Streetcars to get public hearing next week
The Dispatch wrote
COLUMBUS City Council meeting - Streetcars to get public hearing next week
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:06 AM
By Robert Vitale
Columbus City Council members complained last week that they’ve been left out of the loop on Mayor Michael B. Coleman’s streetcar plan.
Last night, they made the loop bigger.
The council will host its first public hearing next week on the $103 million proposal to build a 2.8-mile rail line between Downtown and Ohio State University. The council’s decision came in an impromptu debate at the end of the weekly meeting.
The day and time haven’t been firmed up, but Councilwoman Maryellen O’Shaughnessy said she wants the session to take place before the council votes on Coleman’s proposed 2008 capital budget.
That budget, which includes a $2 million request to begin design and engineering work for the streetcar line, is scheduled for council action on May 5.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am and is filed under Transit.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Related Tags: streetcar
April 28th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I completly agree and meant to mention that in my first post. I’m looking into studying that as a thesis topic including gas prices and doing regressions to see the results. The years that the study was done gas prices were significantly lower, as it was published in 2005. The key to making it profitable is to have the demand for it. It almost never would be paid for at the farebox, but there needs to be a community value for it as well.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
[gulp]
Damon Zex is dead? :shock: I’ll get you YouTube!! :evil:
Sadly enough, Public Access TV remains more accessible to Columbus residents than computers and the intertubes at this stage. Any forum for public speech deserves support. And its not like there’s not money for it. The cable companies already pay for it.
Sorry to go off topic on yet another thread.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Sure, it’s not the best comparison since 70/71 is a major interstate that services loads of non-local traffic, while the initial Streetcar starter line is a local service. Still… it’s something worth thinking about in terms of dollars being spent and how perception plays a huge factor in how easily we spend those dollars. People hardly bat an eye when $100 million is dropped on reconfiguring an interchange, but spending $100 million on rail transit goes through a tremendous amount of public scrutiny.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Didn’t post that particularly to show agreement with his statement, it actually struck me as gratuitously snippy…
April 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
What were the mayor’s comments?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
READ MORE
April 29th, 2008 at 12:01 am
READ MORE
April 29th, 2008 at 12:11 am
The 3C rail project clearly has its benefits, but this letter is comparing apples to oranges here.
First off, compairing the air service of Columbus to Toledo or Youngstown is way off the mark. Youngstown has a couple flights a week on Allegiant, and Toledo has flights to a few hubs. That is the extent of the air service in their cities. Columbus has a major airport with service from all the major carriers. Not to mention that you can fly anywhere from Columbus too, just like from Cleveland. Why would I want to pay to ride a train to Cleveland when I can get service from any major carrier in Columbus. While Continental has a hub there its not like you can really get anywhere in the world just from Cleveland. For most international destinations you would need to make a stop anyway, why not start in Columbus?
Secondly air transportation and rail transit in a city are two completely different entities and subjects entirely. The only comparison is that they are both about transportation. Having one does not mean that you don’t need the other as they are clearly not substitutes. I guess there is some connection in terms of creating jobs in Columbus, and in that sense both are good, but having Skybus does not prevent the streetcar from happening, and the demise of Skybus does not allow for the streetcar to happen easier.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Just reviewing this now…couple glaring discrepancies I’ve found already:
1. “On average, the nation’s rail transit systems cover only about 40 percent of operating costs” Now, am I missing something, or isn’t 40% considerably higher than the percentage of operating costs covered by alternative transit options? Additionally, the study explicitly excludes all auxiliary revenue streams…kind of important when Columbus’ plan includes a half million a year for 20 years from one of those streams.
2. The study was conducted at a time when mean average price of gasoline per gallon was $1.44. I’d think that a 300% increase in that pricing would shift their demand variables a tad, and demand elasticity is pretty much at the center of their entire position. This becomes apparent in extremely outdated statements like “it is highly unlikely that demand could be infinite around q=0 because urban travelers do not place a large value on rail compared with their next best alternative (Winston and Shirley (1998)”
3. The study dismisses out of hand all economic development in the areas surrounding the streetcar “Finally, it has been suggested that rail has contributed to commercial development. But case studies have yet to show that after their construction transit systems have had a significant effect on employment or land use close to stations”…this is in direct opposition to every single study that I’ve read.
So, this study simply attempts to assign value to rail transit based on congestion reduction and consumer surplus vs. system cost and depreciation. They ignore completely the development benefits, the tourist/visitor benefits, and they price the entire study at a time when prices for gasoline were 1/3 of what they are now.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:22 am
until gas hits $7/gal
April 29th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Sorry….but I have to throw the Bravo Sierra flag on the “gas is expensive so the streetcar will solve that problem.” argument.
First - the automobile is in no danger of becoming obsolete…let’s get real here, people.
Second - It doesn’t cost a whole lot to travel 2 miles in a car,…and despite dreams of a gigantic streetcar system, the only proposal on the table is a 2 mile track that is made for fun, not commuting.
There have been a lot of pro-streetcar arguments that stretch the limits of sense (like “guaranteed” economic development, etc) but this one is just. plain. ridiculous.
Flame on…though I wish that some of you would be more honest in your desire for a streetcar. If you think it’d be neat to barhop on a streetcar, just say that…because IMO that’s a hell of a better (and more effective) argument in favor of the streetcar that the variety of predicted panacea out there.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:44 am
truth. I would like to see the results of your calculations! I would especially like to see what you get extrapolating oil to $200/barrel as the head of OPEC predicted for the next 5 years.
Another thing to keep in mind in this is that the 70/71 split is not just about commuters, it is also about moving freight. Granted that a lot of interstate freight takes the correct route around 270 but a lot is taking the route straight through on the split. I suspect some of that traffic will be decreasing in future years.
Freight rail traffic is already on the rise. This year is setting records (and I wish I could cite my source for that but I cannot remember where I read it). I’ve seen a company that attaches railroad ‘bogies’ directly to truck trailers and rides ‘em on down the rail and then puts them back on truck tractors at the destination city. I’ve seen massive trains of these going through southern ohio.
aw crap. I gotta go to work…
April 29th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Yeah, we should continue to put all of our society’s eggs in that basket.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
You don’t help your cause with statements like that.
“All of our society’s eggs in that basket”
Really???
The argument that the automobile will end our society is hardly a good one for a “party train’…and is pretty poor for an entire mass-transit argument.
Someone posted that the anti-streetcar folk were “crazies”.
Um…mirror, please.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am
truth, i would like to take the streetcar from my home in IV and go to the end of the line and hit the Round Bar, have a couple of their stiff drinks and then use the streetcar as an option to get home. I don’t do that often, because it currently involves a taxi or a long pause between drinks. I can’t prove that a streetcar would lower drunk driving among central Ohioans, but public transportation does help encourage alternate transport for nightlife. My wife and I would also like to use it to:
1. commute to her job at OSU
2. go to our gym downtown
3. go the tailors downtown
4. head to movies at either Arena Grand or Gateway
5. take in occassional plays and concerts at the Palace or Ohio Theaters
6. go to the dentist downtown
7. head to Kinko’s for my work
8. travel to OSU on gamedays
9. head downtown to summer festivals
10. shop at the North Market
Some of these are 3-4 times per year, others are 5-6 times per week. But the question seems to come up - who would use this? - or the comment it’s only for fun, not commuting. That is purely on personal speculation, and thus my list of common uses for one household.
It would allow us to drop down to one-car. Thus saving not only gas, but insurance, maintanence, or roughly 10k annually for the average family (ours is admittedly less).
The 2-mile track has been consistently mentioned as a ’starter’ line. One to get the project going and to stimulate future demand for wider rail transit. While everyone mentions Portland, there are several other exampes like SLC, where the first LRT track was an ‘L’ line from the convention center/arena to the Grand America hotel (aka nowhere). Total bus/train (that’s right, LRT helped improve the bus system) ridership bucked a negative trend and rose 23% in the first two years of operation. The question went from “Why build it” to “When is it coming to my neighborhood.” TRAX has since been expanded and more is coming.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am
echoed… on my pretty much every part.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Didn’t say “the automobile will end our society”. I just ment it would be wise to start directing resources in other more efficient options for a function as important to our economy as transit. Granted, I was in a huge hurry when I posted that and perhaps did not phrase it well.
But lets not call anyone “crazies” or resort to that kind of name calling.
My personal opinion is that it was imprudent to allow the rail systems to sink into oblivion in the first place.
cheers
April 29th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I haven’t seen too many calls for the end of the auto. That seems to be your misguided interpretation of people’s comments about the rising price of gas. The auto age is still with us, but recent studies have also determined that in some cities (i.e Houston) people now pay more for their communting than they do for rent/mortgage (and this was when gas was at $2). These costs are putting pressure for communities to come up with alternatives. I’d estimate 1/2 of the people last night who were against the streetcar were against it because it wasn’t large enough and didn’t service areas like Reynoldsburg or Canal Winchester, where their local community needs transportation alternatives. It’s not the end of the automobile, it’s the start of intermodal transportation opportunities that include rail options.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Couldn’t make it last night, but I’m writing a support letter to calltheroll as Mary Ellen suggested when I watched it on G-TV. To me, as I watched the meeting, I was reminded (yet again) of my warped values system in relation to so many Columbus residents, and continuing to get used to it (admittedly hard). I’m sure many of you feel the same way. Press on.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
1. No one is saying the automobile is going to be obsolete or that the streetcar will solve gas prices, but in discussing an economic benefit study who’s primary variable is demand elasticity, gas prices being triple what they were at the time of the study is fairly significant.
2. No one has said “guaranteed economic development”, we’ve simply stated that in the 22 cities that have built them…they’ve received the same type of economic development that our own forecasts are predicting.
Again though, if you can show me studies that show we won’t experience the same economic development that 100% of the cities who have built a streetcar did…I’d love to read them.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hey…I want the streetcar so I can barhop too!
I’m just being very honest about why I think it’d be cool.
I’d LOVE to hear a pro streetcar argument that will make it happen…but I haven’t seen one yet.
The problem with the streetcar as proposed is that it is clearly superfluous. We don’t need a streetcar: we just want one..
Proponents are quick to jump to “Wow! Think of all the potentially great things that will happen once it’s here!!” but do so assuming
1) when (not if) you build it…
2) trust us: it’ll be awesome!
Sorry, but for my $$ an engineering study isn’t worth the paper it’s written on until a Needs Assessment is completed.
I realize this is the last thing the streetcar proponents would want: as there is. no. need.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
There are two particular arguments by the antis which kept getting repeated last night and should be addressed:
1) The “vision” thing. One elderly gent referred to the great years of Sensenbrenner. Wake up! Those political days are long over and well for it. We can’t wait for Big Daddy to guide us. Development happens organically now - for better or worse. The best thing to do is be involved, build coalitions with similar goals and get to it. There is really a surplus of visions out there with a lot of similiarites, not just one big one. Waiting for a unified vision, especially now where some many more groups are empowered in ways they weren’t in the old ways, is the surest path to nothing.
More personally, where the fuck were these ‘vision’ people when light rail was voted down or all the other ‘big picture’ stuff that languished, decayed or was just ignored?
2) More pressing transporation needs. I agree - there are a lot more pressing transporation needs. The City and COTA need to address them, address them well and more quickly than they are. It is economic suicide and downright offensive that very little has been done to correct the workforce transit issues that were discussed when I was working at MORPC 10 yrs ago. Several speakers last night were dead right about this.
But, it is two seperate issues. It needs to be made clear (and needs to really be) that the streetcar will not stop or slow down what COTA needs to do. Those plans should be rock solid and progressing in a way that can be seen and felt. The streetcar is then surplus to that as an economic engine, a showpiece and the first step to non-auto, mass-transit. Right now the pro-streetcar people and COTA are not making this clear enough. Not by a long shot.
This is a baby step. A first small one. We missed the chance for a giant leap when light rail when down. Imagine how pretty Columbus and environs would be sitting if trains were about ready to run from Dublin, Reynoldburg, Canal Winchester and Groveport to downtown? Imagine how better the housing markets in those areas would better be able to withstand the mortgage crunch? After all these years, the City has been forced into a box where they are doing what can be done with requiring the least amount of veto ability from the State or suburbs. It is a start, a step in the right direction with economic benefits that can push steps.
ps - One of my mates emailed me that my .02$ was on WOSU this morning.
A.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
:lol:
Yep, no need at all. Forget the population and economic failings of every other major city in Ohio. Forget the 36 underdeveloped acres along the proposed route. Forget the jobs it will create, the tourism it will provide, and the economic investment that it will attract…who needs that kind of stuff.
p.s. Until you show me a single study saying it won’t bring those things while I have 22 studies that show it will…I’ll continue to state it as definitive.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Actually you’re right we really don’t need “a streetcar” we need “a streetcar system or some other form of efficient mass transit usable by a majority of the city that is run by electricity and not oil”.
But I’ll take what we can get started with
April 29th, 2008 at 9:32 am
And you pin these “failings” on the fact that they don’t have a streetcar? This is another terrible argument.
And you think that the only reason it’s “underdeveloped” is no streetcar? Frankly, anyone can drive/park to those areas. They’re very very accessible…just not desireable. The streetcar *may* enhance desireability, but not o the extent you’re suggesting and it’s a roll of (very expensive) dice
I can’t emphasize how much this argument stinks. Predicting the future, no matter how often, how emphatically or however italicized will not make it come true.
Have you forgotten the (alleged) REAL reason for a streetcar?
It’s to provide transportation!
If noone rides it (see ‘Needs Assessment’) or its an inconvenience or major disruption to existing businesses/customers it will be a catastrophic failure
You gotta hang a dishonest hat on something!
From what I’ve observed, you live in GV and eat/drink/shop in SN…so it makes sense that YOU want a super-cool new way to do that….but it doesn’t mean that the city should foot a big bill so you (or I) can have streetcar fun.