Foraker

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ohio-gov-no-fema-assistance-for-east-palestine-residents-in-wake-of-toxic-train-derailment_5063691.html https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/16/ohio-derailment-train-east-palestine-00083122 https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qze4/32-nasty-rail-workers-say-they-knew-the-train-that-derailed-in-east-palestine-was-dangerous

I disagree. That is not being assumed, and it is absurd to think that the government has no right to any of your money, or that individuals get to decide how much of *their* money the government can rightfully acquire. And it completely ignores the Constitution's grant to Congress (including your representatives) of the right to levy taxes. Exactly. And too often we ignore such tax breaks as "not government spending" when they are effectively equivalent to government spending. Spending X on housing or providing a tax break for housing expenditures (that reduces tax receipts by X) is the same thing. We choose to fund things different ways for different reasons, but both have the same effect on the government's bottom line.

And we cannot forget that tax breaks also are a subsidy. It's a cost to the government, whether they forgo receiving the money in the first place or pass it out after they get it.

Overused? Isn't that essentially the definition of "subsidized" -- We The People send representatives to Congress to decide how much of our money to collect and spend. Generally, subsidies are used to monetarily encourage behavior through tax breaks, grants, or loans given to particular businesses or industries. Farm subsidies (produce more corn syrup!), petroleum subsidies (keep asphalt cheap!), exports, housing, healthcare, food, automotive, etc. Matching grants for road construction. Home loan guarantees. Mortgage interest tax breaks (but no rental payment tax deduction). Maybe it's not the word "subsidized" that is overused, it's that subsidies are overused.

Indeed. Most people moved further out for a better home amid all the promise and opportunity of rapidly-increasing national wealth and prosperity in the post-war period. Yes, there was a racist component. And the outward migration also was greatly facilitated by government policies. And I'll concede that by and large, there was no evil intent in the individual decisions to move outward. There also was no general understanding of the flaws of never-ending suburban single-family-housing-only construction and highway expansion at that time. Jane Jacobs, the pioneer leading the pro-urban charge didn't publish The Death and Life of Great American Cities until 1961, which doesn't seem to have become widely recognized for its significance until decades later. By the 1980s and 1990s, there was more awareness that massive highways weren't solving congestion problems and that highway maintenance costs were unsustainable. LA's notorious traffic problems were well known, despite having expanded to many lanes over the years. But nothing changed. Discussions of "what caused sprawl" can be debated by historians. I don't think the discussion here is advancing all that much. What is more important today is for urban planners (and urban planning hobbyists) to recognize the problem. We can't build more highways to relieve congestion, we need to right-size roadways for uses and maintenance budgets, we need to get more people out of their cars and into more-efficient transit (both for efficiency and to decrease the roadway congestion for those who continue to drive), we need to encourage pockets of density in the existing suburbs so that transit between suburbs becomes viable, etc. And "denser" does not require Manhattan+ levels of density. We can find ways to build great PLACES to counter the negative impacts of sprawl that will demonstrate to politicians and everyday voters that there is a better way than continued outward expansion of single-family-housing-only developments on former farmland and expanding roadways and utilities to serve them.

Given all of KJP's comments over the years, I don't see Amtrak coming to Tower City as being likely. Particularly given the lack of rail fans in the governor's mansion and state legislature. We do need a better rail station for inter-city and interstate travel, and I can get on board with it being on the lake near its current location rather than in Tower City if we have good connectivity from there to Tower City via the Waterfront Line. Not unlike the airport being connected to the city via the Red Line. I wish we would see progress on that, such as an RFP for a new rail station (and possibly combined with a bus terminal with a shared parking garage, as has been discussed for a number of years now). I still would like to see the waterfront line include a downtown loop. And the Healthline converted to light rail, and .. and... and...

It's not clear to me but it looks like they are taking out a section of that road/bridge and extending a building there, but yes, I agree. On the optimistic side, adding more residential adjacent a major rail station is something that should be done, and would be far more beneficial to businesses in Tower City and Public Square than the either of the existing roadways, Huron and Prospect.

This seems very premature based on such preliminary drawings, but we also have to consider the cost of continuing to maintain Huron behind Tower City as is. What are the maintenance costs of a road on the ground vs. a bridge ("the road is already a bridge")? As another poster observed, most of the time there is little to no traffic on Huron behind Tower City (and you've also stated that it is "overbuilt"), so what are the financial costs of maintaining that overbuilt road/bridge compared to the benefits for the amount of traffic that it carries? Even if we all agree that we don't want more traffic on Public Square, at what price? If we're adding 2 cars per hour and the maintenance costs are $1million/year, is it worth it? (I have no idea what the actual traffic and actual costs are -- I suggest that those should be determined before any decision is made.) I think we are far, far from any decision being made about narrowing or pedestrianizing or closing Huron.

And buses too.

I have to agree -- I can never manage to feel carefree in a must-have-car community either. 😁 Just imagine the stress of poverty and a minimum wage job in a must-drive community -- one breakdown and you're out of work and on your way to eviction. The must-have-a-car requirement to live in a community is a huge burden on the lower end of the economic spectrum. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-cost-owning-car

The population is aging. How many can/should/want to continue to drive 10 or 20 years from now? There's quite a bulge in demographics in the 45-59 age groups in the following chart (those people are now 55-69). http://proximityone.com/chartgraphics/pp39000_2010_001.htm

I think it would be great as an above-ground entrance to a subway station..... (c'mon powerball!)

Maybe. But it seems more likely that Ohio's rail-phobics are not very aware of rail's use elsewhere.

Correct. But railroads are paying local property taxes on their rail lines, and those local jurisdictions likely would fight losing that source of revenue.

I'm in favor of nationalizing rail right-of-ways, but I don't think we're anywhere near being able to do so politically. It would mean a big drop in local tax revenues for a lot of small (Republican-represented) districts.

Sure there is the potential for more ridership in Ohio, but Ohio Republicans don't want rail. Minnesota wants rail to get cars off the roads, Ohio wants roads not rails. If money is available for only one, the one that wants it is going to get it before the one that doesn't, even if the one that doesn't want it needs it.

And the US doesn't have Europe's energy-efficiency standards.... I can't remember the last time someone suggested that Europe had fewer regulations than the US.

This is a fantastic idea that apparently has been around for a while. I wasn't aware of any major cities in Ohio with a program like this, but Toledo has a downtown district where golf carts can legally drive in the street, and there is an essentially-free golf cart taxi service in the downtown area! It may have been reported here before, but it bears revisiting. (Hey, 3Cs... you want to make downtown living better?) https://www.wtol.com/article/news/local/golf-carts-allowed-toledo-city-streets-35-mph-lower/512-dc672c40-8150-499d-b743-cc8ba75d46c7 https://www.toledoblade.com/local/community-events/2019/04/16/downtown-toledo-golf-cart-shuttle-wheelchair-accessible-options/stories/20190416157 https://www.ttowncaddy.com/

Agree, 100%. AND Amen. Let's work on identifying the best places for TOD, build TOD, and keep the option of a future double-track in mind. I would love to see rail connections from Lorain-Cleveland-CLE (Hopkins)-Akron-CAK-Canton -- someday.

Strong Towns also applauded Cincinnati's low-cost efforts to slow traffic https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/1/26/pedestrian-safety-boost-new-cincinnati-initiative

Cleveland could really boost its fortunes with a robust and well-organized immigrant-assistance program that encouraged immigrants to come to Cleveland (and live in and rehab older neighborhoods). Hard work, but it would pay off in the long run -- new small businesses, rehabilitated neighborhoods, increased diversity of ideas.

Agreed, but I would go further -- most of the general public (whether they listen to, comment on, or host at NPR or NBC or CBS or Fox) does not understand the economics of rental properties.

Actually, as someone who closely follows progressives in politics, this sounds like"gotcha" journalism -- an off-hand comment from a progressive that the media has run with, and Republicans have jumped on board pointing fingers -- rather than a policy being pushed by a broad coalition of progressive groups. There is no one progressive group, it's a coalition of groups that don't always see eye to eye. And while affordable housing is an issue that a lot of progressive groups are asking Congress and the President to give more attention to, rent control is not a popular solution to that problem. (Yes, Bernie Sanders likes rent control. But imho Bernie's ability to build a consensus around rent control, even in Congress, to pressure the Democratic congressional leadership on that issue is pretty weak.) Consequently, this all seems like a lot of noise without any substance behind it. I don't foresee any such bills coming to the floor for a vote in either house of Congress.

And it seems like there would be enough deep pockets interested in development that they could make a lot more with development than they are currently.

Take ODOT's survey: https://ohioroadfunding.com/ Make sure you type out your comments when prompted, the survey is very short and I don't think they're going to get much out of their survey otherwise. (Optimistically assuming that they are going to read and take into account our comments rather than assuming that ODOT already has a preconceived solution in mind.) My own thoughts on how ODOT can better fund our roads: 1. Reduce maintenance costs. Invest in better road designs that have lower future maintenance costs. Reduce the lane-miles that need to be maintained and the number of bridges that need to be maintained. Perhaps some county roads can be demoted to chip or gravel and maintained by cities/counties rather than ODOT. 2. Increase funding based on what causes road wear. That would mean vehicle-miles-traveled and weight-based registration fees. Electric vehicles are heavier; trucks dramatically outweigh any personal passenger vehicle. Keep (or even lower or eliminate) the gas tax, but if it stays make it a percentage of the price rather than a flat fee (asphalt costs rise with gas prices and a flat tax doesn't account for that). (ODOT also should consider what amount of money they need to maintain our roadways in a state of good repair, and plan rates to ensure that at least that much is raised.) 3. ODOT also could leverage its assets better -- trains along roadway right-of-way would get cars off the road and make ODOT more than ODO-Roads.