clvlndr

^Beltways around cities tend to encircle a city’s principal commuting area… Note that Cleveland’s “beltway” is smaller than (a generally shorter radius from downtown) than many comparable sized cities, like Cincy, Columbus, Indy, St. Louis and others… Our beltway is more similar to Eastern Cities, like Baltimore and Boston…

^Greater Cleveland is part sprawled, and part compact-- it's like 2 metro areas in 1. The City is relatively compact and the streetcar/Rapid suburbs including Lakewood, Rocky River and most of the Heights, is pretty compact… The newer (post WWII), like Solon, Brunswick, Parma, Medina and the like, are more sprawled.

Cleveland, Ohio, I think you need a bit more perspective prior to constantly belittling the RTA Rapid, the Red Line in particular, for poor routing and a lack of TOD potential. What are other medium-size, moderate density cities doing that Cleveland isn’t? I first always preface this by considering how far advanced Cleveland is just by having rail rapid transit at all, especially in the so-called Rust Belt Midwest. Outside of Chicago, only St. Louis and Minneapolis-St. Paul have rapid transit at all… That means similar-sized cities (Indianapolis, Milwaukee, KC, Cincy and Columbus), and one much bigger one (Detroit) have NO RAPID TRANSIT AT ALL (no the one-track, 2.2 mile, downtown Detroit People Mover doesn’t count)… And that doesn’t count those sunbelt cities in rapidly growing regions of the country, such as: Jacksonville, Birmingham, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Tampa-St. Pete, Orlando, and others, which also have no rapid transit at all. But for those medium-size, low density cities that DO have mass transit, have they built up-the-gut, pedestrian-friendly, easily TOD-able rapid transit lines that you say Cleveland hasn’t? Answer: No… The hard fact is that American cities that are not the mega-large (like Philly, NYC, Chicago and, LA), or older/super dense moderate (core) cities -- but that have much larger suburban areas than Cleveland (Boston, DC and San Fran) routinely cannot muster the political will to build the kind of core subway or elevated systems through dense areas that are more TOD ready as we’d all wish. Why? Because it’s always deemed too expensive for midsize cities, just like we in Cleveland sadly deemed the Dual Hub project too costly (even “gold plated”) linking downtown to University Circle up Euclid Ave – and sent the visionary RTA chief who pushed for Dual Hub packing. But again, look around… ST. LOUIS, which built a 2-line LRT somewhat longer in total than Cleveland’, is (like the Cleveland Rapid) built mostly along freight RRs through low population areas. And, just as you criticize in Cleveland, there is considerable park-n-ride along St. Louis’ LRT system… The more recent extension to Shrewsbury does have some potential in University City (near prestigious Washington University) and in near downtown Clayton and Richmond Heights near the mega Galleria Shopping Mall, but it really hasn’t generated very much TOD. St. Louis’ LRT kinda sideswipes the very dense Central West End apartment/retail district – the station is several blocks away from the core area, but directly under a hospital complex – so I guess it kinda/sorta is a walkable station. But again, is this much better than Cleveland? Where is all St. Louis’ TOD. Minneapolis opened its Hiawatha LRT about a decade ago along a highway and RR ROW to the SE, and they are opening a 10-mile, street-level extension in the median of University Boulevard to downtown St. Paul… This line will pass through some walking districts, mainly near the massive University of Minnesota campus. But given its streetcar, traffic-light stopping nature all the way into downtown Minneapolis, it will have potential auto-traffic disruption issues that will take the “rapid” out of rapid transit… A 3rd Line, which is in the environmental analysis stage, will branch some 15 miles to the SW mainly along RR and freeway rights of way. The chosen route, however, is controversial as it will totally miss the core dense apartment/walking districts along the Nicolette (Ave) and Hennepin corridors such as Uptown, Whittier, Lake-Lynn and Hennepin… Just down the Turnpike, Pittsburgh recently balked at building a 3-mile LRT connector to its existing downtown LRT subway to its extremely dense University Circle-like Oakland district (despite spending over a half $Billion for a 1.2 mile North Shore Connector under the river to Pittsburgh’s stadium(s)/casino area – go figure). Pittsburgh is now exploring BRT to its cultural, educational, medical hub… Sound familiar? Nearby smaller Buffalo, NY actually DID build a 6.4 mile up-the-gut (literally up Main Street) LRT subway line… So how’s that turning out? Despite some very respectable ridership numbers as well as stations near some walking districts, like the lively Allentown area, there has been virtually ZERO TOD in Buffalo; not to mention the City’s regressive stance in refusing to expand this orphan, starter line in its 30 years of existence – however happily now, there is some momentum for at least a short extension into nearby Amherst … And even Denver (as is much noted in the UO/Denver LRT thread) which is completing a 100-mile electrified LRT/commuter rail network, still failed to build rapid transit in its most densely populated districts to the South and East of downtown. … point being, Cleveland isn’t alone in the shortcomings you site. But it is worth noting, as KJP points out, that there is a lot more to TOD than just building rail and expecting high rise/high density mixed use buildings to spring up near rail transit stations without some kind of public education and initiative – as is the case for any city, most notably medium, moderate density ones like Cleveland.

Excellent.

I don’t give RTA accolades for the Health Line. Political will would have been to complete the Dual Hub rail line, preferably entirely or, at least, mostly in subway, from downtown to University Circle. The HL was a compromise cheaper solution that already (in just 5 years operation), as we’ve seen, has speed and capacity issues even with the much smaller ridership numbers along this route compared to the 1980s when Dual Hub was planned. Maybe sometime in the future (I likely won't be around), some smart, aggressive cookie will convert the HL to LRT with a subway connection/Rapid tie-in into Tower City in accord with the original Dual Hub. Now THAT would be political will.

Good for RTA for recognizing this date. How about the PD?

I agree with all of this.

^And Baltimore, like Denver, is engaging in an Eagle P3 (public-private partnership) program to fund part of the new, innovative (part subway) Red Line LRT... And Cleveland's RTA could... naaa, it would never work here, right? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-15/business/bs-bz-transportation-worker-training-20131115_1_purple-line-red-line-light-rail

Well, when you've got a spokes/hub, downtown-oriented transit system and, then, downtown takes such a devastating hit in terms of jobs and retail, these numbers aren't surprising. And jobs and retail haven't really improved downtown. I think some of the growth may be in the growth of downtown as a restaurant entertainment center, more downtown residents and growth in some transit bus/rail hubs, like University Circle and Ohio City. As someone who's ridden the rails regularly since the late 70s, I can tell you that evening and weekend ridership now kills that of the 70s and 80s when you'd likely see empty trains regularly after hours. Downtown was a ghost town, and Ohio City was a struggling, run-down retail district with fixer-upper Victorians -- it only saw life on Market Saturday, as it does now (and the Market was the ONLY thing going on aside from the old bookstore on 25th and a few other joints)... Empty nighttime trains out of Terminal Tower was the norm. You never see that today; even on Sundays.

^^^I'm 6'1" and have to turn to the side slightly in Red Line seats. I'm surprised that all trains don't have more of a mix of sideways seats, especially near the doors -- this is definitely needed with those flash crowds, such as Browns games and special events where people tend to crowd around the doors.

btw, I can't disagree with any of your recommendations. They are what is really needed in the lower Fairfax neighborhood.

E. 89th is a far better location on the Red Line than E. 79th...

^Obviously, the Duck Island project is (happily) on a fast track... Where are we at with the Market Square mixed use proposal? I realize that Market Sq. is a more complicated project in that it involves street closures (Gehring) and street narrowing (Lorain) as well as the Rapid Station alteration… Last I heard, no developer has been selected, but hope this project keeps its momentum.

Target would be my choice for general retail... Hardware is tricky because either you have local mom & pop type places (ie Shaker Hardware, which is a friendly neighborhood institution my family has patronized since I was a kid), or you've got Lowes or Home Depot, which are big boxes that aren't compatible with downtown (although both NY and Chicago, ... and even D.C. in the Georgia-Petworth neighborhood have certain big box brand stores built in an urbanized, sidewalk context). I don't mind chain youth-oriented clothing stores like H & M, Urban Outfiters and the like, and these should all be along lower Euclid.... Also, I wonder why Cleveland seems immune to 7-Eleven. We're one of the few cities, especially downtown, that has none. They fill a lot of quick, mainly food, needs and they're always open. BOTTOM LINE is that downtown has SO MANY retail holes in it, it's really hard to say where we should begin. As good as downtown is as a foodie place -- and it's come a looooong way to get where we are now, it'll never progress where it needs to be without some level of retail beyond what's in Tower City.

^These changes do make sense... One problem is that, between CC and U. Hosp., they are rather spread out (esp the Clinic) so that a Blue line extension to Univ. Circle could be problematic. Throw in the extremely hilly typography, and you've got even more expense -- especially for a city that couldn't even extend the Green Line 1.5 miles to I-271 on a ready-made Van Sweringen ROW... For me, as a Green Line user, I'll be very content to zip down to the refurbished E. 55th and zip NE the new Little Italy-U.C. station that will be much more centrally located to activities. As I see it, train riders in places like NY and Chicago have to often make such backtrack-type transfers ... consider, in Chicago, a Logan Square resident commuting to the Belmont/Lincoln Park area, or to Rogers Park... same kind of issue.

NOTE1: Denver, as recently as 7-8 years ago planned for less frequent DMU commuter rail to its airport until it decided to invest in the much superior electric EMU system which, now, is blossoming into a 4 branch network to Denver’s northern suburbs. You can't nickel & Dime and penny pinch and expect comparable results the way Cleveland usually does concerning transit ... or as former Browns coach Sam Rutigliano was fond of saying: sometimes ... "you've gotta stomp the grapes before you can sip the wine." NOTE 2: Cleveland, with its existing Red, Blue, Green, Waterfront Rapid system, has the electrified inner-city/close-in burbs and downtown hub infrastructure that Denver didn’t have going in ... and yet, Denver is forging ahead, because it deems the benefits of quality mass transit to be THAT important... such a novel concept.

^^Denver is so committed to TOD downtown that they literally are stretching downtown northward to surround the revitalized Union Station commuter hub. Union Station was at the far northern fringes of downtown a few years ago.

Well at least it’s refreshing to see some journalistic pushback against this slickly and euphemistically named “Opportunity Corridor”. … and it’s not even Angie Schmitt!! ‘So let’s tally/analyze the OC backers claims versus the truth. The OC is designed to boost the economic viability of the poor Forgotten Triangle residents… LIE the OC is a high-speed roadway designed to speed West Siders, mainly I-90, I-71 suburbanites, to University Circle jobs. The OC will increase transit opportunities. LIE – Joe Calabrese's RTA is set to close the Red Line's E. 79th Street Rapid station because somehow nobody can seem to find money to make the station ADA compliant. This so folks near or north of the station can either walk over 1/2 mile south the Blue/Green station or take the #16 bus north to the rerouted #11 east/west route into downtown, since the #12 bus along Woodland into downtown was eliminated a few years ago due to lack of funding... All this will really help the low income residents in the area who overwhelmingly don't own cars... (oh yeah, and the same Joe Calabrese threw is weight behind the OC and projects/fantasies BRT buses zipping along the OC siphoning Red Line passengers and, ultimately, in the not-so-distant future killing/replacing the Red Line with the OC BRT. The OC should boost walkability… LIE this new environmental group notes the extreme wideness of the OC with, in addition to the high speed of the drivers, can be beacons of new, dense, exciting walkable neighborhoods… NOT! Once again, we have nearby Chester Avenue as an example of a cut-through, highway-type roadway that hasn’t created any new development in its area for nearly 70 years… And Chester is more of an urbanized street than the freeway-fed OC will ever be… The OC will be environmentally friendly… LIE the OC is planning to build ugly, freeway-type sound barriers to blot out all the projected noise pollution of all the flying-by autos… … The OC makes SO MUCH sense for the City, doesn’t it? It’s a great leap forward for Cleveland… right??

I’m not saying the DMU option is a bad idea, because I think it is a GOOD idea – far better than expanded BRT. But I just think there could be an even better solution that may cost somewhat more, but should be worth exploring… What about extending the wires over the existing NS ROW? Advantages: - Same acceleration of the existing system - Far lesser capital costs than constructing new ROW with new tracks, bridges and other ROW acquisition and construction costs - Use of the existing HRT/LRT maintenance and repair facilities at E. 55 – building facilities for the repair, maintenance and constant fueling of internal combustion DMU engines will costs millions more in capital costs. So too will new, non-compatible DMU cars. - Heavy duty, high-tension electric delivery lines already are strung along the corridor which can be tapped into for EMU electrical substations. - The ability to utilize existing rolling stock on the extension. - We currently have an existing, fully electrified central terminal in the CBD traffic hub of NEO – Tower City. Now special DMU diesel platforms need not be built. - The ability to expand the electric system as long as needed, since freight rail on the old Nickel Plate NS route can be transferred onto the Lakeshore New York/Chicago route opening up the pair of eastbound tracks for extended service deep into Lake (or even Ashtabula) Counties – if RTA (or some conglomeration regional authority) somehow wanted to go that far. Just extend the wires over the track and construct simple, ground-level, ADA compliant stations. Remember, RTA runs cheaper HRT than most cities since we use unmanned, barrier-free POP stations. So, again, costs wouldn’t for stations wouldn’t be any more than DMU service. Just my take.

I agree. The vinyl seats on the Red Line are definitely cushier than those harder Blue/Green type cloth seats. The new look is pretty sterile and standard -- at a glance, it’s hard to distinguish the Red Line interior from the Blue-Green trains. I was kinda hoping the refurbished Red Line interiors would have a bit more pizazz and that, well maybe for once, RTA would color-code with a reddish themed interior – but traveling the system, its obvious that, aside from the train signage, and the lone red-colored station (W.25-Ohio City), train-line color coding ain’t RTA’s thing… oh well. But at least they’re fresh looking and clean – let’s hope they stay that way. And as Keith implies, replacing those foggy windows with clear ones are more valuable than the renovation itself imho, although I realize RTA has begun replacing them already. Also, the new seats look smaller to me for the aisle looks wider. This would be great for ingress/egress but much a tighter sit-down for riders. Hopefully, it’s just my optical illusion.

I am really disappointed they didn't do this. Most of the times the operator announcements are unintelligible. Ditto. Digital signage is state of the art and all new car and most rehabs I've seen, have them. I wish RTA could have found the money somewhere to include this. We're in the Dark Ages on this level.

Terrible crime. You're correct Straphanger, the West Park station is set way back -- too far back to meaningfully interact with the street imho -- so that this atrocity was really a street crime. Unfortunately the "Rapid" aspect is played up in the article which I'm sure will further delight the transit naysayers and, maybe, scare a few folks away from the rails.

^Denver does get snow, though, often heavy and often as early as mid September. That's cold weather enough to dictate an indoor central terminal/transfer station like Union Station. Only places like South Florida or Southern Cal. should logically be building such open-air stations as this.

^People transferring from the Heights at University Circle are generally not low income. The Shaker Line is not entirely along railroad ROW. Shaker Square is a model TOD for the nation. Others exist along Van Aken. And as has been noted, Flats East Bank and Little Italy will be major TODs (and Little Italy, btw, is next to that 6 track, 4 freight rail, ROW).

^Wait a minute, you just said University Circle, which is one of the Red Line's busier stations and one that has zero parking, relies on a lot of bus passengers. So what's your point? Bus transfers are not park n' riders and, btw, some of the very best rail networks: New York, DC Metro, Toronto, Boston T, rely heavily bus transfers. in fact, heavy bus-to-rail transfer stations are usually considered well placed because they intercept bus riders along busy arteries -- and each of those riders are not driving; which is what I thought you were getting at. And by the way, University Circle draws a lot of UH workers who are reverse commuters. So it can't be all bad.... Jmecklenborg's analysis of Denver is correct: it was designed as car oriented to get cars off the road as well as to push development and not necessarily serve Denver's dense areas, especially close in to downtown. Many Denverites, on other blogs, are griping for example that the North Line, which just received funding for 13 of its 18 miles, is targeted to dead end in the middle of farm land.