natininja

Yeah, one is super-sized! (Bigger font and double-spaced!)

Or rather couldn't you eliminate parking for the stretches where the road cannot be widened, putting a bike lane/path there, then widening the road to support both parking and bikes where widening is possible?

With so many airports located so closely together, there's too much competition for not enough people. (I think it was) Randy had an interesting hypothetical situation about having the airport between Dayton and Cincy on I-75. If that were the case, it might have a chance at dominance. Let's raze West Chester! :whip: Make Union Centre Blvd. a runway! Build it with a 3C station and you'd really be cooking.

Keep it, but only on the main page.

I'm glad Gramarye is willing to express agreement to common ground propositions. DanB and Scrabble have an annoying tendency not to do so, making deeper discussions difficult.

^ I think flexibility is a key part of it. As oil supplies deplete, Europe actually has infrastructure to fall back on. Regardless of what you think of Europe's varying degrees of welfare states, you have to admit they have more healthy and sustainable energy and transit programs/systems/policies.

I think the main point is: young people have been moving to the suburbs for decades, but not so much to OTR. Since moving to the suburbs isn't a "change" it's not exactly a trend. However, moving to OTR has become a bit of a trend. Besides, how would you define "moment", in this context, DanB? It's not like it's only been a week or a month that people have been moving to OTR. Not to mention that the move to OTR is consistent with the more national trend which LiG pointed out.

Hopefully someday the garage at Mercer Commons can become a big courtyard, but until then it serves a purpose. It's not like having that garage detracts from the walkability of the neighborhood. Certainly not to any large degree, anyhow.

Wow, an article which attempts to be even-handed! Pretty incredible! Plus, several quotes from our own KJP. Stakes huge for rail plan Are trains the future, or a new miscalculation? By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected] • May 29, 2010 In the mid-1800s, Cincinnati guessed wrong about public transportation, betting that water would continue to be the nation's primary mode when most of the rest of America saw railroads as the future - a choice with impacts still being felt today. More than a century and a half later, railroads again loom prominently on the city's horizon, with an ambitious plan for a statewide rail network offering Cincinnati, many believe, a chance to correct that historical mistake - or repeat it. Read More

^^ Nice overalls.

The sooner car sharing services make their way into the culture, the better. California is looking to allow people to share their cars with others for cash. Something like Zipcar is a more likely possibility. I don't know another answer for this. While the appeal to live downtown is not hard to see becoming mainstream, going car-free is. Permit-only parking on certain streets can help the situation a bit, I guess. Underground lots are too expensive to build all over.

Hemroid, is that you with the green glove in that mural?

Obviously, they weren't thinking about sprawl and white flight.

Argh, so much wasted potential.

80 years from now, people won't have to wonder what we were saying. (Provided no major loss of Internet data or the tech to read it.) They'll be laughing at us.

Ditto.

So what you're saying is it's impossible to tell what the cheaper choice was, since we can't know for sure if the car would have broken down? Strictly speaking, that's true, but come on... Now you're splitting hairs. If an owner thinks there is a high probability his car will break down on a given trip, for all intents and purposes it is "cheaper" to rent. Another point: when a car is fully depreciated, but is in working order, it's actually worth more to its owner than the book value. You couldn't just sell it and hope to get another car in as good of shape at the same book value. This throws a wrench in a lot of calculations you might try to make.

They're waiting on the pieces from the manufacturer. It's not like they're not putting it up because they're lazy, there's just nothing to put up! Gotcha. I was thinking maybe they were waiting to finish the glass first. You know, so the final piece of the tiara would be the "crowning touch". Looks like it probably will be, anyway, since the glass is almost done!

Well, yes, but they urge that in response to the sun rising in the morning or someone talking about LeBron's choice or a Jehovah's Witness knocking on their door. :-P LOL, touche. :laugh: Still, they have a valid point in this case!

WTF! THE FLAGPOLE TOTALLY COUNTS!!!!!11 Haha, just playing. Anyhow, anyone know why they've stalled on the tiara? They put the first half up so quickly, but for several days...nada.

If you have a car that's good for driving around town, but is likely to break down if you put the stress on it involved in a long trip, renting a car is cheaper than tempting fate and needing garage work. If you take long trips frequently, though, it should be cheaper to have a car that can handle a long trip reliably. Having a junker car costs less initially and costs less to insure. So, as long as it's not too much of a junker (i.e. it can reliably get you around town), and as long as you don't go on too many long trips, owning a junker and renting for trips is cheaper.

^ "Are roads really that cheap?" It seems like Rogoff is comparing the cost of running a bus network minus road infrastructure, with the cost of running rail networks with associated infrastructure. If that's the case, it's not really a fair comparison. It is harder, of course, to extract what share of road costs a bus network should be responsible for, but that cost is certainly not zero.

Dan, by bringing up groceries, you were bringing up freight.

Ken, most of the costs of using your own car are fixed, so you paid them whether you rented or not. The wear and tear and depreciation are minimal on a 450 mile trip, so you just can't assume a savings based on not driving your own car. There is a certain sweet spot in the life of a car where it will keep going on and on with trips around town, but you are taking a risk to try driving it more than 30-50 miles or so in one go. If you don't make long car trips with much frequency, it can be cheaper to own such a car (for cost of admission plus insurance purposes) and use rentals to take longer trips.

^ Haha, right on cue. Do you get "trackback" notifications or something? I remembered that you support the streetcar. I was just wondering how you'd relate it to the post, which obviously is a little bit opposed to rail start-ups. In addition to being a relatively modest cost, it serves an already densely built-up area and one which is experiencing a resurgence, so I think it stands out in a number of ways from some random new rail service.