Great Lakes Cities

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Getting the time down to convince more people to ditch their cars and increasing frequency of trains can only be a positive. If it gets reduced by a decent amount it might encourage more Chicagoans to do weekend trips to Milwaukee as well.

much more than reducing the travel time, i think the main thing that could be done to really encourage more people to take the hiawatha instead of driving up I-94 would be to lower the cost of a train ticket.

my family of 4 travels up to milwaukee A LOT because my wife's parents, her sisters, and most of my kids' first cousins, all live up there.

we always drive.

not because the train takes too long, nor because the frequencies don't work for us, it's because a roundtrip hiawatha ticket for a family of 4 is $150!

alternatively, we can do a roundtrip to see my in-laws up in milwaukee with our car on a half-tank of gas, roughly $25.

bonus: we get door-to-door travel (her family members all live out in the milwaukee burbs) with unlimited schedule flexibilty.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

much more than reducing the travel time, i think the main thing that could be done to really encourage more people to take the hiawatha instead of driving up I-94 would be to lower the cost of a train ticket.

my family of 4 travels up to milwaukee A LOT because my wife's parents, her sisters, and most of my kids' first cousins, all live up there.

we always drive.

not because the train takes too long, nor because the frequencies don't work for us, it's because a roundtrip hiawatha ticket for a family of 4 is $150!

alternatively, we can do a roundtrip to see my in-laws up in milwaukee with our car on a half-tank of gas, roughly $25.

bonus: we get door-to-door travel (her family members all live out in the milwaukee burbs) with unlimited schedule flexibilty.

Well, considering wear/tear on your car + tolls, it's more than $25. But, at least for me, it's cheaper than renting a car, especially if you're staying overnight.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

much more than reducing the travel time, i think the main thing ...would be to lower the cost of a train ticket.
...because a roundtrip hiawatha ticket for a family of 4 is $150!

Yeah $150USD vs $25 is a "budget buster" for a family.

To compare, for me to take GO bus/then train transfer from the closest park and ride in Niagara to downtown Toronto costs $33.15 round-trip/$25USD for a 91km/57 mile trip

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

much more than reducing the travel time, i think the main thing that could be done to really encourage more people to take the hiawatha instead of driving up I-94 would be to lower the cost of a train ticket.

my family of 4 travels up to milwaukee A LOT because my wife's parents, her sisters, and most of my kids' first cousins, all live up there.

we always drive.

not because the train takes too long, nor because the frequencies don't work for us, it's because a roundtrip hiawatha ticket for a family of 4 is $150!

alternatively, we can do a roundtrip to see my in-laws up in milwaukee with our car on a half-tank of gas, roughly $25.

bonus: we get door-to-door travel (her family members all live out in the milwaukee burbs) with unlimited schedule flexibilty.

That's a really reasonable price for a return ticket for 4 people.

Your head would explode if you saw the round trip prices between the major cities on the northeast corridor.

[Steely Dan]

i just google mapped how long it would take to get from our home in Lincoln Square up to my in-law's house in suburban Milwuakee exclusively using transit and Amtrak Hiawatha.

the result: 4.5 hours, LOL!!!!!

the roundtrip cost for our family would be ~$200.

- CTA brown line downtown to chicago union station
- Amtrak Hiawatha up to downtown milwaukee train station
- MCTS bus out to brookfield square mall
- waukesha county bus to goerke's corner park n' ride lot

what's more, that time doesn't even include the 2 mile walk to my in law's house from that park n' ride lot.



that's why we drive.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Well, considering wear/tear on your car + tolls, it's more than $25. But, at least for me, it's cheaper than renting a car, especially if you're staying overnight.

yeah, i forgot about tolls and wear n' tear.

gas: ~$25
tolls: $9.40
wear: 200 miles x $0.25/mile = $50

driving roundtrip total: ~$85


still WAY cheaper and WAY less hassle than trying to get there on transit.

[Wigs]

When you have kids (which I don't but still value saving money), every dollar matters unless you're high income double earners.

I like taking the bus/train combo to downtown Toronto because GTA traffic is a nightmare (wish we had all day GO train service with more stations like is planned) and daily parking in downtown Toronto costs the bulk equivalent of a round-trip GO ticket.

[ChiSoxRox]

I am moving to Boston for a post doc next month, and intend on frequent weekend trips down to NYC by Amtrak. But I'm doing this as a single person, without a car (or desire to drive anywhere near the boroughs), and a personal appeal for trains. If I had kids in tow, the NE Regional quickly turns $$$$.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i just google mapped how long it would take to get from our home in Lincoln Square up to my in-law's house in suburban Milwuakee exclusively using transit and Amtrak Hiawatha.

the result: 4.5 hours, LOL!!!!!

the roundtrip cost for our family would be ~$200.

Yeah, that's silly. That's about the same amount of time that Google Maps estimated for me to go from my place in Brooklyn to Boston on subway + rail.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Wigs

More economic power than Detroit despite hundreds of thousands of less population!

Yeah no, GDP is a heavily flawed estimate. No way MSP has a bigger MSA economy. And obviously would be nowhere near CSA.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah no, GDP is a heavily flawed estimate. No way MSP has a bigger MSA economy. And obviously would be nowhere near CSA.

And Ann Arbor being excluded from the Detroit MSA, is also a factor, as we all know how interconnected the two really are.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I don't know what I'm talking about and am an idiot. My thought was (wrongly and confusingly) that Pittsburgh from some angles could be viewed as Midwest, but its got characteristics of both the Rust Belt and, on the offhand chance someone does consider it the Midwest, could also be lumped in with the "New Midwest" based on some of its recent developments and characteristics (eds and meds economy replacing manufacturing).

It is a painfully idiotic exercise on my part that has no bearing on anything. It was wrong and I am wrong.

I think you're being just a bit hard on yourself... and I hope there's some sarcasm here

My lack of understanding of your post wasn't so much about whether or not Pittsburgh could be viewed as Midwest (we don't need to go into all that), but more about how it be considered "New Midwest" based on the attributes that Steely noted:

• healthy metro area population growth rate last decade
• parlayed state capital status and/or flagship state university into growth

Like these cities that were given as examples:

Twin Cities (hybrid)
Columbus
Indianapolis
Kansas City (hybrid)
Grand Rapids
Omaha
Des Moines
Madison


I just don't think Pittsburgh meets either of those above criteria, and doesn't really have much in common with the cities listed. But then again, there are no hard and fast rules governing the characteristics of "New Midwest" cities...

Originally Posted by Wigs

I kind of see your point, Buckeye.

Pittsburgh did seem to jump on the Eds & Meds early. I've heard it has a growing FinTech sector. Also, Carnegie Mellon has been known as a computer and robotics engineering pioneer compared to many other institutions. Because Pittsburgh shed traditional manufacturing jobs so quickly and at such an alarming rate it seems to have diversified its economy quicker than other Rust Belt peers

Anyone from Pittsburgh care to chip in?

Yeah, I get this angle to it. I think that's the narrative out there... and definitely a narrative that local political leaders like to tout about Pittsburgh. The thing is, Pittsburgh has been "eds & meds" (and financial) for a very long time.

It didn't just happen, nor was there some orchestrated master plan to move in this direction, after the steel industry died off. Pittsburgh's economy was always diversified... it's just that steel was such a huge presence in the region, and became so ingrained with its image, that it overshadowed everything else, and thus it's not surprising that the national perception hasn't held that it has been a major international center of industrial/scientific/engineering/energy innovation and biomedical research at the academic, government, and corporate levels for a long time.

Basically, as the national economy shifted away from heavy manufacturing, Pittsburgh was already well set up for the "new economy", and the sectors therein emerged in receiving more prominent attention.

However... the Pittsburgh's region's economy took a MAJOR hit in the 1970s and 80s with the collapse of the steel industry. And it's really been only the past 20 years or so where signs of new life have started to take hold. It has a long way to go.

Much of the Pittsburgh area is still very rough with post-industrial decay... and I don't think would ever be confused with a Columbus or a Minneapolis or a Kansas City or any of the cities of the "New Midwest" that have grown significantly over the last decade or so.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, i forgot about tolls and wear n' tear.

gas: ~$25
tolls: $9.40
wear: 200 miles x $0.25/mile = $50

driving roundtrip total: ~$85


still WAY cheaper and WAY less hassle than trying to get there on transit.

Yeah, we don't have a car so would have to rent one, we live in walking distance to Union Station, our daughter is too young to have to pay, and my in-laws generally pick us up so our calculus is pretty different

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I am moving to Boston for a post doc next month, and intend on frequent weekend trips down to NYC by Amtrak. But I'm doing this as a single person, without a car (or desire to drive anywhere near the boroughs), and a personal appeal for trains. If I had kids in tow, the NE Regional quickly turns $$$$.

Acela and the NE Regionals are good, but also investigate the various bus routes between Boston and NYC. There are a lot of newer private bus carriers that now run pretty fancy business class buses between the two. If you've traveled on the luxury intercity buses in Latin America, they're roughly analogous.

But apples-apples, rail is probably still best. Buses are worth exploring if the trains are sold out or remaining seats are exorbitantly priced.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Acela and the NE Regionals are good, but also investigate the various bus routes between Boston and NYC. There are a lot of newer private bus carriers that now run pretty fancy business class buses between the two. If you've traveled on the luxury intercity buses in Latin America, they're roughly analogous.

But apples-apples, rail is probably still best. Buses are worth exploring if the trains are sold out or remaining seats are exorbitantly priced.

I would also recommend checking the Delta Shuttle. The shuttle prices are typically aligned with Acela, and the shuttle is still much faster (although it shouldn't be!). Shuttle flights between Boston and LGA leave every hour and you're typically allowed to change your flight around same day at no charge.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah no, GDP is a heavily flawed estimate. No way MSP has a bigger MSA economy. And obviously would be nowhere near CSA.

That's the metric BLS uses, that's what people now see on Wikipedia

The Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area is the country's 13th largest economy based on GDP and has surpassed the Detroit metropolitan area as the Midwest's second largest economy.[2]

As of 2020, there are 24 Fortune 1000 companies headquartered in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area.

[Docere]

Is Cleveland more similar to Detroit or Buffalo?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Is Cleveland more similar to Detroit or Buffalo?

yes!

but seriously, neither.

[Steely Dan]

It seems to me that there are some general great lakes rustbelt city common threads running through all three of them.

If a screenplay about a story set in one of them ended up being shot on location in one of the others, 99% of people likely wouldn't notice. I mean, we're not talking about Philly and Phoenix here.

[Crawford]

Re. Cleveland similarities, if I had to pick between Buffalo and Detroit, I'd say Buffalo. But it would be really close. There are good arguments for Detroit too.

Cleveland and Buffalo feel more heavy industry than Detroit, a bit older, less sprawly and more centralized. Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights would fit in Buffalo a bit more seamlessly than in Detroit. Detroit has a weird dash of Sunbelt, or at least interior America, with the giant grid, the edge cities, the endless McMansions, etc.

[dc_denizen]

Good read

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/20...outputType=amp