KJP

I'm afraid you've taken me too literally. When I say highway engineers vs. architects, I'm not talking exclusively about those who are employed as engineers or those as architects. My definition in this case of highway engineers are those whose first priority is the creation and preservation of a transportation system whose first priority is the movement of cars and trucks at ever-greater volumes and speeds. That includes all the legal and financial mechanisms that self-perpetuate the expansion of that highway system with little ability to legally reign it in when society becomes aware that there is an alternative to this madness. I specifically am thinking of a graphic I have from one of my college textbooks which shows the self-perpetuating nature of the engineering aspect of the highway system. The graphic is all the more troubling when there is no easy to way to change that course except unless state constitutions are amended (including Ohio). When I find the graphic, I will post it in this thread. I hope it will explain where I'm coming from a little better. I think the bigger problem in our debate is that we're coming at this from two totally different directions and backgrounds, and have yet to find a common "language" to begin to understand each other.

Yes, they were put in the position of reacting to the plans of highway departments and the highway lobby (principally those that were then called the Highway Users Federation and the then-American Association of State Highway Officials). Both of these were creatures of General Motors but other auto manufacturers had a hand in them as well. Yes, the zoning codes were heavily infuenced by traffic engineers and the highway lobbying organizations I cited. General Motors set up a highway engineering school with the express purpose of turning out influential people to redesign cities. I'm sure you recall GM's City of Tomorrow, unveiled at the 1939 World's Fair in New York City. Executives at Ford, Studebaker and other firms were publicly quoted as saying "If we are to have full use of our cars, then cities have to be redesigned." By the time the 1960s rolled around, the disinvestment in our cities and the increased time/distance range of commuting travel provided by highways had already caused the decentralization and population losses in our cities. The whole metropolitan planning organization concept didn't come around nationwide until the 1960s, and was in reaction to the problems caused by overdepedence on highways. That a precise example of politicians and urban planners having to react to highway planning. It's time that we all realize that building more highways and adding more lanes to highways does not relieve congestion. More often it makes it worse by encouraging more VMTs and more sprawling land use patterns. It's a "hair of the dog that bit me" policy at its absolute worst. And that is the point I'm trying to make here. Highway engineers keep seeking to add capacity in the ever-elusive goal of trying to relieve congestion. All that ends up happening is the fostering of new communities at the urban fringe which replace and vacate those closer to the urban core. Most principal highway routes were first surveyed and selected in the 1930s, before the urban renewal movement. Look at the initial highway route maps and their dates on Magyar's site. In the late 1930s, my aunt and uncle confronted someone walking through their farm in Ripley, NY. It was a surveyor for for the state highway department. After the war was over, the middle part of their farm was bought by the state and the New York State Thruway was cut through it. I'm telling that story to show you the timing of things. I don't think ODOT has ever acknowledged its land use role. They're like the boy who knocked his sister's cereal bowl off the breakfast table while his mom's back was turned, then pretended he knew nothing about the spilled milk. People love their mobility, regardless of the vehicle. Are you going to tell me that you're more mobile with a car in New York, Paris, London, etc.? It all goes back to land use and transportation's role in supporting that land use. Blindly saying people love their cars is an excuse for not thinking about all the underlying issues of why 90 percent of all travel is by car. I encourage you to read Stephen Goddard's book "Getting there - the epic battle between road and rail in the American century." Now you're getting warmer.

Thanks. Just in case you were wondering how I figured out the location.... When I saw the mast-mounted signals were the old Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. position-light signals and that the picture was likely taken in the Youngstown area, I wanted to see where it was actually taken. The "668" number on the signal mast is actually a mile marker, referring to milepost 66.8 -- measured from Pittsburgh via the old, circuitous B&O line through Elwood City and Zelienople PA (rather than the "new" more direct CSX line -- actually an old Pittsburgh & Lake Erie CSX acquired in the 1990s). So the only thing I had left to do was figure what location was 66.8 miles from Pittsburgh via the old B&O line -- Lowellville. And CSX Corp. acquired the B&O's corporate assets in 1987, I think. And, yes, I've been in Lowellville a number of times since the 1980s. Looks the same now as it did then -- except for the abandoned P&LE Gateway Yard. The yard was still active in the 1980s. YS&T in Campbell had shut down years earlier, in 1977, but I recall the mill when it was still standing. I posted some pictures of the Campbell and Brier Hill works in another thread at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1886.0

That's assuming that any new, tech-savvy people coming in know the building codes. And I suspect the city's building codes, violations processes, etc. are pretty complicated for any large city. They can learn these things, but will it take longer for new hires to learn the building codes or the existing inspectors to learn how to use "new" technology? Oh dilemma.

Worth discussing on the peak oil thread.

The first downtown, new construction, mid-rise condominium project leading to the urban revival of downtown Indianapolis' residential market. Three and a half stories is mid-rise? And a small building like that leads to downtown urban revival? Uh, OK.

I agree with clvlndr on the Waterfront Line routing. The "West Shore Corridor Transit Improvements" probably was a response to Calabrese's comments about the "BRT-light" or "Gold Line" on Clifton. After all, his proposal predated the recent commuter rail stakeholder efforts. But since the wording of the "West Shore Corridor Transit Improvements" was left vague, I consider that an opportunity.

Wasn't that one of your ideas to open an urban spa, MTS?

Still, a decent article. Mostly upbeat and informative.

NS's profit increase may not be as high as the other railroads, but it is one of the few railroads in the U.S. to be earning a fair return (10 percent or better) on capital invested in its right of way, facilities and rolling stock.

Yes, all those others you've mentioned have been involved, but after the transportation product has already been delivered. That's ass-backwards. So who designed the transportation product? And where has 95 percent of the transportation funding been allocated? If you were to design or redesign a city, how would you do it? You'd probably want to look at the land use first, then design the optimal transportation system to serve it, correct? Instead, the process of the last 60 years has been for highway and traffic engineers to design and redesign the highway facility in a manner that moves the greatest volumes of vehicular traffic at the highest speeds possible and in the safest way. And damn the impact on local land use. It's true that Ohio cities have developed land use plans countless times. Yet ODOT's activities have rarely, if ever, been conducted in a manner to support those plans. ODOT does what ODOT wants. It is the 800-pound gorilla. And the final product it delivers is ultimately shaped by its highway engineers. How often has ODOT conducted an economic impact analysis of one of its highway investments? Once -- last year for the Inner Belt project in Cleveland (according to former ODOT Director Gordon Proctor). How often has ODOT sat in on a community's land use visioning process? Never, to my knowledge. And what is the single-most important determinant of the urban land use form? Transportation, my friend. So, you tell me, who designs cities?

Awesome!

I believe Dayton is proposing to use an existing rail right of way.

Congestion is a factor in some places. But over the entire section from Washington DC to New Haven, the problem that keeps the Acela to 135 mph and often lower is the condition of the catenary system. The structures supporting the overhead wires are more than 70 years old and need replacement to allow speeds in excess of 135 mph.

I'll take an architect over an engineer any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I want an architect because they tend to envision change and cause innovation. An engineer typically implements the change. If the engineer isn't instructed to design the change, then the status quo is more likely to remain. And, for the past 60 years, traffic engineers have designed our cities. I think it's time to put that charge in the hands of those who regularly start each job looking at a blank sheet of paper.

You didn't ask me! :wink: Let's see.... West Shoreway-to-boulevard conversion work starting in late 2009. Inner Belt reconstruction getting into high-gear at or near that time. Clifton Boulevard reconstruction starting either this year or next. Anything else I'm missing? How do you spell relief? R-A-I-L ...as in West Shore Corridor commuter rail!

Sorry. Don't move! Get the trains to come to you.

Did anyone also notice in the planning documents Connecting Cleveland 2020 that there's a number of transit improvements, including new stations, routes and TOD projects? If not, they're available at: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/gisphp/transit.pdf Looks more like projects for planning reference. Glad to see West Shore Corridor is in there, as well as a transit line east along the lakeshore.

I just gave that to our reporter for that area (I was covering for him the last two weeks when he was on vacation, hence my article on Stonewater).

No. I just saw it on the planning commission's web site about 20 minutes ago.

Let me guess... You took this picture of the CSX tracks in or near Lowellville?

Good comments and you would think they would be on board. There's no room north of the tracks (U.S. 6 gobbled up that area), but there are at least a couple of locations immediately south of the tracks for smaller parking decks -- especially if built vertically with housing above them.

If you live, work, visit or have family in Rocky River, please write to Mayor Pam Bobst or a councilperson of your choice to encourage them to act NOW on passing a resolution in support of commuter rail serving their town. Please let them know that there is room in downtown Rocky River for compact, pedestrian-friendly development resulting from commuter rail. Commuter rail will also raise property values in Rocky River. As for urban sprawl into Lorain County, nothing can stop it except for tearing out I-90. I post these comments because of the following meeting minutes (contact info follows).... ____________ CITY OF ROCKY RIVER JANUARY 16, 2007 The Committee-of-the-Whole was called to order by Mr. Hagan, President of Council, at 8:00 p.m. Council Members Present: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hurtuk, Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Long, Mr. Hagan Administration: Mayor Bobst, Mr. Linden, Mr. Koran ______________________ Commuter Rail Resolution: Mr. Bemer explained that a sample resolution in support of federal funding for an analysis of the viability of a commuter rail system was distributed to Council members and is also being presented to all communities of the West Shore Stakeholders by All Aboard Ohio. The proposed rail system would extend from Lorain to downtown Cleveland. The resolution supports search and research as explained in Sections 1 and 2, providing for no agreements at this time or any financial expenditures. Passage of this resolution would indicate interest in the investigatory process and whether or not it would benefit the communities served, the environmental impact and the cost. This was proposed a month ago, and there have been no meetings since, but one is expected soon. All Aboard Ohio, headed by Ken Prendergast, is rallying the West Shore Stakeholders. A primary interest is in developing areas along the rail line in Lorain County, particularly residential and retail. About 15,000 residences would be within a short distance of any depot, as well as other commercial and retail development, e.g. theaters. This would also require parking. All this development would create a market for new homes to support the commuter rail project. Mr. Bemer has attended two stakeholder meetings and was asked to present this resolution to Council to see if there is interest in pursuing the project because there will be some significant costs at some point. Federal and state funding is yet to be determined. Asked about funding, Mr. Bemer estimated that with private funding, the project could be in operation in two or three years. With federal funding, it could take 15 years. However, the availability of federal funding is doubtful because the project is not safety oriented. Private funding is being encouraged, e.g. charging a fee for development of property or areas surrounding a depot. Of particular interest to Rocky River is the anticipated Quiet Zone. Mr. Bemer estimates that this project would require 10 trains per day, two round trip trains in the morning and evening and one at noon. Mr. Gollinger pointed out that there would be significant hidden costs. It could make Lorain County more attractive to our residents with new housing and easy transportation to downtown. Rocky River has no room for the development and parking which would need to accompany a depot, so it seems, he said, there would be no significant benefit to our community in promoting this project. Additionally, the issue of the Quiet Zone needs to be addressed. He has not had much feedback from residents about the commuter rail line, but what he has had has been negative. Mr. Bemer indicated that at one meeting, a comment was made anticipating an initial target of $3 million in development costs, so the attitude of the communities needs to be gauged. Mr. Hagan commented that this resolution supports a search for federal funding and does not obligate the community for anything else. Mayor Bobst noted that any funding would be only for investigation, research to tell communities of gains to be made by following through with the project. Mr. Hagan asked about the role of Norfolk Southern. Mr. Bemer said that there has been no formal statement, but that he felt the railroad would be interested in being the landlord of the system. Mrs. Bartolozzi agreed with Mr. Gollinger and suggested that Council wait to see what action is taken by other communities. A consensus was reached to wait, and Mr. Bemer will report following the next meeting on what other communities have done. ### To contact Mayor Pam Bobst: [email protected] 440-331-0600 To contact members of council (esp. Bartolozzi and Gollinger): http://www.rrcity.com/councilwebpage.html Mailing address: 21012 Hilliard Boulevard Rocky River, Ohio 44116

That's OK. They defined Cleveland's zoo as being in the "suburbs." Yeah right!

In the news biz, we call that a confirmation. But a confirmation of what?? My mind is abuzz with all the development projects and possible projects emerging downtown. I still don't know what the "big project" is. The funny thing is, as I've picked the brains of sources, I've come up with nearly a dozen possibles. Yet my original and very reliable source says it's none of these pending projects... > Flats East Bank; > Lighthouse Landing residential and/or office towers; > Stark Warehouse District first phase; > Stark joint-development east of Jacobs Field; > Avenue District next phases; > Medical Mart; > New county administration office tower; > Courthouse Plaza condominium tower; > 515 Euclid Avenue residential tower; > District Park first phase; or > DFAS office building. I have not yet asked if it's any of the following and I don't think my source would tell me if it's one of these until he's ready to tell me: > Higbee's redevelopment > May Co. redevelopment > Eaton Corp. new headquarters > Ontario Triangle development (at Carnegie) > Scranton Peninsula > Tower City - infill at Ontario and Huron So now you see why my mind is swimming with all these projects. And this doesn't include the little ones like Eli Mann's proposed condo conversions along Euclid between East 9th and East 12th, or some of the new restaurants planned for East 4th/Lower Euclid.