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.
As much as I agree on the kinship between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, and would definitely use that train, the 3 C corridor makes more sense.
The thing is, Ohio doesn't have toll roads between their bigger cities, and the vast majority of people have cars, and its also pretty damn easy to park in their cities. All of those things add up to very few train riders.
Wow, those tolls then would really make the train ride attractive. Did the current Ohio governor take any kind of stance on mass transit?
I'm not sure what Mike DeWine's stance on mass transit is, but I'll put it like this. Southwest Ohio is the least transit friendly part of a state that allocates a minuscule amount of money toward train transit (Cleveland's RTA is almost fully funded through a county-wide 1 percent sales tax). DeWine is from Southwest Ohio, and both the Ohio house and senate is dominated by Republicans with the rural representatives wielding way more power than those from the urban areas. With Northeast Ohio being the historically heavily Democrat leaning portion of Ohio, no way the Republicans would give even a penny to something that would connect a Democratic area of Ohio to Pennsylvania. So, barring a complete shift in power at the state level, any sort of realistic commuter train transit linking Cleveland and Pittsburgh is unlikely.
But I agree, with train service that offers close to the same commute as driving, I don't see why people wouldn't pony up and take it. You're paying $30-plus round trip in tolls and another $30 in gas to drive it anyway.
As much as I agree on the kinship between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, and would definitely use that train, the 3 C corridor makes more sense.
Don't get me wrong because I was completely in favor of the 3C project, but it actually doesn't make as much sense as a Cleveland to Pittsburgh route. Ohio spent billions about 15 to 20 years ago to widen I-71 to at least three lanes all the way from Cleveland to Cincinnati. That extra lane has definitely made the commutes between the cities easier. It could get brutal with accidents when most of the stretches were only two lanes on what is a heavily trafficked highway.
At the same time, IMO, if the state was really smart, it would've used the money it did on the widening I-71 and allocated that toward the 3C and other rail projects to begin with. Then, there wouldn't have been a need to widen I-71 through the rural areas between the Cs because the train traffic would've eased congestion.
I'm actually at the point of not even trying to think any statewide/multi-state train transit expansions will ever happen in Ohio, just way too much backward thinking in the state government. The best thing to hope for would be that Cleveland can make its local RTA train transit profitable (the anti-train people only view it as something that should be ran strictly like a business). Since it's funded on a sales tax and the population in Cuyahoga County has been declining, of course less money had been coming in. However, I read on another forum where somebody in the know about Cleveland-area transit that RTA's share of the sales tax has risen pretty significantly in the past year, which is a sign that the county may be seeing population growth (on top of more people spending money in the county). Increased revenues could help expand the local system ... and maybe, several years/decades down the road, the other neighboring counties want to pony up with their own sales tax to link in with Cleveland's train service. It's a pipedream, though.
Well they might add up to about 30K riders per year , doubtful any more than that, if the Pennsylvanian was extended to Cleveland. I'd be for it, but I don't see it happening and I just don't see any scenario of Ohio ponying up any significant money to do it. And I don't see Amtrak pushing for it either.
30K riders per year seems like it'd be an extremely conservative estimate given that Union Station in Pittsburgh currently says 140K something passengers a year while having the vast majority of the ridership of that be from the single Pennsylvanian (as the Capitol Limited comes in and out of Union Station with a fairly unusable schedule). This is with no significantly large population center along the Pennsylvanian in close commute to Union Station and through tracks that wind quite a bit.
Cleveland-Pittsburgh is comparatively in a very different and more favorable situation where both Cleveland and Pittsburgh are fairly sizable, the both have inner city transit systems, the current and previous train run times between the two on existing rail even without substantial improvement have clocked in comparable travel times, and there are significant population centers compared to the same distance for the current Pennsylvanian run that can add larger ridership numbers than the Central and Western PA stops along the way to Pittsburgh for the current Pennsylvanian. And recall that PA Senate's resolution is to study three round trip runs a day. A single round-trip run extended to Cleveland should net far more than 30K riders per year, but three should be even more as this also provides people with flexibility on their departures and returns.
Amtrak won't push it for it in terms of giving it national funding--that's reserved for routes over 750 miles and the Pennsylvanian will only hit that, with reasonable terminal stops, if PA tries to push for a route to Chicago which is under consideration with the PA Senate resolution. It's understandable that politically Ohio currently will be unlikely to push for it, but it's not impossible as the time table is very competitive and if PA is willing to fund its portion of the run, then Ohio doesn't need to actually fund all that much to make the rest of the way to Cleveland.
The political pendulum can swing towards rail in the meantime as passenger rail development in the US in the last few decades generally takes quite a while. Recall that the Hartford Line in Connecticut commenced its study in 2005 and didn't commence service until 2018. Of course, there was quite a bit of waiting and most notably didn't really get very far aside from studies until a series of governors rejected stimulus funding for rail (notably Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio). And though the submitted plans and studies for the rejected lines were deemed of greater value than the Hartford Line, the Hartford Line was sufficiently good to field with some of the rejected funds rather than warm the bench and its debut has been marked by much higher than expected ridership. I think it's important to at least get the studies and projections, and if the projections look reasonable which they almost certainly will be, the push for it now so that if there is a sufficient change in political will for it, then the plan can quickly be acted upon.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-24-2019 at 05:23 PM..
I know there have been multiple GDP posts on here, but I wanted to look at a different aspect, and one I don't recall seeing on here (at least for the latest numbers). That is breaking down the GDP change by metro since 2015 per person.
I charted this for every metro, but will only focus on the ones with 1 million people or more. Here is how each ranks in how much current dollar GDP they've gained per person since 2015 (using estimates from the census bureau for population).
1. San Jose - $17,488 (2015 GDP was 237.832 in billions, population was 1.977 million; 2017 GDP was 275.293, population was 1.999 million)
2. San Francisco - $10,356
3. Seattle - $7,148
4. Austin - $6,427
5. Nashville - $5,874
6. Los Angeles - $5,357
7. Boston - $5,339
8. San Diego - $5,085
9. Indianapolis - $5,077
10. Cleveland - $5,026
11. Pittsburgh - $4,976
12. Charlotte - $4,729
13. Atlanta - $4,557
14. New York - $4,474
15. Chicago - $4,437
16. Baltimore - $4,431
17. Portland - $4,169
18. Detroit - $4,107
19. Cincinnati - $4,035
20. Philadelphia - $3,986
21. San Antonio - $3,916
22. Salt Lake City - $3,876
23. Milwaukee - $3,865
24. Denver - $3,744
25. Miami - $3,621
26. Minneapolis - $3,521
27. Columbus - $3,402
28. Richmond - $3,400
29. Jacksonville - $3,344
30. Dallas - $3,099
31. Sacramento - $3,093
32. Grand Rapids - $2,991
33. Raleigh - $2,852
34. Buffalo - $2,805
35. Washington D.C. - $2,782
36. Phoenix - $2,675
37. Birmingham - $2,619
38. Louisville - $2,576
39. Providence - $2,481
40. Riverside - $2,266
41. St. Louis - $2,080
42. Virginia Beach - $1,925
43. Tucson - $1,877
44. Las Vegas - $1,865
45. Tampa - $1,743
46. Rochester (N.Y). - $1,688
47. Orlando - $1,307
48. Kansas City - $1,257
49. Oklahoma City - $832
50. New Orleans - (-)$230
51. Memphis - (-)$1,217
52. Houston - (-)$3,150
To be transparent, I chose 2015 (3-year data) because that is when Cleveland's economy started to take off. Still, I think measuring GDP growth per person, while not the end all, still is probably a better indicator of economic strength than strictly just looking at total gains (and not taking population growth into account).
With that, some of my thoughts (I went into this not knowing what to expect):
1. California's big metros are killing it, especially the Bay Area. They are all seeing population growth, but the GDP is still outpacing that, especially at the top (San Diego was a surprise for me).
