KJP

I'm partial to the "Trains to City" signs. What's a rapid transit?

BTW MGD, TY 4 the new SL (did that make any sense whatsoever?!?!)

I guess I just never really looked at it that closely. I'm usually walking fast or on a bus in that area. I will look at it the next time I'm over there. It's a very pretty crown!

I'll have to check out that book. Thanks for the suggestion. Here's something you can check out on-line... http://www.100bucks.org/ This is from the fine folks at the Environmental Working Group, which has done some excellent research including how much our gas should be priced at the pump to cover the external costs of driving.

I don't remember the top of the building looking like that! When was that picture taken? The SUV in the background looks new.

^ I detect more of that happening all the time. But, for now, we're the counter-culture. I suspect someday soon, however, we'll even be cool!

None of this applies to me. If I could go to bed at 5-6 a.m. and wake up at noon, I would do it in a heartbeat. I never was a morning person, except as being my preferred time to go to bed! :sleep:

But you're a transit-savvy person. One of the biggest failings of transit agency staff is they assume that their customers know what they know. And if they don't, they're stupid. Instead, RTA staff, try acting like you care. Assuming riders know their way around the transit system isn't a good way to gain first-time riders. I'll wager that a majority of people who live in Greater Cleveland have no clue how to use the system, and even those of who do still get thrown for a loop. Imagine being a visitor who has just arrived at a strange airport. If you want to gain riders, RTA, put yourself in the shoes of the person who has never used RTA before. Better yet, ask people arriving at Hopkins how to improve RTA's delivery of information -- then act on the suggestions! That's sounds like the same reaction I hear from RTA too often. You were the last person I'd expect to read that from! :whip:

OK, it's another state ... of mind: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2171296,00.html The Times May 09, 2006 High-speed trains to take on planes By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent A HIGH-SPEED railway line carrying double-deck trains at 190mph between London and Scotland is being planned by Network Rail to win back millions of passengers from domestic airlines. The journey time from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh would be halved to just over 2½ hours, with a train departing every 30 minutes. The line would run via Birmingham and Manchester and sections would be built alongside the existing West Coast Main Line to minimise planning disputes. It would connect with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in northeast London, allowing direct services in under three hours between Birmingham and Paris. Network Rail, the public interest company created by the Government to operate Britain’s rail infrastructure, believes that the line could eliminate almost all the 45 daily flights between London and Manchester. A handful of flights would survive between Scotland and London, but only to serve passengers catching connecting flights to overseas destinations. A combination of cheap air fares and poor train punctuality has resulted in a shift from rail to air in the past decade, with six times as many people flying from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London as catching a train. Network Rail has previously declined to enter the debate over the expansion of the rail network, saying that it needed to focus on punctuality. But the company now admits that the need to cater for rising demand for rail travel — up 42 per cent in the past ten years — is the more urgent issue. Iain Coucher, Network Rail’s deputy chief executive, presented yesterday the results of a nine-month feasibility study by the company on a new high-speed line. He said that the 420-mile line could be built for as little as £11 billion, a third of the sum envisaged by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in 2003. Construction costs would be reduced by avoiding building new tracks into city centres, either by constructing “parkway” stations on the outskirts, or by connecting in the suburbs with existing lines. Mr Coucher said that minimising the need for tunnels and using more efficient construction techniques would cut the cost of the line to £24 million to £30 million a mile. That is still double the cost of new high-speed lines in France and Spain but allows for the added expense of compensating land owners in Britain’s more densely populated countryside. The line would be built in stages, with the London to Manchester section open in 2016 and the full route five years later. Passengers would pay a small premium on today’s fares, but prices would have to be comparable with those offered by budget airlines. Mr Coucher said: “Depending on the time of day, a one-way ticket between London and Scotland would cost £30 to £60. If it cost more than that, we would not get the modal shift we are seeking from planes and cars to trains.” The taxpayer would probably have to contribute to the construction cost, justified by the benefits of regenerating regional economies. The line would also create capacity for dozens of extra freight trains a day on the West Coast Main Line, removing thousands of lorries from congested motorways. Cutting the number of domestic flights would also ease pressure on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and could allow development of new runways to be deferred for several years. But Mr Coucher gave warning that the project could be undermined by objections from cities that would not be served by the line. The SRA, abolished last year, had considered two routes: the West Coast one favoured by Network Rail and another on the East Coast via Leeds and Newcastle. Network Rail’s proposal is likely to win support from Rod Eddington, the former British Airways chief executive, who has been commissioned by the Government to review Britain’s transport needs and is due to report this summer. Ministers are unlikely to make a commitment to any scheme before next year, when the Department for Transport publishes a 30-year strategy for Britain’s railways. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said: “The public are right to be highly sceptical . . . Rather than concentrate on these vague aspirations, the Government should be concentrating on delivering projects that could actually make a difference to people’s lives in the short term.” ###

The Chicago-Detroit trains receive no operating subsidy from the state (Chicago-Grand Rapids and Chicago-Port Huron do, however). The reason why Chicago-Detroit has service that's fully paid for by Amtrak is because that route was included in the original Amtrak network (called the Basic System) in 1971 -- at the behest of Michigan congressmen. No Ohio congressional support was expressed for any basic system routes within or across the state. Thus, at the outset, Amtrak operated only those routes which it felt it needed to create a true national system. These were the initial routes across Ohio: > Broadway Limited -- Chicago - Ft. Wayne - Lima - Mansfield - Canton - Pittsburgh - Altoona - Harrisburg - Philadelphia - New York City (with a section of the train operating Harrisburg - Baltimore - Washington D.C.); > Spirit of St. Louis (later the National Limited) -- St. Louis - Terre Haute - Indianapolis - Richmond - Dayton - Columbus - Pittsburgh - Altoona - Harrisburg - Philadelphia - New York City (with a section of the train operating Harrisburg - Baltimore - Washington D.C.); > James Whitcomb Riley -- Chicago - Layfayette - Indianapolis - Cincinnati; > Washingtonian -- Cincinnati - Huntington - Charleston - Charlottesville - Washington D.C. Notice no service through Toledo and Cleveland was operated at the outset. Ohio and New York state stepped in and said they wanted a Chicago - New York train operating on that route and promised to pay for it. The Lake Shore began operating about two weeks after Amtrak started on May 1, 1971, but the train didn't last the year. It ended in November when Ohio failed to provide its operating support. Toledo and Cleveland were without any intercity trains from late 1971 to 1975, when the Lake Shore Limited was started as an experimental train, fully funded by Amtrak. It continues to operate today. Ohio has a history of non-support when it comes to providing funding for intercity passenger rail. It's why Amtrak doesn't hold its breath when Ohio proposes new services.

Sorry, I ain't buying it. Save 1010 Euclid and the rotunda. Raze Ameritrust tower and the small building next door on East 9th.

I hope that was a joke. After the Justice Center was built in 1974, the demolitions in the WHD went into overdrive to build more surface parking.

Hey, post that stuff in a thread for the butt-ugly federal building. This thread is for a wonderful, funky, historic building -- kind of like what was demolished for the federal building (the medieval-looking castle that was the Central Armory).

I'm not saying Kassouf's project is serious by what I'm about to say. But if you look at that last diagram I posted, if the parking deck next to the tracks is turned 90 degrees over the tracks and widened a bit, then Kassouf's second building fits. As for the other building on the other side of West 9th, that's fine too. But I hope he goes no further. I actually like the design of the two towers, but that's as far as it should go. In other words, not nine or 10 of them! The rest of his property east of there to West 3rd should go to the port authority for its envisioned stadium parking deck/truck-staging area for the ferry, with new housing/mixed use and an extended West 6th built on top of it. Here's a funny tidbit... At the City Planning Commission hearing last week, one of the commission members realized that some of the condo units didn't have any windows in them! I think's that an example of a rushed design, don't you? Or maybe it was supposed to be the "affordable housing component"....

^ Great idea! With the HopeVI homes nearby, there's going to be an even bigger demand for it.

April 13th is when Shaia's letter went out (see article above). Thanks. I was snapping pics, and heard the Waterfront train a-coming. So I repositioned myself to take that shot. It was the last shot on the roll. Too bad, because another Waterfront train was coming from the other direction. It crossed over the NS track just as an NS freight train went under it. So as much as the shot I did get was nice timing, I sacrificed an even better shot for it. If only I'd known the other two trains were coming. Such is life...

Yes. He also proposed a couple of cheesy motels there when Mike White proposed having the city take Kassouf's land by eminent domain to sell to Forest City so they could develop it. Ultimately Kassouf outlasted White. He sold his land for the WKYC building and supposedly built the FBI center as a turnkey project.

Thanks for the pics. I could see my 7-story condo building in one of the views of Lakewood, though it pales compared to the high-rises along the Gulf Coast. The last time I was in Phoenix (1985) was, in fact, my last time in Phoenix. Tucson was nice, but Phoenix sucked. BTW, the pic of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant is actually of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.

I'm not sure I understand something. Kassouf (and possibly his business partner Khoury of Carnegie Management) own the land north of Front Street from the river to West 3rd Street. So his proposed first phase would be two buildings -- one on either side of West 9th Street. How does this conflict with the Wolstein plan? See the image below. Wolstein proposes a parking deck west of West 9th. So does Kassouf, though he would put a 16-story building on top of it. So if Kassouf is serious, why couldn't Wolstein make his deck taller or even build part of it over the NS tracks? How is Wolstein injured here? The RED represents Kassouf's two buildings in his first phase. The GREEN represents Shaia's proposed Lighthouse Landing development.

^ Nice.

Building on my prior message, how can we redesign Ohio cities to halve our oil use? Should we redesign our cities to offer the land uses and transportation systems as those in Europe? Or should we offer a hybrid American-European urban design? Does Canada represent that? Should we write off the exurbs as unsustainable in a future where U.S. oil use cannot keep growing at 3-4 percent per year, as global oil production diminishes at rates of 4-8 percent per year? So, how would you redesign your town, city or metro area? Let's hear those ideas! These would make terrific projects for grad students of urban studies courses, or for grant-funded studies by metropolitan planning organizations. Before considering how to redesign your city, review this report from Burnaby, B.C. (just east of Vancouver). I think you'll find it very helpful. Global peak in oil production: the municipal context http://burnaby.fileprosite.com/contentengine/document.asp?Print=yes&ID=9181

The first phase would have one building built on the east side of West 9th Street, with another built on the west side of West 9th. I posted one of these pics in the thread about Pesht, but that photo and another should be posted here too in order to show existing conditions. East of West 9th... West of West 9th...

I've noticed that in some city's airports having rail transit, they have signage that says simply "Trains to City" with an arrow pointing the way. Can't get more simple than that. In Atlanta, MARTA has a display booth in one of the main concourse where arriving passengers can pick up brochures, maps, timetables, etc. I would add info that can be downloaded onto a PDA as well as, that way, any and all timetables can be retrieved if need be.

I was hoping they were serious about considering Cleveland. Guess not. Crains lists the company with $470 million in revenue for 2004. That seems low. I thought they were bigger than that.

I write articles for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association newsletter, and do a little bit of marketing for them. I will be writing about this service expansion as well. About two years ago, MHSRA's Rick Harnish asked some of the association's key members, and the leadership of state associations throughout the Midwest, that if a "showcase" corridor for the region could be developed, where should it be? And, thus, where should the MHSRA concentrate its lobbying efforts? Universally, the choice was for Chicago St. Louis. I was one who voted for that corridor as well. My reasoning was that 99 percent of that route's mileage was in one state, while most of the others were split among more than one state. Working with one state greatly simplifies the lobbying effort. Plus, there is passenger rail service already operating in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor, and the state has made some significant investments in track and signal upgrades to permit a speed increase to as high as 110 mph on some segments in the south-central part of the state. The goal is to provide an example of intercity passenger rail service that isn't on the coasts. If it should succeed, and if Amtrak doesn't screw it up, Midwestern states will have one less reason to say that passenger trains won't work here. Now the MHSRA will be turning its attention to its next project. That next project hasn't been decided yet, but I'll let you all know when it is.