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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

This topic contains 128 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by rus rus 5 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 129 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1044167
    rus
    rus
    Participant

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

    If no one is using it, then it’s 100% sustainable because the resources required will never be consumed?

    Unicorn ranch: Most sustainable facility ever! ;-)

    #1044171

    honestlyinsincere
    Participant

    Uh-huh.

    #1044179
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Uh-huh.

    You make this far too easy. Fun, though.

    Seriously though, how useful is something that no one uses? I really don’t care if public transit exists, but it’s obvious it doesn’t meet most people’s needs outside of some edge cases.

    Increased funding does not lead to increased ridership. We know that. One person thinks it’s because of “image problems” with public transit while there’s ample support in this thread and others who don’t find public transit useful.

    I’d suggest throwing more money at transit isn’t money well spent.

    #1044184

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Seriously though, how useful is something that no one uses? I really don’t care if public transit exists, but it’s obvious it doesn’t meet most people’s needs outside of some edge cases.

    Increased funding does not lead to increased ridership. We know that. One person thinks it’s because of “image problems” with public transit while there’s ample support in this thread and others who don’t find public transit useful.

    I’d suggest throwing more money at transit isn’t money well spent.

    I love you claiming that you don’t care when you breathlessly expound on how useless you believe transit is every single opportunity you get. What’s the word you used with me? Oh right… Bullshit.

    And why won’t you answer a fairly straightforward question… Why should most people find transit useful when funding and policy overwhelmingly prevent it from being so? You love to repeat these lies, half-truths and unsupported statements, but never quite get around to addressing them when directly questioned. I can only imagine that it is either because, A. You’re smart enough to know it undermines your argument or B. That you just like to troll transit supporters and simply make stuff up as you go because you think it’s funny and enjoy playing that role. Not sure which one is worse.

    #1044264

    gramarye
    Participant

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

    There can be many reasons.

    For places like Manhattan, it’s simple physical necessity. It’s an island.

    For places like urban cores, because it saves a great deal of taxpayer dollars per capita on infrastructure: the University District has thousands of property owners paying to maintain streets, sewers, etc. in the same area that Powell might have only hundreds. The same would apply to OSU itself if it weren’t a state institution and thus tax-exempt. Since infrastructure cost structures tend to involve high fixed costs and low variable costs, high-density development puts less of a burden on the public purse.

    For places like universities, because the nature of the location’s function is such that you will have a large number of people walking (unless you’re suggesting significantly cutting the size of the university, which I submit is not in the cards). A two mile walk is a very different proposition than a two mile drive. Few people are willing to walk more than half a mile in one go. Therefore, you need to have as many different functions of building (classroom, library, recreation, residential, dining, etc.) all basically within 0.5 miles of one another; that design constraint is going to rule out a lot of automotive infrastructure. (And, of course, OSU is still more than a mile from end to end even with all that, especially east-west. Walking High from Lane to Chittenden is basically doable even for people who aren’t in perfect shape, but even that feels like a long way to a lot of people.)

    And, of course, all these different concerns can overlap.

    The good thing is that because this involves a great deal of building to human scale, it really doesn’t take up a lot of room, leaving other areas relatively free for automotive development, subject to environmental and economic factors. It’s still plenty expensive, after all. The I-270/OH-161 interchange alone cost more than $160 million to put in, almost 50% more than the Schottenstein Center for a single interchange. It also takes up an incredible amount of space (just compare it on Google Maps to the size of the whole OSU campus). But at least out there, the opportunity cost wasn’t quite as severe as it would have been trying to add more automotive capacity in the heart of downtown.

    #1044269
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    And why won’t you answer a fairly straightforward question… Why should most people find transit useful when funding and policy overwhelmingly prevent it from being so?

    You presume that public transit is useful to everyone in the first place. The “lies and half truths” are neither; they’re facts you don’t want to acknowledge. Outside of some edge cases, transit isn’t useful and won’t be for the majority of people no matter how much funding is wasted on it.

    You’re not going to make a bus route or train line faster or more flexible than driving unless your plan involves punishing drivers either through limited parking, taxation, or the like.

    Why should public transit be disproportionally funded?

    #1044270
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    There can be many reasons.

    Not bad points, really. Columbus isn’t an island, of course. OSU as a distinct entity from the city makes some sense as well, when you put it that way, although that does leave employees dealing with bad options as evidenced in this thread.

    #1044333
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    Public transit already is disproportionately funded. And, it’s not really about how much funding we throw at transit to make it better. The only way transit will be better is if we build better neighborhoods around transit – thus people will be more willing to take it because it will be more convenient and cheaper. If we keep building neighborhoods around cars, then why would anyone want to take the bus or walk? We should not have to “punish” anyone to convince them to take the bus, but at the same time it should be unrealistic to devote most of our resources towards parking lots, parking garages and additional lanes. It’s not economical and those things will never pay for themselves.

    What’s the most frustrating to me is that every time these discussions come up, everyone focuses on the transit side of the equation only and never acknowledges the more important factor – building better neighborhoods. You cannot and will not have one without the other.

    #1044341

    gramarye
    Participant

    Public transit already is disproportionately funded. And, it’s not really about how much funding we throw at transit to make it better. The only way transit will be better is if we build better neighborhoods around transit – thus people will be more willing to take it because it will be more convenient and cheaper. If we keep building neighborhoods around cars, then why would anyone want to take the bus or walk?

    This is certainly true, but there are intermediate neighborhoods where all is not lost in terms of transit expansion. Expansion in Dublin might be a nonstarter due to the low density of people per mile of roadway. But within the I-270 loop, there are real opportunities for both transit expansion and neighborhood redevelopment (to make it more transit-friendly) to happen simultaneously. And around OSU, the transit network is already very dense. At least six different bus routes go along at least one edge of campus (2, 7, 31, 80, 82, 84), and if we had gotten the streetcar funding approved, it would service OSU via High Street as well.

    We should not have to “punish” anyone to convince them to take the bus, but at the same time it should be unrealistic to devote most of our resources towards parking lots, parking garages and additional lanes. It’s not economical and those things will never pay for themselves.

    Shifting funding so that only 80% of transportation infrastructure funding goes to automotive infrastructure instead of 90%+ should not be termed a “punishment,” though, although I can see the political ads going there.

    I’m not a fan of the “pay for themselves” meme though. Neither roads nor transit systems tend to pay for themselves, though transit comes somewhat closer (and freight even moreso … ports and freight railroads can be big businesses). The real question is what other benefits they bring to the lands along their routes–in terms of economic development, saved space, better lifestyles, etc.

    #1044342

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    You presume that public transit is useful to everyone in the first place.

    Uh, no I don’t, or did you already forget that I listed some circumstances in which transit wouldn’t make sense? But we’re talking about the Campus area, not Sunbury.

    The “lies and half truths” are neither; they’re facts you don’t want to acknowledge. Outside of some edge cases, transit isn’t useful and won’t be for the majority of people no matter how much funding is wasted on it.

    You have absolutely no evidence to support that. Even the study you’ve recently fallen in love with doesn’t answer those questions because it doesn’t provide the necessary information to make thoe kind of definitive claims. I raised one pretty glaring problem (no specific spending information) that you, of course, ignored. I have no problem admitting that transit cannot effectively serve all people everywhere. That has never been my argument. But it can absolutely be effective in the city, and it’s been proven over and over again in places that actually have those systems in place.

    You’re not going to make a bus route or train line faster or more flexible than driving unless your plan involves punishing drivers either through limited parking, taxation, or the like.

    One of your big problems is that you think that unless auto-centric infrastructure is abundant, free and widespread without question, you’re being unfairly burdened. You have an extreme sense of entitlement based on a personal choice. You don’t want any other people to benefit from the public funds that go into transit budgets unless those people are also for a 100% auto-centric system. You seem to be specifically worried that spending on public transit negatively affects your ability to travel by car, which is laughable considering the overwhelming scale of auto infrastructure even if not a single new road lane was ever built. Even if spending on public transit increased to 100% of the budget, it would take a century to even catch up, and no one is arguing that budgets should switch that drastically. Hell, I’d love to seen even 10 or 20% of budgets go to transit, but even that seems to be a tough fight.

    Another problem is that you believe that transit is somehow supposed to replace the car. It’s not. It’s supposed to compliment it. Your fears are rather unfounded.

    Why should public transit be disproportionally funded?

    Are you going to ask that question seriously when you support a rigged system for your love affair with the car?

    #1044345

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Public transit already is disproportionately funded. And, it’s not really about how much funding we throw at transit to make it better. The only way transit will be better is if we build better neighborhoods around transit – thus people will be more willing to take it because it will be more convenient and cheaper. If we keep building neighborhoods around cars, then why would anyone want to take the bus or walk? We should not have to “punish” anyone to convince them to take the bus, but at the same time it should be unrealistic to devote most of our resources towards parking lots, parking garages and additional lanes. It’s not economical and those things will never pay for themselves.

    What’s the most frustrating to me is that every time these discussions come up, everyone focuses on the transit side of the equation only and never acknowledges the more important factor – building better neighborhoods. You cannot and will not have one without the other.

    I agree with you that part of the problem is that many neighborhoods are built in a way that automatically necessitates the car. I’m sure Rus doesn’t see that as any kind of problem at all, though the financial benefits of denser, better-built neighborhoods is pretty well established. But this is just part of the rigged system that’s been in place the last century. Only a single outcome was ever going to happen, and it has nothing to do with the supposed superiority of the personal car.

    #1044478
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    You don’t want any other people to benefit from the public funds that go into transit budgets unless those people are also for a 100% auto-centric system.

    Not my argument. I said public transit isn’t effective for most people, outside of some edge cases.

    Today I bounced between Dublin and Downtown, then home for a bit, then to the airport and back. About twenty minutes each trip. Completely impossible via bus.

    You may be willing to gut your lifestyle in order to not drive, but then you’re radical. Most people aren’t.

    I raised one pretty glaring problem

    Bullshit. You ranted and speculated. A meta study reviewed the effects of transit spending on disparate markets and concluded there was no increase in utilization post spending. Per them, paraphrasing because you’re not worth the effort of finding my own comments, there was at best modest fluctuation and at worst a wash.

    That’s why the same article called for taxing driving, while also noting voters wouldn’t accept that. They know that unless driving is made worse most people aren’t going to choose transit.

    I’d prefer to not see driving made more difficult.

    Hell, I’d love to seen even 10 or 20% of budgets go to transit, but even that seems to be a tough fight.

    So 20% of the budget should be spent on something 5% of the population uses?

    Are you going to ask that question seriously when you support a rigged system for your love affair with the car?

    “Rigged system” or a system that supports what people actually want? I see the later. People don’t want to spend hours on a bus daily just to get to and from work. Those that do seem to be those that have to because it’s the last available option they have. Good that it’s available, in the same way that it’s good food stamps and medicaid is available, but hardly a best option for people.

    #1044483
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Today I bounced between Dublin and Downtown, then home for a bit, then to the airport and back. About twenty minutes each trip. Completely impossible via bus.

    You may be willing to gut your lifestyle in order to not drive, but then you’re radical. Most people aren’t.

    ……..

    “Rigged system” or a system that supports what people actually want? I see the later. People don’t want to spend hours on a bus daily just to get to and from work. Those that do seem to be those that have to because it’s the last available option they have. Good that it’s available, in the same way that it’s good food stamps and medicaid is available, but hardly a best option for people.

    [/quote]

    A) Not all people believe its gutting their lifestyle to not spend the majority of their time behind the wheel of a car. In fact, many of us believe that is near the bottom of the list of things that we would like to spend our time doing.

    B) Of course you think the later, because you are basing your assumptions off of what you want. This is why every pro-transit piece or study is wrong and every anti-transit piece is right. I’m glad that you know the reason everyone who uses transit uses it.

    C) And yes, the system is currently rigged to provide an anti-transit pro-sprawl result. Many of these policies were developed in the 50’s & 60’s and are slowly changing back towards an urban focuses policy that the 21st century demands.

