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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

OSU Campus Development Projects - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development OSU Campus Development Projects – News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 129 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1043985
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    All is not equal, though. You just admitted that the vast majority of public funding goes towards driving. You guarantee a certain outcome by actively supporting only a single, inevitable choice.

    Yes, of course it is. Most people drive, after all. Let alone the delivery of goods and services dependent on roads.

    Yet the majority is not the entirety. COTA exists, after all. So do bike lanes, as far as that goes.

    What, you think there is some hidden majority of people out there just waiting to double or triple their commute times while limiting their available destinations?

    #1043986
    rus
    rus
    Participant

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

    Driving is the most common way people commute to work. Not unreasonable to expect there to be parking available.

    Rather like expecting there to be bathrooms at work. To which I expect you’ll rail against the evils of subsidized pooping.

    Rus, I usually don’t agree with you but I do concur on your analogy of available parking and a toilet

    Weird, isn’t it? To some, employers owe people all sorts of things… living wage, health care, positive work environment… but parking? Hell no.

    #1043987
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Or in this case, willing to put up with increased parking difficulties?

    That’s really what I expect will happen. Most people aren’t going to use public transit; it’s simply inferior outside of some edge cases. Driving, regardless of how much trouble people like you want it to be, is likely to be the dominant form of transportation until well after you and I are both long dead.

    OSU can decide to do what it wants. It doesn’t have to offer cheap, easy parking anymore than it has to offer bus service.

    So this exists why?

    Your posturing on what you think my position must be is, as usual, completely wrong.

    Uh huh, of course it is. Let’s see you advocate for drivers.

    #1043991

    honestlyinsincere
    Participant

    I wasn’t aware of a plan by OSU to prohibit employees from driving to work, just make more efficient and productive use of prime riparian land adjacent to a growing medical center on one of the biggest universities in the nation. If institutional leaders choose to relocate parking to a less central location, that’s great.

    People should have the option to drive, just as they should have the option to bike, walk, carpool, and take public transit. People shouldn’t necessarily have the ability to park within a 3-minute walk of their office, as the space requirement for such a circumstance in a densely built complex such as the medical center is completely infeasible.

    OSU plans to re-make itself into a “park once” university, per the master framework plan. This will create a more efficient system of transportation campus-wide for all modes, reducing congestion and decreasing travel time.

    No—employers providing parking for personal vehicles immediately adjacent to their office and providing toilets for the most basic human function is not an accurate, effective, or even amusing analogy. The fact that you’ve even thought to compare driving an automobile to relieving one’s self demonstrates your innate fascination, obsession, and fanaticism of car ownership and signals your complete opposition to incentivizing more sustainable options.

    #1043993
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    signals your complete opposition to incentivizing more sustainable options.

    I don’t consider public transport a viable option for most people. It is, by definition, not sustainable as it does not meet the needs of most people. Reducing travel time is laughable. See here in this thread for an example of how travel time is “reduced”.

    Thanks for the link, though. From that:

    The Framework envisions a pedestrian core campus; to achieve this we must park once (or not at all) in parking reservoirs around the campus edges; enable convenient, reliable transit; and
    promote alternative transportation options. If the Framework is about creating an agile and
    flexible university environment, then a commitment to investing in civic infrastructure is
    the engine behind the idea.

    Seems like students aren’t “most people”, but instead a subset. Hey, maybe it works in that limited environment. Maybe not. Thank gods I’m not locked into that, though.

    #1044098

    Coy
    Participant

    Anyone interested in exactly how efficient OSU is at people moving currently, I’d suggest hoping on a CABS bus (if you can physically squeeze into one) and attempting to get anywhere on campus faster than walking. Bring a book.

    #1044105

    honestlyinsincere
    Participant

    Sustainability is the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely.

    The definition of sustainability is not necessarily connected to meeting the fleeting needs of our city’s current auto-centric infrastructure. The concept of public transportation is—by definition—more sustainable than every individual of driving age owning their own vehicle and using it to drive solitarily to their job and home each day. Land is a finite resource, and the land consumption demanded by automobile infrastructure is unsustainable.

    Your assertions certainly reflect that most people are making the easiest and most convenient choice with the infrastructure that now exists. However, infrastructure is not immutable. Just a generation ago, streetcars criss-crossed the city. You seem to be under the impression that our world will always look like it does now, which just isn’t true. To say that people are proactively choosing to drive because it is the best of all options is like saying that all Windows 95 owners actively chose to use Internet Explorer as their internet browser. Given the options, cars make the most sense for flexible transportation in Columbus. I’m not arguing that.

    Not sure why the idea that less congestion on the road will lead to quicker travel times. Here is a visual representation of the concept.

