327

Enough with the BRT! No more BRT! For Pete's sake, now they're talking about "extending" actual rail lines with this crap. Get these psychos out of office. Where is the constituency for BRT? Nobody wants it. We all want rail. We don't want another dime spent on BRT studies.

I agree that the Avenue district loft building is on "the fringe" and very poorly located for its target market, which is why they're having trouble moving units for the prices they're seeking. And yes, of course people here like townhouse/rowhouse arrangements. This is a major city. Instead of comparing their popularity to that of large condo buildings... I'd compare to that of detached single-family homes. The larger buildings are more appropriate for rentals rather than condos, while detached homes are more appropriate outiside city limits. We need a lot more townhouses and rowhouses in Cleveland. It should surprise no one that they're generally well-received.

That is certainly one way to address the public's concerns, by portraying them all as myths in need of busting. So any attempt to reexamine this plan is about as sensible as an old wives tale, eh? Some of the items being dealt with here as myths cannot even be characterized as attempts to state fact; they are legitimate questions of policy that deserve a more even-handed analysis if our goal is to win friends. My closing thought (because I've got nothing left to say or ask in this thread): There is no better time than now to engage the public in an honest and open two-way discussion about what Ohio's HSR future might look like, and what options we have for getting there. My belief is that Ohio's general oppostion to rail has been overestimated, while Ohio's opposition to this particular plan has been underestimated. And I think we're losing sight of the ultimate goal in our obsession with selling people on this particular plan.

We're spending 400 million and it's somehow wrong to want these simple answers? There comes a point when it's insulting to tell 11 million people that they are silly for wanting to spend their rail money only on high speed applications. If people ask how this plan would relate to the HSR future they want, those people are being a problem? Are we just hoping that not a single one of those people votes? What if they're motivated by a genunine interest in high speed rail, rather than by obstructionist or anti-rail sentiments? The proper approach to public skepticism is not attacking the public for having questions, or for their failure to agree with a plan that's apparently above explanation. From another angle: It took forever to get this 400 million. If, perchance, the end product is met with widespread apathy then we will have an even harder time getting our next capital infusion. Isn't that possiblity worth a little due diligence now? Isn't it worth entertaining some divergent views? Isn't it worth examining alternative approaches in light of new information? Isn't it worth at least dummying up an explanation of step 2, now that it's abundantly clear the public's interest begins at step 3? Even if the customer isn't "always right," the customer is rarely so wrong that they need to be preached at.

So are there plans to continue service on the 79 mph line even after HSR is built? I've heard talk of upgrading THIS LINE to higher speeds and I've heard talk of the two being entirely separate animals. Still no clarity. How exactly does 3-C fit into our desire to achieve high speed rail in Ohio? I think it will be eons before there is a significant market for the low-speed option here, and this will only be more true once a high-speed option is available. Reorienting our cities away from cars will help but that's... a process. I really don't think east coast or European models are relevant here because we have additional barriers to low-speed rail use (lack of density, lack of transit orientation, cultural misgivings, etc). The arguments I keep hearing in favor of doing it the way we're doing it are extreeeeeeeeeemely brooooooooad. They don't seem at all attentive to Ohio's specific needs or desires, and they don't seem in line with what other states are doing through this program. Given how the plan has been received thus far, is there still ZERO CHANCE that we could redo it and spend every dime from Washington on moving Ohio toward some form of HSR? I honestly think LaHood might understand such a change.

Civvik I like those numbers of yours. It's all about perspective. Mr. Pence I'm not sure it's premature to talk of HSR conversion. This project is largely being sold as a precursor to HSR and most of our controversy regards the fact that it itself isn't. All but the most fervent anti-rail posters on the newspaper sites seem amenible to HSR yet opposed to this. I have asked several times to what extent the infrastructure work we're doing on 3-C will carry over to HSR, and what Ohio's gameplan for conversion might be. I think these are important parts of the pitch at this point. To the extent that anything doesn't carry over, arguments of waste will not easily go away.

Couldn't we minimize all these crossing/earth-moving costs, as well as the difficulty of obtaining ROW, by putting the high speed lines right next to the rural interstates? Something similar, if no exactly so, to what Florida is doing. There already ARE sizeable public ROWs between all these cities, so I hope we don't have to reinvent the wheel. It seems like "quick start" is at cross purposes with the shortest path to high speed. I'm trying to get a handle on how that transition would work. Don't these freight-juggling workarounds soon become obsolete if the ultimate plan is to lay new dedicated track throughout the route? None of my questions here are rhetorical or (intended to be) argumentative. I really want to understand what the next step is, specifically, and how we get from here to there. I think the biggest barrier to widespread acceptance and support of 3-C is the sense that it's a half-measure that has no future of its own. We need to build a clearer bridge between this and the type of service people are asking for.

Regarding Indiana: http://www.ibj.com/federal-highspeed-rail-grants-exclude-big-indiana-proposal/PARAMS/article/16061 They did get screwed here, and didn't they end up going for Obama? Looks like all they're getting is their portion of the Chicago-Detroit upgrade. And this makes it sound like Michgan's getting at least something. And 3-C makes more sense in the context of Chicago Hub network... to the extent it goes to Chicago, which it doesn't. It's too bad Indiana asked for Chicago-Cleveland money and Ohio didn't. Indiana chose not to pursue their own "3-C" option of Chicago to Cincinnati, though it seems that idea had a constituency there. Instead they went all out for Chicago to Cleveland, and we apparently hung them out to dry by focusing instead on 3-C. I feel like these efforts could have been more coordinated. Maybe if Ohio and Indiana had asked for the same thing, both states would have ended up with something to cheer about. As it stands, our 3-C will not connect directly with any high speed projects going on anywhere, and neither we nor 90% of Indiana will be any closer to any sort of Chicago Hub. It's worth consdiering that in the context of the Chicago Hub plan being proposed for the entire region, Columbus and 3-C may in fact be less relevant than Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati, or Chicago-FtW-Toledo-Cleveland-eastward.

Here's a local story in NC. They're upgrading that line from 45 mph avg to 85 avg. They received over 500 million but had asked for 5 billion, and one of their projects involves an interstate connection (to DC). I like how the article highlights the direct economic impact of this work, something we need to do more of here. Projecting new jobs sounds good to everybody. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6903052/ Oklahoma did not receive any of this money, so their 79 mph is staying that way. I couldn't find any info on how much they asked for. I guess this is what they get for not being a swing state. Same goes for Michgan, really. In today's PD article, Marcy Kaptur suggested that focusing on a route across the northern part of Ohio might have made more sense than 3-C. That would have tied in more closely with what our neighbors (to the west) are working on. I tend to agree. Seems to me that cities on each end of Ohio are more economically and culturally connected with nearby cities in neighboring states (Detroit, Pittsburgh... Louisville, Indy) than with each other. The PD article also portrays LaHood as basically saying "this 3-C project is what Ohio said they really wanted." I infer from this that alternatives to the 3-C approach are at least conceivable on DC's end.

See also cleveland.com, which at the moment offers a matching pair of unfavorable headlines. Edit: One of which doesn't even attach to an article... they just wanted to put two headlines.

This program really is brilliant. Thank you, EC, for making it happen.

Of all the comments to the Crains piece, only one is really anti-rail. The rest are varying degrees of supportive. Could be worse. I'm still concerned though that some of these arguments in support have obvious logical holes in them, and I worry that casual support will evaporate as people find out this isn't going to be high speed anytime soon. And that casual support won't just evaporate... it will switch sides. I don't think we'll get far with that "incremental" argument, repeated in some of the Crains comments, since the context now is so very different from the historical data on which that argument is based.

I've seen carbonara done that way, as an alfredo variant, and I'm glad Chinato doesn't do that.

Would that wall be suitable for a big mural instead? Would that preserve the tax credit? Seems like there's a good amount of parking lot frontage to work with here, so if that building can't face west it's not the end of the world.

There's really no point in measuring "unemployment" because it's not an either-or situation. Less-than-voluntary part time work abounds, as does full time work that doesn't pay a living wage. We could easily have 2% "unemployment" coupled with rampant poverty. We've been moving that direction for some time, and that's why the attractive "unemployment" numbers from before this crash were so deceiving. I'd be more interested in median monthly wages per capita among the working-age non-disabled population. I'd be even more interested if this number were divided by a cost of living index. The real question is how much discretionary income is even available to the workforce. If that ratio is too low, then growth is not possible because commerce is not possible.

Great article. I'd really like to know what residential projects they're talking about.

I suppose they'd wanna walk indoors through the CC, instead of outdoors down Ontario by the jail in winter. Think of the Tower City walkway to the Q, but simpler. And at least one hotel, presumably more, would be attached in some way to the CC. Even if they're not staying in one of those, the one they're at will be south of the station guaranteed. Does this let some guests never go outside at all, if that's what they want? Yes. Does it make them do that? No. And either way, it lets them get a first impression unencumbered by any immediate tunda trudge. A pedestrian bridge isn't long enough to piss you off, but a walk to St. Clair and beyond might do it. One long block of snow can mean a lot if you just got here and you're not in the mood for it. For the full effect we'd need NCTC. Obviously. When all these projects are done, we'll have a large section of downtown fully connected underneath. Frankly I think we need that for winter tourism. But until then, that station needs to be integrated in some way to the new CC. An entrance by the pedestrian bridge would probably suffice.

Thank you Grumpy and Hootenany, that was my original question. Really not clear in the redering that there are human-scale steps, though I'm aware of the bridge you're talking about. And what I'm hoping for, ideally, is an entrance to the CC dedicated to rail passengers, perhaps utilizing that bridge. I hope we're not supposed to walk from that bridge to the main CC entrance on St. Clair. Quite a haul, especially if you've got baggage. Locations of entrances to this thing are critical, and it's something we gotta work out before construction begins. That's why I used the word "door" to describe what I'm asking for. You don't think it's important to ask explicitly for something as obvious as a door? Look at the mall now. It's missing several important doors.

Where are you getting this? That's not at all what I said... we already have a train station. In no way have I suggested they build us a new one. All I'm suggesting is to have some sort of access to the existing station. Doesn't need to be elaborate... doesn't (at all) equate to building a brand new station. Why is there no in-between possibility? How about just a door facing north, with an arrow pointing toward the Amshack. A narrow pedestrian bridge? Is it physically impossible for people to walk across these tracks to the station? Is the station only approachable from the north or something?

I'm increasingly confused. There's already an active train station down there, just off the edge of that rendering. I understand that a new station would be awesome, but it's much further down the line than is the MM/CC or the 3-C service. Why is connecting to our existing rail service so irrelevant? Can I get a rope ladder? A bedsheet with knots tied in it? This is a public project, built with public money on public land. This is not a gift to us from MMPI. Why are we supposed to act as though it is? I don't think it's out of line, on the customer's part, to expect access to our current station... stairwell? Zipline? Waterslide? Anything.

Again, I'm wondering about the station that's there right now, the one that connects this site to Tower City and that we're presumably using for 3-C. Per this rendering, you'd need a parachute to get down there. Look at the tops of those trees, the ones that barely reach patio level. Are we supposed to climb down those trees?

I hope they don't give Yulia that stuff they gave Yushenko. Anyone remember that?

The wall is all glass, yet there are already 2 rail lines out front, to which their glass wall actively cuts off access. 3-C will most likely start running before we have a new station... so the question is not whether they're copacetic with a new station, the question is whether we can get them to put a door in this wall in the meantime. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, since we're paying them to do this and we're already funding these rail lines.

I hope you guys are right.

Unless something has changed, MMPI is definitively uninterested in it. I was there when Falanga said they weren't even putting a door on the front of the place because, in his view, convention goers don't want to use rail.