Plans?

Cincinnati is poised to derail the state-wide and regional plans for intercity and high-speed rail through one organization’s anti-rail tirade and another organization’s lack of oversight.

Cincinnati has been planning for some time to build a streetcar loop through its downtown, but anti-transit and anti-tax groups have been gathering to defeat the proposal. COAST, Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, and Cincinnati’s local chapter of the NAACP have teamed up to force a ballot question on the issue. The NAACP believes the money will be better used elsewhere in the city, while COAST is largely opposed to all government ventures of the type. Together, the two have successfully petitioned to get a charter amendment on the ballot, but if approved, the measure would have unintended consequences.

READ MORE

According to this article, the proposed ballot language is as follows:

Be it resolved by the people of the City of Cincinnati that a new Article XVI of the Charter is hereby added as follows: The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same.

As worded, the ordinance would include all passenger rail, including the 3C corridor if City funds were to be involved.  There is hope though.  The proposed language can be edited by the council before going to the ballot:

Although the signature drive’s success compels Cincinnati City Council to place the issue on the ballot, council members are not bound by the petitions’ precise wording and are expected to decide that potentially contentious matter at their next meeting Aug. 5.

Since this issue in Cincinnati would have impacts on the rest of Ohio, I suggest contacting Cincinnati’s City Council to let them know you oppose including all forms of passenger rail in the wording of this ballot issue.

I’m behind in posting general transportation news. Here is an update from the Dispatch from a few days ago on the status of stimulus funds. I copied and pasted the parts relevant to transportation.

Most local stimulus projects still pending
Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:36 AM
By Doug Caruso
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The federal stimulus has yet to pay Columbus, Dublin and Westerville to install energy-efficient light bulbs.

Bexley hasn’t poured a single wheelchair curb ramp. Upper Arlington hasn’t started its new sidewalks. And the Rich Street Bridge in Downtown Columbus is still a blueprint.

Few of the 90-plus stimulus projects The Dispatch has identified in Franklin County have begun. Most of them still are awaiting federal approval.

…The Central Ohio Transit Authority has workers doing site preparation and renovations at two of its facilities on Fields Avenue near the state fairgrounds. The work is expected to draw about $6.8 million in stimulus reimbursement, said Marty Stutz, COTA spokesman.

Approved

Three transportation projects worth about $1.5 million have received federal approval to be put out for bids.

Repairs to a bridge on Broad Street over I-71 will go out for bids on Wednesday, said Nancy Burton, an Ohio Department of Transportation spokeswoman. A project to rehabilitate a rail bridge over Darby Creek will go out in August, she said, and a resurfacing project on W. Broad Street from Hague Avenue to Central Avenue has no date for bids set.

Awaiting approval

Most projects in Franklin County are still awaiting approval from federal agencies. That’s no surprise to those who have been watching the process from the beginning.

“Everything’s moving on the schedules we understood,” said Mike Brown, an aide to Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman. “They’re doing what they said they were going to do.”

About $70 million in transportation projects for Franklin County is awaiting Federal Highway Administration approval.

That includes $26 million for projects identified by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) for Franklin County, $25 million for improvements at the intersection of Parsons and Livingston avenues near Nationwide Children’s Hospital and $14 million to upgrade Alum Creek Drive and Groveport Road near Rickenbacker Airport.

Some of those projects will start more quickly than others. Resurfacing projects, which require less environmental documentation and don’t require purchasing right-of-way, are further along, said Nick Gill, assistant director for transportation at MORPC.

He said he expects to receive authorization in August or September to seek bids for about $6 million in resurfacing work. Upper Arlington’s $500,000 project to install sidewalks in residential neighborhoods is likely close behind, Gill said.

READ MORE

We haven’t talked about streetcars much here lately, although one thread has started to heat up again on Columbus Underground in the past week.  I wanted to share an interesting article I read on Human Transit last week though.  The author of the blog, Jarrett Walker, is a transit consultant based in Australia.  The article begins by arguing that streetcars replacing existing bus lines are not a mobility improvement.  Before you get all upset and start commenting, let him explain.

streetcars: an inconvenient truth (final july 7 version)
…Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before. This makes streetcars quite different from most of the other transit investments being discussed today.

Where a streetcar is faster or more reliable than the bus route it replaced, this is because other improvements were made at the same time — improvements that could just as well have been made for the bus route. These improvements may have been politically packaged as part of the streetcar project, but they were logically independent, so their benefits are not really benefits of the streetcar as compared to the bus.

