Foraker

It's simple -- because when the Democrats controlled Congress at the beginning of Obama's presidency they FAILED TO DELIVER on their promises, yet again. I love the Democratic Party platform -- but the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leadership did not enact near enough of it to make a difference.

Interesting. https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/ Seems like we need to be complaining to Congress, not United.

We pay VAT for services in Europe. It's no more complicated than a sales tax on products.

The population of Cuyahoga County hasn't changed much from 1930, but the geographic distribution has changed dramatically. As a result, we spent massively to expand our infrastructure. That means we greatly increased our maintenance expenses without increasing the income by increasing population. This is going to be an increasing problem. 1930 1990

Because the passenger is not really a consideration. Budgets, "efficiency", and all too often egalitarianism are considered more important. Monopolies do that. I agree that financial considerations (and prejudices about Those-Who-Use-Transit) issues dominate, but I disagree that it's a monopoly issue. Competition does not guarantee a better experience. As an example, consider US Airline Travel (trending negative passenger experience despite (because of?) intense competition within the industry). I can think of at least one instance where the lack of direct competition has not prevented a great travel experience -- the Shinkansen (Japanese bullet train). I expect that the excellent service allows them to charge a higher fare and maintain sufficient ridership, but there are no other bullet train operators in Japan. On the other hand, the Shinkansen does have "competition," but it is in alternative travel modes -- airlines, "local" trains, and cars -- each of which has different pros/cons and the markets for each mode partially overlap but are not identical. Similarly, RTA's competition is primarily personal cars, which provide more mobility, but also higher costs. A better rider experience might convince more people to ride RTA's buses and trains, but there would still be people who want/need a personal car and the flexibility that provides -- the market for personal car drivers and RTA's services only partially overlap. So despite RTA's "monopoly" of transit in Cleveland, there is some competition and some reasons to improve the customer experience.

While that may be true, I also heard that a cable company has an easement that crosses diagonally across part of the property and they wouldn't allow construction over it. The developer offered to put the cable into a culvert that would protect the cable and allow for future expansion but that was a non-starter. The cable company (AT&T I think) wanted $100,000 to move the cable to where it followed the street grid. Enough little straws eventually break the camel's back.

This publication is not specific to mass transit but it includes a really interesting article -- why don't we do a better job designing the transit experience? http://carfree.com/cft/i085.html

Not necessarily. I think we had evidence last November that there has been a backlash against oversensitivity and overdefining "offensive". There's no guarantee that this movement will continue or won't actually reverse itself. Keep in mind most Amerinds nationally don't really care and that in this area the strong majority favors keeping him. I disagree. I think we have a vocal minority that "strongly" favors keeping Chief Wahoo in his current form, and a silent majority that doesn't care that much and could be persuaded either way.

Excellent update KJP. With those obstacles it seems highly unlikely that CVSR is ever going to reach Tower City. Is there another way to improve the connection between the Tower City station and CVSR? What about a CVSR station at Granger or Rockside and a BRT line connecting Tower City and CVSR?

It has been there off and on several times over the past 18 months. Makes me wonder whether they got some unusual test results and had to come back for most testing, or are they drilling deeper this time?

I hope you're right -- but on the other hand I'd rather have 4-6 story mid-rise buildings on EVERY.SINGLE.PARKING.LOT first. :evil:

Maybe someone from Ohio Solar has been in Kasich's ear -- http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/chinese-solar-juggernaut.html

I'm not convinced. I would argue that it's the design of the roadway between I-77 and E55 that is more at fault for those accidents at E55 than it is the transition from freeway speeds to street speed. Particularly that downhill portion. You don't see the same rear-enders at an uphill exit ramp. I would bring the road bed down so that it's level with E55 long before you get there, and back up the merge point for the cars coming from I-77 and the cars coming from I-490 -- I would make the cars from I-490 turn in toward the I-77 merge point to force them to slow down as well, rather than allowing them to continue in a straight line to the intersection as they can now. Reducing the number and width of the lanes and slowing the speed limit further back from E55th also would reduce vehicle speeds before E55. I propose that that would be cheaper (a better use of our tax dollars) than the bridge and access ramps -- which will encourage increased speed past E55 because it will look and feel like a highway.

I generally agree. However -- That bridge and on-ramps planned for the E 55th intersection sure look like highway structures. That is the one thing that really should be reconsidered if this is not a highway. The intersection already works just fine in transitioning from I-490 to the street. And continuing I-490 as a surface street, avoiding the bridge and on-ramps, has to be a less expensive option to boot -- both in the building and the ongoing maintenance costs. I would also add that to have a sustainable city in the long run we need to consider the long-term roadway (and other public infrastructure) maintenance costs as part of the expense of any new infrastructure.

There are multiple problems. First is the fact of the transfer, and second is the gap between lines -- the bus transfer station at the bottom of Cedar Hill is still two long blocks (or one very long block) from the Healthline on Euclid. It's not a very pleasant walk from the Cedar Hill bus transfer area to the nearest Healthline stops. The combination has greatly reduced the ridership from the 32 toward downtown.

No one has mentioned Aldi yet -- that's another alternative. http://www.businessinsider.com/aldis-new-store-design-mimics-whole-foods-2016-10

Could the city/county/port authority invest in this project or provide some sort of financial incentive for the parking garage to be built to accommodate future construction above (like 515 Euclid)? I'd also like to see the city insist that the garage be designed to accommodate future conversion of part of the first floor to retail space. Not to the extent of running plumbing and wiring, but to have the proper ceiling height and ramp placement to allow for that possibility in the future. If we can facilitate adaptive reuse, resilience, and the ability to meet unexpected future needs, that should increase the value of these properties in the core of the city.

I really like this design. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the prior design had a smaller footprint on top of the garage. How soon before they can begin construction?!?

It doesn't use batteries. It uses a supercapacitor to store and discharge electrical energy. The science is old, but this technology for building large enough capacitors is still fairly new. Here's more of the article for anyone who can't get to it. CHANGSHA, Aug. 1 (Xinhua) -- China's first independently designed supercapacitor tram rolled off the production line in central China's Hunan Province Monday. The tram uses supercapacitor energy storage to operate without external wires and can be fully charged during a 30-second stop and run for 3 to 5 kilometers, according to Engineer-in-Chief Suo Jianguo with Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co. under CRRC Corporation Ltd, the country's largest rolling-stock maker. The tram can carry up to 380 passengers and travel at 70 kilometers per hour. It also uses a low-floor design, making boarding easy for children, pregnant women and the elderly. "This is the first time all the technology, even the spare parts, are independently provided by China," according to Suo. The tram runs on clean energy and can reuse 85 percent of the energy regenerated from braking. Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co., based in Zhuzhou, Hunan Province, developed the first light rail train using supercapacitor energy storage technology in August 2012.

Just like the new contactless phone chargers, a Chinese company has developed a capacitor-powered light rail system that can run for 3-5 km on a 30second charge at a stop. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-08/01/c_135555582.htm

Did the Healthline run through the Square on Superior?

Hey DocBroc -- how is this project progressing? Any news?

So KJP, which proposal/development team do you favor?

Restore the lobby, remove the curse, eh? :-)

The cost of sprawl: "Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?" http://mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org/costofstreets/?utm_content=buffer245ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer