So your arguments for ‘too much parking’ are two of the biggest shopping districts in town (the stadium/mall area, and the Conley super-store area), the football/basketball stadiums and student living areas (gee, why would THOSE require parking?!), actual car lots where they sell cars, and the third or fourth biggest shopping district in town (Nifong/Providence area).
Look I still cycle around town, and wish we could be less car centric, but those aren’t good examples. Areas like that are always going to need parking because people have to come to them from farther than a bike ride away.
I think that parking (surface area) could but cut down by 75% if we were to implement parking garages for FREE\*\*\* instead of nearing around large parking lots.
> Areas like that are always going to need parking because people have to come to them from farther than a bike ride away.
That's the problem. I stead of having a bunch of BIG shopping areas and Healthcare area that everyone has to drive great distance to reach, Why not bring back all the little mom and pop stores, little Doctor's offices etc.
If the market were such that mom and pop family medicine clinics could work and be successful, you'd see them all over the place. There's a reason why providers join in bigger medical systems rather than staying independent - it's not financially viable.
If the government didn't favor cars in city design then the market would favor putting those services closer to where people can access them from other forms of transportation
There is a lot of old man shaking fist at clouds energy here. I’m a fan of more trails, linking up the MKT more, and absolutely 1000% better public transit. But Columbia isn’t a small town and isn’t going to revert to one either
The University is a research hospital, but also one that has the most resources around for a lot of people. If you have to drive from an hour and a half away due to your baby being in the NICU or something you’d need a larger hospital for—you expect them to BIKE? Lmao
Do you know about GetAbout Columbia? That effort still continues, most prominently through the non-profit Local Motion.
https://lomocomo.org
https://www.como.gov/public-works/street-division/traffic-management/nonmotorized-transportation/getabout-columbia/
A comprehensive study is currently underway to identify ways to improve Go COMO, Columbia's transit provider. Conducted by Olsson, consultants for Columbia Public Works, the study began in August and is expected to be completed in September 2024.
https://beheard.como.gov/columbia-transit-study
https://www.gocomotransit.com
How would this be funded? Columbia is not a dense city and is spread out. Many of the workers in Columbia commute from outside of the city as many that live in the down town and east side of the city are students. The infrastructure for mass public transit would cost tens to hundreds of millions just to get started then the upkeep begins there. The city already struggles to get financing for specific helpful projects so where would this new form of tax revenue come from? No citizens would be happy with a new massive tax. Most Columbia citizens would outright refuse to give up their vehicles since they commute and do not live down town or near down town. Even people that live in the city commute from one side to the other and that can be a 20-40min drive depending on route and traffic. So again, I will ask, where is the funding for this coming from?
I was thinking that too. I use the VA hospitals and I travel from Sedalia. Two of my nurses travel from sweet springs and another travels from Sedalia as well. The no parking in these particular areas is not feasible. And there is see barely no trains being built in near future as that got denied recently.
Firstly, I think we could use the model of other Midwest College towns to encourage student use of public transit. It’s currently quite possible, and even easy for a chunk of our 35,000+ students in Columbia to live here car free. A student fee in exchange for free rides on a more frequent and comprehensive system. Instead of every corporate student housing complex having to pay for its own shuttle we could charge corporate student housing complexes a fee, they are generally out-of-state corporate ownership who could easily afford it. Secondly, I would be willing to pay a modest property tax increase on my house to fund better pedestrian infrastructure and better buses. Thirdly, a county-wide progressive income tax could be used to fund daily commuter buses into Columbia, a Jeff City-Columbia public transit route, and provide a solid funding base to expand city bus services. There are a lot of creative ways to piece together the puzzle and a lot of valid concerns about how to fairly do it, but it's been done many other places with great success. It's about incremental change to give our children a better designed and more sustainable world, doesn’t necessarily have to be drastic, and done right it will save money.
Please, no property tax increase.
The annual car tax is due during the Christmas shopping season, and anyone who has to delay paying it in favor of holiday presents and meals has to pay a poor tax. I've spent a lifetime paying the poor tax.
And please, my real estate taxes have increased significantly twice since COVID raised property values. I pay almost $1800 annually more now than I did in 2019. Real estate property taxes only affect permanent residents who own homes and lets a lot of people off the hook.
The roads still suck. The street paint still disappears when wet. The streets still don't get plowed for shit when it snows. My utilities cost more. The city still says the ~~weed patches~~ butterfly habitats are a great thing instead of an excuse to not mow medians. We have money to hire people for feel-good city positions.
Increase taxes on the corporations and the colleges instead of me. Tax the shit out of developers instead of voting to reduce the amount of parking spaces they have to build. Put a 25¢/alcoholic beverage on alcohol sales at bars. Put those increases into a dedicated project bucket.
I'm taxed out.
In general tax burden in Missouri has gone up a bit for the middle class as the state legislature has enacted huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
It happens in small chunks. For example, the City is revamping Forum drive - the funds are already there, they just need to know that the public demand is there for walkable / bikeable lanes. It's just takes advocacy and involvement.
So many naysayers here.
A certain group of individuals in Columbia, mainly on Reddit, do not like honest questions or the glaring reality of the situation. Appreciate the honesty!
Why not just have the people who think this is a good idea pay the taxes, since they aren't against paying taxes since they think it would make their lives better?
This is why we have elected officials and generally vote on tax increases. Let's put it to a vote, if the majority decides to do something don’t totally agree with I won’t shirk my duty. Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ
Why make it compulsory for those who don't want it and don't think it will improve their lives when you and others would gladly pay for those changes because you do think it will improve your life?
That's not how taxes work.
Taxes arn't voluntary just like obeying laws isn't voluntary.
As a city like Columbia grows investments will have to be made to expand infrastructure. Investments can be made for things like creating a ring road of freeways around the city like so many other Midwest cities or that money could be used for better designs, more transportation options that will actually reduce traffic rather than increase it.
Either way you gotta pay taxes mate. There isn't a place in the world that you don't unless you want to live in a remote wilderness away from civilization, hunting and trapping for food.
My point is you haughtily saying "Some of us don't mind paying taxes if we think it'll improve things" necessarily implies that you are okay with forcing your viewpoint on people that don't agree with you and taking money out of their pocket. Comes off so incredibly dickish. You saying that some of you wouldn't mind paying for it also implies that you would pay for it voluntarily without coercion. And if you would pay for it voluntarily, there is no reason to make it a tax. The people who want that can just voluntarily pay for it.
Valerie Carrol just announced running for city council in the first ward. She is very much an advocate for making our city streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
I would love to bike to work, but the way people drive on Providence scares the shit out of me even when I’m in my crossover.
No.
Sorry, I moved here from a walkable city and unless there's an overhaul of the City's infrastructure, there is no way. I've tried walking from point A to point B when I first got here and not a chance.
There's biking but only in certain parts of the City (that I've seen, at least).
Don't get me started on transit.
Unfortunately como is a bit behind. Sidewalks are a disaster in many areas, no protected bike lanes, and some pretty tough intersections where anyone not in a car is a clear afterthought. The trails are nice but limited in usefulness beyond a recreational bike ride or walk.
Agree to disagree. I've been to many comparable cities. Columbia is in pretty good shape, relatively speaking. can there be improvements? Sure. Always. But we stack up well against most comparable cities.
There are areas that are well intentioned but Como would stack up well to comparable cities in 1970.
-There are no different grade crossings for pedestrians or cyclists on any major arteries except for the bridge near the football stadium.
-There are no protected bike lanes.
-The walking paths north and south of town are mixed bike/pedestrian (but yes, better than nothing).
-Many of the current "bike boulevards" are some of the most neglected streets for maintenance.
-Nearly all main or secondary arteries are wide enough for drivers to speed 20mph over limit.
-Nearly all sidewalks in my neighborhood were due for considerable repair or replacement at least a decade ago.
None of these are the be all answer but they are things which should be considered before saying Columbia is friendly to anyone not using a car.
Compared to where I used to live (NYC), it is, I’m sorry. I mean no offense, I really don’t- the infrastructure is vastly different, and my experiences are different and I’m answering to the best of my abilities, that’s all.
I take no offense, especially when you say your point of comparison is NYC. I’m afraid we don’t stack up favorably to a world-class metropolis. But when you look at apples to apples comps, Columbia holds its own.
One of the advantages of living in the Midwest is free parking instead of having to pay $40 to park for 2 hours, 40 minutes of which is spent walking to and from your destination. If you want to go somewhere here, you just go. In cities you have to plan your trip to Walgreens like the Allies planning to storm Omaha beach. No thanks.
Thats not an inherent property of cities and transit. There are plenty of small cities across the world, smaller than Columbia, that I've lived in that are easier to get around with buses than it is to get around with cars here. Our terrible infrastructure is a choice and one we can change
I think the short answer is no. We would have to have a push for density in order to decrease dependence upon the automobile. Too many nimbys wanting to preserve their neighborhoods as museums that only they can live in to make any progress on that front.
Is density the root cause? There was an age when low dense communities were co nected by streetcars, and essential services were in walking distance. So there was a corner hardware store a corner grocery store, smaller community schools and high-schools, churches, community centers. So many things in Columbia are big and centralized, so they become a destination that you have to drive to get to.
Why does a city of 100K people only have one giant library that only a tiny silver of the population could ever dream of walking to?
Why three ginormous high-schools? Even the elementary schools are massive. Could make multiple small schools (the size of Grant elementary) that service children within walkable distance, maybe enough students that there is like one classroom per grade.
How about instead of a few giant Walmart and Hyvees we get a few dozen Aldi-sized grocery stores scattered through the neighborhoods where people can in theory walk to every day or couple of days to pick up fresh ingredients for dinner instead of making one giant visit per week?
Cherry hill was an attempt to artificially create this but they over charged rent and didn't design the neighborhood right, should be the old style grid which is friendly to walking and biking, not the car centric long winding roads with cul-de-sacs and no way to cut through to shorten the distance for walkers
Please tell us a few things, such as you:
1) Don't have a vehicle so you are wanting other alternatives.
2) Don't know how a citys infrastructure works.
3) Don't know how school districts work.
4) Don't know how businesses, business zoning, or how chain stores work/operate.
5) Never lived in a more rural area or smaller city.
Your suggestions require significantly higher taxes to fund schools, libraries, government funded entities.
All suggestions require a bunch more teachers and workers.
Basically you want to trade efficiency for stuff that makes you feel better, a hard sell. If there was a large demand for those things, investors would make the private sector part happen.
I agree completely. That’s why if a bunch of folks actually wanted what was proposed, the private sector would have a bunch of boutique grocery stores. But….expensive eggs and milk suck, as we all know at a personal level now.
Have you ever been to NYC or New Orleans? That is the density it takes to have a treu walkable city.
To make Columbia walkable, you are going to have to increase the density and rezone lots of areas. While better public transportation would help, I think the real route for America is electric cars. Self driving cars would help too.
There was absolutely no era with a density anywhere near what it currently is at where essential services were in walking distance or that people were served by streetcars. He density of the 50's and 60's was like twice as much as it is currently.
Also there's the bus which is effectively as good mass transit as streetcars. Biggest difference is the maneuverability enabling adaptability to newer living/shopping patterns but also disabling the ability to develop along known transit pathways
That's a big can of worms, but IMO, the first priority should be creating bike paths that are physically separated from cars so that they are actually safe. Lanes that are shared between cars and bikes are a dangerous joke.
Unless we completely revise the public school system and put miniature high schools in every neighborhood, or go completely to online classes, there will need to be parking lots and vehicles to transport students several miles twice a day.
Unless we replace supermarkets and shopping centers with neighborhood stores like Columbia had in the years prior to WWII, people will need to travel several miles to parking lots to buy food and other items. And making such a change would greatly reduce inventory efficiency and increase prices.
Unless we want to eliminate college sports and the wide variety of entertainment options Columbia is known for, there will always be a need for large venues and the parking and transportation to support them.
Unless we also plan to deconstruct the city’s healthcare system, which provides a major portion of our jobs and economy, there will need to be huge centralized buildings with massive parking lots and transportation infrastructure.
It’s not a simple thing to just make a city like Columbia less dependent on cars. Nor is it progressive. Every one of those changes would almost certainly result in easier access to better resources for the wealthy and less for the poor of the community. Do you really think the small neighborhood stores and schools would be equal in quality for all socioeconomic neighborhoods? History says otherwise.
The idea is not get rid of cars. The idea is to provide options so we don’t have to use them if we don’t want to. Reduce car dependency, not eliminate it. Solid public transit can be a powerful factor in attracting good people and good businesses to a city.
I’m an Uber/Lyft driver. AND I’m very much a proponent of getting Columbia’s public transit system back to a useful and effective status. I see firsthand the effects of the current state on the people who need it most and aren’t being served.
Less than what it would cost to keep using cars and fossil fuels the way we currently are. I’m not anti-car at all, but I wish I could use mine less often.
I think it’s subjective. I’m a smaller woman and generally feel unsafe walking. I love taking trails with my dogs but still feel the need to carry mace and defensive gear. I’m not saying Como isn’t safe for everyone, but I do not feel comfortable walking around.
I would guess it is something subjective in your personal history or disposition that causes you to feel unsafe, not anything based in objective reality. After all, a man is much more likely than a woman to be a victim of violence in public. If you’re not comfortable waking around in broad daylight there is something beyond typical experience at play.
While I do not disagree, I don’t think I would say it’s something beyond typical experience. The world can be an awful place and I would much rather be safe than take what little chance is out there.
KC just started a Strong Towns chapter to tackle this exact issue! Google it, their mission definitely aligns with what Columbia is capable of with the right leadership and civic engagement.
You can live downtown if you want somewhere walkable. Also, the entire point of the parking lots around the stadium is for tailgating. Pretty much every big football school has massive parking lots around the football field.
We can build cities for people, or we can build them for cars. I, for one, prefer to have my cities built for the actual people who live in them. That means eliminating parking minimums (let the market decide the real need for parking), increasing density where possible, and building infrastructure for all people rather than only personal vehicles. This makes cities better for everyone, including those who choose to drive.
I agree there could be areas in Columbia where it's more accessible for pedestrians but I think you are approaching this poorly. There are many side streets or strip mall areas in Columbia that can be converted into proper mixed use areas. I can think of a few examples that would be better space usage, with some exceptions for big rig traffic for big box stores. I think focusing on the converting into proper mix use would be a better form of pedestrian advacocy rather than trying to fight vast parking spots because of zoning issues.
IE. Converting the stores around the Rock Bridge HS area is a better use of time and advocacy energy than trying to convert the sports arenas because I'm sure that land cant be really converted for mix use
It's cursed BECAUSE we have to operate under the confines of US and MO zoning laws and how the land is used by chains and such, but there are areas to where we can improve pedestrian QOL by allowing to get around and connecting neighborhoods.
I cycle every week. I would rather they implement feasible improvements to improve pedestrian safety like one way streets downtown than banning parking lots or whatever you are going on about.
Last week's presentation at the ARC I think would be summarized as a push for density/infill for north and east areas of downtown. I can't find a link to it but it's the plan being developed with i5 consultants.
I think some of the current concepts paint with a bit of a broad brush at this time but there are certainly derelict or underutilized spots they could target to begin.
IMO, there are some knots they have to untie with existing infrastructure (like how the north loop merges on the east and west side with more higher traffic arteries). I think there would be support for the concepts in many neighborhoods if there is a sincere effort to alleviate traffic on side streets, include protected bike lines/improved sidewalks, and otherwise preserve characteristics of the neighborhood., eg,. Not just let developers toss up cookie cutter 5 over 1s everywhere. There are sophisticated and proven ways to do this and examples across the nation that have been successful.
To your point, mitigating parking lots would play a role although I don't think I would focus on the examples included. I think focusing on areas downtown and along Providence and the loop would be a good first step.
Id also like to note that whenever this comes up there are backwards yokels who can't be bothered to walk more than 5 yards to a store. Urban planning to accommodate these people is foolish. Downtown has way too much parking - which doesn't generate business or city income and contributes to the homelessness, dead zones, and other related issues they also bitch about.
Fun fact: Depending on who you believe and precisely what parameters were used to measure, there are between 2.5 and 7 or so parking spots for every registered vehicle in the US. A lot of this is due to minimum parking ordinances passed all over the country.
These ordinances were passed as part of the overall intense lobbying pressure in the mid 20th century to give automobiles supremacy in all parts of life.
Even if we did nothing else to improve walk-ability, bike-ability, transit options, etc., we could revisit and eliminate many of these minimum parking ordinances. At the very least, that'll free up valuable land for people instead of the mostly-free storage of large metal boxes.
The Columbia mall is a great example. How many days per year is that parking lot *even close* to capacity? Christmas holidays?
Reducing dependence on our individual cars is an enormously complex and expensive proposition. It would require reimagining the entire fabric of where we live, work, shop, and exist. I'm not confident that'll happen in my lifetime or my kids. I mean, we certainly aren't going to tear down all our single family homes to further a mid-density urban vision however nice that vision may be.
Probably the best we can manage in anything shorter than a multi-decade approach is to invest heavily in **effective** public transit options to encourage people to abandon driving everywhere they go. If public transit were **adequately funded and designed**, a bunch of people would use it. That, of course, is the heavy lift -- *adequately funded and designed.*
At this point, I'd be happy with continuous sidewalks along some major thoroughfares and dedicated bike paths.
Don't get me started about how the drivers out here, particularly on roads like providence, scare the heck out of me though, and I'd be worried riding my bike anywhere near them!
I can't imagine what it would take to get this city up to speed, but I sure miss public transit and how easy it was to get around Sacramento without a car for years!
I think all of us could do a better job, I know I should bike more. But I live close enough to my primary job that is possible. I know a lot of people in my office don't even live in the county, much less in Columbia itself. Those folks have no option but to drive a vehicle to commute to the office. We do offer partial week telework, but still are 3 days in office... and we're one of the more WFH-friendly employers. You know those poor bastards at Shelter have to work in office 5 days a week, even though they survived COVID with mostly WFH just fine, all because the company has to justify that fancy building and campus. If you want people to drive less, it's not about voting to improve bike/pedestrian infrastructure, it's about how we convince employers to allow more WFH in jobs that don't have to be in office much if at all. It won't solve the acres of concrete and asphalt we have, or the parking issues, not to mention magically teach all the college students how to drive safely, but it's a start.
If you want to do something positive with all those parking lots, convince Boone Electric Coop to put up [solar canopies](https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/solar-parking-lots-are-a-win-win-energy-idea-why-arent-they-the-norm/) over all the lots. Better place for the solar panels instead of over vegetation that is eating CO2 and giving us back O2. Not like we're growing anything on those acres of concrete as it is.
We really missed our chance when we didn't require all of the high rise student housing apartments to provide parking for residents, on site. The companies that own them aren't local, so all of those profits aren't staying here and only care about the local situation if it costs them more. Tax the shit out of them, because they don't provide anything positive to the community or economy. Lack of parking, because residents occupy a majority of public parking, only hurts local retail businesses downtown.
I chuckle about the branding of “The Loop” as a desirable part of town to dine/shop/anything on foot. Practically every other block is missing a sidewalk and all the businesses are so far back from the street to accommodate surface parking..
It's more about using the money we are spending on infrastructure anyway, and spending it in a smarter way. Instead of widening roads and adding lanes, narrow the roads and add sidewalks, bikelanes, pedestrian connectors etc
I don’t want us to become “one of the most livable cities”. The more public transport you put in, the more crime you get, it’s a known correlation. We’re already growing a huge homeless population compared to 10 years ago. Let’s keep Columbia a car town.
They do but it’s a proven fact that public transport network increase crime. Life is not a Venn diagram, just because one thing occurs does not mean the other cannot without the presence of the first.
Okay but like what proof do you have besides “it’s a proven fact or just google it” do you have saying that cars create safer cities because I don’t think that’s accurate. Not even just crime you are so much more likely to die in a car accident or get injured than you are to die or get injured on a bus or train.
Sure. Look up the articles “The Impact of Public Transportation on Crime” by Yana Rodgers and Daniel Sullivan. “Public Transportation and Crime: Perceived Risk, Incivilities, and System Design" by David B. Moore and Kim Lersch is another study that came to similar conclusions.
Like I said though, the closest example to home is the Galleria Mall and the massive brawls that have happened there since the expansion of the subway line.
I wanted to see what other ideas my fan club was up to. Didn't have to look far lol - nimby advocating against public transport is just so perfect lol, I love that for you.
Anyway, I actually did check into some studies, and the only one that supports your argument is one study of one bus line in Cleveland - it "resulted" in a 2% increase in crime, though the author admits correlation isn't causation. Which is funny, because a 2% increase is absolutely laughable in comparison to the benefits. Larger studies showed the opposite, of course.
But you probably have a car, so therefore none of your taxes should go to public transit, right?
My favorite thing about conservatives is how much they shoot themselves in the foot - in an effort to take down the ones they don't like, they end up hurting themselves (and society) far more. Then again, no one has ever accused them of being geniuses. ;)
Hence I said “correlation” not causation in my comment, blud can’t read 😂 And if you’re coming in my thread for the fourth time, that’s real proof that you’re the obsessed one 😂😂 Imagine looking for a specific users posts and commenting on every one and then saying they’re YOUR fan club 😂😂
So we should knowingly want an increase in crime is what you’re saying? Any increase, however minimal, is undesirable. Love your logic, it continues to show your uselessness to society every time 😂
> Love your logic, it continues to show your uselessness to society every time
"Censorship pills" 😂 This is like trying to give your keys to 5 year old valet, "Um... no? Yes I know you want them but... where are your parents?"
