RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
From the CBus Transit Blog:
Census and Transit
A few days ago the Census Bureau released some updated figures concerning the population of US cities. While Columbus continued to grow, it was surpassed by Austin, Texas and slipped from being the country’s 15th largest city to the 16th. Columbus remains, however, the largest city in the country without a form of rail transit thanks to the completion of Phoenix’s light rail line. But is there a correlation between our falling rank and our city’s lack of a comprehensive plan for improving our cities transportation opportunities? Perhaps. CBT looked at the five fastest growing cities in the country (by percentage) with populations over 500,000 to analyze their rail transit systems.
Thx for the correction on Austin. Do you believe that is a major factor in that city’s success?
No, it just opened this year. Austin has been successful for a long time before now. They do have an excellent bus system though, which I mentioned here:
http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/cota-ridership-up-but-still-room-for-improvement/
While the original post was a bit simplified in its analysis, I think some of the counterpoints are oversimplified as well. Transit-Oriented Development has a lot of indirect measurements that are hard to line up all in the same column when comparing the growth rates of these cities. A person or a business may not cite rail transit as a main reason that they relocate to a different region, but I would guess that it could very easily be attributed as an indirect reason for many.
It would be more interesting to look at growth and property values within a region (by census tract) before and after a rail line is constructed.
garrettbe – We did have a plan for a startup, “North Corridor Light Rail Project” but didn’t get the federal dollars for it. Believe me there should be a comprehensive rail plan developed. I blame COTA for not playing an role in rail. Our public transit entity doesn’t do anything, not even put web space devoted to a possible light rail startup in Columbus.
We need to have a web site similar to http://www.sunrail.com - to provide the general public information on rail possibility in Columbus.
As far as the growth discussion, the cities having the most success are the ones attacting the most “out of region” jobs and/or overall job growth. Employment is the number one reason for migration and why the sunbelt has been growing so much.
If the sidewalks and bike lanes are sufficient enough in providing alternatives and no additional traffic will appear, the why bother adding lanes? If people are willing to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to go 1.5 miles, then let them. There’s no reason to spend millions for people who choose to fill up these roads with mostly SOVs (single occupant vehicles). Like I said, it’s all for the same “car is king” mentality.
From what I can make out (no streetview yet), Hard Rd has nowhere to cross from Sawmill to Stanbum; that’s over 2,500 ft, nearly half a mile, on what according to what you stated is a traffic choked road. How are you supposed to walk from the new sidewalk on one side to the one on the other side? There is no effort whatsoever to maximize the functionality of these new sidewalks. The city just wants to plop them down and claim victory for pedestrians.
Hard and Rome-Hilliard don’t have to be like Gay St. Could be just like High in the Short North, but with more lanes. My priority for cycling lies in safety over # of people riding bikes. Riding in traffic in the middle of the lane means you simply won’t get turned into by right-turning vehicles. Doesn’t happen. Can’t say the same for bike lanes off the side of the road, as they open you up to many more conflicts than those already existing with 1000 lb+ vehicles. That is a cold, hard fact. Put big sharrows on those new right-hand lanes and signs stating that cyclists have right to the full lane. Let people make the choice from there instead of making the addition of a large number of naive cyclists on the road a priority. Have you even ridden in a bike lane on a road like Morse before considering them a viable alternative? Have the people who concocted these plans ever even ridden in that bike lane just once? It’s obvious to me that the answer is “no”.
You say the people are choosing to drive, but I’m saying they don’t have any other choice. The only choice would be to move to a place where you do have a choice. That could work fine on the individual level, but it’s not reasonable to expect the whole Far Northwest Side to move and vacant neighborhoods probably aren’t in the city’s best interest. The suburbs need to be retrofitted, and I think this project which adds bike lanes and sidewalks is an excellent first step.
As for crossing the street, I believe the project is providing a median, which would allow mid-block crosswalks to be provided if desired. I haven’t seen the detailed plan view, so I don’t really know if sidewalks are being “plopped down” without consideration for pedestrians or not.
I have not ridden on Morse Road. We don’t have a whole lot of roads like Morse in the City of Chicago. I don’t think there are any that are 45 MPH and there are very few with six lanes. I think the most auto-oriented road with bike lanes that I have ridden would be a portion of Elston Avenue in Chicago. The segment I linked to is four car lanes (although there aren’t always lane lines) with bike lanes on both sides and no parking. Speeds are posted at 30 MPH, but the 85th percentile is probably around 36 or 37 MPH. I liked having a bike lane in that situation.
@ColumbusInsider I think I have a new web project to get started on, very similar to http://www.sunrail.com or the site that was created to support streetcars in Columbus.
