RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
HDR Engineering, Inc. wrote Project: Columbus Streetcar
Date: April 26, 2008
Re: Streetcar construction impacts
You asked about the impact of streetcar construction on businesses along the alignment and on maintaining traffic flow during construction.
This is a serious concern: major construction projects in a busy downtown environment can have large impacts on “life at street level,” affecting the conduct of everyday business for thousands of workers, visitors and residents. Transit projects, since they are most often located in the street right-of-way, can be particularly disruptive. The Euclid Corridor bus rapid transit project in downtown Cleveland was a recent example of these issues. Light rail projects have similar issues: typical construction involves major excavation (three feet, typically), moving a lot of utility lines, and an area of construction that extends at least curb-to-curb and sometimes building face-to-building face. The duration of construction in front of an individual property is usually measured in months. The photo below of recent light rail construction in Central Avenue in downtown Phoenix illustrates these practices.
Fortunately, streetcar construction is a different story, in large part due to construction practices that were first used in the construction of the Portland Streetcar and that now have become standard practice in subsequent projects. By using a shallow track slab design, and by confining excavation to a narrow strip, streetcar tracks can be installed in a brief period, typically three of four weeks for each section of track.
The sequence of photos below illustrates this process. First, an eight-food wide strip is saw-cut out of the existing pavement surface. A relatively small amount of utility relocation work is performed. The gravel subgrade is compacted, and the reinforcing mat and rails are laid in place. The long sections of rail were welded into 600-foot sections offsite and pulled into place in the middle of the night. The whole assembly is embedded in concrete and a small amount of repaving work to taper into adjacent travel lanes is done.
There are “cascading benefits” from this low-impact approach. Time and cost of construction are reduced. Traffic control is simpler (and also maintained for a shorter period). Impacts on local businesses are minimized.
In addition to these construction practices, good communication with local businesses, building owners and residents is also key. If people know what is going to happen and when, and if the managers of the project make sure that this is what indeed happens, then the people affected by the project are willing to put up with the disruption for the sake of the project’s ultimate benefit. Hiring a good construction contractor is also essential; good “customer service” and problem-solving out on the street avoids a lot of ill will and headaches.
The combined use of these approaches can be a project that is successful both in its ultimate completion and during the disruption of the construction itself. I served as the City of Portland’s Transportation Commissioner during the whole course of construction for Portland’s streetcar line. During this time, I did not receive a single complaint from a business, but I did receive thank-you notes (thank you notes for a public works project!) from merchants who wanted to acknowledge the helpful attitude and reliable information provided by the project’s outreach staff or to note that the construction crew, in a couple of cases, dropped their tools and unloaded someone’s delivery truck.
To sum up, another photo will serve. In the view below, track construction was underway at the intersection of 10th Avenue and West Burnside Street, one of the busiest streets in downtown Portland. The sidewalks are open and mostly free of construction work or clutter. One lane of auto traffic is still open, even while active construction is underway in the other lanes. The large amount of daytime traffic on Burnside continues to flow, over steel plates that will be removed in the middle of the night when that section is paved. The adjacent parking lot is full, and although the on-street parking spaces in the area of construction are temporarily unavailable, they are still available two blocks ahead. No question: this is still major construction, but its impacts have been carefully mitigated.
Thanks to the “pioneering” of these techniques in Portland, Seattle, Little Rock and other cities, Columbus can insist on this level of performance in the construction of its streetcar project, and get it.
Comments
- Rmoiii: Where are the photo's of the current construction going on in the short nor
- cheap: i highly recommend the Millersport sweet corn festival of course,the cor
- Jimmy Mak: Thanks for the write-up! Just to clarify - this is the third year we've do
- Briana Henry: Well, eventually they plan to add more bands from the region...gotta start
- bucki12: I like the business model, but the internet sales part seems like something
Top Stories
- Grandview Yard Seeks Retail Anchors for Next Phase of Development33
- Studio 35 Re-Opening is a Revelation17
- Attn: Columbus Creatives!14
- Philanthropy Friday: Bicentennial Towers 14
- More Downtown Public Artwork Coming to Scioto Mile11
- The Short North's Summer of Construction11
- Liberty Place Adding Over 200 New Apartment Units to The Brewery District11
- Columbus Ranks #22 on List of Best Large Cities for Jobs in 201210
- The Hudson Street Market Renovates, Faces Construction Woes10
- Wonder Bread Lofts will be Home to Mixed-Use Redevelopment10
The Columbus Streetcar Construction Impact Memo
By: Walker
Related Posts:
Good news, but this approach precludes light rail from being added at a later date.
I already said it took just 3 weeks for each 3 block stretch. The open sidewalks and lane is a plus. A local “Buy High St” movement wouldn’t hurt either.
My understanding was that the streetcars were simply the last mile accommodation as a limited area transit option. Seems like there is decent consideration and acceptance of a commuter system on existing right of ways, stopping at major locations/stations (Convention Center?) and utilizing streetcars and revamped COTA network to finish the journey.
True, but wouldn’t Light Rail or BRT be better suited for 3rd/4th anyway? I think they can link up downtown and by campus (potentially with a northern streetcar loop), and avoid LRT or BRT vehicles to getting bogged down by High St. traffic.
I like that idea. CU alone has some serious buying power.
If you go to Portaland, they have huge construction going on in downtown and its amazing and how much they do support it!
Columbus should be alike Portland
A “Buy High Street” movement is a nice idea. Though, not one that I think would ultimately work that well. Personally, I am not AS scared of the potentially fatal impact this project might have on my business as some other High St. business owners are.
However, I do still expect a major downswing in business during the construction that takes place in the immediate or nearby vicinity of my shop. The fact is that the majority of Columbus’ residents are not willing to be inconvenienced when they are going shopping. A major complaint in the Short North is already that there isn’t enough parking. This, when in fact parking is rather easy to come by within a block of High St. on nearly any day and at nearly anytime, save Gallery Hop. With the loss of High St. parking, and (at least partially) rerouted traffic I think that most businesses would lose most of their walk-in traffic during construction.
If we were all Starbucks and had Starbucks money backing us I think I’d just say “no worries.” But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The bottom line for most businesses comes down to cash flow. Lose a lot of business all at once and you lose some of that cash flow necessary to keep paying all of your expenses. Best case scenario is that you are digging yourself out of a hole for a few months after the construction has passed you by.
I think that the city should consider adding some sort of business relief grant to the overall budget of this project if they do decide to go through with it. Something to at least partially subsidize the hits that the businesses along the construction route will undoubtedly be taking. They use the Short North and it’s diverse shopping, eating, and cultural offerings as a point of city pride and a selling point for Columbus all of the time. A relief grant would be a nice way to show the various tenants of High St. storefronts that they are actually valued by the city. It could also go a long way towards getting support for this project from a group of people, the majority of whom are currently not for it.
Now, for just a moment I’m going to forget that I own a business on High St. and personally opine on the streetcar project. Overall, I think that, in its current state it is nothing but a novelty. Before I could get behind this thing I would want to see some sort of a projected timeline for future additions to the route. If they could show me plans that went out 10 or 20 years and set goals for adding a downtown loop, adding east-to-west lines, adding lines to surrounding suburbs and the airport, etc. then I could look at this as a stepping-stone. However, currently there are only allusions to the the possibility that some of these thing could happen. In its current state this project doesn’t serve as a realistic mass transit solution. That, I think would be worthwhile. It would show that we were working towards revitalizing downtown, saving energy, and giving people more opportunity to ditch their cars (oh how I wish I lived in a Columbus where I could do that . . . and cyclist, don’t even start, biking just isn’t for me) Once again, in its current state I think it’s just a novelty. The city needs to do more than just talk big to convince me that this project is eventually going to be more than just the #2 Train.
PS – I did watch the entire city council meeting and the comments that followed and, if anything, it further soured my opinion of this thing.
I agree the impact is about as minimal as could be reasonably be expected, however you probably don’t realize that just because a retailer’s block isn’t closed that doesn’t mean a retailer’s business still isn’t affected. There will be a lot of people who won’t go to High Street at all because they won’t want to mess with the construction during the year or so it takes to do this.
A CU buy High Street campaign could really save a lot of businesses hides up there.:)
I wish I knew of you guys when the city ripped up my entrance for nine months back in 2004, we lost roughly 30% in sales that year and it took nearly two years to get back to where we were in 2003. I still get people coming in after long hiatuses telling me they thought we went out of business then….
As for me I like construction especially when it’s near but not on my street , construction worker spend money with me :)
True, but wouldn’t Light Rail or BRT be better suited for 3rd/4th anyway? I think they can link up downtown and by campus (potentially with a northern streetcar loop), and avoid LRT or BRT vehicles to getting bogged down by High St. traffic.
Yes, unless the line is so popular that we need longer vehicles. I never liked the 3rd/4th alignment for the North Corridor. I’d rather keep a light rail line on it’s own right-of-way to keep the speeds fast. I think the reason for the 3rd/4th alignment was to try to tie in OSU. That shouldn’t be as necessary if the streetcar gets built.
Light rail would almost certainly not be using the High St. right-of-way, though. In fact, it might well be using the interstate ones. Light rail takes up more room than High offers, and quite often doesn’t use on-street rights-of-way at all; because it’s designed for actual commuter transit, not just local circulation, it needs to be able to build up a little more speed.
The streetcar isn’t meant as a mass transit solution, however. That’s an unfortunately common misconception, I think based on the fact that people conflate light rail and streetcars. The light rail levy that failed years ago would have given Columbus a real mass transit solution–but at more than ten times the cost of the streetcar system and comparably less return on investment (both per mile and in percentage terms).
The reason streetcars have been proven to have such high ROI’s in other cities is largely because they’re actually less expensive than people think; as has been pointed out on many of these streetcar threads, in a comparative sense, $103m actually isn’t a lot. We spent that much on individual freeway interchanges regularly, and there are a lot of those. In other words, to have a 500% return on investment, the streetcar would really need to bring in only $500m in private investment along the line, much of that in areas where the pump is already primed for development (downtown surface parking lots, beat-up buildings in Weinland Park, etc.). A light rail system would need to attract $5 billion, a massive sum (for reference: the Schottenstein Center was about $110m, so you’re looking at the equivalent of maybe 50 of those), and some of that would have to come at sites farther out in the suburbs. Light rail would also take far longer to install and would involve greatly magnified coordination problems if it were actually designed to reach other cities than just Columbus (i.e., the suburbs), which it almost certainly would be. That would mean getting Upper Arlington, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, etc. on board, possibly with the use of eminent domain powers because getting that much land in a contiguous line is pretty much impossible in already-developed areas. I think light rail advocates who oppose the current streetcar vision for not being ambitious enough seriously underestimate the hurdles light rail faces even if the political will *was* there … and as the ballot box has already shown, it isn’t.
Not to nitpick, but official press releases from former public officials speaking as representatives for major companies should be held to higher spelling and usage standards than things rattled off on the fly on a message board.
True, but wouldn’t Light Rail or BRT be better suited for 3rd/4th anyway? I think they can link up downtown and by campus (potentially with a northern streetcar loop), and avoid LRT or BRT vehicles to getting bogged down by High St. traffic.
Yes, unless the line is so popular that we need longer vehicles. I never liked the 3rd/4th alignment for the North Corridor. I’d rather keep a light rail line on it’s own right-of-way to keep the speeds fast. I think the reason for the 3rd/4th alignment was to try to tie in OSU. That shouldn’t be as necessary if the streetcar gets built.
Light rail, by which I mean inter-urban and inter-suburban fast rail should probably not use streets at all. It should probably use the rail line right of ways and make very few stops compared to the streetcar lines and busses. Stopping once in each suburb and *flying* from burb to burb. And then COTA and the streetcar planners should plan to use those rail stops as hubs for frequent run short-trip circulator routes.
i.e. someone who gets on at hilliard station gets to the downtown central station in 10 minutes, transfers to the gahanna bound line, gets to gahanna in 10, transfers to a local bus that runs every few minutes and drops off creekside in gahanna. It would be hard to allow those kind of speeds on street tracks.
cheers
Yes, but there’s a difference between you saying and HDR saying it. The photos they provided alone was worth of posting this in my opinion.
Definitely worth posting, but a google search will yield both pics and how long it took other cities to build them. I’m just saying.
True, but wouldn’t Light Rail or BRT be better suited for 3rd/4th anyway? I think they can link up downtown and by campus (potentially with a northern streetcar loop), and avoid LRT or BRT vehicles to getting bogged down by High St. traffic.
Yes, unless the line is so popular that we need longer vehicles. I never liked the 3rd/4th alignment for the North Corridor. I’d rather keep a light rail line on it’s own right-of-way to keep the speeds fast. I think the reason for the 3rd/4th alignment was to try to tie in OSU. That shouldn’t be as necessary if the streetcar gets built.
I think 3rd/4th are our best shots at being “complete streets”. Dedicated bikeways, rail lines, and cut things down to 2 traffic lanes rather than 3-5.
This is the problem with not having a grand vision though. Mine is different than yours, which is different than the Mayor’s, which is different than MORPC’s, which is different than ODOT’s. We don’t quite know where we’re all going yet.
Yes, but there’s a difference between you saying and HDR saying it. The photos they provided alone was worth of posting this in my opinion.
Excellent post, this info/pics should def. go up on the unofficial site. Also, I’m starting to see more and more people change from on the fence to on-board. I think these are the people that need to write to City Council/Mayor’s Office saying something like: “With the additional information given, I have changed my mind and now endorse the streetcar”. These testimonials could also be posted on the website and might make people who are totally against it think twice.
To break even, does the streetcar need to attract $100 Million in private investment or generate an additional $100 Million in tax revenue paid by people living, working, shopping, and playing along the line? I would think most of the ROI for private development will go to the developers, not the city. I’m asking a question because I’m curious, not trying to question the logic.
To break even, does the streetcar need to attract $100 Million in private investment or generate an additional $100 Million in tax revenue paid by people living, working, shopping, and playing along the line? I would think most of the ROI for private development will go to the developers, not the city. I’m asking a question because I’m curious, not trying to question the logic.
I see where you’re coming from with this, but those numbers are somewhat, erm, plastic. For example: the financing plan itself calls for raising some $80+m of the construction cost from assessments (~taxes) on entertainment, convention tickets, and other activity along the line. Should we count that as part of the tax revenue brought in by the streetcar, when it would just be going to the streetcar?
To break even from the city government’s perspective, yes, you’d probably want to see an increase in tax revenue in the benefit zone over and above that necessary to amortize and operate the line. However, there is a difference between the city and its government, and the latter exists only to benefit the former. Five hundred million in new development along High would benefit the city even if the city government never saw a dime of it.
Also, the studies have focused really on private investment, not private profit. The two are certainly related, but are still distinct. For example, I have no idea what the profit to the developer of Ibiza will be from the sales of the units in that project. However, the figure that matters for the streetcar studies is the actual cost of that project to the developer, and that’s more readily ascertainable (about $45 million). If the total revenue of that project is $55 million, that doesn’t mean that we would say that the neighborhood has attracted $55 million in investment; it’s still only attracted $45 million. The $10 million profit to the developer simply increases the odds that they’ll make another investment in the neighborhood, but when we’re talking about private capital attracted by a neighborhood, we don’t count the profit because that money goes elsewhere (to wherever the developer is located). Technically, we wouldn’t even count that as capital attracted if the developer were located in an office building right on High St. because they could be elsewhere and it actually doesn’t matter that they’re local for these purposes.
Many of the condos that have been built in Columbus in the last decade, for example, have been tax-deferred for 10 years. If the city were to repeal that deferral, it could potentially drive up the nominal return to the city government–while at the same time driving down investment in the city itself. This is why it’s important to keep the two separate.
I do think increased business activity will bring additional tax revenue to the city, very possibly enough to offset the cost of the project. However, that’s of secondary concern to me. What makes a neighborhood better is private activity: businesses arriving, emerging, and growing; new and better development displacing older buildings and empty lots; etc.
Thanks Walker appreciate the memo. I’m getting some data back on the impact of this construction on businesses in other cities. I should have it today.
Though, mostly unrelated, but I feel somewhat relevant I’ve seen data from malls that renovate one wing at time. In those cases all stores in those malls were financially impacted and saw a drop of 30 – 40% drop in sales regardless of whether or not those stores were directly or indirectly in proximity of the construction. Mall stores typically are a part of a chain and the chain can absorb those losses. High street businesses would be a different story.
I see where you’re coming from with this, but those numbers are somewhat, erm, plastic. For example: the financing plan itself calls for raising some $80+m of the construction cost from assessments (~taxes) on entertainment, convention tickets, and other activity along the line. Should we count that as part of the tax revenue brought in by the streetcar, when it would just be going to the streetcar?
To break even from the city government’s perspective, yes, you’d probably want to see an increase in tax revenue in the benefit zone over and above that necessary to amortize and operate the line. However, there is a difference between the city and its government, and the latter exists only to benefit the former. Five hundred million in new development along High would benefit the city even if the city government never saw a dime of it.
Also, the studies have focused really on private investment, not private profit. The two are certainly related, but are still distinct. For example, I have no idea what the profit to the developer of Ibiza will be from the sales of the units in that project. However, the figure that matters for the streetcar studies is the actual cost of that project to the developer, and that’s more readily ascertainable (about $45 million). If the total revenue of that project is $55 million, that doesn’t mean that we would say that the neighborhood has attracted $55 million in investment; it’s still only attracted $45 million. The $10 million profit to the developer simply increases the odds that they’ll make another investment in the neighborhood, but when we’re talking about private capital attracted by a neighborhood, we don’t count the profit because that money goes elsewhere (to wherever the developer is located). Technically, we wouldn’t even count that as capital attracted if the developer were located in an office building right on High St. because they could be elsewhere and it actually doesn’t matter that they’re local for these purposes.
Many of the condos that have been built in Columbus in the last decade, for example, have been tax-deferred for 10 years. If the city were to repeal that deferral, it could potentially drive up the nominal return to the city government–while at the same time driving down investment in the city itself. This is why it’s important to keep the two separate.
I do think increased business activity will bring additional tax revenue to the city, very possibly enough to offset the cost of the project. However, that’s of secondary concern to me. What makes a neighborhood better is private activity: businesses arriving, emerging, and growing; new and better development displacing older buildings and empty lots; etc.
So the streetcar is more or less a city government subsidy to developers that could actually make the city government some revenue (taxes from new residents, businesses, and visitors), possibly enough to offset the annual subsidy (operating costs plus amortized capital costs)? I think this would be a more effective subsidy than the typical tax deferrals given to new residents and relocated businesses, but I’d love to see a study confirming that hunch. I’d also be interested to see the streetcar economic development strategy compared to a different strategy like a land value tax.
An indirect subsidy to developers (among others), if you want to look at it that way. However, just about anything that involves economic development is going to involve developers, unless you really want complete government control of the economy so the government could subsidize development by just subsidizing state-owned enterprises.
However, I concede that streetcars are an indirect subsidy to developers only by the same logic that I’d say that public streets themselves are an indirect subsidy to developers. All transportation infrastructure is. If you’re trying to argue that somehow more streets would not be an indirect subsidy to developers but streetcars would, I fail to see that distinction.