Blue Line

Okay, now I see what you mean. Yes, limited funds do play a role in such a decision. However, even when someone else has paid the cost (gifts and such), I've insisted upon going the cheaper route. It's more about paying for luxuries when you can obviously do without paying hundreds of dollars for a slightly better experience (sometimes not that much better at all).

Umm yes there is. TIME! Time is money! Let me try it in a way that Mayday won't consider ignorant. Many on OU who promote public transportation do not feel that time is money. It appears their time is not important to them as they will wait extremely long times to catch trains and buses to get to their destination. I still don't know how you came to that conclusion, and it appears that you may be bitter about something else.

About a third of the photos showed up, but from what I saw, THANK YOU!

I need to be on a plane, regardless if this is leisure or business. The bus appears to make to many stops for my taste and and I have concerns over the cleanliness of the bus and the places of where it stops. On top of that I have a comfort issue as those seats seem like they would be "tight" for someone my size. One stop between Cincinnati and Chicago is too many? Heck, it only stops for about 10 minutes max. Perhaps you're referring to Greyhound, but I've never seen an issue with cleanliness or safety of the stops. Perhaps the last point holds something, but I'd say they're comparable with the space you have on an airflight. I will say that the amount of leg and overall room you get on an Amtrak train wins hands down.

Umm yes there is. TIME! Time is money! I wouldn't disagree with that, but I'm usually not heading to Chicago on business. In my opinion, it's easy to just head there in the later afternoon or overnight period. I would say that money costs you the ability to spend your time doing things you'd rather do while there. So I prefer a low ticket price so that money can go toward transit, food, and lodging costs. All would be compromised if I flew out of Cincinnati to Chicago. I no longer have a car, by choice, so driving to Dayton is not an option. I did ride MegaBus to Indy and then flew out to Erie, PA though, because the net savings was over $200.

It's a tossup between George Carlin and Jim Gaffigan, really.

I would definitely agree with the former, although I've never witnessed anyone being stubborn about getting on the bus on time. The driver has always made it clear when he or she would be leaving. I've had a couple crappy experiences, but only very late buses. That can happen with a train or a plane though. There's no reason to drive or fly to Chicago for the prices you pay for Megabus.

I overheard at Kaldi's, a couple months ago, that they were going to be closing again at some point soon...although it was expressed as an "any day now" thing. Where did you hear they were moving? I do think it would be a more successful business elsewhere. However, even a couple days after the power outages, I saw tons of people in there. Perhaps you just need to put everyone else out of business!

Well, if you're living in OTR, you can easily put it on the bike racks on the fronts of each bus. That won't help you get more accustomed to riding in Cincinnati, but hell...I ride 20-35 miles per day, and I still can't get up Vine Street all the way. Then again, I'm riding a commuter bike, which makes it more difficult.

No problem. I'll be down that way later tonight. Existing stuff though!

Any firm logo shown or listed? I guess it's now time for us to be impatient.

That looks scary as hell. Where is that?

You know, the reveal could happen sooner if you go over there in the middle of the night, and rip that sheet off!

Not at all. I'm currently riding the 17 Seven Hills bus to Forest Park, then riding my bike to Hamilton for my daily commute. Don't hold your breath for a regional system quite yet...although it's a possibility. Or just buy a bike. :)

Perhaps the Red Cross still has a lease on the land. As far it I've heard, the zoning has only been changed. The land hasn't been purchased, has it?

Glad you posted that. Just registered for my new card.

Gah! Someone derailed the thread again! I think I've made this mistake a couple times. :)

I guess we need to move into the future eventually...but this looks like a couple office complex covered in mucus.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse (that quote was more for my reference), but if you grind it up into pellets, they're still going to impact the environment. We already use styrofoam and other plastics as for packing materials, which are also harmful. There's already a problem with the breakdown of weaker plastics in the products we buy. They're currently floating around in the ocean as pellets, posing a threat to many ecosystems. It sure has the same effect on land ecosystems as well. I agree with you on the "creative minds" thing though. I'm all for the production of plant-based plastics, but alas, they're very expensive. Hopefully we can make some headway on that front. I don't know enough about them to know their capabilities for more durable applications though. Let's get back to the hurrah for the plastic bridge. I'm sure some people are happy about it.

I still don't understand why it Walgreens to east and Kroger to the west wasn't possible. Both buildings could face a realignment of Vine Street, meshing well with the rest of the business district. Parking would be to the rear of each building (Euclid and Jefferson).

I wasn't claiming that it *does* contain BPA. That's why I said *perhaps*. My main concern is how such construction will NEVER break down and NEVER be recycled. Esters are one of the easiest polymers to decompose. That's why a lot of biodegradable biomaterials are made from polyesters - the ester linkage is readily hydrolyzed in the body. However, given that this is a thermoset resin, it will probably degrade more slowly - never, however, is a rather strong suggestion that is most likely incorrect. How much steel and concrete from typical bridges is usually recycled? I'm just curious. Through a web search, from a high school chemistry book: "Thermosetting plastics differ from thermoplastics because once they have been formed, they cannot be remelted or remoulded. Examples include bakelite, vulcanised rubber, melanine (used to make furniture), and many glues. Thermosetting plastics are generally stronger than thermoplastics and are better suited to being used in situations where there are high temperatures. They are not able to be recycled. Thermosetting plastics have strong covalent bonds between chains and this makes them very strong." There should also be concern as to the pollution created when these materials are refined. Discussing and determining point source pollution would be never ending though. All I am saying is that this plastic bridge makes it nearly impossible to reuse for other purposes. Plus, the breakdown of plastics (not to be confused with decomposition) emits toxins into the air and into the water.

I wasn't claiming that it *does* contain BPA. That's why I said *perhaps*. My main concern is how such construction will NEVER break down and NEVER be recycled.

Bridge for the next century? Polymers and resins are oil-based. As this century progresses, we're going to have less and less of the stuff... That too.

I think all religious organizations should be banned from voting on legislation.

Good luck recycling those materials. Plus, it probably leeches harmful chemicals (BPA, perhaps?) into the water or elsewhere. I don't like the idea at all. Not one bit. It would have been perfect for the 20th century, when we weren't so concerned with the environmental and health impacts. Some people might not be concerned even now (or are completely oblivious), but we should be.