Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Viewing 12 posts - 331 through 342 (of 342 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1124929

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div>
    We’ve had a lot of discussion of parking in this thread, so this seems like a decent place to drop this new article from Business First on downtown’s parking situation.

    “The central point, however, is that we’re not going to park our way to prosperity,” Schoeny said. “More car storage is not the solution.”

    Giving drivers alternative transportation options will be a focal point in coming years, he said. Columbus is a finalist for a $50 million U.S. Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge grant – Columbus’ application includes a number of alternative transportation improvements.

    Convincing more downtown commuters to leave their cars at home is ultimately what it will take for growth to continue, Ricksecker said.

    “The basic question is, do we really want to be a city? If you want to have density, and a vibrant downtown, you can’t have unlimited parking – that parking is a tremendous waste of good real estate.”

    It’s all well and good to talk about car alternatives, but that has literally been the extent of things for 40 years. The city has made zero moves towards changing the reality of how its residents get around.

    Zero moves is a pretty big exaggeration. The city has made some bold steps and seems inviting to private solutions like Uber. And their grant request shows they’re interested in innovating. Sure, I wish we were further along. I wish we’d develop more property for downtown residents who don’t need cars. But given how far we need to go, we can’t expect this to happen overnight.

    #1124935

    JMan
    Participant

    It’s high time we had a true alternative to car transportation.

    #1124937
    _calebross
    _calebross
    Participant

    To the people who want a car alternative:

    Stop posting about it on online forums. Go to council meetings, go to COTA meetings, do activism to make it happen. Wishing we had a train doesn’t do anything to accomplish it. You need to actually do something about it.

    #1124958

    ohbr
    Participant

    It’s high time we had a true alternative to car transportation.

    You have 2 of them in this city. Bus and bike. while we don’t have a train, that doesn’t mean that there a no alternatives in this city. COTA has done a lot for their bus routes and continues to do so increasing ridership to a decades high number so you can’t say we don’t have any alternatives or that the city has done nothing. It’s Just not what you want them to do.

    Listen, I’m frustrated with COTA, and the lack of light rail, but can we please stop over exaggerating like children and ignoring the fact that we do in fact have an extensive bus system and increasing amount of bike lanes that can in fact get you from one place to another without having to use a car? I get it, there are places where buses are extremely inefficient to get from one place to the other, but rail is the same way.

    I would love nothing more than a rail system to get the major suburbs, even all the way to Delaware into the city to reduce the amount of cars coming downtown but until then, I’ll continue to promote and use the bus and bike systems when I can and not imply that nothing has been done or that we have zero alternatives to cars. That’s lazy thinking.

    #1124971
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>JMan wrote:</div>
    It’s high time we had a true alternative to car transportation.

    You have 2 of them in this city. Bus and bike. while we don’t have a train, that doesn’t mean that there a no alternatives in this city. COTA has done a lot for their bus routes and continues to do so increasing ridership to a decades high number so you can say we don’t have any alternatives or that the city has done nothing. It’s Just not what you want them to do.

    Listen, I’m frustrated with COTA, and the lack of light rail, but can we please stop over exaggerating like children and ignoring the fact that we do in fact have an extensive bus system and increasing amount of bike lanes that can in fact get you from one place to another without having to use a car? I get it, there are places where buses are extremely inefficient to get from one place to the other, but rail is the same way.

    I would love nothing more than a rail system to get the major suburbs, even all the way to Delaware into the city to reduce the amount of cars coming downtown but until then, I’ll continue to promote and use the bus and bike systems when I can and not imply that nothing has been done or that we have zero alternatives to cars. That’s lazy thinking.

    ^THIS

    Really, our public bike access, especially along the river corridors, is pretty damn great. It’s a bike highway and people should appreciate that.

    #1124975

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    To the people who want a car alternative:
    Stop posting about it on online forums. Go to council meetings, go to COTA meetings, do activism to make it happen. Wishing we had a train doesn’t do anything to accomplish it. You need to actually do something about it.

    And plenty of people are. A lot of the people that post on here are very involved in trying to make it happen. One can post in online message boards and be civically engaged at the same time.

    http://www.transitcolumbus.org/

    http://allaboardohio.org/

    http://forgeaheadcbus.com/

    #1125070

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div><br>
    We’ve had a lot of discussion of parking in this thread, so this seems like a decent place to drop this new article from Business First on downtown’s parking situation.

    “The central point, however, is that we’re not going to park our way to prosperity,” Schoeny said. “More car storage is not the solution.”

    Giving drivers alternative transportation options will be a focal point in coming years, he said. Columbus is a finalist for a $50 million U.S. Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge grant – Columbus’ application includes a number of alternative transportation improvements.

    Convincing more downtown commuters to leave their cars at home is ultimately what it will take for growth to continue, Ricksecker said.

    “The basic question is, do we really want to be a city? If you want to have density, and a vibrant downtown, you can’t have unlimited parking – that parking is a tremendous waste of good real estate.”

    It’s all well and good to talk about car alternatives, but that has literally been the extent of things for 40 years. The city has made zero moves towards changing the reality of how its residents get around.

    Zero moves is a pretty big exaggeration. The city has made some bold steps and seems inviting to private solutions like Uber. And their grant request shows they’re interested in innovating. Sure, I wish we were further along. I wish we’d develop more property for downtown residents who don’t need cars. But given how far we need to go, we can’t expect this to happen overnight.

    If it’s an exaggeration, it is a slight one. Uber is fine if people don’t want to drive themselves, but it is basically a taxi service which is made up of cars. More cars on the road are not alternatives to cars, and taxis have never been considered to be alternative transit as far as I can tell. They provide zero of the economic development benefits of transit and still contribute to traffic. As for their grant request, it’s about, shockingly, cars. Self-driving cars do absolutely nothing to dispel the car-first mentality that saturates Columbus. It is also out of reach of many people who could not afford them.
    What other “bold steps” have been made, exactly? The city can’t even get BRT right, which has been watered down to a regular bus despite there being great examples worldwide to emulate for many years now. Anything else?
    Recreational bike paths are not alternative transit, and even if they were, they lack the connectivity to biking infrastructure once you exit them. Most of Columbus’ existing biking infrastructure otherwise is made up of sharrows, which studies have shown to be essentially useless and perhaps even more dangerous than having nothing at all.
    It’s not just the lack of rail and the lack of any actual plan to change that reality, though that is embarrassing enough as it is. It is that the city has managed to do only the very barest minimum, and even its “bold” ideas ensure that the status quo is maintained in terms of a majority car culture. COTA is getting better, but that’s not exactly saying a lot considering the state it was in. It would be one thing if the lone alternative form of transit in Columbus was one of the best nationally, but it is not. Ultimately, Columbus IS being compared to other cities, and on this front, it continues to fall further behind. I don’t expect things to happen overnight, but there needs to be a serious plan to even begin the multi-year process of adding more transit options, and there isn’t even that at this point. MORPC’s proposed “high-capacity” transit routes are unfunded without any details on type or time frame for implementation, other than they may happen by 2040. Yay?

    #1125118

    JMan
    Participant

    Yay

    #1125154

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CB_downtowner wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div><br><br>
    We’ve had a lot of discussion of parking in this thread, so this seems like a decent place to drop this new article from Business First on downtown’s parking situation.

    “The central point, however, is that we’re not going to park our way to prosperity,” Schoeny said. “More car storage is not the solution.”

    Giving drivers alternative transportation options will be a focal point in coming years, he said. Columbus is a finalist for a $50 million U.S. Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge grant – Columbus’ application includes a number of alternative transportation improvements.

    Convincing more downtown commuters to leave their cars at home is ultimately what it will take for growth to continue, Ricksecker said.

    “The basic question is, do we really want to be a city? If you want to have density, and a vibrant downtown, you can’t have unlimited parking – that parking is a tremendous waste of good real estate.”

    It’s all well and good to talk about car alternatives, but that has literally been the extent of things for 40 years. The city has made zero moves towards changing the reality of how its residents get around.

    Zero moves is a pretty big exaggeration. The city has made some bold steps and seems inviting to private solutions like Uber. And their grant request shows they’re interested in innovating. Sure, I wish we were further along. I wish we’d develop more property for downtown residents who don’t need cars. But given how far we need to go, we can’t expect this to happen overnight.

    If it’s an exaggeration, it is a slight one. Uber is fine if people don’t want to drive themselves, but it is basically a taxi service which is made up of cars. More cars on the road are not alternatives to cars, and taxis have never been considered to be alternative transit as far as I can tell. They provide zero of the economic development benefits of transit and still contribute to traffic. As for their grant request, it’s about, shockingly, cars. Self-driving cars do absolutely nothing to dispel the car-first mentality that saturates Columbus. It is also out of reach of many people who could not afford them.<br>
    What other “bold steps” have been made, exactly? The city can’t even get BRT right, which has been watered down to a regular bus despite there being great examples worldwide to emulate for many years now. Anything else?<br>
    Recreational bike paths are not alternative transit, and even if they were, they lack the connectivity to biking infrastructure once you exit them. Most of Columbus’ existing biking infrastructure otherwise is made up of sharrows, which studies have shown to be essentially useless and perhaps even more dangerous than having nothing at all.<br>
    It’s not just the lack of rail and the lack of any actual plan to change that reality, though that is embarrassing enough as it is. It is that the city has managed to do only the very barest minimum, and even its “bold” ideas ensure that the status quo is maintained in terms of a majority car culture. COTA is getting better, but that’s not exactly saying a lot considering the state it was in. It would be one thing if the lone alternative form of transit in Columbus was one of the best nationally, but it is not. Ultimately, Columbus IS being compared to other cities, and on this front, it continues to fall further behind. I don’t expect things to happen overnight, but there needs to be a serious plan to even begin the multi-year process of adding more transit options, and there isn’t even that at this point. MORPC’s proposed “high-capacity” transit routes are unfunded without any details on type or time frame for implementation, other than they may happen by 2040. Yay?

    Well, really the primary focus is on downtown, right? I know you’re more frustrated with suburb-to-downtown transit and vice versa, not suburb-to-suburb. And I think your frustration is that commuters lead to downtown parkers, moreso than traffic congestion (which isn’t a key problem… yet). Maybe not moving fast enough. But we have a new airport circulator. And we read that we’re testing partnerships with private and hopefully public sector downtown firms to get easier access to COTA passes.

    And the grant request isn’t there to encourage driverless cars on highways. It’s there because public transport stops aren’t always conveniently located so it gives transporters ability to drive to and from a more convenient spot. Makes it less necessary to build new routes and stops. Incidentally, downtown transportation infrastructure does the same. The mix of alt transit allows you to basically access anywhere downtown through public transit, even if there isn’t a convenient COTA spot.

    But we also need to make downtown more attractive for downtown residents which will increase # of people who live where they work. I live downtown. Uber is a huge upgrade in a city like CBus where taxis aren’t always easy to find. I don’t park in public garages much because I now walk to work, Uber or Cbus to Short North. I don’t bike much but the bike lanes are there if I wanted to. I’d have to imagine these options have significantly cut down car use between German Village all the way to campus. I wish development would do a better job targeting residents who are more likely to go car-less, but the infrastructure is certainly there in a big way that it wasn’t a few years ago.

    #1125237

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CB_downtowner wrote:</div>

    Well, really the primary focus is on downtown, right? I know you’re more frustrated with suburb-to-downtown transit and vice versa, not suburb-to-suburb. And I think your frustration is that commuters lead to downtown parkers, moreso than traffic congestion (which isn’t a key problem… yet). Maybe not moving fast enough. But we have a new airport circulator. And we read that we’re testing partnerships with private and hopefully public sector downtown firms to get easier access to COTA passes.

    Transit matters to the whole metro, not just the Downtown area, but since you have to start somewhere, around Downtown is a good start, and connecting Downtown to highly populated areas, whether they be inner or outer suburbs.
    As I said before, I do think COTA is making improvements, and I do think the live tracking, circulators and system redesign will help dramatically. It’s just that this is literally it in Columbus, as I stated before, I don’t count taxis and recreational bike paths as really forms of alternative transit. There is a rapidly shrinking list of cities that have this issue. Should Columbus really be the very last one? That’s not being competitive or forward-thinking.

    And the grant request isn’t there to encourage driverless cars on highways. It’s there because public transport stops aren’t always conveniently located so it gives transporters ability to drive to and from a more convenient spot. Makes it less necessary to build new routes and stops. Incidentally, downtown transportation infrastructure does the same. The mix of alt transit allows you to basically access anywhere downtown through public transit, even if there isn’t a convenient COTA spot.

    Driverless cars have few actual benefits, as far as I can tell, over regular cars. They’re likely to be safer because of the reduction of accidents, and they’ll help reduce traffic congestion. Beyond that, I’m not so sure. If we’re talking about the ability of everyone to have one, obviously that’s just not going to happen. If we’re talking about a reduced need for road and parking infrastructure, again, probably not. 100 people taking a driverless car requires the same number of parking spots as 100 people in regular cars. They still can’t carry large quantities of people at once. They still will have no impact on economic development because there are no fixed routes. Essentially, I am not sure they do anything but promote even more car use at the end of the day, at the potential expense of walkability and transit. If Columbus wants to be a pioneer city for this technology, fine, but let’s not act like this is really an investment in an alternative to car culture because it absolutely is not.

    But we also need to make downtown more attractive for downtown residents which will increase # of people who live where they work. I live downtown. Uber is a huge upgrade in a city like CBus where taxis aren’t always easy to find. I don’t park in public garages much because I now walk to work, Uber or Cbus to Short North. I don’t bike much but the bike lanes are there if I wanted to. I’d have to imagine these options have significantly cut down car use between German Village all the way to campus. I wish development would do a better job targeting residents who are more likely to go car-less, but the infrastructure is certainly there in a big way that it wasn’t a few years ago.

    Downtown is already attractive in many ways. The occupancy figures show that already. The issue for me, and something people always seem to fight me on, is that I don’t think there is nearly enough push to build on a grander scale to accommodate the necessary density that makes transit more likely. Downtown has less than 1/3rd the density of the Short North, and at least half the density of every other surrounding area, but there is no real concern with having standards that push for more than 5-6 stories on prominent corridors like High. This is troublesome in the long run because concentrated density along transit routes is a big part of the ridership formula. We should be seeking to maximize this whenever possible. Instead we’re in the “Hey cool, that parking lot is going away” mentality, seemingly still so pleasantly surprised that we see urban development in a major, growing city that we’re reluctant at times to be critical of pushing the envelope.
    Yes, Uber is a positive, no argument there, but it’s a bonus that doesn’t address the transit issue within the city.
    As for bike lanes, yes, there are more of them now, and that is good too. Something else I have noticed, however, is that when I did my biking map for the metro, the vast majority of infrastructure consisted of just 2 types: Off-road multi-use paths and sharrows. Sharrows I have already commented on. Multi-use paths are great and all, but I get the feeling that Columbus and surrounding communities have embraced them for the most part because they do not interfere with roads. Meaning that instead of making roads multi-use and friendly to more types of users, they’re just being separated entirely instead. Maybe I am just seeing this too negatively, but this seems like more evidence of putting the car first and making sure that their ability to navigate public roads remains unquestioned.

    #1125253

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    jbcmh81… Cutting out much of our above exchange from block quotes since it’s getting lengthy.
    The driverless grant would provide “first mile/last mile” transport to mass transit. It solves a huge problem in today’s system. In this case, the objective is to plug in a current weakness in today’s mass transit. One of many interesting ways driverless can revolutionize mass transit and I’m excited this kind of innovation is even on our radar.

    We’ll agree to disagree on the other points which I know we’ve discussed at length.

    #1125259

    ohbr
    Participant

    jbcmh81… Cutting out much of our above exchange from block quotes since it’s getting lengthy.

    Thank you…

Viewing 12 posts - 331 through 342 (of 342 total)

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

Ring in the decade in style! Join us for an all-inclusive NYE celebration!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFO