RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The Ohio Department of Transportation is responsible for a wide variety of highway upgrades and maintenance projects throughout Central Ohio, but two of the largest local projects currently in development are the Interstate 70/71 “Split Fix” and the 3C Corridor Passenger Rail system.
We recently sat down with Jolene Molitoris, Director of ODOT, to discuss both of these projects. Part two of our interview focuses on the “Split Fix” and can be found below. Part one of our interview focuses on the 3C Corridor and can be found HERE.
Walker Evans: Let’s switch gears to talk about the 70/71 Split-Fix. This is a project that was born out of safety concerns, so it’s essentially an engineering project. Of course, there are neighborhood connectivity issues, aesthetic concerns, and other things that are being added to the primary focus of safety improvements. A lot of the community feedback I’ve been hearing makes it sound as if those concerns are not being made as important as they could be. So my question is a bit of a hypothetical… if safety was not an issue with the split, would this project be happening at all?
Jolene Molitoris: First of all, safety is number one. It has to be. I can’t confirm for you where exactly our leadership’s heads were ten or fifteen years ago when they first started talking about this, but safety is definitely a driver. Remember, the road itself is not a brand new road. A system has to be updated, and there are design criteria for roads and bridges that are different.
What I hope you’ve seen personally since you have attended public meetings, is that the tenure and the focus has dramatically changed. Safety will always be number one, but we recognize that the road was a gash in our neighborhoods here. We feel a commitment to integrating any improvements that we will bring to this project in a way that will enhance connectivity, livability and neighborhood sustainability.
What we want to do is design a new way of looking at transportation. This isn’t about a big department coming in and doing something… it’s about your neighbors. How can we involve the people in a way that creates an outcome that provides as much satisfaction as possible. We have FHWA rules, we have environmental rules, and some other things that are non-negotiable, but our goal is to meet those requirements in a way that creates a win-win situation. I’ve heard people say that win-win is kind of hackneyed, but it will never be hackneyed for me. I don’t know what other terminology you can use that is more clear about your goals. Win for the people of Central Ohio and Columbus, win for the neighborhoods, win for safety, and a win for potential economic development with the highway caps. Those caps are so potentially fabulous. It brings caps to neighborhoods that don’t have strong economic development right now. And it could bring new life.
WE: Many people point to the I-670 cap as a shining example of successfully stitching neighborhoods back together. Still, there seems to be a lot of concern out there because the plan only calls for only two guaranteed caps for the Split-Fix at Spring Street and Long Street and the rest are up in the air right now, correct?
JM: Well, remember what these caps are. Hardly any of this is “guaranteed” anyway. We have to come together as Central Ohioans who will not rest until we get the best for our state and our town and our people. The reason 670 worked so well is because the private sector got involved. We can’t guarantee that. We need to engage, involve, motivate, and stimulate the process of understanding the potential for the city and for the private sector with what you see over on the 670 cap. I mean, look at what’s happened to the Short North. It’s unbelievable. It’s burgeoning. It’s got a life, energy. A lot of it is hard work of small business owners, restaurants, and galleries. But many of them had a chance because of the cap. We think the same kind of chance can come to other neighborhoods. First of all, we have to build the design so that it is strong enough for a cap. You don’t have the same level of strength for something that is not going to be a cap. So we have to be sure that that foundation is laid. And that requires some more investment, but I think it’s wise investment. It’s investment focused on economic development.
WE: I was recently sent a copy of MORPC’s regional data set from 2004 that was compiled with some data from as early as 2000 (Click here to view “Downtown-Columbus-Land-Use-Forecast-Assumptions.doc”) which was used to make projections for the Split Fix project, and some things in that document stand out as being out of date. The data set projects that we’ll have an additional anchor store at the City Center Mall and that Lazarus will still be in business. Of course, today all 1.3 million square feet of the mall is completely gone. The data set also assumes that the Downtown population will quadruple between 2000 to 2030 which doesn’t take into consideration the housing market collapse and financial issues that have have slowed that growth. The data set also says that we will have a significant new residential development on the land west of the Arena District, which has changed hands and is now owned by Penn National Gaming as the former casino site.
JM: But the casino’s not going to be there. That lands for sale, isn’t it?
WE: That’s what I’ve heard, but I don’t know if there are any potential buyers or what possible plans for it are at this time. I don’t know if it’s safe to assume that it will find another residential developer with the same original intent or if it will continue to sit vacant in Penn National’s ownership for another decade. So my question is this… with newer 2008 data available from MORPC that is much different from the information that was compiled starting in 2000, do you think that moving forward with the Split-Fix in the exact same fashion is still viable, or do we need to make adjustments based on the variations that have happened in the past five or six years?
JM: First of all, no data set ever remains perfect. It’s like any corporate or strategic plan, you do your best and then you adjust as you go along. In the last year and a quarter, District 6 and I have been working closely along with Steve Campbell, our Chief of Staff and our Chief Engineer, Keith Sweringen. We looked at this whole project and we started at a pretty basic level.
First of all, consider the magnitude of this. The $1.7 billion price tag was mentioned the other day. We believe those dollars may ever be available at that level. So what we believe is that we have to work faster and we have to work smarter. What investments can we make to evolve the road and improve the road and its environments and its impacts in a way that gets you the benefits that were looked for, safety benefits, congestion mitigation, and all of those things. So we’re going to do this first half billion dollar phase, and then we’re going to see how it works. What benefits will we get from this investment, and how much will be mitigated. We need to see it working and then make decisions about the next steps. So I don’t think at all that what is being proposed is exactly like the original proposal. The environmental document is what people use and that document certainly predates the Strickland administration.
And to me, albeit the said demise of City Center, when I go Downtown and see all of the residential development, I’m amazed at what has been accomplished in this time of economic stress. I think that continued development is phenomenal.
WE: I believe that we’ve grown the Downtown population from 3500 to 5500 residents in the past 10 years, but due to the national housing marketing problems, we’ve fallen short of the 10,000 goal.
JM: I think it is still remarkable. It is changing the face of Downtown, and the feel of it. People are really enjoying it.
WE: This actually leads into my next question… A lot of that Downtown development has been directly and positively impacted by the public investment that has converted several of our one-way auto-friendly streets into two-way pedestrian and bike friendly streets. The main examples being Gay Street, Front Street, and Civic Center Drive, which is under construction right now. The “Split Fix” project adds two new one-way highway feeder streets, and I’m wondering if the two-way treatment is in order for our old Downtown feeder streets… Third, Fourth, Spring and Long. Traffic levels are likely to be much lower on those streets after the reconfiguration with the “Split Fix”. Has anyone at ODOT given any thought as to what their role would be in helping the City of Columbus to convert those streets back into their original two-way “urban friendly” status?
JM: This project is certainly a partnership. I just met with the Mayor the other day. We’re very focused on working with the cities and Mayors all over Ohio as well as the planning agencies like MORPC. So I think how our systems realign can’t be just related to the evolution of the road. I call the “Spit Fix” the “Evolution of 70/71″. Because a fix sounds to me too much like a band-aid. We’re hoping this will be a cultural change, much broader than just a fix. We want to take a wholistic approach as opposed to a band-aid. I think the issue of how transit, how light rail, how the 3C all implicate this, is really important. So that conversation will be ongoing.
Tom Wester, who is our District Deputy in District 6, used to be at the city. Our chief of staff Steve Campbell was at the city. Mark Kelsey, who used to be here at ODOT, is now at the city. So there are strong commitments among the professionals to make sure we communicate things correctly. This isn’t about a knee-jerk reaction. It requires a very thoughtful ongoing discussion and proper decision making until the very first part of the project is complete. There’s no silver bullet for this. I think we are committed to a living process. This isn’t something that is black or white. It is something that requires an ongoing conversation. Cities change. People’s lives change. Priorities change. Things like the City Center change. Everything is going to have an impact.
Right now we have a process called the Ohio’s Transportation Future’s Plan. It should be complete at the end of the year. The outcome will be our policy and investment strategy and will lay out the criteria that is going to drive our investments. When you don’t have enough money to do everything, you have to make decisions. And if you look at not only the Future’s Plan but the TRAC, Transportation Review Advisory Committee, it advised the department and the state on investments over $5M. The Split’s on their list. Their criteria was dramatically altered in December 2008 where economic development, environmental, impact on cities, those things were raised so that the conversation is about how we do business today, not twenty years ago.
More ongoing information about the Interstate 70/71 Split Fix Project can be found online at dot.state.oh.us/projects/7071.
Part One of this interview which focuses on the 3C Corridor Passenger Rail System can be found by CLICKING HERE.
There are several reasons to be disappointed in the new director of ODOT. If safety were such a priority, why not help keep unsafe drivers off the road and work with the BMV to ensure only qualified drivers can get licenses ?
Bad drivers aside, ODOT cites the high number of overcapacity vehicles as the main reason for updating the split, yet they partner with the city of Columbus on numerous road projects to add lanes to arterial roads which only encourages more traffic and that leads, of course, to further increases in the number of overcapacity vehicles that end up on the split. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. ODOT helps create the high number of crashes (not accidents) and then tries to play the hero by presenting a “fix” which doesn’t even address the root of the problem: too many vehicles on the split. If Director Molitoris wants to make the split safer then she needs to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles which are by and large why there are so many overcapacity vehicles. And just how is this new design going to not only going to handle the 60,000 overcapacity vehicles today, but the higher number that will be coming after ODOT finishes assisting the city in adding capacity, in some cases more than doubling it, on several arterial roads? Why am I the one touching on these points and not the director of ODOT?
As far as ODOT’s position on cyclists it’s no surprise to see a road with three lanes in the same direction and yet they still feel the need to keep cyclists out of those lanes. The rendering has a cyclist perfectly positioned in a bike lane next to a parked car. Just goes to show their disdain for peoples’ lives if they want to drive a bike instead of a car. You’d think after people have been killed in such similarly designed door zone bike lanes that ODOT would have considered their serious design flaws. Problem is that drivers open their doors without looking: it’s inevitable.
http://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/edgewater-1.jpg
And then there’s the fact that this will kill off the improving commercial streets in the Near East side, particularly Parsons, which will lose buildings and businesses despite how few there currently are. This stretch of Parsons only has a handful of destinations and Carabar is definitely one of the top ones (particularly at night when it and AWOL are the only nightspots available here) and with that gone and others looking to get out before construction lags on I just don’t see how Director Molitoris can say anything about working with neighborhoods and maintain a straight face. Does she or other ODOT reps even patronize businesses along this corridor and speak with them about how they think the split will affect them, let alone how many actually live in the inner city?
I also have to say that the fact that Mark Kelsey comes from ODOT answers a lot of questions.
Dude, compared to previous iterations of ODOT, Jolene’s leadership is an absolute breath of fresh air. Not everyone gets exactly what they want to the exact detail, but the fact that ODOT is embracing multi-modalism and community development as part of the transportation planning process is far and away one of the best things Ohio has going on right now.
The state of transit in Columbus is woefully depressing and both interviews make me feel even worse.
Director Kelsey wants the City to give up some bike paths to ODOT for the split. Someone needs to remind him he works for the City of Columbus now, not ODOT anymore. I’d hardly call Columbus’ Public Services Director an advocate for the residents and businesses of the City of Columbus. You bet ODOT is happy to work with him on the split. I am grateful for Hearcel Craig’s office keeping Columbus citizens informed of the director’s proposed actions.
Off topic, I can’t help but notice how much Jolene resembles the tour guide in Pee Wee’s Big Adventure. Can you say adobe? (I mean this respectfully, it’s one of my all time favorite movies.)
I am excited to see how this plays out, sure it won’t be a perfect solution, nothing ever is, but I bet its a step in the right direction. With any big project you need to reach a “good enough” point.
And how do we lower the capacity? Change it to a 1 lane highway? I believe Columbus is going to continue growing so it makes sense that we need to handle more traffic. I’m not holding my breath for a public transportation of biking revolution anytime soon.
+1 Liz. I recently worked on a project downtown and we had to remove proposed trees from the street because they didn’t meet ODOT standards for sight distances. It was on a city street (not even a state route) and I was confused as to why ODOT standards were beign applied. The standards make perfect sense when applied to higher speed roadways but didn’t make a lot of sense on a 25mph city street. Pedestrians standing at the corner create more of a visual screen for right turn on red vehicles than a tree – do we need to ban pedestrians as well?
@ tree_sketcher – I’d rather ODOT just be honest and say they don’t actually support multi-modal transportation rather than just talk multi-modal while their actions clearly show they’re all about speeding motorists through places. Just look at the collaborative projects with the city and if you didn’t catch her on CMC here’s the video where an upset E Town St resident brings up the atrocious renderings during the Q & A (go to 40:00) which aren’t close to Complete Streets and she simply replies that it’s a goal, but that they aren’t able to do it all the time.
http://www.ohiochannel.org/embed/ohio_channel_media.cfm?file_id=124689
@Pablo – We can see how committed they are to Complete Streets. Back in November ODOT reps stated that they didn’t want trees on the “urban avenues” for safety issues, because they don’t want cars to crash into them. It’s better to have cars crash into pedestrians, you know. Pedestrians are much easier to run over and do little damage to you or your car. And three-lane one-ways, the ones taking the place of Lester and the alley behind the buildings on Parsons, are great for all modes of traffic. If you don’t believe me, just walk the crosswalk at the one on 4th Downtown while traffic is moving.
And you can bet that while they’ll primarily be signed as 25 MPH streets ODOT will have no choice but to change it because no one goes 25 MPH on a three travel lane, one-way feeder street. Just look at all of the ones we have: not a single one is 25 MPH.
@melikecheese – Precisely how is it a step in the right direction? Your reply shows no comprehension of what I wrote. I’m not talking about reduing capacity of the split, I’m talking about reducing the number of overcapacity vehicles, currently 60,000 each day, as the <$1.7 billion solution. Adding more and more lanes for the foreseeable future will induce more traffic and not address the issue of too many cars on the road. Banning through trucks, as John Wirtz suggested elsewhere, would knock off around 10,000 daily vehicles (IIRC) or 1/6 of the current volume of overcapacity traffic.
And just for fun I found this timely piece.
Neighbors Still Not Sold On 70-71 Split Plan
Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:04 AM
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Upset residents want the Ohio Department of Transportation to hold off on plans to redo the Interstate 70-71 split, saying the state is pushing through a project that still has many unanswered questions — most notably the impact on homes.
Representatives with the Olde Towne East Neighborhood Association said Wednesday that concerns about the plan have been brewing for years. It said ODOT has provided few details about how the redesign will impact the surrounding areas, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported.
The two-year, $550 million project will add freeway lanes and widen bridges and bike lanes, among other improvements, ODOT said.”
more
Its impossible to turn the big giant ODOT ship 180 degrees in less than one gubernatorial cycle. The planning for this project has been going on for a long time and its got to be very difficult for the current ODOT folks to rectify current issues with the planning work that was already completed. Personally, I thought ODOTs proposal from almost 10 years ago to reroute through traffic on i-70 around downtown to the grossly underulitized route 104 made a lot of sense. Also, former councilman Rich Sensenbrenner pushed ODOT to include transit in the split plans, but this fell by the wayside a long time ago unfortunately.
If you look at the transportation projects that have received their initial state funding or support under the current ODOT director, i think you’re starting to see the effects of the changes in policy. The 400 million for the 3C is case in point, and the expedience for the ODOT funding of the cincinnati streetcar is a sign of good things for other communities. Give the current director some more time, and i personally believe you will continue to see the big policy shifts that support better transit and multi-modalism.
I have a question that is related to the I-70/I-71 project.
Has anyone heard mention of demolition of the abandoned Whittier Street Overpass that runs parallel to the Scioto river and bike trail? It has no trespassing signs posted all over it, but has over the last year become a magnet for homeless and all kinds of trash and smells. I run this path a few times a week, and have seen homeless people fighting on the bike path, and shelters being constructed out of tents and plywood. There is also a nearly constant smell of camp fires for cooking along with beer bottles and cans along the path. One time while riding my bike along the path near here I even struck a drunk or dazed homeless man who walked/stumbled out of the bushes along the path, Luckily nobody was hurt.
All of this leads to my main point, Why does the city allow this to go on? It seems that while 110+ million dollars have been spent hardly a half mile north on the path for the 2 new bridges and parks, and millions more on the new Whittier park to the south(all of which I am a huge supporter of). I would seem that keeping this section of bike path safe would be a no brainer for the city. My suggestion would be demo of the old overpass to return the area to grassland or wooded area like has been done to the south at the Audubon park.
Strangely enough, I’ve not heard anything about it in relation to the Split Fix. I think a lot of people forget it’s even there…
It would seem they could also reopen it and provide a second entrance to the metro park right there at mound street, correct? I’m sure a lot of rehab/repaving might have to be done along there but could provide another useful connection to downtown. The google map view makes this look like it would be a relatively simple thing to do.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.952369,-83.009015&spn=0.003742,0.014656&t=h&z=17
It could be reopened, however it seems to me that the Audubon park was designed to only have the one entrance. Opening it up to be a downtown feeder would increase traffic and take away from the bird and wildlife “sanctuary” part of the park.
As far as people forgetting it’s there, does anyone know who in the city would be the appropriate person/persons to write or call about this? Its such a shame to see this stretch of perfectly good bike path get avoided by so many who would otherwise benefit from it.