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).

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.

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.

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

 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. 

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? 

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. 

I’d gladly host ya. Send me an email – walkerevans@columbusunderground.com

Does anyone know a hosting company that would be generous enough to sponsor http://www.columbusmetro.com?

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.

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”.