327

I really don't think the "bumbling idiot" thing referred to any forumer. I think it referred to a forumer's boss, or more generally to the chain of command that put said forumer in said predicament. And I don't think anyone here ever blames said forumer for any RTA policy.

I mean what I said, not what you said. Praying for industries to return has nothing to do with prioritizing land usage based on the nature and context of the land. If you think that's asking too much then... we're at an impasse there. And what buildings have I argued against reclaiming? I mean, if I said it I said it, but what are you talking about? And I never said we shouldn't remediate pollution. I just said we don't have to do that before we build things, because we already have plenty of land to build those things on that doesn't need remediation. Low hanging fruit means less upfront cost during a recession, thus more growth for our buck. So yes, let's do the remediation... but let's do it with a higher tax base, let's not put it ahead of actual growth. Instead we're putting new industry on Millionaire's Row... while putting neighborhoods and amenities where, in a thunderbolt of irony, industry happens to be the highest and best use.

Totally agree. Symon is hitting each sub-market in Greater Cleveland while avoiding overlap. He's expanding as much as he can without saturating. In the eyes of these sub-markets, nothing really is special... and standardization is a good thing. Come one come all to the asphalt near the mall!

So "turn Ohio red today" is almost as vague as "hope and change." I'll grant that hope and change are extremely vague... but turning Ohio red isn't. That's a stated aspiration for one-party rule. Nothing vague about it.

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but how is this even remotely true? You've been bitching for the last 2 pages about the 35 mph speed limit and even claimed that peoples very livelihoods hung on whether or not the speed limit would be reduced. The at-grade intersections issue seems resolved... though perhaps not permanently... and I believe many other aspects are still on the table, like the speed limit and the total project scope/cost. Neighborhood access and traffic calming appear to be separate goals with separate merits. My point there was that my positions on this are not tin-hat crazy, and that these issues have not already been settled to the contrary.

I'm highly supportive of a new entrance or two from the Battery Park area, and that seems to be the main aspect of this people want. I didn't think additional access was ever really controversial. And I'm a lot more supportive of the plan as a whole since they dropped the at-grade intersections concept. Some people here seem to be fighting for the original concept, which was about as realistic as a Popeye cartoon. I'm pretty sure that plan was already dropped, for some of the reasons I've been discussing. The plan now is to pretty much keep the freeway format. So... as I understand it, I'm the one who's advocating for the plan we're actually moving forward with. And I know, Punch, that this officially means I'm ODOT scum.

I sure hope you never have to work in a job where your mistakes are visible for thousands to see and criticize. Maybe your reactions to them would be a little more humane. You want us to be less critical of RTA simply because they are more visible than other organizations? Can't take the heat... get out the kitchen. A lot of us would love to have those jobs. Public positions involve public criticism, in some cases an overwhelming amount. This is America. No one here has been inhumane toward RTA at any point. We expect quality work, quality service, and above all good decisions for our future. We are not wrong to expect these things.

I hope no one ever has to, and I trust that any needed remediation was done. And every dollar spent on remediation is a dollar lost toward completing the project... at some point. Battery Park has worked out. SYC worked out, after a confusing drama with WalMart over who would pay for remediation. City View, unfortunately, is flat out dangerous... and due to an oversight by the mayor, Garfield Heights is liable for the whole shebang, which I hope never actually goes shebang.

We need to accept that we do not get to repurpose industrial land any way we'd like. It isn't an available choice. Same goes for landfills... just ask Garfield Heights. I know we'd like to move on as if the past never happened but I'm sorry. This is the real world and the fact that land was industrial at one point, or is industrial right now, is a huge issue. It can't be wished away. Another example: We're having trouble completing the Towpath Trail because of a little ATOM BOMB factory that's been gone for years now. This is serious stuff and it we ignore it at our peril. Cleveland is not a clean slate. We don't get to reinvent it. We can make better decisions than our forbears, in some instances, and we can clean up some past mistakes. But we don't get to change the fundamental layout. We need to work within that layout, particularly in regard to current or former industrial areas. If nothing else, consider that it's inefficient and costly to constantly reinvent the wheel. We can put industrial parks and "new industry" on these former factory sites a lot easier (and more safely) than we can put neighborhods there. Meanwhile, Euclid Avenue is well suited to dense urban neighborhood uses... so we turn it into an industrial park. Quit complaining about how life's not fair to Cleveland. We choose the toughest, most expensive, s-l-o-w-e-s-t, and least logical path at every opportunity. EDIT: I hope this post makes more sense now. It was originally intended as a direct response to these questions from the previous day, which had really gotten me thinking... but I neglected to put the quotes at the top, which kinda made it into of a random rant. The last paragraph, however, was not responsive to any question. It was more of a global point, but my transition is not well delineated. Subheadings might even be appropriate here. Oh well. [thumbs up] That's a good quip. Now try articulating a position. [rides off on bike]

Your confusing 2 different things here. Oops... what am I missing? I remember plans for a long building between the law school and 21st, which would have had studio space fronting Euclid, and which would also have housed the theater dept. And I thought that had been scuttled in conjunction with the planned move to PHS.

Woodward Avenue is Detroit's equivalent to Euclid Avenue... a better comparison might be High Street in Columbus, although Woodward is much bigger than either of those. But in any case, it's the main street of the entire city and is lined with commercial uses. It hits the downtown of upscale Birmingham and other rich residential areas, after passing through miles and miles of Parma-like inner ring suburbs. Admittedly Woodward gets a little freeway-like just south of Pontiac, but for the most part it's a (huge) surface street with 10 miles of city on either side. It has intersections because it's smack in the middle of a massive street grid. Other than a tiny piece in Highland Park, Woodward Avenue is NOT industrial, and at no point is it physically hemmed in like the west shoreway. It bears no resemblance --at all-- to a freeway along a lakeshore with heavy industry on one side and a steep bank on the other. I would be pretty strongly against trying to replace our shoreway with something like Woodward Ave... because there's no way we could transport the rest of the central column of metropolitan Detroit to our west shoreway area. Context means everything.

All expenditures in Ohio go through the Controlling Board, it's automatic. Pass all the laws you want, nothing moves forward without a Controlling Board certificate. It's made up of legislators from both parties. Heads of state agencies often have to testify before it to get their budgets OK'd. Is it possible that Republicans on the Controlling Board, as well as millions of others, might be more willing to change ORC 4981 and switch to a different plan? I think the only reason anything's going in circles is that as soon as it tries to go anywhere else, it gets dragged back to this plan from 1994. We aren't allowed to consider any other ideas, no matter how much more palatable those ideas might be. That is pure psychosis. There is a reality outside 3-C and a world outside Ohio. I apologize for coming late to the game and not showing up at meetings to mention this stuff earlier.. I've been occupied. But holy crap, I had no idea we've been refusing to update our plan for 16 straight years. Here are the top 5 singles of 1994: The Sign--Ace of Base I Swear--All 4 One I'll Make Love to You--Boyz II Men The Power of Love--Celine Dion Hero--Mariah Carey

Interesting... maybe this brings new life to the art building on Euclid concept, which I was pretty fond of before they dropped it.

Agreed, but then you just have small patches of grass and not parks. I don't see NYC ripping all the trees out of Central Park, and people get jacked there all the time.

I don't think that's true at all. If 3-C is rejected, that's a rejection of 3-C as presented and not of HSR... 3-C doesn't even claim to be HSR. A lot of the resistance would dissipate if we were talking HSR. Those who want rail here may need to alter the approach, and more crucially the plan itself, but as long as we still live and breathe nothing's ever over. I agree with clvndr that if the southern half of the state isn't interested, the focus should shift to northern Ohioans who appreciate rail and want it to happen. It seems that more friutful connections can be made through Cleveland anyway. America isn't laid out on a state-by-state basis, so planning our rail network on that basis is senseless. I understand why it's being done that way, but it's still senseless.

The change is subtle but I think it's there. They brought some civility to their comment section and that helped a lot. I really don't want the PD to go all positive all the time... I want them to be critical of things that are bad, and we have plenty of them. But at least they've cut back on the gratuitous Forbes style garbage.

I'd prefer a lot more foliage, that's my thing. The mounds are my favorite part of it.

I don't get why Ohio-centric is a value. I mean, maybe as a tiebreaker, but our focus should be outward. That would give Ohioans more experiences with... stuff that works, like local transit. Then they would come back wishing they could have all that fancy city stuff back where they live. If we're being held back by insularity, let's help people break out. Projects involving other states and cities might convince more Ohioans that rail isn't some goofy thing somehow foisted on them. Show them it's part of a greater whole.

One state does gets its legwork done, the other has visions of a world outside its borders. It's like a sitcom about two wacky brothers. Or it's like peanut butter and chocolate. Great taste, less filling. Wonder Twin powers activate! I'm gonna make a 327 public service announcement and air it in Ohio and Indiana. I'll say: Just think what we can do [claps, points at camera] TOGETHER! On Olympia beer cans, it says "It's the Water" and we always wondered... if they know what the problem is, why aren't they doing anything about it? Short sighted statutes get written every day. They're probably just finishing up on the west coast. Rolling with a high tech plan from 1994? For the reason that it was passed in 1994? I'm reminded of Miss Havisham and her wedding feast. Times change. We need to hook up with Chicago. That's the thrust of the national plan. Do we think people here are going to support a new line, before we spend millions more upgrading 3-C to competitiveness? Not likely. Do we not think we can sell Ohioans on a trip to Chicago? I think we can.

The student center fits its surroundings very nicely in that picture. And for once, that's the last thing I wanted. The surroundings are crud. But they're improving. I do like the education building, which seems to flow nicely with Fenn tower. And you have to see those new dorms in person to really get a feel for the scope. This is an entire neighborhood, as dense and urban as you could ever want, going up where there was only surface parking last year. You asked for it. You got it. I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. There's about to be a new population of young people downtown, showing up all at once. This is the best news we've had in years.

WestBLVD I like your style. You don't put tight clothes on a fat man. I know the speed limit there is 50, but... very few people obey speed limits on freeways. It's more like 60-70 there under normal conditions. The guy going 50 might as well be a deer carcass. The west shoreway may hook up with Clifton on one end, but it literally becomes I-90 on the other end. There's no ramp or interchange, it's a seamless transition. Do we really expect traffic coming westbound from I-90 to go from 75 to 35 as they pass Browns Stadium? As far as national jokes go, dead man's curve will pale in comparison. Welcome to downtown Cleveland! This way: dead man's curve. The other way: dead man's sudden and desparate braking, even though it looks like the same road he's been on and nothing seems to have changed except OH MY GOD IS THAT SPEED LIMIT SERIOUS? Am I on an exit ramp? Is there a brick wall up ahead? Oh, there's an exit, I'll try and turn around. This can't be right. Wait... did I just get off in the projects? They put projects right on the lake? I guess I'll just keep going the way I was. OK, this looks like some kind of a... family recreation area... wait, no... I think it's a salt mine. Is it both? What the hell? This isn't a town, this is random elements dumped out of a bag!

Sweet! Re Indiana: My understanding, from an article posted many pages ago, was that Indiana had asked for CLE-CHI as their primary ARRA HSR project... and they were denied because Ohio, a necessary part of this plan, specifically wanted 3-C instead. I believe Indiana wanted to fund this and wanted it very much. You're characterizing Indiana as an obstacle to CHI-CLE...? Seems like we're the obstacle. Re: state law, Ohio's statutes can be changed but... what? What? Somebody went to the effort to make 3-C legally mandatory, before Ohio can do anything else with rail? Why? In what context does it make sense to take away your own discretion? Might circumstances not change at some point? Good heavens. We deserve what we get here.

Looks like there's not. The early renderings had some. What would I rather see? Brick and stone. Projects like this in other cities tend to be brick or stone and have a more traditional look. Some of it is taste, obviously... but it's worth noting how much of this we do here, compared with what's done elsewhere.

Why would Michgan be more supportive? Their line goes to Chicago, which offers none of the issues presented by Ohio destinations. A train ride to Chicago, whether from Detroit or Cleveland or Cincinnati, is practical. I was so disappointed when we went with 3-C instead of a link to Chicago... doesn't matter what part of Ohio you're from, a train to Chicago is useful because you're not screwed when you get there. But if Cleveland is the most rail-friendly stop on your line, and it's downhill from there... then rail trips will be practical on neither end... and that's a significant barrier.

Is it possible to separate "white flight" and the reasons for it from a discussion on regionalism? No.