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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 9 posts - 121 through 129 (of 129 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1044562
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    You have also implied that you would be okay eliminating all transit funding.

    What I said was:

    “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.”

    Scroll up.

    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.

    In 20 minutes. Just checked; the Dublin to downtown would take between 1 hour and 7 minutes to 1 hour 39 minutes, so between 108% and 133% longer time spent in transit.

    Figure in a return trip: 216% to 266% longer time in transit. Without considering a trip to the airport as well.

    If you dislike the time spent driving you’re really going to hate the time spent on a bus.

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

    More time in transit, more limited service hours / destinations… yeah, it looks like a severe restriction. But keep on denying the obvious ;-)

    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.

    We’ll obviously have to agree to disagree, but note the sources behind the study:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11116-014-9545-2#page-1

    Further, note the trend here:

    http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/CA10-4.pdf

    and how transit has no possible way to significantly cause its decline.

    This we actually agree on. I don’t see how additional funding can increase ridership and in point of fact it hasn’t. Where we differ is I don’t see devoting additional spending to be beneficial.

    #1044582

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    What I said was:

    “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.”

    Scroll up.

    I wasn’t talking about that post, but before in others. And I don’t think I’m off-base when I say I totally believe you’d be fine with it given your positions.

    In 20 minutes. Just checked; the Dublin to downtown would take between 1 hour and 7 minutes to 1 hour 39 minutes, so between 108% and 133% longer time spent in transit.

    From an outer suburb that’s not well-served by transit to begin with.

    If you dislike the time spent driving you’re <em class=”d4pbbc-italic”>really going to hate the time spent on a bus.

    My choice to not drive is not based on travel time. However, we’re still dealing with the same problem that you can’t seem to grasp: Transit is not going to be good when it never sees significant investment. How good was the road system 100 years ago? Probably pretty crappy. Transit is basically at that point in most cities.

    More time in transit, more limited service hours / destinations… yeah, it looks like a severe restriction. But keep on denying the obvious ;-)

    Keep on denying that people like you support exactly those conditions so you can crow the crowning achievements of overwhelming subsidization on your personal choices. :)

    We’ll obviously have to agree to disagree, but note the sources behind the study:

    Why would you disagree on a fact? The study didn’t provide that information. It’s not up for debate.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11116-014-9545-2#page-1

    Further, note the trend here:
    http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/CA10-4.pdf

    Yeah, that chart shows exactly the results of a system that nearly universally only supports auto travel. Where’s the breaking news?

    This we actually agree on. I don’t see how additional funding can increase ridership and in point of fact it hasn’t. Where we differ is I don’t see devoting additional spending to be beneficial.

    Of course not, because you’d rather support the monopoly than entertain the idea that transit be effective. That would destroy your entire ideology on the matter.

    #1044598
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    And I don’t think I’m off-base when I say I totally believe you’d be fine with it given your positions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    My choice to not drive is not based on travel time.

    Of course not, since that’s a huge detriment.

    However, we’re still dealing with the same problem that you can’t seem to grasp: Transit is not going to be good when it never sees significant investment. How good was the road system 100 years ago? Probably pretty crappy. Transit is basically at that point in most cities.

    Transit can not be faster than personal travel, since there’s multiple stops. Can’t be as flexible since there must be limited destinations. Carrying capacity is significantly reduced, the problems of managing kids… transit has significant detriments which limit it’s adoption. More funding won’t change that.

    Of course not, because you’d rather support the monopoly than entertain the idea that transit be effective. That would destroy your entire ideology on the matter.

    Really. More like you can’t admit public transit will only ever be a fringe element of transportation and, therefore, should be funded accordingly. There’s no ideology at play; a system designed for the masses will usually not meet the needs of the individual as well as the individual themselves. Exceptions occur when the individual can not meet their own needs.

    Like I said however many pages ago: We’re not going to agree. That’s predetermined, since you’re enamoured with adjusting your lifestyle to meet a bus schedule ( one you freely admit isn’t good ) and I’m not.

    #1044611

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    And I don’t think I’m off-base when I say I totally believe you’d be fine with it given your positions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    My choice to not drive is not based on travel time.

    Of course not, since that’s a huge detriment.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    However, we’re still dealing with the same problem that you can’t seem to grasp: Transit is not going to be good when it never sees significant investment. How good was the road system 100 years ago? Probably pretty crappy. Transit is basically at that point in most cities.

    Transit can not be faster than personal travel, since there’s multiple stops. Can’t be as flexible since there must be limited destinations. Carrying capacity is significantly reduced, the problems of managing kids… transit has significant detriments which limit it’s adoption. More funding won’t change that.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Of course not, because you’d rather support the monopoly than entertain the idea that transit be effective. That would destroy your entire ideology on the matter.

    Really. More like you can’t admit public transit will only ever be a fringe element of transportation and, therefore, should be funded accordingly. There’s no ideology at play; a system designed for the masses will usually not meet the needs of the individual as well as the individual themselves. Exceptions occur when the individual can not meet their own needs.

    Like I said however many pages ago: We’re not going to agree. That’s predetermined, since you’re enamoured with adjusting your lifestyle to meet a bus schedule ( one you freely admit isn’t good ) and I’m not.

    I’m not looking for agreement, so if you think that’s the goal, then we’re really on the wrong path. The real disagreement from my pov is that you think it’s fine to have your choice of travel perpetually subsidized overwhelmingly to the detriment of all other choices. No matter how ineffective you think transit is, it is not within your right to deny others the ability to make their own choices. Everyone values their time and convenience differently, and if someone doesn’t find the bus or train to be detrimental to their lives, who the hell are you to tell them otherwise? You don’t have to take transit. Just don’t stand in the way of it by supporting a system that has only one.

    #1044647
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    No matter how ineffective you think transit is, it is not within your right to deny others the ability to make their own choices.

    I, just like you, have the right to advocate for public money to be spent in my interest. Make whatever choices you like, but when it comes to expecting someone else to pay for it expect an argument.

    Just don’t stand in the way of it by supporting a system that has only one.

    Bullshit. We have COTA. It works as well as you can expect public transit to work.

    #1044653

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    No matter how ineffective you think transit is, it is not within your right to deny others the ability to make their own choices.

    I, just like you, have the right to advocate for public money to be spent in my interest. Make whatever choices you like, but when it comes to expecting someone else to pay for it expect an argument.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Just don’t stand in the way of it by supporting a system that has only one.

    Bullshit. We have COTA. It works as well as you can expect public transit to work.

    My last post on this in this thread as we’ll no doubt revisit this again and again in the future.

    Sure, you have the right to advocate public money be spent in a certain way, but you fail to realize that public dollars do not belong specifically to you. They belong to everyone and the current system ensures that no other choices are considered or funded but yours. You think that’s perfectly fair, I do not.

    There are more choices of transit than the standard bus (BRT, rail, etc.), and COTA is not nearly as good as it could be. You really think Columbus’ bus system is at the peak of its potential efficiency? Come on. You have spent the better part of this thread saying how much the bus sucks.

    #1044670
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Sure, you have the right to advocate public money be spent in a certain way, but you fail to realize that public dollars do not belong specifically to you.

    Think you’re missing the point of “advocate”. It’s the same thing you’re doing.

    You have spent the better part of this thread saying how much the bus sucks.

    Your point has been “only cars get public funding”, which is untrue. COTA does exist, after all. Yes, public transit has some significant drawbacks compared to private but that’s inherent to the nature of public transit.

    #1044678
    derm
    derm
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Sure, you have the right to advocate public money be spent in a certain way, but you fail to realize that public dollars do not belong specifically to you.

    Think you’re missing the point of “advocate”. It’s the same thing you’re doing.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    You have spent the better part of this thread saying how much the bus sucks.

    Your point has been “only cars get public funding”, which is untrue. COTA does exist, after all. Yes, public transit has some significant drawbacks compared to private but that’s inherent to the nature of public transit.

    The infrastructure that supports automobiles also supports far more. Keep in mind that almost regardless of the level of increase of public transit the roads will have to be maintained due to the fact that other things use them and will continue to use them as far as I can tell. Police, fire, ambulances, busing, taxi/livery, large and small trucking, construction and delivery vehicles. Until the drones take over, even if everybody decided to walk, we will have to maintain the roads and they will use a disproportionate amount of funding.

    #1044683
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    The infrastructure that supports automobiles also supports far more. Keep in mind that almost regardless of the level of increase of public transit the roads will have to be maintained due to the fact that other things use them and will continue to use them as far as I can tell. Police, fire, ambulances, busing, taxi/livery, large and small trucking, construction and delivery vehicles. Until the drones take over, even if everybody decided to walk, we will have to maintain the roads and they will use a disproportionate amount of funding.

    Sure. All that is true; there’s a lot more uses for roads than simple commuting.

    With that network in place individual transit ( be it personal vehicle, gar2go, lyft, etc. ) is comparatively more time efficient, easier to manage cargo / kids, etc. than public transit.

    Since we’re going to have that network regardless, why not use it?

Viewing 9 posts - 121 through 129 (of 129 total)

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

Subscribe below: