327

My understanding is that the city killed the Flats on purpose, because all the success down there was not sufficiently family friendly. As it began to falter, buildings were bought up and left empty to rot, and this helped drive out what life still remained. The city didn't so much fail as willfully withhold support, in yet another misguided attempt to suburbanize itself after the early 90s upsurge. Not everything can or should be family friendly. We had something awesome and organic and we blew it. Re: DoD I'm still not sold on the concept, but this sounds like a great temporary use for the Halle Building.

The area known as "Buckeye-Shaker" is a broad mixture, including sleepy Larchmere and the pricey end of Shaker Blvd. Note that the city has cut it into two wards, with Buckeye attached to Mt. Pleasant and Fairfax while those nicer parts get their own guy. I'm told this was all part of the failed anti-Reed effort. The point was to split Mt. Pleasant, but they had to split Buckeye from Shaker to accomplish that. And Zack Reed still got reelected. About those stats, clearly we've got some myths floating out there regarding east vs. west safety. I love the Near West Side but it's as rough as any part of town. St. Clair can be scary but so is Clark. Garden Valley sure has a lot of projects but so does West 25th Street. Once you get all the commonalities out of the equation, you're left with prejudice and terrible freeway access. I really do think the Opportunity Corridor would do a lot for Buckeye. If nothing else, it would make my grand residential improvements a lot more plausible. Say what you will but a lot of people put a high priority on freeway access. I bet the Near West wouldn't look so rosy without it. I know people don't want to hear that but I'm sorry, I think it's a much bigger factor than crime in what we're seeing here.

I agree, I think UC will be the booming hood which is why I voted for it. However, I disagree that the growth of either CC and UH will help UC's success. In fact, I feel exactly the opposite. I think these huge, souless institutions have snuffed out too much residential/commercial life as it is, esp UH, which has gobbled up a ton of old apartment buildings and houses (often to parking garages!) and, now, my beloved Club Isabella is succoring to UH expansion. Actually, I really don't consider CC in UC anyway. I also disagree that ECP is going to have much positive impact on the neighborhood. I think the Red Line Rapid, w/ the E. 120 relocation near the Triangle, will have a much bigger and better impact. I also don't consider Beacon Place in UC either -- it's in Hough, really. I think the Triangle (if we can ever get a solvent developer and if we can ever put a leash on the Hessler NIMBY/BANANAs) will be the lynchpin in UC's success. I also think the development of the quadrangle, the Park Lane Villa and E.105/108 housing rehab, along with greater linkage with Little Italy, will also push the UC area forward. clvndr FTW... spot on with the predictions, so far. Euclid Corridor overrated, hospitals unhelpful, loss of apartment stock hindering growth, solvent developer appears for Uptown but full potential is frustrated by Hessler NIMBYs.

That sounds good--where on Buckeye? Around 125 or so. Jazzy Jim's, something like that. jam40jeff I think you're right. I've looked at stats and maps, and the crime rate around here is no worse, perhaps better, than Ohio City and D-S. It just hasn't seen as much investment as those areas. Apparently the two factors don't correlate 100%. But race and full employment correlate pretty tightly too, which I believe has a lot to do with the fortunes of Buckeye vs. Detroit Ave. Detroit might actually have more crime on it... but it also has more whites, who get more work (which may not be nearby), so it sees more investment than Buckeye. And given the amount of nearby employment at the Clinic et al, I believe Buckeye as a whole would benefit more from gentrification than from getting more factories to open. People who could open factories, as well as retail and service businesses, would be more likely to do so around Buckeye if there were a more diverse income base living there and it didn't look so run down. So I think the best way to help the current residents is to draw in more residents who have higher incomes. That's why I'm so hot on getting better housing built here. It's the missing link that will lead to everything else the area needs.

Private charters? Somehow RTA manages to accomodate gameday without people having to make separate arrangements to rent its trains. It's a public service, the public need at that time is obvious, so RTA simply performs the task without prompting. RTA's rail demand always spikes on gamedays. RTA anticipates and responds. It's like clockwork. I can't believe this is so controversial when applied to 3C. It's perhaps the most logical and predictable use for the system.

I'll be using that pork chop line in conversation tomorrow. Somehow, someway.

Lakewood.

With all due respect, conflicts of interest actually do invalidate assertions of fact. Not always... but this conflict is not a small one, and the assertion in question is an estimate. We're talking about a group dedicated to the advancement of a certain type of business, throwing out a figure meant to represent their impact on local economies. Seriously, don't try this before the legislature. It's a fairly extreme example of an interested party advancing its interest. What facts should I be wanting? What facts should any voter or taxpayer or potential customer be wanting? Why should anyone else decide for them what they should want to know? Plenty of questions have been asked, by a whole lot of people, some of them in high places. The responses need to change before the questions will. It's unfortunate that so few of these questions were anticipated, and disappointing that the core strategy still involves talking down to people. We need to win hearts and minds, not alienate or establish dominance. This whole asking and answering paradigm needs to be reversed. It's high time we start asking the market what they want from this plan.

Good! I hope it can get moving soon. Uptown doubtlessly has a better outlook than St. Luke's. I just hope St. Luke's gets funded before more blocks of detached houses do, and I hope it isn't set aside for seniors or low income or some such. In other news, apparently there's a new ribs place opening on Buckeye. This local yuppie plans on visiting often.

Using pro-hotel info from a hotel association may not be specluation, but... come on. Of course the hotel association thinks overnight stays are a great idea and a thing that "many people do." I don't care a whole lot about their assertions as they have a conflict of interest. It's basically advertising. That's like when Scrabble posts political "information" from Breitbart. Conflicts of interest matter. They really do. They undermine otherwise valid points. We're trying to set up a service with maximized benefits for Ohioans, in general, not for freight railroads or hotel associations or any other interest group. The focus should be on what Ohioans need from this system, what would make them more likely to support it now and ride it later. If political concerns are a barrier to providing a service that works, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But I haven't seen anything from ORDC to suggest they're even trying to make gameday service happen. I haven't seen much to suggest ORDC is developing markets for this at all. Everything is either viewed as a foregone conclusion or left to faith and happenstance. That is not a plan. As for the Capitol Limited... it connects to Chicago and DC! Of course there's high demand. Nature of the beast. But that has little to do with 3C. Just another reason to prioritize enhancing that line, improving its speed and its schedule, before starting on this one. Ohio doesn't need two absurd rail schedules, we need one that's practical.

So what's wrong with staying overnight so you can see a ballgame?....many people do and an overnight stay pumps over $300 per visit into the local according to the Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association. Also, most sports fans coming in from out of town are going to do so on weekends for Friday, Saturday or Sunday games, which also means more overnight stays in local hotels. Perhaps they don't have $300. Going to a game is pricey enough as it is. This could be a great way to introduce people to the rail service, almost a built-in constituency, but I think it's pretty important not to force them to stay overnight. We can't ask people to stay in hotels for a 3-hour midday event that's within easy driving distance. It literally multiplies the cost of their trip. The service needs to be planned around likely uses, and I think sporting events are very likely uses. Why is it so necessary to make people not just accept the rail investment, a big enough fight as it is, but also to radically change their plans and expectations? Why can't the system come to them a little bit? It can't be that difficult to arrange round trips to and from Columbus for football games. That is something ORDC simply needs to get done, no excuses. The schedule Dan's talking about probably should not have been released, just like the disputed 39 mph number.

There should be more than one viewpoint expressed here, otherwise it's not really a forum. It becomes the back bumper of a Volvo. I support every rail project I've ever heard of. But I know that not everyone does, and I want to know why. I want to know the nuts & bolts reasons, as well as the underlying philosophical reasons. Some criticisms are more valid than others. Discovering valid criticisms helps to strengthen the proposal and its pitch. Of course, this process involves sorting through a lot of BS. But I'm sure we've all heard the "legislative sausage" metaphor.

I really hope the St. Luke's area can be redeveloped, but I fear it won't get far with St. Luke's itself sitting there rotting. What a massive, beautiful, dilapidated toilet for raccoons. It functions as a negative anchor, a vortex of value. And no the answer is not to tear it down and replace it with yet more cheap-looking-but-not-cheap single family homes. That structure could be a residential anchor for the entire hillside. It could inject some reliable spending power into the Buckeye retail strip... the kind Coventry enjoys. What does Coventry have that Buckeye doesn't? Marketable rental housing. My ideal vision, which would admittedly take a long time to accomplish, would be to replace all the rundown duplexes between Buckeye and Shaker with apartments like you'd find in the Coventy area or along Moreland Blvd. Even larger structures along 116th could take advantage of the city's best skyline views, which are currently wasted.

I'm not asking for more studies either... I'm lamenting that so many studies have been done, and keep getting cited as truth, when none of them have examined the market with any kind of depth. If we're going to pay for studies, which we have and will, that aspect shouldn't get skipped. When I ask about jumping to higher speeds initially, I'm told more studies are needed. Fear not... they're scheduled, or they will be soon! But as soon as I mention studying something, something that is normally studied before a project of this magnitude proceeds, suddenly studies are a horrible idea. It's death by studies! What about all the studies that have been thrown in people's faces whenever they question anything about this? Those ones are good ones, I take it. We need to tweak the approach and make it more broadly palatable. It has all the marks of having been develped in an echo chamber. ODOT/ORDC could answer some of these marketing questions themselves, if they cared to. What scares me is they don't seem to care... and I keep getting this sense that such "businesslike" concerns are inappropriately right-wing and therefore inimical to the project. Either you're a rail insider or you have nothing to add. Either you assent to every single aspect of this plan or you lack vision. And there I'm describing the reaction charitably.

No, I just stay away from the politics threads. Hmmm... come to think of it maybe I am smarter.

That seems a bit hasty. A lot of questions would need to be answered in the pre-production stage, such as... What kind of soap? Like Gojo? Like Dove? At what price point? Who is most likely to buy this soap? In what quantities? What would they use it on? Skin? Machinery? What "dirt" would they expect it to work on? What "dirt" would they not care if it didn't work on? What aesthetic qualities, if any, would be important? What chemicals might it encounter that it needs to not react with? Where will it go when they rinse it off? What kind of soap are these people using now? Are they satisfied with it? Why or why not? What would distinguish our soap? Is this part of the soap market dominated by one or just a few suppliers, or are there lots of them? How often do people change suppliers? How solid are these answers? Do they vary by company, by city, by region, or not at all? OK, what about completely different uses? Are there other markets for this soap? Lather, rinse, repeat. If we were looking for private sector financing, we'd better have answers to these questions upfront... we don't get to produce the soap first, we have to do the homework first. All of it. Here we're looking for public financing, so instead we just say hey something similar worked in Missouri. Then we act like the Controlling Board is a bunch of prudes.

The best we can do? Not if we we're spending a half a billion dollars it isn't. Market studies are a fine science these days. This project seems almost pathologically opposed to analyzing its own market, despite piles of cash spent on studies already. Again, I don't anticipate "failure" if it gets built. But I suggest a thorough market study (of the market at hand) if we want optimal results from this venture or any other.

I wonder how much we'd be charged for an intern with a tallying device... $500k? My thinking is that it's tough to count people inside vehicles that are going 65 when you're stationary, especially the higher occupancy vehicles like SUVs and vans. And it's not possible to determine the nature of their trip, not in this manner. Basically I'm interested in the methodology, not the source, of any such study. If you're sitting by the freeway with an infared camera, now we're talking. If it's a survey of some kind, I tend not to put much stock in those. The USF study, which came up with 1.05, explains it thus: "* Calculated from Census 2000 information assuming "5 to 6 person carpools" average 5.5 persons per carpool and "7-or-more person carpools" average 7 persons per carpool." How does carpool data relate to non-commuting travel? I did the "long" census form in 2000 and I don't remember a lot of pointed questions on there about my travel habits. Now that I'm thinking about it, I do remember a question or two about carpools. But the 2000 census was not a study of Ohio's intercity rail market. Point is, statistics often raise more questions than they answer. They aren't useless but deeper and more qualitative analysis is always advisable. Regardless... If the purpose of all this is to demonstrate why families aren't a big priority in 3C's planning... OK, fine. I'm not sure where that gets us though, especially in the political arena. The other side, the one that's always going off about family this and family that, is stalling until after an election that they believe will go their way. I wish this was moving along faster, and I don't mean the speed of the trains.

I'm curious to know how such data would be obtained formally. I'm just one man, one data point... but I've probably made twice as many group trips down I-71 as solo trips. Leisure travel is typically done in pairs at the very least. I would guess that a lot of the solo travelers are on business trips, an issue explored on page 114. I don't think 3C will "fail" if it doesn't attract a lot of kids or business travelers. And if comparisons are the thing, I doubt it will do any worse than lines of similar speed in Oklahoma or NC. I still believe retirees should be the main target market, for several reasons. Ohio has a lot of them, driving is tougher for them, they like to travel, they have time on their hands, many will appreciate the conveniences of rail, and most of all... they vote a lot. Singles don't vote enough, and aren't represented well at any level of government. But if older voters are clamoring for something, they often get it.

"Where to put the people" can't be that big of a problem, if CMHA has been offered an appropriate price for this prime waterfront land. Most of the city's land is not prime waterfront land... so it's hard for me to believe that rebuilding the public housing capacity elsewhere would be cost prohibitive, given the potential sale proceeds. It's not like this is Manhattan. We have vacant land all over the place. I have nothing against residents of the projects, I live across the street from some...but we gotta get the projects off our waterfront and out of our showpiece commercial districts.

Seems like one of DanB's chief concerns could be addressed with family pricing plans. I don't mean a discounted rate for children, I mean a final tally that is not prohibitive for family of 4-5. They're going to pay the fixed costs on their minivan regardless of whether they ever use 3C. Those costs are sunk. And of course the minivan is useful once they arrive. It therefore stands to reason that the total cost of family travel on 3C would need to be at least sorta competitive with the variable costs (gas/parking) associated with the minivan. They're already being asked to make arrangements for local travel at their destination, on top of the 3C tickets. So I hope there will be competitive family pricing plans, because otherwise this large market segment may not bear much fruit. That said, I agree that 3C will appeal much more to singles. Also to childless couples, whether empty nesters or newlyweds or just a guy and a girl. I don't think different accomodations are needed to attract families with kids, just competitive pricing. And by competitive I don't mean it has to be lower than driving, just in the ballpark. The ability to tend to the kids without worrying about the road, as well as restroom access, are important factors too.

If I were in charge of this project, those concerns would be at the top of the agenda. Again, the client or customer is always right. It's been pointed out that the proposed schedule is just that, proposed. Hopefully these issues are taken into consideration as things develop. Right now we don't even know how (or if) it's going into Cincinnati. A lot is still up in the air, so it's good that we're talking about it and hashing things out.

Students, retirees, vacationers and weekend travellers... all the people on I-71 who aren't on business trips. That's a lot of people. Plus some business trips too, just not a ton of them. Some business situations will be more favorable to this than others.

I really don't think 3C is meant to be a viable commuting option, even in the southern part of the state. Maybe if you already live and work right by its stations, but otherwise no. This shuttle bus thing is primarily for people who are using 3C on special trips, personal trips, who I would think will comprise the overwhelming bulk of its market. Is it being sold as "commuter rail?" That seems a bit far fetched. I don't think it will get much use for business travel at all, because the schedule demands of business are too specific, too non-negotiable for the traveller, and yet always subject to change by the other party. The client or customer is always right. This doesn't mean 3C couldn't or won't be used for business travel... but the issue of being competitive with driving is more acute in that situation, and I imagine that will limit business travel to a smaller percentage of its overall use.

I don't think anyone claimed that, per se, just that ridership on actual trolleys tends to be higher. Also that trolleys are better for spinoff development due to the more permanent nature of the service. The idea that people WILL NOT ride buses, in the absolute, has never been up for debate. Pro-rail people also support bus service. They just recognize that rail has advantages in certain applications, and that Cincinnati's current bus-only system doesn't accomplish what a trolley could. I don't understand using "rubber tire" buses to prove trolley demand any more than I understand using low-speed rail to prove HSR demand. In each case it's two different things, where one has drawing power that the other never will, so the demand curves don't entirely coincide. And I think shuttle service around 3C stations is a fantastic idea. Outside of Cleveland I think it's almost a necessity. I would hope that shuttle services could be arranged and paid for along with the 3C fare. It was pointed out earlier that multi-seat trips are less than ideal, so I think cutting down on the transactions would be helpful.