Mr Sparkle

Even if cornerstone was located in Pleasant Ridge or Oakley, it would still be a horrible building. The building itself is an eyesore, and the traffic flow is horrible. But was that the OP's (monte's) original point?

So there are very few "talented go getters" living in the suburbs? Sounds like a rash generalization to me.

Well I did make my transmission go out in my old Civic when I got caught on a snowplow pile trying to rock it off.

On the flip side, its a score for an inner ring suburb, who by the most part are suffering.

First professional fire department

AFC north friends???? Carson Palmer...Ickey Woods.....Kenny Anderson? Kneee, Kneee, Neck You'ins got lucky---ya almost threw the game away; but that Int reversal was the worst call I'd ever seen

the Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan was drafted at the time when air travel was a novel idea, IIRC they thought there would be several "neighborhood airports" to serve the populace; not the mega hub/regional airports we have now. ^CVG was really the only one that had room to grow, being surrounded by mostly undeveloped land, and on a broad hilltop. A new freeway was built to the site, along with a new bridge over the river, courtesy of the feds. CVG had every advantage. Airports take a lot of space. Of course CVG is important to the economy, but does it compare to an equal area of industrial land in Cincinnati? ^ Freeway and Bridge came later, in the 60's I-75 and the Brent Spence...

What the hell???? e.g it will be used for "hub operations" 767's etc; I thought that they designed it to be extended into a longer runway, if needed

Part of an incentive package to bring keep DHL there http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/29/biz_biz1adhl.html "In return for the Ohio incentives, including a $300 million bond guarantee from the state, DHL has pledged to create 900 new jobs and invest $295 million in the Clinton County operation. Ohio officials say they did not overpay with the incentive package, which included the accelerated construction of a new bypass highway around Wilmington. "

There will probably be some sort of development on the parcels they already own... there was some nasty talking going on about this at the cincinnati.com discussion boards

I wouldn't say 'usually'. I would say 'sometimes.' Urban planning is the amoeba of graduate programs. It seems to fit in with many different types of colleges. I had never heard of an urban planning department within an engineering college. That is scary. I don't want any engineers controling planning. Uh...usually. Not sometimes. They are usually in the architectural grad school, design-wise. Ohio State's City & Regional Planning department is under the architecture school, which in turn is under the Engineering School. Thus, CRP at OSU is under Engineering. That does not mean that engineers have any sort of say; it's just "where it is." Dude, Engineers and Planners are on opposing sides of things. New Urbanism = Planners Build it with no cares to the environment around them = Engineers Next you'll be telling us that fine arts (because there is a fine arts component to architecture) is in engineering. Engineers gotta deal with budgets ;-)

If you look at the Tailor Southgate Bridge, you can see fencing along pedestrian walkways on the Ohio side. I'm assumung where they stop is the official state line, and that Kentucky didn't see the need for the fencing. http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/ztaylor1.jpg http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/ztaylor3.jpg http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/ztaylor7.jpg The fencing is to protect the pedestrian areas below the bridge from the CInder Block Launchers..It ends where the water starts, not nec. the state line

-Brent Spence Study Webpage!!!! Check 'er out http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/ Maps: http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/Alternatives.html Alternate No.1 Rehab+I-75 West Rehab existing bridge for local traffic, re-route I-75 traffic to a new structure in Queensgate. Alternate No.2 New East+I-75 West New bridge for I-71 traffic on existing alignment, re-route I-75 traffic to a new structure in Queensgate. Alternate No.3 New West + New Interchange Dropped from further consideration New bridge adjacent west, 5 lanes in each direction.New Queensgate interchange. Alternate No. 4 Single Bridge Replacement (I-75 Widening in Ohio) Replace existing structure with new bridge adjacent east with 7 lanes in each direction. Alternate 5 Double Bridge Replacement (Elevated I-75 Roadway in OH) Replace existing structure with new bridge adjacent east. Split I-75 local and thru traffic in Ohio. Alternate 6 Rehab + I-75/I-71 West New structure adjacent west for Interstate traffic. Existing structure rehabilitated for local traffic. -- ----------------------- I would bet on alternate 4

Not excatly, IIRC Denver gets the number 2 seed since they have a better AFC record

<sniff> Casey gets the boot b/c the Red's pitching in their farm system sucks and has sucked for a long time

No problemo, for some reason that day, I was opinionated...usually I just lurk ;-)

Separate land uses are bad for the reason I stated -- it requires more driving than is necessary. Living next to an industry is an extreme example. And, what's wrong with living above a store or a restaurant? Lots of people do it here in Greater Cleveland. Some even live above bars, though I'm not wild about that myself, but people do live there. Imagine living in a neighborhood where you can get almost anything you want (groceries, post office, banks, restaurants, etc.) within a 1-4 block walk, 24 hours a day. And, anything that's not within that short walk, you could get by hopping a light-rail line or even a connecting bus route that fills the gabs between the rail lines. To me, that sounds like heaven, but you can do that kind of urban living in only one city in this state, and then, only on a limited basis. As Ohio cities strive to compete for young people who want to live in exciting cities, this is the kind of urbanity they are moving to (not an urban oasis or two measuring only a half-dozen square miles or so). But, you have to admit, there are a lot more housing choices than 20- 15 years or so ago. I have a feeling that the increase in urban living is connected to an increase in single, upwardly mobile folks (by way of folks getting married later in life on average), and more DINKS (folks having kids later)...when familes grow folks tend to move to the burb's (which has plus and minuses, of course)

I just watched a documentary about Boston tearing down hundreds of buildings to run an elevated innerloop around the city. The fella who came up with the big dig project had watched this happen in the 50's and didn't want to expand the destruction when the 40 year old steel structure needed replacement. Not taking down any building was a big positive for his plan. Anyways, Boston did at one time. Boston built one freeway, the Central Artery. It also retained the Green Line trolleys, three heavy rail lines, and an extensive commuter rail system so that even when people moved to the "suburbs", the jobs didn't have to follow them, and empty the city like has happened in too many places in this nation. IIRC the "128" corridor is a place of very high employment (Silicon Valley -East?) ^I don't force my lifestyle on anyone. Where I live, I at least have the choice of driving, bicycling, or taking transit to work. I have the choice of living in an urban neighborhood or suburban subdivision. In most places in this nation, the only real option is living in the suburbs and driving everywhere. Now THAT's forcing someone into a lifestyle. I disagree, what's happening in Cincy and other places is that there is a reinvestment into the urban core and more folks are living there...its a positive to me (shocking?)...we have more housing choices I am not saying you fit this, but there are some folks that want to force everyone back into density...

My point was, if we made a concerned effort to increase PPV (park and rife, tax incentives), we can have the same effect as a rail line. The "put up or shut up" comment was a nice touch..what do you assume about me?

I'm not mandating or marketing anything...but I do get the feeling from you that you want everyone to live like you do

^Sparkle, thanks for being an ideological troll. You are welcome, I assume you don't think yourself as the same ^I give you points for trying. Any salesman pushing such an obviously flawed and failed product deserves credit for such efforts in the face of incontrovertible evidence against his position. I'm not pushing anything----I would like to see sensible cost effective alternates...I haven't seen anything that says LRT has been cost effective---its more of a <some city> has it, so it will work for us too. Do I think our cuurent lifestlye can go on forever? No....let the market forces brings change.. ^Density along *corridors* is necessary for transit. Persons per square mile applies to an area, not a linear strip. What kind of density are you tallkking about, commercial and TOD I asssume...the folks have go to live somewhere ^Where do you get your road numbers? Source for one lane of freeway carrying 2500 VPH at 60 mph? I've never seen it higher than 1500. What metropolitan area has an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 during rush hour??? Highway capacity manual for VPHPL 1.2 is a little low for rush hour I admit "In 1995, the average vehicle occupancy rate for all travel in the US was 1.59 persons per vehicle, ranging from a low of 1.14 for work trips to a high of 2.17 for other social and recreational trips". Source: Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 1995 ^Boston's Green Line, which is over 100 years old, carries over 250,000 people per day. How many freeways do you know have that distinction? Beautiful city, too. Apples to oranges..Boston is a dense East Coast City ( Iwould like to visit BTW) There are guite a few freeways that carry that much--I-75 just north of DT Cincy has about 168,460 ADT, using the 1.6 per vehicle, thats 269,500 folks http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/Traffic_Survey/TSR_Report/2002_TSRmaps/ham_tsr_2002.pdf Could we not have the same impact of building a light rail line if we could increase the average vehicle occupancy by 1 fold to 2.2?

^ If you have ever ridden a subway, and then ridden a bus, you would never EVER make the claim that BRT is an acceptable substitute for rail Thats the problem, its not a substitute for rail, we are looking for an alternate to the SOV

^You can't gauge appropriateness of transit on the basis of minimum population density per square mile. You have to examine individual corridors, much as highway engineers do. Say what??? so a fixed rail transit open would work in low density areas? If you are talking about reducing VMT, then you want folks to walk to the stations, hence denser areas. ^BRT sucks. There's nothing "rapid" about it, and flexibility is actually a very negative aspect of transit lines. No one wants to have to guess where the line is going to take them. You get what you pay for. ??? Why would you not know where it is going to take you? ^Rail has a proven record of spurring high-density development clustered around stations. This, in turn, promotes walking, bicycling, and other non-automobile forms of transport. It also makes the bus system work better, by allowing buses to serve shorter routes, where they are more effective, and feed into the rail network. Thus a denser area...there has to be a minumun density to support rail ^Widely dispersed job centers are a symptom of the disease of highway-mania. What's your solution--build ever-more highways? An interstate highway lane can move 1500 cars an hour. A light rail line can move ten times the amount of people in the same amount of space. Do the math. actually 2500 veh/hr, average occupancy 1.2, so 3000 folks per lane, peak cite a light rail line that carries 30,000 an hour For one we can get more use out of our existing highway corrdiors...put rail in the medians In the 21st century, the cities that remain relevant are those who will stop making excuses, and have the guts to invest in infrastructure. After all, how do you expect private investors to bring their money, if the public won't even invest in its own city?

^Why are we stuck with it? Gee, I thought human beings decided the form of their cities, not some force we can't control, like Mother Nature! terrain has a part to play (note Cinc'y hilly terrain) ^We decided to promote dispersed urban forms more than 50 years ago, and what we got was an overreaction to the density that had existed. dispersion was happening long before 1955, each stage of urban form was devweloped around the mode of transportation at that time (Walking city, horse..streetcar etc), folks moved as far away from each other as the transportation mode allowed. Cinti's first suburbs developed around the first streecar lines and at the top of inclines ^A highway is the antithesis of a rail line in terms of the kinds of urban forms it fosters, but has similarilities as well. A highway represents a long-term public investment investment with an easily identifiable route. And private capital will follow public investments. That's where the similarities end. Cars require everything to be spread out, and development incentives ensure it through interchange zoning plus other zoning codes which force separated land uses Why is separate land uses bad? I certainly don't want to live nearby industry or atop a store or bar ^and make mixed uses illegal -- requiring people to drive everywhere. Numerous suburban office parks were founded on Ohio's lamentable tax abatement/enterprise zone policies. ^Bus rapid transit is a compromise that is little more than a feel-good attempt by skittish public officials to show they are doing something about transit. Problem is, it's still a bus, which I call "the shame train." It's still not going to draw riders having a wider diversity of incomes. It would be a heckuva lot cheaper to re-market the bus, yes trains have a "nostalgia" feel to them. Bus Rapid Transit could be a first stage in the development of a rail line. BRT allows a closer to "door to door" trip, more competitve with the SOV

Low density in most of the region, widely dispersed job centers. I though 5000 folks per sqaure mile was the density that could support fixed rail. IMHO, bus rapid tranist is the way to go, routes could be flexible enough, combined with busways...much lower capital costs tha rail