Foraker

"Get on the Bus" Kasich to NEO pols: if you'll support me selling the turnpike to my friends, I promise I'll send most of the money to northeastern Ohio. Trust me. :evil:

Another government official eagerly awaiting "wonderful opportunities" post-government service (and with the bonus of a government pension)! Depressing.

From the FTA: PDF source -- http://fta.dot.gov/documents/AA_Descriptions-Final.pdf

Nice. I'd add rail lines that formed loops out in the suburbs so that trains could move continuously in one direction rather than out-and-back lines.

And it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to plant grass in the dead of winter. Jerks. DocBroc -- did they pave and stripe the lot, finally??!? :clap: Was driving by and didn't get a good look at it in the rain, but it looked huge. I guess it's an improvement over the dirt field...

Does Central have a "downtown" or a business district that could have a higher density and commercial/retail space like the Coventry neighborhood?

An interesting video about urban development.

I don't know, I'm just speculating here. But if you're in the medical field, coming to the medical mart to look at medical equipment, you might also be interested in other things you might need for your medical facility. Like CSU and Tri-C students with experience in operating and maintaining the stuff being sold at the medical mart. Seems like a good deal for Cleveland and the Medical Mart to further position Cleveland as a go-to center for medical equipment expertise. Could also provide a link for the medical equipment companies who would be interested with partnering with CSU or Tri-C on research or training people to use/maintain their equipment. Really sounds like a good approach. If any of that makes sense to the potential tenants and customers of the medical mart....

That may have to do with the "Lakes to Lake" trail that they are building linking trails from the Shaker Lakes to Lake Erie trails. They are also supposed to be putting in some sort of public art project at the bottm of the hill. Wow -- I think this plan was discussed in 2004 or 2005, I thought it had been forgotten. Nice to see progress. Looks like it will make getting up and down the hill much easier for the non-motorist.

What is the construction work that appears to be going on in that "Rudy Rogers Scout Park" area between the North Park/MLK down-hill and Fairhill, east of the railroad tracks?

Unlike the federal government, state and local governments are charged with providing for citizens' health, safety, and general welfare. There are numerous provisions for roads in Ohio, but can you show me in the Ohio state constitution any place that requires state or local government to provide rides? In response to the implication that politicians should not be in the business of providing the basic necessities of our citizens, I replied that state government IS responsible for providing for the health, safety, and general welfare. (I guess we can make an exception for politicians who are not part of the government.) From that you inferred that I thought the state constitution should require the state to provide everyone a ride?! :drunk: That's a stretch. Although with the car-centric development of the past fifty years it's near-impossible to get around without a car in the suburbs. Politicians represent the people, and that includes people who are unable to drive, particularly disabled, children, and the elderly. So since you brought it up, maybe the government should provide rides to people who need it. :evil: Not everything has to be spelled out in the constitution for it to be within the state's purview. (Unless you live in Louisiana or France or another civil law jurisdiction.) If 25% of the population can't drive, shouldn't the state encourage (if not entirely fund) some alternative forms of transportation? If 25% of the population doesn't drive, shouldn't 25% of the state transportation budget go for something other than roads for cars? I think that would only be fair.

I don't know. Please advise. We want cities to take risks and try to do what we want cities to do for us in new and more efficient ways. Like most new companies, a lot of these ideas aren't going to work out. If the city takes on a lot of debt, for example to back low-interest loans to demolish/repair/replace vacant housing, and the tax revenue isn't there when the bonds come due, then what? Pennies on the dollar? State/county takes over that municipalities' government for five years? Automatic tax increase to cover losses?

I have been following a very well-written urban planning blog lately that I commend to everyone's attention. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/ One of their recent posts discussed cities as sources of innovation and consolidation as a way to reduce inefficiencies. They were writing about Minnesota, but I think the same can be said for Ohio. Partially paraphrasing and partially injecting my own thoughts on that blog post, consider the following. In business, the prevailing view is that the vast majority of innovation occurs in small companies, but as we know many (most?) start-up companies fail within five years. Larger businesses are supposedly more efficient. (Forgetting apparently, the bipartisan government bailouts of the auto companies, the airline industry (repeatedly) and too-big-to-fail banks.) Viewing government as a business is the current fad, which suggests that smaller governments will be better at coming up with innovative ideas than larger ones. Unfortunately, they're not. Every municipality seems to have substantially similar codes, regulations, budget approaches, staffing, street standards, employee policies, etc. Another current fad views governments as inherently inefficient, and therefore we hear more calls for consolidation. Fewer governments are not always better though. Ever hear of a corrupt superintendent? An ineffective police chief? A corrupt public official? Fewer, larger government entities also provide an opportunity for a single bad apple to spoil a larger basket. I believe that in the face of this long financial crisis most local governments have already spent years reducing inefficiencies. I don't think we have that much more to gain from reducing inefficiency, which is where consolidation might otherwise provide some gains. I believe that we need to find a new way to run local government, and if we're really interested in finding innovative ways out of the current financial difficulties, we don't need to consolidate, we need to find ways to allow local governments to innovate and to share the lessons of those innovations. So how do we get more innovation? We have to put in place a safety net (!) that will allow municipalities to take risks, and yes, fail (for example, allow cities and towns to declare bankruptcy). And we have to have a way for cities across Ohio to learn from other cities' successes and failures. Before we get there, however, we should rethink what we want our city governments to do for us. Do we expect our cities to just perform a few essential duties, like a utility-- efficient but dumb? Or do we want the cities to try to find innovative ways of providing more services to the citizens? If we want to follow a utility model, then we should limit cities to the bare basics of police, fire, trash collection, plowing, and running local elections, and leave all the planning, zoning regulations, parks and recreation, infrastructure investments, economic development and tax matters to someone else. The same can be applied to Ohio's 88 counties. But if we are going to demand more from cities, then we need to identify the state laws and regulations that restrict what cities can and cannot do and modify them to allow cities to do things differently. The combination of fewer state-mandated limitations and a safety net to catch the failures appears to be a surer path to success for Ohio in the long run than municipal consolidation. IMHO

That's a great photo. Look at all the parking already in the area!

Unlike the federal government, state and local governments are charged with providing for citizens' health, safety, and general welfare.

A friend of mine likes to say "Democracy requires participation." That doesn't mean that Democracy requires everyone to vote. You can be (and in fact KJP appears to be) politically active even without voting. If we want better transit, we have to tell our political leaders that we want better transit. If we want carfree areas in our cities, we have to fight for them.

Is there now a continuous covered walkway from the bus stop to the station? Does not look like that is the case in the new design. Still, I like it. I hope this project moves along on schedule.

An argument in favor of a Ravenna station: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/07/1004336/-Sunday-Train:-Pushing-for-a-Rapid-Rail-HSR-Station-in-Ravenna,-Ohio?via=spotlight

I see a pedicab in your future...

I drove by the other day, still surrounded by chain link fencing.

See -- if we just cut RTA's budget, ridership will go up! :drunk:

Interesting article about a successful small-vehicle BRT system in Morgantown, WV (they call it "personal" rapid transit) http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/personal-rapid-transit-system-morgantown-west-virginia.html#next

A lot of other suburbs will be watching this closely (and probably not seriously considering any mergers until they see how it works out). If they decide on a merger and it doesn't work out well it certainly will discourage other suburbs from considering mergers down the road. I hope they do a good job so that it encourages more suburbs to consider merging.

Driving down Euclid this morning for the first time in a long time I was disappointed to see so many newer buildings only one or two stories high. To really populate this corridor I would like to see a lot more 4-6 story buildings filling in the empty spaces. Still, the corridor between University Circle and Public Squre seemed to be a lot livelier than I can ever remember.

I completely agree. My point was that it probably would be more palatable, politically, to do so by starting with a percentage that is close to the current fixed price relative to the current cost. I don't think that that percentage is sufficient, however, it needs to increase over time. Having the increases kick in automatically also might be easier politically.