This is because these are 3 hubs of jobs and places that people want to be but are also unlikely to have cars at because students are broke, people in downtowns don't need cars, and travellers by plane lack cars as well fod obvious reasons.

This is why transit systems like the Cincinnati Streetcar fail as while it meets the downtowns needs, it f ails to provide real connections, if it were to be extended to UC then it would be a much more functional transport system as it would give mobility to people instead of acting as a people mover

Yeah, but like people don’t generally live at 2 out of those 3 locations. The rail then becomes a service for mainly tourists while not serving the communities that pay the taxes that fund the rail service. So people then vote to get rid of those rail systems or don’t vote to expand them since up until this point they haven’t received any benefits from it. My city has a light rail system and I’ve used it maybe 10 times in my life.

Hmm, that's a fair point, I would think that any transit system should also go through urban neighborhoods as well, because that's where ridership will be best, the reason I chose airports instead of urban neighborhoods is that transport systems in a Downtown SHOULD go through urban neighborhoods anyways and therefore I felt it didn't need mentioning, plus I was trying to focus on the main destinations that anchor a system that people will head to on such a system

We gotta stop this "you missed one thing your entire theory is bad" shit guys. Yes, urban and suburban neighborhoods need public transit. That doesn't mean a bus/train to the airport and downtown is a bad idea.