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.
And yes, the Feds have sent the money to California so that they can bull full-speed ahead with their high speed rails. Remind me how many tens of billions of $ that will cost? What's the first segment of the line? Fresno to Bakersfield?
I will never fully understand what fascination people have with trains, but George Will, a while back, did:
I don't know if you are trolling now, but it only will banned funding for a year(or until the next bill cycle) and it will not take away funding that's already been allocated. If it passed which it has not been signed yet. It will not take money away from the project.
I freely admit that we spend tons more on our road network than we do on rails - because that's what people use to go places. Although I admit it's partly a self-fulling prophecy - build it and they will usually come - in this economy, with budgets as tight as they are, there are far more pressing transportation needs. And it's imperative that what little money is available goes to the right places. In this case, the 1,000,000+ residents of Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties take some precedence over the 10,000 in OTR from a regional perspective.
Hi WRosado--
That's George Will's fault, not mine in particular. Although the overwhelming majority (read: I haven't met a single person to the contrary - please prove me wrong) of staunch advocates for public transportation are well to the left of center, and often include many self-described 'progressives'.
Hi WRosado--
I bought it up because it's $100 million that the City of Cincinnati is wasting on a terrible boondoggle that could have instead been spent towards other, much more pressing transportation needs. Consequently, it formed a cornerstone of my own 'Fix the Cincinnati Transit Solution' which was in the other thread.
You brought it up and it has no relevance to this thread. And now you want to shy away from it and try to sway the subject back to Cincinnati/Dayton? You continue to call it a boondoggle and you show your extreme ignorance on the subject. I have been lucky at a young age to travel over most of this country and plenty of other nations around the world, what do you know about rail, and what are you experiences with rail? That's a serious question. For instance, I can tell you in Auckland, New Zealand, everyone complained of the traffic problems and the city was having trouble finding money to reduce congestion and figure out how to spend billions expanding the road system. Yet around their rail, they saw heavy investments and developments in the city center and around the rail stations, traffic congestion was not nearly as bad as areas without it. I was in Perth, Australia and I had to find a video of what I experienced. I was riding the train along the Kwinana Freeway and people pointed out they were glad they were not stuck in that, look over and we were flying past the cars. Rail has been successful in just about every single place I have been to. I even pointed out the Gautrain, though, was a mess between Johannesburg and Pretoria. That is South Africa though, and if you have been there, you know they can barely do anything right unless it is Sandton. Everywhere else, rail has its benefits and millions use it. I have rail here in Cleveland, and my car has sat in the driveway for weeks. So in your little world of Cincinnati, you can see there is this narrow minded view of anything new, but yet it has been so successful elsewhere not only in this country, but around the world. Imagine that. Get out a little, open your mind to new ideas, it's amazing how great things can be.
Video of what I experienced in Perth, Western Australia:
Sorry, but don't the suburbs of both Cincinnati and Dayton act as if the urban areas themselves do not exist?
Ohio is an interesting state as we have several large metro areas and they are all counted separately. Cleveland and Akron are counted as the same CSA, but separate MSAs. Even if you added Cleveland, Akron, Canton into the same MSA, it would still be a much smaller area than other MSA's like Pittsburgh or St. Louis, but more populated. Say Cleveland, Akron, Canton (the I-77 corridor) were one MSA, it would have over 3.2 million people. Same goes for Cincinnati, Dayton, Springfield. If combined, they would have almost 3.5 million people, but still be than places St. Louis or Kansas City.
Somehow I missed something here. On the one hand you are saying the cities and their own suburbs are at odds. Then your say regardless the combined MSAs would still be smaller than other areas so why bother? What is your point?
Dayton has had some substantial business loses, but the merto as a whole seems to just keep rumbling on. So maybe the core city as the do or die for the whole metro may not be what it has been cracked up to be? I think we all desire a strong central core for what it brings to the entire city and its suburbs. But to say the metro cannot exist without the city I do not believe that. Just look at the distribution of jobs and that should be enough to convince you.
As for me - I just won't live inside of Cincinnati's city limits. I won't pay those taxes, and I won't subsidize those boondoggles.
If you don't/won't live in Cincinnati, with all due respect, butt out on the streetcar. The non-resident opposition, hate and vitriol for this project has been nothing sort of oppressive and, frankly, I'm fed up with it. The streetcar passed two - TWO! - votes in the City of Cincinnati, it is supported by residents, businesses and the overwhelming majority of City Council. In addition, the silly Chabot measure in the House won't do a single thing to stop the current construction of the streetcar. That money is already spoken for.
And this current riverfont-to-Findlay Market line is only the beginning. Future lines will travel up to UC/hospitals/zoo, to Walnut Hills and possibly to Xavier. When NYC's subway first became operational, did it immediately blanket the city or did it begin more modestly? Here's a hint: It served much less of an area than what the first Cincinnati streetcar route will serve. And, frankly, if Gov. Kasich didn't steal the money already promised to this project from the state, the initial line would go up to UC. So we're supposed to let one agenda-driven maniac of a governor who's in bed with the asphalt industry derail our city's rail vision entirely? No way, bub.
I suggest streetcar naysayers move onto something else because this is happening. You're only going to frustrate yourself by continuing to obsess on something you have no way to stop.
But if I lived anywhere else in Cincinnati - Mount Adams, the West End, CUF, California - I would be incensed that $100 million of my tax dollars were going to something that I never would use anyway. And the streetcar might stop 'directly over' the Riverfront Transit Center, but it doesn't stop in it - and neither does Metro, TANK, or the failed Issue 7 a while back (which in any case was completely redundant with currently-existing bus lines).
I will never use your stupid highway expansions, so I don't wan't any of my tax money used on them. But it happens, that's life. Sucks doesn't it.
And if people are too lazy to walk up a set of stairs from the Transit Center to the streetcar stop, then they have bigger problems than a streetcar system.
Quote:
If what you say is true then maybe OTR is starting to recover from what happened a decade ago. But I remember as recently as 2007-2008 when I was in college I wouldn't ever go there, much less at night, without 'two guns, a baggie of weed, and a gang' (a friend's words back in the day). So, if OTR can gets its collective act together, bring back some decent business and complement the downtown area, then I'm all for it.
Well, you are clearly out of touch then on what is happening in downtown and Over-the-Rhine. So please don't say that the streetcar doesn't go anywhere, because that is clearly NOT the case, and you don't have a clue. Just to reiterate, here is the list again: Smale riverfront park, Great American Ball Park, Paul Brown Stadium, US Bank Arena, the Banks, the Riverfront Transit Center, the Contemporary Arts Center, Fountain Square, the Cincinnati Public Library, the Aronoff Center, the Casino, SCPA, Washington Park, Music Hall, Findley Market, 6 Fortune 500 companies, and dozens of restaurants.
Again, as others have said, this bill that Chabot is trying to push through will not affect the funding the streetcar already has, and the current streetcar construction will need be impacted in any way. All it means is that we won't get any more money to expand the system for two years. Big whoop. It's not going to pass anyways.
I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate. I have never voted for a Democrat and probably never will. I just know what works and what doesn't. Highways are a huge waste of money. They may be cheaper to build than rail systems initially, but it costs MUCH more to maintain highways than rail systems.
If what you say is true then maybe OTR is starting to recover from what happened a decade ago. But I remember as recently as 2007-2008 when I was in college I wouldn't ever go there, much less at night, without 'two guns, a baggie of weed, and a gang' (a friend's words back in the day). So, if OTR can gets its collective act together, bring back some decent business and complement the downtown area, then I'm all for it.
Perhaps if you visited OTR instead of holding to insulting and dated stereotypes, you'd see that the neighborhood is getting its collective act together, and then some. You're really not presenting yourself as very in touch with the city in which you live. I'm sorry, but there's no one in this region who can possibly be unaware of the tremendous development now under way in downtown and OTR - and nearly all the developments will touch or be with two blocks of the streetcar. Every single day there's a story or two about some new development opening. These two are just from today, and both directly on the streetcar line:
If you need more, I suggest visiting the development thread in the Cincinnati forum. It's jam-packed with new projects slated for the immediate streetcar line.
Somehow I missed something here. On the one hand you are saying the cities and their own suburbs are at odds. Then your say regardless the combined MSAs would still be smaller than other areas so why bother? What is your point?
Dayton has had some substantial business loses, but the merto as a whole seems to just keep rumbling on. So maybe the core city as the do or die for the whole metro may not be what it has been cracked up to be? I think we all desire a strong central core for what it brings to the entire city and its suburbs. But to say the metro cannot exist without the city I do not believe that. Just look at the distribution of jobs and that should be enough to convince you.
What are you talking about? I am talking about other CSA's vs MSA's around the country. Cleveland/Akron/Canton are all counted as seperate MSA's, but if you combined them into one larger MSA, they would still be much smaller in area than places like Pittsburgh or St. Louis in area, but bigger in population, just showing how dense and heavily populated Ohio and its individual metro areas are. Same could be said for Cincinnati/Dayton/Springfield. I do not turn everything into a city vs suburb tantrum.
Dayton lost NCR, but has an extremely diverse aviation and technology sector, and its healthcare system continues to expand. The new estimates that have come out show the Dayton, Montgomery County, and the Dayton metro area all growing.
I asked you a question, which you seemed to have avoided. People are making claims that people in the urban areas do not care or pay any attention to the city, but do people in the suburbs not do the very same thing? Do they not even do it on a more pronounced level?
[quote=WRosado;25337953I asked you a question, which you seemed to have avoided. People are making claims that people in the urban areas do not care or pay any attention to the city, but do people in the suburbs not do the very same thing? Do they not even do it on a more pronounced level?[/quote]
I will say people in the suburban areas are much more concerned with what they feel affects their quality of life than the urban City. They are concerned about their immediate neighborhoods, the schools, the ability to pay their bills, etc. What the City of Cincinnati is doing or not doing is not at the top of their priority list. Does that mean they are completely oblivious to it or have no care at all? No, it just means their main focus is on where they live. To me that is purely human nature.
If they do not desire to live in a high density urban environment that should be their prerogative. Does that mean they are against or opposing a more urban lifestyle? No, it simply means it is not their bag. But for some reason the urbanists seem to automatically take this as a disdain for their way of life. A long list of diatribes against the suburbs always seems to follow. Frankly, the urbanists seem to have the problem, not the surburbanists. If you don't believe this to be true just do a scan on this whole forum as to who makes the most diabolical remarks relative to who is lambasting who.
Brill, can you see beyond urbanist / suburbanist? Most times you go back to this two camp thing, and I really don't get it. People in the city are just as concerned:
Quote:
about their immediate neighborhoods, the schools, the ability to pay their bills, etc.
I will say people in the suburban areas are much more concerned with what they feel affects their quality of life than the urban City. They are concerned about their immediate neighborhoods, the schools, the ability to pay their bills, etc. What the City of Cincinnati is doing or not doing is not at the top of their priority list. Does that mean they are completely oblivious to it or have no care at all? No, it just means their main focus is on where they live. To me that is purely human nature.
If they do not desire to live in a high density urban environment that should be their prerogative. Does that mean they are against or opposing a more urban lifestyle? No, it simply means it is not their bag. But for some reason the urbanists seem to automatically take this as a disdain for their way of life. A long list of diatribes against the suburbs always seems to follow. Frankly, the urbanists seem to have the problem, not the surburbanists. If you don't believe this to be true just do a scan on this whole forum as to who makes the most diabolical remarks relative to who is lambasting who.
So what you are saying about Cincinnati can be the very same thing said about West Chester or Montgomery. What is happening in West Chester is not exactly at the top of someone's mind living downtown or Mount Adams. What I do not understand (as someone who lived in the suburbs and now lives in the city) is the ignorance and complete lack of knowledge so many out in the suburbs have about the city. And then not only show that ignorance, but continue to downgrade the city as if they actually known what it is like there for a lot of the young professionals and families that live there. For instance, I mentioned my trips to South Africa in this thread to places like Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Gauteng Province, or Cape Town and Durban. I did not feel comfortable at all in the CBDs of those cities, or anywhere in the central cities of South Africa. They have the tall skyscrapers, multi lane freeways, and big shopping centers. But their CBDs were dirty, lots of crime, and offered very little for people to go out and enjoy the space. Only two cities in the US I can compare that feeling to is Detroit and St. Louis. Everything was happening in places like the Strand, Sandton, Century City. The types of attitudes that persist in this forum is exactly what I would expect in Durban, not cities like Cincinnati or Atlanta.
I have already stated (and I think you are just throwing out broad examples here about anyone) I am all for anyone who wants suburbs or city. But what you are claiming is very pot meet kettle. You say if someone says something that an urbanist doesn't like they quickly put down the suburbs. But so far, in this very sub forum, I have seen more of that from a very select few suburbanites. It is more the people from the suburbs who quickly put down the city and downgrade the city any chance they get. Just look in this thread. It isn't people quickly bashing the suburbs, but having to defend the city against posters who know next to nothing about it. It's quite obvious.
Just for the record, the last census shows more people are moving back into the city. The cities experienced the fastest growth rate last decade for several reasons. So even if there are a lot out there who don't like the city, seems like there are plenty more out there that prefer the city.
If someone wants the suburbs, they want the suburbs. If someone wants the city, they want the city. Why bash a place because that is what they are looking for? That is the great aspect of opinions, everyone has one, so why try to change it? The suburbs are ideal for some, while the city for others. What I don't understand is why there are some who quickly bash the city without anyone even saying a word about the suburbs.
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.
