Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

To be fair, because the project eliminated at-grade signalized intersections, the total travel time on the West Shoreway will only take an additional 63 seconds.

Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

 

OK.  On one hand, I agree.  I've also dealt with the destruction of the off-peak 39, which never ran anywhere remotely near Stokes.  It's now at least a couple hours from Shoregate to downtown.  The 25 is much less useful now both because of poor frequency and lack of a one-seat ride downtown, and, therefore, the lack of a less than three-seat connection to most destinations in the county.  No longer any easy way from Lorain Road to Westgate.  I could go on and on and on.

 

On the other hand, this is an unavoidable consequence of trying to decentralize, for whatever reason, from a downtown-hub to a multiple-hub system.  If there were safe, fast, reliable connections into any part of downtown other than Tower City, or if the bus lines were coordinated to minimize waiting times, it might be less of an issue.  But ending every possible line at a rail station makes things harder, not easier, for many riders.

 

What I would have to recommend is balance, and choice.  End some of the trips at the HL or RL, others downtown.  Maybe even through-route some of the trips.  There are people commuting - often reverse-commuting - from southeast to northwest suburbs, northeast to southwest suburbs, and vice versa.  They had options back when I was in that situation, for which I'm grateful.  Today, they really do not.  I would love to see that change.

 

 

Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

 

The "Healthline" isn't really "rapid transit" especially with the signals not synched.  And while I agree about stop safety, what you're talking about is what I've advocated for the 55th street stop.  A controlled access area you can't enter without a paid fare, with buses and the rapid lines (all three go through 55 IIRC) boardable in the secured area.

Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

 

The "Healthline" isn't really "rapid transit" especially with the signals not synched.  And while I agree about stop safety, what you're talking about is what I've advocated for the 55th street stop.  A controlled access area you can't enter without a paid fare, with buses and the rapid lines (all three go through 55 IIRC) boardable in the secured area.

 

The idea of a secure, enclosed environment sounds great.  But where we run smack back into the mesh of self-reinforcing and difficult-to-change problems is this.  Nothing goes from there to anyplace downtown other than Tower City.  Maybe the 14, but even getting to that would be a decent walk through a not very inviting area.  So, once downtown, they'll need either a potentially long walk, or yet another transfer.  Or you'll have to reroute the 14 to serve the station, but that makes the long ride on the 14 even longer, plus, next time funding cuts come around, someone will decide to end *that* line at East 55 as well.  Maybe 15 and 19 too.  They pass an awful lot closer to the E. 55 station than the 39 ever did to Stokes, yet that's where the 39 ends today, along with any possibility of 50,000+ residents of Euclid and nearby areas of being able to get downtown reasonably quickly other than during the day on weekdays only.

 

The fundamental problem is that the The Red Line *only* directly serves Tower City.  50 years ago that might have been good enough, but today, if we're going to make that the only way into or out of downtown, then those who need to get to Erieview or CSU or the Warehouse District are faced with yet another transfer, and in the most congested place that they possibly could make one.  Thus, once again, the advantages of RTA over driving disappear for all but those for whom driving is not an option.  Even worse, the options of reverse commuters and the transit-dependent pretty much disappear completely.  I wish I knew a way to move past this gridlock of things we would all like to do, but can't, because of questionable decisions made 50 years ago.  It all keeps coming back to the need to reroute the Red Line so as to be able to make a few stops north and east of the current one, but there is neither the funding, nor the will, for this to happen.  And this helps the anti-rail crowd.  They argue that our system is a "train to nowhere" and would have unsustainably low ridership if not for forcing many people, e.g., the former riders of the 32 to downtown, onto it.  Regrettably, the worse our funding situation gets, the closer they are to being correct.  I don't want to concede that point to them.  I understand how much worse the transportation system would be without the Red Line, even with its flaws.  But we might not get to keep it, nor the rest of RTA as we know it, if we do not at least seriously think about addressing or mitigating those flaws. 

Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

 

Greater Cleveland commuters are pampered compared to other cities like Washington or Boston; in those cities riders are forced to transfer and don't seem to mind.  In Boston the comprehensive T subway lines intercept all the radial bus lines to the extent that only 1 or 2 bus routes enter downtown Boston, esp in or near Park Street (at Boston Common (garden) which is like an over-sized Public Square).. To me, the 32s and 9s should have been terminated at U.C. years ago even before the Health Line.  You yourself have noted that a large bulk of employment trips are now in U. Circle/Cleveland Clinic area anyway, so a lot of 9/32 riders have a one-seat ride.  And if one is working downtown West of E. 6th (or to me E. 9th), the Red Line is just as fast/convenient if not more so.  I know the Red Line provides a superior ride in terms of comfort, space and, again, speed.

Again, the impact on ridership on the 32 and the 9 has been...

 

Remember, that the ridership on the 6, 7, 9, 32 at all was 54,000 riders per weekday on Euclid and Chester as recently as the mid 1980s. Today the HealthLine accounts for all the ridership in this corridor and sees only 16,000 trips per weekday.

 

Clearly, Cleveland transit riders are different than those in other cities especially the East Coast, most likely because driving times are so much faster then transit times in Cleveland.

 

Simplify transit use. Don't make it more complicated. If you're going to force transfers, do it in a safe, high-frequency transit environment where the connection isn't more than a few minutes. We've already destroyed the 32-Cedar and 9-Mayfield routes. They were frequent routes than ran all the way downtown, running express from UC. Now they run infrequently (especially off peak) and force transfers to the Red Line at UC. I have a relative who lives along Cedar in Cleveland Heights and works downtown (East 9th/St. Clair area). She won't even consider taking RTA because of the forced transfer. Buses could be almost as fast cars. Instead, taking the 32 to the HealthLine would take her twice as long as her drive. And she's also concerned about her safety while transferring in/near UC.

 

Greater Cleveland commuters are pampered compared to other cities like Washington or Boston; in those cities riders are forced to transfer and don't seem to mind.  In Boston the comprehensive T subway lines intercept all the radial bus lines to the extent that only 1 or 2 bus routes enter downtown Boston, esp in or near Park Street (at Boston Common (garden) which is like an over-sized Public Square).. To me, the 32s and 9s should have been terminated at U.C. years ago even before the Health Line.  You yourself have noted that a large bulk of employment trips are now in U. Circle/Cleveland Clinic area anyway, so a lot of 9/32 riders have a one-seat ride.  And if one is working downtown West of E. 6th (or to me E. 9th), the Red Line is just as fast/convenient if not more so.  I know the Red Line provides a superior ride in terms of comfort, space and, again, speed.

One transfer to a fairly frequent and reliable service is fine IMO.  Many riders however are forced to make more than one, sometimes significantly more.  And if something goes wrong they are guaranteed to have to wait at least a full hour.  Those aren't problems you would have in a system with more frequent and reliable service.  But here in Cleveland we have no choice but to start with what we have, and that is not always fast, frequent, or reliable.  In these conditions, it is really important to try to keep most trips possible with at most 2 transfers, and at most one of those two being any less than nearly certain in terms of schedule. 

Again, the impact on ridership on the 32 and the 9 has been...

 

Remember, that the ridership on the 6, 7, 9, 32 at all was 54,000 riders per weekday on Euclid and Chester as recently as the mid 1980s. Today the HealthLine accounts for all the ridership in this corridor and sees only 16,000 trips per weekday.

 

Clearly, Cleveland transit riders are different than those in other cities especially the East Coast, most likely because driving times are so much faster then transit times in Cleveland.

 

 

No question that the severe drop in jobs in downtown severely impacted RTA ridership from the Heights and on the old No. 6 (now the HL) since the 1980s.  The extremely light frequency on the Heights buses (32s, 7 and 9s) makes outbound transfers very time-consuming and impractical for many especially if the buses are delayed, which often seems the case for outbound 9 riders crowded around the bus stop @ E.119/Mayfield Rd., with most having transferred from Red Line trains at the new Little Italy-UC station.  Inbound likely wouldn't be as bad with trains running about every 10 or 15 minutes into downtown from that station.  I'm guessing a similar situation exists a half-mile down the tracks at the still-newish Cedar-University station.

 

It still seems there could be more, better integration with bus and rail in the RTA system than there currently is which would remove more buses from downtown/Public Square, especially on the West Side.  Even though we've had the heavy jobs and rider loss from the city, what's the point of rapid transit at all if your going to run competing buses past stations and into the center city? ... Tons of buses pass within 1 block of W. 25 and even more could be removed by extending LRT over Detroit-Superior as I've suggested... Yeah I know some people would gripe, but in the long run people would come around (especially the millenials filling up hotter urban areas who are much more amenable to transit) and RTA would save money, the City would likely increase TOD density at these nodes (it's already happening at W. 25/Ohio City and W. 25/Detroit -- and down the street at Hingetown -- with all the new development)... And maybe, someday, the City can break through this conservative Ohio morass we are currently in and receive greater subsidy from the state, increase the sales tax as you've suggested or even get some kind of public-private partnership to somehow offset some RTA costs...

Again, the impact on ridership on the 32 and the 9 has been...

 

Remember, that the ridership on the 6, 7, 9, 32 at all was 54,000 riders per weekday on Euclid and Chester as recently as the mid 1980s. Today the HealthLine accounts for all the ridership in this corridor and sees only 16,000 trips per weekday.

 

There are multiple problems.  First is the fact of the transfer, and second is the gap between lines --  the bus transfer station at the bottom of Cedar Hill is still two long blocks (or one very long block) from the Healthline on Euclid.  It's not a very pleasant walk from the Cedar Hill bus transfer area to the nearest Healthline stops.  The combination has greatly reduced the ridership from the 32 toward downtown.

^Don't the heights buses that serve the bus transfer station near Cedar also continue on to Euclid Ave and the Clinic?

Again, the impact on ridership on the 32 and the 9 has been...

 

Remember, that the ridership on the 6, 7, 9, 32 at all was 54,000 riders per weekday on Euclid and Chester as recently as the mid 1980s. Today the HealthLine accounts for all the ridership in this corridor and sees only 16,000 trips per weekday.

 

There are multiple problems.  First is the fact of the transfer, and second is the gap between lines --  the bus transfer station at the bottom of Cedar Hill is still two long blocks (or one very long block) from the Healthline on Euclid.  It's not a very pleasant walk from the Cedar Hill bus transfer area to the nearest Healthline stops.  The combination has greatly reduced the ridership from the 32 toward downtown.

 

I'm confused by your "2 long blocks" statement.  According to RTA's website, the 32s, 9s and the 7 directly connect to the Health Line at their (32, 9, 7) termination points at Euclid & E. 89th Street on the Cleveland Clinic campus.

Again, the impact on ridership on the 32 and the 9 has been...

 

Remember, that the ridership on the 6, 7, 9, 32 at all was 54,000 riders per weekday on Euclid and Chester as recently as the mid 1980s. Today the HealthLine accounts for all the ridership in this corridor and sees only 16,000 trips per weekday.

 

Clearly, Cleveland transit riders are different than those in other cities especially the East Coast, most likely because driving times are so much faster then transit times in Cleveland.

 

 

No question that the severe drop in jobs in downtown severely impacted RTA ridership from the Heights and on the old No. 6 (now the HL) since the 1980s.  The extremely light frequency on the Heights buses (32s, 7 and 9s) makes outbound transfers very time-consuming and impractical for many especially if the buses are delayed, which often seems the case for outbound 9 riders crowded around the bus stop @ E.119/Mayfield Rd., with most having transferred from Red Line trains at the new Little Italy-UC station.  Inbound likely wouldn't be as bad with trains running about every 10 or 15 minutes into downtown from that station.  I'm guessing a similar situation exists a half-mile down the tracks at the still-newish Cedar-University station.

 

It still seems there could be more, better integration with bus and rail in the RTA system than there currently is which would remove more buses from downtown/Public Square, especially on the West Side.  Even though we've had the heavy jobs and rider loss from the city, what's the point of rapid transit at all if your going to run competing buses past stations and into the center city? ... Tons of buses pass within 1 block of W. 25 and even more could be removed by extending LRT over Detroit-Superior as I've suggested... Yeah I know some people would gripe, but in the long run people would come around (especially the millenials filling up hotter urban areas who are much more amenable to transit) and RTA would save money, the City would likely increase TOD density at these nodes (it's already happening at W. 25/Ohio City and W. 25/Detroit -- and down the street at Hingetown -- with all the new development)... And maybe, someday, the City can break through this conservative Ohio morass we are currently in and receive greater subsidy from the state, increase the sales tax as you've suggested or even get some kind of public-private partnership to somehow offset some RTA costs...

 

I'm just going to leave this here.... This isn't even the service map anymore as the lines are outdated from 2011 and don't show high frequency lines, but still. Job sprawl is a major problem for the Cleveland CSA.

 

Tons of buses pass within 1 block of W. 25 and even more could be removed by extending LRT over Detroit-Superior as I've suggested... Yeah I know some people would gripe, but in the long run people would come around (especially the millenials filling up hotter urban areas who are much more amenable to transit) and RTA would save money, the City would likely increase TOD density at these nodes

 

Yes, yes, yes. I have been thinking about this for some time now. A near west side transit center (with mixed use residential, parking garage, etc) on the north east corner of Detroit/W25th and or behind Malachi. I figure near 8 bus lines could terminate here. I was thinking of using the under deck of det/sup bridge that would have a direct indoor connection to the transit center. This line could continue to run underground to TC or better yet further down Superior.

Plus you have a shoreway exit ramp right here that could serve as park and ride. And then in future extend the light rail as loop around Detroit 65th Lorain W25 allowing some of these connecter bus lines (22, 26, 45) to terminate earlier. Think about all that, all those bus routes not having to make the trip over the bridge and through the square, err I mean around the square.

 

There would be gripe but you are right the people hanging on and moving to this city that want a real transit system would fall in line with the new transfer. Including myself. I literally have door to door service on the 22 from my house to East 9th right now but would be ecstatic for this.

 

How do we make this happen?

How do we make this happen?

 

Get Cuyahoga County voters to pass a half-cent sales tax increase.

^That's definitely a start.  With the current financial crisis Cleveland and Ohio transit is in, RTA is not going to seriously even plan for future expansion... which I think is wrong, btw.

Job sprawl is a major problem for the Cleveland CSA.

 

That's not going to change unless CERCLA is radically overhauled, which is unlikely because it's become an employment program for bureaucrats, consultants, labs, and of course attorneys.

^E Rocc--Please expand. Not familiar with CERCLA (other than googling it) but interested to know who contributes to the sprawl. It is because it is too stringent so developers seek greener (cheaper) pastures?

^E Rocc--Please expand. Not familiar with CERCLA (other than googling it) but interested to know who contributes to the sprawl. It is because it is too stringent so developers seek greener (cheaper) pastures?

CERCLA is a major contributor to job loss in formerly industrial areas, among others, because it forces anyone who owns polluted land, even if they did not pollute it, even if they couldn't have known it was polluted in the first place, to be jointly and severally liable for the cost of cleanup, which can exceed the value of the land by many orders of magnitude.  Here is an example. 

 

I pay $25,000 for a decrepit building at the corner of Deadfactory Boulevard and East Ghetto Lane.  I open a job training center.  It thrives, and my clients work hard and enter the labor force.  Life is good.

 

But suddenly someone discovers that the chemical Crapmium Arsenide, formerly believed to be harmless, causes butt cancer.  And, 150 years ago, a former business once located on my site used Crapmium Arsenide, and minute amounts are detected in the soil. 

 

Guess what?  I have pay to clean it up.  I have to use the only government-approved contractor that is accepting new clients.  It will cost $75 million and change.

 

I call my representative.  "But I only paid $25,000 for this land.  And I didn't pollute that.  Someone else did.  How can I possibly owe the government $75 million???"  His response, because of CERCLA (also known as Superfund):  "'Cuz CERCLA.  Now pay up!" 

 

Now, the first time this happens to someone, what do you suppose others might do?  Where do you suppose they might decide to locate, given that the same thing, or maybe even worse, might happen to them?  Do the math.  Won't be anyplace *anywhere* near anything resembling a brownfield.

 

Industry today locates outside of the city for very, very good reasons.  This is just one, but it's a big one.  And this totally and completely screws over those of us who'd like to see safe, efficient, and affordable transit.  Worse, it screws over the people who live there and would like to be able to have a job some day.

 

But it is fixable.  If only certain people would pull their heads out of their butts, and understand the need for rule of law, which would mean, among other things, they could *not* hold anyone liable for harm they did not cause or agree to assume.  Yes, significant past contamination does need to be cleaned up.  No, the entities responsible for the contamination probably aren't around anymore so you can't bill them.  Yes, it is a difficult problem that probably doesn't have a solution that would please everyone.  But, NO, you should NOT be discouraging people from developing in the city, by forcing them to write a blank check to pay for somebody else's wrongdoing.  If you do, the problems of the city, and of transit, and of the poor, and of the economy as a whole, will never, ever be fixed.

I doubt CERCLA is major factor driving job sprawl at this point. Far more important are each new hospital, office building, and retail center chasing housing sprawl into the collar counties. You could completely eliminate CERCLA tomorrow and that dynamic wouldn't change one bit. A far more likely path to change is new firm formation downtown and University Circle and the increased demand for proximate housing, which in turn boosts demand for proximate services.

I doubt CERCLA is major factor driving job sprawl at this point. Far more important are each new hospital, office building, and retail center chasing housing sprawl into the collar counties. You could completely eliminate CERCLA tomorrow and that dynamic wouldn't change one bit. A far more likely path to change is new firm formation downtown and University Circle and the increased demand for proximate housing, which in turn boosts demand for proximate services.

No one is saying this is the only problem, nor even the biggest.  But every factor that drives sprawl helps to reinforce all of the other factors that drive sprawl.  That's the curse of where we stand now.  It's also the opportunity we have going forward.  That which addresses one part of the problem, because of its inherently self-reinforcing nature, also helps to lessen every other part of the problem. 

CERCLA is a major contributor to job loss in formerly industrial areas, among others, because it forces anyone who owns polluted land, even if they did not pollute it, even if they couldn't have known it was polluted in the first place, to be jointly and severally liable for the cost of cleanup, which can exceed the value of the land by many orders of magnitude. 

 

how is this legal?

 

And, assuming that is, wouldn't this be solved by the prospective owner doing a very in depth due diligence before purchasing the property? This, plus some public sources to convert brownfields to 'vacant land'?

 

CERCLA is a major contributor to job loss in formerly industrial areas, among others, because it forces anyone who owns polluted land, even if they did not pollute it, even if they couldn't have known it was polluted in the first place, to be jointly and severally liable for the cost of cleanup, which can exceed the value of the land by many orders of magnitude. 

 

how is this legal?

 

And, assuming that is, wouldn't this be solved by the prospective owner doing a very in depth due diligence before purchasing the property? This, plus some public sources to convert brownfields to 'vacant land'?

 

 

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer, but a software engineer who worked for lawyers involved in asbestos-related litigation during the 1990s.

 

It's "legal" because, ever since long before the 70s when CERCLA was first vomited upon us, we have not been ruled by genuine law, but by the mere whims of men and women unconstrained by morals, ethics, or the Constitution.  Men and women who acknowledge no limits on their power.  From both the right and the left.  Extremely corrupt ones at that.

 

But, of course, larger entities know this, do their due diligence to the extent possible, and then very often still come to the conclusions that the risk of unknowns, which by the way are generally not insurable, outweighs the cost of just moving out to Solon or Avon instead.

 

Smaller companies can't afford to do all that research.  If they truly want to locate in the hood, they more typically will try to protect themselves by using shell corporations or similar mechanisms, and then roll the dice.  If they are VERY lucky, the government will not try to pierce the corporate veil, and they might not end up bankrupt, jobless, and homeless themselves.  However, in Superfund litigation, the government quite often does attempt to do that.  They usually go after the smaller companies that can't defend themselves, not the bigger ones that usually find themselves more than adequately lawyered and lobbied up.

 

Remember that in my example, the contamination was from a chemical that had not even been known to be hazardous at the time of the land purchase.  This is not contrived.  Asbestos is the textbook, real-life example of a  substance that was not only believed relatively safe, but was actually mandated by government for use in insulation, fireproofing, and numerous other applications.  It turned out not to be.  Numerous property owners were sued by people whom it made sick.  Very sick in most cases - asbestosis, pulmonary fibrosis, mesothelioma, and other cancers.  And then governments forced some of them to pay to clean it up.  Again, with absolutely, positively ZERO regard to the fact that most were not responsible for the presence of asbestos, and in some cases they were forced to use it, by the same government that now required them to pay to clean it up.

 

As an aside, and making the situation even more absurd: Asbestos in walls, floors, and many other applications is, in fact, reasonably safe.  Asbestos causes harm only if we come into contact with it, especially the lungs, but secondarily also mucus membranes or skin.  But inside a wall or floor or kitchen counter, left alone, we're not exposed to much of it, if any at all.  Do you know how we *become* exposed?  When some contractor goes and starts tearing it out of those walls and floors and pipes and other places.  They are required to follow procedures to somewhat reduce the amount that becomes "friable" and escapes into the air.  But, nonetheless, everyone, and especially the remediation contractors themselves, gets exposed to an infinite amount more of this crap than they would have if it had just been left alone.  A similar problem accompanies lead remediation and many others. 

 

Take this one example.  Multiply it by about a thousand.  And now you might be starting to understand why we conservatives and libertarians are extremely cautious and skeptical about massive regulatory initiatives including but not limited to CERCLA.

To tie this back to RTA and my skepticism that CERCLA is even worth discussing here, the Trinity site at Detroit Avenue and 93rd St has been remediated and no-action letters from environmental regulators are in hand. And yet, as far as I can tell, despite marketing by a commercial brokerage, there was no serious interest by private industry. So instead we get a swell new city kennel a few blocks from a rail station. The demand even for cleaned land in Cleveland is extremely low. 

To tie this back to RTA and my skepticism that CERCLA is even worth discussing here, the Trinity site at Detroit Avenue and 93rd St has been remediated and no-action letters from environmental regulators are in hand. And yet, as far as I can tell, despite marketing by a commercial brokerage, there was no serious interest by private industry. So instead we get a swell new city kennel a few blocks from a rail station. The demand even for cleaned land in Cleveland is extremely low. 

 

(Disclaimer #2: a close friend owns property very near this site, and several other friends rent it.)

 

Those letters do not have the force of law AFAIK, and this is, frankly, a troubled neighborhood with a significant gang presence at least during the recent past.  I do suspect it is this latter element that is the greater problem.  Other than these two problems, it does seem like as good a place for redevelopment, of some kind (not necessarily industrial), as Cleveland has to offer.  Once we can be certain that the Heartless Felons, BBE 900, and other like-minded groups are gone for good, and that nothing else comparable rushes in to take their fairly lucrative place, I think you might see more of the potential of this neighborhood come to fruition.  I do think the potential is great, and that the W.98/Cudell station is underused in spite of already being a mini-hub for the relatively frequent 26, 81, and Red Line services.  Given the near proximity to Berea Road as well as Clifton Blvd., Edgewater Park and the new Shoreway boulevard, I think it has the potential to be the largest and most natural mini-hub on the West Side, surpassing West Park which I believe to be the biggest at present.  It would be cramped, but it could work, especially if RTA acquired and developed the land across the street and somehow could functionally combine the two sides of the street into a single transit facility.

 

Significant new housing has gone up somewhat nearby, e.g., Madison right across from the West 117th station.  There seems to be plenty of demand for housing in that area.  It might take a while, and I mean a *long* while, before interest and exchange rates clear, and labor laws and regulations harmonize, such that Cleveland can return to its historical role as a major manufacturing center.  It might be prudent in the meantime to accept what redevelopment we can, even if it is not industrial in nature. 

jtadams---thanks for your explanations and examples.  Sprawl discussion aside, it certainly makes re-investment in the core city, which is critical for growth of the entire region, more difficult.

To tie this back to RTA and my skepticism that CERCLA is even worth discussing here, the Trinity site at Detroit Avenue and 93rd St has been remediated and no-action letters from environmental regulators are in hand. And yet, as far as I can tell, despite marketing by a commercial brokerage, there was no serious interest by private industry. So instead we get a swell new city kennel a few blocks from a rail station. The demand even for cleaned land in Cleveland is extremely low. 

 

There's also the Midland Steel site not that far away.

 

CERCLA's about as has been described above, add in that a lender can also be held liable for legacy cleanup.  Look up the history of Taylor Chair in Bedford and you'll see the potential consequences.  A 200 year old company tried to do the right thing and it ended them.

 

I've been "many hats" involved in environmental issues for my companies for over 30 years and it was half of my dad's core job, he ran this sort of thing for Ferro.  Industrial sprawl has very different causes than residential.  I don't see it going away, so maybe a grid or multi-hubs would help a lot.

That explains Taylor Chair (I just looked this up). I was curious about the site, given its next to a Metropark, and its new location that's now been occupied by another company. Sad.

That explains Taylor Chair (I just looked this up). I was curious about the site, given its next to a Metropark, and its new location that's now been occupied by another company. Sad.

 

The new plant was located on the SK Wellman site.  I actually toured that in college, I remember it because it was the day of the Grenada invasion.  It was still operating at the time.  The new building is a little closer to the road than the plant was, but apparently not close enough.

 

It was a real shame.  When they moved, Taylor donated the land that became Viaduct Park, which is a great historical site as well as a nice park, it's one of Ardyn's favorite places to explore.

I'm not sure I follow the Taylor Chair angle. All I can find on line is news coverage in which the Taylor Chair CEO blames the company's demise on the recession and the failure of the state to provide some sort of tax benefit for the new plant (built in 2006). The plant itself was built in an industrial park the state of Ohio touts as a successful brownfield cleanup. Was there an environmental issue that affected the original Taylor Chair plant at a different site? Or am I missing a piece of the story related to the new plant?

Horrible...

 

Pedestrian killed on I-90 eastbound between W. 117th and W. 140th

http://www.wkyc.com/mb/traffic/pedestrian-killed-on-i-90-eastbound-between-w-117th-and-w-140th/353536429

I'm not sure I follow the Taylor Chair angle. All I can find on line is news coverage in which the Taylor Chair CEO blames the company's demise on the recession and the failure of the state to provide some sort of tax benefit for the new plant (built in 2006). The plant itself was built in an industrial park the state of Ohio touts as a successful brownfield cleanup. Was there an environmental issue that affected the original Taylor Chair plant at a different site? Or am I missing a piece of the story related to the new plant?

 

Taylor Chair was located for close to 200 years by where Bedford Viaduct Park is right now.  No problems in that area.

 

They got to the point where they needed to get out of there, and had options to move either out of state or to one of the sprawlburbs.  They chose to stay in Bedford and even to locate on the old SK Wellman site, which had been vacant for at least 20 years.  SK Wellman used beryllium, so you can imagine the kinds of testing, remediation, etc. that were needed.

 

They were supposed to get some Superfund money from the state and very late in the game that was pulled back.  It was already in their plans and was enough that eventually they couldn’t make up for it and had to close down.

Indirectly RTA related.  The pastor/owner of the cafe in the Stokes-Windermere Rapid terminal is accused of meeting a 12-year-old, then taking her to an E. Cleve motel and raping her... terrible story.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/pastor_accused_of_raping_prete.html#incart_most-read_entertainment_article

RTA's goal is to replace rail cars by 2025... cost is $280 million

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

Revenue lost from rule-change related to collecting sales tax on Medicaid charges: $17 million per year...

 

Which is predicted to affect RTA to make a 7% decrease in service next year.

 

In 2008, when the economy tanked, RTA had to cut service by 12%... A major blow to the system. Sales tax receipts were down enormously and Cleveland unemployment peaked over 10%. Less jobs, less riders, less purchases being made. While over the ensuing years, ridership built back-up and service was incrementally expanded, this year the 3% service cut and the fare increase did well to set the system back at a time where ideally we'd be ramping up and expanding -- for a myriad of reasons familiar to regulars on this forum.

 

In 2016, though people are working and the economy isn't as awful, do people use public transpration when they get that new job? When the service is infrequent (many routes now down to once an hour), more expensive ($2.50 for one-way, $5.50 for an all-day), and more unreliable (since Public Square was closed, incidents of buses being late has increased by over 40%); or do people instead do a mental cost-benefit analysis, take their money, and invest in a car? While buying a $5,000 used car in Cuyahoga County nets GCRTA $50, that's only half the cost of a monthly pass with no future fares to count on.

 

I'm guessing there will be new infrastructure bills to update (MAP-21, ICETEA-LU) in the new congress, any thought on what to look out for.. Usually the local match is 20% on major capital purchases with the rest coming from the feds. So for rail car's that's like $60 million set aside.

 

Can we discuss the macro-economic outlook for RTA and its backlog of capital needs at a time of major political transition in DC? Gridlock on issues like infrastructure might subside a bit (who knows), but what does that look like for transit agencies when Republicans have their hands at the levers and public transportation is looked at through a partisan lens?

 

Slideshow for 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan image was clipped from:

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/rta_chugs_along_on_rail_projec.html#incart_river_home

 

Cross the Warrensville-Green station FTA compliance renovation off the capital improvement plan.

RTA's goal is to replace rail cars by 2025... cost is $280 million

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

Revenue lost from rule-change related to collecting sales tax on Medicaid charges: $17 million per year...

 

Which is predicted to affect RTA to make a 7% decrease in service next year.

 

In 2008, when the economy tanked, RTA had to cut service by 12%... A major blow to the system. Sales tax receipts were down enormously and Cleveland unemployment peaked over 10%. Less jobs, less riders, less purchases being made. While over the ensuing years, ridership built back-up and service was incrementally expanded, this year the 3% service cut and the fare increase did well to set the system back at a time where ideally we'd be ramping up and expanding -- for a myriad of reasons familiar to regulars on this forum.

 

In 2016, though people are working and the economy isn't as awful, do people use public transpration when they get that new job? When the service is infrequent (many routes now down to once an hour), more expensive ($2.50 for one-way, $5.50 for an all-day), and more unreliable (since Public Square was closed, incidents of buses being late has increased by over 40%); or do people instead do a mental cost-benefit analysis, take their money, and invest in a car? While buying a $5,000 used car in Cuyahoga County nets GCRTA $50, that's only half the cost of a monthly pass with no future fares to count on.

 

I'm guessing there will be new infrastructure bills to update (MAP-21, ICETEA-LU) in the new congress, any thought on what to look out for.. Usually the local match is 20% on major capital purchases with the rest coming from the feds. So for rail car's that's like $60 million set aside.

 

Can we discuss the macro-economic outlook for RTA and its backlog of capital needs at a time of major political transition in DC? Gridlock on issues like infrastructure might subside a bit (who knows), but what does that look like for transit agencies when Republicans have their hands at the levers and public transportation is looked at through a partisan lens?

 

Slideshow for 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan image was clipped from:

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

The partisan angle is quite interesting... While it's very fashionable for Republicans in general, and in particular in Ohio, to hate on transit (it's 'social engineering', even 'communist' in some eyes; antithetical to the free/libertarian society the USA is... etc, etc), a number of big cities in conservative Republican states, most shockingly Salt Lake City, Utah, have quietly gone whole-hog into investing in -- and loving, rail mass transit... Go figure.

For SLC, I would expect it has something to do with a fairly cosmopolitan population. The Mormons live in many countries and travel extensively so they could be used to train travel. The city is finally big enough to warrant some rail.

For SLC, I would expect it has something to do with a fairly cosmopolitan population. The Mormons live in many countries and travel extensively so they could be used to train travel. The city is finally big enough to warrant some rail.

 

IIRC the light rail was also helped along by the 2002 Winter Games....

Wow, what a great day to lose rail service to the airport....

 

Please Advise: Due to a mechanical issue, the Red Line train service will be replaced with 66R buses between Tower City and the Airport.

For SLC, I would expect it has something to do with a fairly cosmopolitan population. The Mormons live in many countries and travel extensively so they could be used to train travel. The city is finally big enough to warrant some rail.

 

... yeah and, although conservative, the Mormons there, at least generally for a while, rejected Donald Trump as uncivil and antithetical to their teachings... That's more than I can say for a lot of Evangelical Christians who sold out and backed this crazy and dangerous man...

 

... but I digress... The 2002 Winter Olympics (awarded to SLC in 1995) was a major catalyst to building and expanding their TRAX LRT... now, of course, they also have 88 miles of commuter rail to add to this (the Frontrunner)... Eat your hearts out Cleveland RTA and Ohio!  Little Salt Lake City really knows how to do mass transit.

Wow, what a great day to lose rail service to the airport....

 

Please Advise: Due to a mechanical issue, the Red Line train service will be replaced with 66R buses between Tower City and the Airport.

 

Not only is the timing horrible, RTA once again falls short in the communications-to-riders department... "Mechanical issue" is not good enough; and it's not just Twitter; this same explanation is on RTA's website.  I didn't see anything on cleveland.com about it... Guess we should be happy they warned people not to take the trains... I guess.

It may be time to drain the swamp at RTA headquarters.  ;) 

Sad scene at the airport on the eve of Thanksgiving....

 

 

 

And reports from rain-soaked persons at Public Square trying to get to the west side....

 

 

RTA is tweeting the Red Line to the airport is being restored now.

 

BTW, the Blue Line also was shut down today, between Shaker Square and Warrensville-Van Aken due to a "non-RTA motor vehicle accident"  but was restored about an hour later.

 

Great timing......

^At least shutting service due to a "motor vehicle accident" along the street level portion of the Van Aken route makes more sense and is more descriptive than "mechanical issues."

^At least shutting service due to a "motor vehicle accident" along the street level portion of the Van Aken route makes more sense and is more descriptive than "mechanical issues."

 

It's also not something that RTA is responsible for.

Wow, what a great day to lose rail service to the airport....

 

Please Advise: Due to a mechanical issue, the Red Line train service will be replaced with 66R buses between Tower City and the Airport.

 

Not only is the timing horrible, RTA once again falls short in the communications-to-riders department... "Mechanical issue" is not good enough; and it's not just Twitter; this same explanation is on RTA's website.  I didn't see anything on cleveland.com about it... Guess we should be happy they warned people not to take the trains... I guess.

 

There is nothing "mechanical" that can take down an entire rail line. 

It may be time to drain the swamp at RTA headquarters.  ;) 

 

HQ on down.  I'm sure the level of nepotism and cronyism in RTA would make a City of Cleveland official envious....

RTA's goal is to replace rail cars by 2025... cost is $280 million

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

Revenue lost from rule-change related to collecting sales tax on Medicaid charges: $17 million per year...

 

Which is predicted to affect RTA to make a 7% decrease in service next year.

 

In 2008, when the economy tanked, RTA had to cut service by 12%... A major blow to the system. Sales tax receipts were down enormously and Cleveland unemployment peaked over 10%. Less jobs, less riders, less purchases being made. While over the ensuing years, ridership built back-up and service was incrementally expanded, this year the 3% service cut and the fare increase did well to set the system back at a time where ideally we'd be ramping up and expanding -- for a myriad of reasons familiar to regulars on this forum.

 

In 2016, though people are working and the economy isn't as awful, do people use public transpration when they get that new job? When the service is infrequent (many routes now down to once an hour), more expensive ($2.50 for one-way, $5.50 for an all-day), and more unreliable (since Public Square was closed, incidents of buses being late has increased by over 40%); or do people instead do a mental cost-benefit analysis, take their money, and invest in a car? While buying a $5,000 used car in Cuyahoga County nets GCRTA $50, that's only half the cost of a monthly pass with no future fares to count on.

 

I'm guessing there will be new infrastructure bills to update (MAP-21, ICETEA-LU) in the new congress, any thought on what to look out for.. Usually the local match is 20% on major capital purchases with the rest coming from the feds. So for rail car's that's like $60 million set aside.

 

Can we discuss the macro-economic outlook for RTA and its backlog of capital needs at a time of major political transition in DC? Gridlock on issues like infrastructure might subside a bit (who knows), but what does that look like for transit agencies when Republicans have their hands at the levers and public transportation is looked at through a partisan lens?

 

Slideshow for 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan image was clipped from:

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

The partisan angle is quite interesting... While it's very fashionable for Republicans in general, and in particular in Ohio, to hate on transit (it's 'social engineering', even 'communist' in some eyes; antithetical to the free/libertarian society the USA is... etc, etc), a number of big cities in conservative Republican states, most shockingly Salt Lake City, Utah, have quietly gone whole-hog into investing in -- and loving, rail mass transit... Go figure.

 

Trains are an easier sell to Republicans and conservatives, I can't say for sure why.

^^I can't wait to hear KJPs "factual" rebuttal to this.