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.
Even starter lines in Charlotte and Norfolk were much longer than the starter lines in Mke, Cincy, and KC. The latter seem more tourist oriented than transit, but that's just an opinion...
I think Kansas City's starter line might better be classified as "proof of concept for a highly skeptical public."
The city and region as a whole have generally been cool at best to the idea of bringing any kind of rail transit back, be it a modern streetcar, a light rail line/system or commuter trains, all of which have been discussed.
Light rail has been voted on repeatedly thanks to a local (well, no longer local, but he persists) gadfly named Clay Chastain. He gained fame as one of the people who helped resuscitate Kansas City's grand Union Station; after that, he started coming up with ways to get trains other than the six or so Amtrak trains that serve it daily to stop there - as part of a light rail network.
Eight times, he has put light rail proposals on the ballot. Seven times, the voters rejected them. The one time they didn't, the city council looked at the numbers he came up with for how it would be paid for and determined they were so unrealistic it couldn't proceed with building the system.
I think Kansas City's extremely low levels of traffic congestion probably help bolster whatever resistance already exists in the body politic. (And there is some: voters there approved a measure last year that forbids the city government from participating in or spending its own money on any light rail system without first getting approval from the electorate citywide.)
Oklahoma City seems to be embracing its starter line more enthusiastically. (Kansas Citians merely came out to ride it in droves once it was finished.)
Milwaukee is definitely underrated on this forum, but it doesn't truly qualify as a major city:
•#39 metro. And will soon be pushed into the 40s by Jacksonville. Probably need an MSA of at least 2 million to qualify as "major"...
•only #35 UA in 2010, almost assuredly has been passed by Columbus, Austin, and Charlotte since. Worth mentioning that its UA is less dense than Austin, Columbus, and Virginia Beach, too...
•major cities have rail transportation in some form or fashion. Milwaukee doesn't...
•General Mitchell isn't even in the Top 50 busiest airports...
The statement that being so close to Chicago dims its light is probably true, though it's worth noting that Baltimore is closer to DC, and dwarfed in the 95 megalopolis by several larger cities, and still has a more noticeable big city presence than Milwaukee...
So I agree Milwaukee is overrated, but I do NOT find it to be a "major" city...
Have you spent any time in Milwaukee? I think, like Pittsburgh, it’s one of those cities that the numbers don’t do justice. It’s also a great example of why, sometimes, cities need to be rated on their own, without looking at metro. Milwaukee is not a very big metro, but the city, it’s self offers a lot more 10 cities with larger metros.
And of course, the airport isn’t that busy. It’s not a very large metro, and O’Hare is like an hour and 15 minutes away. There are people who have longer drives to their “local” airport.
Have you spent any time in Milwaukee? I think, like Pittsburgh, it’s one of those cities that the numbers don’t do justice. It’s also a great example of why, sometimes, cities need to be rated on their own, without looking at metro. Milwaukee is not a very big metro, but the city, it’s self offers a lot more 10 cities with larger metros.
And of course, the airport isn’t that busy. It’s not a very large metro, and O’Hare is like an hour and 15 minutes away. There are people who have longer drives to their “local” airport.
Quite Frankly when people talk about tiers I think of economic importance. This isn’t about which cities you like.
So Milwaukee might be just as interesting/fun as Pittsburgh or St Louis but that doesn’t mean it’s on the same tier.
Quite Frankly when people talk about tiers I think of economic importance. This isn’t about which cities you like.
So Milwaukee might be just as interesting/fun as Pittsburgh or St Louis but that doesn’t mean it’s on the same tier.
I agree. I look at GDP, economics, education, population, amenities, etc. Those are measurable items. A dense collection of neighborhoods or glorified monument does not showing me how the city competes with others.
I agree. I look at GDP, economics, education, population, amenities, etc. Those are measurable items. A dense collection of neighborhoods or glorified monument does not showing me how the city competes with others.
Somewhere, there exists a list of GDP per capita, and I believe Milwaukee shakes out better than some of those other Midwestern cities you're comparing to. Also, people like to forget, that part of Milwaukee's MSA has been added to Chicago's MSA. As far as the airport, O'Hare is 73 miles from Milwaukee's General Mitchell Field. Typically, two airports that close aren't both major airports. I do know, people from Chicago, who are, lately, flying out of Milwaukee's airport, because it's close, and much less trying.
All that being said, Milwaukee benefits greatly from its close proximity to Chicago, and not any of those other cities have that. Well, that and a fabulous downtown right on Lake Michigan.
2.5 mile line does seem rather paltry for a starter transit line. That's a good deal though, I still think and agree that there are more disqualifiers than qualifiers for it being q major city...
2.5 mile starter line is similar to streetcar starter lines in KC and Cincinnati. I believe Milwaukee's bus transit has, compared to other cities near its size including several ones with larger metros mentioned, a high ridership. Additionally, the highest ridership Amtrak line in the midwest is the Milwaukee to Chicago line which honestly should just become a commuter line.
2.5 mile starter line is similar to streetcar starter lines in KC and Cincinnati. I believe Milwaukee's bus transit has, compared to other cities near its size including several ones with larger metros mentioned, a high ridership. Additionally, the highest ridership Amtrak line in the midwest is the Milwaukee to Chicago line which honestly should just become a commuter line.
Agreed, and it is, for a number of people that I know.
Somewhere, there exists a list of GDP per capita, and I believe Milwaukee shakes out better than some of those other Midwestern cities you're comparing to. Also, people like to forget, that part of Milwaukee's MSA has been added to Chicago's MSA. As far as the airport, O'Hare is 73 miles from Milwaukee's General Mitchell Field. Typically, two airports that close aren't both major airports. I do know, people from Chicago, who are, lately, flying out of Milwaukee's airport, because it's close, and much less trying.
All that being said, Milwaukee benefits greatly from its close proximity to Chicago, and not any of those other cities have that. Well, that and a fabulous downtown right on Lake Michigan.
Found it. GDP per capita
Milwaukee - 56,700
Columbus - 56,000
Cleveland - 55,700
Kansas City - 54,300
Cincinnati - 53,600
St. Louis - 50,100
Milwaukee is not lagging in GDP, considering it's a smaller population base...it actually rises to the top when you look at it the way it should be looked at. Clearly, GDP will be higher, overall when a city's population is larger. When you break it down...not so much.
Quite Frankly when people talk about tiers I think of economic importance. This isn’t about which cities you like.
So Milwaukee might be just as interesting/fun as Pittsburgh or St Louis but that doesn’t mean it’s on the same tier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean
Found it. GDP per capita
Milwaukee - 56,700
Columbus - 56,000
Cleveland - 55,700
Kansas City - 54,300
Cincinnati - 53,600
St. Louis - 50,100
Milwaukee is not lagging in GDP, considering it's a smaller population base...it actually rises to the top when you look at it the way it should be looked at. Clearly, GDP will be higher, overall when a city's population is larger. When you break it down...not so much.
Economic importance is largely a product of metro population. Now, there are some cities with outsized importance, but for the most part, it’s proportionate. I tend to think of cities as actual places; places to visit, places to potentially make one’s life, and Milwaukee offers a lot. The fact that some other city may have a larger population and it’s sprawling suburbs and satellite cities doesn’t decrease what Milwaukee, the city offers.
Last edited by gladhands; 09-22-2018 at 11:31 AM..
Is Chicago really declining? I think not and it definitely won’t go the way of Detroit. That being said I pretty much agree with the tiers.
I know right! I do NOT see Chicago ever losing its primary status in the Midwest (at least not in my lifetime)! Its name recognition and profile even internationally still BY FAR outstrips any other Midwest city!
And both Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul are a distant second tier, BUT are well above the third tier on the other hand!
Last edited by mrconfusion87; 09-24-2018 at 10:12 AM..
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.
