jam40jeff

Beautiful.

Yet until they can get those traffic lights to behave like they were meant to, it's poorly implemented. I think having the lights set to just turn red at random intervals would be better than the way it is now. It's like someone purposely implemented an inefficient light timing scheme after promising us exactly the opposite.

What about Amtrak? They seem to leave out the fact that you can catch a train to San Francisco or Chicago from that building as well.

I noticed on the other thread, KJP, that you referred to "the Ukraine". Just a word of advice...if you meet a Ukranian woman, don't say "the Ukraine" to her. Many Ukranians do not like that. (My wife learned that at a parent/teacher conference with a parent of a Ukranian student.) http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/

Sometimes it's really hard to tell when you're being sarcastic, which makes it all the funnier.

Most suburbs have nothing to do with low-density living. Many of the residential areas are nearly as high density-wise as much more urban areas (especially in California). The traffic problems mainly stem from the fact that they are planned poorly and built piecemeal by developers, often with land-locked wastes of space, undeveloped tracts of land between developments (often times still farmland), and zoned for complete usage segregation and massive parking lots, reducing walkability and ensuring that driving is a necessary activity (and I believe this is by design to keep those who cannot afford a car, or to drive that car a lot, out...hence the great fear of and disdain for public transportation in the suburbs). People still often times live on little to no land in many suburbs, with very few parks available nearby for their children. Provide an example, you say? I would venture to guess that for most people, suburbs have much more to do with running from problems (perceived and real) rather than dealing with them than a desire to live "spread out". One day, those problems will make it to Avon, and the nomads will run again.

And let's spend public money to do so!

Sorry if I offend anyone here, because I've seen people do it even on this board and I can't remember who or when, but...when people use "dominate" as an adjective instead of "dominant".

True, but that $453,732,000 funnels millions of vehicles a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. That's a good return on investment, and one that gasoline taxes pay a large proportion of. General appropriations (aka "pork" to some) covers some, but not most of the cost of these projects. The $400,000,000 we received for the slow-speed 3C line will run what, 12 hours or so a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, but only have 4 or so trains running in each direction a day? You'd either have to get a hotel room in a city for the night or leave by mid-afternoon. Estimated ridership: 478,000 a year, whereas that is the approximate vehicle-per-day count of Interstate 75 in Cincinnati over a three day period. That $453 million is a yearly recurring OPERATING cost. How could you compare that to a one-time start-up cost? If over the last 50 years we had spent billions upon billions constructing a massive infrastructure network for rail, I'll bet we could run one helluva rail system for $453 million a year in operating costs, especially if it had become the dominant form of transportation through government intervention and incentives as more people would be forced to buy tickets, which could be sold at a higher cost.

The project manager on the last project I was working on loves the word "vet". Every meeting was to "vet" something out, and she must have used the word at least 20 times per meeting. For some reason, that word just really started to bug me.

Haha, that's exactly what I thought as well.

You're happy about the government spending $23.7 million? I thought you were a fiscal conservative?

Correction: Florida's high speed rail is from "scratch." $1.8 billion for 84 miles

The coq au vin was very good. I agree about salty things, though. I am used to good home cooking with very little salt, and overuse of salt is one thing that bugs me in many restaurant dishes. Not only is it bad for you, I think it detracts from the other flavors often times.

Snow removal is GREAT around the Cleveland area compared to most other cities I have been to. I wouldn't worry about it. The temperatures are pretty much the same all around Northeast Ohio. We get some very cold stretches in January and February mainly, but then some not so bad ones where it's 40s and sometimes hits 50. I actually enjoy the snow. I'd rather have snow over cold, possibly freezing rain any day. Unless you're east of I-271, I wouldn't worry much about the snow, just enjoy what we do get.

Atlanta will never learn that more lanes doesn't solve the problem, will they (see I-75 between Windy Hill Rd. and I-285)? I can't imagine how expensive widening the project will be. But the residents down there won't bat an eye at the cost.

Bubbles! :lol: It's almost time for me to go home. Everything seems funny right now.

You're going blind! :) Home vs. Miami at 8 PM (TNT game).

The law should be blind. That's why I think monetary punishments are bad to begin with. Jail time hurts everyone the same. Obviously, jail time is real stiff for speeding, so there has to be some better punishments that fit the crime other than fines. Taking the license away or something like that seems like a more fair and fitting punishment.

I would say yes.

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia. If you read the 2nd Amendment the way Justices Scalia and Thomas would read any OTHER constitutional amendment, very strictly and very narrowly, then that argument could certainly be made - i.e., while the 2nd Amendment in no way forbids/precludes your ability to own a gun, it only "grants a right" to do so in that limited circumstance and for that limited purpose yet the States can expand upon that "right" as they desire under their own laws. Exactly, that's how I've always thought of it. It gives you the right to bear arms as part of a militia, and doesn't mention anything else (for or against). That is why I think it's strange the NRA and many outdoorsmen use it as their rallying cry.

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia.

I think it seems as if they took the idea too far to the extreme. But to some people, a $290k fine may hurt less than a $150 fine to others. No, the point system is a joke in Ohio (and I assume in most states as well). It takes six speeding tickets in a two-year span (and all have to be 15 MPH or more over the speed limit or else they're 0 point violations, and that's assuming none of them are plea-bargained down to 0 point violations) before you go sit in front of a judge and then they either give you another chance or let you take a "class" to remove points from your license. But I guess part of this gets into the discussion of how our judicial system is too lenient when it needs to be more strict, which is probably a discussion for another thread.

Exactly. I actually agree with this, and not because of some contempt for wealthy people. Fines are meant to be both a punishment and deterrent, just like jail time (they are just a less severe punishment than jail time). I feel all punishments should be equally punishing regardless of income. If you do something that causes you to have to serve a year in jail, you lose certain things based on that time in jail regardless of your income. They don't say, "well one guy has a $500k job so he should only have to spend a week in jail since he will lose out more monetarily". A traffic fine should work the same way. If we deem it unsafe and wrong to drive 100 MPH on the freeway, then people should be punished according with hopes it will hit them hard enough to deter them from doing the same in the future. A poorer person living check to check, barely able to pay a few hundred dollars rent a month, will surely feel the pain of a $150 fine and not want to speed again. However, what kind of slap on the wrist is this to a multi-millionaire? Why even pull them over? They surely won't learn anything from the fine or have any incentive not to go right out and do it again. And I also don't believe the Republican taxation argument (if you "work harder"/earn more money you shouldn't be penalized for it and have to give more of it up) applies here. These are punishments for wrong-doing. I don't see people purposely putting themselves in a lower income bracket so they can speed and pay lower fines for doing so.

Huh? Why would they listen? Most through automobile traffic takes Carnegie, Prospect/Carnegie, or Chester.