Group 4  -  “Reclaiming An Urban Valley”

(Lisa Days, Yi Ding, Ebony Ricks, Zach Starnik)

PDD 611

Final Paper

05/04/06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outline

 

I.          Executive Summary

II.          Project Concept and Challenges

III.    Trail Layout and Maps

IV.          Surveys

V.          Proposed Development

VI.          Relocation & Environmental Remediation

VII.          Funding

VIII. Retail Market Niche Analysis and Retail Nodes

IX.          Weighting Matrix and Ranking Criteria

X.          Conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Spring 2006 Capstone Seminar studied the Lower Big Creek Valley and the idea of creating a recreational trail connecting the Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre neighborhoods and the Cleveland Metro Parks Zoo.  There were four groups with various themes for creating their trail.  The primary focus of our group is “Reclaiming an Urban Valley”.  Essentially, our group decided to do just that.  Our proposal includes cleaning out a portion of the Lower Big Creek Valley and developing various recreational opportunities.

In terms of connection, it was decided to not connect the Trail to any of the neighborhoods since another group will provide that analysis.  Our trail was also based on limitations beyond our control including steepness, topography, etc.  Development proposals include an urban camping ground on the site currently housed by the salt pile/truck depot, a nature park on the site currently housed by the auto salvage yard, an indoor recreation center currently housed at an industrial building commonly referred to as the “red building” and provide retail establishments such as a bike rental and general goods at the urban camp ground and inside the proposed indoor recreation center. 

Several challenges associated with the project include acquiring and cleaning out the salt pile/truck depot and the salvage yard, acquiring funding for clean-up and construction of our proposed developments, the resident’s perceptions of the Valley, topography and railroads. 

When deciding what our green way should like, our group relied on the survey data to decide what development should occur in the Valley.  Both the Tow Path Trail users and the Metro Park Zoo visitors highly favored a nature park and urban campgrounds.  On the other hand, the residents of Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre did not like the idea of an urban camp ground.  Since Cuyahoga County does not have an urban camping ground, our group felt that this would be a creative addition.

In order to pursue our proposals, the current business owners of the salt pile, truck depot salvage yard and red building will need to be purchased and relocated.  Next, the sites with the exception of the red building will need to be remediated.  The proposal for the red building includes turning the project over to private developers.  Our group can not determine the full extent of how much the sites may need to be cleaned until general contractors and environmental contractors conducting testing such as Phase One’s.

Another important aspect of our development is obtaining the funds to complete the project.  Based on our research there is a variety of programs available for creating and funding trails.  Most of the funding available is for various stages of our project such as land acquisition, brownfield remediation, trail development, environmental restoration, and related development projects.  Each individual stage will be associated with specific programs and organizations.

A retail analysis was completed to determine if our subject area can support additional retail opportunities.  Data was collected from the surveys of Tow Path trail users and Metro Park visitors, the Urban Land Institute and local commercial real estate conditions.  Based on our analysis, demand is not present to support retail. Essentially, the project is unable to support retail on its own.  It should be noted that the Zoo bolsters the existing square footage and our gross supportable square footage is boosting what the neighborhoods are already supporting.  In essence, our proposed establishments could also rely on the support of the surrounding neighborhoods and make the projects feasible.

Each of the trail alternatives in this project were ranked based on seven criteria: time to develop, recreation, political interest, jobs/economics, net fiscal benefits, ecology of the valley, and cost to build.  The lowest score for each criterion was one, and five was the highest.  Each of these ranking categories was in turn given certain weights according to their importance.  The combination of these two scores gave each group’s trail alternative a final ranking score.  After gathering all of these scores, the criteria weights were taken into account.  This gave our project a final score of three on a scale of 1-5.  This seems to make sense for a project that has so many costs and so many benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.  Project Concept

The concept of this project is to study and present recommendations for reclaiming the Lower Big Creek Valley.  Our group plans to create a greenway that would eliminate an existing truck depot, salt pile and auto salvage yard, and rehabilitate a marginal industrial building to create recreational opportunities and value for residents of the Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre neighborhoods.  Essentially, our group plans to purchase the sites from the current property owners (with the exception of the industrial building commonly referred to as the “red building” that will be turned over to private developers) and acquire funding for environmental remediation and construction of our proposed uses.  Currently, the Northeast Ohio Area wide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is studying the Lower Big Creek Valley.   Our focus is also aligned with NOACA’s study.  The NOACA Lower Big Creek Study is a comprehensive planning effort in the Lower Big Creek Valley area in the City of Cleveland. It focuses on the valley east of Pearl Road to the Cuyahoga River and the upland neighborhoods of Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn Center.  It includes environmental, land use, transportation, and recreational and economic development elements.  Study goals include the opening of the Canal Towpath Trailhead at Harvard Avenue.  This presents an opportunity for trail connections to the Old Brooklyn neighborhoods and to the Cleveland Metro Parks Zoo.  It also presents a chance to rethink how the Lower Big Creek Valley works for the neighborhood and the city with the goal to stabilize and improve environmentally degraded, and largely inaccessible, urban stream through river recovery, streamside land use improvement, and transportation planning elements coordinated with retail and neighborhood revitalization efforts ongoing in the city, as a foundation for redevelopment of the valley floor area.

 

Background of Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre neighborhoods

What is now the intersection of Pearl and Broadview Roads was the original settlement of Old Brooklyn.  In 1905, this area was annexed to Cleveland the same year that the Pearl Road street car line was extended south along the Big Creek Valley.  The area now known as Brookside Park became the permanent home of the Cleveland Zoo in 1908.  Today this area has a successful housing market and both commercial and residential development in progress.

            The present neighborhood of Brooklyn Centre was first settled in the 1820's along Pearl Street (now West 25th Street/Pearl Road), which provided direct access from this rural portion of Brooklyn Township (established in 1818) to the farmers markets at Public Square and at the old Central Market site.  Spurred by the extension of a streetcar line along Pearl Street in 1869, a substantial business district developed around the intersection of Pearl Road and Denison Avenue - an area which remains the neighborhood's commercial center.  The Village of Brooklyn, which encompassed the present Brooklyn Centre neighborhood, was incorporated in 1889 but was quickly annexed to the burgeoning City of Cleveland through legislative acts in 1890 and 1894.

            To date, the Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre neighborhoods have a combined population of 43,349 according to the 2000 census.  In terms of ethnicity, the areas are predominately White (87%).  Other races include other (or two or more races) (8%) and African-Americans (5%).  On a combined basis, there are 18,729 households.  In terms of housing 62% of the homes are owner-occupied while the remaining 38% are renter-occupied.  The median household income in Old Brooklyn is $35,234 and $26,621 in Brooklyn-Centre.

CHALLENGES

            The Lower Big Creek Valley is an area with many challenges.  Many of the eight businesses in the Lower Big Creek Valley have negatively impacted the environment due to their operations.  For instance, during rain fall run-off from the salt pile flows into the Creek destroying vegetation and wildlife.  One challenge associated with this project includes acquiring and cleaning the truck depot, the salt pile and the auto salvage yard.  Many of these businesses have been in the Valley for a number of years and have established the area as their principal place of business.  It would take our group a considerable amount of time to purchase the necessary parcels from the current property owners.  In addition, after the sites have been purchased, general contractors and environmental contractors would need to be hired to determine the extent of remediation needed to bring the sites up to the Ohio EPA standards for our proposed uses.  It is until then, that the true costs of remediation can be determined.  Our group has been notified that brown fields do exist in the Valley and the costs to remediate the sites are excessive.  Another challenge includes acquiring the financial resources needed for clean-up and construction of our proposed developments.  Based on our research, there is an array of funding sources available but the funding would have to be acquired during various stages of the project.  Various stages of our project such as land acquisition or environmental restoration have different programs available for each particular stage.  The third challenge includes the existing perceptions of the Lower Big Creek Valley.  When the residents of the Old Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Centre neighborhoods were surveyed by phone, one question the residents were asked was what is there perception of the Valley?  The results were besides no response to the questions (0.30) the residents felt the area was dirty, messy or polluted (.20) and under utilized (.13).  Another challenge includes topography since the cliff under Calgary Park is very steep and it is close to the railroads.

III.  TRAIL

Our proposed trail will extend from Cleveland Metro Park Zoo to the Cuyahoga River along the Big Creek.  A map of the trial has been provided as Figure 1.  The trial is projected at 9,000 feet and will include the following facilities. 

 

λ          One Nature Park

λ          One Indoor Recreation Building

λ          One Urban Campground

λ          Two Bridges

λ          Two Small Retail Shops  (Camp Ground and Indoor Recreation Building)

λ          Three Access Points and Parking Lots

 

The Zoo Segment:

The west trailhead will be located at the east side of the Metro Parks Zoo parking lot.  The first bridge will connect the parking lot and the Nature Park, which is in the north bank of big creek.  The bridge will be 300-350 feet long, 16-20 feet high.  Trail users could access the bridge and use the trail after parking their vehicles in the zoo parking lot.

The Nature Park Segment:

Under the W. 25th Street Bridge, our group has proposed developing a nature park at the auto salvage yard site.  The park will be about four acres in size and include a 2,200 feet trail.  There will be picnic tables, plant trees and rest areas in the park.  The loop trail will offer two options to visitors.  People could access the indoor recreation building by either using the short cut or going through the park.

The Indoor Recreation Building Segment:

An 800 feet long trail will connect the nature park to the indoor recreation building (the red building).  Recreational opportunities could include rock climbing, skateboarding and workout facilities.  Our group has also proposed adding a small equipment rental store inside the building.  At the east of the building, an 80 feet long bridge will be built to across the big creek and reach the cliff under the Calgary Park.

The Urban Campground Segment:

After the second bridge, the terrain becomes steep.  To make sure the trail is easy to construct and use, this part of trail will be following a certain contour line of the cliff under the Calgary Park.  Below the trail, an urban campground will be built at the 17 acre site currently housed by the salt pile and truck depot.  The urban campground, besides the camping facilities, will have a retail store (1,000 to 4,000 square feet), a parking lot and two connections to the main trail.  The length of this part of trail is about 4,000 feet.

The Harvard Ave. Segment:

The rest of trail, about 2,000 feet, will be built to connect the entrance of Urban Campground to the Towpath trailhead by following Harvard Avenue.

The Estimated Cost of Trail:

Cleveland Metroparks is currently estimating $85 / lineal foot of paved trail and $3MM for the bridges.  We estimate $20 / lineal foot of trail in street. The cost of the trail is showed as following:

　Length of BridgeLength of Paved TrailLength of On-street TrailThe Zoo Segment35000The Nature Park Segment022000The Indoor Recreation Building Segment808000The Urban Campground Segment040000The Harvard Ave. Segment002000Total Length43070002000Cost per foot$85$20Cost$3,000,000$595,000$40,000Total Cost $3,635,000

IV.  SURVEY ANALYSIS:

Residential Survey:

·          The spring 2006 Capstone Seminar class completed ninety-three (93) telephone surveys of residents in the Brooklyn Centre and Old Brooklyn neighborhoods.  It should be noted that most responses are reported as means unless otherwise noted.  In terms of perceptions of the Lower Big Creek Valley, the top three perceptions were no response to the question (0.30), dirty, messy or polluted (.20) and under utilized (.13).  When the residents of the Brooklyn Centre or Old Brooklyn neighborhood were asked and informed that possible redevelopment in their community might introduce leisure or recreational activities coinciding with a trail link, of the ten activities listed the top three highest ranked activities were walking (1.89), biking (2.08) and picnicking (2.12).  The three least important activities were cross county skiing (3.65), no limit on the stay for camping (3.48) and rock climbing (3.35).  It should also be noted that mountain biking raked sixth (2.96) of the ten activities.

·          Next, the residents were asked which of the three previously mentioned activities are the most important; the top three activities were walking (0.67), biking (0.47) and running/jogging (0.34).  The three least important activities were no limit on camping (0.09), a maximum limit on stay for campers (0.11) and rock climbing (0.11).  It appears that there was consistency with the ranking of activities and then stating the three most important activities to the residents (walking and biking).  On the other hand, the activities that the residents object to having in their community, the top three objections were no limit on staying for camping (0.42), a maximum limit on stay for camping (0.33) and rock climbing (0.32).  Again, there appears that there was 100% consistency with the ranking of activities in terms of least importance of various recreational activities and the activities that the residents would object to having in their neighborhood.  The objectionable recreational uses of the residents have been provided as Figure 2.

·          When the residents were asked if a recreational trail link was to be developed in the Big Creek Valley, of the seven issues regarding the development which would be most important, the top three issues were recreation opportunities (1.85), ecology of the valley (1.95) and community support (2.12).  Similarly, of the seven mentioned redevelopment issues, the ones most important to the residents were ecology of the valley (0.60), recreation opportunities (0.51) and employment impact (0.35).  Again, there is consistency with the ranking of issues and then stating the three most important issues to the residents.

·          When asked how these redevelopments would change the area, the top three responses were that the redevelopments will have a positive impact within/on the community (0.55), will increase interest outside the area (0.26) and no response was provided (0.15).

·          In terms of demographics, the highlights included:

o    53% of respondents were male,

o    29% of respondents were between the ages of 30 to 39

o    38% of the respondents chose not to report their household income

o    63% of the respondents were white

o    32% of the respondents were high school graduates.

o    In terms of an error check, less than 1% of the surveys were incorrect.

 

Towpath Survey:

·          Eighty-one (81) surveys were completed by users on the Towpath Trail.  When the Towpath Trail users were asked if concessions were available, 69% of the respondents said yes.  Then, when the trail users were asked which establishment they would visit, 39% said they would probably patronize restaurants, 34% would visit a convenience store, 23% would visit a gas station and 6% would visit other establishments.  The survey did not ask respondents how much they would spend at any of the proposed establishments.

·          When asked your most frequent uses of the Metro Parks trail system, the top three activities were biking (0.62), walking for fitness (0.56) and running/jogging (0.43).

·          Of the twelve measures listed for improving the quality of the trail system, the top three important measures were cleanliness (1.69), accessibility to public restrooms (2.07) and connection to downtown (2.33).  The least three measures were places to shop for everyday needs (3.81), better traffic and parking enforcement (3.71) and access to eating and drinking places nearby (2.90).  Next, when asked of the previous twelve measures which three are the most important, the top three were cleanliness (0.62), accessibility to public restrooms (0.42) and connection to downtown (0.33).  In terms of consistency, this question was 100% consistent in terms of ranking the top three measures and identifying the top three that were most important.

·          When asked if a connection was made from the Harvard avenue trailhead near the Jennings freeway to the Zoo, the top three conditions that would impact your use of the trail were situated by a natural stream (1.70), elevated with views (2.19) and part of a loop-system (2.28).

·          In regards to an urban development project such as a trail surrounded by active recreational uses the top three issues were recreational opportunities (1.73), ecology of the valley (1.92) and community support (2.62).  Of the previous list, the three most important noted were ecology of the valley (0.73), recreational opportunities (0.64) and time to complete development (0.35). 

·          When asked if a recreational trail link was to be developed, of the nine opportunities that would be made accessible the top three were a nature park (2.11), a water park (3.05) and a skate park (3.09).  Next, when asked to note the three most important opportunities the top three were a nature park (0.60), urban camping grounds (0.36) and a water park (0.32).  It appears there was consistency with the exception of the urban camping grounds because when ranked the urban camping grounds were ranked fifth of the nine opportunities but was ranked second of the three most important.  The Towpath trail user’s interest in possible redevelopment opportunities has been provided as Figure 3.

·          In terms of demographics, the highlights included:

o    64% of our respondents were male

o    40% were between the ages of 30 to 39

o    52% reported being college graduates

o    26% reported a household income of $40,000 to $59,000

o    84% were white

o    In terms of an error check, 0% of the surveys were incorrect

 

Zoo Survey:

·          On a combined basis, the Capstone class completed one hundred (100) surveys of Metro Park Zoo Visitors.  When asked after visiting the zoo the last time or before today’s visit did you stop for a meal, gasoline or shopping within 10 minutes of the zoo, 67% of the respondents said no.  Of the 33% of respondents who did stop, 44% said they would visit gas stations, 42% would visit restaurants, 12% would visit convenience stores and 2% would visit other establishments.  Next, when asked how much would you spend 45% said they would spend $11 to $20, 25% said 21 to $30 and 13% said $0 to $10.

·          When asked what recreational activities have you personally enjoyed within the year, the top three activities were walking for fitness (0.71), biking (0.62) and walking the dog (0.55).

·          Of the twelve measures listed for improving the quality of the trail system, the three most important were cleanliness (1.85), accessibility to public restrooms (1.94) and better lighting (2.29).  The least three important were places to shop for everyday needs (3.35), public transit services (3.10) and access to eating and drinking places nearby (2.81).  Next, when asked which are the most important, they were cleanliness (0.54), accessibility to public restrooms (0.45) and better lighting (0.34).  In terms of consistency, this question was 100% consistent in terms of ranking the top three measures and identifying the top three that were most important for improving the quality of the trail system.

·          If a connection was made from Harvard Avenue to the zoo, of the eight conditions the top three impacting use of the trail were situated by a natural stream (1.71), elevated with views (1.92) and part of a loop-system (2.55).

·          In regards to the importance of an urban recreation redevelopment project such as a trail surrounded by active recreational uses, the top three issues were recreational opportunities (1.69), ecology of the valley (2.13) and community support (2.51).  Next when which are most important the top three were recreational opportunities (0.66), ecology of the valley (0.48) and community support (0.41).  In terms of consistency, this question was 100% consistent in terms of ranking the top three issues and identifying the top three issues associated with an urban recreational redevelopment project.

·          When asked if a recreational trail link was to be developed, of the nine opportunities, the top three were gravity games (1.93), BMX and dirt biking tracks (2.25) and a nature park (2.95).  When asked which three are the most important the results were a nature park (0.60), a water park (0.51) and urban camping grounds (0.34).  In this instance, there was not much consistency because originally the water park was ranked fifth and the urban camping grounds were ranked sixth instead of the top three most important.  The Metro Park Zoo visitor’s interest in possible redevelopment opportunities has been provided as Figure 4.

·          In terms of demographics, the highlights included:

o    52% of our respondents were female

o    36% were between the ages of 30 to 39

o    40% were college graduates

o    17% reported household incomes of $20,000 $39,000

o    77% were white

o    In terms of an error check, 0% of the surveys were incorrect.

V.  Proposed Development - Urban Camping:

One of the major highlights of our group includes the plan to develop an urban camping ground on the site that currently houses the salt mine and truck depot.  To date, the site is owned by two property owners and is 17 acres in size.  The plan is to relocate the two current businesses and begin the necessary clean-up efforts to house the urban camping ground.  Once clean-up has been completed, our proposed trail will follow a contour line of the cliff under Calgary Park.  It is essential that our trial connect to the urban camp ground to provide additional recreational opportunities and ascetics for trail users and camp visitors.

            The group proposes a variety of recreational vehicles (RV) sites (15 to 20), tent sites (10), a variety of cabin styles including one and two room cabins (6 total cabins – 4 one-room and 2 two-room), a dump station, laundry facilities and restrooms.  Proposed services would include LP gas, pull-thru sites to accommodate larger RV homes, grills, play areas and/or game room, basketball court, modem data port and free wireless Internet.  Other amenities would include a general store for everyday convenience needs including a café for ice cream and other food, a bike rental shop, swimming pool, firewood and miniature golf.  The campground can also highlight neighboring attractions such as the Metro Parks Zoo, Tow Path trail, Steelyard Commons, downtown Cleveland, etc. 

            In terms of retail, the proposal would include a 1,000 to 4,000 square foot general store for everyday needs including a café for ice cream and other food, grocery items, RV supplies, gifts, toys, etc.  This store would also include bike rental.  The bike rental shop can also serve as bike rental for towpath users and the proposed indoor mountain biking facility in the red building.

            Based on current rates of other campgrounds, our proposed rates are $40 for RV’s, $30 for tents and $65 for cabins.  It should be noted that the rates are based on a two person rate charge.

Proposed Development – Indoor Recreation Center:

            Our second proposal includes acquiring the red building.  The proposal is for the red building to be rehabilitated and used for recreational opportunities such as indoor mountain biking, rock climbing, skateboarding and workout facilities.  Our group has also proposed adding a small equipment rental store (about 1,000 to 2,000 square feet) inside the building.  It should be noted that our group plans to turn over the building to private investors who express interest in further developing the building to limit our costs.

Proposed Development – Nature Park:

            The third proposal includes developing a nature park on the auto salvage yard site.  The park will be about four acres in size and include a 2,200 feet trail.  There will be picnic tables, plant trees and rest areas in the park.  The loop trail will offer two options to visitors. 

VI.  RELOCATION & ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION:

Prior to the implementation of our proposed ideas for the Lower Big Creek, businesses will need to be relocated and environmental remediation is also required.  Because our group is responsible for cleaning out of the Valley, we researched possible alternative sites to relocate the businesses.  The focus primarily included the road salt pile/truck depot and the salvage yard.  Based on our research, there are several existing sites that the road salt pile can be relocated.  It is also possible to move the road salt to more than one site.  There is a salt storage facility on North Marginal Road on Route 90 before you get to East 55th Street heading east.  Another storage facility is located at East 110th and St. Clair at DuPont while the third facility is located at 6th and Quincy.  A fourth facility, closest to the current site, is located at Ridge Road and Dennison and Lorain and 140th.  In regards to relocating the salvage yard (Brookside Auto and Salvage), the best relocation site is A & C Auto Wrecking, a site north of Memphis Ave on Ridge Road in Ward 16.  The site is 12 acres of a collection of auto salvage yards and towing parcels.  The addition of the Brookside Auto and Salvage will add 4.18 acres to the A & C Auto Wrecking site.   The truck depot can be relocated to a site located on Rockefeller Road near the I-490/I-71 entrance ramp off of Broadway on Transportation Road where a truck stop is located with a truck depot.  There is also a salt pile is located and across the street on Rockefeller. 

Our group has the option of either purchasing the businesses or paying the business owner’s relocation expenses.  The plan includes the relocation of the salt pile, salvage yard, truck depot and the businesses in the Turbonics, Inc. building.  There are eight businesses that our group plans to either relocate or purchase with a combined value of $3,335,000 (Based on the 2005 values of the Cuyahoga County Auditor).  Other businesses in the Valley include:

·          Salt Pile valued at $167,600

·          Salvage yard valued at $347,100

·          Truck depot valued at $824,700

·            Turbonics, Inc. valued at $377,000

·          A & L Fabricating Corporation valued at $125,000

·            Cleveland Welding valued at $120,100

·          William E. Platten Contracting Co. valued at $95,100

·          Martin Enterprises valued at $1,278,400. 

If we decide to purchase the properties, essentially jobs will be lost.  The Brookside Auto and Salvage Company currently have eight employees, and Turbonics has fifteen employees.  If these companies are relocated then there will be loss of income tax revenue.  The salt pile currently contributes $4,661 of income tax revenue to the city, the salvage yard contributes $9,550 and Turbonics, Inc. contributes $10,016.  The combined income tax revenue loss to the City is $24,227.  The only site that will need remediation is the salvage yard, because the salt pile is inert.  There is a local auto wrecking company located on Storer and W 65th that will move the cars for $40.00 to $50.00 per car and they would also buy the cars for $100 per car to put on their 8 acre site. 

There are also the environmental concerns associated with several of the properties located in the Valley.  The salt pile is not a concern unless the salt runs off into the creek, causing harm to vegetation and wildlife.  In addition, if the salt eventually ends up in a city’s drinking water supply, this could possibly cause problems for people with hypertension.  The problem with salvage yards are that operations are conducted outdoors and materials are also stored outdoors.  Some of the concerns with auto salvage yards include airbags (Sodium Azide Air Bags) and the chemical that triggers the airbag to deploy, antifreeze, asbestos, auto shredder residue, brake fluid, Freon, fuel and fuel filters, lead-acid batteries, lead wheel weights, mercury switches, oil and oil filters, power steering fluid, tires, transmission fluid and windshield wiper fluids.  The possibility of storm water contacting these outdoor areas can carry pollutants such as heavy metals, oils and solvents directly into a stream, ditch, lake or other surface waters.  According to a city employee, there is current evidence of runoff from the salvage yard into creek.

            Our group is not looking to redevelop the Henninger landfill, however it is an environmental concern that is located in the valley.  The Henninger landfill is another environmental concern.  The landfill is situated next to the creek and any run off of material that is in the landfill could eventually end up in the creek.  According to the Ohio EPA, the landfill was originally capped with two feet of well compacted earth.  Since the landfill was originally closed in 1970 prior to any government regulations or ground water regulations there has been no post closure care.  There are voids in the surface and differential settlement found on the landfill.  Also, there is evidence gas at the site such as methane and hydrogen sulfite and the site could be explosive if there is a gas that causes a rotten egg smell.  After speaking with a representative from the Ohio EPA, our group was informed that the landfill can be recapped using regulations that were in place when it was originally capped which was prior to 1970.  Therefore the landfill can be capped with 2 feet of well compacted earth and clay with resistance water runoff of 10 to 16 centimeters per second.  Depending on where the owner is getting the clay from (how far it has to travel) it can cost any where from $40,000 to $50,000 per acre to cap the landfill.

                                   

VII.  FUNDING AND COSTS

One of the biggest obstacles in making the trail a reality is obtaining the necessary funds.  In all likelihood, funding will have to be drawn from many different sources.  Government entities, foundations, and nonprofit organizations will all be needed at some point in the development process.  In trying to discover how resources may be tapped, it will be helpful to think of the funding as occurring in several stages.  These would include: land acquisition, brownfield remediation, trail development, environmental restoration, and related development projects.  Each individual stage will be associated with specific programs and organizations. 

            Most of the programs available for land acquisition will be related either to the possibility of environmental remediation or the development of trails.  The Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant is a grant that is available through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.  Since Big Creek lies within the Lake Erie Coastal Management Area, money from this grant could conceivably be used for land acquisition, provided that the purpose is for the enhancement, erosion abatement, or habitat restoration of the creek.  Another possible resource is the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund that could provide up to 50% reimbursement for the acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of recreational areas.  There is precedence for this grant funding trails and trailheads.  The Recreational Trails Program is another program run by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.  This program will fund the land acquisition, development, and construction of new trails.  A fourth source is the Clean Ohio Fund, a program run by both the Ohio Department of Development and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.  Money from this program requires a 20% match and may be used for green space preservation or trail development, including land acquisition. 

            Funding the development phase can involve a number of the same programs, including the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Recreational Trails Program, and the Clean Ohio Fund.  There are also a few other programs that could be directed more specifically to this phase.  One program is the Ohio Rail Development Commission.  The commission can provide funds for the grade crossing safety issues that may arise in the course of the project.  NOACA, the regional planning agency, has a program called Transportation for Livable Communities.  This program provides federal funding to communities for transportation projects that improve livability in the community.   There is also a program run through the Federal Highway Administration called the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program. The program funds enhancement activities, which are defined by three categories:  historic and archeological, scenic and environmental, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The program provides 80% of the construction or implementation cost of a project, with a 20% match requirement.  The Towpath Trail is an eligible applicant for this funding, because it provides alternative modes of transportation and is an enhancement to the community.

            One of the more complicated issues is the remediation of the brownfield sites.  A major source for this phase is the above-mentioned Clean Ohio Fund.  This program makes funds available for both the assessment and actual remediation of sites.  There is also a county project called the Cuyahoga County Brownfield Redevelopment Fund.  This program is aimed at overcoming environmental barriers to obtaining the full use of underutilized commercial and industrial sites.  This program is also specifically directed towards job creation or retention.  

            Another phase, somewhat related to brownfield remediation, is environmental restoration.  One organization that would apply to this phase is The Ohio Wetlands Foundation.  This is a nonprofit organization that provides funds for the design, construction, and maintenance of wetlands.  This project would apply as a wetlands area.  The Ohio State EPA also provides the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.  This fund can provide monies for cleaning water pollution.  The Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants, mentioned above, may also be used during this phase. 

            Finally, there are other organizations that can be applied to more directly.  The city, especially in the form of the Community Development Block Grant, can provide assistance.  Foundations, including the Gund Foundation, and the Cleveland Foundation, may also be tapped for resources. 

VIII.  RETAIL ANALYSIS:

In terms of retail, our retail node is West 25th near the Metro Parks Zoo.  A retail analysis was conducted to determine if our subject area can support additional retail (Figure 5).  It should be noted the Steelyards Commons is proposing a 1,000,000 square foot retail complex at the former ISG/LTV steel site at the eastern end of our proposed trail.  Financials for the Towpath portion of the analysis take into account the impact of Steelyard Commons.  This assumes that retail at the eastern end of the trail will be more adversely affected by Steelyard Commons than that retail at the western end.

The retail analysis looked at possible retail opportunities for a fast food/restaurant, a gas station, drug/convenience store and other (such as ice cream parlor, etc).  The number of visitors projected annually at the Metro Parks Zoo is 1.2 million visitors.  This number was converted into households assuming three zoo visitors per household.  Based on the survey data, the capture rate for the Zoo was obtained from the median values of surveyors would patronize the four proposed establishments.  It should be noted that the median values for the Towpath were higher than the Zoo.  These values were assumed to be 50% less than the Zoo assuming that retail opportunities would be primarily attracted by Zoo visitors.  Next, the dollars spent per visit were also obtained from the Zoo survey.  This value represented the average amount respondents would spend at each establishment.  Because the Towpath survey did not ask respondents how much they would spend at each establishment, the same numbers from the Zoo were used for the Towpath.  Potential sales were obtained by multiplying the number of households by the capture rate and dollars per visit.  Next, average sales per establishment were obtained from the 2000 Dollars and Cents of Shopping centers (Urban Land Institute).  The 2000 figures were then inflated to 2006.  Gross supportable square footage per establishment was calculated by dividing the potential sales for each establishment by the average sales per square foot for each store type.  Based on our retail analysis, demand is not present for any of our proposed establishments.  However, the Zoo bolsters the existing square footage.  Our gross supportable square footage is boosting what the neighborhoods are already supporting.  In essence, our proposed establishments could also rely on the support of the surrounding neighborhoods and make the projects feasible.

 

IX.  Weighting Matrix and Ranking Criteria

Each of the trail alternatives in this project were ranked based on seven criteria: time to develop, recreation, political interest, jobs/economics, net fiscal benefits, ecology of the valley, and cost to build.  The lowest score for each criterion was one, and five was the highest.  Each of these ranking categories was in turn given certain weights according to their importance.  The combination of these two scores gave each group’s trail alternative a final ranking score (Figure 6).

            This trail alternative, given its high costs and high benefits, had scores that ranged from high to low depending on the category.  It received a score of 1 for time to develop.  The time to develop was expected to be over eight years given the scope, cost, and political difficulties posed by the project.  However, the project received a rather high score, 4, for recreation.  It received this score because of the increased recreational facilities that would be created and the increased zoo and Towpath Trail use that it was expected to stimulate. 

            The score was low again for the next category, political interest.  This alternative received a score of 1 because it would require significant public funding, take a number of parcels from landowners, and contain objectionable uses.  The score was 3 for the category of jobs/economics.  The trail alternative was not expected to have much of an impact on the employment in the valley, either positively or negatively.  For net fiscal benefits the score was also a low 1.  This was due to the project having a very low net present value of –17%. 

            The final two criteria were ecology of the valley and cost to build.  The project received a score of 5 for ecology.  This project would significantly clean out the valley, improving water quality, cleaning and reusing brown fields, and provide measurable ecological restoration.  Finally, for cost to build, the project received a score of 4, with an expected cost to build of $5 to $7 million. 

            After gathering all of these scores, the criteria weights were taken into account.  This gave the project a final score of three on a scale of 1-5.  This seems to make sense for a project that has so many costs and so many benefits. 

X.  Conclusion

            Our group’s overall plan of “Reclaiming an urban valley” was to clean several areas of the Lower Big Creek Valley.  By doing so, our focus is to provide additional and creative recreational uses for the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and other visitors to the Lower Big Creek Valley.  We believe that our efforts will significantly improve the perceptions of the neighborhood, improve the aesthetics of the area and offer regional-class recreational opportunities that only the Lower Big Creek can offer.  Even though there are high benefits associated with the plan there are also high costs involved that should be considered.