Ethan

Try telling that to someone in 1900. 🤣 This actually isn't true... I assume that any system like hyperloop would use some system of continuous evacuation of air to compensate for leaks. This is common safety practice in gas cabinets that store toxic gases. You just have to evacuate air at a rate equal to the leak rate to maintain vacuum. Having a perfect vacuum seal over several miles is of course unrealistic, and no serious engineer would consider it. You would also monitor the vacuum level, and have negative feedback control to hold it. Once again, I'm an engineer, I've literally designed a vacuum system in the past, though it isn't my area of expertise. Edit: also, a dime sized hole is huge! That isn't a leak, that's a bullet hole! not saying it can't happen, just that a leak of that size would fall under emergency repairs, not routine operation.

You're confidence is amusing, here are some quotes from "plenty of smart people" around the turn of last century about the possibility of heavier than air flight. https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/ The problem is that it is incredibly easy to say that something that has never been done before can't be done. To say that a problem that hasn't been solved can't be solved. How many smart people gave up on flying without even trying, because it was "impossible?" I just hope today's smart people and engineers don't listen to the naysayers and try to do the impossible.

Thanks for the response! For the record I'm a mechanical engineer, so I'm well aware of the technical challenges. None of them seem all that insurmountable to me, though perhaps difficult to manage at scale. Full vacuum pressure is about 14 psi, very easy to design for, at least in terms of stress. The bigger issue is potential cabin leakage. There are ways to deal with that from a safety perspective, but it does add one more issue. I agree maintaining a near vacuum state seems ridiculously expensive both in terms of maintenance and expelling air. (Though maintaining all infrastructure is expensive) Expansion and contraction of pipes has to happen at the ends because it is one solid piece of metal (hence expansion loops) clearly a hyperloop system will not be one solid piece for obvious reasons, nor probably as conductive of material. You would likely have to have a gasket between each section of "pipe" in order to get a seal, this would allow for some expansion and contraction, and could be designed to allow for more if need be. I don't see a problem with intermediate stops... I assume you would have locks in the loading section. Once the pod (or 200 ft long train) enters the station, you close the locks and open the door to travelers, they enter, close door to travelers, pump out of lock section, open locks, resume travel. Honestly, I think the bigger problems are economic and not engineering (not that the two aren't related). Getting a hyperloop train/pod that functions seems very manageable, (if still very difficult!) being able to build and operate one at a cost that the market will tolerate sounds like the truly difficult hurdle. Problems you didn't mention: requiring more land to build, greater impact on environment/neighborhoods if not buried/elevated, MUCH higher initial investment, higher maintenance costs, needing straighter routes to reach higher speeds. I don't see hyperloop happening at any level of scale until there is a paradigm shifting breakthrough in tunneling technology allowing us to tunnel at far cheaper costs than we can now. That said, I rarely think money is wasted on R&D, and I think there's a good chance hyperloop could find a niche in the transportation sphere in the next 50-100 years, even if it doesn't find its way to widespread adoption.

I don't understand comments like this, nor why people feel the need to make them. Hyperloop is a nascent technology, that for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist yet. Sure, its current capacity is awful. The capacity of the first plane was one, it will take several iterations of technology for hyperloop to reach a phase where it is useful, if indeed it ever does. I'm not aware of any reason to think that if hyperloop does ever reach a point where it is useful that capacity will be an issue. (Other than if developers choose not too pursue high capacity) Hyperloop (as it is currently being proposed) is a maglev train sealed in a vacuum tube. It isn't a radical departure from high speed rail, but rather high speed rail on steroids. It is often talked about as a significant departure from rail, but I don't think it is any more of a departure than maglev trains are. Clearly we should all root for any new technology with the potential to positively transform our world to succeed. Hyperloop isn't there yet, it may never be there, but I certainly hope it is one day, and I'm actively rooting for companies like Virgin to make it a reality. I imagine most of the criticisms I've seen on this site about hyperloop were at one time said about planes, cars, and even trains, as well as a few technologies that never proved useful. The confidence with which people on this site assure everyone else that hyperloop is the latter instead of the former amuses me. As I can't predict the future, I honestly don't know, but I'm willing to bet no one else does either. :)

I haven't noticed anything, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened though. Other than the lawn, which finally got some rain, the square looks more or less the same. A few trees look a little less dead, but other trees look like they've gotten worse.

My understanding is that the idea of Canal Basin Park is to unite those several smaller parks into one. What confuses me is that while they've been more or less consistent with the general outline of "canal basin park" for years, they have been very unclear about the specifics for about half of that land. How or if they will acquire it, etc. Hopefully it is just a matter of time. Hence why the zoning change worries me. It suggests a lack of united planning on behalf of the city. The part I care about most is that Canal Basin Park is bounded by the river on two sides, not just to the North. That's one of the things that will make the park cool, so it will punch above its acreage. The land is question is a Sherwin Williams parcel, which I believe was transferred to the city in the HQ deal, so it is in their hands to do with as they please.

"Depends" is fair, I can still find several city affiliated sources describing the proposed park as 20 acres. What is shown in that master plan adds up with existing green space to make 9. For what it's worth, the same presentation you got that from shows the same extents on a different slide. I was taking it to mean that the other land still needed to be acquired.

I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but I still think Scranton Peninsula would make a great park! I am also confused as to why a city that is at best stagnant in population, and has about 40% of the population it had 100 years ago is focusing on building new neighborhoods, rather than on revitalizing and rejuvenating the ones we already have. In terms of things preventing suburbanites from moving Downtown, lack of parks and nature downtown is definitely one of them.

I would go further than that, and say there really isn't any reason to put a courthouse or jail on any kind of waterfront, lake or river. Both the lake and the river should be for fun, relaxing, or interesting, things that are publicly accessible, in my opinion. There are still so many parking lots downtown far away from the water, including in the warehouse district and on both sides of 13th. I'd rather fill up one of those lots with something important, but boring, like the justice center. Maybe they just can't put together a large enough footprint in any of those lots, I don't know, and it's not up to me anyway.

There's plenty of parking lots on the west side of W25th, having a park across the street should drive up demand for those lots. Building on any of the East side of W25th would effectively divide the park into several smaller parks as most of the land is too steep to easily walk on. Edit: KJP beat me to it.

What I like about this proposal, is that it strikes my novice eyes as more feasible than a lot of the other proposals. I still doubt it will happen, but it doesn't seem like Cleveland would be biting off more than it can chew with this. Plus, I like that it is leaving room, and creating opportunities, for future expansions.

I'm sure it would be absurdly expensive (just not sure exactly how much), but I don't know about unnecessary. It currently takes about twenty minutes to walk from one bank to the other, too far for a lot of people. I measured it out before, crossing the railroad bridge over the mouth of the river, and then crossing the abandoned bridge from Whiskey Island would be about a five minute walk, a significant difference! It would meaningfully connect two of Cleveland's largest entertainment districts, which are effectively separate >90% of the time. The bridge near Nautica has an alternative crossing near by that's true, but there is nothing at all near the mouth of the river, where a crossing is most needed.

Something I've wondered about, but never seen an answer to: is it at all possible or practical to convert the old railroad bridges in the flats to pedestrian bridges? (As well as add pedestrian crossing to the active bridge on the mouth). I'm assuming that it is wildly impractical, and I can think of dozens of reasons (costs, safety, etc.) why it might be, but I was wondering if anyone Knows. Specifics like cost-estimates would be awesome! If it could be done, it would be one of the coolest ways to connect the East and West banks of the flats! To really make it worthwhile, you'd have to acquire some land on Whiskey Island from the Ontario Stone Corporation, but if you did that you could get from the heart of the EB to the heart of the WB in 5 minutes anytime there isn't a ship coming through. Right now they're really only connected the <10% of the time the water taxis are running.

Am I wrong in seeing this rezoning as a shrinking the planned area of canal basin park?

They should cut the grass higher. The grass is currently cut very low. This is a high stress state for the grass, and it requires a lot of upkeep to manage, add in its high use and anyone would find it difficult to maintain. The city is clearly not up to the challenge. The grass will be much more resilient if they let it grow a bit taller.

I just went there this weekend, and I hate to throw cold water on your hopes, but the infrastructure is absolutely not there right now for getting around the park without a car. And even with a car, it could use Quite a bit of work. I checked out the Station at Thurmond, and even talked to the park rangers (or whatever they're called) about it. There is no Amtrak platform at Thurmond, it is a flag stop, and if anyone has a ticket that says Thurmond they stop in the road, and get out a stool. Thurmond is a cool old railroad town that is now virtually abandoned. It is hard enough to get there that the rangers told me about someone who rode the train and planned for a rental car agency to pick them up, only for the rental car not to show. I didn't check out Prince, the other station within the park, but it looks to let out to a small town of private inholdings, I think the same issues would exist. Bottom line, if anyone wants to take the train in, I'd advise they get off at one of the nearby towns (Hinton is pretty close!) And look into renting a car. (Though if you really want to ride into the park I won't stop you!) The tracks go through the whole park, so it would be sweet if they could be used as a frequent shuttle like service, but they are regularly used for moving freight, so no scenic railroad here.

I'll try and shoot them an email response eventually, (I just got back from a weekend trip) but the response they sent you is disheartening, though I guess it's good that they responded. I've attached a picture of Public Square, the trees around Rebol are the most obviously distressed, so obviously that the person messaging you is either giving you the run around, or hasn't seen Public Square in weeks. Also, I used to work maintenance at a golf course, I know what a weedy bed looks like, if the beds currently look as intended than whoever is in charge of landscaping aught to be fired. I'm actually know they are aware of the grass problem, because while I was attending a city sponsored yoga on the square session (which had two city parks employees standing around watching) they turned the sprinklers on, getting all the attendees wet. It was kind of funny, but unfortunately also seems to be indicative of the sort of incompetence that would allow public square to degenerate into this state to begin with. Edit: @DO_Summers where should I send the email to?

The Trust for Public Land has updated Cleveland's park score, give it a look! The score is based on several factors, including equity, park access and amenities, acreage and more. Its map of where parks are most needed in Cleveland (so that everyone is within a 10 minute walk of a park) is interesting food for thought! Overall it looks similar to last year's report. https://www.tpl.org/city/cleveland-ohio The Trust for Public Land has done a lot in terms of land conservation in and around Cleveland (as well as the whole country) including from downtown parks to large purchases in CVNP. You can explore their past purchases at the link(s) below. They've done a lot to preserve nature against the threat of sprawl, as well as provide parks to poorly served areas. https://lwcf.tplgis.org/mappast/ https://www.tpl.org/our-work/cuyahoga-valley-national-park https://www.tpl.org/media-room/new-parkland-planned-clevelands-flats-district-oh Continuing the conversation thread above: Public Square is starting to piss me off. I count at least 13 severely distressed trees, and about half of the lawn is brown. That's not to mention that nearly every single flower bed is full of weeds. I'm worried that by the time someone in the city bothers to take care of it, or wises up and decides to transfer it to the Metro parks (near) permanent damage will have been done (such as dead, hard to remove and replace, trees).

That clears things up a lot! Thanks! I like that they are looking into a few different ways to connect the land bridge down to the lawn South of the Science Center. I think that will make a huge difference! Also, I don't remember seeing it further up thread, but the building to the East of the bridge is theorized as a potential Amtrak station, and the building to the West is a hotel.

True, this route will do a lot of good for the people for whom driving isn't an option. That said, I can't be the only person thinking this, but I have a hard time seeing the 3C route enticing too many people who own cars (and don't have any particular interest in trains/urbanism) with a five and a half hour journey time from Cleveland to Cincinnati. That simply isn't comparable to the drive time. The slide suggests it's a 4:20 drive, I remember it as 4, Google says it's about 3:45, and I know people who have done it in 3:30. At a near two hour travel time difference, plus the time between when a hypothetical person wants to leave and when the train is scheduled to leave (not to mention the last mile problem), I'm saddened to say I think most people with options will still continue to drive this route most of the time. Moving to the target time will certainly help, but I sadly still think the route will need to be closer 4 hours (and frequent) if it wants to take a substantial chunk out of driving portion of the transport pie between these cities.

Not at all, renderings love to put green roofs on every building, At a quick glance, it makes the plan look like it has far more green space. In reality, I don't expect any of these buildings to have a green roof, and certainly not all of them (though I'd be delighted if they did!).

It looks to me like they are planning to combine Erieside and the Shoreway into one road that follows the path of Erieside Ave. What I don't understand is why they don't move it a bit South and down while they are rebuilding it so that the land bridge can return to surface level sooner.

I understand you can get off the bridge here, my problem is that this appears like it may be the only area to get off the bridge. That will result in lots of backtracking, and won't be great for connection or pedestrian flow. Far from ideal.

If I'm seeing this video correctly, you can't even walk off the north end of the land bridge!? The point of this is to better connect our city, this bridge will create as many barriers as connections. Overall, I think I prefer the Green Ribbon Coalitions proposal. It makes a lot more sense from a pedestrian traffic point of view.

I don't have a subscription to Cleveland.com, so if I have any of this wrong let me know. Pros: - It continues the line of the malls, very aesthetically pleasing - Creates new space by adding intersections to the shoreway. - Pedestrian bridge over the W 3rd intersection is a nice touch Cons: - Stays elevated way past the shoreway, meaning people will have to double back to get to the Rock Hall. Given that they are moving the shoreway anyway with this proposal, I don't see why this is necessary. - Tower to the west of new green space will put significant portions of the land bridge/new mall in the shade during prime afternoon hours, resulting in more underutilized green space in the nine months of the year where Clevelanders avoid shade like the plague. - Span between the mall and E 9th seems disconnected from everything, I don't see many people using this at all. Other thoughts: - Does the article mention anything about Amtrak?