327

As they say, the greenest building is the one that already exists. Container ships burn a lotta fuel to bring in all that drywall from China. Plus all the machinery involved in teardown and construction. Add in the logistics of the mining and manufacturing and what-not, and we would seem to be better off upgrading what we have.

An SID here would be great! The problem is that Mayfield Heights (and most suburbs) don't have the public transportation to support poor individuals who have no cars. They need to be able to walk to Dave's and other social services. The suburbs don't provide that. It's a tough nut to crack. This is a very good point, but the built-in response is OK put the projects by the grocery store. If a burb has any multi-family housing at all, it's typically adjacent to the commercial area, in order to minimize traffic in areas zoned for sf homes. Living adjacent to a suburban commercial cluster might present more options, with less complications, than living in inner-city Cleveland and having a bus pass. There may not be as much access to Cleveland's large-scale social service operations... but this isn't the only way to deliver social services either. It wouldn't hurt to at least examine an alternative model. This would be another interesting item for the new county government to consider.

I don't understand how the warnings would have any effect on RTA liability. I'm fairly sure buses cannot turn right on red. So anytime a "bus is turning," it is doing so with a signal. If it's turning at a left-arrow, pedestrians will have a "don't walk" and will be at fault for violating the sign. If the bus is turning with a green light, a pedestrian crossing the street onto which the bus is turning will have the right of way, as they will have been instructed by the "walk" sign to cross at that time. At a stop sign, any vehicle must yield to pedestrians when turning (I think). None of this has anything to do with the presence or absense of auditory warnings. Warnings are legally useful for hidden dangers, when it's not clear to potential tort victims what they should do. That is not the case in a controlled traffic environment. It is rarely, if at all, unclear who has the right of way. Outside of jaywalking, which is a crime... the bus does not have right of way, and the bus cannot obtain it verbally.

Apartments are typically cheaper on utilities than doubles are. Once you consider the gas bill with the rent, a young family can often find price-competitive apartment options further out in the burbs. I'm not a "family" but during my time living in a Lakewood double I encounered every one of the problems people have mentioned here. I don't plan on going that route again. If there is an owner/occupier, or their friends & relatives are in the other unit, your interests will always be secondary.

I do not anticipate a resurgence in demand for 2-family housing. But, as you say, the market may have other ideas.

I'm pretty sure that's the "Couples Retreat" poster where the black couple was photoshopped in after an all-white version had already been released.

This suggests that something else is in play, something like the spreading layer of poverty discussed earlier. And even if a city is losing young families to the exurbs it still needs to replenish with young singles. Young singles support local businesses, which are good for the tax base, plus they themselves pay taxes, without drawing on school resources. This in turn helps improve the schools. This one is less of an issue in UH, but in Lakewood it's not easy to get to major retail concentrations. That is a big deal for families. Lakewood is uber-urban and was developed to use a transit-linked downtown Cleveland as its retail hub, which no longer exists. Therefore Lakewood has less appeal for families than it otherwise might. They almost tore down part of the west end to address this problem, and I'm glad they didn't, but that does mean the problem remains. UH has much better retail options within its borders, plus quick access to Beachwood, so I would surmise that it has more to gain from improving the school system and capitalizing on the drawing power of nearby colleges. CH and UH will also benefit from continued redevelopment in and around University Circle. I can't emphasize enough how the proximity of so many rough areas hurts the Heights. Work on East Cleveland, work on Fairfax, Mt. Pleasant, Woodhill and Buckeye. Those efforts will pay off in the Heights.

Draw them in prior to that stage of life, while they're young and single, so that they're already in love with the area by the time they become "middle class families." Start a program to promote long-term settement to all the college students who populate CH and UH. It makes little sense to develop a place called "University Heights" in a way that doesn't centrally involve said university. Above all, promote economic development across the east side, from downtown to 271 and beyond, so that there is income available on which to raise a middle class family.

I really dig this idea, and I agree that it should go east of campus on Euclid.

Our talking buses were just presented with some kind of award. Today's PD Tipoff column mentioned this. It didn't say what kind of award or where from. Coming soon: bridges that say "Bridge is high. Do not jump off. Caution! Bridge... is high."

+1 Not enough evergreens in this town, in general. They do a nice job of mitigating the winter blahs.

Lutheran hospital also holds back West 25th. That doesn't make Lutheran a bad thing. But its location is bad for the neighborhood and bad for the city. Same goes for those projects. If they're so nice, let Mayfield Heights have them. It isn't fair to concentrate the projects in Cleveland proper. Not fair for the city and not fair for CMHA residents, who deserve more than one housing choice. CMHA isn't a Cleveland housing agency, it's supposed to be county wide.

My hood! I live right by that empty KFC. ("doesn't look all that old") It just closed a couple months ago. Had a funky smell inside towards the end. That's OK though, we still have Popeye's across the street.

Great pix. And if you like parks, you'll find none better than Youngstown's Mill Creek. It's in a class by itself. This city has a lot going for it. I hope this momentum soon leads to better fortunes for its main commercial corridors. There is immense latent potential along Glenwood Ave, which skirts the edge of the park... and Market St, which features a cool "uptown" area. Mahoning Ave offers some great skyline views, while the downriver enclave of Struthers has a nice little CBD of its own.

I'm certainly more liberal than Traficant is, particularly as he's moved to the right. And if I were voting in that district I'd almost certainly vote for Ryan. But good ideas can come from anywhere, including ideological opponents. Traficant's had some good ideas over the years. Consumption tax? No, not that one.

I'm not getting behind a bill that I've only read one sentence about. And yeah, I doubt a Republican bill would ever really lead to state ownership. But the fact remains that Ohio is split about 50/50, with its population on a southern trend, so if we can't work with Republicans in some way we're sunk. In a general sense, I support removing burdens from municipalities. I don't see why they should have to fix problems caused by private companies and wait for a bill to be paid. We're getting closer to a situation where our municipalities can no longer do that financially. Again, it's not necessarily a good bill and it may be a very bad one. Summary descriptions of bills are often misleading. But we do not want this project to become a partisan pissing contest at the state level. To the extent that it already is, we need to take steps to find common ground. It does us no good for 3C to be viewed as a "liberal plan" supported primarily by outsiders and enthusiasts. All these people who we find so nuts and so wrong... we need them. We might not be able to do this without them, at least some of them.

Yeah but they shouldn't need additional management personnel for things so basic to their operations. Unless they're hiring me, of course. Then it makes perfect sense.

SB116 doesn't sound so nuts. The snippet we've got here says the freight companies (who aren't exactly widows and orphans) need to maintain their property or they risk forfeiting it. This is neither draconinan nor revolutionary. Of course the snippet suggests a lot more TBD, and we don't know exactly what. If Ohio gained ownership of its rail corridors, and the lessor/lessee relationship were flipped, would that not be beneficial for passenger rail? As it stands now we're at the mercy of private sector decision-makers, who are obligated to please their customers and shareholders before they lift a finger to help passenger rail.

A lot of people I know in Lakewood prefer to take Lake Ave. This number will probably increase if Clifton's capacity is significantly reduced. But it doesn't look like capacity will be reduced all that much, and I think the median is a good idea here. Medians make it a lot easier for pedestrians to cross. And it's probably wise to avoid using "BRT" terminology altogether. The only concern I have here is that it this project seems like a want and not a need, when we have so many needs that deserve ARRA money.

It's a tough call. I think timing is probably more important than frequency, and more revenue neutral as well. Have we seen a study yet that examines the most likely uses for 3C, i.e. the most likely purposes of 3C patrons? Schedule decisions should probably come down to that. There will be outliers, like the guy flying in from Hawaii, but trends are likely to emerge. Obligatory football example: There are a lot of NFL fans in Columbus. The dispatchers at the freight RRs might as well prepare for that right now.

seanmcl, if we assume arguendo that Ohio's local transit funding compares favorably with other states... then you're absolutely right: I don't have a leg to stand on. But it's not like you're a fountain o'facts either. No small irony. Instead you keep insisting that my opinions are opinons, which is obvious. Of course they're opinions. I'm just a dude, like yourself, making posts on the internet. Get comfortable with that and we'll move on. Moving on... this site is loaded with material, stats even, that back up my spurious claims of Ohio's inadequate local transit funding. It's a fairly regular discussion topic. RTA hangs "educational" signs about this in their trains. Are you sure you want to keep going down this road? Wouldn't it be preferable to engage my ideas... or someone else's maybe... in a more constructive give and take? You've chosen to hammer at the least controversial aspect of my post. What are you trying to prove? I don't understand your motivation.

I will attempt to define it more clearly. I'm not able to fully harmonize this: with this: Ohio is different from many (otherwise similar) states, and not in a way that favors this undertaking. Not in a way that suggests that the same incremental approach-- unmodified-- will work as well here as it has in other states that offer better local transit. Much as I'd like to do it... jumping straight to high speed is not the only possible way around this problem. Another way, a cheaper and more plausible way, would be coordinating aggressively with local transit services to ensure that nobody is ever left hanging when their plane or train arrives. That raises issues of dealing with multiple agencies with multiple schedule priorities, so it's not exactly a silver bullet. A related thought, perhaps less plausible but more promising, would be scaling back the statewide length of the line and using some of that fundage instead to purchase local transit vehicles for the dedicated purpose of feeding 3C. Don't even brand them under county agencies... brand them as part of 3C. They would shuttle people (exclusively) between 3C stations and likely destination areas which may be in high demand but are tough to reach via existing local transit services. That doesn't solve everyone's problems either, but it gets us closer to being on par with other states in which low-speed intercity lines have done OK. These are just ideas. I'm not trying to condemn the 3C plan by suggesting them, but I do feel as though end-user concerns need a second look and higher priority as we move forward. Ohio's transit situation is simply not comparable to that of other states. Ohioans are acutely aware of this distinction... moreso than any analyst who's never waited for a bus in Cleveland on Sunday. Amtrak's one-size-fits-all strategy is not inherently flawed... I just don't think it's as applicable to Ohio as it may have been elsewhere. The transit gap is the reason. I think we need to get creative in addressing it.

Great post Avogadro, thanks for the summary. What I don't get is how the train station (#4) is still viewed as optional. To me it's the only no-brainer involved here.

Speaking of straw men, I've never come close to saying "I don't think anyone will ride it." You're confusing me with Bill Harris. The point I've been trying to make is that people who aren't anti-rail at all, and who raise issues about this plan from the perspective of actively wanting to ride it and wanting it to do well, are treated like sworn enemies. It's like we have to agree 100% with all the talking points or we're automatically tea baggers. If I think the Browns should pass instead of run on 3rd & 5, and you don't, that doesn't make either one of us into a Steelers fan. As for the bit you quoted, I'm pointing out what I think is an inconsistency, one that may be hurting our common cause. If you have a different opinion OK. But don't jump from there to claiming I'm on the other team. That seems counterproductive. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's a great thing to do to people. For the record: I DO think people will ride this, if built, as currently planned. I intend to ride it myself. I agree with every global point that's being made about the importance of developing passenger rail. I just think there are some aspects where we could do better, where we could greatly enhance both the immediate and long term outcomes. I do think there's a certain amount of risk in pursuing it in the exact manner it's being pursued with no changes at all to the approach. But overall, I do expect the plan to get done and to succeed.

Yeah, not sure why the focus is on attracting suburbanites. There are in fact people who enjoy being in the city w/o prompting or pandering. Some of these people live in Greater Cleveland while many others do not (yet), but I can't help but think that urbanists comprise the more appropriate target audience.