    _____________

    Back to campus: I’m very excited for the Medcenter projects. The amount of parkland that will be converted from the parks is spectacular and will be a great asset not just to the university but to the city. I see it as one more piece of the complete river conversion.

    In terms of the parking, I think it was inevitable that the parking for all but a few would eventually move to the periphery of campus. I think its been under discussion for years but just came to a head. The shuttles are pretty efficient (I had to use them for more than a year) and just like being a commuting student, the reality is that if you want to work or go to school at a large urban campus, you’re going to have to make some sacrifices. This is something I’m sure the professors learned long ago. The long term reality is that OSU is only getting bigger and has a limited supply of land.

    I hope that eventually OSU will help push for a larger transit system to be constructed. Parking is more expensive and scarce around the area than even downtown (IMO). If many of the students and employees are going to have to get on a bus anyway, then a larger LRT or BRT that ferried commuters in from the burbs would be very useful if it was more convenient and ultimately cheaper. Especially if it went far enough out to have a park & ride component.

    #1044489
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Public transit already is disproportionately funded. And, it’s not really about how much funding we throw at transit to make it better. The only way transit will be better is if we build better neighborhoods around transit – thus people will be more willing to take it because it will be more convenient and cheaper. If we keep building neighborhoods around cars, then why would anyone want to take the bus or walk? We should not have to “punish” anyone to convince them to take the bus, but at the same time it should be unrealistic to devote most of our resources towards parking lots, parking garages and additional lanes. It’s not economical and those things will never pay for themselves.

    Well said. And actually relevant to the original conversation-starter about the changes to Cannon Drive and the land uses around it.

    #1044503

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Not my argument. I said public transit isn’t effective for most people, outside of some edge cases.

    You have also implied that you would be okay eliminating all transit funding. And you’re certainly against any expansion of transit from what it is now. You’re comfortable maintaining the near total monopoly on what you want.

    Today I bounced between Dublin and Downtown, then home for a bit, then to the airport and back. About twenty minutes each trip. Completely impossible via bus.

    Completely impossible as a trip or completely impossible to do in 20 minutes? They’re certainly possible to make, but the times would probably be longer. But again, you’re against improving transit in order to improve travel times, so your position is dishonest. You want transit to suck in order to keep making claims it sucks.

    You may be willing to gut your lifestyle in order to not drive, but then you’re radical. Most people aren’t.

    You think one has to “gut” their lives in order to ride transit? Talk about a radical view.

    Bullshit. You ranted and speculated. A meta study reviewed the effects of transit spending on disparate markets and concluded there was no increase in utilization post spending. Per them, paraphrasing because you’re not worth the effort of finding my own comments, there was at best modest fluctuation and at worst a wash.

    The study did not give a single detail on how it evaluated funding or where that funding went, so the results are questionable at best and run contrary to many other studies that came before it. Without that information, it’s essentially useless.

    That’s why the same article called for taxing driving, while also noting voters wouldn’t accept that. They know that unless driving is made worse most people aren’t going to choose transit.

    Your strange fixation that increased transit equates to decreased driving access just supports the idea that you really don’t get how much access you actually have, and how transit has no possible way to significantly cause its decline.

    I’d prefer to not see driving made more difficult.

    You haven’t exactly explained how it would be in relation to increased transit funding.

    So 20% of the budget should be spent on something 5% of the population uses?

    I’m surprised even 5% of the population uses transit considering it gets so little funding. People like yourself intentionally support a broken system because you fear it will negatively affect what you want, and then keep telling everyone that transit sucks as if your motivation is somehow altruistic.

    “Rigged system” or a system that supports what people actually want? I see the later. People don’t want to spend hours on a bus daily just to get to and from work. Those that do seem to be those that have to because it’s the last available option they have. Good that it’s available, in the same way that it’s good food stamps and medicaid is available, but hardly a best option for people.

    See above. If people are spending hours on a bus, it’s only because policy and funding has made it absolutely impossible to make it any better. Your goal now seems to be to eliminate it altogether and put this threat to cars down once and for all.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 129 total)

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

Subscribe below: