what do you hate about columbus (Cleveland, Lakewood: shopping center, warehouse, trains)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by OhAcid

Not to be rude, but your incorrect formatting and use of the QUOTE system makes it very difficult to directly reply to you. There is a reason what I say goes in quotes and what you say does not. Because what you are saying is not a quote until I quote it.

Once again,

Subway; n.
An underground railroad
A tunnel under a road for use by pedestrians

As certain parts of the Cleveland RTA red line are underground, it is technically a "subway" for those two stops - just like parts of the CTA 'L' is although it is primarily an elevated rail system. I'm not concerned with how extensive the system is as far as it being underground for a specified length. Part of it is underground, it functions the same way as a subway does. I.e. - it is a subway, if a small one.

What are you trying to say? That Columbus is "normal" compared to other cities therefore it does not have urban sprawl?

No, those two thoughts do note equate. Whether it's the worst, in the bottom 50% or whatever else you'd like to call it - Columbus, Ohio is still filled with urban sprawl. My "hyperbole" is everything but. Columbus is full of strip malls surrounded by suburban housing developments. That is urban sprawl. That is Columbus, Ohio.

Then why am I explaining what urban sprawl is to you, and why are you arguing with the fact that Columbus is filled with it? It should stick out like a sore thumb to someone who has visited dense, major cities and one of the largest cities in the world. Neither of which describes Columbus or any other city in Ohio for that matter actually. Which part of this do you not understand.

If by "urban core" you mean "downtown" and by "downtown" you mean "downtown Columbus" then you'd know that the other 200 square miles of the city are indeed nothing but housing developments and strip malls. I.e. urban sprawl - which is characterized as an "urban" area filled with suburban characteristics. Which is Columbus. I feel like I'm re-hashing this same point every time I quote you only to have you say something I quote again and correct.

That still doesn't change the fact that half of the city's population is only the city's population because the city annexed, and annexed and annexed until it covered a massive 212 square miles now in 2010.

You're correct, my data was actually coming from the 2000 census.

Because both cities occupy roughly about the same amount of land give or take a few square miles. My "bias" which I don't believe exists with this discussion, what I'm saying is simply fact. That Columbus has a massive amount of land area filled with a small amount of people leaving it much less dense than a city of similar size. That's all.

It's expanding in cities that lack updated, efficient public transit and the funding to create efficient public transit like light rail. Bus transit is very 1960, moves less people, costs more and is less efficient. But it's cheaper. That's why it's expanding, not because it's fantastic technology.

Houston also likes to annex anything it touches. Texas is Houston's biggest suburb. It would be astronomically expensive to create a system that crosses the entire (or even a significant portion of the city) city, eliminating the need for most people to own a car. But transition is on the way, which is why the implementation of public transit is being followed through with. And ridership by the way, does increase when effective public transit is implemented and supported. Chicago has car culture, but significantly fewer people own a car because effective transit exists. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Yes, and if Columbus had effective public transit it would be less car centric, which it currently is.

Cars are prevalent because effective public transit does not exist, and because the city is full of sprawl. Not because Columbus has fantastic highways upon which people enjoy riding. If I were playing Sim City with Columbus, Ohio however - I assure you that I would have had effective public transit of some form in place long before 2012 (where it is still only being "explored", not implemented) especially since it's the capital, home to one of the largest universities in the country and covers a huge amount of area with a large population.

I don't think you understand how any of it works, which is why you're still defending the abysmal suburban characteristics of Columbus like they're ones to be proud of vs. urban planning failures. Which they are.

Where did I say that public transit eliminates the use of cars as a primary mode of transit? Replacing automobiles and significantly reducing the use of automobiles on behalf of public transit are two very different concepts. I implied nothing like what you're claiming I did. And yes, many people do still own cars in Cleveland, but many people also do not and use the established public transit to get around everywhere. In America, the car is still #1 by far simply because "the norm" as you pointed out is dwelling in urban sprawl featuring horrid public transit, which requires a car in turn. The two correlate.

Wasn't really needed says who? Everyone in Columbus that owns a car? That's a laugh.

Yes, but when you consider the fact that it's also 600 square miles then the equation is a bit more balanced. You said "density" was needed in order to generate effective use of public transit. Well, Houston and Columbus are about equal in terms of density - yet Columbus is the one lacking in public transit.

All of these cities have larger metro populations that do not severely surpass Columbus. They are also much smaller in terms of area.

I assure you that people utilizing the public transit systems in Minneapolis and Portland are not suburbanites from the "metro area" - which has nothing to do with those living in the actual urban area and having daily access to public transit.

Right, population has nothing to do with mass transit. It's all about how many square miles there are in a city limit.

[glamgal198]

1. Cleveland doesn't have a subway.
Thank you to whoever posted the picture!
2. Sprawl in Columbus is actually insignificant compared to large sections of the nation. If you think it's bad here, you haven't seen real sprawl. It's not even the worst in Ohio.
I never said Columbus was the most sprawled city in America, I said it was simply sprawled, I thought this thread was for posting what you disliked about the city? That is why I mentioned it, Columbus is very spread out and I don't like that about it.
3. Bus service has expanded every year for at least the past 6 years due to rapid increase in bus ridership (#1 in 2011), and BRT is now being studied.
I recall many a day i was late to class because the bus NEVER came. This wasn't a rarity either. I'm talking weekly...and this is the CITY bus, not CABS (campus area bus system). Columbus buses have a big problem showing up, or running extremely late. Why do they even bother with schedules?
3. Obesity is an AMERICAN problem. There are very very few places (I can't name any) that don't have a ton of overweight people. This is not a Columbus complaint. I'd be interested to know where you went to that didn't have this problem considering how widespread it is.
Agreed, however some areas have this problem more so than others. I didn't say obesity was the worse in Ohio, I said coming back home I was shocked at the # of overweight people I saw. I honestly don't see as many in the area I am in now. Maybe its because in my current neighborhood people walk MUCH more than back home.

[StuckHereinFL]

So if I know some guy who digs a tunnel and puts a train in it within city limits does that mean Cbus has a subway?

[costello_musicman]

Originally Posted by StuckHereinFL

So if I know some guy who digs a tunnel and puts a train in it within city limits does that mean Cbus has a subway?

In defense to Cleveland...there is a train system that is called the Rapid. I've never heard anyone call it a subway...BUT it is completely underground when Downtown and at the Airport:



And for Public Transportation nerds and history buffs, Cleveland did begin construction of a complete underground system before plans were scrapped in 1947...only two stations were completed: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/inde...ic,2726.0.html

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by costello_musicman

In defense to Cleveland...there is a train system that is called the Rapid. I've never heard anyone call it a subway...BUT it is completely underground when Downtown and at the Airport:



And for Public Transportation nerds and history buffs, Cleveland did begin construction of a complete underground system before plans were scrapped in 1947...only two stations were completed: Cleveland's subway story told with maps and graphics

Thank you, that's what I've been saying. Perhaps some people call it a subway, but they are few, and I haven't seen it listed with subway systems nationally. This doesn't mean that Cleveland doesn't have a nice system, but to call it a subway is a huge stretch.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by glamgal198

1. Cleveland doesn't have a subway.
Thank you to whoever posted the picture!
2. Sprawl in Columbus is actually insignificant compared to large sections of the nation. If you think it's bad here, you haven't seen real sprawl. It's not even the worst in Ohio.
I never said Columbus was the most sprawled city in America, I said it was simply sprawled, I thought this thread was for posting what you disliked about the city? That is why I mentioned it, Columbus is very spread out and I don't like that about it.

And none of that matters unless you put it into context with the conditions of most other cities. Simply saying Columbus sprawls is like saying Columbus has fast food. Columbus gets a lot of criticism for something that is common everywhere, and ironically, not even the worst in Ohio.

3. Bus service has expanded every year for at least the past 6 years due to rapid increase in bus ridership (#1 in 2011), and BRT is now being studied.
I recall many a day i was late to class because the bus NEVER came. This wasn't a rarity either. I'm talking weekly...and this is the CITY bus, not CABS (campus area bus system). Columbus buses have a big problem showing up, or running extremely late. Why do they even bother with schedules?

Not sure if there is such a thing as perfect transportation system. However, one of COTA's goals beyond expansion is to improve schedules and service overall. From what I've seen, that is happening.

3. Obesity is an AMERICAN problem. There are very very few places (I can't name any) that don't have a ton of overweight people. This is not a Columbus complaint. I'd be interested to know where you went to that didn't have this problem considering how widespread it is.

Agreed, however some areas have this problem more so than others. I didn't say obesity was the worse in Ohio, I said coming back home I was shocked at the # of overweight people I saw. I honestly don't see as many in the area I am in now. Maybe its because in my current neighborhood people walk MUCH more than back home.

Where are you from, exactly? Anecdotals don't really work as evidence because they can be biased for or against an area. That's why I would go by studied rates.

[OhAcid]

Not to be rude, but I'll reply however I feel like. If it bothers you that much, then just don't reply back.

So in other words you'll ignore the current working quote system in favor of being difficult and making it difficult to properly reply to you in an organized fashion. That's just being childish.

Once again, your personal desire to call it a subway doesn't make it so. Cleveland does not have a subway. Repeatedly referring it to one makes me think you've never seen or ridden a real one.

I'll concede to what you're saying simply because whether or not you or I or anyone else agree that it is/is not a subway does little to change the fact that it's an effective, extensive mode of public transit that isn't altered in any way shape or form just because it is not entirely underground. So terminology may be an issue, but the system and how it works in general regardless of that is not.

No, but you made a big deal about the city's size and how that size contributed to an unusual amount of suburban sprawl. I pointed out that the city's size is neither particularly large or particularly unusual, and with the link I showed that Columbus does not have an unusual amount of sprawl either, nationally or in Ohio. In other words, I refuted your point effectively.

This is the point.
Just because the amount of sprawl is not "unusual' does not mean that it is not sprawl. The fact that every other sprawling American city also is full of sprawl, does not change the fact that Columbus is full of sprawl and predominately is sprawl. That is fact, you cannot "refute" a point that is fact. That just makes you ignorant.

Actually, you just described almost every city in the country. Your personal bias is the only thing that makes sprawl in Columbus to be unusual in its size, as the facts certainly don't support you. Not that many people here let facts get in the way.

What personal bias? Columbus is full of sprawl. Many other cities are also full of sprawl. That still does not change the fact that Columbus is full of sprawl. Once again, that is fact. It gives Columbus a very suburban feeling throughout almost the entire city. That is also not bias or opinion. That is a fact.

Because there are so many places that are worse. I don't see Columbus' sprawl as particularly so out of control that it should be singled out. Sprawl is very American, and if you had bothered to look at the link I gave you, you'd see that. Why not attack Cincinnati, which has more than Columbus? Yeah, I'm thinking this isn't about sprawl so much as your dislike of Columbus, specifically. Anyone with an objective opinion on something like this would not go out of their way to bash #54 on a list of sprawl cities, especially when there is an even worse one in the same state.

Because this thread is not about Cincinnati and the only reason Cleveland was brought up is because of the discussion on rail/subway. I don't dislike Columbus anymore than I dislike any other sprawling, as far as the eye can see, strip mall filled amalgamation. Columbus is much more in tune with a thriving mid-sized city filled with sprawl and a large population than it is most major urban areas in the US.

I'm pretty sure that, in most cities, outside of their urban cores, there tends to be a lot of retail and residential areas. I've been to Cleveland and Cincinnati as well... they're pretty much like this as well, only it goes out a lot further than in Columbus. If you feel like you're rehashing the same point, it's probably because you keep making the same wrong one.

A retail/residential area is not urban sprawl. Cleveland and Cincinnati also have larger metropolitan areas than Columbus - which means there is obviously going to be more sprawl outside of the urban core. Urban sprawl is not defined as single family homes anywhere in any city; it's when single family homes and bunched-up-retail areas dominate the landscape immediately outside the urban core to the point where suburb vs. city is no longer distinguishable because that's virtually all that is there. If you're going to tell me that Cleveland is filled with urban sprawl comparable to Columbus when the east side holds University Circle, numerous medical centers, and a small section of single family houses sandwiched in between that and downtown, all connected by RTA rapid transit; plus the west side that is largely courtyard buildings, brownstones, extremely small developments of single family homes, the market, renovated, wall to wall businesses (not strip malls) and industry all connected by the RTA rapid along several stops as well, and further running into Lakewood with its high rise, lakefront Gold Coast then you're delusional. The suburbs of Cleveland may be full of sprawl, but that's why they're suburbs. I'm not concerned with the communities surrounding Columbus which are obviously suburbs, I'm concerned with Columbus - which also looks and feels like a suburb throughout most of the city. You do not leave downtown Cleveland going either direction and immediately feel like you are in a suburban wasteland, far, far from it.

I haven't been to Cincinnati in ages, however, so I can't comment on their situation.

So massive it's average And it seems to me that Cincinnati and Cleveland should've done the same. Instead, they were penned in, had their tax base stagnate and could do little as their urban populations left for the suburbs or other cities altogether. In this case, an aggressive annexation policy was smart. Otherwise, Columbus may have ended up in the same position.

What part of "average" or "normal" means that something is not large or sprawling just because it is the average or normal? It may be average, but Columbus is still a massive expanse of suburbia. And think what you like, but I'd still rather be living in a city with shrinking population and urban amenities at my fingertips than in one that only has a large population because it's also large and sprawling in every way imaginable. Different strokes for different folks.

Dude, you realize trains are from the 1800s. Let's not talk about trains like they're some brand new technology meant to replace the bus. And you just said that bus transit costs more but then say it's cheaper. What? And your assertion that only cities without adequate mass transit are adding it is just not true.

Your logic is absolutely mind blowing, numbing to my brain. Following your logic, automobiles are outdated as well simply because they're from the early 1900's. There is a little more in something being "outdated" than its date of inception alone. The "bus" you're so fond of, is outdated because it carries a limited number of people compared to what rail transit is capable of and is only used extensively today because it's cheaper initially (and yes, I'm speaking of modern rail transit, not something out of an Alfred Hitchcock film). Why do you think public transit in cities with large rail networks have a higher ridership and support for public transit than cities that have only bus fleets? Rail transit is also much faster, especially in growing urban areas where buses compete with pedestrians as well as automobile operators and traffic signals to move from place to place. BRT fixes these problems with bus transit by effectively combining elements of both; giving high capacity buses their own lanes and priority at traffic signals as well as being fuel efficient as most BRT are hybrids. There is a huge difference in a train from the 1800's and a bullet train reaching 250 miles per hour in 2012; just as there is a huge difference in a traditional bus and a BRT system.

And since my assessment that only cities without adequate, cross platform transit are implementing more buses, please inform me of some cities with great public transit that are increasing their bus fleets exponentially.

Mexico City - Metrobús | EMBARQ Mexico City has extensive subway and light rail systems, buses, trolleys, etc, yet they have been expanding their new BRT system very quickly. I've actually ridden it. It's very nice, very efficient and very cheap.

BRT is not a traditional bus system. That is why it is referred to as BRT and not just "the bus", there are several differences. If BRT is what you were implying with your statement above about increases in bus transit; then you're incorrect; as BRT is not an increase in standard busing - it is an entirely alternate, hybrid of bus technology and rail ideology being implemented. Otherwise, all BRT lines would just be new "bus" routes.

It's not balanced and that is an extremely simplistic comparison of the two. If you honestly think they're one and the same, then I'm afraid logic is not your strong point. Density is important, but it's not the only factor involved, as I've been saying.

Correct. That's why I said public transit in the form of rail technology works in a city that is both as dense a Columbus, but much more spread out with a large pouplation. Making transit via the bus an extreme nightmare if you're navigating from one end of the city to the other. What other factor am I missing here?

And? Areal size has exactly what to do with population, density, demand, traffic congestion, etc that actually do play a role in the development of mass transit?

Right, population has nothing to do with mass transit. It's all about how many square miles there are in a city limit.

I think the point has once again flown over your head. Most of population living in the Twin Cities actually lives outside both Minneapolis and St. Paul where the suburbs are not being serviced by public transit located in the city. The LRT and BRT being implemented is predominately focused on 1. Cross city transportation between Minneapolis and St. Paul and 2. Transit connecting Minneapolis with Minneapolis and St. Paul with St. Paul. The few suburbs that are connected to Minneapolis and St. Paul are not supporting the mass transit there nor are they the majority of the riders of the mass transit there. The people who live in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and their combined area of 110 square miles are.

Point: The suburbanites in these areas that have "higher metro populations" (that you seem to think explains the presence of significant public transit) are not the ones supporting or using the public transit that only serves the actual cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Portland and Cleveland and does not reach into the majority (if any) of the suburban communities at all. I.e. a metro population has nothing to do with the public transit primarily being utilized by the immediate inhabitants of a city. The people living in the 58 square miles of Minneapolis, the 52 square miles of St. Paul, the 130 square miles of Portland and the 86 square miles of Cleveland are the people using the public transit in these areas. Not the suburban communities full of three-car garage homes, all filled with cars, that are also not linked to the public transit either efficiently or at all. That is why a "metro population" has nothing to do with public transit. I guarantee you the park-n-ride RTA stops are not filled with people from Solon, Parma, or any other suburb not connected to RTA transit that go out of their way to drive into Cleveland, pay to park and then pay to ride public transit, not only costing them more but also drastically increasing their commute time from point A to point B. The same goes for the rest of these metropolitan areas.

Originally Posted by glamgal198

1. Cleveland doesn't have a subway.
Thank you to whoever posted the picture!

You're welcome. Although evidently it has to be entirely underground to be considered a subway. Even though it functions the same way despite not being entirely underground. Much in the same way that NYC's "subway" is not entirely underground, although is still a subway. Even though both systems are proportionate in terms of being a "subway" when you take into account underground/elevated/ground level tracks and the fact that Cleveland's RTA is about fifty times smaller than the NYC subway system is. Obviously the amount of track underground in Cleveland is not going to be significant compared to NYC or any other entirely underground transit system. I suppose Chicago doesn't have a subway either since less than 5% of it's system is actually underground, despite the city of Chicago itself referring to the underground portions of the 'L' system as "the subway".

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by OhAcid

So in other words you'll ignore the current working quote system in favor of being difficult and making it difficult to properly reply to you in an organized fashion. That's just being childish.

I'll concede to what you're saying simply because whether or not you or I or anyone else agree that it is/is not a subway does little to change the fact that it's an effective, extensive mode of public transit that isn't altered in any way shape or form just because it is not entirely underground. So terminology may be an issue, but the system and how it works in general regardless of that is not.

This is the point.
Just because the amount of sprawl is not "unusual' does not mean that it is not sprawl.

The fact that every other sprawling American city also is full of sprawl, does not change the fact that Columbus is full of sprawl and predominately is sprawl. That is fact, you cannot "refute" a point that is fact. That just makes you ignorant.

What personal bias? Columbus is full of sprawl. Many other cities are also full of sprawl. That still does not change the fact that Columbus is full of sprawl. Once again, that is fact. It gives Columbus a very suburban feeling throughout almost the entire city. That is also not bias or opinion. That is a fact.

Because this thread is not about Cincinnati and the only reason Cleveland was brought up is because of the discussion on rail/subway. I don't dislike Columbus anymore than I dislike any other sprawling, as far as the eye can see, strip mall filled amalgamation. Columbus is much more in tune with a thriving mid-sized city filled with sprawl and a large population than it is most major urban areas in the US.

