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.
It's still a pretty good idea now. Too bad it wasn't actually done then as it had pretty high projected ridership and was to have been completed by 2012. It's sad because one of the main rallying cries against the train was that its average speed of 39 mph including stops was going to be slower than driving according to preliminary projections for the lowest budget investment.
As one of the main rallying cries for Kasich's campaign was that the train was too slow and he was going to kill it, it did not matter that after the drill down study found that the lowest budget investment actually was going to run at 50 mph average speed including stops and 79 mph for certain segments nor that even the faster initial speed was supposed to just be the start for gradually increasing the speed as ridership numbers actually coming in. You'd think if the main criticism was that it was too slow, then seeing that the initial projections were off and the train was to be much faster should have caused some reconsideration, no?
It's still a pretty good idea now. Too bad it wasn't actually done then as it had pretty high projected ridership and was to have been completed by 2012. It's sad because one of the main rallying cries against the train was that its average speed of 39 mph including stops was going to be slower than driving according to preliminary projections for the lowest budget investment.
As one of the main rallying cries for Kasich's campaign was that the train was too slow and he was going to kill it, it did not matter that after the drill down study found that the lowest budget investment actually was going to run at 50 mph average speed including stops and 79 mph for certain segments nor that even the faster initial speed was supposed to just be the start for gradually increasing the speed as ridership numbers actually coming in. You'd think if the main criticism was that it was too slow, then seeing that the initial projections were off and the train was to be much faster should have caused some reconsideration, no?
If it can go that fast, it would probably be cool. But would it really be that useful? I'm asking this in good will, I don't know. At least when I lived in Ohio, people of course went from Cleveland to Columbus, but not really all that frequently.
If it can go that fast, it would probably be cool. But would it really be that useful? I'm asking this in good will, I don't know. At least when I lived in Ohio, people of course went from Cleveland to Columbus, but not really all that frequently.
Well, it didn't happen so it's hard to tell. The ridership projections for 2012 made in 2009 were initially 478,000 per year though that's of course for all destination pairings and not solely for end to end travel. When they made the projections it was based on then current conditions which was not exactly a great economy at the time and the reason it was approved among many other competing projects was that the projected cost benefit ratio of this line was among the best out of proposals made. For example, the Hartford Line which didn't make the initial cut but then got funds put towards it after Florida rejected the funds for its plans, opened and met its annual projections within the first couple months of operations despite not having built all the stations, so projections can be pretty off but not necessarily in a totally bad way--though there are certainly complaints now about the Hartford Line involving packed cars at certain times and having to wait a while for the next train. Part of the high cost benefit ratio was that the 3C line had a lot of existing trackage, including to the actual downtown destinations, right-of-way, railyards, signals, sidings, as well as everything running within a single state.
The projections now probably have a decent chance of being higher now than then as all three C's have gone on a tear when it comes to downtown development and residential growth which is where their stations were to be located and that was not the case when federal funding was first awarded. Meanwhile, many of the universities that would have been served and were likely to be a contributor to a substantial proportion of ridership have seen their enrollment go up and rideshare services are now ubiquitous which would have solved last mile issues for some people whereas rideshare was practically non-existent back then.
Unfortunately, now construction costs are up quite a bit from back then and some of the freight railroads that own the tracks have petitioned to allow downgrading parts of the route that was going to be used for this, so if they're successful, then that means starting this back up is likely to be substantially more expensive now and the we'll have eaten the opportunity cost of having had the line for years already as a development and regional business driver had this already been in place. On the converse side, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which was one of the major stops, had United dehub from it in 2014 and is only this year nearing its 2009 passenger numbers so that might have negatively affected ridership.
To me, this looks like a large missed opportunity. Not that it can't work now, but it would have certainly been a better bet to have created it back then. It seems like it was bet on the idea that Ohio's major downtowns weren't going to do very well so this would have been a waste of money. I think it's also an emblematic case of politics getting in the way of rational progress with Kasich sticking to his guns even when the context has changed. The initial time table projections were arguably a decent case to be made for this being a poor spending choice for federal funds because the rail was going to be too slow. That was already an arguable point because this was supposed to just be the starter line's speed and that it was quite possible that some people might still opt for a longer train ride over a car ride. The arguments that ridership levels were going to be lower than projected also hinged on that time table and the service being too slow. However, when a more exhaustive study had finished, and after Kasich had already won the governorship but before federal funds were pulled, found that the much more competitive 50 miles per hour average including all stops was actually what was feasible for the starter line budget and construction schedule, then there was the opportunity to revisit that position. However, Kasich had staked that out as his hill to die on and there was politically no way he was going to backtrack even if the criticisms levied against the line had changed.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-01-2018 at 03:05 PM..
