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.
Sure. I mean, it would have been unfair if I'd actually done that.
I guess you completely missed my point. Let me try to simplify it. I was just telling you that if you want to follow your bliss and live someplace where you can go about your daily business in comfort without a car, DC would probably be a good choice.
No, I really didn't miss your point, Sarah. You said:
"For example, I used to travel often to DC for work and I really appreciated the efficiency, safety, cleanliness, etc. of the Metro. The area is densely populated enough that it makes eminent sense, just as something like that makes little or no sense in Cincinnati."
I'll repeat: No one is proposing anything "like that" for Cincinnati. You, however, decided to take the liberty of drawing comparisons between a single-line streetcar in Cincinnati and the DC Metro.
And, again, I'll live where I want. Thanks for your concern though.
No, I really didn't miss your point, Sarah. You said:
"For example, I used to travel often to DC for work and I really appreciated the efficiency, safety, cleanliness, etc. of the Metro. The area is densely populated enough that it makes eminent sense, just as something like that makes little or no sense in Cincinnati."
I'll repeat: No one is proposing anything "like that" for Cincinnati. You, however, decided to take the liberty of drawing comparisons between a single-line streetcar in Cincinnati and the DC Metro.
And, again, I'll live where I want. Thanks for your concern though.
You're welcome!
Look. We agree that the model and scope of the DC Metro is not workable/doesn't make sense/has no real relevance for Cincinnati. I said that. You just said that. And of course you'll live where you want. I just figured from some of your other posts that you may not be familiar with the DC system. Since I am, I mentioned it because it certainly looks to me like it meets the needs of an individual who'd be blissful to not need to own a car.
I'm going to take the pro-transit arguments in a bit of a different direction. I view transit as a means to promote life style changes, get more people on the street walking around, and allow for dense neighborhoods to recapture some of the life they once had (as I'm sure KJBRILL once experienced himself - I'm envious of him, to be able to see Cincinnati the city before its late 20th century decline had to have been stunning and I personally would have loved to have gone downtown and to Walnut Hills myself - it probably was reminiscent of a smaller version of what Chicago is today).
In most cities that have good transit, gentrification has followed transit lines first. In Chicago for instance the most gentrified parts of the city are on the north side where the transit is strongest, there are 3 el lines (4 if you count part of the blue) and dense neighborhoods built around them.
Transit also encourages economic development just like building an expressway does, but its a different sort of economic development. Interstates for instance provide commercial spots in rural areas that serve people who are passing through them, gas stations, restaurants and truck stops. Instead of promoting a sprawlly sort of development pattern, transit encourages a denser one. Cincinnati has tons of underutilized dense commercial districts and neighborhoods. This would encourage a restoration and revitalization of these areas. In the short run its good for young professionals, in the long run good for families as young professionals pave the way and allow safety to no longer be a concern in areas and bring up property values. In fact having good transit in a neighborhood does bring up property values.
It was when the expressways were plowed through the city along with racial problems and urban renewal that destroyed the city. This also lead to a decline in the transit systems and eventually a loss of the vitality of Cincinnati.
Finally I actually do have a private car. I literally put less than 10,000 miles a year on it. It still comes in handy now and then (though I am considering a car sharing program to cut costs). Transit isn't an imposition not to own a private car, but instead to have other options. Like for a commute, its way more pleasant to be on a train even if its standing room only where you can let your mind wander than to be stuck in traffic being forced to concentrate and get stressed out about the traffic before and after a hard days work. I've found I arrive at the office more relaxed and leave more relaxed than when I had to contend with the traffic I did working in the Cincinnati burbs on Co-OP when I was at UC.
On the other hand if I need to get to a more suburban part of Chicago at a specific time, then I will take a car, transit is not practical for that. For a lot of short trips I even bike, which is a great way to cut down on gas costs and get some exercise too. Though, Cincinnati is less suited for that given the hills (part of me wishes they'd put grooves in the underutalized hillside steps to allow bicyclists easier access up some of the steeper grades :P). The point here is that their are multiple options, not an imposition that we all must take the train as part of a North Korean imposed order from their "great leader".
People keep talking about the great potential of Cincinnati. Look around you, take a trip to Dayton or Columbus and realize just how unique it is. Go to the Northeast or Chicago and see what Cincinnati could be as a revitalized city. Look at old pictures and be sad at what Cincy lost. Then realize that a key to bringing it back is better transit.
I guess what I DON'T get is that mass transit is mass transit. What difference does it make if that vehicle you're riding is has rubber tires or rides on a rail??? (you can still daydream sitting in a bus seat...) Busses are a heckuva lot more "bang for the buck"; they require a WHOLE lot less infrastructure and can be easily be rerouted in the case of crashes and other incidents or special events.
I continue to be saddened by the pessimism of the younger folks here. I can tell you for positive that Cincinnati is a heck of a lot better city today than it was in 1950-1960. All of the lamenting a fantasy past is wasted energy. Your nostalgia is quite misplaced. Every neighborhood that I care about has improved . . . . a lot. Oakley was a gritty spot where the men had a pack of Lucky Strikes rolled up in their t shirt sleeves, teen punks controlled the corners, and moms waited on the bus with multiple kids in tow. Hyde Park was a fraction of the great place it is today, and Mt. Lookout was a great place to get a shot and a beer chaser or hustle a game of pool.
Relax folks. The City administration are morons but things are still greatly improved.
Wilson... I agree the quality of living in sections of the City has greatly improved.
From what I observe the main item holding things back, with a few exceptions, are the schools. What I do not understand is how the spending per pupil amount in CPS exceeds that of several suburban highly ranked districts but the results are so poor. Hold that, yes I do understand. What is the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In this case it is the parents. If you look at any of the successful suburban school districts you will find the majority of parents value the school and demand it be successful. But the first line is what the parents demand of their children. CPS as a whole is fighting a losing cause until the attitude of the parents is changed, if that is possible.
Has it ever been considered dividing CPS into multiple separate districts, each with its own administration, budget, etc? Or is that illegal as it would be considered discriminatory? If a city can have recognized designated neighborhoods, community councils, etc., why not separate recognized schools districts rather than one large inefficient monolith? Those who advocate the resurgency of urban living need to recognize people desire to be associated with something they can embrace, an identity.
Last edited by kjbrill; 09-18-2011 at 03:19 AM..
Reason: clarity
Oh, the schools were ruined all right. Thank the ACLU and Judge Rice. De facto segregation was the charge which stuck: "good neighborhoods have better schools because good students come from good homes." Therefore, bus good students to bad schools to make things equal.
Whoever thought up that one should be frying in Hell right next to the author of ADC rules that said that if there is a man in the house - no $$$$$. The wefare department (what is now known as JFS) actually made nighttime house calls to be sure that Bubba was not snoozing in the recipient's TV Room. That ended the nuclear family in the US pretty quick.
Just like the busing orders ended people who cared about education residing in the City of Cincinnati.
These top down planners and social engineers are real morons.
Look. We agree that the model and scope of the DC Metro is not workable/doesn't make sense/has no real relevance for Cincinnati. I said that. You just said that. And of course you'll live where you want. I just figured from some of your other posts that you may not be familiar with the DC system. Since I am, I mentioned it because it certainly looks to me like it meets the needs of an individual who'd be blissful to not need to own a car.
I love the DC Metro - it's easily the nation's best urban mass transit system, if not the world's best.
It beats New York City's in just about every way, particularly the uniformity and cleanliness of the entire system. Of course, being in Washington DC and having endless access to federal money probably helps.
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Arlington area, right across the Key Bridge from Georgetown, and the Arlington station has always been my favorite. I love descending the escalator at that statoin to get down to the trains, it seems like they're a half-mile down.
Wilson... I agree the quality of living in sections of the City has greatly improved.
From what I observe the main item holding things back, with a few exceptions, are the schools. What I do not understand is how the spending per pupil amount in CPS exceeds that of several suburban highly ranked districts but the results are so poor. Hold that, yes I do understand. What is the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In this case it is the parents. If you look at any of the successful suburban school districts you will find the majority of parents value the school and demand it be successful. But the first line is what the parents demand of their children. CPS as a whole is fighting a losing cause until the attitude of the parents is changed, if that is possible..
I think about the schools a lot. Yes, parents matter more than anything. But CPS has actually improved a lot. Taft High School went Academic Emergency to Excellent. It had a graduation rate of 31% in 2004 and now the graduation rate is a little over 90%. Woodward went from a 42% graduation rate to 76%. The overall district graduation rate went from 51% in 2000 to over 80% today.
I'm not saying things are perfect, but when you look at the demographics they are dealing with and the improvement that has been made - it is encouraging. Believe me, as a city resident, it means a LOT to know that most of today's young people are graduating high school and making some attempts to better themselves. In 2000 things looked a lot more bleak.
I am happy to see funding for our schools go up, up, and up. Why should we not spend more per pupil than suburban districts? After all, it is MUCH harder to educate disadvantaged inner-city youth than advantaged suburban youth.
I think about the schools a lot. Yes, parents matter more than anything. But CPS has actually improved a lot. Taft High School went Academic Emergency to Excellent. It had a graduation rate of 31% in 2004 and now the graduation rate is a little over 90%. Woodward went from a 42% graduation rate to 76%. The overall district graduation rate went from 51% in 2000 to over 80% today.
I'm not saying things are perfect, but when you look at the demographics they are dealing with and the improvement that has been made - it is encouraging. Believe me, as a city resident, it means a LOT to know that most of today's young people are graduating high school and making some attempts to better themselves. In 2000 things looked a lot more bleak.
I am happy to see funding for our schools go up, up, and up. Why should we not spend more per pupil than suburban districts? After all, it is MUCH harder to educate disadvantaged inner-city youth than advantaged suburban youth.
I don't trust the assessments that evaluate education. If you carefully look at school report cards, you will see that the assessments are all based on changes and not on raw performance. Also, there is a tremendous amount of "grade inflation" on the assessment scale. For example, some suburban schools will consistently have 80%+ of their students test "advanced" on a scale from limited -- basic -- proficient -- accelerated -- advanced in certain subjects. On the other hand, an urban school will have 3% test as advanced one year and then 6% the next year, and then get a rating increase because they improved so much.
I know there are other metrics that rank schools based on different criteria, but the amount of marketing misdirection initiated by CPS, particularly at the high school level, is pretty egregious and can be downright misleading. Without going into too much detail, I have been involved in several roles with the high school science students of the Cincinnati area for several years, and I have had high school students from a variety of public and private schools from the area visit and work in my lab. The only CPS high school where I met students that have a real chance of passing college level science courses is Walnut Hills. I know the risks associated with making generalizations based on small sample sizes, so I am not suggesting that the well prepared students do not exist. Still, I met students that had 4.0+ GPAs and straight A's in all sciences, backed by glowing teacher recommendations, but were completely unprepared for 100 level science courses courses at UC, Xavier, NKU, Mt. St. Joe's, or other local colleges and universities. It breaks my heart to see students sent off to colleges with such high expectations (medical school usually) only to face a grim reality three weeks into the semester when faced with the first chemistry, biology, physics or calculus test.
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.
