Foraker

Seems like a recipe for traffic. Maybe the better idea would be to build housing in Kentucky and jobs in Ohio.

Oh, c'mon. Mayfield is no Brady, but #107, Jared Goff, took the Rams to the Super Bowl -- #101 can get us there if he has the pieces around him. And if you think these rankings are that significant, #26 is available (and should be cheap). I'd certainly like to see some improved play over this past year, but Mayfield's still young, and the last thing the Browns need is more turnover at QB. Let's improve the O-line and add another stud receiver and running back and let's see what a healthy Mayfield can do.

And if you connect two widely-separated cul-de-sacs with a new road, don't be surprised to see development sprawl out along that new road. Leading to more traffic along that road....induced demand.

This is looking like a really expensive trade. Jared Goff went to the Super Bowl -- Mayfield might not be the guy, but we don't need Watson at that price.

Maybe they see that we have a new stud receiver and other personnel changes that have actually happened, not that we might maybe bring in a talented but flawed character QB. (If you look at the list of QBs who took teams to the Super Bowl, there are some surprisingly mediocre QBs -- we don't need Mayfield to be Tom Brady to get to the Super Bowl.)

That's fine that Haslam wants a better QB -- but hopefully he can be convinced that that's not Watson.

I ran across this report about fires in electric cars. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/fire-departments-prepare-for-electric-car-battery-fires-can-take-10-times-more-water-to-put-out-than-gas-engines The problem is lithium-ion batteries overheat and once they start burning they produce toxic gases that keep the fire going. Usually it's one cell of the battery that overheats, and then starts burning, and the heat from that cell ignites the adjacent cells, rinse and repeat.... Sounds like fire departments are just planning to either (1) watch the car burn, or (2) drown it in water to try to cool down the not-yet-burning cells until the burning cell is put out. This suggests that we need to watch our battery temperature very closely (don't let it get too hot in the first place), develop new battery technology that doesn't have the same problems as lithium ion batteries, or add some fire extinguishing material to all lithium ion batteries in cars so that they self-extinguish.

Gotta give a shout out to Cleveland's Maddie Finn -- https://www.madelinefinnmusic.com/bio

Cedar-East BRT idea. I was looking at the population densities of greater Cleveland communities and noticed that the densest communities are Lakewood, University Heights, and then Cleveland Heights. None of which have easy access to rail, although Lakewood does have a BRT line now. With the recent and planned construction in Cleveland Heights at Cedar-Fairmount and Cedar-Lee, and proposed residential developments at University Square (Cedar-Warrensville), increasing density is happening in the business districts along Cedar at intervals of 3/4 mile - 1.5 miles. Hopefully transit is also in Cleveland Heights's and University Heights's plans. The next major intersection would be Cedar-Green, and moving east you get to Legacy and Beachwood. What would it take to get RTA to plan a BRT line from the Cedar Hill Rapid station to a park-n-ride on some of those rarely-filled parking lots at Beachwood? My thought would be for RTA to conduct a study and announce a plan -- contingent on both funding and a minimum density at stops along the way -- that could be used by NOACA, the County, and the cities along the route to encourage increasing density sufficient to trigger the transit investment. Maybe at X1 density RTA could justify additional frequency. At X2 density, RTA could implement signal prioritization. And at X3 density, RTA would apply for BRT funding for dedicated lanes and stations. I think that RTA announcing a plan would be really important and would help cities along the route attract development, even before there is any funding available to implement the plan. OK transit experts -- what are those density levels? I saw a report a while back that suggested 30-50 dwelling units per acre within two blocks of stations. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/service_design_guidelines_vta.pdf What would it take for RTA to undertake the initial planning? I assume a request from the cities along the route, and some promise of financial assistance for the study from those cities and perhaps the county and NOACA.

From today's Cleveland Heights city news email (emphasis is mine):

Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook -- looks like the public approval process is complete -- Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Architectural Board of Review approvals are all complete. (I didn't attend and haven't seen a video of the final ABR meeting on Tuesday, March 1, so I don't know whether there were any conditions attached or what questions ABR had, but I'm told that it was approved. Further details TBD and I'll pass along anything more that I hear) EDIT: ABR hearing video is now up if you're interested in design details and discussion -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzkBu4UW4V8 There is an anti-park/pro-development group, Build CLM on Facebook, and apparently they are meeting on Sunday, March 6, at The Wine Spot on Lee Road to organize the opposition to the anti-development ballot initiative. https://www.facebook.com/events/331452032260768

And "Winning projects must start construction within 12 months."

California releases environmental impact statement on the last 90 miles of high speed rail to San Jose. California continues to make slow progress. https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/02/25/news-release-cahsra-releases-final-enviro-studies-to-connect-silicon-to-central-valley/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTGmyZChlM I listened while working, so I probably missed some things. I would be interested in the impressions from more knowledgeable people. Some things I caught -- Hoping to have new trains in four years (2026). Aiming for acquiring $30-40million in funding each year until then. Trying to work with partners like Metrohealth to improve transit to large employers. Mayor of Solon had good things to say. New fare system is in the works (acknowledged that present system is 14-years behind current tech) -- I think she said by the end of 2022 She also talked about RTA operating more like a traditional business and setting up metrics to track performance, etc. She said a lot of positive things, but I have no way to judge whether it was smoke or she is going to be making a big difference in the future.

And remember that sometimes our dear friend misleads us temporarily to protect his sources. Keep those reports coming, KJP! :-)

Well, hooray for your cheaply-constructed distribution hub, Amazon. Now they can either pay enough for someone to own a car or build closer to transit or they'll continue to struggle to find workers. This is another consequence of auto-centric sprawl. Spread the population out further and further and there is no cost-effective way to maintain quality services everywhere for everyone. Sewer, water, electric, roadways, transit, police, fire, ambulance -- all cost more if you spread the same population out, which is what "Greater" Cleveland has done. I'm more of an optimist, however, based on the return of housing to downtown and university circle, and all the developments in the city of Cleveland and inner suburbs, maybe the core will become dense enough that RTA can survive. If we were looking at 1990s downtown and only development further and further out -- I'd be very pessimistic about RTA's future.

Exactly -- until we decide to make car use more difficult than transit, transit will struggle. Improving RTA service as best as limited resources allow, and increasing TOD density, building on surface parking lots, making great places for pedestrians that are readily transportation-accessible is a start. Car-free districts/zones will be something to consider in the future, but I don't think we're there yet. If we restricted part of the downtown core to transit and bikes only, for example, I think it would just push companies to locate outside that area so that their employees can drive.

I'm not convinced. Reduce and simplify the fares -- round dollar amounts, all day passes with transfers, monthly passes, etc., would certainly make RTA easier to use. But eliminating the fares will not make a significant difference in ridership. The people who cannot afford a car are already the primary (captive) users. The people I know in the outer 'burbs would never ride RTA in the first place -- because they live their lives in their car, RTA doesn't go where they want to go (and can't do so efficiently), and even when in the city they have a perception of RTA as always breaking down, being full of crime and "those other unpleasant people." Note that "cost" is not an issue for these people, they all spend a lot more on cars (although I'm sure most have no idea what ticket to buy or how to buy it when they do have an opportunity to use RTA.) Many people I know in the city and in the inner 'burbs would ride if RTA was more convenient -- safe, reliable, frequent and easy to use. If you don't work really close to Tower City, the Rapid is not "rapid" enough; and buses and even the BRT lines are not reliable enough or fast enough. An hour commute from University Heights vs. 20 minutes in the car? Yeah, no thanks RTA. There's plenty of parking available right next to my destination. Again, it's not the cost that keeping these people off of RTA. To increase ridership you have to make it attractive, and that starts with the basics -- safety, ease of use, frequency and reliability in the core of the city. Focus on frequency and on-time stats before expanding reach. Start downtown and work your way out. As others have noted, transit cops should be focusing on safety and not fares, providing a visible presence -- the appearance of safety matters as much as the reality. Simplifying or eliminating fares would make it easier, particularly for newbies. Complete the downtown loop already so that the Rapid serves more destinations. Get those orders in for new trains that are more reliable. Get signal prioritization on the BRT lines to increase speed and on-time reliability. Even a 40-minute bus ride from University Heights to downtown is bearable if it's safe, clean, and right on time every time. Make me wait 15 minutes and we're back to an hour commute that I hadn't planned for, and I'm going back to the car. That's what has happened.

Hopefully this leads to some investment in passenger terminal improvements as well.

It sounds like we need to be educating our state reps and senators in addition to asking for their support.

The Ohio Dems have shown up for meetings, they have asked to participate and do their duty -- but they have no power to hold up or delay or move forward since the Repubs are in charge. Can you explain what the Ohio Dems are responsible for in the matter of Ohio redistricting that you think they should be called out for?

I have no problem acknowledging that there are bad seeds in the Democratic Party, and there are places in this country where Democrats use their political leverage in ways contrary to the will of the people. Neither is particularly relevant to this discussion of Ohio's redistricting. In the case of Ohio redistricting, the Republicans, and only the Republicans, are choosing to ignore the will of the majority of Ohioans for more competitive and less partisan districts. Attempting to paint both sides in this issue as "impure" looks like an inability to recognize that the Republican Party has all the power here and is willfully using it to disregard the will of the people of Ohio, and as a result you appear to be endorsing that effort.

If there is a hole in the financing, it would be nice if the Clinic would step in to fill the gap somehow.

Dear Both-Sider -- the Republicans adjourned yesterday saying that it was not possible to draw a map that would satisfy the court; meanwhile the Democrats produced several maps that they said would comply. It seems like the Court could weigh in on whether it is possible to draw suitable maps. But I don't see how the court can resolve this matter if Republicants really stick to their guns.

I agree -- I'd like to see a lot more separate passenger rail trackage in the US. But the lack of ANY passenger rail exposure in so much of the country probably contributes to failures to appreciate its potential. Frankly, I'd also like to see better national freight and passenger rail planning, but with the railroads owning the rails I don't see it happening. Agree that railroad background should be a requirement for more of the upper management, but I don't know how deep the bench is -- other management experience in other transportation industries might be helpful as long as there is a sufficient rail experience among the upper management. I have no idea what the split is now. Certainly Amtrak's CEO needs to be someone who wants Amtrak to succeed, which does not always seem to be the case. As for eminent domain, the issue may be lack of funding rather than a lack of fortitude. Eminent domain is neither fast nor cheap.