I spotted this article at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/public_lauds_cleveland-cuyahog.html and I spotted the following mention:
Quote
Cleveland resident Bill Callahan lauded the port's proposal to explore ferry service to Canada as a way to enliven local businesses.
"People here don't realize we can do business with London, Ontario, a city of 350,000 people with manufacturing jobs," Callahan said. "It's an unexploited business opportunity, and it's only 105 miles from here to London. If we had that kind of city here in Ohio, we'd have built a six-lane highway immediately to get there."
Quote
"It's an unexploited business opportunity, and it's only 105 miles from here to London."
Does he know that there's a lake in the way, and it would take 3-4 hours to get from London to Cleveland?
Quote from: pianocello link=topic=5264.msg115107#msg115107 date=13156143
Does he know that there's a lake in the way, and it would take 3-4 hours to get from London to Cleveland?
/quote]
I guess he might know unless he taught then Port Stanley is a suburb of London, ON (which it isn't the case).
Rochester tried that with Toronto and it failed. Perhaps they should build a spaceport instead.
Boat rides are fun. No idea if they're economically viable, but it's an interesting idea. Is there any tourism potential on the Canadian side of the lake? I know there's a national park at Point Pelee or Pelee Island. I've picked up at Pennsylvania welcome centers a tourist guide produced by a publication called Lake Erie Living that will have day-trip ideas from all around the lake, including Ontario. (But promoting tourism doesn't always mean that there actually is any.)
Why did the Rochester-Toronto service fail: prices too high, didn't take any less time than driving, or just lack of interest? (I don't know what the fare was or how long the ride would take.)