Does anyone know a hosting company that would be generous enough to sponsor http://www.columbusmetro.com?
garrettbe Says: Does anyone know a hosting company that would be generous enough to sponsor http://www.columbusmetro.com?
I’d gladly host ya. Send me an email – walkerevans@columbusunderground.com
As much as I would love to see rail here, I would much prefer to see COTA get things right with the bus system first.
Putting out a lot of what ifs won’t help things. I’d rather see the public face of COTA focusing on the bus system and behind the scenes developing that plan. Hash out the details. Give us 2-3 options that are real and could happen. Then go to the public.
Again, while making COTA better is great, it isn’t a substitute for rail. I’d rather see the development dollars that rail will bring any day, rather than better functioning bus service…particularly now.
But can rail succeed or-better-be accepted by the general public if there is a negative image of the existing service? I would argue that one of the hurdles here, beyond the availability any comprehensive plan, is how the public perceives COTA.
Even more important is how the rail system will function with the current bus system. Lhota speaks of a multi-modal system, but what good are the benefits of rail travel if the bus issues still aren’t resolved.
I still want rail and, yes, they should still continue to develop that plan and work on the presentation. I just think they need to continue showing Columbus their commitment to what is already here.
Besides, what would be a better advertisement/education tool? A website or a handful of modern BRT lines that can improve service in key locations and provide a concrete visual for what improved modern transit can be?
I look at it as X dollars for transit, and buses aren’t going to do what rail does as far as an economic development tool. Pick a starter line, build it, go from there.
No argument, really.
Developing rail is going to take a few years at best (It’s been a decade or so with all the talk, right?) so why not continue to improve and make usable the current system to get more people on transit allowing the rail line greater initial success? If Columbus can blow estimated ridership numbers out of the water it only makes subsequent build outs easier.
John, what can I say? You just don’t get it.
1. No one held a gun to anyone’s head to force them to move into car-dependent parts of the city.
2. There’s no need for a first step if the city would only do these plans properly.
3. Bike lanes are not the solution. This is. It’s a bike and car lane. That’s a complete street, not more of this “separate but equal” nonsense. Once again, the West Coast is leaving us in the dust while we naysay and do everything we can to put cars first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USKQUbFbYqg&feature=player_embedded
One of these days you’ll have to tell me all about bike oriented development and all the billions Columbus would see by spending millions to accommodate you.
1. You don’t seem interested in the city investing any money in any place that you deem unworthy of investment. I can’t argue with your prejudice and I’m not sure why I keep trying.
2. I’m not sure what you mean. Even a “properly done” plan would still be a first step.
3. I liked that video. That’s an interesting design. I think something like that would be very good in low speed environments, in places where the lane utilization factor is low, or in places where there is a lot of cycling but not enough width for a bike lane (i.e. High Street). However, I could see that design being a problem though on high-speed roadways, or in high density situations where there is very little spare roadway capacity (high lane utilization factor). Keep an eye out for any research evaluating the safety of this design and the ability to attract more cyclists. I would be interested to see it.
Side note: I still haven’t seen any research showing bike lanes to be unsafe. On the contrary, this FHWA report encourages their use and this study also found lower crash rates in bike lanes.
The bias from Columbisite is apparent. I know the ‘burbs get a lot of sneering from the hipster crowd, but they pay taxes and are entitled to consideration.
Anyway, I think we are going about this backwards. Profitable, money-making (or at least breaking even) rail comes in areas with serious density. The first step, to me, is to encourage density in downtown. Right now, living downtown is a luxury; a playground for Columbus’ wealthy, because there is absolutely no practicality to it whatsoever. Imagine if you lived downtown: where would you (practically) shop for housewares? Food? Yeah, there’s the German Village’s Giant Eagle and Kroger. That’s it. Your next stop has to be Grandview to go to the Target…there aren’t any other viable options for saving.
I don’t know what it will take to get costs-of-living down in the downtown, but that is your first step – get actual, real working people to live downtown.
It isn’t rail that drives development – it’s development that drives the need for rail.
I wonder how much cost the large parking structures add to new downtown housing. IF it’s a lot, then that’s one reason why it might make more sense to build the transit first in order to reduce the need for structured parking and the cost of residences.
Ayn_Randian Says: It isn’t rail that drives development – it’s development that drives the need for rail.
I would say that there’s a bit of both, actually. It makes sense to build a transit line in the most densely populated corridor in order to serve the largest existing population, but then we’ve also seen many examples of transit oriented development sprout up around new rail systems being built in various cities all across the country.
Anyway, I agree with you that having more affordable options Downtown for both living and shopping would be great, but solving that problem is much easier said than done. I’d say that Downtown is well posed for the development some of the retail needs (such as your example of a Target) but I think we’re going to see the more affordable options for places to live appearing just outside of the Downtown core (Franklinton & Near East Side).