KJP

The best way to answer your first question is to look at where Amtrak travelers come from when Amtrak starts a new service, in order to figure out what modes they will likely select if the trains are no longer there. Amtrak says about 60 percent switch from driving their cars, 20 percent from flying, 15 percent from buses and about 5 percent is induced demand (ie: the passenger wouldn't have traveled if the train wasn't there). According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, based on average load factors per vehicle type and expressed in British Thermal Units per passenger-mile, passenger trains use 11 percent of the energy that sport-utility vehicles use, 13 percent of what cars use, 22 percent of an commercial airplane and 80 percent of an intercity bus. The typical car on the road averages 27.5 mpg, while the typical light passenger truck (SUVs, pickups, minivans) average 20.7 mpg. Half of the passenger vehicles on the road are cars, the other half light trucks. Every gallon of gas burned releases 20-28 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Amtrak has averaged 5.6 billion passenger miles of ridership over the last five years. So.... Each year, Amtrak trains use about 26.5 million gallons of fuel (or BTU-source equivalent) burned per year, releasing 280-530 million pounds of CO2 (the range is due to the different types of motive power Amtrak uses--diesel fueled or electricity-powered from coal and nuclear sources). If Amtrak trains stopped running, it would result in 61.1 million gallons of fuel burned by cars, 81.2 million gallon burned by light trucks, 24.1 million gallons by airplanes, 5 million gallons by buses and 1.33 million gallons no longer used because the trains stopped running. The sum total is that fuel usage would rise from 26.5 million gallons to 170.07 million gallons burned each year. The amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere would rise from 280-530 million pounds per year, to anywhere from 3.4 billion to 4.8 billion pounds per year. As to your second question, the Highway Users Alliance used to issue pie charts showing that that 60-65 percent of highway funding came from user taxes, with the remaining 35-40 percent from local, state and federal subsidies. Amtrak's operating budget gets 70-80 percent of its revenues from passenger fares and other business sources (leases, track usage fees, and still some package express etc.), with the remaining 20-30 percent from state and federal subsidies. It's very difficult to evaluate the financial impact of auto use on air and water pollution, runoff and costs of emergency services attributable to the automobile. But a study was done by UCLA in 1986 of Pasadena's city budget and how much it spent due to automobile-related costs. I cannot find the study in my file drawers, but I recall the study found that about one-third of the budget was related to the automobile, and something like 10 percent of that was funded through user taxes (via intergovernmental transfers of gas taxes, license plate fees, etc.). The costs included police and fire responses to car crashes, sewer maintenance and construction due to water runoff from the city having 40 percent of its land use devoted to the automobile (parking and streets), legal costs for prosecution and administration of traffic violations, and so on. It was quite a compelling study. I'll keep looking for it. KJP

Yes, it is. Here's the only way I can accept the UC Boulevard along the 6-10 track wide right of way (most of which has only 4-6 tracks) .... 1. Fill in the north side of the rail right of way, which is the unused part; 2. On this new fill, build the UC Boulevard with the Red Line running down the middle of it; 3. Relocate the two-track NS line to where the Red Line was located; 4. Fill in the vacated strip between the UC Boulevard and the NS Line (which would sit in a narrow, 2-3 track wide cut); 5. Redevelop along both sides of the UC Blvd and Red Line. KJP

The reason why I don't mention them is because they're small in comparison to what we use for keeping highway vehicles moving. I'll repeat: highway modes use two-thirds of all oil burned in this country. The gas tax calculation was based on the oil used for highway purposes. Read what I wrote again. KJP

Those are just the federal trust fund numbers for highways and aviation. Governments at all levels, from 1971-2001, provided an average of more than $63 billion per year for highways, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles Times. Nor does it include the $108 billion to $235 billion per year that the federal government provides to the oil industry for exploration and research subsidies, funding of the Strategic Petroluem Reserve and defense of political unstable oil-producting regions. Why am I including these? Because two-thirds of our nation's oil is used by cars and sport-utility vehicles, with a much smaller proportion burned by planes, trucks, buses and trains (in descending order of oil usage). If we paid these oil-related subsidies through gas taxes rather than every April 15th, the cost of a gallon of gas would rise anywhere from 72 cents to $1.57 over existing prices. That's why we're asked to pay those costs every April 15th, because if we paid them at the pump, we'd probably drive less, burn less oil and demand alternative ways of getting around. Also, the aviation cost data you listed doesn't include the $2 billion per year in federal general revenue funds to operate and maintain the air traffic control system, nor the $15 billion bailout of the airline industry following Sept. 11 (even though the industry was in financial trouble before the attacks). If we paid those costs as a surcharge to our air fares, the cost would double for short flights and rise less (but still be a significant rise) for longer ones. By not paying those costs every April 15th (whether we fly or not), fewer people would fly and more would demand other ways to get from city to city, especially over shorter distances. The whole point of highway and aviation subsidies is to reduce the cost of traveling by either of those modes, but those aren't even the causative reasons why highways and, to a lesser extent, aviation are the dominant modes of travel. The keys are the federal capital improvement trust funds set up for each of those modes (and for navigable waterways, too!). In 1956, when the federal government started the Interstate highway program, it created an interest-bearing trust fund in which highways would pay a new federal gasoline tax into the fund. Congress appropriated $500 million ($7.5 billion in 2005 dollars) to kick-start the fund. Thus, when motorists bought a gallon of gas, they paid to help build, maintain and expand the Interstate highway system. It fostered the exponential growth in revenues to the trust fund, the exponential growth of the highway system, and the exponential growth in driving. Same thing happened when Congress created the Airport & Airways Trust Fund in 1970. They similarly approved a new federal ticket tax airline travelers would pay into the interest-bearing fund, which also was given a kick-start of federal funding (I don't recall the figure but it was at least $100 million). Plus, the federal government had been funding the construction of airports and the traffic control system since 1950, none of which was paid for by federal user fees. The result of these trust funds is they allow the infrastructures of highways and aviation to grow and improve, attracting more travelers and more user taxes, which allows the two infrastructures to further grow and improve, and so on. When Congress created Amtrak in 1971, it was supposed to last for only two years. That was a compromise for those who didn't want to see an Amtrak at all. Congress foolishly thought it could pump less than $30 million in capital funding into Amtrak in each of those two years and wash their hands of it. But the rail system was in such decay that it needed many times the funding than what was given. Worse, Congress never instituted a ticket tax on rail travel to pump back into a trust fund, nor created a kick-start for a federal trust fund for railroads...because they never established a federal capital trust fund for Amtrak...period. Instead, Congress gave annual handouts to Amtrak that were budgeted only to keep the railroad running until the next year. In some years, it was barely enough money to keep everything running. Sometimes it wasn't. And to the next year, and the next.... That's how it's been ever since -- Amtrak living year to year, 34 times over. It's why Amtrak's route network has been stuck at about 22,000 route miles for the last 34 years, although ridership has grown from 16 million in 1971 to 25 million in 2004. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it got enough operating subsidies to survive and less than $100 million for capital improvements over 20 years. Amtrak's infrastructure and rolling stock started falling apart five years ago, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars a year just repair what it has, with no funding for growth. All attempts to create a capital improvement trust fund in the last few years have failed in Congress. There will be another attempt this year. Can Amtrak, or any passenger rail carrier, make a profit in the U.S.? Perhaps, if Amtrak/other didn't have to account for things on its balance sheet that airlines don't (traffic controllers and system maintenance workers; terminal operations, maintenance, depreciation, plus debt-financed repairs & improvements of terminals; rights of way operations, maintenance, depreciation, plus debt-financed repairs & improvements of rights of way; a police department; use of privately owned rights of way that pay property taxes and profit margins; and other costs). Until the public policy structures under which Amtrak or its replacement(s) operate change, the U.S. passenger rail industry will see more stagnation, more battles for survival and more opportunities lost. KJP

My concern is having government policies which have allowed the highway system to account for 85-90 percent of all intercity travel and, in most cities, intracity travel. If the highways were privately owned, the government would have declared them an illegal monopoly and forced their break-up into multiple competing modes to promote more balance in the transportation marketplace. But I've never heard of a government taking itself to court. And that's where my issue is with rail/transit vs. highways -- the public policies which govern them. We've put 90 percent of our transportation eggs in one basket. Ask Youngstowners about the wisdom of putting all their eggs in one basket, or any political jurisdiction that depended on any one thing for its continued prosperity. Companies diversify to protect their stockholders. So should our government to protect its constituents, especially when rail and transit, based on average passenger loads, offer four to seven times greater energy efficiencies than cars, also with average passenger loads. In the early 1980s, when Ohio was considering an $11 billion bullet train system, the electric utility companies weren't interested in lobbying for it because the trains wouldn't use ENOUGH energy to make a difference to their bottom line! I don't hate cars. I love driving my sports car for joy rides in the country or for a cruise through the Metroparks. But I hate having to drive it everywhere just to live a productive life. No other nation on this planet is so heavily dependent on cars. Why? Because Americans were born differently than everyone else? Because our population densities are lower than in Europe, even though Ohio has the same population density as France? Or that our travel densities between cities in the Great Lakes-East Coast region are higher than those in all of Europe? The difference is public policy. Ours favors highway domination. Japan's favors rail domination. Europe's favors balance. Being balanced is being smart, for sustained economic development, energy security, smarter land use, and mobility for all. KJP

Cedar Hill had a double-tracked streetcar line that ran on a private right of way, which can still be seen on the right side of the road going up the hill. At the top, it split into three lines -- 1. Euclid Heights Blvd to Coventry, then east on Mayfield; 2. east on Cedar; 3. southeast on Fairmount (some of the original trolley wire poles are still there in the median). In fact, the first Shaker Heights "Rapid" was an extension of the Fairmount line, which headed south on Coventry, but was replaced with the direct routing of the Rapid in 1920. BTW, Mayfield had a single-track streetcar that went up the hill, but it had its problems in certain weather, as you can probably imagine! Ironically, if the UC Boulevard is built, it would actually make the proposal for rerouting the Red Line though UC less expensive, as a graded right of way past Stokes Blvd would be provided by the UC Boulevard. The Red Line could use the UC Boulevard's median. As for the Silver Line vs. the Red Line, keep in mind that the #6 bus already carries about 25,000 riders per day, while the Red Line carries 20,000 (though that's for the whole Red Line, which is used less on the east side). Most of the Silver Line's new ridership will come from intermediate segments (UC, Midtown, CSU) when the redevelopment comes. The Silver Line will work well for travel between downtown and UC, but for those coming from the west side and going to UC, the Rapid could still the better choice. West side riders will not have to transfer at Tower City, but they may have to transfer at UC to a Circle Link or the Heights Community Circulator to reach their UC destinations. That's why I propose the Red Line realignment so us west siders don't have to make a transfer anymore, and so the need for the UC Boulevard is reduced. Plus, if a limited commuter rail service is started on the line out to Lorain, uses a lightweight diesel rail car, and NS grants a time-of-day separation from freight traffic, commuter rail could switch over to the Red Line near West Boulevard and use RTA tracks through Tower City to UC. How's that for making good use of existing transportation infrastructure, rather than building a 6-lane boulevard that will dump tens of thousands more cars into already-congested University Circle? So, should I develop this idea further and submit it to Peter Lewis in exchange for fulfilling his offer of an "idea bounty"? KJP

Two problems with that: 1. As Pope points out, the Silver Line is already a "go" -- it's designed and funded. 2. Even if there was a sudden, strong desire by community leaders to put rail down Euclid Avenue all the way from University Circle to downtown, the cost would be at least double the busway. Most of the added cost would come in the downtown area, associated with getting trains from Euclid Avenue back onto the existing Red Line from Tower City westward. Keep in mind that RTA has up to $7 million in hand for relocating the East 120th/Euclid station to someplace, which might be reprogrammed to instead relocate the University Circle station per this proposal. The East120th/Euclid station would be removed. Here's two cost estimates for realigning the Red Line through University Cirlce: via Euclid under Stokes/NS/CSX and across Cedar/Carnegie $1m - property acquisitions $6m - bridges under NS/CSX $3m - University Circle station N/A - Wade Park station (included in ECIP) N/A - Mayfield/Ford station (included in ECIP) $3m - ROW gradient changes/cuts $4m - new tracks $2m - track-in-street enhancements, road signals, etc. $1m - coded track circuits $3m - overhead catenary ------- $23m - subtotal $7m - contingencies $3m - engineering ------- $33 million - total via Euclid over Stokes/Cedar/Carnegie/NS/CSX: $2m - property acquisitions $7m - bridge over NS/CSX $3m - bridge over Cedar $3m - bridge over Carnegie $7m - University Circle station N/A - Wade Park station (included in ECIP) N/A - Mayfield/Ford station (included in ECIP) $15m - ROW gradient changes/approach embankments $4m - new tracks $1m - track-in-street enhancements, road signals, etc. $1m - coded track circuits $3m - overhead catenary ------- $46m - subtotal $14m - contingencies $5m - engineering ------- $65 million - total KJP

Cost of building an overhead catenary is about $2 million per mile for a double-tracked railway. My rationale for wanting to relocate the Red Line down Euclid Avenue through the University Circle area (sharing the ROW with the ECIP busway) is to place it between the sources of ridership in that area, rather than off to one side. Putting it in the middle of the action is where transit should be. Consider this map and all the places that would be within a closer walk of the new, 1.1-mile segment..... Even the existing University Circle station at Cedar would be moved only slightly. Of course, all of this would depend on the Red Line's heavy-rail trains being replaced with light-rail rolling stock. RTA is expected to start procurement on a new rail fleet as early as next year, with a possible delivery in 2011. KJP

There's been a lively discussion about the proposed boulevard on the ClevelandLive forum. But I thought I'd share with you what's being talked about. Review this document from ODOT, and then think about what's wrong with it.... http://www.innerbelt.org/NEWFILES/newpdf0502/University%20Circle%20Access%20Boulevard%205-9-02.pdf ODOT talks about the University Circle Access Boulevard (UCAB) linking Interstates 90, 71 and 77 with University Circle. And that's where they immediately start off on the wrong foot. Where is the traffic coming from? Identify the sources of the car trips, and it will become clear the UCAB is a regional issue, not just a University Circle issue. What alternatives analysis was done? Unfortunately, none -- at least for the UCAB. Such an objective analysis, under federal regulations, is supposed to include transit alternatives as well as a consideration of land use changes. To my knowledge, the only alternatives associated with the UCAB were two different alignments the road could take to reach UC (via the Norfolk Southern/Red Line railroad corridor or via the Blue-Green Lines/CSX railroad corridor). Either way, UCAB would be 4-6 lanes wide (with planners leaning to the six-lane version, or three in each direction) and travel from East 55th Street to MLK Boulevard at the foot of Cedar Hill. Projected cost of the 2.5-mile boulevard is estimated at about $100 million. If an alignment next to the Norfolk Southern railroad is desired, as it appears based on the data alone, it would likely require the relocation of RTA's Central Rail Facility and its rail yard at East 55th to an unspecified location. Traffic count estimates and preliminary site maps show the UCAB would dump tens of thousands of additional cars per day into a new intersection at the convergence of the following roads in University Circle -- Carnegie, Cedar, Stearns and the Fairhill/MLK Boulevard combination. Innerbelt project consultants Burgess and Niple are predicting that the UCAB could handle up to 1,800 vehicles heading west and 1,600 heading east per hour during the rush hours. UCAB's proponents argue that the road would create redevelopment where the Red Line has not. Why hasn't there been redevelopment? Quite simply, there are 43 EPA Superfund (extremely contaminated) sites along this short segment of rail corridor, where factories once stood, or still do, but sit abandoned or underutilized. Conservative estimates show that 20-30 apartments and 20 active business operations between E. 75th and E. 79th streets will have to be demolished in order to build the boulevard. The lack of state and federal funding to clean up these sites is hampering the area's redevelopment. Construction of the UCAB would obliterate some of these sites and effectively clean them up in part by removing them, and the rest by providing a funding share from the boulevard project to leverage additional dollars for cleanup. In other words, without the six-lane boulevard project and its associated earthmoving, we lack the funds in this state to remedy some very environmentally troubled properties. There is a sad commentary in this, that Ohio fails to provide the funds to urban areas to allow for their redevelopment unless a road project is involved. In this case, that road is next to a competing rail transit line. The addition of parallel transportation capacity will disperse ridership from the Red Line, for which Greater Clevelanders already have made a substantial investment. Together with the Euclid Corridor Project, such a dispersal could result in a call for the Red Line's eventual abandonment on the East Side, just when the Red Line is starting to regain lost ridership. Consider instead what Portland, Oregon did, which was to change land use rather than expand the capacity of the roadway network. In the late 1990s, Oregon officials wanted to build a new freeway, but advocates redirected the process to develop land around a new rail transit service. Using Portland's model here, ODOT could establish a link deposit program or a revolving loan with that $100 million or similar funding for the UCAB and target it instead for residential development downtown and at Red Line stations on the East and West sides, while still providing a matching funds for environmental cleanup. Additionally, to improve Red Line access to UC destinations, consider relocating the Red Line, between Stokes Boulevard and East 120th Street. RTA is considering replacing its rail fleet in the coming years, possibly with an all-light rail fleet. If they do, run the Red Line as a light-rail line on a mix of private right of way and down Euclid Avenue, sharing station facilities with the new busway. Furthermore, since many UC employees come from the West Shore suburbs, operate several commuter trains in each direction during the rush hours only from Lorain, Avon Lake, Westlake, West Boulevard Red Line station, pass south of downtown, the new Stokes Red Line station, Windermere, and east to the Euclid Park-n-Ride (it's next to the NS line). If there was a time-of-day separation with NS freight traffic, a lightweight commuter train could be used and switch over to RTA tracks on the east and west sides to serve Tower City Center. The question is, do we want a road to shape the land uses of redevelopment along the Red Line and around University Circle, or do we want transit to shape it? Look at the issue from a regional perspective first, in terms of what of what you want Greater Cleveland to be, then decide. KJP

As long we got our funny bones thinking for us, how about a statue of Mayor Ralph Perk, with his hair on fire, of course! If you look carefully at the bridge in Bratislava (third in my series of "bridges of the world" pics), you can see that it has some form of extra-large cables coming down from the tower (they look a little like coal conveyers at a steel mill). Something like that, coupled with a flame-like light at the top of the tower would have a very unique industrial look to it. KJP

Yeah, I understand different values, but I'm surprised to find them here, of all places. There are options for an urban dweller seeking a yard and a little space, especially if they live in a single family home next to or near a park. It was not my intention when I moved here, but I now know that if I ever move to another apartment-style condominium, I will ask what the walls and floors are structurally made of. Turns out my building's walls and floors are reinforced concrete, and I can't hear a thing from my neighbors (except when my windows are open in the spring and summer!). Some people in my building have wood flooring overlaid on the concrete, or plaster or wood-paneling on the walls. I have wall-to-wall carpeting, with tile only in the kitchen and bathrooms. I turn up my music or theater-sound television loud sometimes and never got a complaint. So, it seems my neighbors can't hear me either. KJP

Living in the city doesn't automatically mean living downtown. Some of the near-downtown neighborhoods around downtown Cleveland have, in some respects, more to offer in urban living than downtown does (ie: full size grocery stores, yards, private schools and more quiet). And, when I think Gold Coast, I think of the area north of Clifton and east to maybe a block or two east of West 117th Street that includes the business district. A neighborhood can be comprised of 30-story high rises or one-story bungalows, as long as there's a diversity of land uses and a vibrancy that results. KJP

By the way, one of you asked what the old Central Viaduct looked like. Note the section in the foreground was a center swing span to let tall ships on the Cuyahoga River pass. On a foggy night, a streetcar went into the river through the opened span, killing all on board and leading to the bridge's demise too. Here is what the bridge looked like from the west end.... And from the east end....... Here's also what the Clark Avenue bridge looked like in 1912, before the area off Independence Avenue was filled with steel mills. The bridge was demolished in 1984-85. And, if you thought the Clark Avenue span was a long bridge (it was the longest in the county at that time), there was a proposal to build a bridge linking Huron and Lorain avenues. Local officials decided the Lorain-Carnegie (Hope Memorial) Bridge was a better idea. But, this is what the east entrance to the Huron-Lorain Bridge would have looked like (before the Terminal Tower complex was built). Some of the design elements were incorporated into Hope Memorial. Here's another one that wasn't built, linking Lorain and Central Avenues, very close to where the Hope Memorial Bridge was built. Very attractive, and nearly identical in design to the Detroit-Superior Veterans Memorial Bridge over the Cuyahoga, or a little bit of the old Detroit Road viaduct over the Rocky River. Either way, they're probably way too expensive to build today. Maybe these will get some more ideas going. KJP

Here's some more interesting bridges.... PROJECT: Sheikh Zayed Bridge LOCATION: Between Abu Dhabi island and mainland MEASUREMENTS: 68 metres in width and 842 metres in length CONSTRUCTION START: March 2004 CONSTRUCTION END: 2007 COST: USD 173m The Anzac Bridge in Sydney Australia. Spans Johnstons Bay Opened December 1995 Links Sydney City and the suburbs to the west The bridge has a main span of 345m long, 32.2m wide Cost unknown Bridge SNP, Bratislava Slovakia Here's the bridge in Bratislava with the restaurant on top of it. Spans the River Danube Length of the bridge in axis: 432m Open width of the bridge: 21m The height of the pile: 80m Opened in 1972 Cost unknown Sai Van Bridge Macau, China opened in December 2004 Three lanes in each direction 7,280 feet long Cost is US$70 million Actually has two decks, with the enclosed lower section reserved for use during typhoons. A light rail system may also be installed. Rama 8 bridge Bangkok Spans the Chao Phraya River Tower Height : 160 m (525 ft.) Main Span : 300 m (984 ft.) Total Length : 475 m (1558 ft.) planned, cost unknown Lighted spire at the top reminds me of the flame from a steel mill... Details unknown about this one, but it crosses an inlet to/from Omori Bay. It's similar to Boston's Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, but has more substantial support pylons and larger promenades/overlook areas at the base of each support... And this one, also in Japan.... Just kidding on that one! KJP

I find there's a better neighborhood feel in urban neighborhoods like the Gold Coast, Little Italy, Ohio City etc etc. I know the first and last names of all my neighbors, can walk to everything in 15 minutes or less (see my post in this section) and I never have to shovel the snow or mow the lawn at my condo. There are sidewalk cafes for impromtu social meets, a wide variety of people and cultures, plus more varied architecture. And, it's safer to bike on side streets in the urban grid than on those wide suburban roads with so much traffic, seas of parking lots, cul de sacs and separated land uses. Actually, I'm surprised there are some here who are so devoted to suburbs (OK, I understand the old inner-ring suburbs but not the exurban homogeny) given this forum's name and content. I even understand having your home in the suburbs while keeping your heart in the city, but not both in the suburbs, and still want to visit this site. That would be like me being a frequent visitor to the farm bureau forum (is there one?). Can someone explain this to me? KJP

Actually, two neighborhoods could be created out of this -- one in the Flats, the part now crossed by the Inner Belt bridge; the other just south of Jacobs Field where the Central Interchange currently is located. By shifting the Inner Belt's Cuyahoga Valley viaduct farther south, it would open up a great deal of land for new residential and mixed-use development, much of which would be on relatively clean land. Some would have to probably undergo environmental remediation (namely the former NS intermodal yard and the land in the Flats). On the other hand, there's no parking lots on these lands, like in the Warehouse District, that would otherwise stifle residential construction. Plus, you would get a kick-ass bridge out of it, one used not only for cars, trucks and buses, but would have a pedestrian and bicycle path to link the new neighborhood on the south side of downtown with Tremont. And, with a new bridge on a new alignment, construction would cause less impact on traffic than rebuilding the existing bridge. I think a project like this would change downtown in a massively positive way. I see only a few minor downsides: > flow of morning rush hour/inbound game traffic would probably back up about a quarter-mile farther west onto the bridge due to the loss of cloverleaf ramps, but the bridge would have an additional lane and could have a divider to separate the faster through traffic from the slower local traffic bound for Ontario and East 9th streets; > new bridge alignment would start curving away from the existing alignment, next to the Greek Orthodox Church in Tremont, and would likely have to be put a little closer to the church. Also a couple buildings just north of the church parking area would have to be demolished; > tight turns remain to/from I-77, although there may be a way to ease them a bit, but at much greater expense. I figured, that since I-77 ends there, a tight turn is justified. But if this was a tight turn on a through portion of an interstate (like the one at Dead Man's Curve), that is not something that should remain. But I don't consider any of these to be deal-breakers or fatal flaws. KJP

That's a good idea! Does anyone have any contacts over there and can put them in touch with Paul Alsenas at county planning at 443-3700? KJP

Why? Who makes it on their own? If Amtrak and the airlines (and highways) were fully privatized systems, how much more are you willing to pay to travel? KJP

The point is, even those of us who want to live in urban areas often cannot because those areas aren't livable. As for other people, how many of the reasons why they moved out of the city (want of a larger and newer home, crime, bad schools etc) were created by sprawl and its correllated disinvestment in the city? I don't doubt that many people want a larger piece of land and more quiet, but how many just wanted a newly built, bigger home but couldn't get one in the city because it had already been built-out? Cleveland was like that until the 1980s, but the damage had already been done (thereby creating the open spaces that used to be found only at the urban fringe). So how many of us urbanites, who want to move back into the city, are willing to move into an area that had been so thoroughly damaged by sprawl so as to create open land for new housing? Probably not many, and the responses in this string seem to show that. This is the housing market issue that often gets ignored by the so-called "free marketeers" who claim smart growth isn't something people want, when the housing surveys show the exact opposite. KJP

Absolutely. The steel mills were the inspiration for the vertical light standards at Jacobs Field, which no other ballpark has. Imagine a similar design for the Inner Belt bridge, especially since a new one would be located right next to the West 3rd Street lift bridge. Somehow, a new design could "bridge" the shapes of West 3rd, Jacobs Field, plus the other structures nearby. I think you're on to something! KJP

Problem is, you're thinking of a passenger train in airplane terms -- endpoint to endpoint. True, the Empire Builder (and other western transcontinentals) travel 2000+ miles from Chicago to Seattle and Portland. But it also stops in 40 or so cities and towns along the way, some of which have no air or even bus service (especially since Greyhound is pulling out of most small towns, especially in the west). A single run of the Empire Builder may carry 400-500 people on its 50-hour journey, but only one-fourth typically ride the entire length of the route. Some ride Chicago to Fargo. Some ride Grand Forks to Minot. Others ride Cut Bank to Whitefish. And, in the winter time, the train is only link to the outside world for many town, so much so that emergency supplies of medicine are often brought to them on the Empire Builder. Because of this ridership turnover, few seats are left empty. The Empire Builder covers more of its costs through train revenues than do the short-haul corridors out of Chicago to Milwaukee, St. Louis and two Michigan routes. The only reason why those corridors look better on Amtrak's books is that the states which predominantly benefit from them provide an additional subsidy to Amtrak to keep them running. Getting all the states on the Empire Builder route to agree on a fair sharing of state subsidy would be difficult, if not impossible. Multi-state transportation projects, regardless of mode, rarely work without a strong federal role, which is why the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution gives it the responsibility of overseeing interstate commerce (except, I guess, when it comes to Amtrak). Construction of an interstate highway system never went anywhere until the federal government took the lead on it and provided 90 percent of the funding (now it's down to 80%). Bush has proposed the last few years that no Amtrak route should keep running unless the states agree to help keep them running, but Bush proposes only a 50 percent federal funding share. It has to be equal to the interstate highway share. Why should states pay 50 cents on the dollar for rail when they only have to pay 20 cents on the dollar for a highway project? Fact is, they won't. Does the Acela make money? Yes and no. Yes, because it covers the direct costs of operating those specific trains. No, because it doesn't begin to cover its costs of using the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor tracks, power systems and stations. Amtrak uses the Northeast Corridor the least among all the commuter rail operators like Maryland Rail Commuter, South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority, New Jersey Transit, MetroNorth, Shore Line East, and the Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority. Altogether, these commuter rail operations run more than 1,000 trains daily on the Northeast Corridor, to Amtrak's 120. Yet, the commuter rail operations pay only about one-third of the actual costs of using the corridor. Amtrak subsidies make up the difference -- subsidies you and I pay (there's the donor state BS again). The only reasons why airlines make money (or at least, used to!) is because decisions were made decades ago about what costs the private carriers would be responsible for paying and which ones the government would fund. Amtrak (or a private railroad like Norfolk Southern or Union Pacific) could make money on passenger trains if they didn't have to pay certain costs either, like railway traffic control dispatchers' salaries, property taxes, plus financing interest or depreciation on their rights of way. Our nation's rail system would look totally different if these kinds of policies were enacted. Imagine a freight railroad building a 180-mph passenger rail route between Cleveland and Chicago. Or, operating a cross-country passenger train that is a "land-cruise" for some and an essential service to others, mainly in small towns. Or, building overpasses and underpasses for streets to avoid a sudden doubling of freight train traffic (that railroads have been turning away for lack of capacity) on expanded three- and four-track-wide rights of way. These things can happen, but only if there is a consensus among railroads, policymakers and the public to proceed. KJP

Isn't it odd that a large number of you live in the burbs but would rather live in the city? Yet, some ultra-conservatives would have you believe that the outward shifts in population prove that people don't like city living and would rather live in the suburbs. These are the same people who claim "smart growth" is a government intrusion on people's individual choices of where they want to live. While I think they got the government intrusion part right, they incorrectly identified what parts of an urbanized area (the sprawl-burbs) benefitted from it and which portion (the core) was decimated to the point of it being unlivable. KJP

I agree that a unique bridge is better. Did you know that in Brataslava, in the Czech Republic, they built a variant of the cable-stayed bridge but put a restaurant/viewing platform at the top of the pylon? It's accessed by a walkway/bikeway next to the roadway portion of the bridge, with an elevator that takes people up to the top. Now that would be an interesting and unique feature for Cleveland!!! Unfortunately, ODOT can't spend more money on transit unless it's pass-through transit funding from the federal government. Our state constitution prohibits using state gas tax dollars on anything other than highways. There may be an exception however. In Oregon, they have the same constitutional prohibition as Ohio, yet they use about $7 million in gas tax funding each year for transit and support of passenger rail service on the segment between Eugene and Portland that continues up to Seattle. How'd they do it? Lawnmowers. Since people buy gasoline for lawnmowers, chainsaws, weedwackers, tractors etc. at the same pumps that people fuel their cars, that portion of the gas tax doesn't go to highways. So, instead, they figured out how much gas is used by those non-highway gas tax payers and indexed it for rail and transit purposes. On a per-capita basis, Ohio could get about $25 million to $30 million per year for rail passenger and transit programs. They may not sound like much, but it's more than Ohio is spending on rail passenger and transit now! It would be a relatively painless way to implement the Ohio Hub System. Now, back to the bridge issue.... KJP

Don't forget that, from 1985 to 1992, presidents Reagan and Bush1 also zero-budgeted Amtrak each year, but Congress reinstated funding. Not sure about this Congress, though.... If W wants to make Amtrak more like the highway and aviation systems, does that mean he's going give $2+ billion a year for railroad traffic controller salaries and maintenance (ala the air traffic control system, funded out of the federal treasury BTW), set up a user-financed, multi-billion-dollar infrastructure trust fund for railroads, remove the property tax liability railroads pay ($500 million per year paid by railroads nationwide) and provide a tax-exempt, federally backed bond-issue program for railroad capital improvements? Will W propose federal funding support for rail technology research (ala NASA and defense contracts that give technology transfer benefits for aerospace firms), and support BTU efficiency credits for rail (instead of subsidizing oil exploration, defense of oil-producing regions and maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve that would amount to an added $2 per gallon gas tax if we didn't pay for these every April 15th)? Oh, well, we didn't mean making Amtrak "exactly" like highways and aviation. We just figured that the "free market" would provide passenger rail service if there really was a demand for it.... That's my version of sarcasm. More and more, I'm really disliking this country's direction. KJP

Something I've noticed in recent pictures posted on this site.... Look at all the damn snow! It's everywhere! Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Maryland and, of course, Boston...all are pictures posted recently which show huge mounds of snow all over the place. I haven't seen the news yet today to see if Punxatawney Phil gave us a break! But I heard it was sunny in western PA this morning so.... :shoot: SIX MORE WEEKS OF WINTER??? (Of course there's going to be six more weeks of winter -- the start of spring is March 21 and, thus, about six weeks away. That stupid rat!!!) KJP