Foraker

Did you mean that "rail done right SHOULD operate at a profit?" Others more knowledgeable about railroads have commented that they are not aware of any rail lines in the world that operate at a profit. Are you aware of any? Or do you have a new idea about how to make that to happen? It seems to me that we have two issues, (1) building the rail line and (2) operating the trains. As has been pointed out on this board before, the government makes it possible to build highways and airports, and also subsidizes their maintenance. So I see no reason why federal funds shouldn't be used to build rail lines (1) and subsidize maintaining the rail line to the same extent that they do for competing transport modes. Could a private company make money only operating the trains? Airlines and bus companies both seem to struggle to make profits. And I'm pretty sure I operate my personal car at a loss. I throw it out to the Board -- has private train operation been profitable anywhere else? I know Virgin runs some of the rail lines in England, but I don't know how far their responsibility extends -- did they purchase the rail cars? Do they maintain the rails? Are they required to provide service at a particular level? Are they subsidized by the government? If the issue is, "how do we pay for the operating expenses" of a 3C line, then let's explore those options. Meanwhile, let's invest in the infrastructure improvements to make it possible in the first place. If we cannot afford to run the train, at least we will have improved freight transit through our state. Turning away the funding means our tax dollars going to NY, VA, NC, IL, or CA. In the face of all of these states lining up to take our tax dollars, everyone in Ohio should be in favor of using the $400M in Ohio.

So, gottaplan, what's your plan? How should RTA deal with these juvenile criminals? Nail them with the $50 fine immediately? What if they don't pay? Second offense?

Cleveland's Children's Museum really does not compare well to Children's Museums in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, or Pittsburgh. A new building would be a good start. The Powerhouse is not the easiest to get to, but IF an aquarium and some other child-friendly places came to the Powerhouse it could work out well in the long run.

We put our shoes out -- with our wish lists for Santa Claus. St. Nick would leave small gifts (chocolate coins were the rule, but pencils or a pack of baseball cards sometimes) and take our wish lists to Santa, who would bring the big gifts on Christmas Eve.

It's been said here before -- riding on RTA should be free within the core of the city anyway.

Piling on, I would also argue that by employing fewer people to actually make things, there are (1) fewer people employed, and (2) more people underemployed (part-time and retail wages). This means that there are fewer people available to buy goods and services. Companies aren't hiring because not enough people are buying what the company is selling. Even though our economy is more diverse, we rely on cheap oil to provide cheap transportation to bring us from the suburbs in to work (we all have to drive because there is no mass transit in the 'burbs, no way to even get to the grocery without our own car) and to bring us cheap goods from China. Those transportation costs weren't there or were much smaller in 1970. Individually they aren't much, but it adds up quick.

Dear Greater Cleveland Partnership, why do you support improving rail in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York, but not to Columbus or Cincinnati?

Although perhaps the lake erie shippers would be on board if it led to some straightening of the bend there to make it easier to get larger ships through. Narrowing the channel on one side only is probably going to be a non-starter.

The article is written to make it sound fishy, but reading the whole article I get the impression that there were lots of specifications. Presumably each design was rated based on how well it met each of the specs. If neither design met 100% (likely) then at some point ODOT had to make a judgment on which design they like best. Just because there was internal debate about whether this one spec was met or not does not mean that the whole process was crooked. Time will tell, but I doubt that this lawsuit goes anywhere, particularly since the judge refused to stay the design-build process. So while the lawsuit continues, the winning bridge will get built. The losers are fighting because ODOT guaranteed $1M to the losing team(s) and they spent $1.6M? And now they have attorneys' fees on top of that -- that just doesn't seem like a smart bet. Makes me wonder whether the attorneys took this case on a contingency fee basis (in which case the attorneys only get paid if they win).

Another possibility is that Kasich gives the green light to upgrade the rails (to the benefit of the freight companies) and then returns the funds for stations and passenger cars. That would be a small step forward, better than returning the entire $400M.

If Public Square were a "square" roundabout, why couldn't the federal route signs just direct travelers around the square?

For future reference (for all of us), there is an attorney in Ohio who has decided to make himself the bike law expert: Steve Magas. http://ohiobikelawyer.com/ I have no experience with him, I've just seen a few newspaper articles.

Bicycle sharrows added in Cleveland Heights http://bikesintheheights.org/announcements/bicycle-sharrows-in-cleveland-heights/

Another good idea for RTA to promote -- a potentially inexpensive next-bus display for restaurants/coffee shops/bookstores near RTA stations http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2010/09/169_transit_inf.html

Streetcars to return to Washington, DC http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=7713

Not true, check that list again. There is a capital grant for a rail station near Case Western in Cleveland. University - Cedar Rapid Transit Station Improvements OH $10,500,000 See related thread -- Cleveland: Cedar Hill Rapid Station http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,12801.0.html

No, he opposes any government (monetary) support for passenger rail. He views it as something for private business. And if it isn't profitable as a private business then the people don't really want it that badly.

I disagree. First, the future is going to require us to use our available energy and materials more efficiently, and second, rail infrastructure provides a transportation alternative to compete for both passengers and freight. Yes, people are very fond of their own personal transportation vehicles. They take you exactly where you want to go exactly when you want to go. But they are a very inefficient use of society's resources. If petroleum remains cheap and plentiful forever, maybe there's no problem. Efficiency is not a high priority. But the days of the US consuming more than its per-capita share of the world's materials and petroleum resources may be coming to an end. Emerging economies in China, India, Brazil, and in Africa will increase demand and make steel and gasoline more expensive here in the US. It seems like that will make personal transportation systems more expensive than they are now, not only because the vehicles require more material per passenger than trains, but because of the continuing need to maintain roadways, whether the vehicles run on petroleum or some other energy source. If the only mode of transportation between two cities is highways, where is the motivation for reducing costs? And if you can't drive, what are your alternatives? A well-maintained rail system provides an alternative mode of travel for people who cannot drive, make it easier to transport goods (particularly heavier goods), and take cars and trucks off the highways, thereby reducing wear and tear on the highways. The interstate highways are subsidized heavily, unfairly supporting trucking companies over railroad freight. Should government be subsidizing one type of transportation company over another? Particularly the less energy-efficient mode? If the free market really is king, then airlines should have to pay for airports and traffic controllers to the same degree that railroads pay taxes on their rights-of-way and provide their own control systems. Highway users too. This also seems to mean either that most roads should be toll roads or that we should subsidize railroads and require the government to own and maintain the rails, just to maintain a level playing field. Cars that drive themselves solve the problems of people unable to drive, but do nothing to solve the problem of how to maintain the roadways or the inefficient uses of materials and fuel inherent in such personal transportation vehicles. Bring on the trains!

I believe that is a dredging fill area and they are just moving fill around and compacting the ground to accommodate additional material dredged from the river. No chance of a restaurant there, but maybe somewhere else adjacent to Burke.

I don't think it matters whether we receive 80% or 90% of the gas taxes paid in Ohio (not all of those taxes are paid by Ohioans anyway). The Federal Highway Trust Fund has nearly run out twice in the past decade, and was replenished by Congress with general revenues (mostly income tax revenue). The last time was in 2008. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012263838 I think you'd have to add up all the grants and earmarks for Ohio transportation projects and factor in the proportion of Ohio income tax used to replenish the Highway Trust Fund to see whether we're significantly ahead or behind of other states. I don't think it matters that much. Ohio has 264,756 lane miles of roadway to maintain, and in view of the current state of our roads and bridges, $3.8B is not keeping up with the required maintenance. A 20% increase in the budget probably is not going to be sufficient. We're going to have to figure out a way to maintain fewer lane-miles, increase revenue (convert to toll roads, raise taxes), and increase roadway longevity (and thereby reduce maintenance costs). Probably a combination of all three. The 3-C project will improve the rails between Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati, which benefits freight and passenger traffic. Taking heavier freight off the roads will reduce maintenance costs. Taking passenger cars off the road will reduce congestion and maintenance costs (to a lesser extent). Providing an alternative mode of transportation increases competition and mobility (particularly for those who cannot drive). $17M is peanuts in a $3.8B budget. The state fuel tax, which is charged at a higher rate than the federal fuel tax ($0.28 vs. $0.184), brings in about $1.6B a year, according to ODOT. So the federal fuel tax brings in less than about $1B. Assuming we receive less than that from the Feds. ODOT's budget is about $3.8B, however, including about 60% state funding and 40% federal funding. So the gas taxes are not fully funding ODOT.

Electrify the trolleys -- Spanish company is developing rapid charging stations for charging bus batteries at bus stops. Easier and better looking than running electric wires for the entire route. http://bit.ly/dnfG9P This would be a great first step toward light rail on Euclid Ave -- twenty years to electric buses, thirty to light rail? I can dream....

Note that the Republican candidate expects the Republican Party to regain control of Congress and then amend the law to allow the rail funding to be diverted to highways. Although he hasn't said so publicly, I would not be surprised to hear that Kasich was reading from the same script.

As I understand it, this program will make it easier for businesses to obtain financing for alternative energy projects. If all goes well it may be expanded to residential properties at some future date. Efficiency improvements, solar thermal (hot water) and small wind turbines probably are most cost-effective here in NEO.

Conservation of energy and finances is best served with an efficient mass-transit system.

While I understand the desire for all things rail around here and the sentiment is ok.... I'd much rather not add a few more travel hours to my business trips. I'm sure there's a lot of businesses that would also rather see their employees working rather than traveling. You may get there sooner, but your travel time is lost time. When I traveled by train in England and Japan I made money by being able to work during the trip. I can never get much work done on a plane, you're just packed in too closely to review confidential documents. Add in the longer waits to get through security and in the waiting areas -- give me a train any day. Turboprops are not slower than 50-seat ERJs on short flights, as mentioned above.