natininja

What is the deal with the sewer system? (Sorry to somewhat bump the thread off track.) Important things to me: - Getting rail to the airport (I'd like to see HSR between the nearby airports) - Public steps -- maintenance and finding new uses (perhaps building commercial space around some) - Bike infrastructure - Leverage the Cincinnati Southern RR line for the "new economy" (figure out a plan) - Market Cincy's brand. Mostly to Cincinnatians -- there's not enough pride in the region. We desperately need to stop the brain drain. I'd say historic preservation, but that needs to happen now and be a given in 10 years.

I'm sorry if you can't accept the word of our elected representatives and members of the news media. There are lots of things I believe because I heard it from a trusted source. But not everyone trusts the same sources, I suppose. It's quite a conspiracy if these accounts are all made up, however. When you posted something about Cantor (I think) having the bullet break his window, and all the other news was coming out about threats and such, I said things were getting crazy. You seemed to blow that off, saying that's what the liberal media was telling me or something. Then when I post this video, you come out with: Which, to me, is on a completely different level than all the **** that was happening before. A stupid video, versus shouting slurs and spitting? You can blow off threats (by denying they create a "crazy" environment) but not Youtube? My point had nothing to do with the substance of any political policy, so your representation of my "calculus" misses the point by a mile.

I think Springfield should be postponed. It will happen eventually, but there's already a shortage of funds for making a proper 3C+D. I guess I would make that call, though, based on how much money and time it would save. (Springfield residents could use Riverside, in the meantime.)

Is it not real brick? I thought it looked pretty nice from this pic: Maybe I just have poor taste. :P Or maybe if I saw a better pic I would agree with you.

Only on extra long trips. I find it a hassle to switch the stuff in and out of my bag.

You reserve your outrage for a parody Youtube video, and reject the idea that people are acting crazy when they are slurring, spitting upon, and threatening Congressmen?

I'm still looking for an answer to this question. I agree that it makes no sense. It's almost like Dayton has 3 stations, since Springfield has one.

It is curious that there are people outside the state betting that 3C won't happen. Like they think they know Ohio politics better than Ohioans or something. There's obviously the possibility it could be stalled out in committee, but it's a fool's wager to bet that that will happen for sure. And if it doesn't happen, well, I don't understand why it wouldn't be built. We on UO know very well that there are a lot of backward-thinking people and politicians in the state, but we also know those people often don't get their way. I would actually expect that an outsider would see Strickland being all about the plan and think that all systems are go.

It's actually a surprisingly nice looking building, as far as these things go. Much, much better style than, say, the Banks.

I had a flat with one bike when I was out and about and had to walk it home (luckily not that far, but maybe 15-20 minutes of walking). I left it for a couple days, figuring I'd get to it eventually, since I had another bike. Then I got a flat with the other bike. Had to fix two flats. Luckily no trouble with flats since then, but a few months ago I was out with some friends and one of them got a flat. We had to walk about 45 minutes to an hour to get back to her apartment. It happens.

So, when it's a roads-to-bikes comparison, job creation is a key metric. But when it's roads-to-rails, job creation plays third fiddle (to number of users and speed). If all transportation options had exactly the same benefits, we really would only need one kind. The thing is, they all have their own strengths, and shouldn't be judged by their failing to live up to the others' strengths. That seems so simple and obvious, yet many, many people don't seem to get it.

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea. I think it should be explored, and like I said it would produce a lot of positive outcomes. Many or all of the "negative" outcomes may only be considered negative in that they make our current way of doing things unfeasible. I saw on someone's blog recently that an urban lifestyle really doesn't cut down much on someone's carbon footprint, because most of one's carbon footprint comes from goods they consume, rather than their own transportation. (Makes sense.) It was from some Australian study. Here's a link to the blog: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html I think pretty much everyone on this site recognizes that the government subsidizes (at great cost) some pretty bad behavior, when it comes to transportation. Stepping away from that is good, but then we are confronted with the questions of "how far?", "at what pace?", and more generally "how?". I have a feeling academics, government officials, and lobbyists will be spending a lot of time on this issue in the coming years.

Funny...sad...frightening...I don't know what it is, but it's something.

I guess the question is: would sales tax really be lowered enough to offset the increased cost of transportation for the poor? If the majority/entirety of the cuts come from sales taxes, that may be a possibility. Although, it seems to me that a significant percentage of poor people's income may go to untaxed goods (like food, or in some states clothes), so their potential for savings is less. I also think the cost of food would rise significantly, as there's a lot of transportation involved in getting food from farms to stores. Especially if the cuts are made to sales tax, and not to taxes which affect businesses on a grander scale.

It would be a major step towards immobilizing the poor, and overall increasing the relative size of our country/world. It would promote density and localizing business. It's hard to predict its effects on costs of goods, and it's definitely a killer for rural folks/farmers. It has pros and cons. I think the GPS is their answer to people cheating. Any device like you suggest would be subject to tampering, akin to rolling back an odometer to increase the value of a used car. That isn't to say some hackers won't figure out how to trick the GPS system. http://www.good.is/post/the-dutch-try-a-kilometer-tax/

Why no shots of Penn Station? I love that old church by Park & Broad. Newark has some of the nicest (and oldest) churches around. Are you going to show us the cathedral next time? What about the cherry blossoms? Thanks. Looking forward to next time! :-)

Can't you use the same argument regarding other forms of transit? The fact is, while this sounds appealing, it would make the cost of doing business go up ridiculously. Remember what gas prices were doing to the cost of goods, prior to the recession? That is not to say that this isn't a noble goal. I think the correct way to pursue this, policy-wise, is to incentivize using the true-value cheapest mode of transport, and slowly increase the user-funded proportion of road costs. Eventually, you may have a self-supporting auto system. Or (most likely, IMO) you might decide that a little subsidy is more beneficial than none at all. Some countries in Europe are discussing using GPS to track the movement of people's cars, so they can charge them per kilometer of road use. I think it's a horrible idea, due to the Big Brother implications, but it's an interesting idea, and an alternative to higher gasoline taxes.

Or one of those vacuum tubes like they have at the bank.

Their issue here is with the system, though, and not this specific project. Therein lies the absurdity: the selective application of their outrage.

You might be meeting friends who don't have bikes and have to walk yours. Does the bike center have a repair facility? If your bike is in need of repair, you likely won't be riding it. If you're at the upper-level, near the top of the stairs (for whatever reason), and you want to go to the lager house or something at the lower-level, mounting the bike and riding around the block seems silly. There are lots of reasons people will want to walk their bikes around the park.

It's a complicated problem. First of all, we need to seriously overhaul the Drug War. I have my own ideas about it, but the bottom line is we can't keep with the status-quo. Next, we need to focus on what works statistically, preventing recidivism, and not what makes us feel like the prisoner is sufficiently punished. We need to work more with employers to integrate ex-prisoners into the workforce. Having a criminal record should prevent no one from getting a job -- it's totally counterproductive. I think taking a hard look at what other countries are doing is our best bet. We can cherry-pick their best practices. The founding fathers decided a long time ago on the right to bear arms, and we're now suffering the consequences. I think this is going to be a problem we just have to accept. Likewise, our system naturally creates a larger gap between the rich and the poor than other Western nations. These two things, which I don't see us getting rid of, are bound to put us at a greater disadvantage among Western nations, concerning crime. You don't see the kind of crime we have in the "gun-hating, socialist" nations of Western Europe. Education is key, of course. This is complicated, though, so I can't give you any quick solutions. Gramarye will tell you all we need is a bunch of charter schools, but the solution is nowhere near that simple. In a lot of ways, this just spreads the problem around, or concentrates it and makes it worse. I think if we could identify individuals who would make good teachers prior to them entering the workforce, then giving these people incentives to choose that career path, that is the most realistic thing we might do...but we don't know how to do that, currently, and it may not even be possible. (The key question being how we identify someone with the potential to be a good teacher without having them actually go through all the steps to become one. Perhaps we should stick everyone in an inner-city classroom as part of their liberal arts education.) Working to get rid of institutional racism, whether in the school system or other parts of life is also quite important. We really need to instill a sense of control over one's own destiny among minority (especially black and latino) youth. Whites need to stop pointing fingers, and recognize that minorities truly are discriminated against, and truly are at a disadvantage. Minority leaders need to step up to the plate and preach personal responsibility and free agency, and denounce a woe-is-me victim mindset. People have been pointing fingers and making excuses for far too long, and it only impedes progress. I don't know what kind of reaction you wanted, Cincinnatus, but those are the things I think are relevant to the situation discussed in the article.

Now you "get it." It's all about the hope/change.

^^ Oh, snap. One thing I'm concerned about is how inviting the park will look from the north. Where does the parking garage face (I'm guessing the north), and how visible is it going to be for the length of that side? One of the crappy things about Newport on the Levee is how it's so uninviting from the surrounding area. I know the Banks will be contiguous with the rest of the city, so my only concern is...do you have to walk past a butt ugly parking garage to access the park from the north? Also, with the change in elevation, how is bicycle access going to work when heading in from the north, or out from the south? Will bikes share handicapped ramps? Will there be a massive ramp to pedal to the top of? I hope all the stairs in the park have ridges to walk your bicycle up/down the stairs (or at least a flat strip). I don't think I've ever seen those in Cincinnati. But for somewhere with a bike center, or whatever they call it, it seems like a fairly important feature. For example: