I posted the following message in a string unrelated to Cleveland, and felt this subject deserved its own thread. This is just my idea, so I'd be interested in hearing ideas and discussion by others.

 

...All of this makes me wonder about the roles of a regional development organization (the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority), a regional transportation agency (the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority), a regional infrastructure agency (the Cuyahoga County Engineer), as well as the role of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency.

 

To me, there's something that says there ought to be a uniting of missions here, but the dots aren't being connected yet in the minds of Greater Cleveland's leaders.

 

Brewing in my mind is a ballot issue that does the following:

1. merges the port authority, the county engineer and the transit authority into a Regional Transportation Development Authority;

2. establishes an elected board;

3. increases the countywide sales tax by 0.5 percent for the RTDA on a renewable or permanent basis, and adds a 20-year bond issue to move the port to the island, get the RTDA some up-front capital/brownfield funding;

4. requires the RTDA to develop within 15 years(?) a 300-mile network of trails, a 60-mile rail rapid transit network, a 60-mile bus rapid transit network, and a 150-mile regional passenger and enhanced freight rail network with capital funding for all these paid for by existing taxes/fees, the approved sales tax/bond issue, plus matching funds from state and federal sources, and expanded operating funding from TIF sources and other development revenues;

5. requires the sum of all transit services to achieve a minimum farebox contribution to 30 percent of total system costs within 10 years and 50 percent within 20 years;

5. requires the RTDA to work with NOACA on developing a regional land use plan to increase development densities in designated station areas, maximize transit ridership, cap growth of vehicle-miles traveled regionwide, promote racial harmony and enhance economic opportunity.

 

Anyone think it will sell?

In a word...  No.  In more words.... I think it would be hard to sell an increase in Cuyahoga County sales tax of that much especially when the neighboring counties already significantly lower, right?  An 8.0% rate looks awfully bad next to rates of 6.25% in neighboring counties like Lake and Summit.  Plus isn't 1% already for the RTA presently?  That makes it even harder - it is hard to cry poor when you already have a high rate.  Not saying I agree, just saying, it will be hard to sell a large group of people on the notion that you need another .5% in addition to the 1% (which is already .5% higher than any other county in the state) for transit purposes.  The requirements are ambitious (120 miles of rapid/BRT network!) but I see it as being hard to jazz car people up on such a network without some real success stories to overshadow things like the underused WFL.

 

I also think 5a in your list is dubious.  First, how do you require this kind of contribution?  What happens if the system fails to meet the requirements?  Also, you're making the issue harder to pass by adding this - reminding people that the system doesn't pay for itself does not make it easier for them to vote for it.

 

Of course, get enough money and politicians and/or newspapers on your side and you could probably sell anything.

 

    "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

 

 

I think this is very forward thinking, but I would take it a step further and involve the adjoining counties around Cuyahoga.  Afterall, they would stand to benefit from this concept, so why not invite them to the table and share the costs?

 

On the surface, people might not be wild about an increase in the sales tax, but it's all in how you sell it.  A larger RTDA with more punch can put together deals that one or two of the current entities on their own could never do... or would never do (not all of the posts on this site to GCRTA's lack of willingness to pursue light rail agressively).

 

To me the hard part is getting all of these organizations to sit down and consider such a consolidation.  But I believe the pluses would outweight the minuses.

    "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

 

"If you want go backwards, try standing still, as others are moving forward."

--Ken Prendergast

This is very high level but - I thought about how it would be if some of the surrounding counties were involved as well.  After all, the region involves more than just Cuyahoga county.  But to me that makes it even harder to sell - outlying areas are ones that seem to have benefitted the most as population sprawls outward.  So what really do they have to gain by increasing their tax burden for a something that ostensibly is designed with restoring strength to the core city?

 

Not saying I believe in this mindset - I'm just pointing out that the more people you try to get on board, the harder it will be.  My feeling is that if you appeal to the sense of place and loyalty that those who have stayed within the county may have, pitting them against the people who've "escaped" to exurbia, you'd have a better shot.  Imply that this is a way to stick it to those folks and restore "city living."  Again, not the best motivation, but you gotta do it somehow.

Let me counter that thought by offering up the "sell" that even though people may have "escaped" to exurbia over the years, sprawl has more than caught up with almost all of them, no matter what moves they made.  We all share common problems in and around all of Ohio's major cities, the counties in which they are located and the surrounding counties:

 

... Traffic congestion

... Poor Air Quality

... Lack of transportation choices

... Housing and retail development that makes no allowance for pedestrians or mass transit

... Underfunded and underserving transit systems

 

I could go on, but I hope you see my point: we are not as different or as separated as we may think.

Here's another thing: Farmland preservation. There's the ethanol issue, eating and, for those who measure things only in dollars and cents, few land uses have as positive a net fiscal impact on the local taxbase as farms. They pay their taxes but require few if any public services in return. Check out this analysis by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission http://www.regionalconnections.org/documents/pdf/fiscalimpacts.pdf or The Pennsylvania State University http://cax.aers.psu.edu/localgovernment/Landuse.htm

 

Here's another one: in Geauga County and elsewhere, the Amish and Mennonite way of life is under assault from development and traffic. And these folks vote in more elections than most of us.

I'll sign your petition, KJP. I would like to see a rail terminal built in conjunction with the westward expansion of the convention center and the medical mart. As far as I'm concerned, a rail terminal is just as plausible as the two other projects, as nothing yet is set in stone, and the most elusive piece of the puzzle is, as always, money. But if the convention center eventually does go forward at the Mall site, the northward land currently occupied by Amtrak, railtracks, parking lots, and other disfunctional crap should be slated for a future high-speed/commuter rail terminal, serving all east-west points, like Toledo, Detriot, Erie, Buffalo, Toronto, and commuter lines serving lorain and lake counties, as well as outlining points in Cuyahoga. The land drops off so dramatically here that it could be mostly an underground terminal with new terraces and pedestrian connections on top of it to all major points outward from the terminal.

  All points south could be served by a new terminal in the Old Tower City Post Office.(Think the new Penn Station in Manhattan). This would be an all-Ohio Terminal serving the two other "big Cs", as well as Akron, Canton, Mansfield, and whatever commuter rail lines would be feasible(medina county).

  KJP's plan would be needed to create a new agency that would be powerful enough to wrestle with the likes of CSX and Norfolk Southern to gain access to their lines. I wouldn't believe for a second that commercial rail traffic is as heavy as it was in decades past, but that is what the companies would say so they could drive up the price of selling the right-of-ways.

 

There's no need to "wrestle" with NS and CSX.  They are already on board with the Ohio Hub rail plan, as they stand to gain much-needed infrastructure improvements and greater capacity for moving more freight.  In exchange, we get dedicated space within their existing rail corridors for high speed passenger rail service.

 

But unbriaconeis absolutely on the mark about preserving room for a train station in the plans for the Lake Front re-development.  Don't know how, or if, Terminal Tower may figure into that, but making room for rail must be a part of the overall downtown plan.

I love talking about rail more than just about everyone else, but the intent of my idea (and, I would hope, other ideas) is not to run trains, but to reshape the region's land use, economic viability and energy/environmental sustainability. My contention is not to continue to build communities piecemeal and based around past trends, but to develop a regional masterplan based on public preference. What is that preference. Display some land use choices to people and let's find out.

At the risk of making myself unpopular...I think the public preference is alarmingly clear at present.  I don't think the outer suburban hordes are evil or wrong for preferring their way of life (although I have no interest in it myself), but I do wish they would pick up the tab for it.  I would love a huge gas tax (indeed, I think it is the best bet for the real changes in land use and transportation this thread is about) but I have to recognize its salutatory effect would be based on forcing people away from their preferences for big lots, white neighbors and cars.

 

A better solution, although perhaps unrealistic, is to force everyone at gunpoint to live between West 117th and Warrensville Center Road and own no more than one car.  I understand this to be one of RTA's  newest plans (although it will reduce ridership on the Westlake routes).