Eigth and State

^---"Implementing conventional or high-speed rail isn't the problem. The problem is building the political will to get it underway." Indeed, the technology is available, and we have the money. However, we spend the money on other things, such as freeways. The technical and operation challenges that we fret over so much on this board are solvable. I can't say the same of the political issues.

"This track originally diverged from the B&O in Ivorydale..." If I'm not mistaken, the track on the west side of the Mill Creek was originally part of the Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Dayton Railroad, which was the first line between those cities. It eventually became part of the B&O, and eventually CSX. It is now known as the Cincinnati Industrial Track, and is still in use, though lightly used. I don't think there has been a train north of the Western Hills Viaduct in several years, but I saw one crossing Gest Street last year. Like Jake said it does not connect to Cincinnati Union Terminal, but it DOES go almost to the transit center under second street. The transit center may not be as pretty as Union Terminal but it is within walking distance of the Central Business District. In Cohen's book "The Railroad and the City" he argues that as far as passengers are concerned, Cincinnati Union Terminal was not really an operational improvement over what was there before. All of the former stations were closer to the central business district. If the rest of the system could be taken care of, this track would be a pretty easy entry to downtown Cincinnati. There is one railroad crossing, however, right at the Mill Creek bridge. Jake - good call!

Umm, I guess it could be fun, but wouldn't it be faster to walk across one of the bridges? The L&N, Roebling, and Clay Wade Bailey bridges each have sidewalks. On another note, has anyone else noticed the amphibious vehicle making tours from the public landing? What an odd watercraft.

Free trade benefits both parties. Are you unhappy that someone else is making money? :?

I have heard of the other 3, but who are the Cincinnati Streetcar Development Partners?

Wouldn't making the city core more like a suburb turn the city core into a suburb? Look at Queensgate in Cincinnati. They bulldozed a large urban area and suburbinized it. It has all the suburban characteristics: wide streets, free parking, even setbacks with grass and some trees. By all suburban measures, the project was a success. They didn't attempt to solve city problems; eliminated them. That's like saying, tear down all the vacant buildings, and we won't have any vacant buildings anymore! That's a very different approach than attempting to revitalize vacant buildings.

Union Terminal was a mall for about 3 years. Economically, it failed miserably.

I'm sure some clever engineer could decide where to place the toll booths. It is indisputable that proper tolls would reduce congestion on the Brent Spence bridge. The problem is not where to put the toll booths, but various legalities and politics that prevent tolls.

On another note, the Circuit City store in Westwood was one of the first buildings to be built over the former C&O right of way. The C&O line was abandoned in the 1980's by the owner, CSX. Several studies recommened securing of the right-of-way for transit. In fact, CSX offered the property to the City of Cincinnati, who declined the offer. The right-of-way was broken and sold to developers. Circuit City is clearly right in the middle of the former right-of-way; in fact, it is practically under a bridge. Maybe the odd side led to the odd store design and weird location? Anyway, Circult City has become the poster child for preservation of railroad right of way. How ironic that it only lasted about 15 years!

Concrete itself doesn't cost that much. If there is any significant grading, drainage improvements, traffic signals, retaining walls, bridges, tree removal, or property transfers then sidewalks can be quite costly indeed. Simply adding sidewalks does not make an area walkable, however. The distances between activities must be reasonable.

Widening I-75 is a bad idea for all the reasons that John mentioned.

This discussion really shows what a barrier I-75 is. Highway and transit modes compete not only for riders but for space. One mode, either highway or transit, makes it difficult for the other. What if I-75 wasn't there? The discussion would be completely different. And, prior to 1950 or so, I-75 was NOT there. In fact, I-75 was built over land already graded for the rapid transit! I don't know if the proposed I-75 widening is ever going to happen, but if it does, transit will likely be even more difficult. The 1948 Metropolitan Master Plan suggested that buses use the freeways, but with stops ON the freeways! (without exiting.) Can you imagine? A simple pull-off lane, with pedestrian connections to the surrounding streets was the idea.

The "City of Seven Hills" is a ripoff of Rome, Italy. No one can seem to pin down the actual seven hills. We do have quite a few place names related to hills. Pick your favorite 7. Mt. Auburn Mt. Lookout Mt. Adams Mt. Healthy Mt. Washington Mt. Harrison Mt. Airy Mt. Echo Kennedy Heights Lincoln Heights Arlington Heights Monfort Heights Fairview Heights Bond Hill College Hill Price Hill Indian Hill Jackson Hill

^---- That strip of land between the railroad and 1-75 is a hazardous waste landfill.

I have mixed feelings about Queen City Square. I would have preferred filling every vacant lot over one big skyscraper.

"The end is near, thanks to peak oil." Please don't say things like that, implying that peak oil forumers are calling for the end of the world. There is no doubt that the so-called alternatives are available. The question is, in what quantities are they available?

"Malthusians always point to the cliff and it rarely comes" What Malthus actually proposed is that population is limited by the environment, not the other way around.

"That is true that oil will be hard to replace, but yet prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine it was hard to imagine gaining a great deal of energy from highly mobile (and small) energies for anything." Other forms of hydrocarbons, such as wood, animal fats and oils, have been available for centuries, and they were well known as sources of energy. There are stories of steamboat races where they used lard for fuel. Lard make a great fuel, but it is expensive, and therefore used only sparingly. The discovery of petroleum provided an inexpensive fuel, which in turn made internal combustion engines affordable. Petroleum is projected to peak in 2008 +/- 5 years, Natural gas in 2015+/- 10 years, and coal in 2100 +/- 50 years. Coal is the largest source, and also the least predictable. The historical trend for coal does not graph as a smooth curve as petroleum does.

The essense of peak oil is this: Petroleum is a non-renewable resource. Petroleum can be used only once. Before petroleum was extracted, there was a finite amount petroleum on this planet. We don't know exactly how much; professional estimates say that we started with 3 trillion barrels, but the actual number does not matter. What matters is that there is a finite amount. Every barrel of petroleum taken from the earth leaves one less remaining in the ground. If you think that the amount of petroleum in the ground is increasing, than I can't help you. That said, for the last 100 years, the amount of petroleum taken from the ground EACH YEAR exceeded the amount taken the year before: As an example, the trend went something like this: Year 1 5 barrels Year 2 10 barrels Year 3 15 barrels Year 2000 30,000,000,000,000 barrels (That's 30 billion barrels per year) Assuming that we started with 3 trillion barrels, the number of barrels remaining in the gournd is this: Year 1: 2,999,999,999,995 barrels Year 2: 2,999,999,999,985 barrels Year 3: 2,999,999,999,970 barrels 2000: 1,500,000,000,000 barrels We still have 1.5 trillion barrels in the ground. That's an enormous amount of petroleum. What's the worry? If you compare the estimated amount of petroleum remaining in the ground with the amount we currently use, the world's supply of petroleum doesn't look as large. The world currently consumes about 30 billion barrels of petroleum per year. 1.5 trillion barrels / 30 billion barrels per year = 50 years It should be clear that if these numbers are correct, that we will NOT be consuming 30 billion barrels of petroleum in the year 2058. If you want to dive into the methods of projection, there are at least 10 books on the subject. I have presented the peak oil problem in the simplist possible terms. Of course, there is much argument over the exact numbers, and the exact amount of petroleum consumed per year, but even given the most generous projections we still have a very limited supply of petroleum. That said, there are some widely varying opinions of what the future world will be like. They vary from the optimistic to the downright gloom and doom scenarios. For this reason, those who study peak oil are sometimes called "doomers," and they are compared to "chicken little" in the children's story. However, not all peak oil folks are doomers. Certainly some frightening scenarios are conceivable, but no one can say for sure what will happen. There are no replacements for petroleum. There are some substitutes or so-called alternatives, but they each have their drawbacks. I am not going to go through them at this time, but suffice it to say that there is no current technology that can perfectly replace consumption of petroleum at the current scale of usage.

The horse manure story goes something like this: Every town that had horses had a horse manure problem, and the larger and more progressive cities hired street cleaners to shovel manure and haul it away. So, someone measured how much horse manure was produced, and compared it to previous years. The trend showed that the amount of horse manure was getting larger. This made sense, as more and more horses were being used all of the time. Then, projecting the trend forward, it was said, "Within so many years, the horses in this city will be producing X amount of horse manure." The number was overwhelming. Well, the automobile was invented, and gradually replaced horses. (At the time, the automobile was said to be a great improvement due to the lack of horse manure.) So, the projection didn't come true. Looking back, it is easy to say that the previous projection didn't come true. Why should we believe any current projections? Technology will solve our problems, or so it is said. Indeed, technology has solved many of our problems.

Thanks for the photos!

I had the pleasure to visit Reinfels Castle in Germany in the summer of 2007. If I remember correctly, it cost 4 Euro to enter. I spent about 4 hours there, and took about 100 photos with a point-and-shoot digital camera. We simply followed the standard tour on the guide map, and every so often I took a photo. I went with my friend Ed, who you will see in some of the photos. The fascinating thing about this castle is how large it is. I didn't take more than one photo in the same place. As we wandered around, following the path specified in the guide map, we felt sure that we had seen the main part, and just around the bend we would come to a familiar place. Instead, the castle seemed to get larger the more we explored. It was truly an amazing experience to wander aroound in this manner. The official tour crossed itself only once or twice. Reinfels Castle was built beginning in 1245. It was modified over the years, with 4 major additions spanning 4 centuries. In 1796 the exterior walls of the castle were blown up. To emphasize the point, let me say again that it was built beginning in 1245. That's over 200 years before Columbus landed in America! The exterior walls were demolished in 1796, about the time of the American Revolutionary War. This castle was essentially ABANDONED at about the same time that Ohio was first SETTLED! I suppose that most people around the world are used to living around ruins that are centuries old. In Ohio, we think that something from 1820 is old. I hope you enjoy the photos. They are presented in the order that I took them in. 1. Reinfels Castle on the top of the hill. <br> 2. This is a sort of trolley rail for hauling grapes up and down the steep slopes that we passed on the way to the castle. <br> 3.On the road to the castle, we saw two cars almost sideswipe each other here. One of the cars was a VW beetle. <br> 4.<br> 5.<br> 6.<br> 7. The entrance to the castle. <br> 8.<br> 9.<br> 10.<br> 11. A small museum. Inside were some old weapons and a model of the castle when it was inhabited. At its peak, the castle was about 5 times larger! <br> 12. Layers. <br> 13.<br> 14.<br> 15.<br> 16.<br> 17.<br> 18.<br> 19.<br> 20.<br> 21.<br> 22.<br> 23.<br> 24.<br> 25.<br> 26.<br> 27.<br> 28.<br> 29.<br> 30.<br> 31. Only a small portion of the castle has been restored. This part is now a hotel, which we did not visit. <br> 32.<br> 33.<br> 34.<br> 35.<br> 36.<br> 37.<br> 38.This observation area is another part that has been restored, or rather, rebuilt. If I remember right, it was rebuilt in the 1930's. <br> 39.<br> 40.<br> 41.<br> 43.<br> 44.<br> 45. You might think that this big room was a church or chapel. According to the guide map, it was just a humble storage room. <br> 46. I'm not sure that this was part of the standard tour. We found a door back in a dark corner, and an electric light switch. <br> 47.<br> 48.<br> 49.<br> 50.<br> 51.<br> 52.<br> 53.<br> 54.<br> 55.<br> 56.<br> 57.<br> 58.<br> 59.<br> 60.<br> 61.<br> 62.<br> 63.<br> 64.<br> 65.<br> 66.<br> 67.<br> 68<br> 69.<br> 70.<br> 71.<br> 72.<br> 73.<br> 74.<br> 75.<br> 76.<br> 77.<br> 78.<br> 79.<br> 80.<br> 81. These narrow passages were known as mines. Apparently, they were designed to hold explosives. If enemy troops gathered in the field on the surface, the explosives were to be ignited to destroy the enemy. It seems odd as a military tactic today, especially since the mines could be used only once, but who knows? It was a different world back then. Anyway, we spent quite a bit of time crawling around in these, always being careful not to get lost. We found that it would be hard to get lost anyway, since there were no loops; every branching tunnel led to a dead end. Not only were these tunnels narrow, but they were also steep! <br> 82.<br> 83.<br> 84.<br> 85.<br> 86.<br> 87.<br> 88.<br> 89.<br> 90.<br> 91. As we left the castle, the man at the gate was surprised to see us. He thought that the last tourist had left. If he hadn't stayed late for a special night tour that was coming, he would have locked us in! <br> 92.<br> 93. Back to town, down the road from whence we came. Hope you enjoyed the tour! <br>

I don't think you need to worry about any group rushing to build a bridge.

Cincinnati, Hamilton, Middletown, and Dayton were historically well connected by the Miami and Erie canal, which was probably the most successful inland canal in North America after the Erie Canal in New York. The canal and the chain of towns that grew up alongside of it set the tone for subsequent transportation routes, including I-75 which more or less follows the canal route from Cincinnati to Toledo - in fact, in some places the highway overlays the former canal itself.

"We really need to think far into the future when planning the new bridge." How far do you want to think ahead? The need for a new bridge for traffic reasons will pretty much be obsolete in 100 years, if current projections for oil production are accurate.