natininja

I promise I will shut up on this for a while. But it is almost Spring time and I must say I think you would be doing yourself a huge favor if you bought a cheap bike and tried it out when the weather gets nice. You will see how easy it can be to get around without spending a cent on gas or fares. First try it out when there's no traffic, and if that works you can ease your way into the flow. The cost of admission isn't huge and you can always turn around and sell it. (If you buy from an individual (like on Craigslist), you could even sell it for the same price.)

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz

^ I feel you. I would totally understand if you left. Ultimately, you have to be happy enough with what exists currently and not rely on the fruition of what could be. If you can't find contentment in the present, there's a good chance you're better off leaving. You don't owe it to anyone to stay; it's a personal issue. Also...moves don't have to be permanent. To/from Ohio or anywhere. You might run into a "grass is greener" scenario, as so many have.

Perhaps someone needs to say these exact words to them. I'm so sick of backward politics in this state and the unreasonable fears that arise from it. State of Erie, anyone? [ftp=ftp://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24993.0.html]http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24993.0.html[/ftp] This is why I'm totally burned out on advocacy when it comes to this issue. It's just one ridiculous and baseless excuse after another. I've used up all reserves of energy I had. 10 or 12 years was all I had in me. I guess I don't have the stamina others have. I'm glad you're still in the game, KJP. I would suggest moving , if a decent amount of Ohioans move politicians will notice... and might change there habits. A "decent amount" of Ohioans have moved. It's one of the reasons the powers that be are so entrenched -- because people who "get it" leave (and therefore cease to be Ohio voters). It's very much a chicken-or-egg thing, but leaving is a surefire way to make things worse for those who stay.

Check the very bottom of this website out (the rest is not in English): http://www.p1.nl/parkeren/p-r-amsterdam-olympisch-stadion/ It's for an underground parking garage on the periphery of Amsterdam. Parking is very cheap relative to other places and they give you (up to 5) free round-trip public transportation passes. (As an alternative to the transit passes, you can instead borrow up to two bikes for free.) The point, obviously, is to discourage congestion in the city. It's specifically geared towards commuters.

I'm thinking garages more than meters and not surface lots at all. Specifically, the Banks garages and the garage under Washington Park. Should have used better language than "certain lots", but the "certain" part was meant to imply places which encourage positive economic and behavioral changes.

I think validation is superior to time stamps at the point of purchase. It makes tickets much more versatile. Imagine you want to park, get a ticket (maybe discounted with parking), do some shopping in OTR and then hop on the streetcar to go down to the river without worrying about time running out on the streetcar ticket. Or a business may want to give employees some tickets they can use at a variable time. Making the tickets usable only for so long after purchase is a big negative, IMO.

This is a key point. There is tremendous opportunity for cross-selling between parking meters and the streetcar. I can imagine a whole lot of people may want to park cheaply in OTR and take the streetcar to the CBD for the last mile. Would be great for OTR businesses to have all that traffic. With electronic meter stations, the city could have sales to promote the streetcar at slow times. That is, park in OTR, get a free streetcar ticket. The possibiliites are endess here. Totally agree here. Integrating parking payment with streetcar payment opens lots of doors to increase the positive economic and behavioral impacts of the streetcar. Parking in certain lots (like ones on the periphery of downtown, or at the top of Vine) should include free or discounted streetcar tickets.

Totally agree, and the part about "automatic compromise" is poignant. Many people will think the sticker system is stupid and not comply, and to ticket people doing that would be a PR nightmare. So you're right back at the problem of people potentially fumbling through their pockets until the next stop, where they can bolt. (Hey, they could do that with their ID too if you're trying to ticket them.) That's not a justification for the sticker system. As you also pointed out, neither is a "quick glance" around the car.

This. It's always hard for me to believe people actually think what they say when they talk about all the breaks and short work days teachers have.

In lots of places there are machines that stamp/validate a ticket with the time, separate from the point of purchase. Going for something more modern does seem sensible to me, considering we are starting from scratch. However, modern in this case means experimental, and could become a problem.

^ Like this? http://www.go-metro.com/news/2010/nr36.html

Try Mt. Adams. Historic, quaint, yuppie hood. http://www.mtadamsapts.com/ For big building amenities, try actually looking in downtown. The Banks might even work.

I thought we had established that is determined by the number of amenities.

:-o I didn't know that! How awful!

^ Daniels and Christie are very different animals from Kasich and Walker. They are more principled, less sleazy. I don't think this shows Walker thinks he's doing the right thing. Why would anyone expect him to be totally honest with Koch? He tells him what he wants to hear, like politicians are wont to do.

"My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused, is that that would scare the public into thinking that maybe the governor has got to settle to avoid all these problems." His only fear about planting trouble-makers is the expectation he would then need to compromise or "settle". He wouldn't want to plant them because if "they’re quiet, nothing happens [...] sooner or later the media stops finding them interesting."

Yes. I don't know what tape Hoot was listening to, but this stuff is pretty damning.

But bus fares didn't! ;-)

^ Loving that photo! LOL

Good luck? Congratulations? Ain't it grand to be gay.

I'm definitely not for eliminating collective bargaining for the long term. My only thing is this: I recognize there's a big problem, and I want to be open-minded about solutions. This is certainly an extreme solution, and I would definitely not go so far as to say I "support" it. In fact, I lean towards the idea that there must be a better way...but I don't know what that way is. Maybe this proposal will work as part of a bargaining tool in order to get some real concessions. There doesn't seem to be a lot of negotiation going on right now, though. Which I guess is the real problem with this approach -- it eliminates negotiation on multiple levels.

They can be quite frowned upon in Europe, too. There's a lot of conflict that results from them using cycling infrastructure, for example. They seem to be the preferred mode for getting around Paris. Try driving into Paris, and you will notice them whizzing through congested car traffic between lanes. The same happens driving into San Francisco, but it's an even bigger phenomenon for Paris.

Maybe Madrid hasn't caught the wave yet. If you get to Barcelona, you will notice it certainly has. And if you make your way up north to Amsterdam or Copenhagen, you will really get a feel for how bikes can be integrated into a city's transportation network.

I think if this passes, it is likely to be temporary. If that is truly the case, it might be a good solution for current budget issues. If collective bargaining is abolished for the long term, it would be a disaster. Being such an extreme measure, permanence seems unlikely. Frankly, I don't know what to make of it. I don't like the idea, but I don't know if alternative solutions are realistic -- unions will not likely agree to seemingly necessary concessions.