    #1044107

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    That’s really what I expect will happen. Most people aren’t going to use public transit; it’s simply inferior outside of some edge cases. Driving, regardless of how much trouble people like you want it to be, is likely to be the dominant form of transportation until well after you and I are both long dead.

    I have not advocated making it more difficult to drive. OSU perhaps has, but I haven’t. My posts have just dealt with drivers having to adapt to their choices like everyone else, which you seem to think they should never have to do.

    So this exists why?

    I said it has no obligation to, not that it can’t or doesn’t currently. It also has parking lots and garages even though it really doesn’t have to, either. If at some point OSU decides that it no longer wants to have a bus/shuttle system, that’s their choice, same as if they decided to get rid of all auto-centric infrastructure.

    Uh huh, of course it is. Let’s see you advocate for drivers.

    Why would I need to? They get the vast majority of the transit budget, have a vast, extensive infrastructure system in place and have had 100 years of car-friendly local, state and federal policy cater to them almost exclusively regardless of the financial impacts of construction. Why in hell would auto travel need advocacy from anyone else? You act like you’re some put-upon minority that is desperately losing its grasp of control, when the exact opposite situation is true. You look at that situation and scream, “SEE, SEE, everyone wants to drive! Nobody rides transit! Nobody will ever ride it!” Your position is pretty typical of the intellectual dishonesty seen in just about all rabid anti-transit people. You support an overwhelmingly stacked deck and then use the inevitable results as proof that everyone wants the deck stacked that way in the first place.

    #1044113
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Anyone interested in exactly how efficient OSU is at people moving currently, I’d suggest hoping on a CABS bus (if you can physically squeeze into one) and attempting to get anywhere on campus faster than walking. Bring a book.

    Gee. Sounds pleasant.

    #1044116
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Given the options, cars make the most sense for flexible transportation in Columbus. I’m not arguing that.

    We agree on that much, then. If nothing else.

    #1044118

    honestlyinsincere
    Participant

    There is no debate on whether public transit is more or less sustainable than auto-oriented development—it’s a fact. So, that’s not really something we need to agree on at least.

    #1044127
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    There is no debate on whether public transit is more or less sustainable than auto-oriented development—it’s a fact. So, that’s not really something we need to agree on at least.

    Oh, right. Must be sustainable because no one is using it.

    http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/09/if-so-many-people-support-mass-transit-why-do-so-few-ride/380570/

    If you build it, they don’t come.

    #1044134

    gramarye
    Participant

    Anyone interested in exactly how efficient OSU is at people moving currently, I’d suggest hoping on a CABS bus (if you can physically squeeze into one) and attempting to get anywhere on campus faster than walking. Bring a book.

    I almost never used the Core Circulator while I was at OSU, even though I knew it was the most-used bus in the entire CABS system.

    However, the late-night/weekend courtesy shuttle and the west campus connector were absolutely essential, even though they were much less packed per-bus. And it was considerably faster to take those buses from the WC5 parking lot (if that even still exists) back to central campus than to walk, which would have taken an hour even for a healthy 20-year-old.

    Not sure how the routes are now, of course, but I know that central campus has become even more packed.

    rus, the critical concept here is opportunity cost, in particular spatial opportunity costs. Automotive infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space relative to the number of people who can use it at any one time. There are places where space isn’t at such a premium, and roads and parking lots make more sense there. That even applies to many other places in the city. But not OSU, especially not on central campus, and I imagine we’re getting to the point where even the west campus lots are really not the best use of the available land. If you are an OSU planner, you are charged with moving tens of thousands of people within a very small space. You can no more physically make that work with cars in OSU than you could with cars in the interior of an airport terminal (where people also need to deal with long walks from Point A to Point B, and planners know that and use what technology they can to accommodate it–moving sidewalks, intra-terminal shuttles, etc.).

    OSU isn’t ideologically anti-car by any means. You can see this in the layouts of the regional campuses in particular, which are much more commuter-friendly. Space is at far less of a premium on the outskirts of Newark and Lima than in one of the most densely-packed areas of Columbus.

    #1044139

    honestlyinsincere
    Participant

    Again, the concept of sustainability isn’t directly related to whether people are using it or not.

    #1044166
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    rus, the critical concept here is opportunity cost, in particular spatial opportunity costs. Automotive infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space relative to the number of people who can use it at any one time.

    Makes sense.

    There are places where space isn’t at such a premium, and roads and parking lots make more sense there.

    Yeah, that follows. On the other hand, why design such spaces deliberately? Just pack in as many people as possible?

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 129 total)

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

Subscribe below: