So what's wrong with providing a shuttle bus service?  Another local business opportunity that creates a better-connected development area.

So what's wrong with providing a shuttle bus service? Another local business opportunity that creates a better-connected development area.

 

According to all of the streetcar supporters, people WILL NOT ride buses.  Which is it?

^

I'm a streetcar supporter and ride a bus every day. Another straw-man argument, Dan?

No John, every time someone suggested that a better bus system or a rubber tire trolley be used to show potential ridership downtown, supporters would shoot down that arguement claiming that people won't ride buses.  You are aware of that.

That's a completely different argument than using shuttle buses to complete a commuter rail trip. 

No John, every time someone suggested that a better bus system or a rubber tire trolley be used to show potential ridership downtown, supporters would shoot down that arguement claiming that people won't ride buses.  You are aware of that.

 

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.

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 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 the current bus-only system doesn't accomplish what a trolley could.

 

Yes, this is the main argument people use. The permanence is the key.

 

It is true that different demographics use streetcars rather than buses, too. However, like jjakucyk said, shuttle buses to complete a commuter rail trip are quite a different animal. Particularly since they are simple and predictable, which is part of the advantage provided by the permanence of the streetcar track.

So what's wrong with providing a shuttle bus service? Another local business opportunity that creates a better-connected development area.

 

According to all of the streetcar supporters, people WILL NOT ride buses. Which is it?

 

It is a straw man argument. Behave.

No John, every time someone suggested that a better bus system or a rubber tire trolley be used to show potential ridership downtown, supporters would shoot down that arguement claiming that people won't ride buses. You are aware of that.

There's a difference between something like the Cincinnati Streetcar that you ride every day and something you might ride once a year, like a shuttle bus to the train station. Lots of people, for instance, prefer a certain kind of car, wouldn't drive anything else. But while they're on vacation, they will happily accept a rental car they wouldn't never own as their principal car becuase it may be cheaper, larger, or, say, a convertible. You get that, right?

Not the same thing John.  For the same reasons if was felt that a temporary trolley system wouldn't work, this shuttle idea will fail.  Its not a straw argument.  Adding another leg to an already long commute will only work to turn people off.  That of course doesn't include times when the shuttle isn't there or not available.

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.

Then who will use it? 

Do you think business travelers are the only ones using the interstates?

Then who will use it?

 

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. 

Based on the proposed schedule, it won't be possible to use it for a ballgame, or a one day trip across state.  It won't be affordable for a family to travel to see relatives, who do you think will ride it?

Based on the proposed schedule, it won't be possible to use it for a ballgame, or a one day trip across state.  It won't be affordable for a family to travel to see relatives, who do you think will ride it?

 

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. 

^^ Why does it have to be one or the other with you?

 

  Both rail and bus serve their own purpose as great transportation options.  Why should a city choose just one of these options like Cincy has done for 60 years.  We've put all our eggs in one basket (auto centrically speaking) and look where it's gotten us.  We are at the mercy of big oil.

 

Do you put all of your retirement in one company and one company only or do you diversify?

 

Having to ride the shuttle at Kings Island or Disneyworld after you park your car doesn't seem to turn people off from doing that.

 

So, you won't ride it Dan.  Good for you! 

For the same reasons if was felt that a temporary trolley system wouldn't work, this shuttle idea will fail. Its not a straw argument.

 

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was:

 

"According to all of the streetcar supporters, people WILL NOT ride buses."

 

And that's a straw man.

^sorry, you are wrong, just peruse the streetcar thread.  We've been told time and time again, people won't ride buses, thats why Metro is so bad.  I'm not making it up.

^^ Why does it have to be one or the other with you?

 

Both rail and bus serve their own purpose as great transportation options. Why should a city choose just one of these options like Cincy has done for 60 years. We've put all our eggs in one basket (auto centrically speaking) and look where it's gotten us. We are at the mercy of big oil.

 

Do you put all of your retirement in one company and one company only or do you diversify?

 

Having to ride the shuttle at Kings Island or Disneyworld after you park your car doesn't seem to turn people off from doing that.

 

So, you won't ride it Dan.   Good for you!

 

Because this plan is so bad it will only set back any possibility of decent rail in Ohio for many years to come.  327 was right, high speed is needed.  It is too slow, and the cost per passenger will be too expensive.

How many times do you have to be reminded that plans slower than this work well in other states, and that you can't go from 0 to 200 mph in one single move?  Seriously, we've been over this many many times, and you seem to conveniently ignore it. 

First of all, just because it works in other states, doesn't mean it will work here.  Why are you so positive?  Just because you say so, doesn't make it work.  You've not convinced me, not that you care, but what makes you think you can convince others?

 

 

Because if it works everywhere else, then what makes you so pessimistic that it won't work here?  Why is Ohio backwards compared to Wisconsin or North Carolina?  North frickin' Carolina.  Transportation planners routinely agree that Ohio's geography is more conducive to this sort of project than many others that are proposed or have already been built.  Assuming that it won't work here even though it has already proven itself in areas that are more hostile to rail travel shows that your logic is what's at fault. 

Then what are you worried about?  It's just an opinion.  What do you have against North Carolina?

^^ Why does it have to be one or the other with you?

 

  Both rail and bus serve their own purpose as great transportation options.  Why should a city choose just one of these options like Cincy has done for 60 years.  We've put all our eggs in one basket (auto centrically speaking) and look where it's gotten us.  We are at the mercy of big oil.

 

Do you put all of your retirement in one company and one company only or do you diversify?

 

Having to ride the shuttle at Kings Island or Disneyworld after you park your car doesn't seem to turn people off from doing that.

 

So, you won't ride it Dan.  Good for you! 

 

Because this plan is so bad it will only set back any possibility of decent rail in Ohio for many years to come.  327 was right, high speed is needed.  It is too slow, and the cost per passenger will be too expensive.

Clever of you to use cartoons when you have no response.

:-D

 

Just my opinion!  There is nothing that can be said that hasn't already been said in the previous 115 pages. 

Dan:

 

Let it go, there is no sense in arguing with them. They know what they know, no sense in confusing them with logic and common sense.

:-D

 

Just my opinion! There is nothing that can be said that hasn't already been said in the previous 115 pages.

 

You're right, nothing new is ever said.  Maybe the thread should be locked, or only those supporting it should be allowed to post.  That way no one's blood pressure rises!

^sorry, you are wrong, just peruse the streetcar thread.  We've been told time and time again, people won't ride buses, thats why Metro is so bad.  I'm not making it up.

 

Even if it were said by one person, or two people, or however many, it hasn't been said by "all streetcar supporters", which is what you said. Even affording a bit of hyperbole, I find it hard to believe that even most streetcar supporters have made this claim.

 

Stop trollin'.

Dan:

 

Let it go, there is no sense in arguing with them. They know what they know, no sense in confusing them with logic and common sense.

 

What have you done to earn your logic and common sense on this issue? Do you study rail systems when you travel to other places? Or talk to the systems' managers, their customers and stakeholders? Or do you always casually adopt such opinions without earning them? I understand you have concerns about whether you will personally use the system or not. But that's just you. Your experience and preference is not applicable to those of other people. So try to recognize that other people have values and needs different than yours and let them have what they seek even if you can't understand or appreciate it.

Ken, we all have a stake in this whether we intend to ride or not.  It really has nothing to do with values and needs.  Its not as simple as letting "them have what they seek".  My concerns are not whether I will personally use the system, but the cost to us if the system fails.  Really, the only thing we hear positive is that it has worked elsewhere.

 

I respect your interest in trains.  I just think you look at transportation as a single person, from busses, to the Rapid, to the streetcar, to trains.  Those needs are different from someone thinking about getting a family around.

You can't accommodate everybody all the time DanB.  Single people make up "43 percent of all U.S. residents age 15 and over" so there's huge numbers of single people out there.  Also, even people with families still travel alone for certain things.  We have to start somewhere, see how things work out, and improve service for everyone (families included) as we can. 

 

Gas prices aren't going down in the long term, nor is the cost of our overbuilt highway infrastructure.  We can either start preparing for this eventuality with more mobility options, or we can stay the course and become another forgotten backwater state.  I'd rather try and fail than not try and keep going the direction we're heading. 

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. 

FYI:  Average vehicle occupancy for private cars ranges from 1.1 to 1.3 persons based on most of the data I've seen. Do informal counts the next time you're driving I-71.

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.

"I'm curious to know how such data would be obtained formally."

 

  You can sit alongside I-71 and count people yourself. As long as you have a decent reputation for honesty and you use valid methods, your data should be trusted.

 

  If you don't think your data will be trusted or if you don't want to do it yourself, you can commission a study from a traffic engineering firm. They will put one of their interns in a chair along I-71 with some kind of tallying device and count people for you, and give you a report in a pretty binder.

 

    None of this stuff is hard; it just takes time.

 

 

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/censusavo.htm

 

The vehicle occupancy for the entire state is 1.05, so I would definitely believe KJP's numbers.  We actually have the lowest AVO in the country.

 

As an aside, the last 5 trips I've people I've known have made from Cleveland to Columbus have all been solo.

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.   

 

    We really can't know the true ridership of the 3-C unless we actually build it and count passengers.

 

  Going back to DanB's post, he is not concerned about which demographic group will ride it. He is concerned that there will not be enough riders to justify the service, and it will fail.

 

    I showed in a previous post that based on the published projections, it would be more cost-effective for the state to initiate a new bus service between the 3-C's, and by running the buses to Downtown Cincinnati it would solve all of the routing problems there.

 

    Since the proposed 3-C line is not cost-effective now, in my mind, the question becomes whether or not demand for the 3-C line will increase to justify upgrading to high-speed rail in the future. The best we can do is make projections based on experience in other areas, and even at that, no one knows for sure because no one knows what the price of gasoline, the economy, population, etc., will be in the future.

 

    It all comes down to preferences and making a case.

"I wish this was moving along faster, and I don't mean the speed of the trains."

 

This isn't the first time the 3-C line has been brought up. It was seriously considered in the 1980's, but nothing came of it.

The best we can do is make projections based on experience in other areas

 

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 was thinking that a market study is one form of projection.

 

    Market studies for, say, a new brand of soap can be done by introducing the product to a sample market. Market studies for transportation services are not so simple.

Market studies for, say, a new brand of soap can be done by introducing the product to a sample market.

 

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.

 

 

A lot goes into producing a bar of soap for a test market.  You can bet the marketing is done first.

 

327, you've gotten a lot smarter since you passed the bar!

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

^

So DanB says this plan fails because it's not high-speed rail. Why am I thinking that if we were building high-speed from the get-go - like Florida is building between Tampa and Orlando -- DanB would be complaining that the cost is way too high? He be insisting that we should be starting with a more conservative rail plan "to see if it works" before spending all that money.

 

This reminds me of the clowns who write-in to the Enquirer about the Cincinnati Streetcar, wanting the city to paint a stripe down the street and run gussied-up truck-trolleys on them "to see if it works" before installing rails and stringing overhead wires.

 

Remember, with rail opponents, whatever the plan is, they will always want a different plan. Nothing will ever satisfy them.

That is why they are noisy, not influential.

Death by committee -- be careful as it sometimes works. 

Or death by endless study, which has worked to save Ohio from progress for more than 30 years in Ohio.