Ethan

This thread doesn't seem to be suffering from a lack of pictures, but here's more.

The apartments at Terminal Tower added this mural a few weeks ago. Since it pays homage to its history as a transit hub, I thought you guys might appreciate it.

Hi @KJPtwo clarifying questions. One, Does this mean removing the parking entirely, or just reconfiguring/re-engineering the support structure? Two, is the freight rail bypass (your turquoise line) something that is currently being proposed, or is this just something you think is necessary to properly deliver passenger rail service?

They use the same metric for every city (as you point out). If we were talking about parks not included in the city borders due to weird swiss cheese enclaves and exclaves I might agree with you. But we're not, most of the Metroparks's fantastic parks are on the edge of suburbia. And a "very convenient" park to me means it is bikeable. 90% of the Metroparks's land area is not easily bikeable (for the average person) from any point in Cleveland. You basically need a car (or to live in the nearest suburbs) to access these parks. A lack of park acreage for Cleveland is a fair criticism. Largely because we don't really have a large park in the urban core. We have a multitude of fabulous parks ringing the metro area, but most of these are at the edge of the county not the edge of the city.

Interesting article in Crains a while ago. In general, I'm somewhat skeptical of carbon credits, but when they are purchased domestically from known quantities in the conservation space, it's hard not to see them as an unalloyed good. https://www.crainscleveland.com/manufacturing/nordson-buys-carbon-credits-help-preserve-ohio-forest

I understand how it currently works. My concern is precisely here:

They've added some trees to the dock area!

More windows! Particularly facing superior.

Maybe I just lack imagination, but I have a hard time seeing this working in three dimensions. It just seems like you aren't going to be able to get enough grade change to get the trains to cross over/under. That all seems awfully tight. It'd be cool if I was wrong, but at best this looks like a significant engineering challenge.

This looks to be the best thread for this video, it isn't quite right. If anyone knows of a better thread let me know. Interesting video about the Jones Act and its huge impact on US domestic shipping. Definitely food for thought, and a great example of the negative impacts of a poorly thought out (though possibly well intentioned) regulation.

^ That brings up an interesting question. How wide does a bridge have to be to be considered a cap? Cause I agree, this looks more like a nice multi modal bridge, it's not what I think of when I hear "cap."

More windows and some trench digging! Edit: also, I thought the utilities were running in the gerbil tube? What's the trench for?

I think the most interesting part of this presentation is the phasing. Particularly the first and last phases. The first phase is shown above, and as a result of going first, is the most likely to actually get completed. The last phase is also interesting to note, because it the portion least likely to be completed. Shown below is the second to last phase. The few remaining towers are the least likely to be built. I'm happy these are the last phase, because these towers make the least sense to me, and I'd honestly rather have this area as green space. Another part that struck me as interesting is the service road. It seems to follow something similar-ish to the current canal road alignment. It's interesting for two reasons, one it should keep trucks off the main road (and possibly serve as a diversion route for cars if traffic backs up on canal), and two it seems like it could be an ideal route for the CVSR. It would keep the train away from pedestrians, the riverfront, and provide it an easy route to the heart of downtown. It looks like it runs under the new tower city / riverfront extension, and they could probably build a simple station underground right there. I've had concerns before that in routing the scenic railroad to the B&O station for example the city would be overly safety cautious, adding fences and the like, and effectively create an additional barrier for pedestrians to the riverfront. Routing on the service road would eliminate those concerns entirely. I still haven't actually finished watched the meeting, just glanced through the presentation slides, but I might have more thoughts once I do.

So is the raised table central crosswalk the whole part of the internal butterfly shape, or just a narrow crosswalk shape? I know this was suggested at a previous city planning meeting, but I'm having a hard time figuring this out from just reading through the presentation. Edit: Just found the relevant portion in the meeting. The answer is no, standard crosswalk only. Seems like a major missed opportunity. We are still directing people to cross somewhere other than where the paths lead. As a result this strikes me as an insufficient step. Road still needs closed. Obviously this change will still be a major improvement, and I'll be glad to see those barriers gone, but there shouldn't be a crosswalk here at all. I should be able to walk from one part of public square to the other without having to wait for a little electric sign to tell me it's okay.

Where can we find it? Edit: I'm guessing this is it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cbt_aG-VmI&list=PLJLxV4B9wSw_XpHbnA3rB55q5eHsCZhEU&index=10&pp=iAQB

I can understand the concern, but it's worth remembering these are by definition professional drivers. I think it's reasonable to hold them to a higher standard for safety and watching out for pedestrians. The majority of buses don't go through the center of the square anyway. Currently, most of them go around (based on personal observation). They are doing fine. The minority of routes that currently cut across could adjust to going around the square. It will take slightly longer, I don't think we'll have an issue with safety. I agree with others that it will make the square feel much bigger. It will only get like 10% more space, but I think it will get 25% more usable space, and feel 33% bigger. I'm definitely team close the square. Honestly, the square is basically closed to traffic anyway. It's almost always faster to take an alternative route than it is to go around public square. The only people going around are people who don't know where they're going, and people on sightseeing drives. I don't think there'd be much of a traffic impact if you closed public square entirely. -- Also, as an unrelated aside, can we please get the buses to stop speaking? Ditto for crosswalks. I've never been to another country where machines talk to pedestrians so much (probably because there isn't one language they're confident everyone knows). Everywhere else in e world seems to get by on beeps and nonverbal alert signals. These are far less obnoxious. And most of them have better safety records than us anyway. Sorry, minor annoyance I've been saving for a while.

Here's some studies that touch on adjacent topics. Not perfect but the best I can find with a quick search Looks like there could be some correlation; it's highly variable based on country of origin, but the correlation to distance is weak or not clear cut. https://manhattan.institute/article/comparing-immigrant-assimilation-in-north-america-and-europe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7508458/ https://manhattan.institute/article/measuring-immigrant-assimilation-in-post-recession-america For the Manhattan institute ones, I recommend opening the full report so you can see graphs and draw your own conclusions.

It looks like changing up the roads is off the table for now? Do I have that right? I haven't been following this much at all. Regardless hopefully they eventually reconfigure these roads. Particularly in the northern half. As it is, the benefit to closing down this section of highway will be minimal. With a bit of tweaking this could be a much more significant change. I made a quick sketch up of one possibility. Super, super rough, but it gets the point across, much more available land. Alternative: Current:

List of the twenty most affordable major cities in the USA. Spoiler alert: all three of the big C's make the list. Any guesses as to what's number one?

I can't quite make all my skepticism go away, but I'm hopeful. This caught my eye. " “The bridge opened in 1996 for the bicentennial,” he said. “We’re doing a mid-life overhaul so that it could last another 15, 20 years.” " Needing to replace this bridge is another 15 to 20 years seems way too soon. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd expect a longer life than that.

Visual aid in case anyone's interested. I like maps! Also, that's a very interesting area, particularly since the towpath goes through. I'm curious to see what they do with it!

There is, just not visible in the above photos. Here's the relevant panel.

Some nice (and up close) daytime updates!

Snapped a quick pic of these on my walk today. Doesn't look like too much has changed, but it's been a while since the last update.

More City Club pics. This things getting imposing! And they've added some *world-class* signage. But actually.