I think this gets to the heart of what streetcar opponents dislike about the Columbus streetcar plan and why many transit advocates would still rather see more regional rail lines that actually improve travel times.  The streetcar would run and up and down High Street, just like the #2 bus.  It doesn’t take you anywhere you can’t already go via transit.  It won’t do take you anywhere faster than a bus could if you were to provide the same stop frequency with level boarding and off-board fare payment.   But it will cost over $100 Million.

Despite these drawbacks, there ARE benefits of building the streetcar, as acknowledged by Mr. Walker:

* I’m not disputing the ridership benefits of streetcars. Streetcars do attract more ridership than the buses they replace, though it’s not always clear why. There’s an urgent need for more research on how much of the ridership benefits of a streetcar are truly results of intrinsic benefits of the streetcar (such as the ride quality, the legibility provided by tracks in the street, etc) as opposed to results of other improvements introduced at the same time (including speed and reliability improvements, better public information, off-board fare collection, and possible differences in operations culture).
* I’m not saying that streetcars don’t promote urban development; clearly they seem to be doing that, though there’s room for disagreement about how much the development really requires the streetcar.
* I’m not saying that electric streetcars aren’t quieter and more environmentally friendly than diesel buses; clearly they are, but if this is your only reason for wanting streetcars, electric trolleybuses may meet your need less expensively.
* I’m not saying that streetcars aren’t fun to ride. They are.

Most important, I’m not saying in the abstract that streetcars are good or bad. I’m saying that they are a major capital expense that requires a justification other than mobility when we compare them to the bus routes they replace, or that could be developed instead. If you want a streetcar because it will make your city a better place, then build it for that reason. If you want a streetcar because of the development it will attract, fine, though this suggests that (as in Portland) the landowners who will benefit when the streetcar raises their property values should probably be one the main sources of the money. But you want a streetcar because it’s intrinsically faster and more reliable than a bus — well, that’s just not true.

So I think this provides some insight into how the argument for the streetcar should be framed by advocates.

1. The streetcar needs to be viewed as a supplement to the #2 bus, not as a replacement. Maybe the streetcar can even enhance service on the #2, perhaps by letting it run a little faster through the Campus, the Short North, and Downtown with fewer stops? It could also help provide extra capacity in its larger cars to relieve over-crowding on the #2 in peak periods.
2. The streetcar is likely to increase transit ridership.
3. Electrification can provide environmental benefits.
4. Rails provide a smoother rides than even state-of-the art buses that I have ridden.
5. Most importantly, the streetcar has potential to spur economic development and help create a denser downtown.

I do think that a full alternatives analysis should be considered before building the streetcar. Hopefully this would be included with the engineering study that has yet to take place. If an alternatives analysis has already been done, please let me know. I’d love a link to the report. The studies I’ve seen so far basically justify investment in a streetcar without considering other alternatives. Human Transit warns against this approach:

Let me repeat: my purpose here is not to praise or condemn the streetcar in the abstract. But as a transit planner, I’ve learned to question sweeping claims on behalf of any technology, including a lot of bus technologies. Transit planners are trained to ask a different question: “First, what are we trying to do? Second, what’s the best tool to do it?” I love seeing a house built, so I respect the role of hammers. But if you fall in love with the hammer rather than the house, you’ll just go around looking for nails to pound, and that’s not the way to build the best possible house.

The diversity of transit needs in each city is so great, and geography of each corridor is so different, that the decision about the right mode needs to be made corridor-by-corridor. Portland’s new Streetcar Network Plan does acknowledge this, but the entire scope and definition of the study is still troubling. The question as framed by the study was not “What are our transit needs, and how do we meet them?” Rather, it was framed as “We want streetcars!!! So where do we put them?”

…But when the thinking starts with the love of one technology, you’re in danger of producing an inferior transit service, because when compromise needs to be made, technology-first thinking will tend to sacrifice the goals to save the technology. To use my previous analogy, you’ll build an inferior house because you weren’t really focused on building the house, you were focused on how much you like your hammer.

Paul Benson posted a pretty cool slide show on ColumbusUnderground recently that imagines a comprehensive passenger rail network for central Ohio being constructed between 2014 and 2024.    Here’s an image of the final network:

I think it’s really important that any future rail proposals in Columbus have a longer range map like this.  A major new passenger rail line is likely to require a sales tax increase.  In order to build enough support from voters, they need to see how it will benefit them, if not today then someday in the future.

Thanks for the map Paul.  I’ll also be adding this to our Fantasy Maps page soon.

In case you haven’t already noticed, the speed limits for trucks on interstate highways has increased in Ohio from 55 MPH to 65 MPH.  This was included as part of the new transportation budget.

Trucks allowed to speed up in Ohio
By Celeste Savage • CelesteSavage1@gmail.com • June 30, 2009

COLUMBUS — Starting Wednesday, state law allows most trucks to go 65 miles per hour on many of Ohio’s interstates.

It’s one change to Ohio traffic laws that the state legislature approved as part of the transportation budget three months ago.

As a part of House Bill 2, Ohio lawmakers increased the speed limit for large motor vehicles and non-commercial buses from 55 mph to 65 mph.

The change applies only to interstates — not U.S. Routes, State Routes or other multi-lane divided highways – where speed limits currently are split between 65 mph and 55 mph.

It is expected that all speed-limit signs will be changed by July 2, without the need for paying Ohio Department of Transportation workers overtime. They’ll be placing white reflector material over the 55 mph part of the signs

READ MORE

While the new speed limit will undeniably save time for truckers, there have been some concerns about safety of the measure.  There has been research on the relationship between speed and crashes that suggests speed differential may be more closely related to crashes than actual travel speeds.  See the following excerpt from Managing Speed: Review of Current Practices for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits:

Although the evidence is not conclusive, speed appears to contribute to crash occurrence. Theory, empirical data drawn from correlational studies, and causal analyses of crashes provide evidence that both speed and speed dispersion are associated with crash involvement.  Crash involvement rates rise as a function of speed for certain crash types, such as single-vehicle crashes. Deviation from the average traffic speed is also associated with crash involvement. At high speeds, deviation from average traffic speeds not only increases crash probability but also the risk of a severe crash because of the close link between speed and injury severity discussed in the following section.

Limited data are available to analyze speed-safety relationships by road class. Deviation from average traffic speeds appears to play a role in crash involvement on Interstate highways, particularly near interchanges on urban Interstates, and to a greater extent on rural nonlimited-access highways where high vehicular speeds and poorer road design combine to increase crash probability. Less is known about the role of speed and speed dispersion on urban roads.

So I expect that the number of crashes could actually decrease by setting the truck speed limit equal to the passenger vehicle speed limit.  On the other hand, the average severity could increase.  The same report notes the following:

In summary, all of the studies that have investigated the link between vehicle speed and injury severity have found a consistent relationship. As driving speed increases, so does the impact speed of a vehicle in a collision. Increased impact speed, in turn, results in a sharp increase in injury severity because of the power relationship between impact speed and the energy released in a crash.

If I’m right, will lower crash rates and faster travel times make up for higher average crash severity?  I definitely haven’t done enough research on the issue to decide that with any certainty.

Does anyone have any anecdotes out there about your experiences on the road with the now faster-moving trucks?

Dead On Arrival.

It looks like the proposed Clintonville roundabout, and all the controversy it stirred up is now a non-issue.  There’s no money to build it according to the Dispatch (see below).  The cost of the one roundabout does appear to have been $17.8 Million.  The ThisWeek article on the subject wasn’t clear if the $17 Million to $19 Million cost was for the one roundabout or for an ultimate concept including four roundabouts.

The Disptach article below also discusses whether or not a proposed roundabout should be built at Olentangy & Linworth now that the intersection is experiencing a lower crash rate than before.

Clintonville traffic circle idea killed
Monday, June 29, 2009 10:09 PM
By Mark Ferenchik and Robert Vitale
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Columbus officials have killed an idea for a proposed traffic circle at N. High Street and E. North Broadway in Clintonville because of high costs and concerns that it would require taking too much property from nearby landowners.

Meanwhile, a declining number of crashes at Linworth and Olentangy River roads have forced the Franklin County engineer to reconsider building a traffic circle there.

The Clintonville roundabout would have cost at least $17 million to build, planning and operations administrator Patricia Austin wrote in a letter to D Searcy, who leads the Clintonville Area Commission.

“There is no money for it. It’s simply not feasible,” said Rick Tilton, the city’s public service spokesman.

The total doesn’t include the cost of land acquisition, Austin said. She also thought the roundabout would take out a Starbucks and possibly a Kroger store at the intersection.

A Clintonville task force had estimated the project would cost $1 million.

The city had planned to build a left-turn lane from westbound North Broadway to High so people would not cut through side streets to head south on High. But some North Broadway residents oppose that idea, fearing their street would be widened.

READ MORE

The intersection of High Street and North Broadway is in the news again. This time, it’s an alternate proposal from the community to build a roundabout at the intersection.

High Street roundabout sought
Some on North Broadway favor circle over adding left-turn lane
Monday, June 22, 2009 3:11 AM
By Bill Bush
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

A Clintonville task force is proposing what members say would be the first urban traffic roundabout in Franklin County, at High Street and E. North Broadway.

In suburbs such as Dublin and Hilliard, roundabouts have reduced injury accidents and process traffic more efficiently than traffic lights, officials say. Columbus city officials say only that they are studying the Clintonville proposal.

The idea surfaced after Columbus proposed a $385,000 widening of a small stretch of E. North Broadway to accommodate a left turn lane onto High Street.

Westbound motorists who want to turn south onto High use side streets because North Broadway does not have a turn lane, said Mike McLaughlin, a Clintonville Area Commission member.

The seven-member task force that McLaughlin led recommended that the turn-lane project go forward, but that a roundabout should eventually be built, he said.

…The project would cost about $1 million, not including acquiring about 30 parking spaces from a Kroger parking lot on the northwest corner and land from a Starbucks parking lot at the northeast corner and demolishing a vacant commercial building on the southwest corner, Blazer said.

READ MORE

The complaint by residents that adding a westbound left turn lane could somehow increase the likelihood of North Broadway being widened all the way to Indianola hasn’t resonated with me.  I think a turn lane could be added with very minimal impacts that would reduce delays at the intersection and solve the cut-through traffic problem for the residential streets in the neighborhood.

Despite that, this is an interesting proposal since there aren’t many examples of multi-lane modern roundabouts in urban locations in the US. The proposed drawing shows a big chunk of the already small Kroger parking lot gone along with the building on the southwest corner of the intersection. I wonder how Kroger feels about that?  The estimated cost of the roundabout is $1,000,000, not including land acquisition. The proposed left turn lane is just $365,000. Other economic costs to consider include the cost of crashes at the intersection, vehicle delays, and fuel use.

From the safety perspective, roundabouts reduce crashes by 37% on average and injuries by 50%. Depending on the number of crashes that currently take place at the intersection, that could be a significant cost savings that would make up for the difference in land acquisition and capital costs over time. On the other hand, there is a big debate in the transportation engineering community about the safety of multi-lane roundabouts in an urban context. The sticking point seems to be visually impaired pedestrians. We’re not sure that drivers yield consistently enough to keep a blind pedestrian safe.

I would need to do some detailed traffic modeling, which means I would need turning movement volumes, to determine if delays will be reduced at the intersection or not.  Roundabouts usually compare favorably with signalized intersections though.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in Clintonville.

Passenger Trains To Be In Ohio By 2011
By Ana Jackson
Reporter
Published: June 18, 2009

CENTRAL OHIO—The fight for federal money is on, and Ohio is in the race for a piece of the $8 billion that President Obama recently allocated towards improving passenger-rail service.

Passenger trains were expected to be up and running in Ohio by 2010, but the fight for federal money is pushing the project back to 2011.

Governor Ted Strickland is asking for about $250 million to complete the 3-C corridor.

The 3-C corridor would connect Columbus to Cincinnatti, Cleveland, Dayton and stops along some suburbs.

Stu Nicholson, the spokesperson for the Ohio Rail Development Commission, say Ohio is considered a front-runner in the competition for federal funding because the state is working with other Mid-Western and Great Lakes states to share resources.

READ MORE

It may be news to NBC 4, but there are already passenger trains in Ohio, just not in Columbus. Nevertheless, it’s too bad to see the project getting pushed back a year from the original hope of 2010.  Better late than never though.

From The Dispatch:

Rt. 315: Getting there from here
Sunday,  June 14, 2009 3:33 AM
BY BILL BUSH

While workers repair bridges and the highway surface, the 70,000 vehicles a day that travel Rt. 315 will be squeezed into two lanes in each direction, down from the existing three lanes. By next Monday, those temporary lanes all will be on what is currently the southbound side of the freeway in a project that is scheduled to stretch into October.

[Read More]

Council OKs accepting $33.5M in stimulus funds
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 10:51am EDT | Modified: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 10:56am
Business First of Columbus

More than $33 million in federal stimulus dollars is headed to three Columbus roadwork projects after Columbus City Council voted to accept the funding Monday night.

Council passed an ordinance accepting $33.5 million in stimulus funding, $25 million of which is headed to a project to widen and improve Parsons and Livingston avenues near the campus of Nationwide Children’s Hospital. Council also accepted $5.5 million for a number of upgrades in downtown’s River South district.

…The third piece of funding council accepted Monday night is $3 million headed to reconstruction and resurfacing projects on eight city streets.

READ MORE

I’m generally leery of “widening and improving” intersections in urban locations like Parsons & Livingston, but I found a project description online and this looks like a genuine multi-modal improvement.  I expect that the widening will include left turn lanes which should improve safety and reduce delays.  The sidewalks will be widened from 4′ to 8′ wide and bike lanes (although only 4′ wide) will be included.

As for the street resurfacing, that’s always a good thing.  I made a map of the streets getting resurfaced here.