Foraker

I'll be curious to see local tax filings next spring for 2022 -- the big cities could get crushed if large numbers claim to be working in the suburbs half of the time or more.

I heard a rumor that the city government in East Cleveland voted to ask the Metroparks to manage the East Cleveland portion of Forest Hills Park. Can anyone confirm/provide more information?

Repair/partial rebuild could be the most cost-effective approach. But I think we could have both a bridge and a boulevard. Not ideal but better than the current situation. If we assume that the span over the river has to be maintained at that height, maybe they could lower the western sections so that heading east the shoreway remains at ground level until about St. Malachi/W. 25th. That would connect the Shoreway "Boulevard" to the street grid at W. 28th and W. 25th before rising to cross the river. If it is truly treated like a boulevard, part of the reconstruction could include better looking side rails (and some pedestrian and bike lanes). And maybe some observation spaces -- could be great views of the lake from there. On the east bank, maybe you could bring the boulevard to street level somewhere around W. 9th and W. 3rd. (I'd drop it to W. 9th and make the underneath Main St. a dead end/cul-de-sac part way up the hill.) Add a land bridge or two across the railroad tracks and possibly also over the boulevard would give us that connection from downtown to the lakefront.

I had heard that Top of the Hill was behind schedule, but got the impression that it was just a few weeks behind. The statement about hopefully filling apartments "in the fall" suggests that construction is further behind than I thought. Otherwise I think everything in that article had already been reported.

It's not necessarily dead. Grass does turn brown here in the heat, and bounces back quickly when it rains. The city has other priorities than putting energy (money) into watering this space, and I agree with that decision.

Were plans drawn up for the old Union Station, and could we use such plans as a starting point for a new Amtrak/multi-modal station across the tracks from the mall?

The project is still in a "study" phase. The historic building will be preserved, and part of the property will likely be preserved in a natural state, but what kind of development and what kind of density we'll see is still an open question. Thankfully, they hired a very good team.

I expect that they wouldn't like it. But I'm not wild about hazardous materials moving through my neighborhood either. If we win the lottery we'll set you to work on rearranging our rail lines and as a bonus we'll let you site the new Browns stadium, too!

But today the Texas Supreme Court gave Texas Central a big win -- the right to use eminent domain to obtain the right-of-way. https://hsrail.org/blog/houston-dallas-bullet-train-project-scores-big-court-win Too little, too late?

It seems increasingly clear that urban planning and transit planning need to work together more. Cities will likely have multiple "business nodes" that will need to be connected rather than just one huge one downtown (although a downtown core will probably remain the biggest transit destination for many years), and we will need housing and business development along the transit lines or the transit system won't be sustainable (which is the current condition in most cities). We have too many cities with areas of concentrated poverty and no access to jobs and dispersed businesses who can't find workers because there's no reliable transit to get there; and the transit doesn't go there because there isn't the critical mass of riders going that way to justify more frequent transit. It's dumb planning. And it's going to take years to fix past mistakes.

Excellent! And there are lessons from Colombia that could improve transit in the US: https://voxdev.org/topic/infrastructure-urbanisation/equitable-benefits-colombia-s-bus-rapid-transit-system https://www.kiva.org/blog/metro-de-medellin-how-colombia-built-a-culture-of-care-around-a-transportation-system

What route would you take to get a group of young, easily-distracted boys to and from Camp Manatoc/Butler? It's on the other side of the river and requires riding along Akron-Peninsula and a short section of Rt 303, at best (or a longer ride on Rt 303). I've done it and had multiple "heart attacks" at boys and drivers not paying enough attention. Plus staying at the Camp limits you to out-and-back trips and getting back to camp well before sunset, which really limits how far you can go. That's why I think we need more group camping sites along the Towpath. Not for day trips along the same portion of the path (again and again), but for the overnighters. I'd like to see the Towpath become Ohio's (improved) version of the Great Allegheny Passage. We're not there yet. https://gaptrail.org/

Recent Europe travel thoughts -- seemed like a lot more smokers in Europe than in the US; I really appreciate the ban on smoking in restaurants in the US. The Netherlands' is great -- easy to drive, but often faster and more convenient to bike and walk within the cities. Isn't that the way it should be? The motorbikes/scooters in Italy were a real nuisance -- noisy, smelly, and the drivers weren't concerned about zooming right by your shoulder. A sidestep could be disastrous. The smell of exhaust in the big Italian cities was overwhelming after the clean air in The Netherlands. And Italy was really hot!

Agree 100% -- small businesses are an economic engine that we should not overlook. Economic gardening takes more work but pays off in the long run!

Both CVNP and the Towpath need more campgrounds. For scouts, youth groups, and other outdoor "adventures."

Can anyone cite some examples of third-world countries that are paying attention to the problems that cars present and intentionally directing development to minimize their use?

In other words, every Republican voted against cutting gas prices by $.10-25 cents. Why? Because it is a small problem? (That doesn't stop Republicant whining about voter fraud.)

Of course, it depends on context -- spending money on a bike lane is still more efficient than a car lane in an urban area like Akron, not so much in Columbia Station. But if you have a problem with "traffic not moving fast enough" it seems like it would be more efficient to spend your money on alternative modes of travel than another car lane.

Here's an imagination-assist.

Building in Westlake or Avon and working downtown is a bad idea. Building in Westlake and working in Westlake makes going to work by bike a no-brainer. And if there was a dedicated transit line from Westlake to downtown, you would only need to bike to the transit stop, not all the way downtown. The advent of electric bikes will make some of these distances easier to manage (the EU regulates a maximum bike speed, the US does not -- so you can easily find (although not easily afford) a bike that goes 28mph with little to no pedaling -- 14 miles in half an hour). Ah, those "can't do" Americans -- everyone else in the world has figured out how to move cargo and multiple people by bike. Cargo bikes are old hat in Europe and are getting increased notice here in the US. But we also don't need to make everywhere car-free and bike-only. If we can provide really good, safe bike infrastructure in the city core that will take a LOT of cars off the road, freeing up parking spaces for more efficient uses and make a healthier population.

I suppose an individual homeowner can let their house fall down around their ears, it happens. But that depreciates the value of their neighbor's home, and is part of the reason why communities agree to home inspections and code enforcement in that area. But if government has an OBLIGATION to maintain the roadways, that's a liability. Ohio has thousands of bridges in poor states of repair -- how could we possibly leverage those "assets"? Wouldn't tripling the number of bridges in Ohio decrease the state's ability to maintain them? And if Ohio sucks at maintaining its infrastructure but Pennsylvania is great at it, what would be the impact on the states' economies? And even if they are assets, infrastructure assets depreciate as they age and need to be repaired/replaced. Can/should governments be mortgaging the roadways to pay for their maintenance? If not, are they not assets? Do we want PNC to own five miles of I-71 -- what if they decide not to do maintenance on their five miles? In the end, I'm firmly in agreement that all of a government's infrastructure maintenance obligations need to be identified as liabilities so that the planning for their maintenance can be done as efficiently as possible. I also think that any new infrastructure built by a community needs to factor in the cost of future maintenance as part of the cost. Strong Towns would say that adding that new subdivision in the far corner of Cuyahoga County means we need to consider how much the added road and water and sewer maintenance costs the community, and does that new subdivision bring in enough tax revenue to cover the maintenance costs?

Absolutely -- when I lived overseas with good transit I would walk 15 minutes to or from a transit stop or anywhere in between. And if I could get there by bike, that 15 minutes got me a lot further. I would bike half an hour to work, but farther than that you really need transit (or a car). My grandmother could bike five to six miles in half an hour. We should start there -- five miles from the city center make sure we have really good separated bike lanes and sidewalks. You still have snow-clearing and street-sweeping needs, but the roadway surface will see very slow wear from bicycles. Even Gramarye agrees, so it must be true. :-) Another point not raised -- you can store a LOT of bicycles in the same space now taken up by cars. Cars that don't move most hours of most days.

Only because we subsidize sprawl -- if those low-density suburbs had to pay the full cost to build and maintain all of that spread-out infrastructure they would fail in a hurry.

And fewer tires on the roadways...a recurrent theme of this subject.

Tires now produce more pollution than tailpipes -- another sign that electric cars alone are not the answer. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show