327

Again, land to the south is not involved in my argument, unless you mean something like 10 yards to the south of the ROW. And I hadn't even mentioned the treatment plant, good call. There's another thing that makes its immediate area less than ideal for outdoor recreation. I'm not saying you can't possibly have outdoor recreation next to a salt mine, and a treatment plant, and a tugboat factory. It just wouldn't top my list of investment ideas. My theory is that we should locate things, all things, where we can get the most out of them, and where each thing can be the best thing it can be.

I had no idea Captain Kirk would affect people so! Live and learn.

Is there an echo? I've been fielding ad hominem material all day here, and I don't recall dishing much out. If you don't like my numbers, supply numbers of your own. Don't go after me because you don't like the assumptions I made. Tell us why they're wrong... not why I'm bad. And again, traffic backups on Clifton were a reality in the recent past. I was there. I was coming from Warren Rd, and by the time I got to 104 I had already been creeping for 1/2 hour sometimes. It varied. I stated last week that the further west one enters the road, the more backup one will deal with, because the bottleneck was at the eastern end then, as it would theoretically be under this plan. By 104 we'd almost gotten through the entire backup, because once we finally got on the freeway part we got moving again in a hurry.

Toning down... it's hard for people to separate "Cincinnati" proper from anything that bills itself as "3C." I think that's what's going on there. And every possible argument about Ohio's inner cities not being 100% rail-ready apply many times over to Sharonville. Unless Sharonville is a major local transit hub in a sense that I'm not aware of.

It doesn't matter if there are also amenities along the shoreway, because their existence does not cancel out that of the industry. And they're reachable thru other means. WestBLVD explained this aspect very nicely last week. That tugboat factory just made a major investment in their facilities here, which is why the Whiskey Island alternative for the port move was summarily dropped. They aren't leaving. And are you suggesting the mine have all its operations off shore? Bottom line, that stuff is not mobile. And looking out your window at something is very different from extending a family walking path right up next to it and making major changes to the adjacent roadway. Clearly you guys believe there will be a lot of beneficial impact from slowing down this road and putting in sidewalks... I disagree. And that's leaving aside the issues of negative impacts, on which we also disagree. I'm happy to clarify my position, but I'm not sure anyone's convincing anyone of anything here. A lot of it rests on our underlying views and theories. And Mr. Ksonic, I'm not sure anyone got "crushed." The Clifton thing actually happened, it was not a suggestion or prediction. I did once live in Lakewood and commute on this road. I no longer do... just to get that cleared up. But the traffic backups a couple years ago were quite real. Your statement about my commuting motivation suggested that I've been dishonest here to protect a personal interest. Again, stick to the issues. And realize that your view of the scorecard is your own, as it is for each of us.

No, all those things are good, but none of them require any major alteration to the shoreway, and I don't think a major alteration to the shoreway will advance those causes much. We appear to disagree on that. So be it. My point about the tugboats and the mine is not that the shoreway project should "do" anything about them... just that their presence should be considered when we consider the shoreway. In short, I think there's a stronger relationship between the shoreway and what's north of it, than between the shoreway and what's south of it. And I don't believe we can do much to change those relationships, because the issues involved-- primarily the location of the tugboats and mine, and of the RR tracks-- are constants and not variables.

Allright Ksonic99, my point about the speed has now been soundly defeated by you. With your sword. Now what about the rest of the issues? And have you yet read the part about no I don't live there and I'm not fighting for my own commuting convenience... because you were pretty sure about it earlier. You seem extremely concerned with defeating me because you like this project and I don't. That's my read of your position, but I'm not going to suggest you're attempting to mislead everyone, even though you've already stated quite clearly (and falsely) where I live. Stick to the issues. But... but ... the shoreway is still right by the salt mine and the tugboat factory, regardless of any remediation issues or lack thereof. That's my actual point and has been all along. I keep trying to tell you there is no remediation issue with the shoreway... that was noted an example of a type of thinking... it is not a specific issue involving the shoreway, and never was. I'm talking about the present and future of industry along the shoreway, not the past. These arguments are not directed at anything up the cliff from the shoreway. I keep mentioning this "up the cliff from" element because that's part of my reasoning in suggesting that the shoreway conversion may not be as beneficial as is hoped. These neighborhoods are physically separated from the lake by a lot more than just the shoreway, and changing the shoreway will not change the basic geography of the situation.

As to both statements I partially agree and partially disagree. I don't think this will help BP to the extent others do, because I think its utility in its proposed role is more limited than others do. That is largely an industrial issue, though it's not at all a remediation issue. Two. Separate. Things. This here is not an issue of former industry. This is an issue of currently active industry, which isn't going anywhere, and whether or not the land immediately adjacent to it is our best choice for casual recreation. My last point on remediation is that no, it's not even close to being the same kind of issue for every plot of land in Cleveland. If that were true we couldn't live here. Some plots are a lot dirtier than others. I don't understand how this particular issue is controversial.

I hope you didn't stew about this all weekend. I guess it's my fault for dealign with more than one issue at a time. Believe it or not, that quote was a throwaway line, one of many examples I raised to illustrate my main point, a point which had nothing to do with BP. What is the thread title? Not BP. Up till that point, I don't believe BP had entered our discussion about the west shoreway and I had no intention of bringing it in via that line. I was highlighting my overarching point about context. I was not making a covert dig at BP and I apologize for not clarifying. FWIW I'm inclined to believe BP could be a lot closer to done right now if its location were 100% appropriate for such a thing. That doesn't make the site inappropriate... it's just a factor to be weighed. And I did mention last week, didn't I, that even if remdiation isn't prohibitive it's still a cost, and it has to come out of some budget somewhere. Anyway, there's nothing to be remediated, that I know of, in converting the shoreway to a family recreation area... but that doesn't mean the context is real good for that idea either. Again, two different issues, with commonalities and distinctions. No matter how hard you try, you can't make me be opposed Battery Park. I'm not. I'm opposed to the boulevard conversion. Well, that's... one way... to reduce a complex issue. No one shall consider anything outside of their immediate interests, eh? The narrative setup of Donkey Kong has more depth. My commute is a rail commute from the east side, so that's not the deal here. As always, you don't have to believe me. Go ahead... fiddle with the speed numbers. Same argument still applies. If you go from unenforced 50 (which=70) to enforced 35 (enforced since it's new), that's 50%. I thought we'd already been through that. Go ahead... assert that the construction of Battery Park negates every possible environmental concern anyone might raise. Ignore the fact that there have always been houses near the Eveready plant, but that the same can't be said for the upriver flats. There are no distinctions between these two things, industry is industry, regardless of how many different kinds of industrial zoning Clevleand has. Is that what you're saying? What really matters is "boulevard vibrant greenspace" or some such combination of buzzwords. Any argument that raises issues outside this paradigm must have some "automatic win" button in it somewhere, right? Attack the speaker ad hominem! That always works. Because the buzzword paradigm shall prevail.

It sure could, but my notion of its "impact" is different than yours. Look, you're attacking an argument I never made and a position I don't hold. I never said we shouldn't redevelop D-S or BP. I was talking specifically about the West Shoreway ROW and what we should or shouldn't do with that. The context of that ROW is different from the context of neighborhood that is located up a cliff from it. My point is that these two very different things may never interact in the way some are hoping for, which to me reduces the ROI of doing this conversion.

Euclid Avenue is the main street of Cleveland, and most cities' main streets are not given over to industry. That is not what "Main Street" is for, not on any level or in any situation. The logic of this is so compelling, to most people, that I don't think I need to expand on it further. I disagree strongly with your general view of Midtown but I won't get into that here. I think you have mistaken my position regarding this or that industrial building on the bluff. I'm not at all opposed to redeveloping these, particularly if the surrounding context indicates that industry is no longer the highest and best use for that area. Clearly, such is the case with Battery Park. The remediation numbers for something like this are a factor, but not necessarily a controlling one. Don't conflate Battery Park with the West Shoreway. I wasn't attempting to analyze BP's situation last week, only the shoreway proposal. Each one is a different thing in a different context... so each one merits a different approach. The industry north of the shoreway, as well as elsewhere along our waterfront(s), is of a different class. There is no way Euclid Ave or Battery Park, on the whole, would have remediation costs comparable with the heavier waterfront industries. Nobody ever refined oil or made atom bombs on Euclid Avenue. There are and were limits to how filthy you can get without... sadly... an adjacent water source to dump in. So these "reinventing the wheel" issues are far more significant when we're dealing with waterfront industries. This is the case with the West Shoreway boulevard conversion, though not with Battery Park, which is not itself adjacent to any heavy waterfront industries.

In the end, as with everything, the answer to Why? is bad planning at the local level. So when we see another bad plan coming down the chute-- this time we've got to stop it. No, a bad plan is not better than nothing, because running with a bad transit plan demeans transit and it demeans planning. That in turn makes future projects, good ones, harder to win support for. Political capital doesn't grow on trees, nor does credibility, nor does goodwill toward a brand.

The positions I'm laying out here are unscientific representations of what I see and hear. I probably don't read any more public commentary, or talk to any more people about this, than any other forumer does. My observation is that these concerns about speed and practical options upon arrival are a pretty consistent chorus. It's telling, to me, how universal these concerns are and how they span the political spectrum. And when it's people I know, and I know they favor public infrastructure investments and rail transit, I'm hesitant to write off their concerns as propaganda from the pavement industry. Let the people's representatives speak? I'm not sure we want that at the moment... like it or not, this is a partisan issue and Ohio's balance is precarious. As it stands now the 3C plan can hardly be called the will of the people, or even of the general assembly, when it's from 1994. Ohio's economy has taken a dive since then, and arguably the divisions between north and south are more pronounced. On the good side our downtowns are more active than in 1994. But sprawl has increased a great deal, and our metro economies are more car-dependent than ever. That does not mean Ohio shouldn't have intercity rail, nor does it mean we shouldn't get going on it now. It does, I think, mean that a slow Ohio-only line is about the least marketable option we could possibly come up with. If this plan is going to be reviewed by the general assembly... and I think it might, at some point in the next couple years... wouldn't we rather be the ones leading that effort, instead of letting the opposition lead it? For that to happen, the pro-rail side would have to accept that changes are needed, and I don't see that forthcoming.

I agree it's all about "political realities" and I think there are several of them in play here. When you say "illegal" do you mean illegal, or do you mean this: That was in response to questons about a different change. How does "illegal" relate to this NEPA hearing process? If we want to deal with the CUT issue there's a hearing process, but if we want to deal with the speed issue it's verboten? Some states received money outright for planning and set-up work to do higher speeds, so it doesn't seem inconceivable that we could at least get a hearing on re-routing some of our funds toward speeding up the speeding up process. What first felt like a tin ear for market and voter concerns now sounds more like open contempt, and I don't know if that's healthy. If you want people's backing, if you want their money, don't insult them. Insulting them includes dismissing their concerns as stupid, yes even when they are stupid. The customer is always right. At what point does the customer for this become right? About anything? Many critics would be placated with some small, and seemingly legal, updates to the plan. If hearings are needed OK. And what's this about it'll be at least 5-7 years before this thing speeds up? If that is the case... I can't even begin to describe how not cool that is. How many general elections is that? Holy cow. Time to drop the conspiracy theories (even if they're true) and start focusing on what the market has to say. I don't hear it saying no, but I do hear it raising the same concerns over and over again, hoping for different answers. They hope for different answers because they do in fact want rail, but they think this plan sounds wasteful and ill-conceived.

Natininja, yes, I think popular support is necessary for this to work in the long term. Possibly in the short term as well. KJP, I keep expecting the answer to contain a rationale. Is it physically impossible to do environmental studies or design work for higher speeds unless slow trains are currently operational? Does the federal government mandate that states run slow trains for a certain amount of time before they're allowed to do anything else? Either of these could be the case, or maybe it's something else entirely, but it's not clear why our options have ever been limited to "this way or the highway." A federal mandate for slow 3C service seems at odds with the intent of the program its funding came from, that of a midwest high speed network with a Chicago Hub. While connecting the 3C's is a worthy goal, it could certainly be argued that it would be secondary to Chicago connections under this federal plan. And we already have rail service from Cleveland to Chicago, so how are we no further along on that route than on 3C? It's not clear why the feds are all about Chicago Hub and high speed, yet they'd prefer Ohio forget about speeding up its existing Chicago service and instead construct a new slow line running perpendicular to it.

I've already suggested a lot of reasons why not. The public might be more interested in launching a competitive service than in getting a service to market ASAP. There is a sense that the operating costs during 3C's indefinite slow period do not justify themselves, and that this money would be better spent on hastening our progress toward more marketable speeds. If the slow period were less indefinite, that alone would help.

I don't think the strategy has been successful by accident. I don't think low speed rail has been successful by accident either, in other places, but a lot of people see clear distinctions between that and this. Similarly, a lot of people who opposed the busway on Euclid Avenue openly wanted a streetcar there. A nuanced position isn't necessarily a cover for secret transit-hate. Some plans make more sense than others. Let's not conflate plan-specific opposition with some broader agenda. In terms of convincing the undecided, the motive of the other side is irrelevant anyway. It's nice to know, but it's irrelevant. I'd prefer not to let rail in Ohio rise and fall on the strength of this particular plan. And I'm increasingly baffled about why it's so impossible to adapt that plan. It seems like several compromises might be available, or at least conceivable, but the pro-rail side is holed up in Fort 3C. But the 3C plan doesn't have eyes, it doesn't have a soul, so it's not murder cut it open and work on it. Right? Here's one idea, just throwing it out there... why not delay the actual onset of service (and operational expenses) until after we've finished the necessary steps to allow better average speeds. That would also give us a chance to maybe coordinate the transit planning in the 3C's to make intercity rail travel a more workable option for people. It would also give us a chance to coordinate more closely with our neighbor states. It would also give us a chance to evaluate the statutory scheme for rail in Ohio and perhaps update it to meet today's needs. If this is going to be an election year issue, which looks to be the case, how about putting the entire issue on the table? That way people would feel more ownership of the plan we eventually emerge with. The idea here is reaching out to the pro-rail mainstream. Instead of demanding that they accept something they've been offered on a take it or leave it basis, let's engage them in a discussion about the future. Let's leverage the fact that people are finally talking about this and make sure the result of that conversation is pro-rail, even if it the result isn't 3C.

This has been covered a bit in the governor 2010 thread, but more specifically... what is this slogan all about? It sounds bigger than the governors race, doesn't it? Is Kasich in some kind of heated primary contest? I wasn't aware of any, I thought he was pretty much the guy. So is this his plan for the general election? Even if it is aimed at Republicans... this slogan says forget the middle. They're either with us or they're against us. The tea baggers would flip out if Democrats ever made a similar claim, even in jest. They wanna make Ohio liberal forever! They don't think we exist! They don't care what we think! Buy ammo now! These moonbats are trying to do away with democracy itself!

Pluto. I laugh out loud at these, then I scold myself. OK, I called her a "potato lady" too on the last page, so this is to me as well. I shouldn't have done that and here's why. She's pretty much right. First of all... her BS has decent production values. As noted, this stuff is well funded so it's probably gonna reach some people. This means any extent to which she's right is troublesome. And her points about the practicality of the service, at currently proposed speeds, are solid. They seem to hold water for 3C skeptics of all varieties, not just the out-there ideological ones. I'm not even sure I'd put this lady in that category... her final point, as stated, is not anti-rail... she's arguing specifically against operating it before we can reach reasonable speeds. She doesn't stand against rail in Ohio, but she doesn't want Ohio to operate rail at a service level that isn't as practical here as it may elsewhere be. She's not aiming at the far right. She's aiming at the mainstream, and she knows the mainstream is not anti-rail, so she couches and qualifies accordingly.

The space in that rendering is immense... seems like a lot for a lobby. If it is, and the exhibit halls are attached to that, I guess we're digging a pretty big hole.

Thank you Strap, that's the one. Willyboy, were you pointing out that there are multiple irons in the fire at PHS? I guess my original comment still stands... I wonder if they'll now reconsider the art building idea, the one in StrapHanger's link.

This is why we fail... Tober was right and he got punked by parochial interests. I call shenanigans on any report or analysis that allowed us to reach the result we ultimately did. A misleadingly rosy picture was painted in favor of BRT. That money should have been saved or invested for future rail projects. If NOACA weren't so short sighted, we would probably already have rail service far outside the central city, a la St. Louis... and then their major complaint would be nullified.

If I wasn't confused before, I am now. Obviously these plans have been evolving and I haven't kept up with them. But my understanding, simple if you will, was that the new art building plan is mutually exclusive with all CSU-PHS plans, due to the scope of the art building plan. The same problem doesn't need two solutions, right? And I distinctly remember a quote establishing this relationship between the plans, although I don't remember where I heard or read it. I'm actively involved at CSU and I do sometimes hear things. The art building I'm thinking of was proposed to take up all of the Euclid frontage there, including where Corlett was, and was to house all the art departments somewhat comprehensively. Visual arts would be displayed along Euclid, performance space would be inside, etc. Then, later, the PHS plans came along and this "comprehsive location" plan was back-burnered... I had thought. In short I thought the art building plan was equally related to any given plan to house any art departments anywhere else. I read the Litt article and it makes no reference to the art building proposal. Again, what am I missing? It's a simple question from a simple man.

So the 39 mph number is absolute bunk? It keeps sounding that way but not definitively. If it is bunk, we gotta shoot it down somehow. That thing is an open bleeding wound. Potato lady mentioned it and it's becoming pretty widely believed in general. This stat is about the only stat that affects people. Unless you're preaching to the choir on this, your audience may not be impressed by similar services in cities and states they consider foreign. They're acutely aware of the differences between those cities and ours. They pride themselves on the differences. No coastal elites are they. But they're not stupid and they'd be interested in rail if the numbers worked out favorably enough. And that's where they're stuck. They can't be sold on 3C-1994, they never have been, but they can be sold on the next stage, and then on 3C as a necessary step. They need to hear more about how we get to the next stage and how certain we are that we'll do it.

I'll join the happy train. My day to day life is based around RTA services, so I'm pro-RTA all the way. The staff is friendly and professional at every level. I especially like the ones who bring a little joy to it (sixty-fiiiiiiiiiiifffff), and I'm glad this kind of thing flourishes on RTA. My beef is with the polices and the long term planning. It's a top notch agency but it's out of control at the top. This is not uncommon among government agencies. Even so, RTA is still one of the best things about Cleveland.