Which is why voting for DeWine will make things EVEN WORSE for all things transit or passenger rail in this state, which funds mass transit worse than practically every other state -- even rural states -- despite the presence of many major and significant cities -- including Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus, and the fact that these 3 are not connected by passenger rail or that Cleveland has a substantial transit network, including rail rapid transit. ... and Kasich was "moderate" and, yet, he still killed the 3-Cs rail project...
... At least Kasich despises Trump. DeWine would be a typical Trumpite lackey, which is why it is imperative for progressives to get out the vote for Cordray. DeWine will only send the State further into the Dark Ages.
Cleveland is more diverse and up n coming. Detroit is dead
Detroit is hardly dead. Dan Gilbert, among others, are dumping zillions into downtown and many close in neighborhoods like Midtown and New Center. And a number of solid old neighborhoods have stabilized and are attracting some new retail and residents... Granted there's a lot of work to do in a number of distressed neighborhoods (in both Cleveland and Detroit), but Detroit is hardly dead; not by a long shot.
Detroit is hardly dead. Dan Gilbert, among others, are dumping zillions into downtown and many close in neighborhoods like Midtown and New Center. And a number of solid old neighborhoods have stabilized and are attracting some new retail and residents... Granted there's a lot of work to do in a number of distressed neighborhoods (in both Cleveland and Detroit), but Detroit is hardly dead; not by a long shot.
Yup. I got several friends I went to school with making money in the neighborhoods in and around downtown with bars & restaurants, and in real estate. I never thought I’d see the day. It’s still just pockets and has a long way to go, but you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately the city as a whole will probably never come back to where it was when my parents were kids there in the 1950’s, but this can be said for many places, probably true for Cleveland too.
It’s still great to see. I spent a good portion of my summers there visiting family while growing up, and chose to go to college in the area. I will say the bickering amongst posters here is kinda silly. I get it’s different states, and there’s the whole pro sports and college rivalries, but you should rally together as a region. Many people I know in San Diego from all the Great Lakes states will look at each other like they’re one in the same, state lines don’t mean much. That’s thrown out the window when there’s a game on though, lol. Maybe you need to leave first to appreciate the people around you. I don’t know, just a thought.
Yup. I got several friends I went to school with making money in the neighborhoods in and around downtown with bars & restaurants, and in real estate. I never thought I’d see the day. It’s still just pockets and has a long way to go, but you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately the city as a whole will probably never come back to where it was when my parents were kids there in the 1950’s, but this can be said for many places, probably true for Cleveland too.
It’s still great to see. I spent a good portion of my summers there visiting family while growing up, and chose to go to college in the area. I will say the bickering amongst posters here is kinda silly. I get it’s different states, and there’s the whole pro sports and college rivalries, but you should rally together as a region. Many people I know in San Diego from all the Great Lakes states will look at each other like they’re one in the same, state lines don’t mean much. That’s thrown out the window when there’s a game on though, lol. Maybe you need to leave first to appreciate the people around you. I don’t know, just a thought.
Never is a long time. I think there's room for optimism in the long run given Detroit's ample water supply, border crossing with a developed country, historic buildings and institutions, and lack of natural disasters. I'm hoping Detroit makes a lot of greenspace now that some of its neighborhoods are depopulated and then concentrate development in those areas not reserved for greenspace and try out some transit-oriented development with better transit than a streetcar line.
Never is a long time. I think there's room for optimism in the long run given Detroit's ample water supply, border crossing with a developed country, historic buildings and institutions, and lack of natural disasters. I'm hoping Detroit makes a lot of greenspace now that some of its neighborhoods are depopulated and then concentrate development in those areas not reserved for greenspace and try out some transit-oriented development with better transit than a streetcar line.
Yes never is a long time. Maybe I should of said anyone that is posting here, or even their children’s lifetime. Do you realistically see them adding over 1 million people within it’s city limits? Also leveling abandoned houses is one thing, leveling old factories several blocks long and the environmental cleanup involved is another.
I’m optimistic, but realistic. The city is just too big, and the metro area has grown too much to see that many people move back into the city. The region will never be that desirable to the masses. The water argument that so many think will be the calling card will be irrelevant soon enough. Water is a renewable resource. With recycling and desalinization, two things already happening, water issues will go away for many areas. Yeah maybe for small desert towns, but not big cities with money and definitely not coastal cities. It’s still a great place and shouldn’t be overlooked by those looking to escaspe expensive areas.
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.
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.
