Want to bet this construction contractor is buying this land to position itself for the Opportunity Corridor (either to win a construction contract, or to sell it to ODOT for more money, or to benefit from the access to the boulevard, or a combination). Some of these would be honorable acts. Some wouldn't be. But the history of the players involved in this company is suggestive....

 

City Planning Committee

WEDNESDAY, November 20, 2013

1:30 p.m.

MERCEDES COTNER COMMITTEE ROOM

217 CITY HALL

 

Ord. No. 1231-13

By Council Members Miller, Cleveland, Kelley (by departmental request)

Authorizing the Commissioner of Purchases and Supplies to sell City-owned property no longer needed for the City’s use located on Grand Avenue, east of East 79th Street, to C.A.J. Properties, LLC, or its designee, for the purposes of redevelopment.

Remarks by Director of Office of Capital Projects:  See Legislation.

PASSAGE RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE.

 

 

Ohio Secretary of State records show CAJ Properties old name is PERK HOLDINGS, INC and is owned by:

ANTHONY J. CIFANI

8100 GRAND AVENUE

CLEVELAND,OH 44104

 

Your tax dollars flow to a family of companies: Who really runs them?

on September 06, 2008 at 11:29 PM, updated October 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/09/your_tax_dollars_flow_to_a_fam.html

 

RTA didn't know about its contractor's ties

on September 07, 2008 at 9:52 PM

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/09/rta_didnt_know_about_its_contr.html

 

Keep an eye on this. It is probably worth watching.

 

Worth reading at the link below.....

 

EPA criticizes Opportunity Corridor for glossing over impact

Marc Lefkowitz  |  12/12/13 @ 1:15pm   |  Posted in Clean air, Clean water

 

The plan for the Opportunity Corridor categorically underestimates its environmental impact, the Environmental Protection Agency informed Ohio’s Department of Transportation (ODOT).

 

In a sharply-worded letter dated Nov. 14, EPA’s Region 5 Office warned ODOT that it has missed air and water pollution impacts in a region that is already struggling to fix these problems. EPA also scolds ODOT for being vague in how it looked for alternatives to the road.

 

The letter, penned by Kenneth A. Westlake, Chief of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Implementation Office, unambiguously states that the plan needs to better consider its impact, but also how it can promote cleaner forms of transportation.

 

“This is an excellent opportunity to not only improve personal vehicle-based mobility but also access to public transit in the area.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2013/12/epa-criticizes-opportunity-corridor-for-glossing-over-impact

^so what does all that mean?  Seems like a long and potentially expensive check list.  I don't know much about the process but I imagine the EPA can kill the federal funding which would of course kill the project.

^so what does all that mean?  Seems like a long and potentially expensive check list.  I don't know much about the process but I imagine the EPA can kill the federal funding which would of course kill the project.

Isn't most of the OC to be paid for with state and local funding?

^so what does all that mean?  Seems like a long and potentially expensive check list.  I don't know much about the process but I imagine the EPA can kill the federal funding which would of course kill the project.

 

Sounds like grandstanding about social issues that aren't really part of the EPA's bailiwick, along with the typical unwarranted assumptions that the road will contain no bus stops.

 

For this much money, area Congressmen could also defund the bureaucrat's department. 

 

Most of the funding is coming from bonds, funded by turnpike tolls

Most of the funding is coming from bonds, funded by turnpike tolls

 

Which if I am not mistaken must be used for roads, not whatever a small group thinks would be more appropriate.

 

 

^so what does all that mean?  Seems like a long and potentially expensive check list.  I don't know much about the process but I imagine the EPA can kill the federal funding which would of course kill the project.

 

Yes, they can kill it, especially over the consent decree regarding Kingsbury Run. That's a potential deal That gets more into land use, which is ultimately determined in Ohio by municipalities. But the land use impacts cited in the report show that little thought was given to this component. And to me that shows that this road wasn't built to be an opportunity for the area between East 55th and UC. What was left out of the purpose and need makes it pretty clear that the area between East 55th and US is an afterthought to real purpose of this project -- to provide better car-oriented access to UC. The EPA is telling ODOT it needs to give more thought to the land use and transit impacts between East 55th and UC. That's a big deal. This is an urban project, so ODOT's usual M.O. won't work -- of building more lane-miles so more vehicles can move faster/safer and be done with it. There are brownfields, and a majority of households without cars, and transit infrastructure to accommodate, and land use considerations, and air quality issues, and water quality issues, etc. etc.

 

Sounds like grandstanding about social issues that aren't really part of the EPA's bailiwick, along with the typical unwarranted assumptions that the road will contain no bus stops.

 

You should read US EPA's rulemaking with regards to land use and air quality impacts of major transportation investments. These are not new. The air quality rules have been around for 42 years.

 

For this much money, area Congressmen could also defund the bureaucrat's department. 

 

And which Congressperson is able to do that? They'd better accumulate power quickly to halt the budget vote about to occur.

 

Which if I am not mistaken must be used for roads, not whatever a small group thinks would be more appropriate.

 

Ah, yes. The attempt at marginalization. Sorry, but in America, even the minority is allowed to have a voice and let it affect outcomes.

EPA reminds ODOT of a consent decree it signed with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District to reduce sewage and stormwater combined overflow into nearby Kingsbury Run and the lake. It warns ODOT that the Opportunity Corridor, as presented, will likely violate that legally binding agreement by adding to the region’s water pollution woes. It recommends working with the Sewer District and supporting designs for large-scale green infrastructure that could put vacant land into use as a stormwater park.

Finally, EPA reminds ODOT that Northeast Ohio is in a “non-attainment” category for federal Clean Air Act standards. It recommends that ODOT specify how the soot from increased truck traffic will be mitigated.

 

I dunno. Sounds exactly like what the EPA should be focusing on. The other stuff, maybe not so much, but since I agree with all of it, give 'em hell OHEPA!

^so what does all that mean?  Seems like a long and potentially expensive check list.  I don't know much about the process but I imagine the EPA can kill the federal funding which would of course kill the project.

 

Sounds like grandstanding about social issues that aren't really part of the EPA's bailiwick, along with the typical unwarranted assumptions that the road will contain no bus stops.

 

For this much money, area Congressmen could also defund the bureaucrat's department. 

 

 

How is it not in their bailiwick?  The main issues they are addressing are air and water pollution, which transportation decisions play a part in.  It states in the article that it is the EPA that is supposed to approve the EIS.

Well at least it’s refreshing to see some journalistic pushback against this slickly and euphemistically named  “Opportunity Corridor”.  … and it’s not even Angie Schmitt!! ‘So let’s tally/analyze the OC backers claims versus the truth.

 

The OC is designed to boost the economic viability of the poor Forgotten Triangle residents…  LIE the OC is a high-speed roadway designed to speed West Siders, mainly I-90, I-71 suburbanites, to University Circle jobs.

 

The OC will increase transit opportunities.

LIE – Joe Calabrese's RTA is set to close the Red Line's E. 79th Street Rapid station because somehow nobody can seem to find money to make the station ADA compliant.  This so folks near or north of the station can either walk over 1/2 mile south the Blue/Green station or take the #16 bus north to the rerouted #11 east/west route into downtown, since the #12 bus along Woodland into downtown was eliminated a few years ago due to lack of funding...  All this will really help the low income residents in the area who overwhelmingly don't own cars... (oh yeah, and the same Joe Calabrese threw is weight behind the OC and projects/fantasies BRT buses zipping along the OC siphoning Red Line passengers and, ultimately, in the not-so-distant future killing/replacing the Red Line with the OC BRT.

 

The OC should boost walkability… LIE this new environmental group notes the extreme wideness of the OC with, in addition to the high speed of the drivers, can be beacons of new, dense, exciting walkable neighborhoods… NOT!

Once again, we have nearby Chester Avenue as an example of a cut-through, highway-type roadway that hasn’t created any new development in its area for nearly 70 years… And Chester is more of an urbanized street than the freeway-fed OC will ever be…

 

The OC will be environmentally friendly… LIE the OC is planning to build ugly, freeway-type sound barriers to blot out all the projected noise pollution of all the flying-by autos…

 

… The OC makes SO MUCH sense for the City, doesn’t it?  It’s a great leap forward for Cleveland… right??

 

 

 

 

I decided to finally take a look at the census blocks to get a better idea of this project.

 

From Kinsman to Quincy: (This is assuming EVERYTHING between the railroad tracks gets demolished)

 

Total Population - 296

 

Total Housing Units - 178

Occupied Housing Units - 134

Vacant Housing Units - 44

 

Owner Occupied Units - 50

Renter Occupied Units - 74

 

Population Density Between Railroad Tracks - 568 people per square mile

 

West of Kinsman: (14 houses not counted due to data gathering issues. Not sure the status of these properties)

 

*These could nearly all be avoided if they removed the loop at the start of the route

 

Total Population - 52

 

Total Housing Units - 34

Occupied Housing Units - 23

Vacant Housing Units - 11

 

Owner Occupied Units - 19

Renter Occupied Units - 14

^I don't think facts play a big part of this argument

One of the most extensive articles written on this project that I can recall seeing.....

 

Opportunity Corridor falls short for neighborhoods, says group hosting public meetings this weekend

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on December 13, 2013 at 8:00 AM, updated December 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Opportunity Corridor is designed as a 3.5-mile, 35-mile-per-hour urban boulevard running from Interstate 490 and the eastern edge of beleaguered Slavic Village to the academic, medical and arts jewel of University Circle.

 

In between, the road would traverse some of the most desolate blocks of Cleveland, an area of crumbling industrial buildings, boarded-up homes and vacant tracts of land called the Forgotten Triangle.

 

Advocates say the $331 million Opportunity Corridor will meet three needs: Smooth the drive for residents south and west of downtown Cleveland who now must twist and turn through local streets to reach University Circle; spark office and light industry development by cleaning up and reusing brownfield sites; and help rejuvenate impoverished neighborhoods by creating jobs for residents.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/12/opportunity_corridor_falls_sho.html#incart_river_default#incart_m-rpt-2

While we celebrate a relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, we forget that another station was proposed to be relocated by the same mid-1990s masterplan. The Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan that gave us the HealthLine also recommended relocating the East 79th Red Line station to East 89th at Buckeye/Woodland.

 

Now that the USEPA is recommending more transit investments and transit-supportive land use, it's time for ODOT to:

 

1) fund this long ignored recommendation for building the East 89th station at Buckeye/Woodland;

2) work jointly with the city, GCRTA and the local CDCs on TOD planning and incentives at Red, Blue/Green line stations in the Opportunity Corridor; and

3) lengthen East 105/Quincy station's 1-car-long platform and adding a second entrance at East 105th.

 

Below is the Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan....

 

E. 89th is a far better location on the Red Line than E. 79th...

While we celebrate a relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, we forget that another station was proposed to be relocated by the same mid-1990s masterplan. The Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan that gave us the HealthLine also recommended relocating the East 79th Red Line station to East 89th at Buckeye/Woodland.

 

Now that the USEPA is recommending more transit investments and transit-supportive land use, it's time for ODOT to:

 

1) fund this long ignored recommendation for building the East 89th station at Buckeye/Woodland;

2) work jointly with the city, GCRTA and the local CDCs on TOD planning and incentives at Red, Blue/Green line stations in the Opportunity Corridor; and

3) lengthen East 105/Quincy station's 1-car-long platform and adding a second entrance at East 105th.

 

Below is the Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan....

 

 

btw, I can't disagree with any of your recommendations.  They are what is really needed in the lower Fairfax neighborhood.

I agree too KJP! 

 

Now that the funding is in place, it is time for the "behind the scenes" stakeholders [based on rumor] to show all of their cards. 

And then there's this idea......

 

Is that the current path of the OC, or an earlier path?

Is that the current path of the OC, or an earlier path?

 

I traced the routing from this....

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/OpportunityCorridor/Documents/Fall%202012%20OC_Alternative%20Graphic.jpg

....and then copied and pasted on the TOD graphic above.

Very cool!

BTW, someone might ask: why not rebuild the existing East 79th station? The reason is that the area around that station isn't very transit-supportive and that won't change. It seems to be staying as light industrial, warehousing etc. Both sides of the street were home to the Van Dorn Iron Works since 1878.

 

For example, the nearly 8-acre property to the east of East 79th and west of the elevated NS tracks was bought last year by Opal Industrial Group LLC. It lists to the address 14905 Cross Creek Newbury Oh 44065 -- the same address as Kuhnle Brothers, a medium-sized trucking company.

 

Meanwhile, land on the west side of East 79th Street was bought in July by the Orlando Baking Co., which has its bakery immediately west of of this property to East 75th and south to Grand Avenue.

 

Not exactly TOD.

I wonder what the cost of that new station at E.89th would end up being...  $10 million?  $20 million?

I wonder what the cost of that new station at E.89th would end up being...  $10 million?  $20 million?

 

Depends on how it designed. Some people who have provided consulting services to GCRTA first thought that the point of access to the station platform should from elevators/stairwells from Buckeye and Woodland. But I suggested a potentially lower-cost option of building an access road between Buckeye and Woodland to the east side of the tracks, and have at-grade station accessed from that new roadway. That design would provide greater visibility of the station platform and the new roadway would provide some infrastructure for future spin-off development.

 

EDIT: but yes, the cost of the station will probably be in the $10 million to $20 million range -- closer to $10 million the way I would design it, and $20 million the way the consultants might design it.

Just found this graphic, which may be old but its still interesting.......

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/68933666df.pdf

well they sure have big plans for the distinguished Ken Johnson rec center...

Also, here is All Aboard Ohio's response to the recent USEPA letter regarding Opportunity Corridor and how it represents an "opportunity" for ODOT, GCRTA, City of Cleveland and others to work together on relocating the East 79th station to the area of East 89th, and to modify the East 105th station so that it can tap into and help shape potential development north of the station.....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/8f1055f7ad.pdf

^Nice! 

Also, here is All Aboard Ohio's response to the recent USEPA letter regarding Opportunity Corridor and how it represents an "opportunity" for ODOT, GCRTA, City of Cleveland and others to work together on relocating the East 79th station to the area of East 89th, and to modify the East 105th station so that it can tap into and help shape potential development north of the station.....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/8f1055f7ad.pdf

 

Well put together. 

 

This would have been a no-brainer before E. 105th was rebuilt, as the two stations could have been combined speeding up service to UC.    Is the interval between 89th and 105th long enough to effectively use a rail line like the Red? 

ODOT urged to add transit, TOD in Cleveland’s ‘Opportunity Corridor’

January 9, 2014

 

For Immediate Release

Contact: Ken Prendergast, Executive Director at

216-288-4883 or [email protected]

 

All Aboard Ohio is urging the inclusion of several transit elements to the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addressing Cleveland’s Opportunity Corridor project. The suggestions were made in response to a November 14, 2013 letter from the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Federal Highway Administration and Ohio Department of Transportation regarding the lack of transit services and infrastructure, as well as a lack of consideration for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) land uses surrounding existing or future transit services.

 

Specifically, the USEPA urged “that ODOT coordinate further with GCRTA [Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority], the city of Cleveland, and HUD to consider TOD opportunities that could be specifically linked to this proposed roadway.” USEPA also recommended “the FEIS should identify which, if any, rail transit station or bus routes will be eliminated, re-located, or added along the project corridor.”

 

In a January 3, 2014 letter to ODOT District 12 Deputy Director Myron S. Pakush, All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Ken Prendergast suggested that ODOT carefully consider these elements as part of its FEIS:

 

+ Relocate the East 79th Red Line station to near East 89th Street, in the vicinity of Buckeye Road and Woodland Avenue, as recommended in the Dual Hub Transitional Analysis adopted by GCRTA et al.

+ Lengthen the East 105th-Quincy Red Line station platform to accommodate 3-car trains and add a station pedestrian entrance from the east side of a widened East 105th Street.

+ Partner with the City of Cleveland and the affected CDCs on TOD planning and zoning, including making available a basket of incentives to developers for providing a dense mix of land uses within a half-mile radius of both stations.

 

Guidance for many of these elements exists in the Dual Hub Preferred Investment Strategy adopted by GCRTA, City of Cleveland, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency and the Federal Transit Administration. While the Dual Hub strategy was adopted in 1995, it continues to be implemented — most recently ground was broken in October for relocating the East 120th-Euclid Red Line station to Little Italy-Mayfield. The most significant Dual Hub component implemented to date is the HealthLine Bus Rapid Transit on Euclid Avenue.  The  Dual Hub Preferred Investment Strategy also urged relocation of the East 79th Red Line station to the vicinity of East 89th.

 

READ MORE AND SEE EMBEDDED LINKS AT:

http://allaboardohio.org/2014/01/09/odot-urged-to-add-transit-tod-in-clevelands-opportunity-corridor/

^Definitely the right approach.  Whether ODOT et al. will embrace TOD with regard to this road project, will put them to the test.  If they don't embrace these transit initiatives (which I suspect they won't), it will prove that this OC boondoggle is what most of us believe it is: simply a quick short-cut for West Siders (mainly suburbanites) who can stick their cars in University Circle/Cleveland Clinic garages to come/go with little interaction with city that surrounds them.  (read: suburbanizing the city)

^Definitely the right approach.  Whether ODOT et al. will embrace TOD with regard to this road project, will put them to the test.  If they don't embrace these transit initiatives (which I suspect they won't), it will prove that this OC boondoggle is what most of us believe it is: simply a quick short-cut for West Siders (mainly suburbanites) who can stick their cars in University Circle/Cleveland Clinic garages to come/go with little interaction with city that surrounds them.  (read: suburbanizing the city)

 

South siders as well.  And out of towners.  Pretty much anyone not to the north or east, when it's all said and done.

 

Other than that, yes, that's primarily what it is.  That's the main reason why it's getting paid for.  The other benefits are important too, but let's be real:  the driving force is the poor car access to University Circle from those areas.  It will also allow some of the current roads to be repaired without causing massive disruptions.

 

As for "interaction", the reduction of extraneous interaction has become a cultural megatrend.  People don't avoid it entirely by any means, but want to be able to pick and choose it on their terms.  Think about it:  what innovations that reduce forced/extraneous interaction have not been successful?

Transit Oriented Development or "TOD" gets thrown around so much these days it's ridiculous.  While I'm generally in favor of it, I just don't see this area, E. 55th to E. 105th, ever developing enough that the market forces would take advantage of whatever TOD aspects were built in to the project.  There is already a decent station at E55th.  If anything, make this a bigger park-n-ride stop for people trying to get to University Circle.  You're never going to stop the cycle of commuters coming in from the suburbs, but you could intercept them there and limit some of the needed parking & car traffic in University Circle.

 

Cleveland already has nice RTA locations for the red line on the west side at 65th, Cudell/Detroit, and 117th/Madison...  can anyone point to significant, market-rate development that has occurred at these stops?  And the West side is about 50 years ahead of the east side in terms of liveable neighborhoods.

Cleveland-area developers "discovered" TOD circa 2008 upon the opening of the HealthLine. Now they've discovered that Cleveland has a rail system too.

 

Why would anyone want to drive all the way in from the suburbs to a parking lot in the middle of a neighborhood they're scared to death of, park their car, and ride the last mile to UC? The entire dynamic of the Red Line on the East Side has to be changed over a multi-decade process. It took a few decades to destroy it, and it always takes longer to rebuild than it does to destroy. So let's give this some time and patience and realize that what we see today will likely bear no resemblance to what your grandchildren will see in this corridor. But the planning for it must start today.

Why would anyone want to drive all the way in from the suburbs to a parking lot in the middle of a neighborhood they're scared to death of, park their car, and ride the last mile to UC?

 

A couple reasons:

- Save $ on parking at your final destination

- You still need your car to get into the city because you live in the burbs

- You need your car to pick up your kids, run errands, etc after work

 

 

EDIT: I don't think many suburbanites are as "scared to death" of the city as you might think.  Most suburbanites I know love the city but choose the suburban lifestyle due to kids.

If you have to drive to get to the train station, most people will end up driving the whole way. Once their butt is planted into a seat, they don't like to remove it until they reach their destination unless there's a meaningful time/cost savings in doing so. Everyone has their own definition of "meaningful." If you want transit ridership, either put the transit route as close to as many front doors as possible, or put as many front doors as possible within a 5- to 10-minute walk of a transit station.

 

What percent of Cleveland housing units and jobs are within a 10-minute walk of a rail station or a high-frequency (15 minutes or less) bus route? I think this city and region should employ this metric to measure success in spending public dollars to give more people greater access to jobs. It's a basic metric. But we don't even use it to get those answers, let alone have public policies set up to raise the scores on that measuring stick.

Why would anyone want to drive all the way in from the suburbs to a parking lot in the middle of a neighborhood they're scared to death of, park their car, and ride the last mile to UC?

 

A couple reasons:

- Save $ on parking at your final destination

- You still need your car to get into the city because you live in the burbs

- You need your car to pick up your kids, run errands, etc after work

 

Unlike downtown, most employers in UC offer free parking. Plus, the Red line circles around the SE edge of UC, so you'd have to transfer to a bus or have a long walk. Are you really expecting people that have a car to park it in a neighborhood that's a bit sketchy to ride a train 3-4 miles to a station where they can transfer to a bus or walk a mile to work instead of just driving the last few miles?

 

For comparison, how many people currently drive to Windermere from Euclid or Lake County? I'd guess very few, since if you've already driven 3/4 of the way to work, why not drive the last bit too? That's the reason why RTA is considering lengthening the Red Line.

^im not expecting people to do anything.  My original comment was that TOD in Cleveland, especially the section from E55th to 105th, is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like you agree.

^im not expecting people to do anything.  My original comment was that TOD in Cleveland, especially the section from E55th to 105th, is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like you agree.

Your comment said that a park and ride would be better than TOD (or at least that's how both KJP and I interpreted it). I would agree that there are better spots for TOD (mostly on the west side) but I would dispute that a park and ride would be better than TOD in the OC area.

^im not expecting people to do anything.  My original comment was that TOD in Cleveland, especially the section from E55th to 105th, is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like you agree.

 

I'd say that's pretty clear to everyone except those with shall we say "an excessive faith in what government can accomplish".

 

This was originally an industrial area and that's where the best potential still lies.  More to the point, there's no growth point with the possible exception of Asiatown, which is well to the north.  Seems to me that healthy urban neighborhoods grow block by block....though I guess it's hard for politicians and big-ideas activists to take credit for such things.

I think gottaplan's main point is perfectly reasonable, but I think it's a little more complicated. He's right that Abode, Sutton, and Vintage (or whoever) are unlikely to start building market rate units in the forgotten triangle no matter how well it's planned for TOD. What is less clear is how much lower end/subsidized stuff we might reasonably expect or want to attract. How much LIHTC stuff will be in the pipeline? Burten Bell Carr (the CDC in Central and Kinsman) has already developed hundreds of new units in Central since 2000.  Does it plan to continue developing new units (the forgotten triangle is in its service area)? Does it plan to develop denser products too? What about other local affordable housing developers? Where would all these units otherwise go?  Seems to be a lot of worthwhile planning work that could happen (if it's not already). Mostly this TOD vs. other seems like a false choice. Unless environmental remediation requirements mean residential is out of the question on a lot of this land, there seems to be plenty of pace in the OC area to encourage both residential and commercial/industrial/manufacturing, with good transit connections for all users.  Also, plenty of room for parking at some rapid stops, especially at east 55th, which will have horrible TOD potential given the proposed access road.

 

One thing that is a total mystery to me is what sort of planning the city is doing for the OC. Has it been studying a comprehensive rezoning of the OC?  There's understandably been a lot of attention of the transportation planning process, but I haven't heard much about the land use planning.  Might be in full swing, but other than the brownfields study, there's no indication at the CPC website: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/

My point is that the ridership at the East 79th Red Line station doesn't justify the significant cost of upgrading it so that it is ADA compliant prior to the 2016 deadline. Worse, there are no prospects for new sources of ridership to justify upgrading it. Having a bakery expansion with just 15 new jobs and a metal recycling/trucking business outside the front door of the East 79th station won't change the ridership dynamic for the better. These land uses could have had different fates had Burten Bell Carr undertaken a TOD planning process and subsequent rezoning BEFORE Orlando Bakery and Opal Industrial Group made their real estate purchases in the last couple of years. Opal's potential use could actually be a transit ridership repellent!

 

So the train has left the station with regards to the Red Line at East 79th. The Blue/Green Line station at East 79th is a different matter. It is in a more residential area and can be made ADA compliant for far less expense.

 

If the Red Line will continue to have a station in this general area, GCRTA will likely insist there are supportive land uses before committing limited funds to providing a modern, safe, accessible station -- as they should. All Aboard Ohio suggested a station in the vicinity of East 89th because of the most recent transit guideplan for this area suggested that location. However, the projected ridership for East 89th (Buckeye/Woodland) is only slightly higher than what has existed at East 79th. The only reason why the East 89th area should be considered is because the immediately surrounding area is largely a blank slate where the neighborhood could start over. It also doesn't yet have transit ridership repellents like East 79th. And once you get a little farther away from the Rapid tracks, there are residential areas to the north and major churches and a recreation center to the east. But the zoning around the station is for commercial and light-industrial uses. This is not necessarily transit-supportive either. So if ODOT and GCRTA do consider relocating a Red Line station to this area, Burten Bell Carr and Fairfax should undertake land use planning for this area and request zoning changes to support future development that is transit supportive.

 

Otherwise, without any meaningful ridership generators or the groundwork underway for them in the future, I say run the Red Line nonstop from East 55th to East 105th.

My point is that the ridership at the East 79th Red Line station doesn't justify the significant cost of upgrading it so that it is ADA compliant prior to the 2016 deadline. Worse, there are no prospects for new sources of ridership to justify upgrading it. Having a bakery expansion with just 15 new jobs and a metal recycling/trucking business outside the front door of the East 79th station won't change the ridership dynamic for the better. These land uses could have had different fates had Burten Bell Carr undertaken a TOD planning process and subsequent rezoning BEFORE Orlando Bakery and Opal Industrial Group made their real estate purchases in the last couple of years. Opal's potential use could actually be a transit ridership repellent!

 

So the train has left the station with regards to the Red Line at East 79th. The Blue/Green Line station at East 79th is a different matter. It is in a more residential area and can be made ADA compliant for far less expense.

 

If the Red Line will continue to have a station in this general area, GCRTA will likely insist there are supportive land uses before committing limited funds to providing a modern, safe, accessible station -- as they should. All Aboard Ohio suggested a station in the vicinity of East 89th because of the most recent transit guideplan for this area suggested that location. However, the projected ridership for East 89th (Buckeye/Woodland) is only slightly higher than what has existed at East 79th. The only reason why the East 89th area should be considered is because the immediately surrounding area is largely a blank slate where the neighborhood could start over. It also doesn't yet have transit ridership repellents like East 79th. And once you get a little farther away from the Rapid tracks, there are residential areas to the north and major churches and a recreation center to the east. But the zoning around the station is for commercial and light-industrial uses. This is not necessarily transit-supportive either. So if ODOT and GCRTA do consider relocating a Red Line station to this area, Burten Bell Carr and Fairfax should undertake land use planning for this area and request zoning changes to support future development that is transit supportive.

 

Otherwise, without any meaningful ridership generators or the groundwork underway for them in the future, I say run the Red Line nonstop from East 55th to East 105th.

 

I most certainly can't speak for Cleveland leaders, but I suspect they would very much rather have Orlando and Opal in the area employing people than more residential. 

 

How safe is that 89th/Buckeye/Woodland area?  I don't see market rate housing going into a place that isn't perceived as such.

I most certainly can't speak for Cleveland leaders, but I suspect they would very much rather have Orlando and Opal in the area employing people than more residential. 

 

I'm sure they would, but where is the best location? Is next to a transit station the best place for it, or one of a hundred other possible places a little farther away? That is the essence of land use planning for which state laws grants municipal governments the authority to determine. The extreme example is for the health and safety of your constituents (ie: not approving a chemical factory next to a playground and school). More commonly, a municipality wishes to maximize the economic development synergies of different land uses, like approving a truck terminal near a bunch of warehouses, or consolidating housing/retail/offices around a rapid transit station.

 

How safe is that 89th/Buckeye/Woodland area?  I don't see market rate housing going into a place that isn't perceived as such.

 

I don't know how safe it is. Who cares? The safety of a neighborhood is based more on the availability of jobs and opportunities in it, rather than on who is or isn't living/trapped there. There is no pre-destiny here. It is a city whose fortunes ebb and flow due to the actions and investments of humans, not nature or god or anything else. And why does it have to be market rate? Why can't it be subsidized or even mixed-income like most publicly funded housing projects are these days?

^^Eh, how safe is Central where hundreds of new sf homes have been built and sold since 2000?

 

This is a tough issue. Putting aside the transit access, this property is ideal for industrial development given the highway access (post-OC), the existing contamination, the large available parcels, the lack of substantial proximate residences that would be bothered by noise.  I really can't blame the city if that's the direction they want to go. Maybe removing the East 79th Red Line station and focusing the land around the LRT station really is the right way. I just wish this aspect of the planning were more transparent.

^^Eh, how safe is Central where hundreds of new sf homes have been built and sold since 2000?

 

This is a tough issue. Putting aside the transit access, this property is ideal for industrial development given the highway access (post-OC), the existing contamination, the large available parcels, the lack of substantial proximate residences that would be bothered by noise.  I really can't blame the city if that's the direction they want to go. Maybe removing the East 79th Red Line station and focusing the land around the LRT station really is the right way. I just wish this aspect of the planning were more transparent.

 

Homes are great. But where are the accessible, unskilled jobs? Where are the public services (shopping, medical, education, etc)? Are the three legs of the basic lifestyle stool within a half-mile walk of rapid transit? If not, then how is a lawful, rewarding lifestyle possible? If the city isn't going to support the Red Line by promoting supportive land uses around its access points, then why have a Red Line?

 

Otherwise, without any meaningful ridership generators or the groundwork underway for them in the future, I say run the Red Line nonstop from East 55th to East 105th.

 

This sounds like the best option. The ridership will never justify the cost at this time. Maybe down the line if things change they can consider building a new station. This money could be used for better projects.

 

And besides, most traffic is towards downtown, and the green/blue line station is not much further.

 

This does show the problem with the ADA compliant 2016 deadline. Im all for new stations having to be ADA compliant, but making the change of older stations is a terrible idea IMO. Its not worth the cost in low ridership stations. This makes expansion harder, maintenance more expensive, and will result in the closure of stations. All for a few people tops. It doesn't hurt anyone to keep it open the way it is.

 

I'm sure they would, but where is the best location? Is next to a transit station the best place for it, or one of a hundred other possible places a little farther away? That is the essence of land use planning for which state laws grants municipal governments the authority to determine. The extreme example is for the health and safety of your constituents (ie: not approving a chemical factory next to a playground and school).

 

Building a school, playground and even houses next to a chemical factory being a different matter entirely of course (see Love Canal).

 

If working with a clean slate except for the tracks, I wouldn’t use the Red Line as a neighborhood developer.  It’s really not suited for that, as an actual streetcar would be, and the area lacks neighborhoods with the potential to grow.  It doesn’t lake desolation, and it doesn’t lack crime.  People seeking urban living for the most part are not homesteaders.  They’ll move to the existing urbanist neighborhoods, perhaps on the fringes of same. 

 

I’d have fewer stops.  Tower City, perhaps E. 55th, E.89th/Clinic (here or possibly 55th being a connection to Shaker Rapid), UC/Cedar or 105th, Mayfield/120th, and Windermere.  Probably head out to Euclid as well and maybe the Lake County Line.  Similar pattern on the west side out to the Airport, and perhaps points west.  Each of these stations would have bus feeder routes that don’t necessarily go downtown. 

 

Yes, you’d have two and even three seat trips, but far fewer acute angles to get from point A to point B.

 

"Mixed income", by the way, is a losing battle.  The issue isn't income, but values:  people want to live near those with similar values.

No, YOU want to live near people with similar values. Don't comment on things with which you have little or no awareness.

 

EDIT: and what do you mean "YOU would have fewer stops"? How does any of this urban discussion even remotely apply to you??