Foraker

When they drove the steel sheet piling in for the Lumen, I heard that there was a lot of vibration in the Hanna building next door. I didn't hear of any damage to pipes or anything, but definitely some very annoyed tenants.

And yet, I have been part of teams who have come up with great new products only to be told by management that we cannot afford a 3-year payback. So some great products sit on the shelf because the bean-counters wouldn't even allow us to test the market. Maybe the market wouldn't have cared for the improvements, or maybe manufacturing would have cost more than forecast, but we'll never know. Economics trumps Engineering in different ways.

Nice to see work beginning. Maybe the electric poles can come down next.

Right, we abandoned the canal infrastructure long ago and it probably isn't coming back because it's too slow. I'm all for creating an "Ohio Venice" somewhere -- maybe on the shores of Grand Lake St. Mary's, a man-made reservoir built to supply the canal, but I'm not in favor of spending our limited infrastructure dollars on creating such a tourist attraction. You imply that a kid can use any roadway, but how many roads would you let a 5-year-old bike on? Any roadway with a speed limit over 35mph is designed for cars, not the safety of kids riding their bikes. And that is the vast majority of roadways in Ohio. And very very few rural routes have a public bus; only roads within the big cities are used by buses. I'm talking about where we are spending our state transportation dollars -- and it's on those roadways that are designed for and used by private cars. We should diversify our transportation options, and that means diversifying what we spend our transportation dollars on. The current budget includes $3.8B for transportation (not including law enforcement), Of that, Ohio is spending $0.074B on public transit (1.9%) and $0.007B on rail, airports, and maritime transportation combined (0.18%). We are currently spending 98% of transportation dollars in this state on roadways that are primarily used by private cars, We should diversify that spending to provide more bus routes, more train routes (passenger AND freight), more bus-rapid-transit, more streetcars, more separated bike lines, more sidewalks (separated walking paths), and better port facilities. I'm suggesting we try spending 75% of our transportation dollars on roads, not 98%.

Yes, private transportation is wonderful. Almost no one is against "private transportation" as a concept, but there are a lot of people who have criticisms for building in such a way that a private vehicle is the only alternative for transportation -- the dependence is the problem. When we collectively choose to spend almost all transportation dollars on roadways that can only be used by cars, the people who can afford them, and the people who can drive -- we effectively exclude many of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly from a path to being productive members of society. Private cars are not going to disappear, but we don't need as many as we currently have and we don't need to be driving as many miles as many people already do. We need to spend more to maintain the most important roadways and bridges, and we need to encourage behavior that reduces the maintenance costs on the already maintenance-underfunded roadways and bridges.

Maybe the lithium can be recycled once enough of it is in circulation (and other lithium-free battery technologies complement them). But don't forget that petroleum elephant in the room -- roadways. And heavier EVs will cause more wear (more potholes to repair).

I've been on some nice pedestrian overpasses in the big Asian cities. The amount of traffic in this intersection pales in comparison. And in Europe I remember some that crossed not just a roadway but an adjacent rail line as well. Certainly, they have their place. But as you noted, handicapped access is a really difficult challenge and greatly increases the cost as well.

I hope we can prove you wrong. I've been in big cities in several foreign countries where I felt safer crossing much busier intersections. Don't throw up your hands just because of the amount of traffic, it can be done.

Intriguing. I wish I had the funds to enter the development game. 😁 The last developer that was working on redeveloping the Medusa was going to do just that. There was an issue with a loan the city provided to the owners of the property, and I believe that there was some effort to get that worked out, but then the developer had a tragedy in the family and it all fell apart. 2019? I poked around the city website but wasn't able to find a copy of the proposed redevelopment plan. That would be a good plan to revive. The Medusa building itself has been designated a landmark, so a teardown would now be difficult.

Current traffic congestion isn't bad, and one lane has been taken over by construction. Maybe if people stop working from home it will be worse. How could we change that intersection to make it more pedestrian-friendly? I suggest maybe a pedestrian refuge is needed at the top of Cedar Hill (which might also help direct traffic down the hill) and another pedestrian refuge is needed on Cedar. I would also close Harcourt Dr. before it gets to Cedar. Build a turn-around there (cul-de-sac) and restore a tree lawn and sidewalk across Harcourt.

The lot across from the old St. Ann's Church? It's privately owned, and the owner appears to be unwilling, unable, or uninterested in developing it. Plenty of other places to develop -- Carmelite monastery is in the works, Medusa building was once in consideration for development, the Mayfield-Noble-Warrensville triangle, Severance . . . .

Top of the Hill feels like it is moving really slow for a project that planned to be substantially complete by the end of July. Looking forward to the fall groundbreaking for Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook, and hopefully a development agreement for the Taylor-Tudors this fall as well. Then we have Amato Homes and Start Right building a batch of infill housing on vacant lots, FutureHeights and private rehabers soaking up the vacant buildings, and the future is bright for Cleveland Heights!

Definitely looking forward to that possibility, but we've got a long wait. Not an ideal time for opening storefront doors or a sidewalk patio in Cleveland!

Greater Cleveland Partnership 1240 Huron Road East Cleveland, Ohio 44115 (216) 621-3300 [email protected] Dear Mr. Shah and the Greater Cleveland Partnership, Please add your voice and reputation to that of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) and institutions in Columbus in a call for passenger rail service between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/2022/05/19/amtrak-expansion-columbus-business-leaders-push-passenger-rail-return/9827912002/

The Pacifica Hybrid is a really sweet ride -- you're selling it short. But this entire conversation shows how difficult car-dependent society is for families compared to places that are more compact with quality transit. Compare Strongsville or any other outer suburb with Kyoto, Japan or Amsterdam. You would live in a crowded "city" and you would have a small refrigerator and you would stop at the market every day on your way home -- or you'd send your kid to the market to pick something up since it's just down the block and they could walk or bike safely. Young kids hop on the streetcar or ride their bikes to soccer practice. Here, you can't send the kid to soccer practice on his own, because you NEED a car to get there. You might not be able to send your kid to walk to any store -- which is the case in most places in the US. We have the Big Box Store where you can buy Giant Boxes of Everything which means you need a big vehicle to get it home and lots of room to store it. You have to buy a bigger vehicle because you don't have convenient subways and streetcars that you can just roll the kid stroller on and off, you "need" something that can fit three extra-child-safety seats in. To have a family in the US, you must buy not just a bigger car, but a bigger house, a bigger yard, live farther from family and friends, schools, libraries, parks, etc. I look forward to the day when I occasionally need to borrow a car but live most of my life without "needing" to drive. (As we all age, we'll all reach that point where we shouldn't be driving anyway. Then what? Maybe move to Amsterdam.)

Here come the NIMBYs -- https://www.cleveland.com/community/2022/05/development-of-former-carmelite-monastery-draws-concerns-from-neighbors-in-cleveland-heights.html Preliminary plans: https://www.clevelandheights.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10656/PC-Plans-22-08?bidId=

Hey RTA -- complete the downtown loop! https://www.planetizen.com/features/117153-planning-congestion-relief

If I was a Newark resident, I would be very worried about the environmental impact of this project -- particularly the water supply -- and particularly in view of the no-regulation party in control of the state government and Ohio EPA. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/semiconductor-silicon-chips-carbon-footprint-climate

The new customs building looks great!

That's unfortunate, but it doesn't answer the question. What margerine manufacturers ARE near the rail line? Is the oleo oil being shipped to another state?

Amen, brother. Seriously, 90% of trips under 5 miles should be by foot or bike -- and we're not going to get there if grandma and your 5-year-old have to "share the lane" with a 25,000-pound bus. And no, a little paint won't cut it, we need curbs on bike lanes and bike-lane-sized snow plows and street sweepers.

Oleo oil is used to make margerine. What margerine manufacturers are near the rail line?

If you want to utter incompetence, we can discuss Mayor Jackson's bold initiatives. I agree with you, I think -- we should be encouraging more investment and attracting the higher incomes to afford more expensive properties. At the same time, politically the people living in a neighborhood feel like they're getting shafted when the assessment comes around and boosts their property values (and taxes) because of the new construction that isn't paying the tax increase. One possible solution -- you get an abatement on the value of the improvement, but it erodes over time at the average rate of increase in the value of property in the neighborhood. I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but if you're paying tax on an property that cost X to buy, but you put Y into it and increased the property value to Z (Z>X, but not necessarily = X+Y). Under the current abatement program you only pay taxes on the value at purchase, X, not the increased value, Z. Does the taxable amount ever change or does it stay at X for the full term of the abatement? My proposal, which might not be workable, is to increase the basis for the tax that is actually paid using the non-rebated value as a starting point and increasing it at the community/neighborhood average rate. If the neighborhood assessment goes up an average of 10%, you lose a bit of your abatement, now you pay X+10%, just like your average neighbor. That way you're still likely going to be receiving some benefit from making improvements, but you also pay more, just as the neighborhood does, although hopefully Z<X+10%. Particularly since the assessment only changes every few years and the rebate is for 15 years. Is there another way to at least make the residents facing the tax increases from new investments in the neighborhood feel better about the rebates? Some people are going to be hurt by rising property values no matter what we do. I would also argue that although $350k isn't the right place for a cap, particularly across the entire city, but it's not an unreasonable starting point for the discussion. The entire city isn't going to be rebuilt with $1M homes, those will be exceptions. $350k is more than 10x the median household income in the city of Cleveland.

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this. That one-story facade facing the Detroit-Superior bridge is lower than the roadway -- nice that they're incorporating some historic detail references, but from the roadway are you just going to see the modern glass? Why not build up to the street/bridge level? And who wants to hang out on a patio next to a busy roadway?

And don't forget that the tuition at CWRU is far higher than at CSU down the street -- which also has dramatically improved its campus and its reputation in the past 30 years. Great pair that should endeavor to complement each other and limit competition between them.