KJP

Let me help you out a bit, since I sifted through a hundred or so pages just to gather this little synopsis, and even this got whittled down to just a couple of paragraphs for the article.... Budapest, the capital of Hungary, has a population of 1.8 million people. It has long been a major center of trade and mercantilism due to its location on the banks of the Danube River. The 1,771-mile Danube is an historic trading route between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. But there’s a downside to being on a major trading route — crusading armies found it equally attractive for transport. For more than 2,000 years, armies of the Celts, Romans, Mongols, Turks, Habsburgs, Nazis and Soviets alternated in building or sacking the three towns that in 1873 were merged into Budapest — Buda, Obuda and Pesht. For centuries, the three towns were popular for their public baths, made possible by the presence of natural thermal waters from the surrounding hillsides. As each occupying army came and went, the three towns became increasingly ethnic. One of the occupying armies, the Turks, established a provincial capital of the Ottoman Empire and remained in Buda, Obouda and Pest for almost 150 years. It wasn't until 1686 that the Turks were driven out following a destructive siege lasting a month and a half that virtually destroyed the trio of cities. The liberated Buda, Obouda (translated simply as "Old Buda") and Pest were mere shells with tiny populations, perhaps measuring only in the thousands. The towns would slowly recover over the next 100 years, but the Hungarians had not gained independence with the expulsion of the Turks. They had simply exchanged one occupier for another, the Habsburgs, who came downstream on the Danube, from Austria. Yet, this occupier was far more beneficial. Ultimately, they set into motion the start of Budapest's greatest era of prosperity, lasting more than 100 years. The spark that set the three towns afire economically, culturally and artistically began in the early 1800s. The Habsburgs took their experiences in modern city planning from the rest of Europe and began to set down grand boulevards. They lined them with opera houses, ornate parliament buildings, a national gallery, lavish baths, cafes and the finest high-density housing of that era. Much of the money they invested was poured into Pesht, long the unwanted stepchild of Buda. Pesht was a piece of land that Hungarians had long taken for granted, and had an untapped potential that was never utilized until the Habsburg Empire capitalized upon it. Pesht was rebuilt and expanded to such a degree, that a totally new city was essentially created. The scale of this development drew visitors out of curiosity and many liked what they saw. So much so that they stayed to start a new life. Over the next 40 years, Pesht grew into a densely populated city comprised of a wealthy mix of merchants, artisans and industrialists, drawing Jewish and Christian immigrants from throughout Europe and Muslims from the Middle East. A decade after Buda, Obuda and Pesht were merged into Budapest, the Habsburgs were driven out and Hungary became independent for the first time in more than 300 years. Few capital cities of Europe were as industrial as Budapest. Wood and other raw materials from the surrounding lands were brought to Budapest, where they were cut, processed or otherwise refined and then transported by boat or train to cities throughout Europe and Asia. More immigrants poured into Budapest to work in its thriving mills and factories. In all of Europe by the end of the 1800s, only Berlin had grown as fast as Budapest, with the united city's population eclipsing 1 million. In fact, observers at the time said Budapest was growing at an "American rate" not unlike that of Chicago. Budapest was now a leading city, and it began to teach the rest of Europe how to build and improve cities. It set up a Council of Public Works that established ring roads around Budapest, built the first underground urban railway in Europe, set the heights of buildings, established numerous green spaces and managed the city's growth extremely well. The city soon became known as "The Paris Of The East." It all came to an end with the rise of Hitler in Germany and an increase in anti-Jewish activities in Hungary. Many of the Hungarian Jews fled to the west. After Nazi Germany's armies overran Budapest in World War II and began a scorched-earth campaign in retreat from the approaching Russian army, Budapest was again heavily damaged. Though the Soviets rebuilt some of Budapest, they also inflicted their own damage in putting down a nationalist movement in 1956. More Hungarians fled to west, many of whom found their way to Cleveland. It wasn't until 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, that Hungarians regained their independence and began to find in their own land freedoms and the uncertainties that come with them. Did anyone notice "the spark"?

The plan is to run the articles in all the Sun papers, or at least those that have enough room for it! Fret not, for I will post the first article and one of the renderings in this string on Wednesday evening, since some of the Sun papers are delivered that early to people's homes. There's no sense in making any of you wait longer than that! But if you do a Google search on Pesht (spelled Pest but pronounced as Pesht), you will get some idea as to the scale of it. Just not the precise location...

