WestBLVD

I agree. No need for hostility! When the official census numbers come out we can analyze how Ohio's 1.6% growth really broke down.

Great link! That is fascinating to look at. Really gives you an eyeball perspective of migration. Look at Franklin County, a stream of inward migration throughout all of northern Ohio, and if people leave they are mostly headed south. Cuyahoga County is interesting. They've managed to have a net gain from most of southeast Michigan and southern New England. However, the loss of people is evident with amount of red lines, which are mostly out of state.

^ Ohio's population is barely growing compared to 2000, but we might actually be on the slight decline if you look at year level data. It appears that Ohio was the 4th slowest growing state in the US (1.6%), ahead of Louisiana(1.4%), Rhode Island (0.4%), and Michigan (-0.6%). I think the Michigan number is interesting because Michigan was growing up until the recession, and then the hemorrhaging of people began that offset all the growth that occurred over the first 7 years of the decade. Michigan actually grew a respectable 6.9% from 1990-2000, much more than Ohio, PA, NY, or New England did in that time frame. The Ohio number is a bit deceptive because you basically have a state with decent growth areas and NE Ohio which continues to drain people. The overall effect is slow or no growth.

Just pulled up the census estimates for Ohio for 2009 and it was 11,542,645. The 2010 census came in at 11,536,504. So the estimates were pretty close to actuality. I'm very anxious for city level data. If the estimates of the state were pretty close, Cleveland shouldn't have lost much more than the estimates, as it would have required a lot of overestimating elsewhere in the state. I'm putting my guess at 417k.

Exactly. It's amazing how arbitrary political boundaries; whether it be state, county, or municipal play such a huge role in population. That line on the Toledo map is the Ohio/Michigan state line. If you look at the Detroit map, you can clearly see that the blue and red follows the exact borders of the Detroit. It truly is amazing that someone's often arbitrarily drawn straight lines on a map centuries ago still defines how people live today.

^ Exactly. This data is over 10 years old now. I envision these have changed quite a bit over the past 10 years.

You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? Mill Creek is in Cleveland. But with regards to the region. I think looking at population loss across different cities tells the story. It's not really about schools and crime. People are fleeing at the same rate regardless of their municipality. I think a lot has to do with weather. In this day and age, with a national and global society, people can choose where they want to live. And since 90% of American's don't like cold and snow, they choose to live in/move to warmer climates. There is no city or region with a larger population than Cleveland that gets more snow than we do. That says a lot. Buffalo, which as a region is much smaller than Cleveland gets a little more snow than we do, and guess what, they are suffering just as great losses as we are. It's comparatively easy to fix crime and schools and build infrastructure to attract new people, but it's hard to change their perceptions of cold and snow. It's right above Garfield Heights. I wasn't exactly sure of GH's borders, but still, its surrounded by undesirable areas whereas Strongsville is not. The weather certainly doesn't help, but the population is still increasing in metro areas with similar weather. The MSAs of Chicago, Minneapolis, and even Milwaukee increased in population from 2000 to 2009. Granted, the weather isn't as bad in those cities, but they don't exactly have Los Angeles-esque weather either. They still manage to attract people though. So what's stopping Cleveland from being more like them and less like Buffalo? Snow. Snow. Snow. Chicago, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee get a fraction of what we get. Hopkins, on the west side, which is our official reporting site, actually gets one of the lowest amounts of snow in the county, which is still 63 inches, a far cry above the 40 or so Chicago/Milwaukee get, and 45 or so for Minneapolis. Of course, much of Cuyahoga County gets much more snow than that, and 100,000s get well over 100 inches of snow (same with Buffalo). And considering our snow is lake effect, it provides for a lot of cloudy days, and lots of days with annoying small snowfalls that still need to be driven in and still need to be shoveled out from. Minneapolis winters are cold, but they have the advantage of having cold + sunny days. We have not as cold, but still cold, and cloudy days.

You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? Mill Creek is in Cleveland. But with regards to the region. I think looking at population loss across different cities tells the story. It's not really about schools and crime. People are fleeing at the same rate regardless of their municipality. I think a lot has to do with weather. In this day and age, with a national and global society, people can choose where they want to live. And since 90% of American's don't like cold and snow, they choose to live in/move to warmer climates. There is no city or region with a larger population than Cleveland that gets more snow than we do. That says a lot. Buffalo, which as a region is much smaller than Cleveland gets a little more snow than we do, and guess what, they are suffering just as great losses as we are. It's comparatively easy to fix crime and schools and build infrastructure to attract new people, but it's hard to change their perceptions of cold and snow.

To be honest, the easiest way to get population up and to improve our perception in ratings, stats, crime, etc, is to just annex a suburb or two. I often ask myself that if just Fairview Park, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker were incorporated into Cleveland in the 30s, would Cleveland and those cities have had the same collective drop in population? Perhaps annexation into the City of Cleveland isn't palatable for a lot of suburbanites which is understandable from a school district perspective (which there are workarounds). However, I often wonder why suburbs don't merge together. Do we really need to have a Parma and Parma Heights? Does University Heights need to be different from Cleveland Heights? Can't Westlake, Rocky River, and Bay Village be their own suburb? With federal dollars available to cities at certain population levels, it makes sense to double/triple up a lot of our redundant suburbs, but would that ever happen? You tell me.

The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core.

I posted this in the other thread on the census: Looking at the population estimates for areas around northeast Ohio, Cleveland doesn't look so bad. A sampling of population LOSS as a % from 2000 to 2009 Census estimates: 11.3% Lakewood 11.1% University Heights 11.1% Fairview Park 10.9% Shaker Heights 10.8% Euclid 10.2% Lyndhurst 10.0% Chagrin Falls 10.0% Bay Village 9.8% Cleveland The 2009 census estimates have Cleveland in the 420-430k range. If the number were to show up below 400,000 or even in the 300-325,000 range as some have suggested, it would mean a huge change in regional population. As indicated above, the drain in population from the city proper is no worse off than many of the suburbs with excellent schools and affluent residents. If Cleveland were to drop into the 300k's, where did they go? Clearly not the suburbs, or if they did go to the suburbs, twice as many suburbanites have left their respective communities out of the region. It's easy to look at Cleveland and say "OMG, they've lost 50,000 people in the past 10 years." But, in reality that % loss is no worse than Lakewood, Shaker, or Bay Village. Population loss is a huge problem for the Cleveland MSA. If it were only as simple as people leaving the central city for the burbs, we'd still have a stable regional population, but unfortunately that's not the case ... especially when cities like Westlake and Strongsville, perceived as growing suburbs have collectively shed ~4% of their population as well. Yes, it's true that some of the farthest suburbs in Lorain County have grown by 5-6k in the past 10 years, these increases are a drop in the bucket on the regional scale of population decline.

A GFS is going to be the first "anchor" to this center?!? These very low end bulk grocers are notorious for having horribly designed box stores found in sprawly areas. I do not see how this could be beneficial to the ultimate evolution of this project. It seems having this come in first would set the tone for what other types of retail/dining will come next. I can't imagine any sort of residential development next door to this type of establishment.

I would say that there is definitely a misconception about population loss being Cleveland's problem. Areas that people often perceive to be growing, i.e. Westlake or Strongsville, have collectively lost about 4% of their population in the last decade as well. I'm tired of hearing the same old, "people are fleeing the city for the suburbs" when the suburbs are losing people just as fast as the city. Sure, places in eastern Lorain County are growing and other far off fringe locations, but adding a couple thousand residents in these areas does not offset the hemorrhaging of people elsewhere. Speaking of perceptions, looking at the CSA population estimates. I think it would come to quite a shock to northeast Ohioans that the Pittsburgh CSA has lost 3.2% of its population compared to Cleveland's 1.8%. Pittsburgh has marketed itself and positioned itself well to become a poster child for a city on the turn, yet they're still losing people much faster than we are. Growth is in the eye of the beholder, err marketing advertiser. And to take perception one step farther. Population loss as a percent by MSA: 1.1% Detroit 2.7% Cleveland 3.1% Pittsburgh

Looking at the population estimates for areas around northeast Ohio, Cleveland doesn't look so bad. A sampling of population LOSS as a % from 2000 to 2009 Census estimates: 11.3% Lakewood 11.1% University Heights 11.1% Fairview Park 10.9% Shaker Heights 10.8% Euclid 10.2% Lyndhurst 10.0% Chagrin Falls 10.0% Bay Village 9.8% Cleveland A larger % of the residents are leaving the more "desirable" suburbs of Cleveland than leaving from the central core itself. Why isn't this ever mentioned in the news? In fact there are 19 municipalities in Cuyahoga County that have lost a greater % of their population than the City of Cleveland.

Does anyone think the census will ever categorize metro regions by actual municipality/township/etc, versus county? Clearly all of the cities of northern Summit County are suburbs of Cleveland, however due to metro regions being split at county lines, they get lumped with Akron. For the life of me, I've never quite grasped how Sagamore Hills and Northfield, a mere 5.5 miles from the city limits of Cleveland could be considered part of the Akron metro area. From the list above, it's amazing how many of those cities are around NE OH, and how only 4 suburbs make the list, 3 of which are in NE OH. Really shows how annexation never unfolded here after WWI.

I think a lot of people miss the point of recycling. It's better to NOT buy a lot of stuff and throw a bit of stuff in the trash and never recycle, than to buy a ton of stuff, throw some away, but recycle a lot. I think we tend to ignore the REDUCE and REUSE aspect all too often, while favoring recycling, because recycling makes us feel good even though reducing or reusing might have been environmentally friendlier options. Every week I recycle the same two things, a milk jug and a cardboard box of cereal, while throwing away a grocery bag's worth of garbage. I feel so silly carting my big blue cart to the curb so that some big truck that probably gets 8 mpg can pick it up then drive 20 feet to the next driveway over and pick up whatever 2 things the little old lady next to me recycled. Next comes the garbage truck, which probably gets the same 8 mpg, and picks up what little trash I put out. I think as a society we need to be more smart about recycling. Think about it, do we REALLY need two giant trucks going down the street, driveway to driveway, getting terrible gas mileage, emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, so that recyclables can be collected? How many tons of CO2 are emitted from recycling trucks each year? It seems to me that a more environmentally friendly way to do it, is to have monthly recycling pick ups. As people above have stated, the blue bins that the city of Cleveland distributes are HUGE and take weeks to fill up. Think of the cost and energy savings we'd have if we reduced recycling pick-ups. In the past I've tended to let my blue bin fill up before carting it to the curb. With the implementation of the recycling "tax", I will now have to be sure I take it out every week. So for people like myself and others who already recycle but are being environmentally conscious by only putting the bins out when they are full, will be doing more harm to the environment as the cumulative emissions of the "stop and go" effect of the big trucks will quickly multiply.

Interesting thread, mostly regarding regional/mainline service. I didn't realize I was the anomaly in preferring the smaller regional jet to mainline service. I've always found it much more comfortable, faster, and convenient to fly on small planes, and try to book my travel on them when possible. It's so much nicer when only 30-40 people are trying to board a plane. Plus you get the added perk of not having to worry about finding space to put your roller bag as they are all valet checked free of charge. That speeds up the boarding process even further as everyone just planes and sits down. Positive flip side is that deplaning is just as fast, everyone just gets up and walks out and your carry-on is waiting for you in the jetway. There's nothing worse than being stuck in the back of a mainline jet and waiting 10-12 minutes to finally deplane. And if you're lucky, you get a 1 seat aisle, roomy and comfortable. I think that's what has always been great about CLE. You can land in on an ERJ, deplane in 5 minutes, walk 2 minutes to the rapid station, board and be Downtown for work in 25 minutes without ever stepping outside.

I propose they change the sound recording to "Caution, Pedestrians, you should have looked both ways, bus has already turned and is now 2 blocks down the street, bus has already turned and is now 4 blocks down the street."

There are significant connectivity issues with the 32's new end at University Circle Rapid station. I used to take the 32 from near Cedar/Lee to E 24th/Euclid. Easy on/Easy off at my destination. Now that involves getting off at the Uni Circle rapid stop and either walking up to Euclid (almost a half mile!) and catching a health line downtown, or if you don't feel like walking switching to the Red Line to tower city, and then taking a trolley or health line back up Euclid. Either way, both options add significant hassle and unnecessary energy to a formerly simple and quick commute. I don't understand why the 32 can't just have a terminus that ALWAYS has a connection to the health line? It's nice that they offered the option to select few rush hour routes, but can't they just drive the buses a little farther during the other times? Cleveland isn't known for its splendid year round walking conditions. I understand it's tough times for RTA. But requiring former one trip commute passengers to now have to ride 3 separate RTA lines is a bit much.

Did anyone go to this meeting? I noticed the enhanceclifton site is up, but find it odd that they use a "photoshopped" picture of Clifton where they spliced several single family residential areas to form one picture.

While it's going to be tough to argue for BRT on Clifton now due to the hacking the 55 is getting, midday weekday ridership is very good on the 55. I've been on more than one bus midday that had a standing load not too far east of West 117th. I've been on numerous buses on Saturday that had close to full seated loads by West Blvd. The 26 does not run artics on the weekends right now. I hope they're brought back on the weekends (at least by Memorial Day weekend). Otherwise, the 26 may end up resembling a sardine can....especially on Saturdays. The 55 can get filled up mid-day, but don't forget that outside of rush hour, it's once an hour service. I once rode the 55 from Downtown to Lakewood at 9 am on a weekday, there were 3 passengers aboard (myself included). The demographics and commuting patterns of the area it serves will make it hard to increase ridership, except at rush hour, which will be a hard push for a true BRT. It will be interesting to see what this enhance clifton ends up being all about. I do like the idea mentioned above about enhanced bus routes. Clifton could use a "branding" of sorts and improved bus waiting areas that are tasteful to the neighborhood might do the trick.

I think the closest Detroit would ever get to a BRT is the double long buses they rolled out last year on the 26. But the 26 is such a slow ride to downtown from Lakewood. I think getting a BRT on Clifton is going to have a lot of hurdles. The 55 and 55F are extremely quick ways of getting people from the west side to downtown. In many instances, taking the 55 is just as quick (if not quicker) as driving yourself from the west side into downtown. Using a BRT as a justification for speed is going to be tough. It also seems hard to justify a BRT for a route that can barely support enough riders outside of rush hours that its existence outside of those time frames was cut. Because Clifton is so wide compared to Euclid, having buses use one of the outer 3 lanes makes more sense than having it run down the middle. Putting in a center median for buses/grass creates a logistical problem of having to create designated u-turn areas every 1/4 mile or so. This then creates an additional signal time for intersections which would in turn increase commute via the BRT compared to the standard bus.

While this is a great concept, I'm surprised no one has mentioned how the 55 is a route that is continually being cut down. Last September the 55 saw decreased runs during rush hour. And now the 55 is being cut COMPLETELY on the weekends and barely survived continuing late evening service to 10pm. It seems hard to justify putting this much money into establishing an entire BRT project around service that is mostly used for 3 hour blocks each day. While I would love to see a BRT type of development along Clifton, how feasible is it from a ridership perspective? The 55 is only packed from 7-10am inbound, and 3:30-6pm outbound. Because the development pattern along Clifton is almost exclusively residential, the route serves really to only bring people in and out of downtown and not to destinations in between such as the Healthline BRT. While Clifton could possibly benefit from the aesthetics of sprucing up the boulevard, Detroit is the street that would see the most benefit. Clifton is well established and very little development could take place along its path. Detroit, on the other hand is teaming with development possibilities.

I think a lot of the hope for East Cleveland rests on its very close proximity to University Circle, unfortunately being a separate entity so close to a growing part of Cleveland severely hurts it. There's a lot of prime real estate along Euclid Ave just across from the EC/CLE border, but it will likely never be developed unless it was in Cleveland proper. Why would someone who works in University Circle move to EC and pay an additional 2% of their income in taxes to live in a city that can't provide a lot of basic services?

I don't know why these tunnels just aren't fixed up now. It's really nothing more than a weekend cub scout project to make them clean and attractive. All you need are a few shovels, some lightbulbs, some brick pavers, some new tile, and a good scrubbing and these tunnels turn from sketchy to attractive in a weekend.