clvlndr

Outside of the obviously larger and heavier vehicles, what added costs are you talking about? The current HRT/Red Line stations are unmanned just as LRT stations. And with off street stations, such as Red Line stations, you're going to need modern infrastructure to insure the ease and safety of passengers. North Coast station on the Waterfront Line is typical of stations on the Red Line -- I'm talking about stations like West Blvd Cudell, not the "palaces" you say Ron Tober built in the 90s... So where's the big cost savings? I think you paint an overly dire picture of today's system. Yeah, we know about the small patronage. It's been lower than expected since Albert Porter killed the subway in the 1950s ... this is nothing new. RTA, to their credit, is making the system work even though we know it's expensive. It's a fact of life: Rapid Transit is expensive. The POP fare system has saved costs, and the ridership is bouncing back nicely. RTA has also cut some duplicative (of rail and other bus routes) bus lines. Short of converting the Rapid system into a useless street trolley, I don't see the utility in spending 100s of millions of dollars, allegedly, to save 100s of millions of dollars. I think we're chasing our tail here... I do agree with your TOD piece, and relocating some stations -- like E. 79 to E. 89 Buckeye-Woodland, to increase TOD and ridership... Universal high-low platform cars, yes... jackhammering high level platforms for low-level, LRT Shaker-like boarding, ... absolutely not.

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

Not too bad of an article, but a cautionary note: Calling Bill Lind a "conservative" is a lot like calling Art McCoy a "black activist". He might be right from time to time, but he's kind of out there.... Lind is very much a conservative. He was the right-hand man of the late Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of the neo-conservative movement. He was an editor of Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation which studied transit, among other things… Lind, like Weyrich, just happened to be a couple of odd-balls viz their fellow conservatives (but only in the area of transit), in that they believe(d) quality mass transit, notably rail, actually assisted, not hindered, a free market economy because it facilitated effective movement in and around cities. Weyrich could never understand why his fellow conservatives just don’t get it… Most conservatives (E. Roc probably among them) wrongheadedly believe that rail transit unduly expensive (while loving the goo-gobbs spent own roads and highway expansion) and that rail somehow impinges on individual’s freedom while facilitating social engineering by empowering poor and minorities who don’t own cars. … btw, I think Lind’s take on BRT is spot on.

^I don't believe in converting the system to LRT, if that means lowering the Red Line platforms, which I think would be a shortsighted and expensive mistake. High platform rail transit, with its quick boarding/unloading and ADA friendly access, is the ultimate in rail transit. If you have it, why get rid of it? This is even more true for airport passengers who can carry or roll their bags directly onto trains as opposed to lugging them up and down steps. The Red Line moved to POP in 2010, so there isn’t the added cost of fare takers or electronic barrier control… Yeah, I know "low floor" LRT trains, which are all the rage, allow more of a step on board scenario, but those split-level cars are rather cramped, with low floor seats in the middle and step-up higher sections on each end. Maybe the development of a high/low "universal" car makes more sense, although keeping the separate Red (HRT) vs. Green/Blue (LRT) would be fine with me... Even though a number of people in the Shaker Hts corridor use the airport, I just don't see that relatively small cadre as making such a major conversion as worth the huge cost. I think more Airport users and West Siders, generally, do (and more will) ride trains to/from University Circle area stations, especially when E. 120 is relocated to Little Italy. I think that the continued development of the Flats East Bank area will make the Waterfront Line as more of an attractive through service from Shaker.

Yes Hts, but the fact is those ugly, dilapidated out row houses can more easily gutted and upgraded into trendy housing than a series of small, detached wood-frame housing like what we mostly have in Cleveland (and Detroit, Indy, KC, etc). Even the famed wood-frame Painted Ladies of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood are closely-spaced Victorian houses of intricate design ... kind of like, in a rough way, our Ohio City and Tremont neighborhoods... so is it any accident that those 2 are our leading trendy neighborhoods? .... ... anyway, back to WHD development.

^Your photo spread demonstrably makes the point ... I just think any Colonial city with lots of brick-built row-homes in/near its core will have an advantage over a Midwestern city developed in the Industrial Age with a lot of cheap, wood-frame houses thrown up for factory workers. Also, unlike Colonial cities, Cleveland and other Industrial Age cities oriented themselves to factories and railroads to ship in/out goods. Many of our close-in areas including, unfortunately our lakefront, are occupied and/or circled by railroad lines and adjacent factories that created barriers between neighborhoods, … not unlike their late 20th Century counterpart, the urban freeway. In Boston, Philly, Baltimore and Washington, pre-railroad brick townhomes crowd the downtown areas near waterfronts and shipping. In the Warehouse District, we creatively created a colonial-type neighborhood out of Victorian-era commercial blocks and warehouses. Some of the ornate brickwork of the buildings even give them a Colonial feel. Unfortunately, as oft noted here, the demolition casualties of the 50s-through-80s have led to the vast surface parking areas in the WHD which we still have yet to figure out what to do with. So even our dense, Eastern-type residential, restaurant, entertainment district is fractured.

^^I'll give RTA it's due; moving trains in an out of Tower City, esp during rush periods, has got to be difficult... I think the situation on the East Side is compounded with single-car, rush hour Blue/Green trains, which will necessarily hamper any attempt to add greater Red Line peak trains to the new Little Italy station, should increasing patronage warrant it. The Blue-Green rush hour frequency is great, but I think 2-car trains, at say 12/15 min frequencies, could be just as effective and free up track space for more eastbound Red Line trains.

I appreciate your comments. But as much as I agree Cleveland's on a roll, I tend to think Baltimore's ahead of us. I've heard there have been some crime issues, fears re the Inner Harbor in recent years, but the last time I was there last summer, it still seemed pretty safe and packed with people. I think the newer East Harbor area, near Little Italy, is a blueprint, but beyond, what we even have planned for our Flats area. East Harbor has a 30-foot Marriott (?) hotel, numerous office towers, a multi-screen movie theatre, exclusive shops, restaurants, a 24-hour CVS and a Fresh Fields (?) grocery store. Flats East Bank’s Phase 3 doesn’t even have all that… And Fells Point is a mega entertainment area which is close by downtown. Ohio City may be Cleveland's closest comparison (and even that's not a good one). Both areas have their quaintness, but Fells Point is 300-years-old, densely populated and more visited than Ohio City. Cleveland has pluses over Baltimore in a number of areas and while, yes, the Warehouse District is considered downtown, I still think the aforementioned advantages both downtown and near downtown give B'more an edge... at this point.

^^Wow, I remember those old red & black Shaker schedules; that's a classic. Used to have one ... probably buried somewhere in my stuff at Mom's place... CPL still does Book Mobile.

I would think so. It was noted after the wall TC collapse last spring that there are significant infrastructure issues at Tower City. One only need ride through the eastern approach tunnels to note the crumbling, badly decaying condition they are in -- much of it looks untouched since the Vans dedicated Terminal Tower in 1930. ... Sadly, this morning I heard some goofy Republican noting that the word infrastructure is just a code word for "liberals" to get work for their union pals... With that kind of stupid, childish mentality, it's little wonder why we can't get any friggin' thing done in this country.

^^Oftentimes the lines would simply be referred to by their destinations + the word Rapid; ie. the Van Aken Rapid; the Airport Rapid and the Windermere Rapid; and even the Green Rd. Rapid... Some people, usually older, still do this. Some people would refer to the Red Line collectively as the Airport Rapid whether to the Airport, Windermere or anyplace in between. I think that's because the Airport extension was so groundbreaking and a huge point of Cleveland pride. Others called it the CTS or Cleveland Rapid...

I'm surprised you dont remember this, but there used to be a track on the outside of the old 55 street station. South of the westbound track. You can still see the poles. OK, yes, but I never thought this was more than a short, auxiliary track (mainly to deliver equipment to/from the adjacent old Erie Lackawanna RR) and not one to be converted into a revenue track in the future.

Yep, I've read that those Kingsbury tunnels were in part for expansion of the southeast interurban line into Terminal Tower. But how could the Rapid have capacity for all those lines: Blue, Green, Red and SE line on just 1 pair of tracks?

^... also ... "Because the problem area was close to other RTA rail lines, all lines experienced some delays," Kearney said. (actually, at E. 29th (and Broadway) the Red Line is more than just "close" to other RTA rail lines, it literally shares tracks with them). And then The Red Line was reduced to one operating lane while repairs were made. ("lanes"!? Really? I thought trains rode on railroad tracks) This isn't just about knit picking with PD journalists, this is about how little thought or attention to detail goes into a transit article, so much so, the writer literally likens a rapid transit line to a bus on a freeway. The fact that this was posted in our sole metropolitan daily newspaper, and not questioned, is indicative as to why we, as a city, are often so clueless when it comes to mass transit.

^^E. 29th and Kinsman Road???? Such a place doesn't exist... A geography lesson is due Ron Rutti and the PeeDee.

Generally true, but you've gotta figure that the restaurants & clubs that are open on E.4th will be packed, many with private NYE parties, so the "ducking in" aspect may be extremely limited. Also, I don't think that littlee block has the capacity for a full-scale NYE party as Public Square does.

Jake, any possibility the tunnels will be revisited as a viable option for expansion now that the streetcar is finally moving forward?

Tom Zoellner: Imagine what Michigan Central Station could be with high-speed rail 11:10 AM, December 26, 2013 Detroit has no shortage of “ruin porn,” but visitors who come here for such photos usually stop first at Michigan Central Station. The colossal Beaux Arts tower was abandoned in 1988, and has been a haven for graffiti artists and urban adventurers ever since, as well as the city’s most visual thorn of conscience. Proposals to turn it into a casino went nowhere. The Detroit City Council considered trying to dynamite it into dust in 2009, but failed. But other cities have shown what they can do with historic train stations, and that reuse can pay off in the end. And with new leadership in Detroit, intent on revitalizing the city’s isolated residential clusters instead of razing all the derelict houses that blight the horizon, there may be potential to rally political support to save Michigan Central Station from oblivion. http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/OPINION05/312260022/

Yep. This, plus the lack of an LED digital display in the refurbished Red Line cars shows that RTA may not be very ADA friendly.

btw, another interesting Harwood tidbit (in my emails with him) is that it was always the Vans plan to convert the Shaker Rapid into a high platform heavy rail operation and unify equipment throughout the system… The old CTS rapid station, which is generally the site of the current Tower City Red/Blue/Green station, was built with high platforms. The problem with the Vans, as he notes in his book (and reflected in the above blog KJP cites) is that they were so secretive and hard to figure. ("enigmatic" was I think the word he used to describe the Van's view of/approach to rapid transit) For example, Harwood notes, the Vans spent millions (a couple $100Ms in today’s dollars), to develop what is now the Red Line route to East Cleveland, including bridges, caternary support poles, tracks and even, in 1934 used KY interurban cars, but had no idea who would run the line and no electrical power… They had long discussed Terminal Tower being, in addition to a RR Union Station, but an interurban hub for NEO… … BUT the interurban companies would build the outer ROWs and run the trains and, then, pay Union Terminal rents to one of the Van’s holding companies. The initial development of the East Cleveland rapid line (including the extant “vault” to be used for RTA’s new Little Italy/UC station, as well as some rapid development on the West Side route along the Nickel Plate RR (now Norfolk Southern) was the only non-Shaker Rapid development that ever occurred.

You might type in "Invisible Giants" (not the whole title) and "Herbert H. Harwood, Jr." Years ago I thumbed through this book at Loganberry Books near Shaker Sq., but (unfortunately) didn't buy it... It is excerpted as a Google Book... It's an excellent, comprehensive book which, I'm pretty sure, discusses the Van's future plans to develop "Shaker Country Estates" (what is now Beachwood, Pepper Pike and Gates Mills) and extend the Rapid out to a giant loop near Gates Mills Blvd, which is apparently why the street widens near its end at Mayfield Rd.... A decade or so ago, I actually exchanged emails with Harwood -- nice man. His Dad was actually a RR exec (with the B&O RR IIRC) who worked with the Vans... it was good stuff.

Wow, that's cool...

^That would be sweet... Cleveland needs more quality hotels at/near the airport other than the old Sheraton, which is OK, and one directly on top of the Red Line Station would be awesome... Other than the Sheraton and perhaps the 2 Marriotts: a Courtyard I think along West Brookpark Rd near the I-480 entrance and, of course, the W. 150/I-71 branch miles away (but within walking distance of the Puritas Rapid station), the bulk of the hotels near the airport, esp. east on Brookpark appear to be crappy, sleazy joints where (I'm sure) no shortage of prostitution is going on... They are nestled in between rundown-looking "Gentleman's clubs", that are so cheesy looking, even the Hustler Club would probably shun the area... ... All in all, not what you want visitors to see near your International Airport.... A few years ago, for whatever reason, I drove a visitor + wife I'd picked up down Brookpark looking for an I-480 east entrance ramp after he'd dropped off their car at the rental HQ... It was their 1st visit to Cleveland... That portion of the trip was quite embarrassing... BOTTOM LINE... The proposed new airport hotel (and, hopefully) the old TOD hotel at Brookpark station are sorely needed.

^to KJP. I like the idea of relocating the E. 79 station to Buckeye-Woodland-E. 89. Of course, this location would be even more attractive if RTA restarted bus service along Woodland (the old #12) to feed the new station from the east while, perhaps, rerouting a N-S route along E. 89th… What I don’t like/understand, is the roadway between Buckeye and Woodland adjacent to the station. I know (absurdly) that the OC is driving this project (with EPA cleanup, I guess), but your other graphic on the TOD board showed desired TOD here, which would seem logical given this station’s focal-point nature. The added roadway seems more suburban, Kiss-n-Ride in nature which doesn’t comport with this lesser car-owning neighborhood… ^^DM4, like your proposal; love your graphics. But I’m a bit confused as to the location and motivation for the bucket/1-track, 2-platform track in the middle of the street. The other thing: I’m not so sure that a street-running car line would be worth the kind of expense involved here. Cedar up Cedar Glen through to Beachwood Place, is one of the longest, densest (traffic, retail and residential-wise) street in Greater Cleveland. It’s an up-the-gut thoroughfare that literally splits the Heights into North and South… It is also, for the most part, quite narrow for a major street, except in key areas, like Cedar-Fairmount (a classic old CH mixed-use, ped-friendly neighborhood echoing peers Coventry and Cedar-Lee). For these reasons, I’m not sure this line would be enough to wrest significant Univ-Circle and/or Downtown commuters from their cars UNLESS you tied in the tracks to the Red Line at Cedar-Glen for an quick, traffic-free sprint to Tower City, (and perhaps Ohio City and the Airport). The very thing that makes Cedar attractive as an urban street – lots of high-density, quality retail/residential districts with heavy traffic calming elements (namely lots of traffic lights at the clusters) could frustrate streetcar riders looking for a superior means (namely fast) of commuting… … but it’s not a bad idea. It’s just that, even after 100 years of service, the Vans Shaker Rapid lines still endure and keep Shaker Heights attractive/competitive because the Rapid lives still lives up to its name as being competitive with (and actually faster than daytime) driving into downtown.

^But is your constantly harping on what’s wrong with the RTA Rapid with no solutions other than ‘look how bad we are compared to …” really helpful? I think most UOers are well versed in the system’s shortcomings and are pushing to expand it… but (and I hate this word) realistically, given our population and jobs/business losses, I don’t expect serious expansion happening anytime soon – hope I’m wrong, but most people (and I’m sure your one of them) don’t see rail transit as the tool for economic development as I and a few others on this board do … So rather than bemoan the problems, I wish you’d focus on solutions to make what we have BETTER… And to simply say: TOD won’t, can’t happen because the Rapid routes are so crappy, isn’t adding anything but the typical Cleveland-type ‘woe-is-me’ attitude… Take your statement about how poorly planned the Waterfront line is… So what? Fact is, whatever you, or Bob Smith or Joe Shmoe thinks about how poor it is, TOD IS happening… The high-density FEB is being built there for a reason (never mind the fact that Aloft Hotel only speaks of driving directions there and is silent on the Rapid on its website, to wit: http://deals.alofthotels.com/Aloft-Cleveland-Downtown-Hotel-3606/special-offers?PS=LGEN_AA_DNAD_CGGL_TRP), major dense residential, office and retail development has and is about to be built there, and MORE PEOPLE will use the Rapid to get there, irrespective of what YOU THINK… The same is true at Ohio City, where major mixed use residential/retail developments are rising/planned on both sides of the station and, of course, at the relocated Univ. Circle/Little Italy station, where there’s already considerable growth – completing the huge Intesa development would be gravy… As KJP mentioned, in this town we’re only limited in the scope of TOD development by our lack of imagination, creativity, desire and planning… i.e.: I never considered TOD directly at the airport until he mentioned it… There are possibilities at a relocated E. 34 to E. 22nd station; ditto an East 79th to Buckeye-Woodland-E. 89th. What about West Blvd-Cudell? Or W. 65 (where the Eco-Village townhouses were built but the larger plans, shelved (for now I hope)… My point isn’t just to rag on you ClevelandOhio, but the stuff your saying isn’t original or anything new that many, many others have said and thought… Now, how about less moaning and more solutions?