I started this string for the discussion that is to come on this proposed development.

I finally got the interviews and graphics I needed and wrote the articles, which were submitted for publication beginning next week. And next week is just part one of three. But I would prefer that we discuss this further in a new string rather than saddle this string with it.

Those projects are small potatoes. Fasten your seat belts. The "Big One" is coming.

I would rather die living my life the way I want, than live in fear the way the terrorists want. Now, let's get back to the subject of debating the shortcomings of our transportation system and how fast choo-choos can rectify them.

Brewmaster, Consider a couple of things: 1. High-speed rail stations in Europe are actually older, historic stations downtown, but have been renovated or expanded to include the high-speed trains. In America, these stations would also need to be downtown, so as to allow easy walking to/from the travelers' final points of origin/destinations. Having these stations in American downtowns would promote significant changes in their land use, just as the old railroad stations did in America more than 50 years, and just as they have done and continue to do in the rest of the world today. Imagine the density of development in places like Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, Detroit, Pittsburgh etc etc if this service came into the hearts of those cities. The draw for residents, corporate headquarters and leisure activities would be immense. High-speed rail will change the form of our cities. The result is that you could walk or take a bus the short distance to the station from your center-city home or office, arrive at the station less than 15 minutes before train departure, get on the train and go. What could be more convenient than that? It's why high-speed rail has been such a tremendous success in the rest of the developed, and developing world. 2. Something else about security procedures... It is highly impractical to offer on trains the same kind of security required on planes. For the most part, a plane goes from point to point, with all the passengers getting on at the start of the flight and all the passengers getting off at the end of the flight. Even Southwest Airlines, which has coast-to-coast flights making stops enroute, limits these to about four or five stops. Trains, even high-speed ones, make more stops than that. While an express from Chicago to New York City would likely be limited to stops in Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, it would serve stations and their track-level platforms with trains that make many many more stops, including regional commuter and conventional intercity trains. There is no way to secure that type of system as you would an airport -- there's simply too many entry points, and one of the advantages of mass transit, including high-speed rail, is multiple access points. When thing you can do is to have a chemical - biological - radiological measuring device in the passageways leading to track level -- like they do at Grand Central Station, Penn Station and elsewhere. All you do is walk within 10-20 feet of it, and if you're carrying something you shouldn't, the device will sound an alarm. The area is then cordoned off by security personnel and, until the offending person is found, no trains leave the station.

^ That's another reason

That's why I didn't propose a high-speed line through Cincinnati!

And, a high-speed train can be stopped by a dispatcher by sending a red signal to a specific segment of track (called a block). If the locomotive engineer (or a hijacker) doesn't apply the train's brakes within 10 seconds, the train's automatic cab signal system will apply emergency brakes and shut down the train. The train will not be able to move again until the dispatcher gives an approach (yellow) or clear (green) signal. Every train that operates in excess of 90 mph in the United States is required to have cab signals integrated with an automatic train stop feature. There has never been a hijacked high-speed train in the world, though the TGV was bombed once -- the train didn't derail even though the side of the train was blown out. Eighth and State is partially correct in that, if someone isn't done with their day's business at just the right time, they will have to wait for the next train. If the departures aren't frequent enough, then this becomes an inconvience. On most TGV lines, trains depart every hour, but run half-hourly between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. On my proposed super-speed corridor, I would have trains every 30 minutes New York to Chicago, with trains every hour Detroit-Chicago and Detroit-Washington. Plus, Chicago-Columbus trains would use the western half of the super-speed trunk line, and Detroit-Columbus trains using the Detroit branch. And, of course, the Northeast Corridor and Keystone Corridor trains would use the eastern portions of the route. When all these services are combined, the levels of service on a given route segment would be very frequent.

X, I think the Medical Mart would be much taller than that. The nearby Marriott at Key Center is only 385,000 square feet, and it's 25 stories. Granted, the ceiling heights would likely be greater at the medical mart, but consider all the different types of activities that could be offered at a medical mart, not just a huge showroom. I would also expect a lot of smaller meeting rooms, modest display areas and conference rooms to provide flexibility and affordibility for smaller and new-start medical and tech supplier organizations. Plus, I would expect audio-visual support areas, back-office functions etc. etc.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

I agree. It makes the purpose of, and the public benefits from the convention center much clearer.

Just the stuff about the medical merchandise mart that's been posted in another string.

