Foraker

No doubt. 😁 No one wants to live next to a fortress, yet there are advantages to having a jail in our urban community -- it's easier for relatives to visit, legal services are more readily available, ready availability for job training and health services, possibility of transit reducing the need for parking, and proximity to the courts. So we both want a jail in the city and we don't want it to be a huge negative presence in the neighborhood. We should encourage creative solutions to making our urban areas great places to live. I don't really want to go hang out in front of a jail, but when I get off the rapid and walk up to the jail to visit Uncle Joe I don't want to walk through a parking lot to get there. And more importantly, I don't want anyone to think that suburban must-have-a-car-to-get-there, unfriendly-to-pedestrian development is exemplary "urban" development -- "nuisance" building or not.

Valid points. Having to make a transfer already increases travel time, so how can we minimize the disruption of a transfer? That's why I would make transfers, whether to the Healthline or a bus at STJ, as easy as possible -- putting subway exits adjacent Healthline stations, for example, and at STJ. Now, if going to STJ isn't really necessary because "every" bus goes by a subway stop, then problem solved. The walk from E17th&Euclid is a block east on Euclid, a block south on E18 (uphill), and another block and a half into STJ before boarding a bus -- plus the walk up from the subway if it's underground. And it's an almost equal distance to the main classroom building at CSU. I would guess that the actual walk time for many people would be closer to ten minutes. The five-minute walk is not usually a perfect circle -- check this out: https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-lng=-81.68009&0-tt=5&0-mode=ferry&0-title=B. F. Keith Building%2C 1631%2C Euclid Avenue%2C East 4th Street%2C Playhouse Square%2C Cleveland%2C Cuyahoga County%2C Ohio%2C 44115%2C United States of America&0-lat=41.50123 You can move around the center location to see the five-minute walk where each of your stations would be. I think if you could move the station further east to E18th you'd get to 5 minutes to the bulk of CSU, STJ, and Playhouse Square. That might be close enough for this number of stations, but if a lot of people NEED to get to STJ, it would be nice to have a covered walkway from the subway train directly to STJ. Depending on how deep the subway runs and how you dig the tunnels (could we borrow one of the sewer-tunnel diggers?) the tunnels would not necessarily have to follow surface streets and the exits from the subway could be directed to convenient exit points on multiple streets.

"Some Examples of What an Urban Jail Can Look Like" -- all but the last look very sub-urban with a sea of parking in front.

I like this map, but I would add one stop -- move the St. Vincent stop closer to Community College Ave and add a stop at the Stephanie Tubbs Jones transit center -- I think those changes get you closer to CSU and Tri-C while also providing that direct connection to bus transfers. Then you also could also move the E17th stop to just west of E14.

This is a great discussion. I would love to have a fast, convenient (within five minutes of EVERY building in the central business district) subway line downtown. Man, would I love that (and the lack of snow delays)! I still question whether this is the best way to accomplish that long-term goal. Yes, it adds a lot of connections and not a lot of time to the Red Line. But it's going to be really expensive and still leave out a lot of the central business district. If this short red line diversion sucks up all of RTA's bonus money, is it worth it? That's where I still have my doubts. And yes, the Waterfront Line is too far out for the central business district so even "completing the loop" will require some significant investment in TOD around the new stations to truly make it successful. That is far from ideal, and it's only strong points are that it solves the dead-end problem of the Waterfront line, it will be far less expensive than a subway, and would finally connect a huge part of the region to CSU and Tri-C with just one transfer. If we were to use the RTA lines to bring visitors into Tower City, and we extend the Waterfront line east instead of turning it south, what would the ideal downtown subway loop look like, and could the construction of this red line diversion provide the infrastructure for the first segment of such a loop? If it was part of such a long-term plan I would be more enthusiastic about the expense of such an investment.

Is it? I'm not convinced that it is better than KJP's suggestion of "completing the loop" downtown using the Waterfront Line to transition to a streetcar along E17/E18 or thereabouts past CSU and TriC. KJP's plan seems likely to be cheaper as well. I completely agree that a subway would be faster and far more desirable but I think the cost is prohibitive. It's unfortunate that this report's "alternatives" that were considered/proposed do not take that Waterfront Line extension concept into account for comparison.

Nice to hear. I doubt that there would be any discussions about regional cooperation within CH city hall until after the city elects its first mayor later this year, but CH/UH/SE/SH should collaborate more than they do, particularly along the shared Warrensville corridor.

The school property off of Severn (Millikin) is owned by the school district and is used for the trades. (The neighborhood has been maintaining and using the playground adjacent Severn.) And the MetroHealth expansion blocks access to that building anyway. There is another lot to the north of that, parallel to Crest, that has the original Rockefeller estate stables behind the Severance Medical Arts building. They aren't particularly special, but they are historic. The community would likely fight tearing those down for a salt dome, just as they did when the economic development team in the city blindsided everyone (including the school district!) about issuing an RFP to redevelop the Millikin property. Maybe Severance is still the best place for it, if it can be appropriately screened and better maintained. Perhaps we could share a salt storage site with S. Euclid (I think their salt storage is near Monticello and Green, not far from Denison Park) or University Heights. Although it seems likely that neither will want it. The city works department has some other storage on the Mayfield Triangle that would have to be moved/consolidated/screened better, but I don't think the city is using all of the old dairy building, and I wonder what kind of condition that building is in. It's a big eyesore and is likely hampering development on all those vacant lots on the Noble (west) side. https://patch.com/ohio/clevelandheights/90-years-in-90-days-hillside-dairy

This is getting off topic of CH development -- but yes, it is mandatory that districts provide busing, but I think only for elementary and special needs kids (and maybe for kids living in the district but going to charter/private schools -- I'm not certain how that works and it isn't relevant to this discussion beyond the fact that every school district is stuck with buses). I think CMSD does give RTA passes to high school students. https://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/domain/121 Very inefficient to have every school district have this pile of buses that are only used twice a day, take up lots of real estate and create surges in traffic. University Square is certainly something to consider -- perhaps the Mayor can work a deal there. (My understanding is that the garage is going to lose two floors in the coming renovations, and there will be housing built on Cedar, so there may be a lot less availability when that happens.) Another development problem in CH (other than the Severance elephant) is the Mayfield Triangle (Noble/Mayfield/Warrensville) -- where CH keeps the salt dome and miscellaneous equipment in storage at the old dairy building. Where do you put the salt dome if you wanted to redevelop and revitalize that corner of the city?

Without more information I don't think it's fair to say that the "school district didn't care." I agree that the bus depot is an eyesore and it creates morning and afternoon surges of traffic. The State of Ohio requires the district to provide busing, so the district cannot eliminate its buses. We're stuck with them. The question is where do we put them? The district does not own another piece of land that can house the buses, that's why they rented space from the synagogue. If the mayor does not want the school buses returned to Wiley, he should present an alternative, along with reasons why it makes financial and operational sense for the school district. Then I think the entire community would back him up. Otherwise it's just whining (unless he has some authority to prevent the return of a prior use). I do think that the school district and CH and UH and the library system all need to work together better than they currently do. It rarely feels like all boats are pulling in the same direction, that they are taking each other's needs and concerns into account and helping each other out.

Yes, CHUH has a lease that runs until Q3 2022, and they are planning to move the buses back to Wiley before then. The buses were originally moved from Wiley to add temporary classroom buildings during the high school renovation (and then middle school renovations). But I recently heard that the Mayor of UH objects to buses returning to Wiley. I don't know how much say the Mayor has in that matter, but CHUH doesn't have a lot of alternatives (locations, or money, or time) for a new bus depot.

Really great news. This is continues the momentum from the revitalized Larchmere up the hill, which coincidentally is where City Architecture is moving their offices and they are the lead architects for this project. Cleveland really is on the rebound.

I think that is probably a few years down the road. I'm already hearing that the locals near the Gorge are frustrated by the already-larger influx of visitors and the lack of facilities for them. Once the pandemic ends it could be a mess. Also sounds like a good time to build a small hotel and restaurant nearby -- so where are the most likely train stops nearby?

Cleveland Heights-University Heights Libraries to renovate Coventry building and rehab/reconfigure adjacent park. https://patch.com/ohio/clevelandheights/coventry-library-get-1-2-million-upgrade

Somewhat, yes, but with some other benefits (as long as it is a protected bike lane as depicted). http://www.bikecleveland.org/midway/ The bigger problem seems to be a lack of funding. Hopefully that is resolved soon.

That sucks. Can they make it up to us by completing the Waterfront Line-Downtown loop? Please?

Apology -- sorry to have confused you with someone else. Seems like we mostly agree.

I think you're missing some of the nuance in what has been said as much as you seem to think we're missing what you're saying. Of course poor people don't like riding the bus in its current state, and of course anyone who can afford to drive does so today, and I'm not saying that they should be wanting the current system or that even small improvements should make us happy to take the bus. I prefer to drive because it's more convenient, and I can afford to do so so I do. Even if I couldn't afford to do so, I definitely would want to drive. I don't begrudge that feeling to anyone. But both the poor and wealthy in other countries do take the bus when it is fast, clean, on-time, and convenient. Making Cleveland's overall transit system better (faster, cleaner, more convenient (frequent and on-time)) to ATTRACT more people to it is a long-term (very long-term) goal, and what is necessary to make that happen also will make Cleveland a better place to live. That is not going to happen overnight. For the foreseeable future it will continue to be true that almost no one will ride the bus who doesn't have to and we shouldn't (and I don't) expect otherwise. I don't want to push more people onto a terrible bus system, I want to make the RTA system so much better that more people want to use it (and I'm talking about the entire system, both bus and rail). I think we all agree that rail is a lot better than buses; it's just that rail is a lot more expensive to build so we are going to be stuck with some buses (although trains can be cheaper to maintain than buses -- another reason that maintenance costs should be part of our spending decisions). Can you imagine a subway station (or multiple subway stations ) within walking distance of everywhere in Cleveland, out of the weather, clean, comfortable, frequent, and on-time -- that would be amazing! That's what I experienced when I lived in a city in Japan with an over-built subway network. Not only were there multiple subway lines with stations near my apartment, but I knew there was a train every five minutes on any one of them, so I didn't have to plan any local trip based on when the train would arrive. And it was clean, air-conditioned, and the on-time performance was incredible. It was really nice. But rail is so expensive (and subways many times more expensive) to build in the first place that that's a pipe dream here. I'm just holding out hope for one "small" rail project -- making the Waterfront Line a downtown streetcar loop -- and even that seems to be a pipe dream for Cleveland at the moment. And I don't think we're saying that it is either/or, we are with you that it is a both/and -- I'm saying that rather than spending almost all of our transportation dollars on roads as we do now, and continuing to build new and bigger roadways, let's spread that money around. Let's maintain existing roadways AND put more money into alternatives. (Ohio puts far less into mass transit than our neighbors in PA, NY, MI, and even IN -- but even NYC/London/Tokyo spends money on roadways.) Putting more money into mass transit and bike infrastructure will both take cars off the road (improving their lifespan and reducing traffic for the remaining cars) and make our city a better place to live. And getting Amtrak into Tower City, as you suggested, would be a great addition to our local transit system as well as a potential lifeline for Tower City retail. The only detail we seem to disagree on is whether government should incentivize/subsidize a parking garage and additional roadway improvements to encourage suburbanites to come to Tower City for their retail shopping. I think that suburbanites have plenty of alternatives competing for their retail dollars and that it would be a losing investment to rely on attracting people to drive long distances to Tower City to justify any additional roadway/parking investment. So if the owners of Tower City want to improve their parking by adding a garage, go for it -- but don't give them a subsidy to do so because it's not an investment that is going to pay off. There will always be a "newer" mall off the next interstate exit to compete with and in the long term Tower City can't win. Tower City needs to cater to the nearby residents and transit riders coming through the station (hopefully including Amtrak, which hopefully includes more frequent on-time travel to more destinations in the future).

You could eliminate the shoreway and still need a bridge. The railroad tracks aren't going anywhere and there is a serious elevation difference between the malls and the stadium. Call it a Ramp rather than a bridge. I agree that the bridge/ramp needs to be part of a larger effort to have it lead to something that people want to go to, and additional connections to downtown and over to the flats would be welcome.

The "goal" travel time listed is just for the first year. A lot of improvements need to be made along the route to get faster travel times, and if people do take the train in the numbers expected then that will justify additional expenditures to speed up the trip. With the train making stops along the way, it will never be as fast as an aggressive driver pushing the speed limit and never stopping. But the driver won't be able to sip a cocktail or watch a movie or take a nap or fill out a spreadsheet along the way -- and that will make train travel a better alternative for some. Plus we have an aging population that won't be in a hurry to drive I-71 in the winter and plenty of young people who won't want to own a car in the first place. (I had a young colleague recently ask me why he should buy a car that depreciates and requires maintenance when he can just Uber around town or rent a much nicer car for a vacation.) As KJP noted, even if just a fraction of the current drivers were to switch to the train, Amtrak would hit their projected numbers. Based on Illinois's and Michigan's experience, I think we might be surprised at how successful this could be. Just think of how much less traffic that will mean for those who choose to continue to drive!

From the Cleveland: Downtown: Tower City thread: Yes, Amsterdam. Or Tokyo. Or London. Where there are cars, the buses and trains are clean and DEPENDABLE, and people are willing to bike for half an hour, is not unattainable in Cleveland. People don't like riding the bus when it doesn't show up on time (meaning a long trip also means lots of waiting around for an unknown time), when the bus rarely comes by, when it's crowded and dirty, when the bus stop is a pole where you have to stand in the rain and sleet for that unknown time, and when it doesn't get you where you want to go. Cleveland deserves better public transit service. Sprawl makes that difficult, if not impossible. Forcing poor people to invest in a car is not necessarily going to make their lives better (thankfully cars are more reliable than in years past, but the inexpensive cars are unpredictably unreliable -- and I would argue that a car for a poor person is a lot more expensive and less reliable than a better-run, better-financed public transit system that all of Cleveland, not just the poor, deserves.) We might never catch up to Amsterdam, but it is a worthy goal -- if you had lived in Amsterdam you would wonder why the richest country in the world does such a horrible job of mass transit in Cleveland. While it may seem like the ideal should be that everyone owns their own reliable personal car, we are already in a bind with the car infrastructure that we have -- we just cannot afford the maintenance on what is already built, much less on the expanded lanes in the pipeline. Cleveland itself struggles to keep up with street maintenance and is constantly criticized for its failures on that front. Expanding roadways to make it easier to live further away and still have a 30-minute commute in your private car sounds like a good idea until the taxes for maintenance come due. Building more and more parking to make it easier for cars is very expensive, both in construction and maintenance. Maintenance costs are never given enough consideration during transportation planning. Making greater Cleveland financially sustainable means better mass transit in the core - more pleasant, more reliable, and more convenient; fewer (not "no cars") cars on the roads; and a balance of investments in roadways, transit, separated bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways. And a financially sustainable greater Cleveland will be a much nicer place to live.

Yes, that is the reality, no doubt. And I agree that Tower City needs a new approach and new clientele. But we (urbanists, Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, NOACA) shouldn't just say "oh, that's the way things are today" and spend more money to support current thinking. We cannot afford to maintain all the roadway infrastructure we have, so we need to downsize not increase or encourage more use (wear) on it. To get NEO into a more fiscally-sustainable position, we need to stop encouraging car-dependence. If Bedrock wants to build a big parking garage and provide free parking, they can certainly do that and it would probably help Tower City (and Gateway). Yet the city and county should not provide any incentives to bring more traffic into downtown. Public money should go to improving our bus and rail network so people can park at the airport or a park-and-ride station to come into downtown and get around downtown rather than continuing the same-old spending on cars.

Long-term sustainability for the region means moving a lot more people around downtown without their cars. This discussion just shows how far we have to go in that regard, in that most of NEO depends on the car and free parking.

This particular substation at Chester and E105 is fairly new. So I would estimate the odds of it moving any time soon at near zero. Hopefully the location of the next substation will be better thought out.

Some people believe that teaching that slavery was a big part of the financial development of this country is divisive. Some people believe that sexual orientation is a choice and teaching otherwise is divisive. We had a president say that latin american migrants were all criminals, and some would say that that is divisive. Do we want politicians determining what is divisive? "Divisiveness" is subjective and should not be the standard.