Foraker

Another Cleveland pedestrian killed in crosswalk with WALK signal. https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/11/05/pedestrian-killed-dump-truck-crash-downtown-cleveland/?fr=operanews

Taming the Chester Highway would be a good idea.

Yes, let's get started on the planning. It's going to take years. No one working at Tri-C or CSU is going to take the Rapid to Tower City. These and other large workplaces near downtown are too far from a rail station and we have an underused Waterfront Line -- it just makes so much sense and would greatly increase the value of the rail system if it reached more workplaces.

Probably none -- as you noted, they have too many other needs. Maybe if the county receives funding some of that could go to RTA, but I wouldn't count on it. I would still like to see a downtown loop as a priority to increase the range of destinations near rail.

I feel so much better knowing that you're on the job. (I want a downtown loop!)

Centennial seems like a sure winner to me -- but I seriously doubt that they get the full $40m requested.

How much of the pandemic bonus-money can be spent on expanding transit though? I thought there were some pretty significant strings tied to how that money could be spent.

We all agree that having sufficient staffing in the near term is a concern. Being short officers and having 425 officers eligible to retire now indicates a past failure to recruit. Something needs to change. We all appreciate the good work that our officers do and many of us think that more needs to be done to make sure that it is an attractive, rewarding, and respected profession. But the impact of Issue 24 is yet to be determined. We have civilian oversight of our military, and it is not often debilitating. If the civilian oversight turns out to be reasonable then I don't think it will have any negative impact on recruitment at all. I think that fears of increased oversight (much like fears of "socialism" overtaking our country) are overblown. I understand that that is just my opinion -- whether those fears turn out to be justified will take time to work out. But if those potential-retirees and others buy into the fear of the unknown before there are any actual impacts from that oversight board, then the problem isn't the oversight, it's the amplification of fear-of-change. Now that the law has passed, what can we do to make it the best version in its implementation? And what more needs to be done to make policing in Cleveland an attractive profession?

In the near term issue 24's passage will likely depress police morale and lead to more departures/early retirements. Everyone hates uncertainty and that uncertainty leaves a vacuum for pessimism and conspiracy theories for now, but let's see how it plays out. Long-term, if the oversight is not overly aggressive and is seen as fair, it could greatly boost morale, encourage recruits, and improve relations with the community. Stay tuned.

In the near term, I agree. But there are still a lot of people in the city who don't even own a car and who depend on RTA. With better funding and some leadership, we may yet see some positive change. It may take 20 years, but I think we will eventually see a turnaround at RTA.

1) This is why even transit advocates are frustrated with RTA. The GPS tracking can help -- you can wait in your house instead of in the rain -- but this is also why mass transit sucks when it has to share its right of way with cars. Buses are at the mercy of Lights & Traffic. 2) This is also why it sucks to be poor and dependent on transit. I can drive to my office in 20minutes or take the bus in an hour -- and the bus schedule is unreliable so I probably have to plan for an hour and a half of travel time (most of which is a loss of time to either relax or be productive) -- each way. If you have the means, it's hard to justify taking the bus. Having buses/trains show up on time every time is really important. I would go so far as to say that it would be more important for RTA to build in more buffer time on routes (I know, this means even longer trip times) to make sure they hit the stops at the time that they say they will rather than trying to speed up the overall route and have big question marks over when the bus is actually going to arrive at a stop. At least then you can accurately plan when you need to get to the bus stop and when you'll arrive at your destination.

I saw painted bike lanes, but missed the protected bike lanes. Where in the video did you see protected bike lanes?

Others have beat me to it, but it certainly seems like there is a lot of room for six-story buildings between downtown and University Circle. With a stagnant regional population I don't think it makes sense to build many (if any) buildings taller than 20 stories outside of downtown and University Circle. Talk to me again after we fill in all the empty parking lots between the river and I-90.

Perhaps the purchase of these buildings should be contingent on the developers building more in the area -- here, we'll give you cash and take on your headaches, if you build new.

Or we extend rail to the airport to make it easier for a larger population to get in and out.

We agree that RTA was overly aggressive in taking credit for too much of the development that has happened (hospitals, art museum, downtown living away from Euclid Ave). But I still think that lot of the development that did happen on Euclid would not have happened without the street rebuild, and the street rebuild wouldn't have happened without RTA. In the end the new street with new utilities led to more development along Euclid than on Chester, Superior, and Prospect, and all of those streets qualified for the same incentives you mentioned. Having longer buses on Euclid, zero impact. Some of the new BRT infrastructure has provided some mid-street pedestrian refuges though, which makes crossing Euclid much nicer than it was before (and certainly nicer than trying to cross a wider street like Superior or Carnegie or East 9th in areas lacking those mid-street safe points). A better pedestrian "feel" (walkability?) also encourages residential development, in my opinion.

The contempt for this process shown by DeWine, LaRose, and Faber is right up there -- very lame to say that they had "no involvement" when the law required them to be involved and they voted for the plan independently created by a couple of GOP legislators. Like a cop turning a blind eye to a crime, saying "I didn't see it" doesn't clear you -- this is a clear dereliction of duty on the part of elected officials.

I think you're understating the importance of the rebuild and reconstruction of Euclid Ave. Maybe it wasn't the Healthline itself that boosted Euclid's redevelopment, but they completely rebuilt the street and sidewalks from the Square past CSU and that cleanup made the street a lot more attractive for redevelopment. And it was the Healthline project that brought the funding for that rebuild. We haven't seen the same level of investment on parallel streets. Sure seems like RTA does deserve some credit for all that, even if not as much as they're claiming.

And now FlixBus has bought out the competition, becoming Greyhound's new owner https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-companies/2021/10/21/dallas-based-greyhound-sells-to-europes-largest-long-distance-bus-network/ I'm guessing that the sale was only for "transportation Greyhound" and not "real estate Greyhound."

Does Amtrak own any land in Ohio that they could be encouraged to develop?

[1] How much is Lake County subsidizing Laketran? You are right that it works for Laketran. Just because one park-and-ride route in the region works doesn't mean others would. You also might be right that RTA didn't charge enough for its park-n-ride service. If it costs $5 (on a good day -- it's a lot more closer to the Square) to park in downtown Cleveland, surely the park-and-ride service could charge $4? [2] There are a lot of questions about where and how RTA is spending its money, and different points of view. I do not understand why so many buses were purchased, unless the buses were actually ordered years ago, with the idea of expanding park-and-ride service, and the buses were just paid for and delivered in 2020. I still think that park-and-ride service is not a very efficient use of transit funds. If they're only being used by business commuters, you're essentially running one way buses a couple of times in the morning and evening and the buses are idle the rest of the day. But there's so little traffic into downtown, and jobs are now scattered more widely, so how much more convenient is park-and-ride service than driving? [3] No public transit service pays for itself from fares alone, anywhere in the world. So every public transit system needs a subsidy. Every non-tolled roadway is getting a public subsidy. But some routes are more costly than others and RTA gets a lot less state support than what Michigan, Indiana, New York, or Pennsylvania provide to their public transit agencies. I'm thankful that we have corporate sponsors willing to assist in filling the gap.

I want to bring this back up. I generally agree that every neighborhood should have some sort of walkable business district (although not necessarily a single "center") that we could call a "downtown" for shorthand. Where is Fairfax's "downtown"? Buckeye? Cleveland Heights has three major walkable "downtowns" -- Cedar-Fairmount, Coventry, and Cedar-Lee. Cleveland Heights also has the walkability-disaster of Severance, and smaller local business districts that are less well-developed but sometimes loved by locals -- Taylor-Fairmount, Noble-Monticello. Even in this inner-ring suburb known for its tree-lined streets and sidewalks, there is a lot of room for improvement. Recognizing the value of these walkable business districts and working incrementally to create them should be a priority of every suburb.

Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in, but we can only speculate on the answers to your questions. Corporate campuses in outer suburbs with nearby highway access apparently do not generate enough riders or RTA would have arranged routes to those places. Maybe RTA did reach out to these companies, and they weren't interested in subsidizing routes. Perhaps they surveyed their employees and not enough were interested. Providing express service down Cedar (or along 271) might not be very helpful if your employees live in widely dispersed communities readily accessible by car -- Mentor, Broadview Heights, and Avon. The corporate HQ workplace may provide enough density at one end of the trip, but it isn't easy to provide fast and frequent transit routes to all the scattered locations where those employees live. I would like to see and eastside BRT down Cedar. But is there enough density to justify the cost? Maybe we need to see more dense development at Cedar-Fairmount, Cedar-Lee, University Center, Cedar-Green, Legacy, etc. before RTA will invest in BRT. As for the highway buses, I think we can assume that those previous park-and-ride lines were losing money or RTA wouldn't have canceled them. In other words, operating those buses was more expensive than letting them sit idle or selling them off. Yes, it was a bad investment, but there was probably a political angle to trying park-and-ride service in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with your point. I gave up the bus when I can drive to work in less than half the time. But it also shows (1) how damaging sprawl is -- with a stagnant population covering an increasingly wider and wider area it's impossible to provide good transit service; and (2) building your new corporate HQ in the suburbs means you only want employees willing to sacrifice to buy a car to work for you (a big "f*ck you" to the poor), and you're offloading some of the shared cost (public transit) to individuals (you have to have a car to work here). It's also ironic that building a few solar panels makes a company seem like they are interested in the environment after they endorsed sprawl to build a corporate campus with an expensive-to-build and maintain parking garage in a place that it is difficult to impossible to serve with frequent public transit.

This is why we need a lot more investment in alternative energy and our energy infrastructure, and why obstructing the funding for it in the US Senate is a big economic rather than a political problem -- we've passed peak oil, we need to transition to alternatives quickly or face frequent energy supply disruption. Republicans are cheering on Senator Manchin for "owning the libs" as the country races toward chaos. Buy your backup batteries now. https://bylinetimes.com/2021/10/20/oil-system-collapsing-so-fast-it-may-derail-renewables-warn-french-government-scientists/