jonoh81

The tower is very nice and will be a great addition to the skyline. I still wish they would've done something like this on the north side of the convention center too instead of just that small 2-story addition. Such a wasted opportunity there.

By bright future, I can only assume it means that the mall will be torn down and replaced with a strip mall and some fast food outlets. I see no type of mixed-use, dense development going there. It could be an Easton or even Grandview Crossing type development given how large the whole site is, but I just don't see developers seeing that kind of potential there. It's gong to be a "good enough" approach just like so many others. The best case I could see is that they do a standard suburban-style apartment complex similar to what exists just to the south, along with the strip center. But hey, I'll be happy if I'm wrong.

To me, this is looking like a bad estimate across the board for Ohio. The Census had Franklin County with one of it's highest net domestic totals in decades in 2017 with almost +6,000, but for 2018, -213. This just doesn't happen from one year to the next, especially at a time when the region, county and city, are seeing historically high growth rates. I would suggest that no one take these numbers all that seriously. Garbage in, garbage out this year, IMO.

Here were the MORPC and Census Franklin County estimates. The same ideas/rules apply here as with the city numbers. MORPC 2010: 1,163,414 2011: 1,169,407 2012: 1,175,979 2013: 1,186,955 2014: 1,200,469 2015: 1,215,381 2016: 1,231,148 2017: 1,253,522 2018: 1,288,346 2019: 1,318,175 Change 2010-11: +5993 11-12: +6,572 12-13: +10,976 13-14: +13,514 14-15: +14,912 15-16: +15,767 16-17: +22,374 17-18: +34,824 18-19: +29,829 Average Annual Change: +17,196 Census 2010: 1,163,414 2011: 1,180,741 2012: 1,199,071 2013: 1,218,985 2014: 1,238,527 2015: 1,257,552 2016: 1,274,580 2017: 1,295,706 2018: 1,310,300 Change 2010-11: +17,327 11-12: +18,330 12-13: +19,914 13-14: +19,542 14-15: +19,025 15-16: +17,028 16-17: +21,126 17-18: +14,594 Average Annual Change: +18,361 IMO, 2018's estimate is very low. It's a significant decrease from all previous years this decade, and doesn't make any rational sense given everything else we know. Related to that, all other years actually saw estimate increases by as much as 2,000 annually from the 2017 estimate, so the Census is basically conceding Franklin County is being undercounted. 2018's number, though, is a good 3K-5K too low and should be closer to the annual average that it's been at for some time. My 2020 estimate for Franklin County is between 1.35 and 1.36 million.

You guys are talking about different estimates, from MORPC and the Census. They do estimates for different time periods. MORPC: Estimates go from January-January Total City Population for Columbus 2010: 787,033 2011: 792,225 2012: 797,322 2013: 805,348 2014: 817,383 2015: 829,690 2016: 838,912 2017: 861,141 2018: 880,828 2019: 902,674 Total Population Change By Year 2010-11: +5,192 11-12: +5,097 12-13: +8,026 13-14: +12,035 14-15: +12,307 15-16: +19,222 16-17: +22,229 17-18: +19,687 18-19: +21,846 Average Annual Growth: +12,429 Obviously, MORPC has significantly increased the rate of growth over the last decade, being at times 4x faster now than at the beginning. That raises some suspicion, in that I think part of the reason for the increase was that they were far too low at the beginning, and are attempting to catch up to real growth rates. They are also likely trying to match them with their projection that the area will add another 1 million people by 2050. Meanwhile, here are the Census figures for Columbus' city population, which run from July 1-July 1. 2010: 787,033 2011: 800,388 2012: 812,275 2013: 825,906 2014: 839,646 2015: 852,305 2016: 863,741 2017: 879,170 And Total Change by Year 2010-11: +13,355 11-12: +11,887 12-13: +13,631 13-14: +13,740 14-15: +12,659 15-16: +11,436 16-17: +15,429 Average Annual Growth: +13,162 The Census numbers show far more consistent growth over the decade than MORPC, and we don't have 2018 and 2019 yet from the Census, either. Still, let's compare the numbers through 2017. Difference between the Census and MORPC Estimated Population by Year 2010: 0 2011: +8,163 2012: +14,953 2013: +20,558 2014: +22,263 2015: +22,615 2016: +24,829 2017: +18,029 The Census figures tend to be far ahead of the MORPC numbers, but it's hard to compare directly due to the fact that the start and end times for the estimates are 6 months apart. It seems that they're pretty close if one uses compares them 1 year apart. However, the average annual growth rate with both is fairly similar- +12,429 with MORPC vs +13,162 with the Census. This suggest the estimates are in the same ballpark for growth. One interesting thing to note, though, is that both MORPC and the Census estimates were too low vs the actual 2010 count, so there's been recent history of undercounting Columbus' city growth. In all likelihood, Columbus' current population is well past the 900K mark, and I would suggest that MORPC's January 2019 estimate is even probably a good 10K-15K too low. Given that we are just a year away from the 2020 Census, and 2 years away from seeing the results of that, I would not be surprised at all to see 2020's city population in the neighborhood of 930K-945K.

I wish they’d stop calling it a tower. It’s not.

I think it will be called “Dublin Market at Bridge Park”.

People can care about areas they don’t live in, and they can advocate for better development across the city. VV isn’t a private, gated community. It’s an urban neighborhood in the city. You can’t tell people to stay out of the commission meetings, especially when so much of the infrastructure improvements and tax incentives came from public dollars across the city, not just from VV. And the meetings are open to all the public. AFAIK, Kauffman came back like a dozen times. I sincerely hope a 20 story building goes there after people from across the city come out in favor at a meeting. Don’t like it? Too damn bad. The fact that you don’t live in or like Hilliard development, but promote it where you live suggests you like it just fine.

Price is literally 4 lanes across if you include parking. The addition of even a few hundred residents wouldn’t have changed anything. People don’t all leave from and arrive to their apartments all at once to create the kind of ridiculous trafficpocalypse the NIMBYs were suggesting. And the project had parking, so that wasn’t a concern, either. There’s a point where these people should have no further say in a development. Delusions that a neighborhood should exist in a vacuum seal pack preserved in some arbitrarily chosen form should not be validated. The Price project is just one example out of endless others that have been cancelled or seen reductions because of the desire to accommodate every fundamentally dumb position on development and neighborhoods impacts. The real impacts are a vanilla city that is rapidly losing the fight against affordability and the opportunity to see real transit options due to a lack of density. These impacts are snowballing across the city. I’ve lived in cities where buildings far larger that 80 on the Commons were in my backyard. You know what happened? Nothing, because I didn’t live in the fantasy that cities should look like Hilliard. As such, there were no consequences at all. If felt like a city. BFD. That’s why I lived there.

There was news about remaking Broad street, including bike lanes, which brought up the transit issues for that section. I don't think it was off-topic, though maybe some of the rail debate was. Who is Wyatt?

It actually had a couple lines, including the Camp Chase interurban.

Also, the discussion is related to Broad Street in Franklinton, is it not?

Um, several people, including myself in the very post you’re quoting, have given quite a few reasons why rail is the better option. That was the topic of discussion, so why are you acting like it wasn’t addressed?

But we can't guarantee that a BRT line on Broad will end up any differently than the CMax on Cleveland Avenue. As has been discussed, Columbus tends to take the "good enough" position on infrastructure and transit, and there's really no reason to think that's going to change for Broad Street. The fact that they punted on the bike lanes strongly supports this conclusion. As for whether BRT can be as good as rail... no. As I said, I do think well-done BRT lines can be very effective, but even at their best, they just do not have the same advantages. 1. Rail has greater capacity than BRT. 2. Rail promotes far more development. 3. BRT doesn't necessarily cost less to build, especially if it's a fully fleshed out line. 4. Rail infrastructure and cars lasts far longer than bus infrastructure and the buses themselves. 5. Rail has no emissions. BRT may or may not depending on the type of bus. 6. Rail is more likely to have consistent schedules of arrival and departure, even when compared to BRT in dedicated lanes. 7. Weather is far less disruptive of rail service than BRT. 8. There is no social stigma attached to rail like there is with buses. People who may not ride the bus may ride a train. 9. Rail can cover larger distances than buses are used for. A rail system connecting Columbus with Delaware or Newark or any other major metro suburb would be far more effective than a bus would be. 10. Rail doesn't have to use existing roadways to function. Tracks can be laid both on and off-road. This is important when connecting areas that don't exist on a grid pattern, like suburbs and newer subdivisions. All that said, I still think BRT can work in places that wouldn't make sense, such as in lower-density areas and shorter trips. I've ridden my share of BRT, where it had center-street raised platforms, dedicated lanes, pay kiosks, articulated buses, etc. and it was nice. But it wasn't without issues. Even with dedicated lanes, it could easily become stuck in traffic at intersections (and with other buses that had become bunched up together) and suffered from overcrowding. Those problems could affect rail, but they are less likely when done correctly. I'm not sure why so many people have a severely negative reaction to even the idea of rail. Sure, it's an old technology, but so is the car. So is the bus. So is the airplane.

Before I address any of these points, I’m having an interview with SmartColumbus to find out what’s going on on their end. Maybe there’s some additional insight into the long term plan even if they are not necessarily directly related.

If it's done correctly, BRT can be very effective. A few of the advantages of rail, however, would be that they can carry more passengers and are much more likely to spark development along their routes. Even dedicated-lane BRT lines are not nearly as effective as rail in this regard. BRT is a good option for some routes, rail for others. Mixed-traffic routes tend to have the most problems in both cases.

That doesn't make any sense, either. They're unlikely to make the BRT protected lane, so they wouldn't be taking up lanes of traffic for it. Also, it's entirely possible to have curbside BRT stations and also bike lanes. They can also put stations in the center of the street without protected lanes, without sacrificing turn lanes and without sacrificing bike lanes. There are actually quite a few possible configurations. Ultimately, I just think city leaders care that much. Their primary focus is and always has been catering to cars.

The area between North Linden, Morse and Easton has in recent years exploded in immigrant population. It always had a lot of immigrants relative to the rest of the city, but the census tracts there have now become between 30% and 60% foreign-born, with high populations of Asian and African immigrants in particular. If it wasn't for them, the area would be in a lot worse shape.

The absurdity of the city arguing that protected bike lanes won't fit on literally the widest street in Columbus is breathtaking. If, as the city claims, that they won't fit because they don't have the right equipment to clear snow in any lane less than 10 feet wide, why not invest in the right equipment so that they can create bike lanes that don't need to be 10 feet wide? That type of equipment not only exists, it's utilized in many cities already. This type of halfa**ery is becoming legendary.

Oh I definitely know that. I go to the City Portal all the time searching for new projects that have not been officially announced or made it to neighborhood commissions. Good catch and great news.

I haven’t see any proposals for 6-10 stories at Jeffrey Park. Link?

Maybe they are thinking long term in terms of reductions because of dedicated transit? Nah, they're just being Columbus.

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190321/city-plans-to-reduce-vehicle-lanes-add-bike-lanes-on-w-broad-st-in-franklinton I mean, I like the idea of a road diet and bike lanes for West Broad, but I dislike how even on the widest street in the city, they still can't manage to do separated lanes. They might as well do sharrows if they're not going to do it right.

Warren never actually went further than 4th Street, at least going back to the 1880s, so it would be a completely new extension. 6th also didn't go that far south. It ended at 1st.

Most of the time, Walker is right, though. A lot of the commenters are idiots, especially on Facebook. I don't think he's condescending all that often, just gives plain facts against the spastic hyperbole of people who don't understand what urbanism is. That said, I used to visit CU a lot more when they still had the forums. There's also too much fluff content now, IMO. But that's okay. Just because it isn't for me doesn't mean that the new format isn't more popular with more people. It's basically a business, after all.