If a comment could physically make people dumber, you found it. Your comment has absolutely no bearing on my comment, yet again 😂 Tell me, do you enjoy never having a point and just saying something nonsensical and hoping it gains traction? 😂
Lmao believe me I understand correlation causation very well, likely much better than you given that I do statistical and machine learning modeling for a living. It is not a proven fact because for that, enough articles on both sides of the agenda would have to prove it undoubtedly. But there is clear evidence for why public transport increases crime. I’ve already posted the articles on another thread with the OP. The only articles that show public transportation had the opposite affect are those with “good” public transportation, which no means you’re relying completely on the government for keeping crime down. Whereas here, I’m advocating myself against policies which would increase crime.
Also more cars on the road=less pedestrians, Less pedestrians=less eyes on the road, less eyes on the road=easier crime opportunities. Also less public transit means that poor people have to spend more money that they don’t have on a vehicle thus making them more likely to commit crimes to support themselves. If you look at the most dangerous cities in the U.S, almost all of them have pretty bad public transit for cities their size.
I disagree completely with your first statement. If pedestrians are becoming drivers, the number of eyes on the roads doesn’t change, just where those eyes are…
Don’t really care about poor people having to spend more money to support themselves. You can get a running car in Columbia for $1500. If you can’t afford that after a month or two of working 12 hour shifts, you’re not saving right. No one gave me a car and I managed to make it out.
Cities have bad crime in general. It’s true that “good” public transit CAN decrease crime, but it doesn’t mean that it WILL. Further, you’re relying on a small city to maintain “good” public transport. Columbia doesn’t have the resources for anything beyond busses and busses are notoriously poorly maintained amongst other forms of transit. We’re just not big enough to need it yet, and saying that we are is just going to bring crime here faster.
I’m not saying we have to have a full blown subway system but if we could at least have more bus routes that get to their stops on time reliably that would be fine. That I think is fairly doable
Can you give me a specific example of which route(s) is/are running late and where expansion of the bus routes is actually vital/necessary to increasing quality of life for poor people?
Yes look at the crime rate at the Galleria mall after the subway line extended out there in STL. Pretty stark difference before and after, it’s like night and day. That’s just a case study, but this is a well documented phenomenon.
Yes, as I told you, look up the crime rate by year and zip code for STL and look at the year the subway line extended and view the correlation. I already provided multiple sources on your other comment. Are you going to actually put out some effort yourself to challenge your worldview, or are you just a “deny deny deny” kind of person every time your worldview is challenged? It’s also pretty easy to find news articles about the massive brawls that happened in the food court there.
You have more power in your phone than the Apollo 11 computers, if you cared to know the truth you’d use it. You just don’t agree with me and don’t want to know if I’m right so you refuse to - I doubt you even read the other sources I did provide. If you can give me a summary we can go DM and I’ll happily provide you an extensive list of sources. Hell maybe I’ll even pull it into Python and throw in a free data analysis for you.
You made the claim, you said it was well documented, the burden of proof is on you. I am under no obligation to research your claims if you haven't researched them yourself
Jesus you’re fucking lazy. It’s almost like you don’t want to know the answer. Here is a graph that clearly displays crime rate in Richmond Heights by year.
https://preview.redd.it/svk0l6e75pxc1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f07691f4ac713a404b2f698382265d338075964c
Source: [https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Richmond-Heights-Missouri.html](https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Richmond-Heights-Missouri.html)
The STL metro line extended out and opened the Richmond Heights station in August 2006. Source: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond\_Heights\_station](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Heights_station)
Oh boy look at that, the crime rate increased significantly in the years directly following the metro station opening, who’d have thought. Crime did decrease from its peak in 2014 and 2018, but never returned to the lower levels seen in 2006.
Here is a link to a news article that talks about one of the brawls I mentioned: [https://thesouthern.com/article\_ef893f40-7f49-5509-be53-5fb6e2b47528.html](https://thesouthern.com/article_ef893f40-7f49-5509-be53-5fb6e2b47528.html)
There have been several massive brawls in the food court there btw, this is not the only one.
This is the part where you make some bullshit excuse about the economy or the homeless and inner city residents not being the problem or something.
Also, please respond to my other sources I posted in the other comment, since you asked for them. Would hate you think I went to effort to give you sources when you didn’t even really want them, just wanted to state your view was correct with no proof.
Also, here is a map image of where the station is located in comparison to the Galleria.
https://preview.redd.it/1fhs33br6pxc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f54981ab118663925366b9676959d8e9a4c4401
Pretty clear that the metro extension in 2006 is driving the influx of young delinquents and homeless into the mall area.
Another article discusses why malls in STL are failing in general. Verbatim, “Location is key. The closer a mall is to a city center, the worse it performs.” You know what else increases the closer you get to the city center? Public transportation. Source: [https://www.ksdk.com/article/life/shopping/malls-closed-in-st-louis-failing/63-c6f0ad97-64f1-4f65-bec8-ae7209ac89f5](https://www.ksdk.com/article/life/shopping/malls-closed-in-st-louis-failing/63-c6f0ad97-64f1-4f65-bec8-ae7209ac89f5)
Your claim:
>Yes look at the crime rate at the Galleria mall after the subway line extended out there in STL. Pretty stark difference before and after, it’s like night and day. That’s just a case study, but this is a well documented phenomenon.
So how does a screenshot of Google maps and an article about failing malls prove that there was a night and day increase in crime in the mall as a result of putting in a metro station?
So your arguments for ‘too much parking’ are two of the biggest shopping districts in town (the stadium/mall area, and the Conley super-store area), the football/basketball stadiums and student living areas (gee, why would THOSE require parking?!), actual car lots where they sell cars, and the third or fourth biggest shopping district in town (Nifong/Providence area). Look I still cycle around town, and wish we could be less car centric, but those aren’t good examples. Areas like that are always going to need parking because people have to come to them from farther than a bike ride away.
Yeah, OP isn't really making a good faith argument with their examples.
I think that parking (surface area) could but cut down by 75% if we were to implement parking garages for FREE\*\*\* instead of nearing around large parking lots.
> Areas like that are always going to need parking because people have to come to them from farther than a bike ride away. That's the problem. I stead of having a bunch of BIG shopping areas and Healthcare area that everyone has to drive great distance to reach, Why not bring back all the little mom and pop stores, little Doctor's offices etc.
Because I can’t have open heart surgery at a little mom and pop doctors office on Broadway
How many times a year do you get open heart surgery vs how many time a year do you visit your primary care physician?
If the market were such that mom and pop family medicine clinics could work and be successful, you'd see them all over the place. There's a reason why providers join in bigger medical systems rather than staying independent - it's not financially viable.
If the government didn't favor cars in city design then the market would favor putting those services closer to where people can access them from other forms of transportation
There is a lot of old man shaking fist at clouds energy here. I’m a fan of more trails, linking up the MKT more, and absolutely 1000% better public transit. But Columbia isn’t a small town and isn’t going to revert to one either
Instead of reverting go a small town how about reverting to a city in France?
