^^ I completely agree, I just wanted to see your response to that ?.  I agree it is almost like he does this because he has been called out on it before. It is predicatable at this point.

 

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by Toddguy

1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Isn't the Columbus metro adding near 30k people per year?  Are these people really all coming from within Ohio?  It doesn't seem possible.

 

The last time I ran the numbers a few years ago, 50% was natural growth (births vs deaths), 25% was domestic and 25% was international migration.  Of the 25% that was domestic, about 70% was from Ohio, 30% out-of-state.  The out-of-state proportion had been growing and the Ohio proportion shrinking.  International migration was also gradually overtaking domestic.

 

Edit: Just ran the numbers for 2018.  

Columbus Metro Area Breakdown

Natural Growth (+10,776) was 44.8% of the total.

Domestic Migration (+6,597) was 27.4% of the total.

International Migration (+6,764) was 28.1% of the total.   The totals are rounded.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by jonoh81

35 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I was reading an article yesterday about the NW Corridor and how it was going to be studied- again- to find out what type of transit would be best (as if we don't already know they'll go with a bus).  The study will take 18 months before more studies start.  It gave me an idea to search through the records to see just how many times mass transit has been studied around the city with nothing tangible coming from it.  I've started looking just since 1980.  The last time I looked into this, though not as thoroughly, I found at least a dozen times in the 1990s alone.  The only thing about transit that Columbus has ever been serious about is wasting money studying it.

Isn't this a little different this time?  They already did the study and now they are choosing one of the 5 corridors studied to actually move forward with first.  They hired an engineering firm to have something built out within 5 years.  Considering OSU is heavily involved/interested, and this goes right through the new West Campus Innovation District, I actually have hope for once.

12 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Isn't this a little different this time?  They already did the study and now they are choosing one of the 5 corridors studied to actually move forward with first.  They hired an engineering firm to have something built out within 5 years.  Considering OSU is heavily involved/interested, and this goes right through the new West Campus Innovation District, I actually have hope for once.

 

It was "different" every time they studied this.  And the article I read said nothing about having something built within 5 years.  They want to study the corridor (something I thought was already done when they chose these corridors to begin with), get public input, etc. because they haven't even figured out what is going to be built yet.  So this study will not even be completed for 18 months.  After that, once a type of transit is chosen, there will be further studies on everything from costs to ridership, which will likely be at least another year or 2 after that.  Construction won't take 1 year.  Considering how long it took to get the Cleveland Avenue CMax built, which was basically just fancier bus stations and not any route construction, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see any construction on this one corridor for another 8-9-10 years, which wouldn't be good news for the other routes.  And that assumes that there will be funding, which is no guarantee.  Or that there isn't some conservative anti-transit group putting this on a ballot measure, especially if the chosen transit type is rail.  

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by jonoh81

10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It was "different" every time they studied this.  And the article I read said nothing about having something built within 5 years.  They want to study the corridor, get public input, etc. because they haven't even figured out what is going to be built yet.  So this study will not even be completed for 18 months.  After that, once a type of transit is chosen, their will be further studies on everything from costs to ridership, which will likely be at least another year or 2 after that.  Construction won't take 1 year.  Considering how long it took to get the Cleveland Avenue CMax built, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see any construction on this one corridor for another 8-9 years.  

I don't really know, I'm just saying what I saw in this article: https://www.columbusunderground.com/new-plan-northwest-corridor-bw1

 

Quote

The new plan promises to do what the previous plans haven’t – make a specific recommendation for what exactly a “high-capacity transit” option should look like along the corridor, and lay out a step-by-step strategy for actually building it within the next five years.

 

OSU is really pushing hard to get a major company to anchor their Innovation District.  We know Apple almost came here and ended up going to Austin.  I bet transit along this corridor is something they're pushing hard for to get this done and set them apart.  Has OSU historically cared much about transit in Columbus?  That seems like it could be a major difference this time around if it hasn't been in the fight for transit previously.

 

The thesis panel sums up my feelings on these endless transit studies.

29 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I don't really know, I'm just saying what I saw in this article: https://www.columbusunderground.com/new-plan-northwest-corridor-bw1

 

 

OSU is really pushing hard to get a major company to anchor their Innovation District.  We know Apple almost came here and ended up going to Austin.  I bet transit along this corridor is something they're pushing hard for to get this done and set them apart.  Has OSU historically cared much about transit in Columbus?  That seems like it could be a major difference this time around if it hasn't been in the fight for transit previously.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.  I just don't trust this because we've seen this song and dance too many times.  Besides, I question why the original corridor study failed to make any recommendations as to transit type, or why these corridors were chosen in the first place if no specifics related to population, public input and infrastructure were considered; all of these being things this 18-month study apparently needs to look into.  

As for OSU, they've long been in favor of increased transit options.  Whether they are pushing harder this time around, I'm not sure.  We've actually been far closer to getting transit built in decades past than now or in recent years.  There have been specific corridor plans laid out at times that only needed the funding, which is what ultimately killed them.  With this, we still don't have transit type, exact routes, cost estimates, design, funding... 5 years isn't going to happen no matter what they're saying.

I wonder if OSU forsees trouble recruiting international and out-of-state students in the future if rail transit is not implemented.

It is like at this point mass transit is a Cbus issue just like climate is-something we just have to deal with...something that is beyond our control. I would be very happy to just get a free-to-ride expanded bus system and some BRT. Maybe some expanded systems like the downtown circulator.

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I wonder if OSU forsees trouble recruiting international and out-of-state students in the future if rail transit is not implemented.

 

It's probably already been a problem.  

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I wonder if OSU forsees trouble recruiting international and out-of-state students in the future if rail transit is not implemented.

I would think this would be less of a problem with recruiting and more of a problem with retention-including in state students as well. We are not talking about any group..we are talking about college and grad level populations. This I think is a problem with that demographic for Cbus.

23 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I would think this would be less of a problem with recruiting and more of a problem with retention-including in state students as well. We are not talking about any group..we are talking about college and grad level populations. This I think is a problem with that demographic for Cbus.

Do we over-estimate how important transit actually is to the general public on urban enthusiast sites like this?  Why are sunbelt cities seeing so much growth?  Don't they all have massive sprawl and bad transit?

They do have lots of sprawl, but unlike 15-25 years ago they all now have rail transit. We are SO weird for not having it.

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

They do have lots of sprawl, but unlike 15-25 years ago they all now have rail transit. We are SO weird for not having it.

I mean, but they attracted tons of people without transit first.  They just added it after the fact.  So is transit really the deciding factor for retaining people?   Also, maybe Columbus is just 15-20 years behind some of those boom towns.  You often hear people say that Columbus feels similar to places like Austin or Portland, we just aren't quite all the way there yet.  Maybe we'll follow a similar trajectory and we're just not at the transit stage quite yet.  I actually read an article recently where they had national economists in Columbus and they were talking to them and comparing Columbus to other fast growing cities and what it needs to focus on to jump into the next level along with some of those cities.  One of them flat out said not to worry about infrastructure first because "cars aren't going anywhere" and to focus on the other things first.  The sunbelt seems to validate what he was saying.

 

Here's that part from the article:

 

Levy and other national economists who have recently visited Columbus like what they see. Levy, whose expertise focuses on real estate, said that industry looks for population and talent base more than things like infrastructure. Cities like Columbus that sprawl rather than gain density in their core can succeed if they know how to build the right lifestyle and repurpose older properties for new uses that encourage live, work and play.

 

"I don't think you're the next Seattle, though you could be in 20 years," Levy said. "But you should aspire to be like Austin, Denver and Portland, and what they have is a downtown area with a great business district and a great arts and lifestyle to complement it. That brings tourism and foreign capital.

 

"You have two of the three big ones – foreign capital being the hardest to get – now work on the others," Levy said. "Don't just be about cost of living, because that's a race to the bottom. And don't worry about infrastructure – cars aren't going away."

 

The article: 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/02/04/columbus-has-key-advantages-to-compete-against.html

 

Many people from cities with rail transit don't look at it like that though. They see that we don't have it and immediately we are off the list to them. So we have to draw from the fewer and fewer cities left on Earth without rail transit or the Strykers that we have relied on for so long that they are almost empty.

56 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Many people from cities with rail transit don't look at it like that though. They see that we don't have it and immediately we are off the list to them. So we have to draw from the fewer and fewer cities left on Earth without rail transit or the Strykers that we have relied on for so long that they are almost empty.

I'm not sure I buy this.  People are moving from cities on the coasts with great transit to cities like Austin and Nashville.  I don't think they're doing it for the transit options.

Is zero as good to them as some? Just because a transit system doesn't resemble that of a world city doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

13 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Is zero as good to them as some? Just because a transit system doesn't resemble that of a world city doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

I'm not sure.  All I'm saying is those cities have transit because of the growth.  They didn't have growth because of the transit.  I think Columbus is following the same trajectory.  We'll have our own half assed attempt here soon because we're also seeing growth.  This time is different than past attempts because we're finally getting to the levels of growth to warrant it, similar to how those cities did 10-20 years ago.

34 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I'm not sure I buy this.  People are moving from cities on the coasts with great transit to cities like Austin and Nashville.  I don't think they're doing it for the transit options.

 

Most people don't move for transit, true.  They move for economic reasons- cost of living, employment, housing, etc.  Columbus has a decent cost of living and is actually cheaper than Austin and many other Sun Belt cities.  But in a competition for movers, every amenity counts.  Columbus has managed to do very well growth-wise without serious transit, but that can only last so long.  You aren't going to be able to handle another million people without the infrastructure to handle it.  Sooner or later, the lack of planning will hurt Columbus.  In some areas, it already is, such as with poor zoning and lack of construction.  Imagine if we had begun to tackle this 30 years ago instead of this from 1984:

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Do we over-estimate how important transit actually is to the general public on urban enthusiast sites like this?  Why are sunbelt cities seeing so much growth?  Don't they all have massive sprawl and bad transit?

I have had two different responses to this kind of question. To unskilled workers who may be moving here from Kentucky or West Virginai to live in the "uncool crescent" and work warehouse jobs, transit is probably not a big deal. To college graduates from outside Ohio and international students when it comes to actually trying to retain these people, it probably matter more. 

 

Do we value these people equally though? No, of course we don't. We think(especially on a forum like this)that the college grads, etc. will be the next movers, shakers, innovators, etc. so we value them more. That is just the way it is. We being "society in general" and in a way, people on this forum. 

 

Regarding the general public, I think we overestimate how important RAIL transit is.  The general public who are most interested in mass transit are the people who use it and they are mostly lower income and would probably benefit most from free public transit, BRT and better bus service in general, especially if it helps them get to employment nodes. What many of them really want, I bet, is to not have to use mass transit at all, but to be able to afford a car. Look at what has happened to LA regarding dropping transit numbers. The numbers dropped because many(especially hispanic)people were able to establish themselves a bit and afford cars so they would not have to ride a bus. 

 

For most people(the general public)mass transit is not the first option in most instances. The car is not as worshipped as it was, but it is still transport mode #1 for most of the general public.

 

JMHO and yeah, this can be kind of an echo chamber in here regarding certain subjects.

 

Look at Nashville-the huge transit plan they had was just soundly rejected and they have way worse congestion problems than we have. Same with Austin-our freeway network is way better and we have nothing like the congestion they have. Part of our problem is we have a lot of urban freeway miles and a good freeway network compared to many cities our size and that has had less of a discouraging factor for car driving and ownership

 

 

But as jonoh81 has pointed out, with the growth we are having, things will only get worse and we need to be thinking about our increasingly congested future now and not later.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by Toddguy

It was predicted by COTA consultants in 1994 that almost 15,000 people per day would ride a single Northside light rail line, which was considered insufficient.  

 

COTA SEEKS DETAILS ON WHY IT SHOULD SLOW LIGHT RAIL

Newspaper January 13, 1995 | Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)

 

Three weeks after consultants told COTA officials to slow their plans for light-rail transit, COTA board members are telling their consultants to explain the recommendation.
"We were given a lot to digest," said Philip Whitaker, president of the Central Ohio Transit Authority's board. "We need a chance to get an explanation."
The board meets today with its public relations firm, officials from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and transit consultants from Minneapolis and Washington.
On Dec. 20, COTA's consultants told the board to improve its bus system and increase ridership before asking Franklin County voters to support a sales tax levy to build an 11.2-mile light-rail system along the city's North Side.
Consultants from BRW, a Minneapolis firm, told COTA that about 14,700 people would ride a light-rail system every day - not enough to warrant building the line.
That shocked some COTA board members. For more than a year, MORPC planners, consultants and COTA officials favored expanding the bus system and building the rail line by 2001.
Initial plans called for asking voters in November to support a permanent, .5-percent sales tax levy to expand the system at a cost of about $522 million.
Its current .25-percent sales tax, which brings in an annual $25 million for COTA, expires in 1999.
But late last year, COTA began to back off the permanent sales tax and is now talking about reducing the amount it would collect.
After spending 15 months studying COTA, consultants on Dec. 20 took less than two hours to tell it to:
Build local support for transit.
Proceed with a plan to ask Franklin County residents to support a .5-percent sales tax on November's ballot that would generate about $50 million a year.
Expand bus service.
Create a light-rail transit reserve fund.
Develop partnerships with the county's major employers to increase their role in transit.
Protect railroad rights of way for future light-rail development.
"I think a lot of board members have questions," said Glenna Watson, COTA's general manager. "The board wants to have every piece of information made available to them to make a decision."
Whitaker said the board will decide on a plan by March.
At today's meeting, board members will hear what funding changes the Federal Transit Administration is considering; the result of a second survey on transportation conducted by Paul Werth Associates; project financing; and economic impacts of transit alternatives, including rail.

16 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Most people don't move for transit, true.  They move for economic reasons- cost of living, employment, housing, etc.  Columbus has a decent cost of living and is actually cheaper than Austin and many other Sun Belt cities.  But in a competition for movers, every amenity counts.  Columbus has managed to do very well growth-wise without serious transit, but that can only last so long.  You aren't going to be able to handle another million people without the infrastructure to handle it.  Sooner or later, the lack of planning will hurt Columbus.  In some areas, it already is, such as with poor zoning and lack of construction.

Yep, I agree.  This relates pretty much perfectly to my comment right above this:

 

26 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I'm not sure.  All I'm saying is those cities have transit because of the growth.  They didn't have growth because of the transit.  I think Columbus is following the same trajectory.  We'll have our own half assed attempt here soon because we're also seeing growth.  This time is different than past attempts because we're finally getting to the levels of growth to warrant it, similar to how those cities did 10-20 years ago.

 

I think we're following the same trajectory as those cities.  We're just 10-20 years behind.  We'll be forced to build transit similar to how they have it now.  I think this transit push is real this time because we're finally hitting a threshold where we NEED transit instead of just WANT it.  I don't feel Columbus was ever at that point before.  There was an article recently about how we're going to see a ton of cranes go up next year and we better get used to them for the next decade.  Also, OSU recently made a release that the next 10 years will be a construction boom for them as well.  Construction Dive had an article about how market indicators are predicting a construction slowdown nationally in a couple years.  However, one metro showed signs of surging right through: Columbus.

23 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

But as jonoh81 has pointed out, with the growth we are having, things will only get worse and we need to be thinking about our increasingly congested future now and not later

I agree with this.  That's why I think it's real this time(see my last comment).  This is the first time where we're hitting a point where we NEED transit.  I don't feel like we were there in the past.  We're just 10-20 years behind those other cities.  Jonoh81 thinks that the transit discussion still isnt real this time.  I disagree because of these reasons.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by TH3BUDDHA

3 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Yep, I agree.  This relates pretty much perfectly to my comment right above this:

 

 

I think we're following the same trajectory as those cities.  We're just 10-20 years behind.  We'll be forced to build transit similar to how they have it now.  I think this transit push is real this time because we're finally hitting a threshold where we NEED transit instead of just WANT it.  I don't feel Columbus was ever at that point before.  There was an article recently about how we're going to see a ton of cranes go up next year and we better get used to them for the next decade.  Also, OSU recently made a release that the next 10 years will be a construction boom for them as well.  Construction Dive had an article about how market indicators are predicting a construction slowdown nationally in a couple years.  However, one metro showed signs of surging right through: Columbus.

The lack of decent mass transit is going to hit us badly it is just a matter of when. And if growth keeps up like it has been, it will be sooner rather than later. 

2 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Yep, I agree.  This relates pretty much perfectly to my comment right above this:

 

 

I think we're following the same trajectory as those cities.  We're just 10-20 years behind.  We'll be forced to build transit similar to how they have it now.  I think this transit push is real this time because we're finally hitting a threshold where we NEED transit instead of just WANT it.  I don't feel Columbus was ever at that point before.  There was an article recently about how we're going to see a ton of cranes go up next year and we better get used to them for the next decade.  Also, OSU recently made a release that the next 10 years will be a construction boom for them as well.  Construction Dive had an article about how market indicators are predicting a construction slowdown nationally in a couple years.  However, one metro showed signs of surging right through: Columbus.

 

Funny, because there were just articles in the Dispatch/Business First about how residential construction had declined despite growing demand.  Last year, 8000 units were built in the region when a minimum of 14,000 is needed, and that number is down from the year before.  Developers, of course, cited problems with everything from financing to zoning and NIMBYism.

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Funny, because there were just articles in the Dispatch/Business First about how residential construction had declined despite growing demand.  Last year, 8000 units were built in the region when a minimum of 14,000 is needed, and that number is down from the year before.  Developers, of course, cited problems with everything from financing to zoning and NIMBYism.

The lull this year is pretty obvious.  I think we've talked about it on here before.  But that article said something about just a 2% decrease just this year, right?  Not a long term trend?  Next year is potentially a record breaking year for Columbus I've read.  Also, while single family units decreased, multi family units increased, didn't they?  Could this be related to some suburbs that put halts on development to figure out infrastructure?

Yeah, you can't say we need to grow more before we can have rail transit, then stop growing because we don't have it, then try to make it up in 2035. And I wouldn't be surprised if some developers in this city literally don't know that a lack of rail transit is hurting their funding.

In a span of 6 years, MORPC went from pushing against light rail to being for it. There are so many stories like this in the library archives, where there was rarely any clear direction as to transit in Columbus, contradictory views over short periods, poorly done studies, etc.

 

PLANNERS FLIP-FLOPPED ON LIGHT RAIL STUDIES

Newspaper April 23, 1994 | Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)

 

In 1988, transportation planners told COTA to forget light-rail trains and increase its bus fleet by 25 percent.
That advice cost taxpayers $235,000.
Last year, the same planners told the Central Ohio Transit Authority to expand bus service and build an 11.2-mile, light-rail system along the city's north corridor.
That recommendation, on which COTA is staking its future, carried a $488,250 price tag. Since then, related studies by the same planners have tipped the tax dollar scale at more than $2.5 million.
COTA hopes to pass a permanent sales tax increase next year to add buses and build the train system by 2001 at an estimated cost of $522 million.
Ray Miller, a COTA spokesman, said the first study was, at best, a "sketchy plan" that didn't meet the transit system's needs.
"COTA didn't invest a whole bundle of money into that plan," Miller said. "It just didn't look at many details, and I'm not sure (planners) had a good handle on what was going on in the north end."
In 1987, COTA hired the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission to draw up a "2000 Plan" - an analysis of COTA, Franklin County and transportation into the next century.
The plan, completed a year later, called for adding 117 buses to COTA's peak-hour fleet to handle population growth. The study said the bus expansion would cost about $7.7 million annually - or $92.3 million by 2000.
The study said early in its analysis that "the light-rail option was eliminated from consideration. The evaluation revealed that the rail corridors do not provide easy access to the high-density residential areas nor the employment and commercial centers necessary to generate the ridership to support such a system."
The study examined placing the light-rail tracks on a railroad right of way along the city's north corridor, from Downtown to the Crosswoods past I-270.
Bill Habig, executive director of MORPC, said the study was a "quick, capsule look" that couldn't foresee the population growth along the city's north corridor.
He also said not enough time was put into analyzing a bus "feeder system" that would shuttle commuters to the light-rail trains.
The first study, however, says a feeder system would cost too much.
It would "require high-level bus feeder service which would push operating costs too high to be cost-effective."
In 1991, MORPC was hired again to do a similar study of transportation through 2010.
This time, light rail and a bus feeder system are being pushed by MORPC. The planning panel has expanded the studies and has created numerous task forces to examine light rail.
Habig said the main reason for the difference between the two studies is the 1990 census. He said the 1988 study was based on the 1980 census and couldn't account for the population growth in the north corridor.
"Demographic projections were low at the time," he said. "We expected a sizable change, but not the explosive growth of that region."
The 1988 study projected 1.1 million people living in Franklin County by 2000. The 1993 study projects 1.3 million by 2010, with a heavy concentration of people living and working in the north corridor.
Habig said overall, the 1988 study wasn't useful because:
The 2010 population and employment forecast wasn't available. He said 20-year planning is typically used for highway and transit projects.
Minimal time was spent developing feeder bus service options for "fix-guideway" - including light rail - alternatives.
The light-rail analysis didn't include Downtown access along High Street and concentrated on an expensive design.

^Almost all new rail transit plans proposed in the '80s were expensive to build in some way. It's almost like they were trying to sabotage it.

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

In a span of 6 years, MORPC went from pushing against light rail to being for it. There are so many stories like this in the library archives, where there was rarely any clear direction as to transit in Columbus, contradictory views over short periods, poorly done studies, etc.

 

PLANNERS FLIP-FLOPPED ON LIGHT RAIL STUDIES

Newspaper April 23, 1994 | Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)

 

In 1988, transportation planners told COTA to forget light-rail trains and increase its bus fleet by 25 percent.
That advice cost taxpayers $235,000.
Last year, the same planners told the Central Ohio Transit Authority to expand bus service and build an 11.2-mile, light-rail system along the city's north corridor.
That recommendation, on which COTA is staking its future, carried a $488,250 price tag. Since then, related studies by the same planners have tipped the tax dollar scale at more than $2.5 million.
COTA hopes to pass a permanent sales tax increase next year to add buses and build the train system by 2001 at an estimated cost of $522 million.
Ray Miller, a COTA spokesman, said the first study was, at best, a "sketchy plan" that didn't meet the transit system's needs.
"COTA didn't invest a whole bundle of money into that plan," Miller said. "It just didn't look at many details, and I'm not sure (planners) had a good handle on what was going on in the north end."
In 1987, COTA hired the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission to draw up a "2000 Plan" - an analysis of COTA, Franklin County and transportation into the next century.
The plan, completed a year later, called for adding 117 buses to COTA's peak-hour fleet to handle population growth. The study said the bus expansion would cost about $7.7 million annually - or $92.3 million by 2000.
The study said early in its analysis that "the light-rail option was eliminated from consideration. The evaluation revealed that the rail corridors do not provide easy access to the high-density residential areas nor the employment and commercial centers necessary to generate the ridership to support such a system."
The study examined placing the light-rail tracks on a railroad right of way along the city's north corridor, from Downtown to the Crosswoods past I-270.
Bill Habig, executive director of MORPC, said the study was a "quick, capsule look" that couldn't foresee the population growth along the city's north corridor.
He also said not enough time was put into analyzing a bus "feeder system" that would shuttle commuters to the light-rail trains.
The first study, however, says a feeder system would cost too much.
It would "require high-level bus feeder service which would push operating costs too high to be cost-effective."
In 1991, MORPC was hired again to do a similar study of transportation through 2010.
This time, light rail and a bus feeder system are being pushed by MORPC. The planning panel has expanded the studies and has created numerous task forces to examine light rail.
Habig said the main reason for the difference between the two studies is the 1990 census. He said the 1988 study was based on the 1980 census and couldn't account for the population growth in the north corridor.
"Demographic projections were low at the time," he said. "We expected a sizable change, but not the explosive growth of that region."
The 1988 study projected 1.1 million people living in Franklin County by 2000. The 1993 study projects 1.3 million by 2010, with a heavy concentration of people living and working in the north corridor.
Habig said overall, the 1988 study wasn't useful because:
The 2010 population and employment forecast wasn't available. He said 20-year planning is typically used for highway and transit projects.
Minimal time was spent developing feeder bus service options for "fix-guideway" - including light rail - alternatives.
The light-rail analysis didn't include Downtown access along High Street and concentrated on an expensive design.

Columbus is MUCH different now than in the 80s and 90s.  I personally don't think Columbus NEEDED transit then.  We have enough people and growth now.  That's why I think it's real this time and not then.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by TH3BUDDHA

25 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Columbus is MUCH different now than in the 80s and 90s.  I personally don't think Columbus NEEDED transit then.  We have enough people and growth now.  That's why I think it's real this time and not then.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

A 25-year-old study predicted daily ridership of one proposed line 7x-15x that what Cincinnati's streetcar has been doing this month,  on par with or greater than Cleveland's much-celebrated Healthline and more than 2x that of it's Green, Blue and Waterfront lines combined.  Had that line been built, there is no reason to expect that the ridership today wouldn't be significantly higher.  In fact, we probably would've seen far more density built along such a corridor by now. Also, most of the plans had completion around 2000-2001.  

Edited November 27, 20195 yr by jonoh81

11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

A 25-year-old study predicted daily ridership of one proposed line 7x-15x that what Cincinnati's streetcar has been doing this month,  on par with or greater than Cleveland's much-celebrated Healthline and more than 2x that of it's Green, Blue and Waterfront lines combined.  Had that line been built, there is no reason to expect that the ridership today wouldn't be significantly higher.  In fact, we probably would've seen far more density built along such a corridor by now. Also, most of the plans had completion around 2000-2001.  

I'm not disagreeing with you that Columbus should be doing these things, I'm disagreeing that this time will be the same.

 

12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

completion around 2000-2001

Once again, this is the important part.  This was a long time ago and Columbus has changed drastically.  That's why I think it's serious now.  You clearly don't agree and that's fine.  I guess we'll see in the next 5-10 years.

17 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

^Almost all new rail transit plans proposed in the '80s were expensive to build in some way. It's almost like they were trying to sabotage it.

 

The ridership numbers for proposed rail lines were fudged and the FTA looked the other way or was told to look the other way by members of Congress who wanted the rail lines for their areas. And to be fair to the FTA, they didn't have a lot of experience for checking ridership numbers for all of these new light-rail lines for which there had been little precedence before the 1980s. The ridership estimating today is light-years better.

30 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The ridership numbers for proposed rail lines were fudged and the FTA looked the other way or was told to look the other way by members of Congress who wanted the rail lines for their areas. And to be fair to the FTA, they didn't have a lot of experience for checking ridership numbers for all of these new light-rail lines for which there had been little precedence before the 1980s. The ridership estimating today is light-years better.

 

Numbers are fudged today too, though far more typically with road usage.  We often see highway construction projects being justified with huge traffic increase predictions, only to see traffic numbers remain steady or even fall sometimes after construction.  There's a lot of money to be made in these contracts.  

Some good stuff here from the planning director of Akron, Jason Segedy....

 

If you want one map that is a decent proxy for Midwestern culture, you could do far worse than this one.

 

Similarly, this one is a decent proxy for where the Northeast gives way to the Midwest, as well as for where the Great Lakes region (note NE Ohio, NE Illinois) differs culturally from the rest of the Midwest.

 

 

This is a good map for distinguishing the upper Midwest from the lower Midwest, as well as for seeing where immigrants settled in the early 1900s.

 

 

And finally, this is a great map for illustrating that the Browns-Steelers rivalry is really just a proxy for a long-standing intra-ethnic conflict between rival factions of Hungarians.

 

 

54 minutes ago, KJP said:

Some good stuff here from the planning director of Akron, Jason Segedy....

 

If you want one map that is a decent proxy for Midwestern culture, you could do far worse than this one.

 

Similarly, this one is a decent proxy for where the Northeast gives way to the Midwest, as well as for where the Great Lakes region (note NE Ohio, NE Illinois) differs culturally from the rest of the Midwest.

 

 

This is a good map for distinguishing the upper Midwest from the lower Midwest, as well as for seeing where immigrants settled in the early 1900s.

 

 

And finally, this is a great map for illustrating that the Browns-Steelers rivalry is really just a proxy for a long-standing intra-ethnic conflict between rival factions of Hungarians.

 

 

Wow that’s all pretty fascinating. I def didn’t realize exactly how Midwestern and specifically rural midwestern the German population of the US is. I also would have expected Cincinnati to show up as more German but it seems not outside of the norm. Also somewhat surprised at how similar Cleveland and Pittsburgh are and how much they stick out in the Midwest/Great Lakes. NEO has almost nothing in common ethnically with the rest of the state. 

9 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Wow that’s all pretty fascinating. I def didn’t realize exactly how Midwestern and specifically rural midwestern the German population of the US is. I also would have expected Cincinnati to show up as more German but it seems not outside of the norm. 

 

If you removed the folks with African ancestry and just looked at the white population then Hamilton County would stand out. Hamilton County has a large black population which dilutes the German, but the white population is skews very German, even by Midwestern standards.

what on earth are my magyar peoples doing way out there in dakota territory?

7 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

what on earth are my magyar peoples doing way out there in dakota territory?

 

Given the population of southwestern North Dakota and that these maps are based on percentage of local population, that Magyar concentration is probably something like five families.  You know, cousin Mike Kiraly that moved out West in the '30s and his descendants.

39 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

what on earth are my magyar peoples doing way out there in dakota territory?

 

You mean, what the "frack" are they doing out there. Probably fracking... ?

^ ooohhh yeah you are right. makes sense. they had to get away and go where the cabbage grows unimpeded.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

Some good stuff here from the planning director of Akron, Jason Segedy....

And finally, this is a great map for illustrating that the Browns-Steelers rivalry is really just a proxy for a long-standing intra-ethnic conflict between rival factions of Hungarians.

 

 

 

That map of Hungarians under-represents the New Orleans area.

a plug for the all-important Hungarian Culture Club of Fairport ??

 

 

I used the MCDC CAPS tool to calculate population within a 1-mile radius of the downtown of several cities. In most cases, the tool drops the pin in the middle of downtown. I included the 15 largest MSAs in the US, the 7 largest MSAs in OH, and several other cities that I thought would be interesting for comparison to come up with a list of 40 cities. The usual caveats apply about the existence of lakes, oceans, mountains, and other geographic features that make the radius comparison imperfect. 

 

Here are the results. I was surprised to see that Akron and Toledo are higher than Columbus on this list. And all of the Ohio cities rank higher than Nashville except for Youngstown. Charlotte, Austin, and New Orleans are lower than I thought they'd be and Baltimore really holds its own.

 

 

Does that Cincinnati number include anyone who lives in KY?  

11 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Does that Cincinnati number include anyone who lives in KY?  

 

Yes. This ignores state and city boundaries.

 

EDIT TO ADD: @Cincy513 the center point for Cincy is the CAC so the 1-mile radius only includes a very small portion of Covington at the base of the Roebling. So not many Kentuckians in that number.

Edited December 9, 20195 yr by DEPACincy

Add 600 for inmates in the Hamilton County Justice Center and another 300 for dudes in its Kenton County counterpart.  

14 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Add 600 for inmates in the Hamilton County Justice Center and another 300 for dudes in its Kenton County counterpart.  

 

I'm sure that is the case for a lot of these places.

And here is the two mile radius. 

 

• Boston moves up from 8th to 4th. 
• Baltimore moves up 2 spots. Very impressive. 150k within 2 miles of center of downtown. 
• New Orleans moves WAY up from 31 to 13. Austin also way up from 24 to 14.
• Cincy holding steady, up from 20 to 19. 68.5k. 
• Cbus looks a lot better. Moves up from 35 on this list to 22. 
• Akron is very impressive. Up from 34 to 24th. 
• Akron, Toledo, Canton, and Dayton all have more people in the 2-mile radius than St. Louis or Detroit. Wow. 
• Akron and Toledo also beat Louisville, Nashville, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Indy. Double Wow. 
• CLE definitely affected by the location of the lake.

St. Louis has barely anyone living on the Illinois side, which probably hurts it at the 2 mile level.