Foraker

No Opportunity in East Cleveland?

I agree. ? The "transportation fund" is already the "accounting fiction" given how frequently it is bailed out with general funds.

Because "market rate" might be below a living wage (see Walmart) and the state is better off if more residents earn at least a living wage (see stories of Walmart employees on food stamps).

France is upgrading its high speed trains. Interesting video at the link, too. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/02/france-high-speed-rail-new-trains-tgv-2020-sncf-cost-ticket/583624/

There is already an abandoned jiffy lube diagonally across the intersection that could be built up as another gas station much more easily. Why go to all the effort to tear down an existing building to be immediately adjacent a competitor? Makes no sense. How much of the lack of redevelopment in this area is the result of concerns about the effects of a dead-man's curve realignment that may or may not happen in the next decade?

No. Every additional mile of new development (mostly cul-de-sacs) is adding to their road, water, and sewer maintenance costs. The population is growing, but not as fast as the rate of maintenance cost increases. The extended family I know there are all in denial, think that their town is special and different.

I concur with KJP. Let's also remember that it was constructed as a public building that should be open and accessible to everyone. That influenced the development of the atrium with the multiple entrances, something that is now seen as problematic post-9/11. The design of the building no longer suits its use. For that reason, I'd rather see some or all of the county move to another building or buildings and refurbish and repurpose what's left behind.

Check out this article on a site that compiles before and after street views https://www.businessinsider.com/urbi-public-space-transformations-2016-3

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- any new infrastructure project should be evaluated for its cost, including its lifecycle maintenance costs to replacement. That would greatly inform our "can we afford it" analysis.

You answered your own question -- why should suburbanites want better mass transit? Because it takes cars off the road.

Could we come up with a 750-mile route, all within Ohio to satisfy the 750-mile requirement -- Dayton-Lima-Toledo-Sandusky-Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Mansfield-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati-Athens-?

Doesn't Shaker Blvd. get closed by the Farmer's Market? If so, we've already got an example of how that will work. A few bollards could close the street more permanently (and inexpensively, and reversibly) without ripping out the street right away.

My favorite Litt quote from that article: ?

Agreed, and the survey intro explains it well, too. I was not clear (when I said "we want to go where we want to go" -- I was speaking as someone in the inner ring of suburbs near a transit spine who is frustrated with the current frequency and timeliness of the local bus line). You're right to point that out so I can clarify. I agree that the system needs more money, and needs to focus on dense corridors and frequency on those corridors and not let the system get too spread out. I know there is concern about providing service to the outer burghs because RTA wants their support on tax votes, but I think spreading out to less dense routes is just going to kill the system. Hey Solon and Avon -- if we put more riders inside the 90/271/480 belt onto mass transit, you'll have fewer cars to battle on the highway -- sounds like a better reason to urge voters to approve more funding. The state should contribute more as well.

I heard an ad for RTA on the radio this morning, with something along the lines of "we want to know, do you want more frequency on our existing lines or are our existing lines not going where you want to go." Which seems like the wrong question (we want to go where we need to go, AND we want increased frequency on whatever routes you're running). There is a survey up on the RTA website: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KTYGYRM

Not that I'm aware of -- but I would be surprised if the parking garage wasn't first. The construction timeline probably won't come out until the plans are nearly final.

I was at the meeting as well and left after about two and a half hours -- apparently, the meeting lasted another hour after that. I also thought that lots of residents said things like "I don't like it. We deserve a better design." without any suggestions of what they thought a better design would be. Also interesting to see so many architects speak on both sides of the issue. Particularly ironic to have members of the historic preservation committee of the architects association read their letter and solemnly and insistently declaim the lack of historic context as damning the project entirely (all very serious and expecting to be taken seriously as the ultimate experts on the matter), to be immediately followed by the president of the Cleveland architects association who made it clear that they weren't taking a position as an organization, but that he personally loved the project. The developer said that they considered some sort of cladding on the garage, and would be willing to revisit the issue, but they need a certain amount of open space around the garage to vent fumes or they have to provide active venting, and closing off much more would get them close to that point. Another speaker suggested that an open sight line to the pedestrian exit from the garage was a good thing for safety reasons. So there may be some further consideration and design changes in this area, but maybe not. We'll see. We'll have to wait for the minutes of the meeting for confirmation, so take this as the unconfirmed rumor that it is -- but I heard that the ABR generally approved the height, shape, and placement of the parking garage and the buildings that wrap around the garage, and further design work on additional details (more specific cladding materials, etc.) will now proceed administratively between the city planning office and the developer/architect. But the ABR asked the developer to revisit the large building that faces Cedar -- they aren't satisfied with the large unbroken curved face and the corner that faces the Cedar-Glen hill. But they did not object to the 10-story height, despite some residents' complaints about it. I don't know what they are looking for, but maybe some portions stepped back or some decorative elements to break it up a bit. I assume that means that there will be another ABR meeting (whether another special meeting or just another presentation as part of a regular ABR meeting I don't know) to revisit that curved building, but the smaller buildings around the garage probably will not have another hearing before the ABR other than a final approval after the city planning office and the developer/architect finalize the building plans, and that will happen at a regular ABR meeting and will most likely be a rubber stamp event. I think that is about the best outcome that we could have received from this meeting. The general site plan is approved and the developer can move forward on the garage and wrap-around buildings there. And the residents who were unhappy about the larger building's design will now get the developer to go back and give that some further thought -- which probably means we'll get something even better there. (Fingers crossed.) Hopefully that does not slow the project down too much.

Nancy's Home Cooking. ?

Acknowledging the problem is only the first step. Unfortunately, neither of your proposed solutions would go far enough. I'd say that the gas tax needs to be increased signficantly (and pegged to inflation for automatic increases in the furture), there needs to be a federal vehicle registration tax, we need to dramatically cut back on highway expansion, AND we need to put more money into interstate passenger rail and public transit. The funding shortfall from a almost-never-increased gas tax can't be made up by increasing the gas tax. The increase would have to be so large to come close that electric vehicles would quickly become very popular. But they still use the road and their use on the road deteriorates the road, so there is a basis for applying a vehicle registration tax -- preferably one based on weight (sorry truckers). To keep our roads in better state of repair, we really should find ways to ship more goods by rail for longer distances. That may mean some federal subsidies to private railroads but that is justifiable to balance out the subsidies (underfunded roadways and reduced gas taxes) provided to trucking companies. And improving the rail lines would also help passenger rail, which would get more cars off the roads. Not to mention the efficiency gains of trains over cars and planes, and the reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from having fewer cars and trucks on the roads. We already have more lane-miles of roadway and more bridges than we can afford to maintain (and I say that in the face of much grumbling about current taxes), so just cutting back on expansion won't reduce our costs, it will only make future increases slower. We may need to take steps to reduce the overhead (get rid of excess lanes, narrow lanes, abandon or sell off some rights-of-way). We also should mandate that maintenance costs be included in the decisions about whether to add more lanes/build more roads/bridges. You can't just build it, cut the ribbon, celebrate, and walk away -- when you invest in infrastructure you have to protect that investment with maintenance (no one enjoys paying for a new roof or cleaning the chimney, but it has to be done to maintain the property).

The sewer district recently started to increase rates for property owners based on impervious surfaces. Could the city/county apply a tax on any property with more than X% impervious surface as a way to assist the sewer district and increase the costs of surface parking lots?

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd rather infill the downtown parking craters with midrise buildings and get more life in the neighborhood first, and then build another big tower in 20 years. (It will probably be 20 years before Jacobs decides to do anything with that lot anyway.)

We definitely have a long way to go. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/commuting-to-work-data-car-public-transit-bike/580507/

Much as I dislike this new roadway, this makes me think of the Opportunity Corridor project. Here's hoping it actually does make a difference.

Every government infrastructure project should include maintenance estimates in their cost for new infrastructure. That's why Ohio is so over-extended in its ability to maintain all the lane-miles of roadway and bridges.

The ad does show both behavior that might be objectionable and men stepping in to address it -- so it's clearly not calling all men bad. If you're offended, are you saying that you (a) disagree with the premise that behavior that most people object to, such as bulllying and catcalling, are not offensive, or (b) do you simply dislike anyone telling you what to do (even if you agree that it's the right thing to do)? I suspect the "outrage" is more of the latter. (And those people must not be going to church services where the priest/minister lectures the faithful about needing to do better by their fellow man.)