KJP

By the way, I didn't say the oil companies are keeping alternative energy sources at bay. I said a large number of Americans think they are. I see you count yourself among them. In fact, most oil companies are heavily involved in alternative energy research. See my posting of an article regarding oil industry profits at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3590.msg95597#msg95597 Energy issues are an important factor shaping where population shifts are occurring on the landscape. But I hope I haven't turned this thread away from its original intent.

Ethanol... what a waste. Takes almost as much petroleum-based energy to make and distribute as it creates. Perhaps someday it will have a better Energy Returned On Energy Invested but not now. Worse, we don't have enough land for it to make a meaningful imact. Its increased use is already causing prices to rise for meat, chicken and other livestock who feed on corn. Not to mention Ohio's urban sprawl that keeps chewing up some of the best farmland in the world (an attempt to bring this discussion back to the thread's original subject).

I'm in. So is a friend of mine from Chicago who grew up here. Don't pressure him too hard to move back here. That's my job! As for a cheap place to stay that's clean, consider La Quinta Inn Cleveland Airport, 4222 West 150th Street. It's next to the RTA Puritas Rapid station (see http://www.riderta.com/pdf/66x.pdf ). The hotel is next to West 150th interchange with I-71 (one exit north of I-480). I found a cheap rate at about $65 per night there ( see http://www.hotels-rates.com/hotels_reservations/property/91614/ ). You can take the Rapid to downtown in about 20 minutes. Buy a day pass for $3 in exact change when you board.

You can read about energy issues in greater detail in several threads in the transportation section of this forum.

Barring the discovery and multi-year development of this "miracle" into a massive source of energy to fuel the world's most gluttonous oil user, simple economics of supply and demand will mean much higher fuel prices (ie: we ain't seen nothing yet). That forces conservation, requiring us to change our lifestyles, where we live and how we move from place to place. There will be casualties, no question about it. But there will also be beneficiaries -- companies that recycle materials for energy or construction materials, bicycle manufacturers and retailers, the railroad and transit industries, "green companies" that offer alternative energy to help in our conservation efforts, etc. But when pondering our oil use and how we've come to waste so much, consider these two graphics of Cuyahoga County's developed land area: 1948 - 1.4 million residents 2002 - 1.4 million residents Those graphics, when taken in the context that other U.S. cities have sprawled as much, gives a powerful reason why America's oil use has skyrocketed far beyond that of any other nation on Earth. Even China, with 1.2 billion people (four times that of ours) uses one-third less oil than we do. The EU, with more than 300 million people, uses half the oil as the U.S. Our land use and over-dependence on the car is why.

^ Especially since us news media folks are regulars here! Don, as Sun Newspaper's downtown reporter, I'd be happy to help The Avenue District in any way I can. I realize the news media gets a bad rap in this town (and I do as much rapping as anyone!). But some of us actually do believe in this city. Sometimes a responsible, forward-thinking, activist media outlet can have a dramatic, positive impact on its community. Remember it was the Cleveland Press' activism that led to the redevelopment of East 9th Street from a skid row to the city's premier office tower corridor? Not only did they frequently tout the street in articles and in Press-sponsored events starting in the 1950s, but they relocated their offices and printing plant to the corner of East 9th and Lakeside. It's too bad it was the Press that folded in 1982! I remain willing to help get the word out for The Avenue District in my capacity for Sun. Give me a holler anytime you want by sending a personal message to me via this site. Regards, Ken Prendergast Sun Newspapers

I should kept my mouth shut (er, keyboard quiet) and just posted this excellent article instead.... __________________ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/25/the_alt_fuels_distraction.php May 25, 2006 The alt fuels distraction by David Roberts In the next 50 years, give or take, those of us in the United States will face two challenges. We must wean ourselves off of oil and we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent. Either would be difficult in isolation; together, well ... imagine patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, only with trillions of dollars and millions of lives at stake. And with one arm tied behind your back. What's the best way to meet these challenges? If you were the proverbial Martian, visiting our planet to dispassionately assess our options, what would you find most promising? Would it be nuclear power? "Clean coal"? Ethanol? You'd only decide on those options if you happen to be an uncommonly gullible Martian (or one in the pay of big industry—but more on that later). Substantially increasing the amount of electricity we get from nuclear power would mean building dozens of expensive new plants, none of which would be completed for at least 10 years. Each would be a huge risk for investors and virtually uninsurable without government assistance—and once it had run its course, would cost a fortune to decommission. Each would produce tons of waste—when we don't even know what to do with the waste we already have—and each would produce fissile material that could fall into the wrong hands. By some estimates, the CO2 emitted in the full lifecycle of a nuclear plant—taking into account the oil burned mining, transporting and processing uranium, not to mention constructing the plants themselves—would be only a third less than that released by a coal-fired plant. Burning coal releases CO2. To avoid climate catastrophe, "clean coal" plants would have to sequester their CO2 emissions underground. This technology is speculative, untested and at least 10 years out. Corn-based ethanol is the result of an extremely energy-intensive, CO2-emitting, polluting process. Corn is grown in massive monocultures with petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which are busy accumulating in an enormous "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. Ethanol refining plants consume enormous amounts of natural gas or coal; their product is distributed across the country in oil-burning vehicles. In the end, grain-based ethanol produces little more energy than what's required to make it, and does virtually nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. What about cellulosic ethanol, the oft-cited, eco-friendlier cousin of grain-based ethanol? Well, it's—wait for it—largely speculative, untested and at least 10 years out. Would a smart Martian choose these uneconomical and/or inefficient and/or unproven fuel sources as its primary means of addressing America's immediate energy challenges? Would he be willing to wait 10 years to ramp up supply, in a quixotic attempt to keep up with burgeoning demand? Not unless he'd been paid off by big energy companies. (Which, let's face it, would inevitably happen.) Our Martian would probably suggest we focus first on reducing our energy use—and might be delighted to discover several simple, at-hand ways to do so. Some low-hanging fruit: boost energy efficiency standards for cars, appliances, industrial equipment and buildings. Institute "feebates," which would tax the purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles and apply the revenue to rebates on fuel-efficient vehicles. Mandate that all government purchases—of vehicles, buildings, appliances, or anything else—be tied to strict energy-efficiency requirements. Pass a federal renewable portfolio standard, mandating that the feds get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. And if our Martian wanted to get a little bit more ambitious, he might emphasize these broader policy and technological initiatives: • Quit subsidizing fossil-fuel industries. Period. • Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with reduced payroll taxes.) • Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public transportation. • Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at the expense of organic farms and local food systems. • Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources. Given the panoply of readily available demand-reduction measures, our befuddled Martian might wonder, why is debate over America's energy future dominated by supply-side options like nuclear, "clean coal," and ethanol? If he hung out for a while and studied the socio-economic scene, our Martian might propose the following explanations: • Policymakers are terrified to tell constituents that big upheavals are coming and big changes are needed. They prefer to propagate the illusion that one set of fuels can simply be swapped out for another, with no disturbance in the hyperconsuming, big-box retailing, suburb-expanding American way of life. • Many of the most effective energy strategies would mean less fossil-fuel power and more people power—i.e., labor. Site-situated power plants and small organic farms, for instance, require more human labor than their centralized, mechanized, super-sized counterparts. The economic consensus of the American power elites (in both parties) has it that labor costs must be held to a minimum by any means necessary—union-busting, federal rate hikes, outsourcing, or liberal use of illegal immigrants. • Finally and most significantly: it's the money, stupid. Scratch the surface of each of the elite's favored alternatives and you'll find an industry with political connections and the financial clout to shape public dialogue. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry front group, has openly established an organization ( http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/ ) designed to push pro-nuclear talking points into the public sphere—it's already paid off in the form of an influential op-ed in The Washington Post. Ethanol has even more friends. Legislators from agricultural states love it; corn brokers like Archer Daniels Midland love it; automakers who want their products to look greener love it; the oil companies that will eventually own and run ethanol refineries and stations love it. And coal—well, even kids love coal! ( http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/17/94352/7251 ) Alternative fuels backed by big industry bucks aren't necessarily without merit. But those concerned about America's—and the world's—energy future need not accept the debate as it is currently configured, with its skewed focus on supply increase over demand reduction and big-industry products over decentralized, human-scale solutions. Public dialogue is influenced by big money, but it is also, at least for now, influenced by the public. And we, the public, should approach the energy problem with fresh, unbiased eyes. Like Martians. David Roberts is a staff writer at Grist Magazine. His blog is http://gristmill.grist.org.

I will volunteer for duty in the new Civil War if the Southwest tries to take our water. I feel that strongly about it. Your optimism is admirable. But nothing before or since Col. Drake poked a hole in the Pennsylvania countryside and discovered "rock oil" has there been anything with the energy density as the black crack. I do think we can come up with viable alternative energy sources someday, but it will take a national effort on the scale of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project. Nothing like that is even being considered, and there is no guarantee that any alternative energy source out there (all of which are still unproven curiosities) will be as an efficient energy carrier as oil. Most Americans seem to think there is an alternative energy source (or even several) ready to go, or that the oil companies are keeping it at bay. If only that were case, things would be quite rosy. We have built a nation of excess on the assumption that $1 per gallon gasoline would be with us for more than a century or more. Most other nations realized a long time ago the short-sightedness of such thinking. They may have thought that oil would be cheap for 100 years, but to the nations of Europe, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere, a century isn't an impressive span of time -- to Americans it seems beyond comprehension. "Live for today -- we'll figure out how to pay for it tomorrow" is our motto. Tomorrow is coming a lot faster than we ever expected, and our cities, as we decided to design them for the past 50 years, will be severely impacted. The sooner America wakes up from its 50-year-long oil-induced intoxification, the better our cities, our economy and our environment will be.

Shucks, Grasscat, it t'was nothing (ie: others in All Aboard Ohio and at the ORDC deserve credit for a 33-0 passage). Cincinnati COC had intercity rail as one of their priorities, but I haven't been involved in that end of the state for a few years, so I don't know where things stand. The guy who was big for us at Cincy COC was Thomas Ewing. Don't know if he's still there. Since Cleveland's COC (the Greater Cleveland Growth Association) doesn't get into infrastructure advocacy anymore, that kind of advocacy would likely belong to TeamNEO. I haven't had much contact with them, but I suspect I might have more if regional rail is to go anywhere in NEO.

^ That's actually not that hard to track -- building permits, occupancy permits and the like will give them almost real-time data to follow. But I didn't know until your message that they were keeping track of this. Tom Bier at CSU keeps pretty good track of the inflow/outflow data for Cleveland (and other cities). I suspect a Google search will reveal some of that data and give a good average of outmigrating population.

Perrysburg may delay zoning rule in township Toledo Blade, 5/17/06 Perrysburg City Council, with input from the Perrysburg Township trustees, is considering delaying the enforcement of part of the city's new zoning code that applies to developments in the township, like the Wal-Mart planned along U.S. 20. The city's new municipal utility overlay requires developers seeking water and sewer service from the city to go through a special approval process, including a hearing before council, in addition to a site plan review. Wal-Mart officials have said they wanted to withdraw their request for utilities because they did not know what requirements they would face.

X, I wasn't sure about that, checked other graphics, and sure enough, you are correct! I don't think the Shoreway "surfacing" in the Lakefront Plan is enough. It's got to at least come down to street level by West 6th. But I don't like Stark's idea of having it come down to street level at West 9th, however. I really like walking or driving on lower Main Avenue with the bridge overhead. It adds a grittiness that I hope won't be so sanitized from all the new development downtown. That being said, I also hope the Shoreway will have an at-grade intersection with East 9th Street and an extended East 18th as well. That would probably have to be in a second phase. I think the WHD Shoreway section should be done first, IMHO. That would require demolishing the existing bridge at least from West 6th to just east of West 3rd. In that case, traffic would have to temporarily detour on West 3rd while the old bridge sections are demolished.

The Ohio senate voted today ... I guess the senators really gnashed their teeth over this one! (NOT) ______________ NEWS OHIO RAIL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520 http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 24, 2006 Ohio Senate Passes Ohio Hub Resolution Asks U.S. Congress to Approve Funding For Environmental Impact Study of High-Speed Passenger /& Freight Rail Plan (Columbus) – By a vote of 33 to 0, the Ohio Senate today voiced emphatic support for advancing the plan to bring high speed passenger service and greatly expanded capacity to move more freight by rail. The resolution asks Ohio’s delegation in the U.S. Congress to support a request by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) for $2.5 million dollars to move the Ohio Hub Plan into the critical Environmental Impact Study (EIS) phase. Even before the vote, well over 20 Ohio Senators had signed on as co-sponsors to the resolution, whose chief sponsor was Sen. Kirk Schuring (R-Canton). “Few things send a stronger message to Ohio’s members of Congress than when their counterparts in the Ohio Statehouse say with one voice that a project like the Ohio Hub is important to our state’s economy, our ability to create jobs and improve our quality of life,” says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney. “The Ohio Senate not only has my thanks at this show of support, but deserves the thanks of all Ohioans for today’s vote.” The ORDC funding request is scheduled to be considered Friday by the U.S. House Appropriations Committee as part of the overall FY-07 transportation request by Members of Congress. Three Ohioans sit on that committee, Congressman David Hobson (R-7th District), Congressman Ralph Regula (R-16th District) and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-9th District). If it becomes part of the House Appropriations transportation request, the legislation would then go to the U.S. Senate where it would also go through the Committee process, possibly a House-Senate Conference Committee and consideration by the full Senate. ORDC’s request for $2.5-million would be for one year, allowing the EIS process to begin. If the request is approved, work on the EIS could begin early next year. It would require a second funding request to complete the EIS phase. It is during the Environmental Impact Study that ORDC can begin to identify and solidify such elements of the Ohio Hub Plan as the actual route system, station locations, frequency of train service and, most importantly, the infrastructure needs to build the Hub system: bridges, new track, utilities, right-of-way preservation, etc. “Today’s vote doesn’t mean we’ll have passenger trains running tomorrow”, says ORDC’s Seney, but it does mean that Ohio legislators strongly believe that there should be a ‘tomorrow” where all Ohioans will have the choice of riding the train for business or pleasure.” ###

Nice article on the changing face of light rail in many U.S. cities.... http://www.railwayage.com/A/feature3.html LRVs, the next generation Innovation and advanced technology are beginning to be seen in a new generation of North American light rail vehicles after two decades during which, for the most part, the status quo ruled. By Julian Wolinsky, Contributing Editor The North American light rail vehicle is evolving dramatically from the first modern examples that entered service over 20 years ago. Among the advances coming to market are diesel LRVs, three-section vehicles in place of what had become the standard two-section car, and advanced construction methods including the use of lightweight composite materials. Most of these developments had their roots in Europe, in some cases many years ago, from the same manufacturers who continued to sell their traditional products in the U.S. and Canada. For the full story, subscribe to Railway Age ... http://www.railwayage.com/subscribe.html

If these bar and restaurant owners were smart, they'd stash away some of the cash they're pulling in now, and put it in an interest-bearing reserve fund. Since sports teams always go through up and down cycles, bar and restaurant owners could tap those funds in the bad times. I say this only because I hated to see many of the Gateway area spots close a few years ago when the Indians and Cavs were both on the down cycle.

Agreed. Excellent letter, B12!

I was all excited when I saw the name of the thread, only to discover it's a run-of-the-mill shopping center. If that's a downtown, then we've been misnaming the suburbs all these years!

Here's a graphic from the city's Lakefront Plan, which shows part of what's envisioned for the Shoreway. You can see the Shoreway intersecting West 3rd Street at grade...

Here's a pic that was posted on Cleveland.com briefly -- of Stark at his company's booth at the Las Vegas convention... http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/stark0524.jpg

I was stopped by that comment as well. Financiers may force him to conduct one. But then, there's been a number of marketing analyses done, including by CSU and the HWD. Both show there's still a lot of untapped demand. And, as often happens, once downtown reaches a certain threshhold, it will create its own momentum. At the rate we're seeing projects pop up, I think we're getting close to that threshhold. But I continue to be worried about interest rates, the rising price of oil and its impact on the construction process. Apparently we're not there yet where these have hindered projects, although Marous claims District Park is in suspension because of the cost of steel. I have to wonder if they're being honest about that, given all the other projects that are moving forward.

This ought to be moved to the Cleveland Pesht thread....

From a recent e-mail of... GreenCityBlueLake update May 15, 2006 A regional energy strategy: In a looming world of peak oil and climate change, one of the most important things we can do in Northeast Ohio is plan for a very different energy future. Read how the planning is beginning: http://www.gcbl.org/energy/regional-agenda

Yep. Lori Kokoski is quite the looker, at least to those of us in the 35+ crowd. She may not have changed her hairstyle since the 1980s, but neither have I! At a function last month, I nearly tripped over Noozer's tongue when he got a look at Mrs. Kokoski. Betty Blair can wear all the hats in the world (and I think she has) for all I care. She's the county's big-time rail backer. That's all right with me.

I see the overnight trips between Chicago and Cleveland are being eliminated starting June 5th. That won't make a friend of mine in Chicago happy. That was the only transportation between the two cities that offered a schedule which worked for him. He gets off work at 10 p.m. CT in downtown Chicago, boards the bus for Cleveland at 11:35 p.m., and arrives at 7:15 a.m. At Public Square, he has the choice of the PARTA bus for Kent (when KSU is in session) or the Akron Metro bus for Chapel Hill during the summer (each departs around 8 a.m. from Public Square).

But I hate watching pigs drown in their own slop. Call me a softy.