327

I think there's a cap, but I think there's also some carry-over to subsequent years.

^ Clevelander17, those groupings would be a step in the right direction. Full mergers would be the key... if they each retain their separate management apparati, nothing has really changed. Once you merge services and taxes what's left? Nothing worth paying extra for, that's what. As for "other fractured metros do OK" you have to consider other states' policies when making that comparison. Ohio is somewhat alone in its anti-urban approach... other states already do more spreading of resources, regardless of consolidation, than we do here. In many cases that is why they do better, in spite of being similarly balkanized. I agree that Cleveland's problems are deeper than balkanization, and that many of them stem exclusively from bad decisions by city leaders. I'm not one to let them off the hook because the city and region are poor. But that doesn't change the fact that money could be saved through consolidation. And again, no matter how much better Solon and Strongsville are doing than Cleveland, they remain suburbs of Cleveland and not of each other. At the national and international levels, they are irrevocably tied to Cleveland's success. I remember hearing the same talk from Oakland County, Michgan. They consider Oakland County to be an entirely seperate entity from Detroit.... and they are alone in this belief. Oakland County will go as far as being a part of Metro Detroit can take it. And that is where the general benefit of consolidation comes from. Small picture, Solon might be able to harass a few less motorists on 422 while Cleveland might be able to patrol a few more regional cultural destinations. Big picture, Solon is better off than before because it's a suburb of a more complete and functional community.

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors? There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period. Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible. There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order. Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum. But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds. To answer Clevelander17's broader contentions, I suppose the threshold issue is whether we view these individual communities as truly interdependent. If the answer is yes, then it's not too relevant how this or that community does in comparison to its regional neighbors. In the macro sense they rise and fall together. Strongsville and Solon may be better off than Cleveland, but are they better off than comparable suburbs in a stronger overall region? Of course not. At the end of the day both are suburbs of Cleveland, and are viewed as such by outsiders. If the answer is no, then by all means, keep viewing your neighbors as rivals and see how far our region gets. We're not doing too well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be. Have been for decades. This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization. Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

We really could use a Skyline or a Gold Star at CSU. I'd be happy with anything name brand, besides Subway.

"Education" will not help in this instance. This writer's real reasoning is hidden in his penultimate paragraph, the part about people on a spectrum, while the rest of the letter is smokescreen. He's racist and does not wish to spend time with different kinds of people. Ever. He assumes he will encounter such people on rail so he'll never use rail. Ever. He clearly doesn't understand the geography issues he's citing, but he's not really trying to either. He just wanted to say that cars allow us to avoid each other and that's how he happens to like it. This sort of rail opponent is not likely to back down, any more than they will back down on "neighborhood schools" or anything else segregation-related. And they will always use a perfunctory non-racial argument to sugarcoat their position, like saying China is rural and Europe is urban and Ohio is neither... which makes no sense at all, but he doesn't care, because that's really not his point.

This doesn't have to be a left/right issue, and I think we're better off if it isn't. My parents are hardcore conservatives who would love to see passenger rail in Ohio. They rave about rail systems overseas. They just aren't excited about this 3-C plan. They raise issues of practicality and suggest that local rail is a necessary predicate. They point out that the numbers are especially unfavorable for groups or families, who would pay separate fares on a train but not in a car. This, on top of having your car upon arrival, might really make it tough for those traveling together to choose 3-C. Considering how many pleasure trips are taken solo (very few), this doesn't bode well. Perhaps offering a "family" rate would be a good bipartisan selling point. These aren't naysayers. These are Ohio conservatives who are ready to support a rail plan. But they're not biting on this plan at this time. This plan doesn't even excite a lot of pro-rail liberals. Approaching this with an "us vs them" mentality could cause long-term damage by alienating those who are moderate on the issue. Some of their points make sense, and those points should be dealt with seriously, not via "shut up, rail is good." Many of them don't disagree that rail is good. Leave behind those who do. The discussion needs to move forward. For that to happen, we can't treat every practical complaint about this plan as an ideological assault on rail travel.

On a brighter note, I'm thrilled that Positively Cleveland is finally going after Forbes. Forbes releases a derogatory piece about our community seemingly every week now... they need to be stopped. Go CVB! I knew you had it in ya. We can't let an onslaught of bad publicity go unchallenged indefinitely.

I'm a known traditionalist so my examples shouldn't be too surprising. That OSU building meshes with the campus above and the neighborhood below. The approaches are specifically addressed. That used to be important. In this case here, they'll eventually have to put some sort of awning over it. And that'll look 50s-70s... moreso than it already does. Buck Rogers. Star Trek. Jetsons. I'll grant that the OSU cancer building is dated, but if you're gonna be dated, then dated-futuristic is not the way to go.

Well, yes, that's unsightly. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to what Columbus is doing with its main street. That distinction means more than whether or not a structure is for a cancer hospital. The OSU cancer hospital, which isn't even on High Street, is several times more attractive than anything UH or the Clinic has built for decades. It's so attractive and distinctive it's been used as a symbol for the university's hospital system and for OSU in general. Mayday, are you suggesting that there should be a lower standard for the appearance of cancer hospitals? I'm suggesting that in some places there isn't. This building looks ugly for a structure on a city's main street, as well as in comparison to other cancer hospitals in Ohio. And yes, the modern prevalence of sheer glass buildings has had an adverse effect on birds, as they tend to ram the glass at full speed. I thought this was well known. I've worked in many such buildings and I've seen it happen frequently. If I had said glass buildings open rifts to an alternate dimension... that would be WTF. But birds ramming the glass is a fact. Back to the issue at hand... considering the cost and prominence of this building, "not a monstrosity" isn't much of a standard. I think we can afford to have a little more pride than that.

Looks awesome... for me to poop on! I just got back from Columbus. It's mind boggling how attractive their new buildings are, especially compared to this. Never thought I'd say it, but Columbus is heading in a far more urban direction than Cleveland is and we need to start looking south for inspiration. Preferably before another one of these gets approved. Glare... of course there's glare... it's a giant chunk of glass. It's also gonna have birds ramming it all day. What is so uplifting about ice cubes? Quit building monuments to ice cubes. We don't need a built environment here that says "cold."

I'll have to try that wing place, it's right by me. I love how we build decent midrises here only for jail purposes. Close to schools and museums, fantastic downtown view... just sell some crack and you're in. Heaven forbid we build something so impressive for willing Cleveland residents.

The fact that anything has stayed open there since Dillards left is a testament to the power of mass transit, and to the stability of downtown. In less favorable settings that place would have been like Randall Park by now.

Agreed that they should go for more density along Van Aken at this point. Shaker Blvd still has the garden thing going, Van Aken not so much. We need to get away from the idea that reasonably priced rentals = bad people. Reasonably priced rentals also = young professionals. It costs a lot just to get a career underway these days. If we want to stem brain drain, we can't offer nothing but condos in our prime areas. EcoVillage (btw that W65th station looks new) failed for the same reason as St Lukes... this city doesn't need more single family homes, regardless of how Eco they might be. That's the wrong way to do TOD, and it shouldn't reflect poorly on Cleveland or TOD that bad plans for TOD don't work here. Bad plans don't work period. TOD should cater to those most interested in it... people who aren't ready to commit, or aren't able to commit, because they're not at that stage of life yet. That stage of life comes later for the average person now, later still for the highly educated. Greater Cleveland has many neighborhoods with sufficiently dense rentals and street life. Most were TOD at the time they were built. Coventry, Shaker Square, Edgewater, etc. These are the neighborhoods we recommend, the ones we show outsiders and the ones we often choose for ourselves. Why does Cleveland refuse to repeat this obviously successful pattern? While other cities continue to build dense urban neighborhoods, we keep throwing single family homes around train stations and claiming TOD doesn't work, or claiming the problem is Cleveland. Wrong. The problem is bad development decisions being made in Cleveland. Density does not mean smaller yards. TOD requires attached housing, mixed use, and reasonably priced rentals. I'm not making this up, I'm describing successful TOD that already exists in Cleveland. These neighborhoods are so appealing and so functional in their design that many have remained popular long after their transit was removed.

TOD works just fine here, when it's done right for the market. Most of what's along Van Aken does very well and always has. The super expensive Avalon condos didn't do well because they're super expensive condos. The TOD-friendly market segment here needs rentals, not high-end condos. That's years down the line. The lower part of the Shaker lines, the numbered streets, has too many barriers to development. Can't say TOD doesn't work in Cleveland based on one of its worst neighborhoods. It isn't the train's fault that's the hood. Incremental growth is unlikely due to the condition of the surrounding area. Larger projects might work one day but they're out of the question now, if we can barely even do them downtown. They already tried at St. Lukes/116 and went the wrong way, with single family homes. 93rd? That would be awesome, with the views, but it's awfully rough around there. Same goes for 79th, which has far-off potential but is a total mess. There are concentrations of public housing and general abandonment right by the stops at 93 and 79. Better by 116 but not light years better. 55th is by the main railyard in the city's scrap metal district. The area around 34th has CCC but nothing else to recommend it. Plasma cutting and large tanks of stuff. We'd have better luck building around the Red Line in East Cleveland than along the lower Shaker lines. University Circle development, in general, is TOD. So is the FEB. We may yet get somewhere with parts of the west side Red Line. Any others? We need to extend rail service to new areas, urban and beyond, to make more opportunities. West shore commuter rail would boost Edgewater and Detroit-Shoreway. The eastern shore is also dying for rail service, something to help turn the page from slow decline. This would help put Collinwood on a more even footing with cultural areas closer in. Downtown workers are happy to take the car-free option when it's presented. Either Blue Line extension we're discussing would boost the area around it and eventually spur development, with mroe portneital and a longer wait at Randall Park.

Unfortunately there's political ROI from any major metropolitan highway expansion. Highways have proven to work for people so people applaud more highways. In Cleveland local rail has also proven to work, but for a limited number of people due to limited coverage. But it is proven, and if Ohio helped like a normal state, RTA rail could pick up a lot more users (and pro-rail voters) by extending the lines. Local rail would quickly prove itself in Ohio's other cities, just like it does everywhere it's built. And the bottom line is that intercity rail loses a lot of efficacy if local rail isn't there first. People who are marginally amenable to intercity rail, a necessary part of the market, may draw the line at buses. Think about if transfers were to be involved. Ugh. It better be nice outside. And even if you're OK with hopping right on a strange bus system, it's not going to get you far without taking forever... and a lot of places may be inreachable by bus, especially on a weekend. There has to be a quicker and more reliable option for reaching outlying areas of the metro. That's what local rail does for you. Ohio's metros are extra-sprawly so this is paramount here. And no, nearby car rental isn't an answer, because the main competition for these trips is not flying but bringing your own car. And having people pick you up because you took the train is also not an answer. Taxi? That'll cost more than the train ticket. It's more clear than ever that all 3 of the C's need to get serious about local rail. We need to start seeing local candidates in urban areas having rail as a major part of their platform. We also need urban transit administrators who prioritize rail. Ultimately this is a political matter and it needs to be addressed politically in Ohio's urban counties. Until we have that it's going nowhere. I'm afraid none of that helps us right now... a 39 mph intercity line is not the best possible first-impression type of rail project, yet that's exactly what it is for many Ohioans. I think 39 average speed may be politically untenable. Any amount of corrective information that could be disseminated would be most helpful at this time. If you're likely to need to need a car or a bus trip as soon as you arrive... as if you took an airplane... it's just gotta be faster than 39.

Maybe we can do Chagrin AND Solon, with this Chagrin-Warrensville-Northfield-Van Aken ishkabibble as the switching point, like Shaker Square. The Chagrin part would be difficult for the reasons listed above, though shorter. There isn't really anywhere to go with it past the shopping area. That should limit the cost at least a little. And that shopping area makes the Chagrin line desirable for quality of life. It offers something you can't currently get to on the Rapid system, nor could you with an extension to Solon. And Chagrin, even past 271, is more TOD-oriented than Solon to begin with. So I like both about equally. Whichever one ends up being cheaper, do that one first. But don't do it with BRT. And if possible, have them all come direct from downtown. The Chagrin route is short, and the Solon line would be pretty fast with infrequent stops. I don't think we need a whole different system to reach Solon. I wouldn't take it past Solon though. I'd also like to see the Red Line go as far as South Park, one day. The centers of the "corner" municipalities in the county seem like reasonable boundaries for the Rapid system, as long as the stop frequency in those outer areas is appropriately thin.

It has to get to irrelevant places like Randall Park before it can go through them to highly relevant places like Solon, which has a thriving industrial sector. Exurbs aren't just bedroom communites, and jobs aren't just downtown. Agreed that the immediate value of reaching Randall Park, in and of itself, is limited.

We've had more robot lady recently on the Shaker lines, but at least her accuracy is improving.

Business is competitive, so rail service will need to be competitive in order to attract business travel. The ability to deal with paperwork while talking on the phone is certainly advantageous. But if that were sufficient you wouldn't be on your way to a meeting, would you? It's been said that false schedules for 3-C have already been published, and any actual schedule will arrive very late in the game... this is troublesome, because the schedule is a make-or-break issue for this market segment. Perhaps it's time to ask business travellers along the route what sort of schedule they need and work backwards from there.

Brutus I agree with your overall point that this won't do a lot for that many people. I have similar reservations, and I can't see myself being able to use 3-C as currently envisioned, even if I prioritize doing so. The logistics don't add up. It seems to me that most Ohioans share this view, which is not in any way an anti-rail view. A false dichotomy is emerging wherein you either agree that 3-C is a good idea, in itself, as proposed... or you're against all rail development. This outlook is likely to invite more opposition than it overcomes. I think most Ohioans are open to rail travel and more than ready to begin using it... However, one outright "myth" that really gets to me is the idea that Ohio and America aren't dense enough for rail to work. China only has density along its coast, yet they're running high speed rail halfway across Asia, because rail makes more sense, not less, when you're connecting distant population centers. It is only in the micro-density sense that Ohio has physical issues working against rail... as I mentioned earlier, our cities are less economically focused on their cores. This makes transit upon arrival a bigger issue here than in other cities where Amtrak can show high utilization. From an Ohio perspective, it would have been nice if some federal program had expanded local transit prior to the high speed rail initiative. But no such luck. Therefore I have doubts about getting the same results from the same approach in Ohio. Because the modern internal layout of its cities is so suburb-oriented, Ohioans have less to gain from low-speed intercity rail. 3-C makes sense ONLY to the extent it brings us closer to a viable high-speed service.

I floated an Agora-centic idea for this area a few months back, and it was heartily shot down. NOTHING shall impede the city's suburban light-industrial vision for Euclid Avenue. What we need right in the middle of Cleveland is Brook Park Road with bus shelters. Because that's what every successful city does, right? We'll take jobs any way we can get them, even if it makes the city so unappealing and dysfuncional it prevents ten times as much development from happening in the future. Our basic governing philosophies must change, in dramatic fashion, before this city can turn itself around.

No predicament here. It has to be Strickland and rail is the reason. I don't like Strickland much, and as a Democrat I think his weakness hurts the party statewide... but Kasich's willful blindness spells danger. And I'd be pretty worried if the vote were held today.

50 average mph is a conservative number used commercially to estimate inter-city driving times, so it's a key figure in getting people to take rail over car. Average speed is critical while top speed is comparatively irrelevant. ODOT may be doing a good job tying in available transit options, but the prospect of getting to a meeting (or other destination) that's located near 270 or 271 will be daunting until there's significant local transit growth. Coastal cities tend to be more core-centric and I think that explains their degree of rail utilization. I'm not suggesting we try to tackle the entire sprawl issue in conjunction with promoting 3-C... in fact I doubt that we should... I'm attempting to demystify the opposition's stance. It's difficult for them to equate taking a slow train into downtown Columbus with taking the same slow train into downtown Boston. Not only is there more to do upon arriving in downtown Boston, you have a better quality and quantity of options there for the next leg of your trip. And, also because of its core-centricity, the chances are much higher in Boston that your ultimate destination is in or near the core. In Columbus, chances are it's not.

Good to know, re: Cascades, Missouri, and Michgan... but how will the average speeds compare? And is anyone else starting a new service now at the level of 3-C? The newness of it is part of the unique challenge here. I think future upgrades will be a much easier sell. Ohio is not "sparingly dense" at all... not like states further west, which already have rail... we have a plethora of major cities scattered around the state, and we're directly between many other key cities. Our counties are small and many of them have sizeable county seats. Ohio's layout and location are as well suited to rail travel as anywhere in the world. However, we do lack density in our urban cores, and that is a problem for rail travel. In related news, we also lack public transit. Those issues can be addressed... and developing a rail system will help us in addressing them over the long term. Unfortunately those issues also demonstrate the steepness of our political climb. Our cities are hollow and car-dependent because that's the way people here have wanted them. Approaches which have been "successful" in other regions may have limited applicability in this specific place and time. That thinking underlies my premise that our arguments need to be modernized and custom-tailored to Ohio's sensibilities. As tempting as it may be, I think we need to avoid any version of "Can't you see how backwoods stupid you are?" Legitimate concerns have been raised and they need to be addressed directly. The people raising these concerns are more likely to back down if they can walk away feeling that they were right to raise the concerns they raised, and that these concerns are not foreign concepts to us "train people." And they might be less likely, under those circumstances, to view our concepts as foreign.

I think public opinion is a bit muddled, because it only recently became clear that Ohio would be the only (?) state building low-speed rail as part of the national high-speed program. It was easy enough before the awards came out to lump these ideas together, and to assume Ohio would end up going with a different plan than this one. Also, the current fiscal situation changes things... raising the bar, if nothing else. This is why I think pro-rail publicity may need to take a different tack than it has in the past. The arguments against it seem to skip "trains are dumb" and go directly for "we can't afford to do this, in this manner, at this time." This suggests that the most effective counterargument would be fiscal in nature, and would highlight the project as an investment and a development tool, rather than as a usable service. And I can't emphasize enough the need for people need to hear that there are definite plans for 1) high-speed in Ohio, and 2) connectivity between Ohio and other states.