Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Bustling Urban Neighborhoods Create Parking Tension

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Bustling Urban Neighborhoods Create Parking Tension

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 212 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #546405
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Walker said:
    But again… you don’t have have to make each and every person give up their cars for transit to work. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

    A well planned regional infrastructure system is a balance of both automobiles + transit. It’s not an either/or situation, so I don’t know why you and rus (and a small handful of other vocal transit opponents around here) continue to insist that cars need to be “given up”.

    Eh, not so much “given up” but the assumption seems to be some areas shouldn’t be so accessible to cars ( i.e., there shouldn’t be so much parking ).

    The non-car options for getting to gallery hop, for instance, suck unless you live in the short north, victorian village, perhaps grandview ( including the columbus part of grandview ), etc.

    #546406

    billbix
    Member

    I don’t mind walking in the SN so much as in decent weather there is a lot to see and possibly try on the way. We usually park near Goodale Park and end up as far North as 5th Ave before heading back. That has to be about a mile. In other areas like downtown during the day, especially on the eastern side there is a lot less interesting ‘stuff’ and walking becomes a real chore.

    #546407

    InnerCore
    Participant

    Walker said:
    You just described Gallery Hop.

    With Gallery Hop you’re making stops along the way. You’re not walking all the way up to 5th making one stop and then walking all the way back.

    My point was that if as commercial spaces continue to come to the area right now they are forced to stay mainly up an down High st. Business rely of the pedestrian traffic generated by other business. Therefore if the business are located closer together then they you gain more pedestrians walking down the same streets.

    So if most people are only willing to walk 5 min then basically each store on benefits from the other stores 1/4 min north and 1/4 mile south. However if you allow stores to be also be laid out east and west you now have doubled the number of stores that you can walk to from that same spot.

    Here is a quick map with 5 min circles to for reference:

    As yo can see we’ve already hit the point where as you are running out of more space and as you add more things up and down High st. it’s going to be less likely that that these business will creaty synergy for one another.

    Now if you modfied the zoning to a mixed use district to incentivize commercial on the other streets then you would end up with something more like this:

    Looking at the lower 5 min radius you know have business that can draw from a larger group of business making them more viable. And because you have a larger number of business within a smaller area you can now have more people who live in this area and can get more of their needs withing walking distance making it even more likely they walk instead of drive.

    Then from the issue of parking. You could build a larger parking structure within the lower circle because that parking garage would be closer to more establishments.

    This is eventually will the market will push the area over time regardless. As the land values in the area go up it will get to a point to where the other streets will only be affordable in a mixed use design. So instead of waiting for it to happen in an unorganized way we should be creating a mixed use district with clear guidelines to make sure it’s done correctly.

    #546408

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    I am not a transit opponent. I am a pragmatist, and a realist.

    I see so much trumpeting about biking and walking and bussing and training, and how wonderful the world would be if more people do those things and stop driving. And sure, it would be a more wonderful place.

    And that is swell. But I am of the opinion that if enough people want to do that, it will happen, much like in all the cities where it has already occurred. (Much like cities that want to have taxpayer funded sports arenas will vote to make it happen)

    My view is that not enough people in Columbus are interested in these options. Either to have their elected officials do something about it, or do something about it themselves.
    A majority of people seem to want to drive their cars from the suburbs, or other parts of Columbus, to locations that are popular (everyone wants to go where it is popular) and park their cars there.

    And obviously Columbus is trying to move forward with some of these plans.
    The new bike rental system will be great for people who live in the city proper (or drive their cars from the suburbs or other parts of Columbus and park somewhere). I can’t really call it bike share with a straight face.

    The sharrows certainly seem to be a big hit, and I have certainly noticed a severe softening between the All Drivers are Crap / No All Bike Riders are Crap camps with that.

    But until we have can get enough local and perhaps statewide politicians in office who feel the same way, and get a viable mass transit system for everyone, and very popular places have very limited parking, there will be parking tension.

    And again, just because I only have an opinion and don’t have hard numbers for you to back up my opinions, doesn’t make my opinions invalid.

    Or something like that.

