KJP

I would say Toledo, because as recently as 10-15 years ago, the condition of their core city looked almost as bad as Youngstown's. I've been very impressed with all that they've done to restore and enliven the core. I think Youngstown is only now starting to move in that direction. Akron and Dayton seemed to be stuck, not sure which way to go next. They need a plan.

Lovely photos, but my favorite skyline pano was the last. You're right ColDayMan. For an older city, you'd think they'd have at least one large, classic skyscraper, like a Terminal Tower, Leveque Tower, Chrysler Building, Tribune Tower etc etc. Nothing like that stands out.

Even without the Waterfront Line extension, the proximity to the lake and I-90 make it a worthwhile location to develop.

I think the alternate site that was under consideration at that time was a decent choice -- what was the soon-to-be vacated Norfolk Southern intermodal yard just south of the Inner Belt. It has good highway access, three rapid transit lines running through it and enough open land to accommodate the stadium. If I remember right, city officials said the site preparation costs were too high.

I know, but I'm not emotionally attached to any other community, so I don't worry about them.

The city also has a transit node in its lakefront plan at East 55th and the tracks, with a proposed extension of the Waterfront Line eastward. It's an ugly, visible area that could and should be so much more attractive, what with the proximity of the lake.

I think one that's overlooked here is that when people have to pay for parking, or pay the full cost of it, they are more likely to consider options to driving. Many of those surface parking lots on which the transit center and CSU's College Town/Varsity Village will be located charge rates that don't reflect the full cost of providing that parking. Once specific example I can cite immediately is that many of those parking lot owners petition the County Auditor's office to reduce the estimate value of that land so their taxes are similarly reduced. This is part of an evolutionary process. Increasing the density of downtown land uses at this stage of the game will require a significant parking component due to the lack of regional transit options. As downtown and core city densities increase, driving becomes less convenient with walking, biking and core-city transit use increasing. Public demand for better transit will occur once we've reached that critical mass. Skipping some of the intermediate steps is a revolutionary approach which requires major change, and this community doesn't appear to be ready for that. I, of all people, would love to see the revolutionary approach. But, logically, few things happen that way unless people are really unhappy with the status quo, and I just don't see that level of unhappiness in the community.

A clever way to fund rail when federal funds are tight and a ballot issue isn't desired. The article doesn't say how the District expects to pay for operating costs, however. Interestingly, the Ohio Rail Development Commission has such a TIF mechanisim in its authorizing legislation. _____________________ DECEMBER 30, 2005: NEWS Austin Chronicle Rail Revival? BY KIMBERLY REEVES Much has been made of Capital Metro's potential plans to add spurs to its modest Leander-to-downtown commuter rail line, but an even bigger rail project looms on the horizon for Central Texas as the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District considers its options for funding a far more ambitious rail corridor. The local Leander line pales in comparison to the proposed Austin-San Antonio rail line, which could take commuters all the way from Georgetown to downtown San Antonio on a Union Pacific freight corridor with 15 stops. Such a rail line, unlike Capital Metro's venture, does not require a vote of the people and could be funded entirely as a public-private partnership between the rail district and developers around the rail stations. The estimated cost of the venture is 10 times that of Capital Metro's rail line: $615 million to both secure the line and provide initial operating expenditures. The creation of the Austin-San Antonio line is a tricky task. This is the line that would require Union Pacific to vacate its freight rail line down MoPac and shift freight traffic over to the SH 130 corridor. Sid Covington, chair of the rail district board, told his members at a recent meeting that Union Pacific was open to negotiations and he was confident such a strategy could be achieved, possibly by 2010. Double-tracking within the freight rail's right of way also is an option on the table. Once the train cars pass Austin on the Union Pacific line, they're on a track that goes through Buda, Kyle, and New Braunfels. At San Antonio, the rail line splits and the Austin-San Antonio rail corridor could pick up both a line past the airport into downtown San Antonio and an east-side route that board members support for its economic potential in an area of San Antonio that sorely needs redevelopment. Two aspects of the project are currently on track. First is an updated feasibility study by Carter & Burgess, slated for completion next spring. An initial alternatives analysis, completed in 1999, is considered out-of-date. This alternatives analysis is a requirement of the federal New Starts program, an initiative of the Federal Transportation Administration that provides seed money for urban rail lines. Even the strongest backers of the Austin-San Antonio route, like rail district President Ross Milloy, agree the chances of federal funding are slim given the widespread competition for the limited dollars. A second federal funding program, targeted at creation of commuter rail lines in the Southwest, is another potential source of funding, Milloy said. That leads to the second task at hand, an assessment of the potential economic impact around the 15 stations along the route. Consultant Charles Heimsath of Capitol Market Research is completing that study, looking at each station individually for its development potential. If local jurisdictions agree, tax-increment finance districts around each station could capture incremental increases in value to fund the creation and operation of the rail line. Or the rail district could, as board member Fred Harless pointed out, buy up undeveloped land around the various stations and hammer out agreements with developers to share the cost of the rail line in exchange for access to station land. That's a strategy that Capital Metro has used to defray the cost of its line. Heimsath's early economic impact figures, based on a dozen stations, project a potential $353 million in tax dollars over 25 years, which bodes well for the rail district. Heimsath's full report should be available some time early next year. ######

Nasty looking choo choos!

Noozer, The new-car warehouse across the Shoreway from WJW was rebuilt with apartments, called Quay 55, a couple of years ago. Check out: http://quay55.com

Grasscat's the man.

The holidays are not a good time of the year to do the research, conduct interviews etc. People are out of the office, out of town and in some cases, out of the country. On that score, this was the perfect time of the year for my series to be published, because this week will be the first opportunity for the PD to start doing the same interviews that I began in early December.

It was a good article, but it seemed more like a year-end round-up and review of things that have happened. It didn't give an indication of new things that are on the immediate horizon, and thankfully it made no mention of Stark's "Pesht." I don't think they realize yet that this is where Stark wants to make his big splash downtown. The PD can wait until after this Thursday before publicizing that! I suspect Breckenridge's article was written a number of weeks ago. A lot of reporters do round-up articles at year's end, because there's usually a dearth of news this time of year.

My heart skipped a beat when I saw the headline for the lakefront article in today's PD. But after reading it, they still don't have the story. Hehe

I count 11 stories from the rendering. Pretty substantial! Thanks for posting that, X man!

I posted one of those pics last March.... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2675.msg26034#msg26034 I thought I had posted the other pics but a quick search reveals I had not. There is another string devoted to the West 117th station, though. I'd like to see this station have a parking deck topped with housing. Of all the RTA West-side stations, this one can be better integrated with its neighborhood than most of the others.

Downtown Cleveland recently started a Business Improvement Distrct (same as a SID?), but the first BID in Cleveland was in Playhouse Square, according to: http://urban.csuohio.edu/economicdevelopment/knight/tools/capital/finance.htm Which notes: - Cleveland Theatre District Development Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio The Cleveland Theatre District Development Corporation (CTDDC) was created in 1995 to keep the theater district clean, safe and well marketed. The organization was an outgrowth of the Committee for the Improvement of Playhouse Square, a group that had been meeting since 1990 to address concerns about the condition of the theater district. In 1998, CTDDC received authorization from the city to operate as a BID. The ability to collect revenue from area property owners has helped CTDDC meet its key objects, which are to develop a collective marketing strategy, provide planning and design services and contract for additional maintenance and security services. Fact sheet provided by Cleveland Theatre District Development Corporation.

Welcome Peabody99 and thanks for your post. I hope you keep posting! I suspect Grasscat will combine this with the Stonebridge string, so look for updates there.

^Very nice. Tho' poor shooting on both sides.

^I agree.

NARP typically soft-peddles their responses. Their stated reason is that they "have to work with the same people" they would otherwise criticize. To me, I believe they are overly desirous of acceptance. I wrote an article about handicapped access to trains, which will appear in the next issue of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. Ross Capon at NARP reviewed it and took issue with my statement that a revised federal policy toward disabled-access was done "at the behest of the Federal Transit Administration." Ross said there was no need for me to "go ballistic." Ballistic? Ross has never seen me go ballistic, but some of the folks here sure have! My motto in certain stomach-turning situations, when someone is likely to get an ulcer, is: it's better to give than to receive.

I agree wholly that the first step is to develop the Ohio Hub system. Just as the Europeans first developed the Trans-Europe Express network in the 1960s, so must we to learn to walk before we can run when it comes to passenger rail service. Plus, such networks provide distribution and feeder capabilities for the super-speed Chicago - East Coast route I suggested. Let's not forget that, while the East Coast never lost their fast, frequent service along the Northeast Corridor, the West Coast developed theirs since the 1980s. Critics there said rail would never work in a car-crazy state like California. Now, most routes offer 6-12 trains in each direction, traveling at starting point to end point average speeds of about 50-60 mph. The frequency of service was the key to developing ridership and, moreso, a political constituency for even better service. Now, California is looking at taking the next step -- to developing a 200 mph route linking Los Angeles with San Francisco, with faster services on existing routes to San Diego, Sacremento and elsewhere, at a cost of some $35 billion. Evolution, not revolution, is the key. But I posted this notion of a super-speed route between Chicago and the East Coast as a suggestion of keeping an eye on a longer-term prize and to show what is technologically possible. While the Ohio Hub system will provide the state with measurable economic benefits, I strongly believe an East Coast-Chicago super-speed route will have a similar impact Ohio as the canals did two centuries ago - without risking bankrupting the state as the construction of the expensive canals did. It was a risky, visionary investment that took Ohio's geographic potential and turned the state into an economic powerhouse. We need not take such a revolutionary leap with fast trains, however. Use existing assets and resources, with some additional help from the federal government, to evolve to the next step, and additional motivation for continued evolution will likely occur.

By the way, the source who tipped me off that Stark was doing something big was none other than our own Wimwar! Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority director Gary Failor spoke before one of Wimwar's classes and mentioned what the port folks were doing with Stark. I called Failor to confirm and he did. He also suggested we meet to talk further, but also suggested contacting Stark. That got the whole thing rolling. A discussion of the port-Stark relationship will be the subject of the third and final article.

Mine is to stop smoking.

^ Excellent point