Columbus City Council just approved a plan this week to spend $167 million on new bike paths throughout Columbus. I’ve heard nothing about any sort of public outcry on this spending. Bike paths are traditionally used for recreational purposes. Most bike commuters use existing streets to get where they need to go.
Meanwhile, the $100 million Streetcar plan has been tabled because of public outcry over the concept of building this type of rail transit that would connect the densest part of our city together.
I don’t get it. Why are people so against rail transit, but no one blinks an eye at bikes? And it doesn’t even make the news anymore when millions of dollars are allocation for street building, repairs, or upgrades. It’s all about getting people from point A to point B. Why can’t we spend money on multiple modes of transportation and make Columbus a multi-modal city?
My personal guess is that expanding an existing system is different from laying the groundwork on a new system. Also, quite likely the expanded system will offer capability expansion many fold greater than the street car. The #2 bus while not awesome, is barely a worse servicer for High Street than the street car would be and the former can at least go to German Village. I think the streetcar proposal (and system obviously) would have made it a lot further if the 70 reconstruction wasn’t so shortly pending.
If they want a centerpiece for rail transit, turn City Center in a Grand Central and use elevated lines to get the rails out of downtown immediate and then switch to ground lines. Partnership with the suburbs is essential and they would need to meet part way with their own stations and part of the lines. There’s been a lot of talk about how the street car would be an anchor, and it’s not that I don’t see it, but how about if thats what you’re looking for, then just get a freaking anchor.
Great point Walker, it’s something to really think about. As someone who will most likely never use the new bike paths, it didn’t seem to bother me to spend the money, but when you compare it to the street car, it puts it in a whole new light.
I don’t think you have anything against bike paths, but I do want to somewhat justify the expense. I grew up in the Cleveland/Akron area, and I can tell you first hand the bike paths in Columbus suck! If these new bike paths help connect existing paths together here in Columbus, then it would definitely benefit the community. I personally don’t like hearing about bicyclists getting hit by cars.
We can implement a street car today, just buy a trolley car powered by a traditional gasoline/natural gas/diesel, paint some center lines down High street, then have the mayor come out and cut a ribbon. Save a lot of tax payer money and accomplish the same goal. Now I would make this run for only 1 year to see if it is successful. If it is successful, then lets get rid of the polluting gas powered trolley, invest the 100 million in infrastructure changes to High Street and use the environment friendly electric track trolley. Also, who is to say we have to use rail? We could implement electric non rail trolleys, Dayton uses electric buses which never required tearing up the streets. I would imagine adding the power lines above the street would be much faster and cost effective than digging up the street and laying track. Anyway, there may be some other reason why we are dead set on tearing up the street to lay physical rail instead of some of these other alternatives, whether it be cause of politics or ignorance, I am not sure but that’s how I see it. On the flip side, I rather see the rail trolley happen than nothing at all. Just wish all the options were discussed at the table and find it suspicious.
I’d also like to point out that if we do install this trolley line and it ends up not being utilized, that could set back any future mass transit plans for the city of Columbus. This has to be done right and prove its worth. I personally think the trolley comes up short, what is really needed is an infrastructure of rail connecting from High/270 on the South side all the way to High and Polaris on the North side with some veins going to Easton, the Airport, Hilliard, Dublin, etc…
From an economic development standpoint, a gasoline-powered bus decked out to look like a “trolley” would not accomplish the same goals as implementing a modernized Streetcar system.
Any first transit line is going to be a risk. I’d rather the mistakes be made on the $100million system than the $1billion system that could connect the northern region like you mention.
I can also imagine how a high street only trolley would impact biking up and down an already crowded high street. I don’t think it would be good.
It wouldn’t have any greater impact than buses.
All of this is besides the point. I’ve heard all of the arguments both for and against the Streetcar project before. My question is how can the same amount of money be allocated to one transit project with no problem (out of the general budget no less) while another transit project (with it’s own funding mechanism) goes under the microscope?
I’m pro-biking. I’m pro-light-rail. I want to see Columbus develop and prosper. I want to see all forms of transit be embraced in this city.
I had the same reaction that Walker had to this. I too am pro bike and pro transit.
However my problem with the Streetcar plan is they are only presenting one line not a system. A system would include bike integration, possible rail lines, additional street car lines. This of course would require the city to have a master plan, which it does not. Another major problem I have with Columbus. We should be identifying what we want and where it should go.
My guess is they aren’t talking about an entire system because the total cost would scare people or they thought they could get 100million for the first one and then figure it out. Either way its typical Columbus, everything half assed, and everything too slow.
You guessed correctly. I’m not sure how many are familiar with the COTA “Fasttrax” plan that was proposed a few years ago. They mapped out a light rail system with the first arm reaching from downtown up to Polaris and seven other arms spidering out from downtown toward every other direction to the suburbs. It was a multi-billion dollar plan and the public hated the idea of paying for it.
Of course, things are a bit different now that gas is no longer $1 a gallon like it was just a few years ago, and it may have stronger support. But I think the best way to get people on board with rail is to build one small piece of the system first and expand from there.
I think the reason people more blindly support the bike plan is that it is more regional in scope and provides a new transportation alternative that is not available today. The bike plan is 538 miles of lanes and trails across the whole city. It makes biking a transportation option to access many places that are not bike-accessible today.
The streetcar is 2.8 miles long, and doesn’t make public transit faster or provide service to anywhere new.
It has been discussed before about how the streetcar is more about economic development than transportation. I think people have a hard time spending money to make money, regardless of how good the odds are of positive net benefits.
Most avid cyclists would disagree with you. Anywhere accessible by cars is also accessible by bikes.
I’m a pretty avid cyclist and there’s a lot of roads I wouldn’t ride on, but I suppose I am allowed to.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the bike plan is beneficial in a more obvious way than the streetcar plan. The bike plan is a transportation project that offers transportation benefits. The streetcar is a transportation project that offers few transportation benefits, but great potential economic development benefits. Potential benefits may be a difficult thing for some people to accept at face value. It definitely took some time for me to be convinced that it was the right thing to do.
I too am having trouble understanding the opposition to the streetcars. 80% of the funding is to be raised in the area (using surcharges, OSU contributions, etc) — it’s not coming from the general fund. This is a GREAT step in the right direction on mass transit, while also benefitting economic development in the area. It connects walkable areas. I walk in snow – I walked to Gaint Eagle after the big snow storm (well, I walk there anyway). You don’t so much see folks riding their bikes in snow and ice. Now, before I offend the die-hard bicyclists – I strongly support biking, and other forms of alternative transportation. However, we have some really walkable areas, walking is also enviro friendly alternative transportation, and this would provide a lift from one walkable area to another. Also, the streetcars are electric, and so would not create added exhaust fumes for me to inhale while walking on High Street. Finally, studies have shown in other cities that people take street cars who do not take the bus, so we would reach new users of mass transit. I could go on and on. This is such a good thing. I want the best for Columbus, and I hope this will happen.
I like the idea of having a test-drive of better public transit, which is what the trolley is, but it seems like a terrible waste of money given that it doesn’t really improve on the current option (The #2 bus). I think if they really want to get a system kick-started, the first offering should actually be an improvement. For example, if Cbus wants light rail someday, why not have your first step towards a system be a line that goes from downtown to Easton via CMH? Not only would it be used often, but I imagine you could get Easton and the airport to kick in for it at least in token amounts. Also, you get the benefit of letting air travelers to Columbus subsidize the system for us.
I’m no expert on the costs, funding, or public transit, but this seems like a line that would be used by many, would be paid for in part by non-Cbus residents thanks to the airport, and would receive kick-ins from at least a couple private entities. To quote Peter Griffin, isn’t that “win-freakin’-win baby”?