2. Austin and Nashville deserve their accolades. Like the California metros, they are booming in population and booming in GDP per person as well.
3. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are coming back (and Indianapolis, while seeing solid growth, is also looking very good). For Cleveland and Pittsburgh, though, these two legacy, rust-belt metros are seeing significant economic growth despite being flat in population gain. Both also offer top-10 amenities, solid wages and low costs of living.
4. All the large metros have gained in GDP and most are keeping up with their populations, in varying degrees.
5. Of the three net-negative metros, Houston is an anomaly because it always has been a boom or bust economy, and it's still seeing an insane amount of population growth. New Orleans still has a lot going for it in that it is such an unique area that will always have its draw (barring another Katrina). Memphis, though, seems like it's in trouble seeing that it doesn't have as much legacy draw and it now is directly competing with the booming Nashville a couple hours away.
I plan on updating this when the 2018 numbers come out, so it will be interesting to see what kind of shifting takes place.
Linking your source or sources would have been nice.
As much as I agree on the kinship between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, and would definitely use that train, the 3 C corridor makes more sense.
Both of them make sense and would essentially amplify each other as a network and can especially help businesses near the Cleveland stop and downtown Cleveland in general if done well.
1. California's big metros are killing it, especially the Bay Area. They are all seeing population growth, but the GDP is still outpacing that, especially at the top (San Diego was a surprise for me).
San Diego will always be overlooked in a state that has LA and SF. If San Diego was in a separate state, it would be more recognizable. The regional population is close to Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis, all of which are more prominent because they are isolated from other big metros.
San Diego definitely holds its own in terms or industry, trade, innovation, etc. Frankly, I'm surprised it isn't top 5.
I know there have been multiple GDP posts on here, but I wanted to look at a different aspect, and one I don't recall seeing on here (at least for the latest numbers). That is breaking down the GDP change by metro since 2015 per person.
I charted this for every metro, but will only focus on the ones with 1 million people or more. Here is how each ranks in how much current dollar GDP they've gained per person since 2015 (using estimates from the census bureau for population).
1. San Jose - $17,488 (2015 GDP was 237.832 in billions, population was 1.977 million; 2017 GDP was 275.293, population was 1.999 million)
2. San Francisco - $10,356
Ugh. Anything to build up this country but I want Bay Area wealth generation to spread out FAAARRRRR away from here now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNBC
San Francisco, already flush with cash, is about to get a new influx of millionaires
Sara Salinas | @saracsalinas
Published 12:59 PM ET Sun, 10 Feb 2019
Uber, Lyft, Slack and Postmates have all said that a public market debut is coming, and other big San Francisco companies are in the pipeline.
Unlike previous eras, this generation of IPOs is in the city, not Silicon Valley.
Prices are already sky-high in San Francisco, and many investors are turning their attention elsewhere...
This is getting out of hand. For the sake of our sanity I think it's time billion-dollar start ups were sent somewhere else like oh I dunno, Chicago? A gorgeous international city that any techie/hipster would love. Or what about Austin? Research Triangle? Nashville? DMV?
ATL? etc. Far away from Norcal but not Seattle because its gotten out of hand up there too. The Bay Area is actually suffering as a result of all this 'success'.
Im tired of story after story of people I care about being priced out and having to move away. Im tired of people earning $200,000+ a year 'struggling to survive' in SF. At some point it's not worth it.
This is getting out of hand. For the sake of our sanity I think it's time billion-dollar start ups were sent somewhere else like oh I dunno, Chicago? A gorgeous international city that any techie/hipster would love. Or what about Austin? Research Triangle? Nashville? DMV?
ATL? etc. Far away from Norcal but not Seattle because its gotten out of hand up there too. The Bay Area is actually suffering as a result of all this 'success'.
Im tired of story after story of people I care about being priced out and having to move away. Im tired of people earning $200,000+ a year 'struggling to survive' in SF. At some point it's not worth it.
Rant over.
Oh please, you’ve spent years cheerleading this. This is fine. Who could you possibly care about if they aren’t ultra HNWIs?
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.
