KJP

The public will have an opportunity to give in input on plans for developing railroad passenger and freight services in Ohio at a presentation by the Ohio Rail Development Commission. The "Ohio Hub" plan would use existing funds to make $3.5 billion worth of improvements over many years to address freight train traffic congestion and provide high-speed passenger rail services to boost Ohio's economy. The public can attend the presentation at any time between 5:30 and 7:30 PM, Thursday May 5, at the offices of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), at 1299 Superior Avenue, in downtown Cleveland. For more information, call NOACA at (216) 241-2414 or visit the ORDC's website at: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Programs/Passenger/Ohio%20Hub%20Page.htm or the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers' site at: http://www.ohioansforpassengerrail.com/hubplan.php

Give him a big sloppy one! :wink: Consider the basic things that restrict the growth of housing in downtown Cleveland... Foremost is identifying available land. Some natural features will always restrict that, such as the existence of the Cuyahoga Valley or Lake Erie. And, sometimes it seems easier and less expensive to add landfill to Lake Erie than it is for a serious developer to acquire the surface parking lots in the Warehouse District (or elsewhere)! So, look for projects that have to be done anyway and see how they can be done more creatively to accomplish more than just the project's original goal. That's where projects like the Inner Belt reconstruction comes into play. Alsenas suggested the iconic bridge offered the opportunity to open up land in the valley for redevelopment, between the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge and the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge. I wasn't thinking so much in those terms, but in shrinking the Central Interchange so its remaining land could be developed. I sent my presentation to Alsenas, ODOT, city officials, Litt, developers and others to see what trouble I could create. Hopefully, this will happen, and the lengthened timetable is a good thing -- I was worried it was too late for Alsenas to bring such a big change to the table so late and for others to get on board. But, I figured nothing's too late until construction contracts are let. Either development site (and preferably both) would add to the momentum of downtown housing, rather than disperse existing residents. But, to ensure there exists a synergy between all downtown residential areas and the businesses that serve them, there is going to have to be a high-density (for dependability), fixed-route (for recognizability), transit distribution system in downtown Cleveland. There are individual strands in place (I'm including the Silver Line), but none that allows most downtown destinations to be within 800-1,000 feet of a single circulation route. The makings of such a circulation system exists with the Rapid, which has a little more than half of downtown encircled. More downtown residents will increase the quality and quantity of downtown amenities which, in turn, will further improve the market for more downtown housing. That's the value in linking them with the Rapid. The downtown loop doesn't just represent a route of transit trains, but is a business artery representing the combined purchasing power of all downtown residential areas along the rail loop. It's all about land and linkages. KJP

If this Inner Belt reconstruction goes through in a manner that I hope and dream it would, then I think the next step has to be a downtown rail loop. The local share for this could come from a TIF, as described earlier, since there are large tracts of land the rail loop would pass through that are under-developed (north of Superior) or even undeveloped (southwest of Prospect). Ever see pictures of what sections of New York City looked like before the subway/elevated lines were built? Much of it was rural, and developed with very high-density housing right off the bat, once the rail line came through. I envision a similar scenario at the fringes of downtown Cleveland, where surface parking lots and suburban-style highway interchanges predominate. Yet, I would design the loop in combination with a new rail line to the northeast, that could also be afforded with the local share funded through a TIF. But I would build that in stages, with the first segment extending out only as far as a large piece of vacant land on the south side of I-90, yet is in Bratenahl, off Coit Road. KJP

My thought was that it would be below Broadway/Ontario, East 9th and East 14th/18th area. That would create less of a barrier between downtown and the Quadrangle area, especially if the highway's ramps "hugged" the highway and weren't designed like some suburban or rural interchange. The Inner Belt already goes under Prospect. KJP

Fingers and toes are crossed..... http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/2005_04_01_archive.html 4/13/2005 ODOT studying a new Innerbelt Bridge Consultants for the Ohio Department of Transportation are studying ways to build an entirely new Innerbelt bridge as part of its massive Innerbelt reconstruction project. At a project meeting in February, the ODOT consultants dismissed the idea, saying that a new span couldn't be built without taking down Tremont's iconic Greek Orthodox church (a political non-starter). But community groups and County officials pressed for a more detailed study, citing a wide variety of concerns about ODOT's desire to add additional traffic lanes to the existing bridge. Consultants are now privately showing an engineering diagram that shifts the bridge slightly to the south, and reconfigures ramps to create new development opportunities south of Jacobs Field. We're told that the design would also drop the road deck of the bridge significantly, improving views across the valley from both Tremont and downtown, and helping to improve street networks in the Gateway and Quadrangle districts. As we reported in January, proponents of a new Innerbelt bridge have called for world-class architectural design. Just as importantly, they've urged ODOT to realign the bridge and highway south toward the river bluff, which would create enormous development opportunities near the $1.5 billion Gateway complex. To that end, KSU's Urban Design Center, Cleveland Public Art and EcoCity Cleveland are considering a "Gateway Challenge" design competition similar to last year's successful Lakefront Challenge, seeking development visions for 30-50 acres just south of Carnegie Avenue. The competition would help raise community awareness about the land's potential, and also encourage ODOT to take a closer look at realignment possibilities. For more information, visit.... http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/2005/01/thinking-big-for-new-innerbelt-bridge.html

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the often-talked about expansion of Columbus' Rickenbacker Airfield into a multimodal transportation center is tied to improved access to the southeast....via rail. Norfolk Southern and the federal government are working together on a project to improve NS's mainline between Columbus, Portsmouth, Roanoke near where it splits, with one route heading east to the port at Norfolk and the other continuing south to Charlotte, Atlanta and beyond. The improvements include adding a second or third tracks where they are lacking, and enlarging mountain tunnels so double-stack container trains can fit through them. While it's a expensive project, it will cost less than a new highway, yet carry more freight than can be handled by trucks over a six-lane highway and it will do so with greater efficiency in the use of fuel and labor (which is in extremely short supply in the trucking industry). The rail project tied to Rickenbacker should be a big boon to Columbus' distribution-based economy. KJP

Interesting link to the Landmarks Commission page! Never knew the graphics of all these proposed projects were online! KJP

Whether it's better spent or not for the Ohio Hub is irrelevant. It's against Ohio and federal laws to use highway funding for intercity rail service. KJP

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I was feeling that way even before yesterday, when Joe C & Co. came out to our office to pitch their proposed restructuring of west side transit routes. I don't have a problem with their basic proposal, which includes running more downtown-bound buses from Westlake and Bay Village during rush hours via I-90 east of Rocky River. At off-peak times, these buses would end at the Triskett Rapid station. My thought was, with all these extra buses going downtown on I-90, why not make use of the center median of I-90, which was left vacant for a future rapid transit line? Use it for a transit-only corridor, to bypass the traffic back-ups on I-90, especially during the morning rush. It could even become a bus rapid transit route, with stations at the Triskett Rapid, West 117th, Westown, Lorain/Clark, West 65th and a joint rail/bus transfer station in the West 41st/44th area. Joe C's response was "We don't have the traffic congestion other cities do." My response? "There is traffic congestion on I-90 now and there is an unused piece of infrastructure on I-90 to help relieve it. So why not use it?" He said RTA asked ODOT about using the vacant rapid transit right of way for an HOV lane, but ODOT said it would save only about five minutes from commuting times and, thus, was not worth the investment. RTA also asked about a direct bus and car ramps from/to the median of I-90, into/from the Triskett Rapid station, to be paid for as part of the Inner Belt rebuild. Again, ODOT rejected the idea, saying it wouldn't have a major impact on the Inner Belt project. This morning, I had breakfast with a friend of mine from Chicago. He was in town visiting family he left behind. Why did he leave Greater Cleveland? Because he got tired of the "can't-do" attitude of too many Clevelanders. Can't say I blame him. I'm not sure what's kept me here. I guess I keep seeing the region's potential, but I also keep seeing opportunities missed or ignored outright. It's very frustrating and I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. KJP

Thanks for the best wishes and condolences. I don't really expect Cleveland-area leaders to buy into anything creative. We didn't get to be the poorest city in the nation because we're actually such a smart city and everybody else just hates us. We got this way because too many leaders in this region find more enjoyment in playing politics (seriously, a lot of these people get off on that time-wasting crap!) than solving problems by shrinking their egos so their thinking caps will fit better. Who knows. Maybe one day I'll wake up surprised. I hope it happens before I move out of this cobwebbed city. KJP

I've been away from the computer for a while due to a death in the family, but I wanted to get this string back active again. Something I was thinking about is how to afford the local share for transit improvement projects and new transit lines through Tax Increment Financing. For those not familiar with TIFs, they work like this: a new infrastructure project, like a light-rail line, is proposed and the project's impact on property values is estimated. If there is a projected increase in property values on the right of way, the affected communities create a special taxing district along the LRT line (doesn't require a change in the tax rate, just an earmarking of the property taxes for the transit project). Those taxes are used to issue and retire a construction bond. Let's say a new light-rail line from Cleveland, be it to Euclid or to Westlake, will cost $300 million to build (about $20 million per mile). The federal government has been willing to pay at least 50 percent of a transit line's capital costs. If you throw a little bit of ODOT money into the picture, it might increase the non-local share to the 60-70 percent range, or $180 million to $210 million total. Now the local share is reduced to $90 million to $120 million. So, for example, if an agency can get about $500,000 in property tax revenues from parcels along the rail line, the agency could afford a 30-year bond issue, at 6% (being conservative!), to raise $83.5 million. What's left over is where an electric utility can help fill the fiscal gap. Utilities have shown much interest in light-rail lines, for obvious reasons. Their interest has gone so far as to include offering to help pay for the overhead eletrical systems to power the trains, which the utility is then paid back by the transit agency, and even by new development along the LRT line. Cost of these overhead electrical "catenary" systems is typically about $2 million per mile, for a double-tracked rail line, or about $30 million for a 15-mile LRT line. The end result of all this is that no new taxes have to be levied, and the transit agency's share of costs are only those that are incurred from the operations of the line. If the line doesn't have a lot of unnecessary frills, and has some extra revenue generation opportunities (leases at stations, advertising, air-rights fees, etc), the LRT line could incur lower operating costs than a parallel, heavily used bus line. This should be the MO for all transit agencies, not just RTA, who seek to become players in revitalizing their communities in a transit-oriented way. But, for now, transit agencies are being called upon only as social safety nets (ie: rolling soup kitchens) or, at best, be tapped as relief valves for congested roads, while little or nothing is done to make the surrounding land uses more supportive of greater transit use. Transit agencies shouldn't be chasing after the scraps of a highway dominated transportation system. They should be looking for ways to creatively use the tools already at their disposal to reshape the urban landscape in a way that satisfies not only their mission, but serves a variety of individual and community goals. KJP

The Brookpark station site might work if it wasn't at the throat of Norfolk Southern's Rockport Yard. Now, if a passenger-only track could be wedged into that web of tracks, then it might be doable. That would probably be very expensive. But, there is room for a passenger-only track across from the airport's long-term parking deck, where a passenger train can stop without interfering with the freight train traffic, which is extensive in this area. So, why not do this to create an air-rail transfer without involving a third connection? As you probably know, the more times a traveler has to transfer, the less likely you're going to attract them as a customer. Cleveland Hopkins Airport is one of the few places in the country where a plane-to-intercity train connection can be made under one roof, without spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make it possible. I suspect the connection I proposed would cost less than $30 million, and a bare-bones version might cost less than $15 million. As for Little Italy, I agree with you 100 percent. Sometimes, I think urban communities are so busy fighting off the bogeyman that they don't realize they're being distracted from real threats to keeping their communities viable. KJP

I don't think that part of the project has been decided yet. One proposal is to have the lanes come down off the Cuyahoga Valley bridge to the level of city streets, before crossing West 3rd, and then angle its way over the tracks to the current alignment east of Browns Stadium. Another is to leave it just the way it is through the Warehouse District. I don't care for that. There may be more options using some other combinations but I'm not aware of what they might be. KJP

It's a good deal. This is what the ORDC was hoping for some months ago, but it looked like it wasn't going to happen. Some interest groups spoke up and rattled some cages and now the planning is, gulp...back on track. KJP

Akron Metro and the port authorities in the Akron area have acquired a number of rights of way, including Akron to Huson; Akron to Tallmadge, Kent and Ravenna; Akron to Canton via the Goodyear Airdock and A-C Airport, plus another route or two I'm probably forgetting. The MARC equipment Akron Metro acquired a couple of years ago is being used by CVSR but could certainly be used for commuter service in the future. As for how soon they could get into Tower City Center....that depends on CSX giving them permission to cross access their right of way, including their bridge over the Cuyahoga River under I-490. It's not exactly a very busy freight railroad, but freight railroads fear passengers and their attorneys. They want some form of liability protection. Also, the CVSR is non-union while CSX is. An alternative is that CVSR buys the CSX right of way and lets CSX lease it from them -- probably the most likely scenario given CSX's withdrawal from owning a number of Ohio routes (either by sale or lease). Then, CVSR would have to get a federal appropriation, probably through the National Park Service, to extend the track up the hill to Tower City. Lots of issues to consider, but small enough to grasp them all within a few thoughts. It can definitely be done. KJP

I've never read anything from Greenpeace, and if you had gotten a degree in geology, maybe I'd be more willing to listen to what you have to say. A college degree is a wonderful thing. I have one too. What you do with it over the next few decades is more important that earning one. Don't flash it around and think it will automatically impress others. I do get my information from current and former oil industry geologists, investors and policymakers who have been on this planet a little longer than you have. They know their stuff. So far, you haven't produced much more than wishful thinking based on technologies that have yet to prove themselves. Is there a problem? All I can suggest to you is to go outside, find the nearest gas station and check the current price on the sign. Is it higher than what it was last week? Last month? Last year? Does this bother you? Why is this happening? Why can't we keep increasing production to keep up with demand? The fact is, we're near the peak of production. Will we be able to put into production all the tar sands at rates fast enough to compensate for the depletion of conventional oil reserves? Doesn't look that way. And even if we employ all the tar sands in the world, it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so if there is little or no return on energy invested. Does it make sense to burn one barrel of oil to get one barrel of oil equivalent out of the ground? Of course not, and that's why many tar sands deposits will never be tapped. Remember, all prosperity is fleeting, and civilizations never stick around forever. If we're willing to sacrifice for the greater good and put our self-interest on the shelf, then we will overcome our unsustainable, wasteful ways. But all growth is not good if we're not doing it smartly. Remember that growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. KJP

Are you saying it's BS because you consider yourself well-read on the subject or because you're just one of those folks who hear about 2-5 trillion barrels of oil out there and think that sounds like a lot? If you're not well read on the subject, do youself a favor and correct that oversight. Read or ask where the oil is, in what form it's in, what costs will be incurred to extract it and refine it, what our current depletion/consumption rates are, and so on. Or, are you saying it's BS because you believe there will someday be another major discovery of oil? Doesn't it bother you that, for every six barrels of oil we burn, only one new barrel of oil is discovered to replace it? People hear or read comments about Peak OIl and automatically assume that means the oil is going to run out. I don't think oil is ever going to run out, mainly because some is so difficult and expensive to reach that it is uneconomical. But there is a clear distinction when depletion rates start to kick in on a global level. Except for a few very large producers (like Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran), they ALL are in decline. And Iran and Saudi Arabia are expected to decline before the end of the decade (decline, NOT run out!). The point of all this is a decrease in supply and an increase cost. That's already starting to happen. Now, if you want to deny it's occurring, that's certainly your perogotive. Will you also deny that a sunset has to follow every sunrise? Or that night will certainly follow? KJP

Thanks for the compliment Clvlndr. I do think a streetcar line can work in a downtown area IF traffic signals are prioritized for transit vehicles. I'd like to see this done with a test route, like the ECIP or the #326 along Detroit and Superior avenues. In fact, I think ECIP will have the signal prioritization feature. If the technology was available more than 50 years ago, I suspect we might not have lost at least some of the busier streetcar routes. But then there was the Albert Porter factor, so who knows.... As for the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, the plan is to extend it up to Tower City's parking level at the east end. There is a stairwell and elevator up from the parking lot at the mid-point of the Gateway Walkway that can be used to get people up into the facility and into the city without having to extend tracks into the center of Tower City's parking area, which is of course more heavily used. To get a track into Tower City, portions of a former Wheeling & Lake Erie RR right of way would be used, generally along Canal Road. If you look at the downtown map at the front of the Cuyahoga County Commercial Survey map, follow the CSX right of way along the river to where it makes a hard right turn near the intersection of Canal and West 3rd. From that point, the CVSR right of way would cross Canal Road and work its way up the hillside, onto a portion of the W&LE right of way that its trains used in order to get into Cleveland Union Terminal. Constructing this track will be like threading a needle, but it can be done. KJP

Then we'd better try to conserve voluntarily, or one way or another, it will be done for us. KJP

So, basically we're screwed, is that what you're trying to say? Conservation isn't hopeless. Europeans use less oil per-capita than Americans do (hell, everyone uses less oil per capita than does America!) and they maintain a very good standard of living. Just because Americans can't seem to live within their means, doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't too if we used oil more rationally. I love how U.S. policymakers and media most often lay the blame for the oil supply/demand dilemma at the feet of China and India. While both nations have more than 1 billion people, neither uses half the oil that America does, which has less than 1/3 of a billion people. And, there is evidence that China and India are stockpiling much of the oil they are acquiring for a strategic reserve. Plus, both nations are becoming much more aggressive in promoting alternative energy and alternative transportation, which isn't that hard for them. After all, only 1 in 10 Chinese even own cars! If I bought and drank four cases of Diet Coke each day from the corner store, and a family moves to the neighborhood and started buying one case of Diet Coke each day, causing the store to occasionally run out, who should be blamed? Why, the new family, naturally! And, while the store could be blamed, it won't do any good, 'cuz that's all the Diet Coke they can supply. The problem is us, er, U.S. KJP

The sad thing is, Kucinich supports commuter rail "just not on that route" he once said, referring to the Cleveland to Lorain route, via Lakewood. Problem is, he doesn't realize he's blocking commuter rail region-wide, since that's the least costly route to implement and offers the highest ridership potential. Silver Lake's Mendenhall is just a plain ol' egomaniacal idiot. Here's what I said about Mendenhall a few years ago for a client of mine, in a press release available at EcoCity's website. KJP _________________ http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/nocommuter.html Cleveland-Akron-Canton commuter rail is dropped without public notice and despite rail’s popularity The following statement is from the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers (4/2/02). This is another indication that hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to promote more driving in the Akron-Cleveland-Canton corridor, while little is spent on transportation alternatives. In a move that may verify why the public distrusts government, the policy committee of the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) on March 27 voted in secret to drop a proposed Cleveland-Akron-Canton (CAC) commuter rail project from further consideration. The AMATS committee is comprised of elected officials from Portage and Summit counties. Its vote could be accepted or rejected by the full AMATS Board in May. The committee’s vote compromised the public’s trust for a number of reasons. The vote was made: Absent any public notice that a vote was going to be held, as this was supposed to be an information-only meeting on the progress of the CAC study; At the behest of committee chair Warner Mendenhall, mayor of Silver Lake, a small village which is the only pocket of commuter rail opposition along the entire route; Without allowing comments by commuter rail-supportive committee members (including Hudson and Cuyahoga Falls officials) before the vote was cast; Without 13 of 42 committee members in attendance; many of those present were Portage County officials who were angry that a CAC route option via Kent was eliminated from further consideration due to low ridership and high costs; Before committee members saw a full CAC technical study report by AMATS staff (because the report won’t be finished until later this month); Without consideration of extreme opposition to the widening of I-77 in Slavic Village in Cleveland and strong, region-wide public support for commuter rail voiced at multiple public hearings this past winter; In conflict with the AMATS 2025 transportation plan, which includes commuter rail via Hudson and eliminates the Kent line from consideration. This plan must be adopted by AMATS in May or the region will risk more than $1 billion in federal transportation funds. "This was an ambush, plain and simple," said OARP Vice President Ken Prendergast. "For the most part, government officials are honest people. But this kind of behavior causes citizens to forget the good things they do. It’s ridiculous that three metro areas having more than 3 million people must be held hostage by a misinformed village and some sour grapes that aren’t even part of the CAC Corridor." In January 2002, over 200 people attended a series of public meetings and an additional 50 written comments were received, a strong majority of which supported the development of commuter rail. Supporting commuter rail were: the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, the Greater Akron Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Canton Chamber of Commerce, the cities of Akron, Tallmadge, Hudson and Cuyahoga Falls, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, the Ohio Rail Development Commission, Amtrak, Summit County Port Authority, the Summit County Board of MRDD and the Portage Trails Group of the Sierra Club. Also, extreme opposition was voiced against the widening of I-77 in the Slavic Village area of Cleveland. Since that time, the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have spoken out against the widening. ODOT District 12 has publicly stated it will not widen I-77 in that area and considers that section of I-77 totally built out. Prendergast added that Mayor Mendenhall has spread falsehoods about the rail project. He and the people of his village are fearful that commuter trains will open the door to freight traffic on the track which parallels noisy State Route 8. Freight trains no longer use this track, from Cuyahoga Falls to Hudson via Silver Lake. It was bought by the public sector to preserve it for future commuter rail use. After three years of study, a recommendation is coming into focus that proposes spending $821 million on our region’s transportation infrastructure over the next 25 years. The proposal includes spending $171 million on the development of commuter rail, and $629 million on widening and improving the CAC Corridor’s highways. "If we don’t build commuter rail, then we’ll have to spend even more taxpayers’ dollars to acquire land, demolish homes and add more expensive lanes to some highways just to handle the rush-hour traffic," Prendergast added. "This region can’t afford to do that, not when there’s an alternative out there that can save the taxpayers’ money, save our communities, protect the environment and improve mobility choices." "OARP strongly recommends that the AMATS Policy Committee reconsider this action at its May 22 meeting," he concluded. OARP is a nonprofit, educational organization founded in 1973 to advocate for service and safety improvements to intercity passenger rail and urban transit services. For more information, call 216-986-6064.

Unfortunately, the mayor of Silver Lake has killed chances of commuter rail between Cleveland, Akron and Canton anytime soon. Besides, it would be a very expensive project, especially since a third main track would have to be built from Hudson to Cleveland (25 miles) alongside a very busy freight railroad. Akron Metro is pursuing it smartly -- one segment at a time to guard against sticker shock. Initially, rail service from Akron to downtown Cleveland may start with the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad getting into Tower City. They've acquired two more self-propelled Rail Diesel Cars like the one shown below and will rehab them for future shuttle service between Tower City and Independence. KJP

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1111833155291510.xml Downtown streets closing for RTA work Saturday, March 26, 2005 Rich Exner Plain Dealer Reporter Parts of two major streets in Cleveland will be closed starting Monday as RTA launches work on creating a downtown transit zone. When the project is completed this fall, Superior Avenue will have bus-only lanes from East 18th Street to West Third Street. St. Clair Avenue will have bus-only lanes during rush hours only from East 13th Street to West Third Street. ........

I don't agree. Let me explain why. When RTA was proposing extending the Red Line into Berea, residents learned that one of the reasons why was economic development. So residents went to look at Rapid stations and areas that surrounded. Understandably, they didn't like what they saw. Developers build model homes in new developments to visually demonstrate their vision of what they are selling. What is transit's "model home"? In Cleveland, we do have Shaker Heights or Shaker Square. But both are so old that prospective "buyers" (ie: transit-curious communities) disregard them as a product of another era. They want a contemporary model, and would have to go to another city to view it (Portland, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, etc). I have heard them ask: "Would that really work in Cleveland?" We need to redevelop around the existing Red Line stations, and those along the Shaker Lines, to provide some "model homes" to sell a community vision for transit-oriented development. That's starting to happen, but not yet in a meaningful way to provide a compelling example or two. We have some model homes where the foundations are built, some landscaping has been installed, but not enough to convey the vision and sell the product. Building TOD-style real estate developments at Rapid stations are the single-most important things we can do for the Rapid system right now. Let's get the administrative, planning, zoning and incentive tools in place to make this happen. KJP

I wonder if that tech center will squeeze FC's proposed convention center site? Part of me hopes it does, as I favor rebuilding the existing center with a ped extension over the tracks & Shoreway. I also wish Sherwin Williams would consolidate all their offices in Greater Cleveland in a new tower on Public Square, tho I realize research probably involves chemicals and activities not suitable for an officer tower. KJP