Is Columbus a good place to live based upon this criteria? (Cleveland: 2013, condominiums)

[Port Pitt Ash]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I don't see the evidence there to suggest bikers are intentionally getting hit, which is what you're arguing.

Intent is based off of my experience living there and growing up in the area.

However, I figured it was a good idea to see some of the actual stats.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Further, High Street runs the entire north-south length of the city. It doesn't have bike lanes, so that might explain at least some of the accidents there.

Yeah, that's sort of what I'm saying. It's coming along, but it's not there yet.

So in the scheme of things it's probably not a huge issue on the biking front, but rather the underlying aggression issues (mainly around campus and High Street).

Driving by numbers a lot more dangerous, but it would still be nice to have per capita numbers for bikes.

[Sassigayle]

jbcmh81 Your post of the cyclist in the snow almost made me fall out of my chair. Of course there are days in Columbus like that.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Your qualifier that I object to is "city-wide." I'm not certain that Chicago is as great as you claim. According to the following article, Chicago only has 102.8 miles of rail transit, which pales against your figure of 74.9 miles for Cleveland, when you consider that Chicago is almost 3 times as large in land area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_%22L%22

Cleveland's Healthline bus rapid running the length of Euclid Ave. is an integral part of its transit system, and with walk-on, walk-off, articulated, subway-like cars, it's a much different experience than buses.

From what I see, you have no expertise to evaluate transit capabilities in even major Midwest, let alone U.S. cities. Unlike you, I don't falsely claim knowledge of many cities based on my anecdotal knowledge. Your "experience" in Mexico City is irrelevant to the robust transit options serving much of Cleveland. The rail line significance in Cleveland is magnified by feeder bus lines.



Point-to-point transit services are much, much cheaper than taxis, and much more reliable. For disabled individuals, the equipment is much more robust, e.g., with chair lifts.



I never said that rail service is extensive in Cuyahoga County. Based on what I know of transit services in the U.S., and I've traveled widely and used transit services in many cities, rail transit in the city of Cleveland itself may be relatively extensive compared to most American cities, and, as noted, even Chicago. E.g., the simplicity and direct connection offered by the Red Line between Cleveland Hopkins (where the station is just down an escalator from baggage pick-up) and Tower City for a $2.25 fare is as good as any city that I've seen. For the same fare, Case Western students can go all of the way to University Circle. What's better in the U.S.?



So what you're arguing is the funding level of a transit system is divorced from its robustness? I'm not trying to sell Cleveland. I'm actually pointing out the financial disparities that explain why Columbus has an inferior transit system.

The OP asked if Columbus has good transit. As some point, without my input, Cleveland became part of the discussion. That's the one system that I know the most about, so I chipped in, and the disparities in financing between Cleveland and Columbus probably answers the OP's question as well as any other factoid in this thread.



What you know is nothing IMO. Show me a research report based on an actual factual analysis of the mass transit system in Chicago versus other Midwest cities.




What a ridiculous statement. Rail systems with dedicated rights-of-way offer immense advantages over bus lines. Why doesn't NYC replace its subway system with buses? Having a significant rail system is an immense advantage for transit services, and, despite your pretentious arguments, the Cleveland system is significant.

WRnative, I definitely get your point... I think a lot of these guys just don't get the concept of relativity. They look at Cleveland and Chicago, DC, or Boston as the same... like: why didn't Cleveland build the D.C. Metro or the Boston T!? ... not realizing that these are false comparisons because those cities were naturally more apartment/tenement cities whereas Cleveland, like Kansas City or Indy or Milwaukee or even Detroit, are individual house cities; houses usually with substantial lawns, driveways and few alleys...

Also, even though the Rapid physically is only in Cleveland, Shaker Hts, East Cleveland (and corners of Lakewood and Brook Park), it serves a lot of adjacent suburbs to those areas, like Cleveland Hts, University Hts, Beachwood and Warrensville Hts, ... and with the abundance of FREE parking lots at stations, many people drive in and take the Rapid from such places as Pepper Pike, North Olmsted, and Berea, ... to name a few...

... and yes, while Chicago's L is very, very good and has built up density in many areas of the City, there are wide areas it doesn't serve and must rely on bus transfers.

[Mangokiwi]

Originally Posted by Port Pitt Ash

Not bad. But I'd take out Cleveland (if it ever gets its act together), Kansas City, Portland, OR, Pittsburgh, and maybe Milwaukee (assuming it works out its issues). All of those are or could be (if some issues are addressed) a step above Columbus.

How I'd rank a few of the places that have been mentioned in comparison to Columbus:

Chicago (2.5 to 3 steps up from Cbus (assuming you have the funds to live in a nice area & take advantage of the amenities))
Portland (2 steps up from Cbus)
Minneapolis (1.5 steps up from Cbus)
Pittsburgh/Austin (Full step up from Cbus)
Cleveland (Half a step up from Cbus (still has a few issues to work out))
Columbus/Nashville/Charlotte
Nashville has less, but the weather's nicer.

Charlotte is basically the southern version of Columbus with even more driving around due to poor layout.

Now with that said all of those places are nice places compared to a lot of the US.

I agree with this upgraded list.
Also true, Charlotte is nearly the clone of Columbus, only it has a tad more Financial industry than Insurance (still has Insurance industry though). Charlotte does have a terrible layout so driving is more annoying, but Charlotte is also much warmer than Columbus and happens to be in NC, so you have better access to hiking and beautiful mountain scenery that Columbus has little of unless you want to drive to WV.
Nashville is hotter and more humid than the other 2.

Anyway, you'll notice a few of the themes that keep popping up when talking about Columbus:

- Car city/not great for walking.
- Good quality of life/COL.
- Good for finding a job.
- Settling down. Family life.
- Good for X, but not world class.
- Just decent, normal folks.
- Everything's right off of High Street.
- OSU football.

All around good, not great.

I agree, Columbus is a nice place to raise kids, but it's pretty boring if you want to have a young adult fun lifestyle (if you aren't a college student).

[Mangokiwi]

Originally Posted by Port Pitt Ash

People seemed very territorial of their cars and the idea of sharing probably hasn't occurred to enough people. After all one of the activities (by many people I know) was to just drive aimlessly around a night.

Not sure I'd want to try Cleveland without a car.

lol, i think that's actually a pretty common past-time for people who live in a boring town.

Cleveland without a car is doable if you live near downtown and you work downtown. If you live in the suburbs, it's not a good idea.

[Ray_Velcoro]

Columbus is a great city. It outperforms all of the regional cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Lexington, Toledo, Detroit and Pittsburgh by a mile. No city in the northeast or Midwest United States is growing as fast other than NYC. You have to go west or south to see the growth that is occurring in Columbus. New housing,jobs and strong wage growth is how I would describe the economy. With that said Columbus is on an island, once outside of the metro you are surrounded by stagnation or decline. Louisville or Lexington would be my next choice regionally.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by LowTune

Does Columbus have any of the following; ....

Good COL

Good amount of rain

Good amount of adult entertainment

Good public transit

Good amount of natural beauty

Good amount of walkable terrain

Good variety of ethnic cuisine (especially as it pertains to various Asian cuisines)

Good amount of female massage therapists (especially as it pertains to various Asian massage therapists) KIDDING! ....

But seriously, do you enjoy living in Columbus?

Ohio has NEVER been lacking in adult entertainment. Its conservative, but its seedy. Obviously I don't live there anymore but I always found clubs in Dayton, Akron, and Cincinnati. I doubt Columbus would be any different.

Now I'm stuck in Virgina with its prude anti nudity laws. Probably for the better because the club took more than enough of my hard earned money. If you can't find a club, there's probably a wrong turn you can take in the right neighborhood if you're looking for trouble.

[goofy328]

Columbus is a car city because of development patterns. Much of the growth is annexed suburbia, since the nineties. If you want walkability try a city like Cleveland or Cincinnati. Or stay in downtown Columbus.

[logongst]

Originally Posted by goofy328

Columbus is a car city because of development patterns. Much of the growth is annexed suburbia, since the nineties. If you want walkability try a city like Cleveland or Cincinnati. Or stay in downtown Columbus.

The entire metro is growing.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by Ray_Velcoro

Columbus is a great city. It outperforms all of the regional cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Lexington, Toledo, Detroit and Pittsburgh by a mile...

My lips are sealed...