A retail/residential area is not urban sprawl. Cleveland and Cincinnati also have larger metropolitan areas than Columbus - which means there is obviously going to be more sprawl outside of the urban core. Urban sprawl is not defined as single family homes anywhere in any city; it's when single family homes and bunched-up-retail areas dominate the landscape immediately outside the urban core to the point where suburb vs. city is no longer distinguishable because that's virtually all that is there. If you're going to tell me that Cleveland is filled with urban sprawl comparable to Columbus when the east side holds University Circle, numerous medical centers, and a small section of single family houses sandwiched in between that and downtown, all connected by RTA rapid transit; plus the west side that is largely courtyard buildings, brownstones, extremely small developments of single family homes, the market, renovated, wall to wall businesses (not strip malls) and industry all connected by the RTA rapid along several stops as well, and further running into Lakewood with its high rise, lakefront Gold Coast then you're delusional.

The suburbs of Cleveland may be full of sprawl, but that's why they're suburbs. I'm not concerned with the communities surrounding Columbus which are obviously suburbs, I'm concerned with Columbus - which also looks and feels like a suburb throughout most of the city. You do not leave downtown Cleveland going either direction and immediately feel like you are in a suburban wasteland, far, far from it.

I haven't been to Cincinnati in ages, however, so I can't comment on their situation.

What part of "average" or "normal" means that something is not large or sprawling just because it is the average or normal? It may be average, but Columbus is still a massive expanse of suburbia. And think what you like, but I'd still rather be living in a city with shrinking population and urban amenities at my fingertips than in one that only has a large population because it's also large and sprawling in every way imaginable. Different strokes for different folks.

Your logic is absolutely mind blowing, numbing to my brain. Following your logic, automobiles are outdated as well simply because they're from the early 1900's.

There is a little more in something being "outdated" than its date of inception alone. The "bus" you're so fond of, is outdated because it carries a limited number of people compared to what rail transit is capable of and is only used extensively today because it's cheaper initially (and yes, I'm speaking of modern rail transit, not something out of an Alfred Hitchcock film).

Why do you think public transit in cities with large rail networks have a higher ridership and support for public transit than cities that have only bus fleets?

Rail transit is also much faster, especially in growing urban areas where buses compete with pedestrians as well as automobile operators and traffic signals to move from place to place. BRT fixes these problems with bus transit by effectively combining elements of both; giving high capacity buses their own lanes and priority at traffic signals as well as being fuel efficient as most BRT are hybrids. There is a huge difference in a train from the 1800's and a bullet train reaching 250 miles per hour in 2012; just as there is a huge difference in a traditional bus and a BRT system.

And since my assessment that only cities without adequate, cross platform transit are implementing more buses, please inform me of some cities with great public transit that are increasing their bus fleets exponentially.

BRT is not a traditional bus system. That is why it is referred to as BRT and not just "the bus", there are several differences. If BRT is what you were implying with your statement above about increases in bus transit; then you're incorrect; as BRT is not an increase in standard busing - it is an entirely alternate, hybrid of bus technology and rail ideology being implemented. Otherwise, all BRT lines would just be new "bus" routes.

Correct. That's why I said public transit in the form of rail technology works in a city that is both as dense a Columbus, but much more spread out with a large pouplation. Making transit via the bus an extreme nightmare if you're navigating from one end of the city to the other. What other factor am I missing here?

I think the point has once again flown over your head. Most of population living in the Twin Cities actually lives outside both Minneapolis and St. Paul where the suburbs are not being serviced by public transit located in the city. The LRT and BRT being implemented is predominately focused on 1. Cross city transportation between Minneapolis and St. Paul and 2. Transit connecting Minneapolis with Minneapolis and St. Paul with St. Paul. The few suburbs that are connected to Minneapolis and St. Paul are not supporting the mass transit there nor are they the majority of the riders of the mass transit there. The people who live in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and their combined area of 110 square miles are.

Point: The suburbanites in these areas that have "higher metro populations" (that you seem to think explains the presence of significant public transit) are not the ones supporting or using the public transit that only serves the actual cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Portland and Cleveland and does not reach into the majority (if any) of the suburban communities at all. I.e. a metro population has nothing to do with the public transit primarily being utilized by the immediate inhabitants of a city. The people living in the 58 square miles of Minneapolis, the 52 square miles of St. Paul, the 130 square miles of Portland and the 86 square miles of Cleveland are the people using the public transit in these areas. Not the suburban communities full of three-car garage homes, all filled with cars, that are also not linked to the public transit either efficiently or at all. That is why a "metro population" has nothing to do with public transit. I guarantee you the park-n-ride RTA stops are not filled with people from Solon, Parma, or any other suburb not connected to RTA transit that go out of their way to drive into Cleveland, pay to park and then pay to ride public transit, not only costing them more but also drastically increasing their commute time from point A to point B. The same goes for the rest of these metropolitan areas.

And no, it's still not a subway.

[wanderlust76]

Columbus is soooo spread out compared to Pittsburgh. It makes it really hard to explore the different neighborhoods and so on. In Pittsburgh you can do a lot and see a lot just by walking around on a nice summer day. In Columbus you have to go explore or do one little thing then get in your car for a half hour and go do the next thing you have in mind. In anyone knows a decent spot on Columbus where I can just park my car and enjoy myself for a while please let me know... I'm all ears since I'm already planning stuff for Spring/Summer. (if this is redundant I'm sorry I don't have time to read the whole thread)

[OhAcid]

So is going out of your way to bash another city with no cause and no constructive criticism. I know that's the idea of this thread, but it's extremely childish itself and lacks any of the context that make criticism effective.

I'm using the QUOTE system properly so that you don't have to waste a half hour trying to format everything just to reply to me. You could extend the same courtesy. You are not using the QUOTE system in the way it's intended to be used. If you type out 8 paragraphs they should not be within one large quote filled with sub-quotes that in turn becomes one sentence of text that is actually left to be "quoted" when I try to reply directly to your post via the QUOTE button. Other than that, I've done nothing to "BASH" Columbus. If telling you that Columbus is full of urban sprawl (it is) is "bashing" - then perhaps you should get a reality check.

It means something in context, however, which you seem to refuse to admit. I have provided evidence that Columbus is not in any way outstanding in the catergory of sprawl, but you seem dead set on making it seem like the city is completely sprawl. The facts don't support that, sorry.

In the context of what? I would say that a city with nearly 800,000 people mostly living in single family homes spread across 200 square miles is "outstanding" - even if whatever pointless statistic website you have an obsession says otherwise in the "context" of the rest of America. Columbus is almost entirely sprawl. I'm dead set on that fact because it is a fact. Show me otherwise. Do not tell me, do not link me to a website about sprawl. Please point out exactly why a city full of single family homes and mini shopping centers is not an epidemic of urban sprawl. You won't be able to.

If it was predominantly sprawl, that should show up in the numbers MUCH more than what it actually does. This is hyperbole and not based on any evidence. The fact that I can provide evidence for my position and you can't does not exactly make me the ignorant one here.

Like I said, show me which part of "Columbus is filled with sprawl" is a hyperbole. Anybody with working eyes and a car (since you need one to navigate it's endless sprawl) could tell you that the city is full of sprawl. I do not care if 50 other municipalities are filled with MORE sprawl; that does not tell or show me that Columbus is not filled with sprawl It simply means it's not the worst case of urban sprawl.

The bias is that you choose to single Columbus out specifically for this and act like it's far more than what it really is, no doubt ignoring the sprawl in your own city. Tell me, why should Columbus specifically be singled out for something it has, at worst, a mild problem with? Further, considering it IS the largest city in terms of area, the fact that it doesn't have more and isn't higher-ranked supports that the sprawl issue is even less.

The sprawl in my own city I described below. Which is very minimal. Columbus is 212 square miles of sprawl with a nice university and a few moderately tall buildings occupying 10 of those square miles. The fact that Columbus is the largest city in Ohio and ranks lower than other cities in the US once again does not mean that Columbus is not filled with urban sprawl and characteristics of urban sprawl. It means other places have more extensive sprawl. That is all.

You're again making an apples to oranges comparison and failing to make a legitimate point. You are trying to compare the entire city limits of Columbus with the city limits of Cleveland, but even you admit that they are very different sizes. If Columbus' areal size was the same as Cleveland's, they would have very similar densities. In fact, Columbus would probably be even more dense.

What apples to oranges comparison? I'll quote myself so you can re-read it and let it sink in, since it's actually a very valid point concerning the urban amenities and characteristics of urban living in Cleveland vs. the suburban qualities found in Columbus.

The only "apples to oranges" discussion here is your "OH, well if Cleveland were also 212 sprawling square miles it would be more of a fair discussion, because you're trying to compare 'THE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS OF COLUMBUS' (Thank you, that is my point. ALL of it IS COLUMBUS) with Cleveland even though it's smaller".

So if Columbus was indeed 86 square miles like Cleveland, removing the other 126 full of housing developments, strip malls and roads leading to other housing developments and strip malls you might have a point!

But you don't because Columbus is 126 square miles bigger than Cleveland and all of it full of SPRAWL.

You seem to have a problem with FACTS.

FACT: Columbus is filled with sprawl, even if it is not the worst case in the USA.

FACT: Cleveland has single family homes, yes - as well as high rise living (including the western suburb(yes, a suburb with high rises) of Lakewood), converted warehouse living, brownstones, hundreds of courtyard buildings, all anchored in various neighborhoods; most of which are dense, have access to heavy rail transit, BRT or LRT transit in addition to bus transit. In addition, there is a huge private research university on the east side as well as an entire medical district that more or less is the point where the eastern portion of Cleveland ends. As well as wall to wall shopping districts and high-rise, urban amenities in immediate suburbs as well. All conveniently packed within an 86 square mile area.

FACT: The above describes zero part of Columbus. That is why this is not an apples to oranges discussion. Because fact is something you debate or argue against. Unless you enjoy being wrong that is.

You seem to want to include parts of Columbus that are in other counties as part of the urban core and calling it urban. Not all of Columbus' area is urban, for the obvious reason that it is much larger and encludes areas far from the core. Cleveland doesn't have that.

What?

What?

What?

Thank you! You have just told me that Columbus is full of urban sprawl!

The fact that Columbus is a massive 212 square miles seeping into multiple counties still makes all of that area STILL COLUMBUS. I'm going to bold and highlight the parts of that quote that I love. Because it's exactly my point throughout this entire discussion!

It's not a direct, valid comparison. And yes, I am saying that Cleveland has plenty of the strip mall and single-family home development in areas that they exist in the same locations that Columbus has. Any claim to the contrary is totally dishonest.

A direct valid comparison = taking the facts from one city and comparing them to the facts of another city. Which is exactly what I'm doing. The fact that Columbus is big and full of sprawl and Cleveland is much smaller land wise and characterized by more urban development means that your entire argument is tossed out the window! It doesn't mean I've made an indirect, invalid comparison. Do you read what you type?

A direct, valid comparison the way your logic follows would have me pitting Columbus against another sprawling, out of control city that in essence would end with "OH, well I guess they're pretty much the same then aren't they!" <--- which is exactly what my point IS NOT.

See above, apples to oranges.

See this.

Suburb = sprawling, poorly planned development.

Urban area = dense, planned development.

The fact that the suburbs of Cleveland look exactly like the city-proper of Columbus is once again, not an apples to oranges discussion. It means Columbus is filled with urban sprawl. Stop using that stupid apples to oranges term if you're not going to use it correctly and in response to a factual statement I've made. That is not how civilized, educated people have a discussion.

Again, at the very least, the context that Columbus does not have an abnormal amount of sprawl should mean that people should not try to hold it to a different standard than other cities, particularly when so many more have a much more significant issue. Otherwise, it becomes obvious there's an agenda involved that has little to do with the problem at hand.

I don't understand what you're trying to say or what your point is. But once again - the fact that Columbus is not numero uno on your list of cities filled with urban sprawl does not mean it's a megalopolis. It means other cities have worse sprawl. Not that Columbus doesn't have a sprawl problem.

The question is, if the population continues to shrink, how long can those amenities afford to exist in the same way? The vast majority of what Cleveland has now came during a time when it was growing and had 900K+ people, which is 100K+ more than Columbus has even right now. Cleveland is living in the past and the population that still can afford endowments. Cleveland absolutely cannot continue to lose 17% of it's city population every decade. And now the metro is shrinking too, after holding steady for a long time. These are not good developments. Columbus, for what it lacks, is at least growing and will gradually add more amenities over time in the same way that Cleveland did 60, 70, 100 years ago.

Thank you once again for proving my point. Cleveland is 86 square miles and the vast majority of the amenities in Cleveland today are the result of Cleveland reaching a population of nearly 1,000,000 in the past. As a result, dense, urban amenities and infrastructure exists. I'm not going to sit and debate population trends in Cleveland with you because god knows that will be even more of a nightmare than this is. Currently; no major urban amenities have been lost to the dwindling population in Cleveland. Does that mean opportunities to expand have been missed - yes, but nothing has just up and vanished in terms of urbanity or infrastructure as a result. It's funny that you say Columbus is "growing" and "will gradually add more amenities" when the ironic truth of the matter is, Cleveland may be losing population but it still has all of these amenities already in place. And I don't think either the state of Ohio or the city of Columbus are going to be implementing the billions of dollars in renovations being done to Cleveland now (resulting in an absolute BOOKED occupancy downtown), with more projects taking place currently downtown as well, in addition to the revival of the flats, the lakefront, repairing parts of the east side and maintaining and further developing the west side as well. I also don't think the city of Columbus or the state of Ohio are going to be constructing rapid transit lines or a huge system of BRT (both already in place in Cleveland) despite this shrinking population that clearly has no correlation with the amenities still being provided and still actually being improved upon for the citizens living there. When Cleveland shuts down the RTA or whatever else it is you think might happen if population in Cleveland continues to dwindle - then we can discuss that. Until that time happens though, our dwindling population and infrastructure in terms of urban amenities are still light years beyond Columbus; even if they are remnants from Cleveland's golden age in the early half of the 20th century.

Not at all. Your suggestion was that buses were outdated (compared to trains) as a form of travel goes directly against the fact that bus systems and ridership nationally are growing, not falling. If buses are outdated, clearly no one has let the public know or the cities that keep expanding their service.

Ok, once again. The-only-reason-bus-transit-is-growing-in-America-is-because-it's-predominantly-growing-in-cities-where-effective-rail-transit-does-not-exist-and-is-too-expensive-to-implement-rail-transit-all-at-once-if-at-all.

iPod nano's are "outdated" in terms of available, alternative technology, but people still buy them because they're cheap. Same goes for buses concerning public transit! It's not because bus travel is some fantastic way to get around that all of these cities with rail transit are suddenly looking back on and kicking themselves for investing in rail transit when the bus was clearly the way of the future! Quite the opposite actually. Why do you think bus transit demands are increasing in general in these places? Because RAIL does not exist; either heavy or LRT to efficiently move people from place to place in a timely manner. And since it's expensive to construct, BRT is the next best thing. Rail efficiency, bus cost.

Look at the state of high speed rail projects around the US and tell me how well rail is doing. There is a place for rail, of course, but only as part of a city's total transit options. It is much more expensive to build and maintain. Yes, trains can carry more people, but they are also more limited. For example, bus routes are far more versatile and can get people closer to where they are going on a typical basis. If a route becomes unpopular, the route can be moved easily. With rail, it's there and very very difficult to change, and it has much more limited routes. Combined with the overall costs and it's actually rail that is the less desirable option.

That's why a LRT or Heavy Rail system is the heart and artery of a public transit system and buses are the veins. The only thing that makes rail undesirable is the fact that cities would have to spend billions of dollars to create a system over or under or through existing urban areas, which is also time consuming as well. It's much easier to just say "OH, well just put a few more buses on the road" - which actually leads to more congestion and less efficient transit if the problem of effective transit is constantly a back burner issue fixed with a simple, but ineffective solution like that. Once again, that is why cities with rail transit have higher ridership than those with only bus transit. What part of that goes over your head? It smacks me in the face like an iron pan.

You're confusing correlation and causation. Those cities with large rail networks typically have significantly more congestion and people to begin with. People tend to embrace mass transit when it becomes an attractive alternative to car travel.

There is no confusion at all. Cities with existing rail transit networks and heavy congestion correlates to substantial use of implemented, effective transit. If every city were connected (as they still should be, poor streetcar systems all over the USA) via efficient mass transit then car travel and urban sprawl would be less of a problem in America. Your final sentence is exactly my point. Effective transit correlates with higher ridership and less auto centric lifestyles.

I'm aware of that, thanks. But most rail networks within cities are NOT high-speed bullet trains. Light rail trains, which is what most of them consist of, do not go 250 miles per hour. Bullet trains are just not realistically feasible in most cities. Between cities, sure, but even those developments are having HUGE setbacks nationally due to the astronomical costs involved.

Yeah, in America - home of the automobile centric lifestyle. Not in places where mass transit is the primary means of transportation for almost everyone. And I'm aware that high speed rail doesn't exist as mass transit in an urban area; my point was technology changes and "TRAINS" are not a one size fits all concept dating back to 1800.

Um, I did. Mexico City. I even provided a link with their BRT, but they have also been expanding bus service as well.

There are differences including higher technology, but we're still talking about buses at the end of the day and not rail.

No, you're talking about a bus/rail ideology hybrid system. The benefits of rail, with the cheap cost of bus. There is a HUGE difference. A BRT and a bus are two different things. That's why they're two different things. Did I mention they're still two different things?

You're still missing demand. Bus ridership in Columbus was not particularly high until the last 5 or so years. Now there is demand for more, and that's where BRT will come in.

Yeah, because Columbus is full of sprawl and it takes 45 minutes to go five miles by the time you stop at every traffic light and every stop along the way to your destination. I wouldn't want to ride the bus in Columbus either.

Your point is ridiculous. If you don't think having more people and money in a metro doesn't count for anything, I can't help you. If you don't think anyone outside of the strict city limits would ever ride public transit, I can't help you either.

No, there's nothing ridiculous about my point at all. If you think the insignificant difference between metro Columbus the Twin Cities, Portland, and Cleveland (which are all within a few hundred thousand of each other if that) play that much of a role in the development of rail transit, you're delusional.

Also, I'm going to copy and paste yet again what I said to you previously. Because nowhere did I say that nobody outside the city limits would "ever ride public transit"

Originally Posted by OhAcid

Point: The suburbanites in these areas that have "higher metro populations" (that you seem to think explains the presence of significant public transit) are not the ones supporting or using the public transit that only serves the actual cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Portland and Cleveland and does not reach into the majority (if any) of the suburban communities at all. I.e. a metro population has nothing to do with the public transit primarily being utilized by the immediate inhabitants of a city. The people living in the 58 square miles of Minneapolis, the 52 square miles of St. Paul, the 130 square miles of Portland and the 86 square miles of Cleveland are the people using the public transit in these areas. Not the suburban communities full of three-car garage homes, all filled with cars, that are also not linked to the public transit either efficiently or at all. That is why a "metro population" has nothing to do with public transit. I guarantee you the park-n-ride RTA stops are not filled with people from Solon, Parma, or any other suburb not connected to RTA transit that go out of their way to drive into Cleveland, pay to park and then pay to ride public transit, not only costing them more but also drastically increasing their commute time from point A to point B. The same goes for the rest of these metropolitan areas.

- huge difference in the vast majority of the people using public transit residing within the city whose transit they are using and "well, nobody from out of town would use public transit ever!"

The first of which is true. Most ridership will come from citizens of that city. That is a fact as well. So I'm sure we'll be discussing that in your next reply refuting more facts.

Originally Posted by wanderlust76

Columbus is soooo spread out compared to Pittsburgh. It makes it really hard to explore the different neighborhoods and so on. In Pittsburgh you can do a lot and see a lot just by walking around on a nice summer day. In Columbus you have to go explore or do one little thing then get in your car for a half hour and go do the next thing you have in mind. In anyone knows a decent spot on Columbus where I can just park my car and enjoy myself for a while please let me know...

Exactly.