LifeLongClevelander

I fear that positions that Bibb is taking will be impossible to carry out. Supporting Issue 24 will negatively impact the size of the police department. Yes, the bad police officers need to go and potential bad ones never get hired in the first place. However, it will make the remaining good officers second-guess every action. If it comes down to it, they may not take action or hesitate out of self-preservation. If it triggers more attrition, his goal of expanding the police department becomes all the more, if not impossible to meet. This city has seen the results of a diminished police department in both size and effectiveness. How long before burnout from overwork and stress takes a bigger toll? How much harder will it be to attract new potential officers? Even if people aren't directly impacted as being crime victims, they will pay for it in increased insurance rates. As a side note, it is interesting that the region's largest "news" publication has re-adopted its omission of the homicide count in news stories. The count has been gone for many weeks. Even news items reporting on various incidents are frequently appear days afterwards, while other news outlets have reported the events days earlier.

For one, issue #24 isn't "the SLIGHTEST bit of accountability and oversight". Second, what will be left of the police department that is already significantly understaffed? Will response times that already may take hours turn into days or not at all? Will the crime closure rate plummet? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but in many cities where the police department, the crime and violence problem has become significantly worse. If you think that you are "safe" because you don't live or venture into Cleveland, think again. Suburban or out-of-county police departments already break of pursuits if they cross into Cleveland as they will not have any support from CPD. It is turning Cleveland into a safe haven for criminals and they are "smart enough" to know this. Commit a crime in Brunswick, hop on I-71, flee at a high rate of speed. Cross into Cleveland and escape has happened. If a mayoral candidate is naive enough that delivering on a pledge to expand the police department while backing an issue that will further deplete the size, then people need to need to question the ability to deliver on what will ultimately become unachievable. Hasn't Cleveland seen enough of empty promises to hire more police officers like Jackson stated when he was pushing for that last tax increase? It ended up being a play on words has he knew more needed to be hired to replace those he knew were leaving due to retirements and other forms of attrition. Since then, the department has contracted in size and the city has seen crime rise to historic levels. 2020 saw the highest per capita homicide rate based upon population in the city's history. Please explain how fewer police will improve the situation. People love to demonize the police due to a few bad ones in various departments. They have no use for them until they need them.

I have serious concerns about a candidate who wants to get more police yet supports Issue 24. From every account, if Issue 24 passes, not only will it take away potential police funding, but it will cause a mass exodus of officers on the job. Even if half of the rumored number of officers quit/retire from CPD if Issue 24 passes, having a department is already down 200 officers, there will be no way to get enough "officers out from behind desks" to protect the community. Staffing will further plummet and the prospects of job constraints will deter many from even looking at joining CPD. The staffing gaps will not be filled and most of the best possible candidates won't even consider joining CPD. Police academy classes will not be filled, so graduation classes won't even keep pace with normal attrition. There could even be more cadets that wash out or be borderline at best. Facing a further depleted department, the city will be "fortunate" to keep crime and violence numbers even where they are at today. Don't want to think about the other possibility. It could end up being a disaster for the city. It is not that I feel that everything is good with CPD. It is not. More money and effort need to go into screening and training officers. When things are going poorly or may be heading into the wrong direction, have the trained people available to detect and help correct the situation. However, having officers who become afraid of shadows will adversely affect their ability to do their jobs even if they do every single thing correct. If that influences them too much, they won't be able to do their jobs. Where will the city be then?

The state of Pennsylvania provided PAT $234.3 million for FY 2019-2020 (PAT’s fiscal year runs July 1st to June 30th) and Allegheny County was required to provide a 15% match. The matching amount came in at $32.2 for a funding total of $266.5 million. Aside from that county match, PAT does not receive any county money. That system is not funded via sales tax revenue. Source: https://triblive.com/opinion/colin-mcnickle-budget-challenges-for-port-authority/ For 2019, RTA’s sales tax revenue was $215.5 million. For a system that carries about ½ half the number of passengers and has about half the equipment, a difference of $51 million does not seem that out of line. What RTA doesn't get in state funding is proportionally more than made up in sales tax revenue. Source: RTA's 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): http://www.riderta.com/CAFR/2019

The density of Cleveland is less than Pittsburgh's but the inverse is true concerning Cuyahoga County as compared to Allegheny County. Cuyahoga County has 457 square miles of land area compared to Allegheny County's 730 square miles of land area. Considering that both transit agencies are county-wide agencies, that has to be factored in as well. In addition, in 2019, PAT's ridership actually rose while for RTA, 2019 was just another consecutive year of all-time new low ridership totals. The density of each city and each county does not explain the ridership trends for each transit system. The losses and changes to each area cited are historical ones going back decades ago. The situations for each regarding industries and populations have little to do with recent historical trends. PAT's ridership fluctuations were fairly small and was seeing increases. RTA's ridership has been in a freefall.

Pittsburgh has had true "bus rapid transit" for decades. Nothing flashy. Just operate buses and PCCs (long before the term Light Rail Vehicle was invented) on dedicated rights-of-way where they were the only vehicles permitted. In FY2019, the last year before the pandemic, that system's ridership was approximately double of RTA's ridership (64 million to 32 million) It has about double the buses and about a third more rail vehicles (they only operate LRV's that serve both high and low platforms, have been doing so for many years). Pittsburgh has about 70,000 fewer residents than Cleveland while Allegheny County has approximately the same population as Cuyahoga County. The last time that RTA's ridership was even in the vicinity of 64 million was 63.5 million in 2000. Coincidentally or not, that was the year that Calabrese was hired.

If a developer has a big enough desire and financial backing, enough money can sway a deal. Home owners can band together to get a better deal. Prospects of building a $350k-$400k per home subdivision have ways of getting some nice deals cut.

With all of the existing apartment complexes, Mayfield Heights already had a significant portion of rental housing units to start with, but now with the aging out of the population, the small homes on small lots with only so much demand, it has reached a tipping point. Due to the date of the survey being through 2019, that did not include those senior living type apartments on Landerhaven. Those did not open until 2020. It wouldn't be surprising that by now, Mayfield Heights may have already flipped to the majority of its residents being renters and not owners. Lyndhurst, though being a slightly older city, just does not have the number of apartments that Mayfield Heights has. Even though it is facing the same housing stock issues, Mayfield Heights had a significant head start on the rental side due to the number of apartments that have been around for a long time.

There was a development in the former Locust Grove portion of Landerhaven (between Landerhaven and Cedar, east side of Lander) where the developer went under. It started up again and cluster homes are being built. Cluster homes are going in on Cedar, west of Lander. Most of the older homes with deeper lots were purchased and demolished to build the cluster homes. Further down Landerhaven Drive, a senior living facility opened within the last year. Landerbrook and the rest of Landerhaven is all office park area. There is a section on the east side of I-271, south of Ridgebury and that may be the last larger section of undeveloped land. Most of the houses on the south side of Ridgebury beteween I-271 and SOM have lots that are about 750 feet deep.

I agree that the city blew it big time. For a city with its tight zoning processes and codes, to come away with how Mayland is being redeveloped is hugely disappointing. The only thing that may have factored into what the plan is calling for is the debacle that stemmed out of what turned into the Costco and Ashley Furniture locations. The city fought the developer through multiple levels in the court system and lost each time before finally giving up. In the end, it cost Mayfield Heights in the range of $750,000 to $800,000 in legal fees. A gas station/mini-mart, chicken fast food place, Starbucks, professional/medical office buildings and senior citizen facility will end up being more of the same type of bland, common, nothing special and nondescript stuff all along Mayfield Road. The various establishments along Mayfield Road are just a hodgepodge of disconnected and disjointed properties. Even at Mayland, many years ago the owner of the main section shopping center (now demolished) put up guardrails to separate the other section (which is still standing) out of some petty disagreement with the owner of that original section. What I found shocking is the shift towards residential rental property dominance in the city. For a city with no significant apartment construction for many decades, seeing such a significant gain to occur is commentary on the housing stock. From what I know, there is very little in the way of vacant land remaining for development in Mayfield Heights. Any significant changes in housing will come from construction on existing house lots. Seeing that Channel 5 report makes me feel that the leaders are seeing problems with the direction of the city and the not-so-positive associations with six of the seven suburbs that have crossed over to a majority of rental residents or will do so in the next few years. Only Lakewood stands out from the rest.

There have been situations were particularly dated or poor condition houses have been demolished and a new one built on the same lot (I know somebody who has one of these new houses). In some places, several houses on adjoining lots are purchased and demolished. The lots are then combined and divided into fewer, but larger ones. Off of Brainard in Lyndhurst, this has happened. As for the gas station, somebody will always need to go to one of these gas stations/mini marts (we cannot have enough of them) to purchase over priced snacks and drinks. If somebody is fortunate, they can purchase alcoholic beverages, too. Then again, one can always consume the hot dogs heated on rollers for countless hours, pizza slices dried out under heat lamps or substances that are supposedly edible food items.

In Mayfield Heights, there is starting to be a big problem associated with the apartment complexes. Complexes like Gates Mills Place (former Gates Mills Towers), Drake (Marsol Towers), Coppertree (Pymouth Park), the mid-rises behind Mayland and low-rises (1, 2 and 3 floors) throughout different parts of the city are aging. All of them are probably in the range of 50 years old. No apartment complexes have been built for decades. There has been considerably more in the way of criminal problems at many of them. I believe that the increase in negative activity was the factor in the decision to not allow more apartments in the city. Another reason that played a roll in the decision is the increase in rental properties. News Channel 5 on October 8th ran a story concerning the shifting of the population base from owner/resident to renter/resident in various suburbs the area. Between 2010 and 2019, the population of Mayfield Heights living in rental properties increased from 43% to 48%. The study results reported that Euclid and Bedford Heights joined East Cleveland and Warrensville Heights with more than 50% of their populations living in rental properties. It went on to predict that within the next few years, Lakewood (currently at 50%), Mayfield Heights, Bedford (currently at 48%) and Maple Heights (currently at 47%) will see a majority of their residents living in rental properties. Most of Mayfield Heights has been built out since the 1970's (and really since the mid-1960's). The housing stock is dominated by bungalows and ranches. The properties are small in square footage on small lots. Improved, remodeled and expanded houses can bring in bigger sale prices, but the largely unimproved and smaller ones requiring a lot of work are quite numerous. As the population ages, it won't be surprising to see a large number of these types of houses come on the market in a shorter period of time. If that is the case, they will be prime targets to go the rental route. Euclid has a massive percentage of post-war small bungalows on small lots. The bottom fell out of that city's housing market when many of those houses went up for sale in a short period of time. It ended up being a big factor in Euclid's shifting to a renter-occupied majority population.

Euclid Avenue was rebuilt. That is good. Taking credit for everything else that has happened is no more taking credit for the sun rising in the morning. Most of those things were going to happen regardless or are attributed to other factors (hospital system growth, CSU, art museum, hotels, downtown living). The incentives (grants, low/no interest loans, credits, tax breaks, amenities, discounted leases, etc....) had much more to do with new development and if they were offered elsewhere, that's were those projects would have been done. RTA has never been called out on their exaggerated claims. Development was not significantly related to BRT and the overall ridership for that part of the system has dropped significantly.

Probably very little would have happened. University Hospitals and Cleveland Clinic had expansion plans in the works for many decades. By the mid-1980's, most of the decayed properties that engulfed Euclid and East 105th Street had been purchased and demolished. This was long before the Dual Hub Corridor was even dreamed up. Any medical and health care related businesses located to that area due to the proximity of the main campuses of the hospitals, not because of the bus line. Cleveland State University was buying up land for the expansion of its campus and had long-range plans in the 1980's for more on-campus housing. I don't think the Cleveland Museum of Art undertook any of its expansion and renovations based upon what RTA did. The addition of all of the hotel rooms was due to Cleveland becoming more of a tourist destination and the construction of a new downtown convention center (surprising that RTA isn't trying to take credit for the convention center, too). The creation of the thousands of downtown residential units had much more to do with the activities downtown such as the theaters, dining and other recreational activities. Don't recall the construction of Beacon, Lumen and other new/converted apartment buildings being linked to the presence of bus rapid transit. As @KJPstated, the one significant improvement that came about was the complete reconstruction and improvement of the infrastructure of Euclid Avenue. It was way overdue in coming and the project provided a coordinated and unified effort to get it done instead of being piecemeal dragged out for an extended period of time. RTA has taken a list of accomplishments and improvements for the city and is trying to take credit for them happening.

According to Laketran's current schedules, the #10 route has 4 am trips and 2 pm trips while the #12 has 2 am trips and 4 pm trips on Tyler Blvd between Heisley and Route 306.

Thank you very much for the supporting information. The investment in complete infrastructure repair was badly needed and should have happened regardless of the HealthLine. The drastic loss in ridership has been reflected in all the bus routes that have either been truncated into feeder routes, frequencies slashed or lines that were completely eliminated. There is one thing that I am wondering about. When the Euclid-120th Red Line station was closed and the Mayfield Road Red Line station opened to replace it, what was the station usage at Euclid-120th prior to the closure and how many people used the new station? For those who might not be aware, when the original grading and construction was done by the Van Sweringens back in the 1920's/1930's for what would become the Red Line, provisions for a station, including steps, were done at Mayfield Road. When the construction on the line to Windermere started in the 1950's, CTS had no interest in providing a "benefit" to the riders of Redifer Bus Line (the independent company that provided bus service on Mayfield Road to downtown). Even though Redifer was purchased by CTS in the early 1960's to become the #9/9X/9F, that mistake was not corrected for a half a century of service of the Mayfield Road routes by CTS/RTA. All the work done in the 1920's and early 1930's permitted a fairly inexpensive option to build the Windermere line in the early 1950's. Much of the required grading was done, bridges were constructed with space for rapid transit tracks, station provisions were made, overhead line structures were put up and even part of one track was started. That track was removed during World War 2 for better uses for the war effort.

I would like to see the number and amount of tax cuts, low/no-interest loans, grants, credits and below market leasing rates that have been doled out in incentives to assist in getting the various development projects going on Euclid. There have been quite a few, amounting to tens of millions of dollars and even with those possibilities, some projects have fallen through. How do these incentives stack up to what has been made available on car-centric streets such as those that are mentioned?

RTA is famous for being selective with their numbers. For years, they touted how many more passengers the HealthLIne carried as compared to the former #6/6A. They failed to mention all of the other riders lost when other routes stopped running downtown. Overall, the ridership was a significant net loss when factoring in all the other riders that decided to take other non-RTA methods to get downtown. They weren't enthralled with losing express service downtown and having to transfer when they lost their one-seat rides. The HealthLine probably contributed significantly to the overall ridership system-wide drop. As for RTA bringing up all of this development along the HealthLine, that is no more than taking credit for the sun rising in the morning. University Hospitals and Cleveland Clinic had significant expansion plans well in place decades before the Dual Hub Corridor was even dreamed of, long before that idea morphed into the HealthLine. The Cleveland Clinic was buying up properties along Euclid Avenue in the 1980's. Bus Rapid Transit wasn't even a concept back then. Cleveland State University had plans long before the HealthLine was conceived to increase on campus dorm rooms. I don't think the art museum based their plans on the bus line either. This development would have happened without the creation of HealthLIne. If the HealthLine was such a big factor, RTA wouldn't have been stuck with property they couldn't unload for more than a decade. They would have had developers fighting over it, perhaps even triggering a bidding war. There is still quite a bit of undeveloped property along Euclid Avenue, 13 years after the line opened.

True, but the bigger point that even with the HealthLine fully established as an operation, it was not contributing to development as it was lagging in that area. A bit to the west, RTA owned a decent-sized parcel of cleared land that was used when the HealthLIne was being constructed. It took over a decade after the line's completion for RTA to finally sell it. The HealthLine was not much if at all of a contributing factor to development along Euclid Avenue. If it were, land near the HealthLIne would have been hard to get/expensive and development projects would have businesses lined up to move in. It never happened.

The track rebuilding process was definitely necessary. Significant stretches of track were last rebuilt about 40 years ago. The reconstruction will permit higher speeds and less of a rough ride. Higher speeds and a smoother ride will be appreciated by passengers and easier on the old equipment. I recall when that last rebuild was done. RTA was still operating the old and pretty much worn out PCC fleet (guessing that history is repeating itself). Those cars rode much better on the rebuilt track as well.

Several years ago, there was an extensive article in the Plain Dealer regarding Dealer Tire's new corporate headquarters on the 7000 block of Euclid Avenue. A significant part of the article dealt with the problems with redevelopment of the property where they located and how development was disappointing in that entire area of Euclid Avenue. What ended up making the deal to land Dealer Tire was the addition of a 600-car parking garage to that project. That garage had be made available to the nearby church for their use as part of the condition to sell the property. The article also stated that employees and visitors would not be relying on the HealthLine to get to that business. If the presence of the HealthLine which already had a well-established operation in place did not help spur development and Dealer Tire expected to have little to no need for mass transit, what does that say for the bigger picture? It just goes to show that RTA is not considered an essential need or a desirable option for this area. It doesn't matter if it is in the suburbs or even in the city. In that case, it is unfortunate.

Questioning what major retailer would be willing to open an anchor store in Tower City. I still feel that the current state of retail is in flux, not just here, but everywhere. There is still an over abundance of retail space without the population and lack of overall need to support this excess of space. With this region showing no population growth, will any major retailer be willing to take the risk? As for suburban residents being willing to shop downtown, if they don't have an interest in shopping in their own areas and stores are struggling to stay open in those areas, what will make a difference in getting them to shop downtown? Until the retail marketplace settles down, new retail opening anywhere will do so at the cost of retail someplace else.

Interesting about the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center. If CSU does take it back, it still comes down to more capital money not being well spent by RTA. For quite a while when the other "trolley" loop buses were supposedly going to be funded by sponsors, one route wasn't. The 9-12 Muny Lot route never had a sponsor. Even with the 11 2701-2711 "trolleys" and 5 6401-series former community circulator buses that were modified to resemble the 2701-series, the 9-12 Muny Lot route for a long time had the worst junk on the system to provide service. Those buses weren't even kept clean.

[1] Laketran is funded by a 0.50% Lake County sales tax. RTA is funded by a 1.00% Cuyahoga County sales tax. Being the second largest county by population in the state, a 1.00% sales tax should be ample to fund RTA's operations. Except for Cincinnati's recently enacted switch from local income tax funding to an 0.80% sales tax, all other transit operations in Ohio funded via sales taxes have a rate of no more than 0.50%. Toledo's TARTA is seeking approval to switch from a property tax to sales tax to fund its operation. Cincinnati's and Toledo's systems were the last two major transit systems in the state that weren't funded via sales taxes. [2} Transit bus orders are amended all the time. The 2020 RTA transit coach bus purchase was originally for 9 coaches with an option for 3 more that was taken. If orders are canceled, usually there other systems that would be willing to take them off of the builder's hands. The original 3 45-foot highway coaches RTA acquired in 2001 (1051-1053) were demonstrators that may have been part of canceled orders. Selling used highway coaches that have many years of life remaining that cost in the vicinity of $630,000 apiece for a price of $4150 to $6150 apiece is an absolute waste. They were not wrecks or burned-out hulks. There are trade-offs with express highway coach operation. The highway coach operation is a "deluxe" service. As such, the fares should take that into consideration. Laketran charges accordingly with their $3.75 fare. The fare for their local bus service is $1.75 (they have 8 normal routes and operate the free Lakeland Community College shuttle). Like RTA, they operate an extensive dial-a-ride/handicap bus operation. RTA's local fares are $2.50 and park-n-ride fares are $2.75. For the express nature with far better and comfortable ride, it should be far more than a 25-cent difference. Where the highway coach services on RTA one-way, normal freeway operation allows most buses to complete 2 round-trips in the time that a local bus "may" complete one. Highway travel is also far more efficient fuel wise than stop-and-go surface streets. The one-way nature of passengers should be offset by the number of trips completed at the same time span and higher fares. As an aside, Laketran has found a way to carry passengers on reverse-direction trips. Routes #10 and #12 (these amount to all but 2 highway coach runs) had their return routes altered so that on return trips from downtown in the morning or trips headed downtown in the afternoon, they provide service for workers to the business district in the Tyler Blvd area of Mentor. Even before this was instituted, their schedules listed times they would stop at various park-n-ride stations on return trips in the morning or outbound trips downtown in the afternoon. I know of people who took Laketran highway coaches downtown in the late afternoon to attend evening Indians games. [3] RTA and Laketran get less state subsidies than transit systems in other states, but those transit systems in those states do not get funding from local sales taxes. In Pennsylvania, it has only been in recent years where the state has funded local transit systems. Up until then, systems like Philadelphia's SEPTA and Pittsburgh's PAT always had money issues. The money issues were far bigger than what RTA has and the Pennsylvania systems had fairly common strike shutdowns. The way Pennsylvania is able to fund transit is greatly assisted by the tolls generated on their expanding turnpike network. They have been adding quite a few toll highways where tolls are substantially increasing yearly to fund transit.

Somehow, Laketran has been able to make things be successful with their highway coach service from Mentor, Eastlake and Willowick. Perhaps it works as they charge a higher fare for this premium service at $3.75 for a single trip. When RTA was created, local fares were 25 cents and express/rapid transit fares were 35 cents, a 40% higher fare. Currently, RTA charges a $2.50 fare for local service and $2.75 for the express park-n-ride service. As most riders of the highway coaches receive paid transit benefits, increasing the fares for highway coach service to $3.50 shouldn't be an issue. Those riders who switched from RTA to Laketran when the #239 was eliminated received the increased benefits without an issue. What should be a bigger concern is the wasted money that has been spent the highway coach service on RTA. In 2020, they purchased the 12 new highway coaches for about $8 million. Those 12 buses are far more than what service calls for on the one remaining highway coach route. The other 12 buses that they already had on hand with many years of service remaining would have been more than sufficient to provide service. RTA also has spent millions of dollars in building, expanding and maintaining transit centers in Euclid, Westlake and North Olmsted, not to mention the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center downtown. The original suburban transit centers were each built to hold about 300 cars. Westgate was eventually expanded to hold 715 cars and North Olmsted to 489 cars. In June-September 2013, RTA spent $252,000 to rebuild the Euclid lot. In 2016, they stopped running the #239 and last year, most of that 309-car lot was closed off for use and perhaps no more than 15 cars could now park there. The Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center bus bays see their most use as mid-day storage for rush hour buses. With the elimination of the highway coach routes, it is a matter of time before the Westlake and North Olmsted lots get closed off for use. This type of use (or lack of use) is not a good return on investment on capital expenditures. Tens of millions are spent for equipment and facilities to see the equipment sit idle (or sold for virtually nothing), empty parking lots growing weeds and a downtown transit center used to park buses. Almost all, if not all, of RTA's transit services do not pay for themselves out of fare revenue. One would have to wonder what would happen to the HealthLine, CSU Line, MetroHealth Line and Strongsville/Brunswick park-n-ride lines if the sponsorships of those routes ended. This may have been the reason why most of the downtown loop "trolley" routes stopped operation.