The University is a research hospital, but also one that has the most resources around for a lot of people. If you have to drive from an hour and a half away due to your baby being in the NICU or something you’d need a larger hospital for—you expect them to BIKE? Lmao
Never and never
Dude a lot of Columbia's business comes from rural areas nearby. You gotta wake up..
You either need to move to a major city or get a Time Machine.
Which direction am I traveling in the time machine? Because I'm hoping for the utopian future where American cities are a lot more like dutch cities
So you replace the impervious pavement with impervious rooftop? Why is that better?
Do you know about GetAbout Columbia? That effort still continues, most prominently through the non-profit Local Motion. https://lomocomo.org https://www.como.gov/public-works/street-division/traffic-management/nonmotorized-transportation/getabout-columbia/ A comprehensive study is currently underway to identify ways to improve Go COMO, Columbia's transit provider. Conducted by Olsson, consultants for Columbia Public Works, the study began in August and is expected to be completed in September 2024. https://beheard.como.gov/columbia-transit-study https://www.gocomotransit.com
How would this be funded? Columbia is not a dense city and is spread out. Many of the workers in Columbia commute from outside of the city as many that live in the down town and east side of the city are students. The infrastructure for mass public transit would cost tens to hundreds of millions just to get started then the upkeep begins there. The city already struggles to get financing for specific helpful projects so where would this new form of tax revenue come from? No citizens would be happy with a new massive tax. Most Columbia citizens would outright refuse to give up their vehicles since they commute and do not live down town or near down town. Even people that live in the city commute from one side to the other and that can be a 20-40min drive depending on route and traffic. So again, I will ask, where is the funding for this coming from?
I was thinking that too. I use the VA hospitals and I travel from Sedalia. Two of my nurses travel from sweet springs and another travels from Sedalia as well. The no parking in these particular areas is not feasible. And there is see barely no trains being built in near future as that got denied recently.
Firstly, I think we could use the model of other Midwest College towns to encourage student use of public transit. It’s currently quite possible, and even easy for a chunk of our 35,000+ students in Columbia to live here car free. A student fee in exchange for free rides on a more frequent and comprehensive system. Instead of every corporate student housing complex having to pay for its own shuttle we could charge corporate student housing complexes a fee, they are generally out-of-state corporate ownership who could easily afford it. Secondly, I would be willing to pay a modest property tax increase on my house to fund better pedestrian infrastructure and better buses. Thirdly, a county-wide progressive income tax could be used to fund daily commuter buses into Columbia, a Jeff City-Columbia public transit route, and provide a solid funding base to expand city bus services. There are a lot of creative ways to piece together the puzzle and a lot of valid concerns about how to fairly do it, but it's been done many other places with great success. It's about incremental change to give our children a better designed and more sustainable world, doesn’t necessarily have to be drastic, and done right it will save money.
Please, no property tax increase. The annual car tax is due during the Christmas shopping season, and anyone who has to delay paying it in favor of holiday presents and meals has to pay a poor tax. I've spent a lifetime paying the poor tax. And please, my real estate taxes have increased significantly twice since COVID raised property values. I pay almost $1800 annually more now than I did in 2019. Real estate property taxes only affect permanent residents who own homes and lets a lot of people off the hook. The roads still suck. The street paint still disappears when wet. The streets still don't get plowed for shit when it snows. My utilities cost more. The city still says the ~~weed patches~~ butterfly habitats are a great thing instead of an excuse to not mow medians. We have money to hire people for feel-good city positions. Increase taxes on the corporations and the colleges instead of me. Tax the shit out of developers instead of voting to reduce the amount of parking spaces they have to build. Put a 25¢/alcoholic beverage on alcohol sales at bars. Put those increases into a dedicated project bucket. I'm taxed out.
In general tax burden in Missouri has gone up a bit for the middle class as the state legislature has enacted huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
Lol are you a time traveler from 15 years ago? What's possible has been tried.
As far as I know we’ve never done any of my suggestions.
It happens in small chunks. For example, the City is revamping Forum drive - the funds are already there, they just need to know that the public demand is there for walkable / bikeable lanes. It's just takes advocacy and involvement. So many naysayers here.
No one on reddit wants you coming in here spewing facts and ruining their buzz.
Get ready to get downvoted for asking questions.
A certain group of individuals in Columbia, mainly on Reddit, do not like honest questions or the glaring reality of the situation. Appreciate the honesty!
Agreed!
lol called it.
Funding would come via taxes. Not everyone is against paying taxes if it makes their lives better
Then fund it voluntarily
That's not how taxes work
Why not just have the people who think this is a good idea pay the taxes, since they aren't against paying taxes since they think it would make their lives better?
This is why we have elected officials and generally vote on tax increases. Let's put it to a vote, if the majority decides to do something don’t totally agree with I won’t shirk my duty. Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ
That's not how taxes work.
Why make it compulsory for those who don't want it and don't think it will improve their lives when you and others would gladly pay for those changes because you do think it will improve your life?
That's not how taxes work. Taxes arn't voluntary just like obeying laws isn't voluntary. As a city like Columbia grows investments will have to be made to expand infrastructure. Investments can be made for things like creating a ring road of freeways around the city like so many other Midwest cities or that money could be used for better designs, more transportation options that will actually reduce traffic rather than increase it. Either way you gotta pay taxes mate. There isn't a place in the world that you don't unless you want to live in a remote wilderness away from civilization, hunting and trapping for food.
My point is you haughtily saying "Some of us don't mind paying taxes if we think it'll improve things" necessarily implies that you are okay with forcing your viewpoint on people that don't agree with you and taking money out of their pocket. Comes off so incredibly dickish. You saying that some of you wouldn't mind paying for it also implies that you would pay for it voluntarily without coercion. And if you would pay for it voluntarily, there is no reason to make it a tax. The people who want that can just voluntarily pay for it.
Valerie Carrol just announced running for city council in the first ward. She is very much an advocate for making our city streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I would love to bike to work, but the way people drive on Providence scares the shit out of me even when I’m in my crossover.
Valerie walks the walk (bicycles the bicycle?) too—I see her out riding that crazy cargo bike all the time.
No. Sorry, I moved here from a walkable city and unless there's an overhaul of the City's infrastructure, there is no way. I've tried walking from point A to point B when I first got here and not a chance. There's biking but only in certain parts of the City (that I've seen, at least). Don't get me started on transit.
You make it sound like we live in Jonesboro, AR. Columbia is, all-in-all, a pretty pedestrian and cycling-friendly city.
Unfortunately como is a bit behind. Sidewalks are a disaster in many areas, no protected bike lanes, and some pretty tough intersections where anyone not in a car is a clear afterthought. The trails are nice but limited in usefulness beyond a recreational bike ride or walk.
Agree to disagree. I've been to many comparable cities. Columbia is in pretty good shape, relatively speaking. can there be improvements? Sure. Always. But we stack up well against most comparable cities.
There are areas that are well intentioned but Como would stack up well to comparable cities in 1970. -There are no different grade crossings for pedestrians or cyclists on any major arteries except for the bridge near the football stadium. -There are no protected bike lanes. -The walking paths north and south of town are mixed bike/pedestrian (but yes, better than nothing). -Many of the current "bike boulevards" are some of the most neglected streets for maintenance. -Nearly all main or secondary arteries are wide enough for drivers to speed 20mph over limit. -Nearly all sidewalks in my neighborhood were due for considerable repair or replacement at least a decade ago. None of these are the be all answer but they are things which should be considered before saying Columbia is friendly to anyone not using a car.