    The main problem with what you’re saying is that you’re making an assumption that people don’t want alternatives. I’m not sure the evidence in Columbus has ever really supported that idea. Mass transit proposals have come and gone many times, and public support has, from everything I’ve read, been supportive. It’s not like this has been taken to vote recently, and the one time it was back in the 1990s, it was such a confusing clusterf*ck, it hardly became a referendum on public opinion. Columbus doesn’t have BRT, rail or streetcars, so to just assume people don’t want them is just wrong.

    #546409

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    ^It’s why everybody from here bolts for “real cities” and get replaced with people from towns that have no jobs.

    #546410
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    The main problem with what you’re saying is that you’re making an assumption that people don’t want alternatives.

    In your point of view, is it fair to say existing alternatives ( COTA, biking ) don’t have widespread appeal?

    Just from a quick search, the american community survey estimates about 1.6% of Ohioians used public transportation in 2011 ( Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S0804&prodType=table ).

    Obviously rural areas might throw that off, but that’s not out of line with the 2009 finding that 1.4% of people in Columbus used public transportation ( source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-5.pdf )

    Seems like most people are driving. To the extent alternatives exist they don’t seem to have broad appeal.

    #546411

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    Whoa rus, work commuting isn’t the only use of public transit that exists.

    #546412

    InnerCore
    Participant

    rus said:
    In your point of view, is it fair to say existing alternatives ( COTA, biking ) don’t have widespread appeal?

    Just from a quick search, the american community survey estimates about 1.6% of Ohioians used public transportation in 2011 ( Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S0804&prodType=table ).

    Obviously rural areas might throw that off, but that’s not out of line with the 2009 finding that 1.4% of people in Columbus used public transportation ( source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-5.pdf )

    Seems like most people are driving. To the extent alternatives exist they don’t seem to have broad appeal.

    You do realize that pertains to how many people use public transit to get to work don’t you????

    I live in a two person household where one of us walks to work and I drive to work. Neither of us use public transportation to go to work. However we use public transportation WEEKLY.

    And why does the number of people who use public transportation matter. The issue that should matter should be efficiency. If you have a city of 1 million people and only 10,000 people use public transit and that cost for that public transit is equal or more efficient per person the why not have the alternative system?

    Using the information you provided it appears that national average is 5% (again that is only people going to work). So at first glance you could say Columbus at 1.4% is low. But OF COURSE Columbus is going to be low, we don’t have an extensive transportation system. We don’t have rail at all. How are people going to ride a rail system that doesn’t exist???

    If you look at the list you see place like NY at 30%, Chicago at 11%, DC at 14% Boston at 12%, etc. It would appear to me that the places that have actually systems that can get people to and from popular places are the places where people use it the most.

    #546413
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    You do realize that pertains to how many people use public transit to get to work don’t you????

    Sure. That’s what that category of the survey says, after all.

    If you’ve got a better gauge of interest in public transportation let’s see it.

    Since we’re talking personal anecdotes, the only place I hear about light rail locally is on this site. Cycling is something you dress up for for fun, not a serious way to get anywhere.

    If you want to go some place, for work or for fun, you drive.

    But that’s just my anecdote. As worthwhile as yours.

    #546414

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    rus said:
    In your point of view, is it fair to say existing alternatives ( COTA, biking ) don’t have widespread appeal?

    Just from a quick search, the american community survey estimates about 1.6% of Ohioians used public transportation in 2011 ( Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_S0804&prodType=table ).

    Obviously rural areas might throw that off, but that’s not out of line with the 2009 finding that 1.4% of people in Columbus used public transportation ( source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-5.pdf )

    Seems like most people are driving. To the extent alternatives exist they don’t seem to have broad appeal.

    I think it’s disingenuous to claim people don’t want alternatives when, 1. Transit budgets heavily stack the deck for only one type and against the rest, and 2. That the existing transit system doesn’t allow people to experience much else besides roads. While mass transit obviously won’t replace all roads and all car use, that’s not the point.

    #546415

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    rus said:
    Sure. That’s what that category of the survey says, after all.

    If you’ve got a better gauge of interest in public transportation let’s see it.

    Since we’re talking personal anecdotes, the only place I hear about light rail locally is on this site. Cycling is something you dress up for for fun, not a serious way to get anywhere.

    If you want to go some place, for work or for fun, you drive.

    But that’s just my anecdote. As worthwhile as yours.

    #546416

    tonloc620
    Participant

    People just love the “convenience” of their cars!

    When they have to park three blocks away they will use an alternate form of transportation because the car will no longer be convenient. I say keep building. Once the area gets dense enough commercial business won’t have to rely on drawing from outside the area to survive

    #546417

    InnerCore
    Participant

    rus said:
    Sure. That’s what that category of the survey says, after all.

    If you’ve got a better gauge of interest in public transportation let’s see it.

    I don’t know, maybe we should look at ridership:
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/03/13/cota-ridership-growth-tops-in-u-s-.html

    In a near-record year for public transportation nationwide, the Central Ohio Transit Authority topped all big-city agencies in 2011 as COTA ridership grew 10.15 percent.

    Why would MORE people be riding public transit if they didn’t want it? Oh wait, could it be that they were expanding service:

    After scaling back operations during a string of difficult budget years in the past decade, COTA has been expanding routes and updating its fleet. Only the transit authority in St. Louis, at 10.04 percent, came close to matching COTA’s growth rate last year.

    Once again, the more extensive a public transit system is, the more people see to ride it.

    rus said:Since we’re talking personal anecdotes, the only place I hear about light rail locally is on this site. Cycling is something you dress up for for fun, not a serious way to get anywhere.

    If you want to go some place, for work or for fun, you drive.

    But that’s just my anecdote. As worthwhile as yours.

    So you mean people don’t walk around talking about how great it is to ride a train that doesn’t exist?

    You do realize that we built out our vast highway and road system before there was demand for it? I guess back then you would have been arguing against roads because people weren’t driving around on roads that didn’t exist.

    We built a huge national system funded 90% by the national government NOT because people had all these cars and couldn’t get to where they wanted to go but to create a system that allowed us to move troops, equipment, etc. through out the country. In face many of the routes where chosen because they were the fastest routes to evacuate our dense cities to outlying areas in case of nuclear fallout. Outlying suburbs then were developed not because people initially wanted to go there but because we subsidized a road system out to cheap land.

    Imagine if we did the same today but for rail. What if our government connected all our populations center in one massive system. Do you think ridership would go up? Do you thing development would happen more around train stations? And interestingly enough that system would be cheaper to maintain then our highway system.

    But again you seem to be missing the most obvious point. Who cares how many people want to actually use pubic transit as long as its efficient. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t invest in public transit because you like driving your car.

    #546418
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    InnerCore said:

    But again you seem to be missing the most obvious point. Who cares how many people want to actually use pubic transit as long as its efficient. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t invest in public transit because you like driving your car.

    So, what you’re saying is those who know better have deemed your preferred solution more efficient and therefore people should just shut up and obey.

    What people actually want is of no consequence. They’re just ants in your personal sim city game.

    ;) Kidding. Mostly.

    What I’m saying is that existing alternatives aren’t attracting riders in a meaningful way, meaningful here defined as a significantly reducing the choice of driving.

    Others here, not whom you could reasonably describe as anti-urban or anti-transit, note the desire for more parking in the short north. There wouldn’t be a desire for more parking if people didn’t want to drive there.

    It’s a mindset thing as much as anything else; most people here have never lived utilizing public transit. Just the idea of it is foreign.

    On this point:

    InnerCore said:
    Imagine if we did the same today but for rail. What if our government connected all our populations center in one massive system. Do you think ridership would go up? Do you thing development would happen more around train stations? And interestingly enough that system would be cheaper to maintain then our highway system.

    You’re not proposing we let the highway system rot, right? So, you’re actually talking about an additional cost, not replacing the cost of a highway system with a cheaper rail system.

    #546419
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    tonloc620 said:
    People just love the “convenience” of their cars!

    When they have to park three blocks away they will use an alternate form of transportation because the car will no longer be convenient. I say keep building. Once the area gets dense enough commercial business won’t have to rely on drawing from outside the area to survive

    Eh. For the most recent gallery hop I parked more than a few blocks away. Not a bad walk, really. But then I don’t mind walking so much.

    You do hit a good point, though. What urban commercial areas there are do seem to rely a lot on outside residents coming in to spend money.

    If that wasn’t the case, if the urban areas were more self sustaining, then it wouldn’t be so much an issue. The suburbs could ignore the urban areas and vice versa.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 212 total)

The forum ‘Transportation’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE