KJP

Damn. Nobody read my article. It sucks. I wonder why Cimperman told me "see you on Friday"?

The design review is tomorrow?? I thought it was Friday? If so, there's another friggin' error with my article... DAMN

Too bad I screwed up my article. Don't be too harsh, people.

True, all perceptions are relative to your experience.

OK, just don't throw any cigarette butts on the floors.

I dunno... I don't think Hough looks all that bad anymore -- except for the suburban-style homes that litter the area. I feel fairly safe on Hough, except for the section between Crawford and the old VA. I also feel pretty safe along Euclid and Chester from East 79th eastward. I don't consider the areas from downtown east to University Circle to suffer the worst parts anymore. From my travels, the dangerous areas have moved east and south along Kinsman, and northeast to the Cleveland-East Cleveland border to Hayden Ave. and beyond.

I wonder if the residents of the apartments on the upper floors of those buildings will like the reflection? I guess that's why they made blinds...

You may want to visit the source site, as the following article has a number of imbedded web links... http://weblog.cnt.org/2006/11/06/new-report-released-today-finds-growing-demand-for-housing-near-transit/ New Report Released Finds Growing Demand for Housing near Transit As hundreds of transit activists assembled in Chicago for the 2006 Rail~volution conference, which ended on Wednesday, CNT released a new report highlighting the growing demand for diverse housing near transit, in conjunction with Reconnecting America and Strategic Economics –the partners in the Center for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The study reveals the significant diversity – economically and racially – currently present in transit-served neighborhoods, or transit zones, and suggests that additional development of mixed-income, mixed-race housing in these areas would respond to growing demand for affordable and livable communities while also providing numerous benefits to cities, regions, and the environment. The study of 41 regions ─ 32 regions with transit and 9 regions planning it ─ entitled Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods was funded by the Ford Foundation and highlights data on neighborhoods near transit today and the demand for such neighborhoods by 2030. The current picture reveals a presence of diversity by race and/or income in transit neighborhoods – whether urban or suburban – that surpasses the diversity of the surrounding neighborhoods and overall regions. Projections to 2030 indicate that 16 million households – compared to 6 million currently living near transit in 2000 – will want to live near transit and that low-to-moderate income households represent a significant portion of the future demand. For more information on the new report, you can read the press release and fact sheet here and the Summary Report of Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods here. This entry was posted on Monday, November 6th, 2006 at 11:01 am and is filed under Transportation, Press Releases, Transit-Oriented Development. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Hey, I'm surprised the holiday get-together isn't timed with MayDay's book signing at the Arcade. I saw the sign at the store, but didn't have anything to write with or on, but I think it's on Dec. 7. Don't know the time of it, though. MayDay?

I hate to tell you, but cacti grow in cold desert climates as well (ie: Gobi, the higher elevations of New Mexico, etc.). But still very funny. Here's a cold-weather cactus...

Unfortunately, no. I didn't see the blurb on here about the planning commission until I was already at the office, and the cool photos that were sent to me are sitting in my computer at home. We have so much stuff waiting to get into the paper, that I doubt we'd have room for a picture of it anyway. My article on the Inner Belt project which I wrote in early November has been able to make it into only one paper thus far. I'd love to see some interior photos, or tour the building personally.

Now you're thinking like All Aboard Ohio, which used the same rationale for its Amtrak's extensions proposal.

That's the building directly behind the Park Building, which Matt Howells also bought. I spoke to Cimperman today about this project, and will have an article in this week's paper (not much new to folks here, though). I still haven't been able to get a call-back from Howells. I'd like to, but I understand he is a low-key guy.

Is that before the Landmarks Commission?

Amtrak runs faster than that, and offers 110 mph service on other routes. It's 135 mph between New York & Washington, some stretches up to 150 mph between New Haven and Boston, 110 mph between New York City and Albany, and 110 mph between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. There also is a 20-mile stretch of 100-mph running between Kalamazoo and Niles, MI. But you are correct, we need to expand on that. Interestingly, for all that California has done to expand service, they don't have any services operating faster than 90 mph.

New route for commuter rail Proposal requires more money, more trains and Kenosha terminus By LARRY SANDLER [email protected] Nov. 25, 2006 As soon as next month, regional leaders could start discussing whether to get aboard a $237 million plan to link Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and the southern suburbs with commuter trains. Rail backers are touting the plan's expected economic benefits, while the new Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority is wrestling with how to pay for the service. If the effort succeeds, it would bring back a mode of transportation that disappeared from Milwaukee about 40 years ago. Commuter rail lines run on existing freight tracks, connecting a major city and its suburbs. They're designed for local trips, unlike intercity Amtrak trains such as the Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line. In its latest form, the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail line, or KRM Commuter Link, would offer more frequent service and more stops - but at a higher cost - than the version that emerged from a previous study in 2003. Passengers would have to change trains to continue into Illinois. The project's steering committee is recommending KRM trains run 14 round trips each weekday, and seven on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. With the aid of connecting buses and shuttles, workers could ride trains to and from their jobs, while others could use trains to reach colleges, shops, entertainment and festivals. Trains would stop at downtown Milwaukee's Amtrak station; new stations on the south side (probably Bay View), Cudahy, South Milwaukee, Oak Creek, Caledonia and the Town of Somers; Racine's renovated train station; and Kenosha's Metra commuter train station. Some trains could continue to Waukegan, Ill. Shuttle buses would run from the downtown Milwaukee station to other downtown destinations; from the Cudahy station to Mitchell International Airport; and from the Somers station to the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. Fares would be similar to Chicago's Metra trains, at less than $10 one-way between Milwaukee and Kenosha. Separate from Metra For years, the proposed rail line has been described as a Metra extension. But the new version would be a separate system connecting with Metra at Kenosha or Waukegan. Metra, an Illinois governmental agency, has said it could not provide service to another state. The Union Pacific railroad pays for service between the state line and Kenosha because that is less expensive than building a new facility for trains to turn around at the border. And the South Shore line, from Chicago to South Bend, Ind., is largely funded by Indiana taxpayers and run as a separate system, in coordination with Metra. Wisconsin planners also found the KRM line would have more flexibility if it wasn't directly tied to Metra, said Fred Patrie, chairman of the KRM steering committee. The 2003 study called for a $152 million line with seven round trips on weekdays and three on weekends and holidays. Patrie said closer study found a 14-train schedule would be more cost-effective, drawing 1.43 million rides a year. The price tag rose because of the increased service, inflation and the need to build a rail yard and shops instead of using Metra facilities, said Ken Yunker, deputy director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Also, the 2003 study didn't include the Bay View stop, which was pushed by Milwaukee city officials and neighbors. If authorities move quickly enough, service could start by 2010, providing an alternative to driving on I-94 when freeway reconstruction moves into high gear between Milwaukee and the state line, Patrie said. Consultants also found that the rail line would spur development near stations; provide better access to jobs, colleges, cultural events and Mitchell International Airport; and help reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl, Yunker said. But officials still don't know how they'd pay for the service. At a regional transit authority meeting Monday, Yunker suggested the federal government could pick up as much as 90% of the capital cost. Kenosha Transit chief Len Brandrup, an authority member, called that estimate unrealistic. Congress has authorized $80 million for the line to date. Operating costs would run $14.7 million a year, with fares covering $3.8 million. The Virchow Krause & Co. consulting firm is studying nearly 20 options to pick up the remaining $10.9 million, ranging from sales, gas and property taxes to tax-incremental financing districts that would use tax growth from rising property values near stations. Brandrup said new property taxes would be "dead on arrival." Milwaukee County public works chief George Torres, another authority member, and state Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale) said they were intrigued by the tax-district idea. Brandrup said it would take years for property values to grow enough to produce a revenue stream. It will be up to the regional transit authority to push the process forward for federal approval and to recommend how to finance it. New or increased taxes would need the approval of the state Legislature or local governments. Public hearings are expected in late December or early January. Before that happens, the idea will be discussed by the Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha mayors and county executives. Leaders of the Milwaukee 7 regional development group will discuss it Wednesday. From the Nov. 25, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Yay!

Yeah, but the tape measure story is funnier. You must have pretty good aim to get the laser dot to hit a small copper wire!

From knuckleheads in the news... CLEVELAND -- A member of a highly regarded Web site was fried to crisp Monday morning after he attempted to use a metal tape measure to determine the distance between an electrical wire and a rapid-transit track. The unidentied man, who used the UrbanOhio forum name Urbanlife, was seen near a west-side Red Line station attaching the tape measure to the steel rail and shimmying up a pole. He then dangled, pulling himself hand-over-hand, along a horizontal metal bar supporting cables that deliver eletrical power to Red Line trains. After he attached the measuring tape to the cable carrying 600 volts, white smoke could be seen pouring from his orifices and a pungent odor filled the air, witnesses said. "It was cool," said Bobby Bodacious, who was waiting at the Red Line station for a train to take him to St. Ignatius High School. "I didn't know RTA stations had barbecues." For the rest of the story...buy the freakin' newspaper!

I don't know the distance between the top of the rail to the Red Line's catenary wires. I would be interested to see if double-decker railroad commuter cars are the same heighth if hauled by diesel locomotives or operated under wires. But a transit facility is different from a railroad facility (weight of rails, tie spacing, curvature, gradient, etc), so the type of equipment is different (railroad rolling stock is heavier, less capable of taking tight turns, etc. than transit equipment). Hybrid rolling stock is needed to operate on both facilities. But if the goal is to start with second-hand bilevels hauled by used locomotives, then locomotive-hauled trains aren't DOA (but I suspect you were questioning if they could be used on the Red Line).

Not to rub it in (OK, yes I am), but I'm going to Europe next spring and will be riding some high speed trains. I've long feared this, because I will have to return to the U.S. (unless I seek political asylum on grounds of wanting more travel freedom). So if I'm as grumpy or preachy as Noozer has been these last few days (if it's a family emergency or something like that, I apologize my friend) upon my return, you'll know why. On the domestic front, I put a friend of mine on the Capitol Limited for Chicago last night. The train was right on time! Good crowds at the station. His trip to Northeast Ohio several days ago wasn't as nice. A CSX freight derailment near Ashtabula forced the Lake Shore Limited to detour over NS to Buffalo, which meant he had to get off the train at Elyria and hop on a bus to Cleveland. This is one place where Amtrak was fortunate -- there was a parallel rail line available. As most everyone here knows, we've lost a lot of those parallel rail lines since the 1970s. But even a few well-placed track connections here and there would go a long way toward offering less draconian detours than has been seen in recent weeks (ie: NS derailment at New Brighton PA, Wal-Mart landslide in Kilbuck Township PA).

Much of what you say is true. Which is why we're ready to ramp up a grassroots effort to make it happen. We are informing the principal players at the railroads, unions and state/federal governments of what it is we seek, then will mobilize the grassroots forces to achieve it. Two of the train extensions probably fall on the complexity scale somewhere between what Illinois did (in seven months from the introduction of legislation in March to service start-up in October) and what you say may confront us. We'll soon find out. But I do think this discussion should be moved off-line, and I would include some of your associates.

No, but the Cleveland Buckeyes of the Nego Leagues played at League Park.

That steam train may have been doing 70 mph, but the engineer wasn't doing it legally. The unsignalled line has a top speed of 59 where track conditions permit, unless an FRA waiver was granted (doubtful!). The portion of the line west of Denison is in very good shape, but east of there to Steubenville, the track needs some more help. Usually, a passenger train's average speed over a route is 15-20 mph less than the predominate maximum track speed. Thus, an average speed of a shade more than 40 mph for Columbus - Pittsburgh seems realistic. A 10 percent schedule recovery time should be built in to the timetable. That means that the running time for the 200-mile Columbus - Pittsburgh segment would be about 5.5 hours. Like BuckeyeB said, some passing sidings might be needed, but I don't know the track layout well enough to say if or how many sidings would be needed, or if they can be easily interlocked from a central dispatching location. If I were to spend a few million$ on this line, I'd spend it on track resurfacing and tie renewal work east of Denison to get the average speed up on that portion. By comparison, existing passenger train running times on the 140-mile Cleveland - Pittsburgh segment are 2.5 hours. Current top speed is 80 mph (not 79, because NS has the cab signal system it installed in 2001 from New Brighton PA to Cleveland). On the tangent sections of tracks, if grade-crossing circuits were lengthened to increase warning times (at about $50,000 per crossing), the top speed of passenger trains could be increased to 90 on those straight segments. Consideration should also be given to elevating a few curves between longer straight sections the track to allow 90 mph speeds to be maintained (the Hudson-Macedonia, Ravenna-Industry, and Alliance-Salem segments come to mind where this could be done). If all those portions were desired to become 90 mph segments, that's 27 grade crossings that need to have their circuits lengthened, costing about $1.5 million (including contingencies). A total of 19 curves could be elevated, representing about 10,000 feet of right of way, or 20,000 feet of track. So that could be another $600,000, for surfacing costs. So an expenditure of just over $2 million could get you a 90-mph passenger rail infrastructure over 45 miles of the Cleveland - Pittsburgh corridor. That could trim up to 15 minutes from the already respectable Cleveland - Pittsburgh running time. Plus, the train would be able to get from Harrisburg to Cleveland without increasing the Pennsylvanian's existing train and engine costs -- that run could be made within an 8-hour shift. A second crew district would need to be added for service to Columbus, and you might have to pay them the full 8 hours, even though the train wouldn't be in operation for that full shift. Service to Cleveland could allow a decent 6:30 a.m. departure, and get into downtown Pittsburgh by 9 a.m. And even if the Pennsylvanian didn't go via Youngstown (probably would add another 30 minutes to run time and more than $6 million in capital costs), it could have a station stop off SR11 in Columbiana -- just 10 miles south of suburban Boardman. In short, the Pennsylvanian between Cleveland and Pittsburgh could offer competitive travel times to driving, a very good business travel schedule, and be able to accomplish this with minimal additional train operating costs. I hope this provides some further direction.

My personal preference is not to seek state funding for capital or operating funds for these Amtrak extensions. The congressional support for passenger rail is in northern Ohio, and they are now in the majority in both houses. We have GOP supporters in the general assembly, but we need more. I'll show a comparison of potential Pennsylvanian extensions schedules later.