U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,013,856 times
Reputation: 2334

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Sux View Post
You just dont have this to the degree that would make commuter rail viable. Yes, there is an employment concentration downtown but is it enough to make sense for commuter rail? To the point that the pain and cost of parking makes commuting downtown by car unviable.
Hi Dayton Sux--

The only way I could see a local commuter rail working is if the residential population within a three mile radius of downtown drastically increased - tripled or more, with a lot of those residents working either on the riverfront or perhaps near UC or the hospitals. Otherwise the density (or lack thereof) will never justify commuter rail or indeed any kind of transit beyond buses.

A scaled down version of MetroMoves (covering downtown, stretching north to UC, possibly Xavier or the zoo, east to Mt. Adams, and south to include Covington and Newport - I'm imagining to 12th St. or so in both cases) could possibly work, and cost less than the 2002 proposal. Plus since it would cross state lines it would have a better chance of getting federal funding.

Alternatively, toss the 'hub and spoke' system of mass transit in favor of several smaller regional hubs - with main lines going from hub to hub, and then local ones serving that neighborhood. If the cost (and lack of ridership) doesn't justify using a big ole bus, then use a van instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2013, 09:50 AM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,519,844 times
Reputation: 687
I think you guys don't realize just how dispersed population and jobs are in many regions where commuter rail is not only viable but very well used.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,576 posts, read 2,303,405 times
Reputation: 651
Hmm Albuquerque to Santa Fe seems to be doing alright. Salt Lake City system is doing well. The Nashville is the only one that i heard of is not doing so great.

Those above metro's don't have the density of Cincinnati and Dayton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:05 AM
 
864 posts, read 1,197,019 times
Reputation: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
A scaled down version of MetroMoves (covering downtown, stretching north to UC, possibly Xavier or the zoo, east to Mt. Adams, and south to include Covington and Newport - I'm imagining to 12th St. or so in both cases) could possibly work, and cost less than the 2002 proposal. Plus since it would cross state lines it would have a better chance of getting federal funding.
I agree with this strategy. That's why I think the streetcar is a good first step toward achieving this goal.

Also, I have always thought that a hub system, one downtown and the other uptown, would be a good plan. I think metro is currently being reorganized in line with this idea as well. They just built the West side transit hub a couple years ago and they will begin the uptown transit district soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati near
2,509 posts, read 3,353,735 times
Reputation: 5610
The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.

The root of the problem (from a rail supporter's perspective) is that housing in general is way too cheap. You don't have to pay any kind of appreciable premium to live within a mile of anything. Sure, certain streets are desirable, but you can generally find cheap housing within a mile (often a quarter mile) of any destination in the city. This is changing a bit with the rise of the riverfront and the development of OTR, but until you can't find 1 bedroom apartments for less than $1000 within a mile of downtown, the transit demand won't spike. Middle class people that want to be downtown can simply afford to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,576 posts, read 2,303,405 times
Reputation: 651
^Transit is not just for workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,013,856 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy View Post
The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.
Hi Chemistry_Guy--

When I read this first paragraph, I thought you were going to go after the low opinion that many in the middle class have of mass transit (quality of service, convenience, clientele, etc.) instead of the housing stock. Some of it's perceived, some of it's reality and both would need to be addressed if you wanted to increase the popularity of any mass transit.

Which I would argue is a bigger issue because housing prices aren't going to appreciate that drastically in the city (drastically enough that living in the city is unaffordable for middle-class) unless the population doubled or more.

In essence, changing public opinion of Metro is far easier than (and could arguably facilitate) population growth in the city on the scale you'd need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:53 AM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,519,844 times
Reputation: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy View Post
The problem is not the dispersion it is the demographics. In order to "work" without subsidy rail transit needs to be something the middle half of the income scale wants to adopt.

The root of the problem (from a rail supporter's perspective) is that housing in general is way too cheap. You don't have to pay any kind of appreciable premium to live within a mile of anything. Sure, certain streets are desirable, but you can generally find cheap housing within a mile (often a quarter mile) of any destination in the city. This is changing a bit with the rise of the riverfront and the development of OTR, but until you can't find 1 bedroom apartments for less than $1000 within a mile of downtown, the transit demand won't spike. Middle class people that want to be downtown can simply afford to live there.
1) I don't see why anyone would expect rail to operate without subsidy, when every other mode, from planes to cars to pedestrians, requires a significant subsidy.

2) If people were interested in living within a mile of X (presumably their job in most cases), roads would not be nearly so congested. This bizarre argument could equally well be used to argue that people will not drive.

Another thing you guys miss is that land development patterns are influenced by available transportation options. Density develops around rail stations because there is rail access. While a certain threshold of density is required to make rail viable, rail can and will increase that density when it is implemented, creating a virtuous cycle of development which makes the rail more useful to more people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,829,385 times
Reputation: 924
Having transit from the suburbs into downtown in Cincinnati would be a win/win. It would give people an alternative to driving, decrease commuter congestion, encourage development along transit lines, and increase density along stops. Why people in Cincinnati do not get that is beyond me. Coming from NYC, where I depended on the subway, Metro North, and LIRR for years, is a no brainer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 11:12 AM
 
2,886 posts, read 3,952,248 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomJones123 View Post
Having transit from the suburbs into downtown in Cincinnati would be a win/win. It would give people an alternative to driving, decrease commuter congestion, encourage development along transit lines, and increase density along stops. Why people in Cincinnati do not get that is beyond me. Coming from NYC, where I depended on the subway, Metro North, and LIRR for years, is a no brainer.
We do have some suburban park and ride locations, but we certainly could use more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top