That was also one of the suggestions by Stonebridge developer Bob Corna. The elevated pedestrian bridge could be supported by the elevator/stairwell towers on either side, with the Main Avenue bridge structure providing some additional stability for it. There should be security for the enclosed spaces of the structure. What would such a structure cost to build, maintain and operate? It would be interesting to see a cost/benefit analysis of the high-level pedestrian crossing versus the pedestrian lift bridge.

Yes, the farther west you go into the Alleghenies, the tougher the terrain gets. But there are multiple wide gaps between the mountains in Central Pennsylvania, between Johnstown and Altoona. That's the best place to build a relatively straight right of way. So, the best way to reach that is to go generally north or northwest from Baltimore and then turn west toward Altoona. The old Baltimore & Ohio railroad (and the Western Maryland RR which paralleled it) follow narrow, twisting river valleys, with no towns of any consequence west of Cumberland to Pittsburgh. The extra-large capital costs of building a high-speed line via that route might be worth considering if there were population centers along the way. Since there aren't, I would take the northern alignment.

It was either ODOT or their engineering consultant Burgess & Niple (or both!) that pushed the northern alignment so hard. As a humorous aside, I was surprised to receive in the mail today a Christmas card from Burgess & Niple! After some of the stuff I wrote about them and ODOT for Sun, the last thing I was expecting from them was a Christmas card. I wasn't sure if I should have had the envelope screened for chemical or biological hazards before opening it!

Closer examination will reveal that I do have a routing via downtown Philly. But some expresses should bypass Philadelphia, as I found that it would save about 15-20 minutes. That bypass alignment would be built alongside Norfolk Southern's existing freight railroad bypass that's very straight, and shouldn't incur "substantial" capital costs. I had an alternate route running NW from Baltimore that joins the east-west super-speed trunk line SE of Altoona, but that route was only 30 miles shorter and saved only about 15 minutes, but would have added significant capital costs in terms of tunneling, bridging, grading and so on. Plus, it might also involve a back-up/reverse move by trains in Baltimore to access that alignment, depending on Baltimore's station location. Traveling from D.C. to the west via Philadelphia would incur even more travel time loss, perhaps an hour and a half. That would require about four hours to travel from D.C. to Pittsburgh, and nearly five hours to Cleveland -- both of which is equivalent to the driving time via I-70 and the Turnpikes. And there's no way that's competitive with flying. Once you get beyond a 2-3 hour travel time by rail for distances of up to 400 miles, you'll not be able to compete with the airlines for the time-sensitive business travel market.

Given what few trains we have in Ohio have routinely been running 1-10 hours LATE for much of this autumn, that the airlines are in a tailspin and fewer airports have airline service, or that Greyhound is in wholesale retreat, you have to wonder what will be the economic implications of our increasingly Third World transportation system. Actually, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem if the rest of the world had the same piss-poor transportation. But even parts of the Third World have more First-World travel choices that we do in "The Greatest Country On Earth." (edit: added the word "LATE" above....kind of an important word to leave out!)

Consider some of these train services (100 km/h = 62 mph): http://www.h2.dion.ne.jp/~dajf/byunbyun/speeds/world.htm I envision there being two classes of service on this "dream" high-speed line: essentially local and express. The locals would stop at every station, averaging 100-110 mph, with the expresses stopping only in the downtowns of the major cities, averaging 150-160 mph. This is consistent with other high-speed operations. But in Japan, there are three classes of service, the Kodama (local), Hikari (express) and Nozomi (super express). All of these operate twice hourly or, in other words, a total six trains per hour per direction on most routes. Japan's Nozomi covers the 120 miles from Hiroshima to Kokura in 44 minutes, at an average speed of 162 mph. This distance is equivalent to that which separates Cleveland from Pittsburgh. Below is a picture of the Series 500 Nozomi train. Consider also that Paris is 500 miles from Marseille, which the TGV covers in 3 hours. That's an average speed of 167 mph. That's also roughly the same distance between Cleveland and New York City. Here's a link to see more really fast choo choos throughout the globe: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/highspeedrailways_gallery.html

See diagram below and discussion which follows.... OK, I realize this is a dream. But consider that there is active planning underway for a 700-mile, 200 mph TGV-type high-speed rail line between the Bay Area and the Los Angeles basin, with branches to Sacramento and San Diego possible. The cost is projected to be $37 billion. Around the world, similar endeavors have been built in abundance, and continue to be built. South Korea was the latest (opening earlier this year), and now China is starting to develop an 800-mile TGV service linking Beijing with Shanghai. Maglev was considered, but a TGV-type service offered 80 percent of the travel-time savings of maglev but at less than half the cost. In France, the TGV is a massive network, but less than 20 percent is on new super-speed right of way. The rest uses existing, upgraded rail lines, which is a flexibility maglev can't match. Similar networks beyond the super-speed trunk line are being pursued in this country -- the 110-mph trains of the Ohio Hub, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, and the Empire and Keystone corridor improvements underway in New York and Pennsylvania, respectively. Add to that the super-speed, 200 mph trunk line between Chicago and New York City, plus branches to Detroit, Baltimore/Washington DC, a dedicated high-speed line out of Pittsburgh's Midfield Air Terminal, and a high-speed bypass of downtown Philadelphia. Altogther, that provides 1,200 miles of high-speed rail routes. It doesn't include the section between Baltimore and Philadelphia, which is pretty fast today (135 mph), but could be upgraded to 150 mph with some relatively modest improvements. Using California's example, the 1,200-mile Midwest-East Coast TGV network could cost in the neighborhood of $50 billion to $70 billion. It would serve an extensive number of city-pair travel markets, with half-hourly service Chicago to New York, and hourly service on all other segments. The travel capacity that would be offered would be akin to having an airport in the downtowns of more than 20 cities. But these high-speed rail-ports would be small in size, with many below street level. Any city that would have one would enjoy an extremely powerful economic generator, like that which was offered by the canals of the early 1800s, the railroads of the late 1800s and early 1900s, or the highways and airports of the late 1900s. With increasing problems of air quality and energy supplies, an environmentally benign and extremely energy efficient mode like high-speed trains is needed now. Super-speed, electrically powered trains like the TGV use a majority of their energy when they accelerate. When they reach top speed, they use very little energy and when their brakes are applied, they regenerate electricity back into the overhead wires. Such efficiency will be needed even more in the future. With a super-speed line between Chicago and the East Coast, Ohio would no longer be a fly-over state. Nor would Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown continue to be bypassed on the ground, like they are with the Turnpike. Instead, these and other cities would benefit greatly from having trains that offer downtown-to-downtown travel times that are as fast, or faster than the airlines on trips of less than 400 miles. But, even on trips as long as 900 miles, 200-mph trains are only slightly slower downtown-to-downtown than the airlines. Discretionary or leisure travelers would likely take advantage of these fast trains. Who knows, they might even make a profit, once the capital costs are borne by another entity. Why, if other nations are moving forward into the 21st century, is our infrastructure stuck in the 1950s and 60s? We should link the major and secondary cities in the region, which have a combined population of more than 60 million people (slightly more than that of France). We have the population density in this region. We have the travel demand. We have the environmental and energy constraints. We are developing the rail distribution networks. But we are lacking the trunk line high-speed rail service to tie it all together. The only question is, do we have the interest and the will? They do in China... In South Korea... In France... In Italy (the Pendolino tilt train taking a tight curve at 135 mph)... In the United Kingdom... But in our future ? ? ?

^ Not true. Tober has a track record of building beyond the capability of the transit system's revenues to sustain itself. He did it in Seattle and he did it in Cleveland. In both places, the transits were faced with serious budgetary problems as a result of his over-building. Now, he's doing the same thing in Charlotte. There are a select few pro-urban, pro-transit people at ODOT. One of them is John Motl, a modes olanner at District 12. And he was likely the person who put the bug in Craig Hebebrand's ear about rail in the Opportunity Corridor. It's not insane that ODOT made the overture. I have a copy of the e-mail Hebebrand sent to RTA. He really did say it! Tomorrow's the meeting between ODOT and RTA. All that I'm hoping for is that RTA says: "We can't afford rail in the OC right now but maybe we might in the future. Go ahead and study it so we can see what the numbers look like, and so we can make an informed decision."

^ See my series of diagrams earlier in this thread on how it could be done. A mix of fear and routinism, rather than creativity, is driving too much decision-making in this endeavor.

Since this sewer line would be 40 feet below ground, that might dissuade developers from tapping into it. Further, if the judge allows this sewer line to go through, the judge could include a court order requiring sewer taps to first get a permit from the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

A federal review of transportation projects that involve federal funds is standard procedure. The only question is will Federal Highway Administration look at the economic impacts on the city, or merely look at what ODOT is doing to promote a safer, more fluid flow of traffic. I suspect the latter.