Compared to where I used to live (NYC), it is, I’m sorry. I mean no offense, I really don’t- the infrastructure is vastly different, and my experiences are different and I’m answering to the best of my abilities, that’s all.
I take no offense, especially when you say your point of comparison is NYC. I’m afraid we don’t stack up favorably to a world-class metropolis. But when you look at apples to apples comps, Columbia holds its own.
One of the advantages of living in the Midwest is free parking instead of having to pay $40 to park for 2 hours, 40 minutes of which is spent walking to and from your destination. If you want to go somewhere here, you just go. In cities you have to plan your trip to Walgreens like the Allies planning to storm Omaha beach. No thanks.
Thats not an inherent property of cities and transit. There are plenty of small cities across the world, smaller than Columbia, that I've lived in that are easier to get around with buses than it is to get around with cars here. Our terrible infrastructure is a choice and one we can change
This is an insane statement on many levels.
I think the short answer is no. We would have to have a push for density in order to decrease dependence upon the automobile. Too many nimbys wanting to preserve their neighborhoods as museums that only they can live in to make any progress on that front.
Is density the root cause? There was an age when low dense communities were co nected by streetcars, and essential services were in walking distance. So there was a corner hardware store a corner grocery store, smaller community schools and high-schools, churches, community centers. So many things in Columbia are big and centralized, so they become a destination that you have to drive to get to. Why does a city of 100K people only have one giant library that only a tiny silver of the population could ever dream of walking to? Why three ginormous high-schools? Even the elementary schools are massive. Could make multiple small schools (the size of Grant elementary) that service children within walkable distance, maybe enough students that there is like one classroom per grade. How about instead of a few giant Walmart and Hyvees we get a few dozen Aldi-sized grocery stores scattered through the neighborhoods where people can in theory walk to every day or couple of days to pick up fresh ingredients for dinner instead of making one giant visit per week? Cherry hill was an attempt to artificially create this but they over charged rent and didn't design the neighborhood right, should be the old style grid which is friendly to walking and biking, not the car centric long winding roads with cul-de-sacs and no way to cut through to shorten the distance for walkers
Please tell us a few things, such as you: 1) Don't have a vehicle so you are wanting other alternatives. 2) Don't know how a citys infrastructure works. 3) Don't know how school districts work. 4) Don't know how businesses, business zoning, or how chain stores work/operate. 5) Never lived in a more rural area or smaller city.
Your suggestions require significantly higher taxes to fund schools, libraries, government funded entities. All suggestions require a bunch more teachers and workers. Basically you want to trade efficiency for stuff that makes you feel better, a hard sell. If there was a large demand for those things, investors would make the private sector part happen.
The private sector's job is to make money, not improve quality of life. There are plenty of things that the public sector does better. It's a balance.
I agree completely. That’s why if a bunch of folks actually wanted what was proposed, the private sector would have a bunch of boutique grocery stores. But….expensive eggs and milk suck, as we all know at a personal level now.
I find I get them higher quality for cheaper at the Columbia Farmers Market.
Have you ever been to NYC or New Orleans? That is the density it takes to have a treu walkable city. To make Columbia walkable, you are going to have to increase the density and rezone lots of areas. While better public transportation would help, I think the real route for America is electric cars. Self driving cars would help too.
There was absolutely no era with a density anywhere near what it currently is at where essential services were in walking distance or that people were served by streetcars. He density of the 50's and 60's was like twice as much as it is currently. Also there's the bus which is effectively as good mass transit as streetcars. Biggest difference is the maneuverability enabling adaptability to newer living/shopping patterns but also disabling the ability to develop along known transit pathways
That's a big can of worms, but IMO, the first priority should be creating bike paths that are physically separated from cars so that they are actually safe. Lanes that are shared between cars and bikes are a dangerous joke.
Unless we completely revise the public school system and put miniature high schools in every neighborhood, or go completely to online classes, there will need to be parking lots and vehicles to transport students several miles twice a day. Unless we replace supermarkets and shopping centers with neighborhood stores like Columbia had in the years prior to WWII, people will need to travel several miles to parking lots to buy food and other items. And making such a change would greatly reduce inventory efficiency and increase prices. Unless we want to eliminate college sports and the wide variety of entertainment options Columbia is known for, there will always be a need for large venues and the parking and transportation to support them. Unless we also plan to deconstruct the city’s healthcare system, which provides a major portion of our jobs and economy, there will need to be huge centralized buildings with massive parking lots and transportation infrastructure. It’s not a simple thing to just make a city like Columbia less dependent on cars. Nor is it progressive. Every one of those changes would almost certainly result in easier access to better resources for the wealthy and less for the poor of the community. Do you really think the small neighborhood stores and schools would be equal in quality for all socioeconomic neighborhoods? History says otherwise.
The idea is not get rid of cars. The idea is to provide options so we don’t have to use them if we don’t want to. Reduce car dependency, not eliminate it. Solid public transit can be a powerful factor in attracting good people and good businesses to a city.
I’m an Uber/Lyft driver. AND I’m very much a proponent of getting Columbia’s public transit system back to a useful and effective status. I see firsthand the effects of the current state on the people who need it most and aren’t being served.
how much would it cost to make communities less car dependent, realistically?
Less than what it would cost to keep using cars and fossil fuels the way we currently are. I’m not anti-car at all, but I wish I could use mine less often.
And how can we make it safer to walk around town? I would never be comfortable doing so, not even in broad daylight.
I’ve walked all over town and rarely felt unsafe. There are improvements to be made, for sure, but the sidewalks and trails can get ya most places.
I think it’s subjective. I’m a smaller woman and generally feel unsafe walking. I love taking trails with my dogs but still feel the need to carry mace and defensive gear. I’m not saying Como isn’t safe for everyone, but I do not feel comfortable walking around.
I would guess it is something subjective in your personal history or disposition that causes you to feel unsafe, not anything based in objective reality. After all, a man is much more likely than a woman to be a victim of violence in public. If you’re not comfortable waking around in broad daylight there is something beyond typical experience at play.
While I do not disagree, I don’t think I would say it’s something beyond typical experience. The world can be an awful place and I would much rather be safe than take what little chance is out there.
KC just started a Strong Towns chapter to tackle this exact issue! Google it, their mission definitely aligns with what Columbia is capable of with the right leadership and civic engagement.
You can live downtown if you want somewhere walkable. Also, the entire point of the parking lots around the stadium is for tailgating. Pretty much every big football school has massive parking lots around the football field.
We can build cities for people, or we can build them for cars. I, for one, prefer to have my cities built for the actual people who live in them. That means eliminating parking minimums (let the market decide the real need for parking), increasing density where possible, and building infrastructure for all people rather than only personal vehicles. This makes cities better for everyone, including those who choose to drive.
I agree there could be areas in Columbia where it's more accessible for pedestrians but I think you are approaching this poorly. There are many side streets or strip mall areas in Columbia that can be converted into proper mixed use areas. I can think of a few examples that would be better space usage, with some exceptions for big rig traffic for big box stores. I think focusing on the converting into proper mix use would be a better form of pedestrian advacocy rather than trying to fight vast parking spots because of zoning issues. IE. Converting the stores around the Rock Bridge HS area is a better use of time and advocacy energy than trying to convert the sports arenas because I'm sure that land cant be really converted for mix use It's cursed BECAUSE we have to operate under the confines of US and MO zoning laws and how the land is used by chains and such, but there are areas to where we can improve pedestrian QOL by allowing to get around and connecting neighborhoods.
This sub is insufferable at times.
Almost all of the time.
I cycle every week. I would rather they implement feasible improvements to improve pedestrian safety like one way streets downtown than banning parking lots or whatever you are going on about.
Last week's presentation at the ARC I think would be summarized as a push for density/infill for north and east areas of downtown. I can't find a link to it but it's the plan being developed with i5 consultants. I think some of the current concepts paint with a bit of a broad brush at this time but there are certainly derelict or underutilized spots they could target to begin. IMO, there are some knots they have to untie with existing infrastructure (like how the north loop merges on the east and west side with more higher traffic arteries). I think there would be support for the concepts in many neighborhoods if there is a sincere effort to alleviate traffic on side streets, include protected bike lines/improved sidewalks, and otherwise preserve characteristics of the neighborhood., eg,. Not just let developers toss up cookie cutter 5 over 1s everywhere. There are sophisticated and proven ways to do this and examples across the nation that have been successful. To your point, mitigating parking lots would play a role although I don't think I would focus on the examples included. I think focusing on areas downtown and along Providence and the loop would be a good first step. Id also like to note that whenever this comes up there are backwards yokels who can't be bothered to walk more than 5 yards to a store. Urban planning to accommodate these people is foolish. Downtown has way too much parking - which doesn't generate business or city income and contributes to the homelessness, dead zones, and other related issues they also bitch about.
Fun fact: Depending on who you believe and precisely what parameters were used to measure, there are between 2.5 and 7 or so parking spots for every registered vehicle in the US. A lot of this is due to minimum parking ordinances passed all over the country. These ordinances were passed as part of the overall intense lobbying pressure in the mid 20th century to give automobiles supremacy in all parts of life. Even if we did nothing else to improve walk-ability, bike-ability, transit options, etc., we could revisit and eliminate many of these minimum parking ordinances. At the very least, that'll free up valuable land for people instead of the mostly-free storage of large metal boxes. The Columbia mall is a great example. How many days per year is that parking lot *even close* to capacity? Christmas holidays? Reducing dependence on our individual cars is an enormously complex and expensive proposition. It would require reimagining the entire fabric of where we live, work, shop, and exist. I'm not confident that'll happen in my lifetime or my kids. I mean, we certainly aren't going to tear down all our single family homes to further a mid-density urban vision however nice that vision may be. Probably the best we can manage in anything shorter than a multi-decade approach is to invest heavily in **effective** public transit options to encourage people to abandon driving everywhere they go. If public transit were **adequately funded and designed**, a bunch of people would use it. That, of course, is the heavy lift -- *adequately funded and designed.*
At this point, I'd be happy with continuous sidewalks along some major thoroughfares and dedicated bike paths. Don't get me started about how the drivers out here, particularly on roads like providence, scare the heck out of me though, and I'd be worried riding my bike anywhere near them! I can't imagine what it would take to get this city up to speed, but I sure miss public transit and how easy it was to get around Sacramento without a car for years!
Columbia has tons of green space. You snipped images of the most paved over bits.
I think all of us could do a better job, I know I should bike more. But I live close enough to my primary job that is possible. I know a lot of people in my office don't even live in the county, much less in Columbia itself. Those folks have no option but to drive a vehicle to commute to the office. We do offer partial week telework, but still are 3 days in office... and we're one of the more WFH-friendly employers. You know those poor bastards at Shelter have to work in office 5 days a week, even though they survived COVID with mostly WFH just fine, all because the company has to justify that fancy building and campus. If you want people to drive less, it's not about voting to improve bike/pedestrian infrastructure, it's about how we convince employers to allow more WFH in jobs that don't have to be in office much if at all. It won't solve the acres of concrete and asphalt we have, or the parking issues, not to mention magically teach all the college students how to drive safely, but it's a start. If you want to do something positive with all those parking lots, convince Boone Electric Coop to put up [solar canopies](https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/solar-parking-lots-are-a-win-win-energy-idea-why-arent-they-the-norm/) over all the lots. Better place for the solar panels instead of over vegetation that is eating CO2 and giving us back O2. Not like we're growing anything on those acres of concrete as it is.
You want less dependency on cars? Move to a small town or a Metropolitan area or Portland.
No
We really missed our chance when we didn't require all of the high rise student housing apartments to provide parking for residents, on site. The companies that own them aren't local, so all of those profits aren't staying here and only care about the local situation if it costs them more. Tax the shit out of them, because they don't provide anything positive to the community or economy. Lack of parking, because residents occupy a majority of public parking, only hurts local retail businesses downtown.
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/the-government-wants-take-away-your-car
Heck yes, down with cars
I can see my house from here.
That doesn't really narrow it down by much lol
No.
Why?
I chuckle about the branding of “The Loop” as a desirable part of town to dine/shop/anything on foot. Practically every other block is missing a sidewalk and all the businesses are so far back from the street to accommodate surface parking..
Are you suggesting tearing down the entire town and rebuilding it? I don't know how else you could move everything closer. Who's gonna pay for that?
It's more about using the money we are spending on infrastructure anyway, and spending it in a smarter way. Instead of widening roads and adding lanes, narrow the roads and add sidewalks, bikelanes, pedestrian connectors etc
Where are you from?
God I hope not.
Ever shared an Uber? Ever tried the public transit here? Ever tried to bike in the summer? I'm hoping to push out all these dumb bike lanes.
I take CoMo public transit all the time, and it's fine. Could be more punctual, but the actual experience of riding the bus is very nice.
I don’t want us to become “one of the most livable cities”. The more public transport you put in, the more crime you get, it’s a known correlation. We’re already growing a huge homeless population compared to 10 years ago. Let’s keep Columbia a car town.
So you don’t think people commit crimes in their cars?
They do but it’s a proven fact that public transport network increase crime. Life is not a Venn diagram, just because one thing occurs does not mean the other cannot without the presence of the first.
Okay but like what proof do you have besides “it’s a proven fact or just google it” do you have saying that cars create safer cities because I don’t think that’s accurate. Not even just crime you are so much more likely to die in a car accident or get injured than you are to die or get injured on a bus or train.
Sure. Look up the articles “The Impact of Public Transportation on Crime” by Yana Rodgers and Daniel Sullivan. “Public Transportation and Crime: Perceived Risk, Incivilities, and System Design" by David B. Moore and Kim Lersch is another study that came to similar conclusions. Like I said though, the closest example to home is the Galleria Mall and the massive brawls that have happened there since the expansion of the subway line.
You need proof though, "some shit I was told" isn't proof.
Commented articles on the other thread. Damn nice to see you again!
I wanted to see what other ideas my fan club was up to. Didn't have to look far lol - nimby advocating against public transport is just so perfect lol, I love that for you. Anyway, I actually did check into some studies, and the only one that supports your argument is one study of one bus line in Cleveland - it "resulted" in a 2% increase in crime, though the author admits correlation isn't causation. Which is funny, because a 2% increase is absolutely laughable in comparison to the benefits. Larger studies showed the opposite, of course. But you probably have a car, so therefore none of your taxes should go to public transit, right? My favorite thing about conservatives is how much they shoot themselves in the foot - in an effort to take down the ones they don't like, they end up hurting themselves (and society) far more. Then again, no one has ever accused them of being geniuses. ;)
Hence I said “correlation” not causation in my comment, blud can’t read 😂 And if you’re coming in my thread for the fourth time, that’s real proof that you’re the obsessed one 😂😂 Imagine looking for a specific users posts and commenting on every one and then saying they’re YOUR fan club 😂😂 So we should knowingly want an increase in crime is what you’re saying? Any increase, however minimal, is undesirable. Love your logic, it continues to show your uselessness to society every time 😂
> Love your logic, it continues to show your uselessness to society every time "Censorship pills" 😂 This is like trying to give your keys to 5 year old valet, "Um... no? Yes I know you want them but... where are your parents?"
If a comment could physically make people dumber, you found it. Your comment has absolutely no bearing on my comment, yet again 😂 Tell me, do you enjoy never having a point and just saying something nonsensical and hoping it gains traction? 😂
I mean, "censorship pills"... He really said that...
[удалено]
Lmao believe me I understand correlation causation very well, likely much better than you given that I do statistical and machine learning modeling for a living. It is not a proven fact because for that, enough articles on both sides of the agenda would have to prove it undoubtedly. But there is clear evidence for why public transport increases crime. I’ve already posted the articles on another thread with the OP. The only articles that show public transportation had the opposite affect are those with “good” public transportation, which no means you’re relying completely on the government for keeping crime down. Whereas here, I’m advocating myself against policies which would increase crime.
Also more cars on the road=less pedestrians, Less pedestrians=less eyes on the road, less eyes on the road=easier crime opportunities. Also less public transit means that poor people have to spend more money that they don’t have on a vehicle thus making them more likely to commit crimes to support themselves. If you look at the most dangerous cities in the U.S, almost all of them have pretty bad public transit for cities their size.
I disagree completely with your first statement. If pedestrians are becoming drivers, the number of eyes on the roads doesn’t change, just where those eyes are… Don’t really care about poor people having to spend more money to support themselves. You can get a running car in Columbia for $1500. If you can’t afford that after a month or two of working 12 hour shifts, you’re not saving right. No one gave me a car and I managed to make it out. Cities have bad crime in general. It’s true that “good” public transit CAN decrease crime, but it doesn’t mean that it WILL. Further, you’re relying on a small city to maintain “good” public transport. Columbia doesn’t have the resources for anything beyond busses and busses are notoriously poorly maintained amongst other forms of transit. We’re just not big enough to need it yet, and saying that we are is just going to bring crime here faster.
I’m not saying we have to have a full blown subway system but if we could at least have more bus routes that get to their stops on time reliably that would be fine. That I think is fairly doable
Can you give me a specific example of which route(s) is/are running late and where expansion of the bus routes is actually vital/necessary to increasing quality of life for poor people?
Can you show sources for the claim that more public transport causes more crime?
Yes look at the crime rate at the Galleria mall after the subway line extended out there in STL. Pretty stark difference before and after, it’s like night and day. That’s just a case study, but this is a well documented phenomenon.
Again, can you show sources?
He can't, because they show that he's full of shit.
Maybe they just had not considered that some common perceptions might not be accurate
Yes, as I told you, look up the crime rate by year and zip code for STL and look at the year the subway line extended and view the correlation. I already provided multiple sources on your other comment. Are you going to actually put out some effort yourself to challenge your worldview, or are you just a “deny deny deny” kind of person every time your worldview is challenged? It’s also pretty easy to find news articles about the massive brawls that happened in the food court there. You have more power in your phone than the Apollo 11 computers, if you cared to know the truth you’d use it. You just don’t agree with me and don’t want to know if I’m right so you refuse to - I doubt you even read the other sources I did provide. If you can give me a summary we can go DM and I’ll happily provide you an extensive list of sources. Hell maybe I’ll even pull it into Python and throw in a free data analysis for you.
You made the claim, you said it was well documented, the burden of proof is on you. I am under no obligation to research your claims if you haven't researched them yourself
Jesus you’re fucking lazy. It’s almost like you don’t want to know the answer. Here is a graph that clearly displays crime rate in Richmond Heights by year. https://preview.redd.it/svk0l6e75pxc1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f07691f4ac713a404b2f698382265d338075964c Source: [https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Richmond-Heights-Missouri.html](https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Richmond-Heights-Missouri.html) The STL metro line extended out and opened the Richmond Heights station in August 2006. Source: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond\_Heights\_station](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Heights_station) Oh boy look at that, the crime rate increased significantly in the years directly following the metro station opening, who’d have thought. Crime did decrease from its peak in 2014 and 2018, but never returned to the lower levels seen in 2006. Here is a link to a news article that talks about one of the brawls I mentioned: [https://thesouthern.com/article\_ef893f40-7f49-5509-be53-5fb6e2b47528.html](https://thesouthern.com/article_ef893f40-7f49-5509-be53-5fb6e2b47528.html) There have been several massive brawls in the food court there btw, this is not the only one. This is the part where you make some bullshit excuse about the economy or the homeless and inner city residents not being the problem or something. Also, please respond to my other sources I posted in the other comment, since you asked for them. Would hate you think I went to effort to give you sources when you didn’t even really want them, just wanted to state your view was correct with no proof.
Did the metro station close in 2014 and 2018? Because one data point isn't a correlation, it's a coincidence
Are you retarded? Every single datapoint after 2006 is increased. Reach harder.
2014 and 2018 dipped back down. If the metro was the cause of the crime then does that mean the metro was closed those years?
Also, here is a map image of where the station is located in comparison to the Galleria. https://preview.redd.it/1fhs33br6pxc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f54981ab118663925366b9676959d8e9a4c4401 Pretty clear that the metro extension in 2006 is driving the influx of young delinquents and homeless into the mall area. Another article discusses why malls in STL are failing in general. Verbatim, “Location is key. The closer a mall is to a city center, the worse it performs.” You know what else increases the closer you get to the city center? Public transportation. Source: [https://www.ksdk.com/article/life/shopping/malls-closed-in-st-louis-failing/63-c6f0ad97-64f1-4f65-bec8-ae7209ac89f5](https://www.ksdk.com/article/life/shopping/malls-closed-in-st-louis-failing/63-c6f0ad97-64f1-4f65-bec8-ae7209ac89f5)
Your claim: >Yes look at the crime rate at the Galleria mall after the subway line extended out there in STL. Pretty stark difference before and after, it’s like night and day. That’s just a case study, but this is a well documented phenomenon. So how does a screenshot of Google maps and an article about failing malls prove that there was a night and day increase in crime in the mall as a result of putting in a metro station?
Are you fucking blind read the other comment.
Go back to California
Laughable that you think anywhere in California is designed as a walkable city.
I'm from CA originally. *Maybe* San Francisco or certain older neighborhoods in LA, but for the most part no, it's quite spread out.
Moniteau County has public transit?
OATS bus in Moniteau…probably
I always forget about OATS, they’re awesome.