DaninDC

Okay, please let us know when the widening of I-71 starts to turn a profit.

Magyar, I don't think anyone is arguing to restore railroads to their former glory. As noozer pointed out, none of the pro-rail posters here has advocated for the elimination of cars. Instead, we're advocating for choice. The "freedom" that an automobile allegedly affords is moot if you have to start planning car trips based on time of day due to traffic. We're seeing this now in telecommuting and flexible work hours, for example. I know many people who live in suburban areas that have to schedule all of their shopping trips in advance, just to avoid weekend traffic jams. Heck, if you don't want to believe me, just ask corporate executives in the Atlanta region how their heavy investments in roadways are working out for their businesses. The "freedom" of the automobile is also predicated on an abundance of cheap, easily available parking, requiring expensive and wasteful redundancy of infrastructure (there are about 4 parking spots for every car in the United States). Railroads are technology that we are quite familiar with. In other words, we know how to build them in a reliable manner, and the technology is proven, unlike Maglev or the magical Star Trek and Jetsons modes you propose. High speed passenger trains have proven themselves time and again in Europe (where Air France has been able to eliminate its least profitable short-hop flights) and in the Northeastern U.S., where Amtrak carries more passengers between New York and D.C. than all the airlines COMBINED. The frustration with subsidies to airlines, is that these PRIVATE companies annually receive ten times the amount of subsidy that our government-run national passenger rail system receives. Yet, these PRIVATE companies are nearly all teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, if they haven't reached it already. In 2001, the U.S. government spent more money to bail U.S. Airways out of bankruptcy than it did to fund the entire Amtrak system. This, despite Amtrak demonstrating its value when it was the only mode of intercity travel remaining in operation for several days. There is also a larger argument that extends to the type of communities we want to build. Those communities that have invested heavily in automobile infrastructure are largely economically decimated. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland are prime examples of this, exhibiting large degrees of socioeconomic isolation, minimal growth, yet ever-increasing traffic congestion, and paving of the natural environment. In a nutshell, do we want to create places for people or cars?

No, I just refuse to let one incident keep me from defining my entire life. Likewise, we can't keep trotting out the excuse of "9/11" when it comes to moving this country forward, especially with an idea like this that could help wean us off imported petroleum.

FURTHER behind? Further behind whom? It's not like Ohio's industrial sector has much to lose these days. For what it's worth, I have a regular habit of hiking in the beautiful Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. According to park officials, about 40% of the air pollution (often visible in the summer) in the park comes from industrial plants in Ohio alone. I, for one, would be most pleased to see the standards toughened.

Brewmaster, it's just not practical, and some would argue unnecessary, to have an elaborate security system for passenger trains, for the reasons KJP explained above. Keep in mind that intercity rail stations would also serve regional commuters. Do you really mean to propose that daily commuters should endure metal detectors, baggage checks and ID checks just to get on the train they take every day to work? In reality, all you can really do is be vigilant. This is where bodies like Amtrak Police and local transit system police have to step up. I ride the Metro to work everyday, and believe me, if terrorists want to strike a transit system, this is a good one to hit just because of the people who ride it, and the sheer numbers of them. It doesn't keep me from going to work, though, nor should a perceived threat keep our nation from making progress either. I'm sorry if I find it hysterically funny that people in Middle America are more scared of "t'ehr" than we are here in DC.

I would be VERY cautious of any recommendations from Corradino Group. This is the same consultant that recommended Michigan should widen I-75 through the Detroit suburbs by one lane each direction, at a cost of over $1.1 billion. This option was selected by Corradino over implementing commuter rail on a parallel line for less than 10% the cost, and no disruption to existing roadways. In other words, these guys are very pro-automobile. The 32-hub system makes no sense whatsoever. A common transfer point makes the system easier to use. I think they're intentionally trying to confuse the hell out of bus riders, perhaps in the hopes they'll give up and start driving. Oh yeah--density is a good thing along transit corridors. By spreading the ridership thinner, the cost-effectiveness of the buses is sure to decrease.

I know, and I think it stinks. IMO, our national transportation policy sucks at best, because in about 95% of the country, we require each person to outlay thousands of dollars a year just to exist as a first class citizen. Free market, my ass.

Well, the train I was on was only capable of 150 mph and not 200 mph, but that's exactly what was involved. I'm not aware of any special security precautions on the TGV in France, but considering the frequency and popularity of those trains, I hardly think it would be cumbersome. Regardless, train travel is still easier than even pre-9/11/01 air travel. As an aside, Air France has been able to eliminate numerous money-losing short-hop flights because the TGV performs better on the shorter trips. I would think the privately-held airlines in the U.S. might be interested in this prospect, considering the pounding they've been taking despite receiving about 10 times the annual subsidy that Amtrak (a government corporation) does. The reason planes are targets of hijackers is because they can be redirected, not because they are a mode of transportation. You hijack a train, you're going to be caught.

As a semi-frequent train traveler, I feel I am qualified to comment. This is what's involved: Travel to station - varies based on your location. From my house, it's a 15 minute bus ride. (Closest airport to my house is a 20-25 minute subway ride.) For what it's worth, Union Station in DC has a parking garage directly behind the station. Try parking next to the airport terminal anywhere. In the NEC cities, the train stations are typically directly connected to the rail transit system. Simply stated, parking is much less of a hassle than at an airport, and train stations are often more centrally located (anyone ever fly to New York?). Buy ticket - 5 min. tops, if using the automated ticket machine. Often less. Usually, I reserve on the internet, and just print and go at the station. Head to gate and board. Walk down platform and board train (5 min). There is no shuttle to the terminal. No unwieldy baggage check (unless you really really need it). No cumbersome metal detectors. I took the train from DC to Boston for Thanksgiving, the busiest week of the year for Amtrak. I showed up at Union Station 15 minutes before my scheduled departure, and had over 5 minutes to spare once I boarded the train and got settled in my seat. The post above just tells me how ignorant most Americans are about the ease of train travel.

inkaelin, can you get a pic of that place and post it? It might find a good home at www.notfoolinganybody.com Ironically, I have also seen a KFC (and a relatively new one at that) converted into a check cashing place in Raleigh, NC. I guess Bojangles ran 'em into the ground.

I beg to differ. You're talking about maximum waiting time (and not even average, which would be 30 minutes wait with 1 hour headways). Unfortunately for your argument, neither is valid. The reason is that intercity trains run on a set schedule and usually have reserved seating, where a passenger buys a ticket for a particular train in advance (just like our air travel system). Thus, one doesn't just show up at the station and wait for the next train, as if riding a subway. The rider follows the train schedule and shows up a few minutes before his particular train leaves. The only reason cars became competitive is not necessarily due to the lack of waiting time (ever get caught in an unexpeted traffic jam?), but rather because we have had a transportation policy very heavy-handed in favor of cars. If trains were subsidized at the same level as automobile travel, cars wouldn't be able to compete on trips longer than 100 miles (or even less, given the system proposed above).

Cool beans. I'd still take the 3:10 travel time to Cleveland, considering flying isn't currently that much quicker, and is much more of a hassle.

As predatory as check cashing places are, no one forces anyone to patronize them. Most every bank has some sort of no-fee, no-minimum checking account. If you need a payday loan, it's not that you're poor--it's that you're poor AND living beyond your means. I don't want to sound like a total jerk, but if the market for these places didn't exist, they wouldn't be in business. What did poor people do prior to the spawning of these ripoff artists? Maybe they could go back to that.

Understood. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer. For a DC-Pittsburgh run, I agree it doesn't make any sense at all to go through Philly. I guess I see running via Baltimore in the same sense--isn't there a way to go from Washington to Pittsburgh via Frederick, MD and possibly Harpers Ferry, WV instead of heading northeast to Baltimore and then doubling back? Or is the existing right-of-way(currently used by Amtrak's Capitol Limited and MARC Brunswick Line) too geographically constraining?

KJP, without examining your proposed route map too in-depth yet, why would you want to bypass downtown Philadelphia? Wouldn't it make more sense for a high-speed train to run directly into 30th Street Station (and perhaps beyond to New York Penn) to connect with the Northeast Corridor? I'm also not really a fan of the westbound route from Washington westbound via Harrisburg. Is that really necessary, considering it's not hard to get to H'burg via Philly?

I want a Corvette, but I figured I was better off paying rent and buying groceries first.

I propose to reduce the "ring" road by a lane, and close off Ontario and Superior through the square, filling the asphalt with meaningful park space. Basically, make Public Square into a park within a giant traffic circle.

Yes, I've been to Campus Martius in Detroit. I think that novelty is part of the reason people are attracted to it, but isn't that the reason people are attracted to any successful urban square? I believe some Detroiters may be curious due to the newness, but only because there is a dearth of quality public spaces in that city. Detroit has done a good job of defining this space at the historic center of town. With all the parking lots downtown, definition of space was something that has been lacking for a while. Interesting to note that prior to its completion, people in Detroit predicted traffic disasters around the roadway that encircles Campus Martius. These have largely failed to come to fruition. Could this be a lesson applicable to Public Square? In my opinion, the most successful urban squares are those where programming isn't required to attract people there--the places where people flock naturally because of the quality of location and spatial arrangement. In such a place, something as simple as sitting still, perhaps with a cup of coffee, is enjoyable. That's my criteria for defining a successful square.

Agreed. Dupont kicks the hell out of Campus Martius and Rockefeller Center. How many other places can you win big (or lose your ass) playing high-stakes "speed" chess? LOL The park in front of the Ontario Parliament building in Toronto is pretty damn nice too, although I'm not sure one could consider it a "square". Where the hell is the Boston Common, though! Come on! Public Square has a long way to go, unfortunately. Too much accommodation for the Holy Automobile, IMHO which tends to run contrary to pleasant green spaces.

A couple points: 1. Way to teach your kid responsibility. "Don't pay the ticket--sue someone instead!" 2. Perhaps if Jane Campbell never explicitly sold red light cameras as a revenue enhancer, this wouldn't be an issue. 3. There are a zillion red light cameras and speed lasers (some of them portable) in the District of Columbia. While people who get the tickets are upset, you really don't see too many cars running red lights, making for a far safer and far more pleasant pedestrian and bicycling experience.

Wimwar, the truth is that there are already highways all over Cleveland. It's not that commuter rail is a panacea for Cleveland's ills, but one has to admit that the transportation system is heavily tilted in favor of cars. What will a continuation of failed Eisenhower-era policy produce for Cleveland now that it hasn't done already? Never mind that this boulevard will directly undermine the existing Red Line infrastructure that has been bought and paid for. Simply stated, Cleveland is ceasing to be a city for people, and is accelerating its progress toward becoming a city for cars. The two goals, as KJP described, are mutually exclusive, as cars and people function better in spatial relationships that are drastically different from one another. Much like the convention center "debate", backers of this boulevard have automatically assumed that new investment will occur along this corridor. This is NOT a foregone conclusion! It's even more disingenuous to extend the argument to claim this roadway will benefit schools. What it will do, is allow Unversity Circle employees to live further away on the West Side, contributing to sprawl, and introduce increased traffic and congestion along the corridor and in the University Circle area itself. Let me reiterate that this project was never intended to open up this corridor for development. It's a highway project rammed down Cleveland's throat by ODOT, nothing more. The "development" aspect was concocted by ODOT's PR team in an effort to sugar coat the bitter pill of a highway on the East Side, knowing full well that the vulnerable residents who live in under-invested neighborhoods will bite. I have every reason to believe the alleged economic benefits have been overstated. There are plenty of other areas in Cleveland, notably along Chester Avenue, that could stand to be redeveloped, and already have access to both roadways and transit. Why would this corridor develop when the existing corridors have not? Why spend money to do something that doesn't need to be done?

The following is an excerpt from the book Suburban Nation by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. It has been reprinted on the internet at [glow=red,2,300]http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbuilding-futility.html[/glow]. Why building new roads doesn't ease congestion An excerpt from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck North Point Press, 2000, pp. 88-94. There is, however, a much deeper problem than the way highways are placed and managed. It raises the question of why we are still building highways at all. The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, in fact, it increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse. This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses, who noticed that the highways he had built around New York City in 1939 were somehow generating greater traffic problems than had existed previously. Since then, the phenomenon has been well documented, most notably in 1989, when the Southern California Association of Governments concluded that traffic-assistance measures, be they adding lanes, or even double-decking the roadways, would have no more than a cosmetic effect on Los Angeles' traffic problems. The best it could offer was to tell people to work closer to home, which is precisely what highway building mitigates against. Across the Atlantic, the British government reached a similar conclusion. Its studies showed that increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more--a lot more--such that half of any driving-time savings generated by new roadways are lost in the short run. In the long run, potentially all savings are expected to be lost. In the words of the Transport Minister, "The fact of the matter is that we cannot tackle our traffic problems by building more roads."2 While the British have responded to this discovery by drastically cutting their road-building budgets, no such thing can be said about Americans. There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years' time.3 For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City…As a result of the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city."· This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic. The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible. The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy.· If traffic is to be discussed responsibly, it must first be made clear that the level of traffic which drivers experience daily, and which they bemoan so vehemently, is only as high as they are willing to countenance. If it were not, they would adjust their behavior and move, carpool, take transit, or just stay at home, as some choose to do. How crowded a roadway is at any given moment represents a condition of equilibrium between people's desire to drive and their reluctance to fight traffic. Because people are willing to suffer inordinately in traffic before seeking alternatives--other than clamoring for more highways--the state of equilibrium of all busy roads is to have stop-and-go traffic. The question is not how many lanes must be built to ease congestion but how many lanes of congestion would you want? Do you favor four lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at rush hour, or sixteen? This condition is best explained by what specialists call latent demand. Since the real constraint on driving is traffic, not cost, people are always ready to make more trips when the traffic goes away. The number of latent trips is huge--perhaps 30 percent of existing traffic. Because of latent demand, adding lanes is futile, since drivers are already poised to use them up.4 While the befuddling fact of induced traffic is well understood by sophisticated traffic engineers, it might as well be a secret, so poorly has it been disseminated. The computer models that transportation consultants use do not even consider it, and most local public works directors have never heard of it at all. As a result, from Maine to Hawaii, city, county, and even state engineering departments continue to build more roadways in anticipation of increased traffic, and, in doing, create that traffic. The most irksome aspect of this situation is that these road-builders are never proved wrong; in fact, they are always proved 'right': "You see," they say, "I told you that traffic was coming." The ramifications are quite unsettling. Almost all of the billions of dollars spent on road-building over the past decades have accomplished only one thing, which is to increase the amount of time that we must spend in our cars each day. Americans now drive twice as many miles per year as they did just twenty years ago. Since 1969, the number of miles cars travel has grown at four times the population rate.· And we're just getting started: federal highway officials predict that over the next twenty years congestion will quadruple. Still, every congressman, it seems, wants a new highway to his credit.· Thankfully, alternatives to road-building are being offered, but they are equally misguided. If, as is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt, people maintain an equilibrium of just-bearable traffic, then the traffic engineers are wasting their time--and our money--on a whole new set of stopgap measures that produce temporary results as best. These measures, which include HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes, congestion pricing, timed traffic lights, and "smart streets," serve only to increase highway capacity, which causes more people to drive until the equilibrium condition of crowding returns. While certainly less wasteful than new construction, these measures also do nothing to address the real cause of traffic congestion, which is that people choose to put up with it. We must admit that, in an ideal world, we would be able to build our way out of traffic congestion. The new construction of 50 percent of more highways nationwide would most likely overcome all of the latent demand. However, to provide more than temporary relief, this huge investment would have to be undertaken hand in hand with a moratorium on suburban growth. Otherwise, the new subdivisions, shopping malls, and office parks made possible by the new roadways would eventually choke them as well. In the real world, such moratoriums are rarely possible, which is why road-building is typically a folly. Those who are skeptical of the need for a fundamental reconsideration of transportation planning should take note of something we experienced a few years ago. In a large working session on the design of Playa Vista, an urban infill project in Los Angeles, the traffic engineer was presenting a report of current and projected congestion around the development. From our seat by the window, we had an unobstructed rush-hour view of a street he had diagnosed as highly congested and in need of widening. Why, then, was traffic flowing smoothly, with hardly any stacking at the traffic light? When we asked, the traffic engineer offered an answer that should be recorded permanently in the annals of the profession: "The computer model that we use does not necessarily bear any relationship to reality." But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, or are people just stupid? The answer is that people are actually quite smart, and their decision to submit themselves to the misery of suburban commuting is a sophisticated response to a set of circumstances that are as troubling as their result. Automobile use is the intelligent choice for most Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak have explained that: We learn in first-year economics what happens when products or services become "free" goods. The market functions chaotically; demand goes through the roof. In most American cities, parking spaces, roads and freeways are free goods. Local government services to the motorist and to the trucking industry--traffic engineering, traffic control, traffic lights, police and fire protection, street repair and maintenance--are all free goods.· -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 This article is an excerpt from Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, North Point Press, 2000, 88-94. 2 Donald D.T. Chen. "If You Build It, They Will Come…Why We Can't Build Ourselves Our of Congestion." Surface Transportation Policy Project Progress VII.2 (March 1998): I, 4. 3 Ibid., 6. · Carol Jouzatis. "39 Million People Work, Live Outside City Centers." USA Today, November 4, 1997: 1A-2A. As a result of its massive highway construction, the Atlanta area is "one of the nation's worst violators of Federal standards for ground-level ozone, with most of the problem caused by motor-vehicle emissions" (Kevin Sack. "Governor Proposes Remedy for Atlanta Sprawl." The New York Times, January 26, 1999: A14). · Jill Kruse. "Remove It and They Will Disappear: Why Building New Roads Isn't Always the Answer." Surface Transportation Policy Project Progress VII:2 (March 1998): 5, 7. This study, in analyzing sixty road closures worldwide, found that 20 percent to 60 percent of driving trips disappeared rather than materializing elsewhere. 4 Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak. The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial; Impacts on the Economy and Environment. Pasadena, Calif.: New Paradigm Books, 1993, 122. · Jane Holtz Kay. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America, and How We Can Take It Back. New York: Crown, 1997, 15; and Peter Calthorpe. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993, 27. Since 1983, the number of miles cars travel has grown at eight time s the population rate (Urban Land Institute traffic study). The greatest increases in automobile use correspond to the greatest concentrations of sprawl. Annual gasoline consumption per person in Phoenix and Houston is over 50 percent higher than in Chicago or Washington, D.C., and over 500 percent higher than in London or Tokyo (Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy. Winning Back the Cities. Sydney: Photo Press, 1996, 9). Currently, almost 70 percent of urban freeways are clogged during rush hour (Jason Vest, Warren Cohen, and Mike Tharp. "Road Rage." U.S. News & World Report, June 2, 1997: 24-30). In Los Angeles, congestion has already reduced average freeway speeds to less than 31 mph; by the year 2010, they are projected to fall to 11 mph (James MacKenzie, Roger Dower, and Donald Chen. The Going Rate: What It Really Costs to Drive. Report by the World Resources Institute, 1992, 17). · Almost any situation seems acceptable to justify more highway spending, even the recent road rage epidemic. Representative Bud Schuster, the chairman of the U.S. Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, made this recommendation: "The construction of additional lanes, the widening of roads and the straightening of curves would decrease congestion and reduce the impatience and unsafe habits of some motorists" (Thomas Palmer. "Pacifying Road Warriors." The Boston Globe, July 25, 1997: A1, B5). · Stanley Hard and Alvin Spivak, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial, 2. Much of the information here on the science and economics of traffic congestion comes from this book, which should be required reading for every professional planner, traffic engineer, and amateur highway activist. The logic behind the desire to make use of free goods is suggested by an argument overheard at a recent planning conference: "Of course there's never enough parking! If you gave everyone free pizza, would there be enough pizza?"

Sounds like someone else from Texas....

The truth is, this is a redux of the Shaker Lakes Freeway being rammed down Cleveland's throat by ODOT. No one was concerned with this area at all until ODOT started imposing its will on this area. I simply fail to understand how more of the same is going to lead to different results.

I don't like your question, particularly because it implies that *something* must be done with the corridor *immediately*, and this is not necessarily the case. This is not unlike the convention center debacle, where the necessity was never debated, but the first question became, "What is the best option?". There are many other, better located areas of Cleveland that could stand the investment before this forgotten corridor. In this case, I propose do nothing with the corridor, and invest the money elsewhere, preferably in expanded public transit infrastructure like commuter rail.