Grumpy

This isn't a go yet. This was just a design competition that seeks solutions to the problem of the tracks, which is a positive step, but there is still a long road ahead to get shovels in the ground.

I think follow would sound just as confusing.

Well then what do you consider the "epicenter of downtown", and how do you propose to get a train there. Keep in mind that Tower City isn't an option for reasons that have been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread. I think that it is a matter of perspective: My office is close to there, so to me it seems like the heart of downtown. Also consider that the Rock Hall, Science Center, Browns Stadium, and the Convention Center are right next to it, so for visitors to the city it will seem like a somewhat logical choice.

Tying projects together? The Amshack is right next to the convention center, and if rebuilt, might end up connected to it.

Ok, but what would be the point of having a train between Cincy to Columbus and a separate one between CLE and Columbus? It isn't like you can't ride the train half way.

More state matching funds. Infrastructure for passenger rail has been removed, and freight rail is in the way now.

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/01/26/news/nh1999299.txt Laketran puts cut services on meeting agenda By Brandon C. Baker Will weeknight and/or Saturday services return to Laketran? Nobody can say for sure, but the possibility will be discussed in the near future.

If I recall correctly they can't do this because of the way the Airport RTA station is built, something about it being built as a dead end by some not so forward thinking planners way back when. Though I'm certain there are more knowledgeable people here that can better explain it.

The last couple days I've been randomly getting an error on the "Show new replies to your posts." link. Something about the server being busy, anyone else getting this?

^We should have asked for more in that case. :wink:

In Germany and Austria it is customary for escalators to be wide enough for people to pass on them, and so if you want to stand you stay to the right, and if you want to walk you stay to the left. I learned many German curse words and thought Austrians were very rude my first few days in Vienna before I figured out what was going on.

While I don't have a lot of respect for Kasich, I agree that campaigning on killing income tax could win this for him. I don't think that he would be successful at actually removing the income tax, but that won't stop voters from picking him over a cantidate that they didn't see using their taxes well. How many people are really going to vote for they guy that wants to leave taxes alone when someone is running on eliminating them?

No construction is going on, they're waiting on historic preservation tax credits.

Incumbents often do poorly when the economy is bad, so even if Strickland had done a good job I think he'd have trouble.

Savannah has a beautiful old city that is just stunning, but you wander a few blocks away from it and you discover the old slaves were traded here portions of the city that will creep you out too. Most of the city is quite poor, the crime is pretty bad, the public transportation is worthless, the summers are unbearable, the bugs can't be controlled, and outside of the areas of the city immediately around the historic center it is pretty sprawly. In my opinion it is a great place to visit for a few days, Charlestown is nothing in comparison, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

^So are you saying we should ban weapons that look scary to you? The old "I know it when I see it" argument.

So Akron's worst bottleneck isn't in Akron (or even close) and Cleveland's is one exit ramp? I suppose that's a good thing, especially since my bus takes that exit every morning and doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

I usually just hit the unread posts link. Otherwise I go to the bar, the projects, and the various transportation forums.

He makes a couple of interesting points, but he seems to ignore the history of policies encouraging sprawl and is upset by the potential of policies that are more balanced. It is a very ignorant view. Suburbia isn't being attacked, unfairness in policy is being worked against. Some people will always choose the city if given the option, others will always choose the suburbs, but many people will choose the place close to work, with good schools, good transportation options, a small yard, and low crime regardless of whether it is in the city or suburbs. If policies are in place that encourage people to move to the suburbs and drive more, many people will choose to do that. If the same policies are changed to be more balanced, I would think many people would choose to move to the city.

I'm not addicted, I could quit if I wanted to, I just don't want to ... oh wait ... Dang.

Good idea, you wouldn't want to try to drive around Juarez anyway. People don't know how to drive friendly down there. I've visited Juarez about a dozen times over the last couple decades with my church as a teenager and in recent years a good friend of mine from high school and college ended up working a little south of the city. It has been interesting to visit every other year or so and see the city grow and get gradually poorer throughout the 90's, then see it continue to grow, but stabalize in its poverty over the last decade, at least from my perspective, though the crime has gotten out of control. It has been a sad transformation to see, but very interesting. I still find it funny that outside of El Paso only the rich people can afford to buy a house up in the mountains, but in Juarez only the poor people end up living in the mountains.

For historical context consider that Madison's rough draft of the Bill of Right included the phrase "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" at the end. While this version is of course not law, it does tell us that the intent of the amendment was military related, not just gun related.

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia. That's one way to read it, and it appears to me to be the original intent. I honestly don't care that much, as no one is going to read it that way now, but I felt like defending it. In other writings at the time "bear arms" literally meant to serve in the militia.

It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

While I'm far from a legal scholar, that sure sounds to me like permission for states to regulate arms, while not forbidding them. In other words, it is up to the states to determine where to draw the line on what is and isn't allowed. I don't see how the 14th amendment affects that.