clvlndr

OK, everybody's fussed & moaned about learning the new system and having to fumble for a few coins and/or their passes... but no one has addressed the most important issue behind the new Red Line POP: is it speeding up trains and, hence, increasing the capacity of the Red Line since drivers no longer have to schlep for individual fares?

MTS, I think only you and me are the only 2 people in Cleveland who believe a large convention center hotel (which Cleveland needs and would dwarf every other downtown hotel) should absolutely should be a part of this project... Everybody else thinks that since the new center will be thinks the CC will be OK since it'll be w/in 6 blocks of the Cleveland Motel 6.

I wonder why pro-driving advocates never factor in the fatigue factor when utilizing trains. DanB, YOU are driving, meaning that if you (hopefully) arrive at you destination safely, chances are you're only good for a nap or maybe a full night's sleep. But if you arrive via train, you are relaxed, rested and ready to engage in more activities when you disembark. Even if it takes somewhat longer by train, you should absolutely figure in the time you are not behind the wheel while, yet, making good time to your destination... ... and, p.s., what others are trying to explain to you is that, once the starter 3-C trains get up and running and become a success, we very possibly will get an upgrade to the high-speed East Coast (NEC) type trains you speak of.

I'm hearing, in the plans discussed in today's PD, a lot about open parkland, greenery, access to the Lake and whatnot... All well and good, but I'd like to hear more about developing a built up environment with high density -- like, say, in and around Baltimore's Inner Harbor, the gift that keeps giving to that Cleveland-sized town... I hope leaders don't fall into the trap believing the current housing crunch will last forever, although it sometimes, with collapse of such projects as Flats East Bank, we've given up on developing high-density housing downtown.

Chicago's expansion puts a lie, to Joe Calabrese and his defenders, to the idea that a transit system struggling to finance its operations cannot expand rapid transit -- CTA is as old and broke a transit system as they come, but L expansion is not only planned, but being executed. Operating expenses, for which the Feds have eliminated and backwards Ohio has cut from its transit systems to the bare bone, doesn't equal capital project, expenses for which the Feds still step in to pay the lion's share. While RTA and other state transit agencies (and transit advocates) should continue to hound Columbus to raise the State’s share of transit operating expenses, it doesn't excuse Joe C who's decidedly anti rail and who should be backing some rail expansion -- most notably an extension of the short expansion of the Blue Line -- for which Shaker Heights has taken the lead to expand (and not RTA) a thousand or so feet to create TOD -- all the way to the Chagrin Highland. There's no excuse why RTA and Joe C aren't out front pushing for this, as any normal transit chief/system would surely do...

Nice job, Gin. I'm sure you had a blast doing this project (and got academic credit too)... Map is sexy; but like most planned transit systems (and their maps), much if not most don't get built -- unless you're D.C., San Francisco ... or Dallas. But Cincy certainly merits rapid transit (no, not just street trolleys masquerading as rapid transit). If the City were to settle on a core system that SHOULD be built, I'd focus on your yellow line from the Cincy (KY) Int Airport to somewhere NE towards the outer belt; some form of the purple and blue lines, to the N, NW (esp following and using the 82-year-old unused/intact subway tunnels into Walnut or Vine, but I'd turn sharply south a short distance into downtown, then east hooking back up with your green/purple lines to East Cincy and, perhaps, the branch SE into KY.

RTA to halt community circulator buses in September, but other cuts may loom Posted by Karen Farkas / The Plain Dealer August 18, 2009 21:22PM Categories: Real Time News Lynn Ischay, The Plain Dealer RTA's circulators were meant to be the primary neighborhood bus service offered outside of rush hours.Related content ...... http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/08/rta_to_halt_community_circulat.html

Nice set. Tremont's a most interesting nabe. Kinda like a small town; slower paced off from the rest of the city but w/ an eclectic, laid back, hometown feel -- much more so than neighbor Ohio City, which is right in the fabric of the city.... love the Literary Bluff.

You need to see a Zen-psychotherapist w/ the quickness! :evil:

My feelings are mixed on a People Mover for Cleveland. There's always be some limitations since all Rapid riders have to transfer to be distributed around downtown. Still, I think it could have worked, esp had planners chosen a backdoor loop (not right thru Public Square in front of Tower City, May's and Soldier's & Sailors. Then again, I think the arguments against the 'ugliness' and architecture-destroying nature of PM was overblown because, if I recall, opponents used the way-outdated image of the Chicago L... Miami, by far the most extensive and successful big-city PM shows that the modern pillar/viaduct architecture is not that intrusive and, in fact, tends to make downtown look modern and hip (and we know downtown Cleveland, in spaces, can feel old 'n tired (even though I adore the bulk of our old "character architecture". Considering the amazing impact Detroit's People Mover had--and by amazing I mean setting back transit 40 years--Cleveland didn't miss out on much. -- Kingfish Not a good analogy... Actually, like Miami's PM (which uses rubber-tired cars as opposed to Detroit's light-rail trains), Detroit's PM was supposed to connect to light rail lines up Woodward and Gratiot to the northern suburbs and distribute LRT passengers thru downtown, like Miami's. It was never contemplated to have the standalone loop Detroit has, today.[

I'm always a little leery of attributing the death's of these quality rail passenger & transit projects to one man (or woman). If 1 man kills it, we let him do so; for if the will of the public and other leaders fought hard and loud enough against the anti-rail buttheads, would run for cover -- much like what we're experiencing now w/ AAO-generated momentum (education and advocacy); today the would-be train killers have been isolated and exposed for the small minds that is theirs -- they are now mere pipsqueaks.

OK KJP, you got me... there is one (1) rapid transit line in the entire country that does parallel what Cleveland's trying to do: that is, relocate an existing/working rapid line into a highway median; and only 1 of the 3 aforementioned Chicago L routes you mentioned: the Eisenhower Expressway (Blue) Line. Note: the other 2 L expressway lines aren't comparable: the Blue Line to O'Hare was an extension from a NW terminal (Logan Square) thru a subway to the new expressway; the existing old Chicago Metropolitan West Side Elevated (the Met) to Logan Sq remained in tact. Also, the Dan Ryan was not a relocation either; it was a brand new line paralleling the old (original) South Side Elevated (now Green Line) route -- Dan Ryan acts as an express line w/ fewer stops and extends beyond the ends of the Green line; Dan Ryan didn't replace the Green line, either... But in the 50s, the newish CTA did relocate its worn out Garfield Park L into the new Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway. Note, however, even this isn't exactly parallel to RTA/Opportunity Corridor, because according to the map here at L.org's excellent, though oft grammatically challenged website: http://www.chicago-l.org/maps/route/maps/1898met-map.jpg ... it shows that (and there are old photos on at L.org) the Garfield L rode mostly at street level clogging streets, slowing trains and exposing kids to the dangerous "hot" L 3rd rail. So this relocation actually helped a poorly built, slow L line. Not so in RTA's case. Also, the point you miss is that rapid transit, in freeway medians, in cities still generally is not an ideal mix as the 2 transportation modes attract types of development that are diametrically opposed to one another: high-density, pedestrian oriented vs. low-density car/sprawl oriented. Chicago mainly did it because the city is highly built out, there were no other adequate right of ways for their trains and CTA was extending/creating regional suburban-oriented routes (the Blue Line to O'Hare is about 20 miles long) where, unlike most L routes, commuters would drive and park at the extended lines as opposed to walking or busing to trains as they do for the bulk of CTA (which has very few parking spaces on the whole). So in the end, I still say Cleveland's thinking is still badly misguided and, will ultimately, serve autos and hurt the Red Line rather than the latter. (btw: SF's BART and Balto's Owings Mills METRO extension, are exactly the suburban regional lines I'm talking about.... Red Line's East Cleveland route, only 7.8 miles, fails to meet that paradigm.

Many neighborhoods lack easy access to subway lines, forcing residents to take a bus, drive or hoof it. Streetcars could possibly address this problem making these neighborhoods more accessible to the rest of the city. Well, take some comfort Clevelanders: even the greatest, fastest & most comprehensive subway system in the world has holes and, contrary to popular myth, doesn't put everybody w/in a couple blocks of a subway station. Maybe we should stop bitching about where our Rapid doesn't go and start using it...(as many UOers do, so this isn't addressed to them) Lastly the Mayor pointed out that the MTA should cut down on some of its unnecessary building leases in order to save money and improve neighborhoods, like Downtown Brooklyn, where the MTA controls many buildings such as 370 Jay Street, which sits virtually empty. Vacant downtown buildings? Brooklyn!? You mean, this exists significantly in the biggest NYC borough's CBD and not just in downtown Cleveland? Significant vacancy in the largest borough and self-titled "4th largest city in the U.S.!?"

Understand your point, but unfortunately, that's flawed thinking. Roadways aren't supposed to make development TOD, it's the transit itself (hence the name: transit-oriented development). Also, the Red Line was built the way it was because the Van Sweringen brothers left the Red Line partially built when their empire collapsed in the Depression. When Cleveland revived the idea, there was, I believe thought to putting the line in the middle of a freeway along Central ave that was never built. I also believe the money for the initial Red Line, the completion of the Van project, was in the form of the loan from a federal agency who's name escapes me. Bottom line is Cleveland had the Hobson's choice of build the current system or have nothing at all (aside from the Blue Green lines today which, chances are, would have probably withered died w/o the Red Line built). Then, of course, Cleveland compounded the problem when Albert Porter lent his weight to defeating a loop subway downtown, which would have lead to a dual hub subway we, again, were unable to build in the 90s. But like I said, roadways and cars shouldn't be looked at as saviors for what rail transit can't do for itself: that's a purely Cleveland approach; no place else... Btw, I think the Pittsburgh tunnel makes sense since they will probably use it as a springboard to build an 18-20 mile extension to their airport... and develop several TOD's along the way, including around the stadium (temporary) terminal that's currently going up.

If Ohio's application is accepted and the State's on a fast track toward implementing 3-C, 2011 is what I'm hearing, is Cleveland prepared to handle the service/traffic at the one platform "terminal" we now have?

Does anyone know when RTA's going to finally roll out the Red Line POP fare system? What's the delay?

One of Weyrich's more recent position papers challenged conservatives with the question: how can "we" be anti-transit when quality mass transit increases, markedly, a city's efficiency, in perpetuating population density and a greater ease of people movement via transit (including easier mobility via car since greater numbers will be off the road)? Weyrich further asked: doesn't sprawl and traffic-clogged highways cause more man-hours stuck in traffic and greatly hinder the free market economy conservatives always champion? Although I disagreed w/ Weyrich on practically everything but transit, I was sorry to hear he died last year: he was a refreshing counterpoint to the tired old conservative dogma: Mass transit - is social engineering, social engineering/Socialist, and only serves poor and minorities (so why should I be forced to share a seat with "them" if I don't want to -- I'll get my clothes dirty) - impinges my "freedom" to drive the biggest, fatest, gas-guzzling-est Hummer I can afford; this is America, after all, and - blah, blah, blah, blah, b....

It's rather shocking that we let the Erie commuter rail line die at the height of the Energy Crisis of the mid-70s, just when urban America began turning back to mass rail transit (and right around the time Cleveland's RTA was formed from the old CTS+Shaker Rapid+smaller bus companies.

Sounds very good. Glad to see the doggeared Dudley P. Allen memorial building spring back to life -- it's such a historical landmark/beauty (and I have a brother who was born there). I really think this area has good growth/TOD potential. I wish we could have a "do over" and tear down those near useless, 1-story buildings adjacent to the Rapid, like that awful Social Security admin building. Hopefully, the redirection of the St. Luke's project will be a positive neighborhood catalyst.

When you witness the many failures/serious setbacks in large-scale development projects in this town, (witness the Breuer Building/County Admin. debacle reported on yesterday) this is indeed the core reason why. It would be nice if more public officials and major developers in this town loved the city more than they loved scoring the big payday.

Very diverse. Very nice.

^Seattle's a truly great city; glad to see, finally, their getting on board with the rest of the West Coast in terms of rapid transit -- Saturday will finally remove the city from being the lone West Coast major city w/o it... btw, mrnyc, what's the latest w/ the LIRR connection to Grand Central? Living in Gin, I'm with you on BRT though, I'll admit, there are limited circumstances where it can work, but mainly for either smaller cities or on the periphery of large ones. ie, Miami-Dade's BRT extension of MetroRail south from Dadeland mall/TOD along a limited access route 1 makes sense. A few of Pittsburgh's Skyway buses make sense and really are fast as they are along built limited access roads. But Pittsburgh built too many of them at the expense of extending its LRT which, now, it seems it's coming back to... and no, Cleveland's HL was not one of the good examples I had in mind, but it's built now, so we've got to learn to appreciate it...I guess.

^who's that Prendergast guy? ... seriously, you guys are doing a tremendous service. Dedication, cooperation and focus; we don't have enough of that in this city and state. When the 1st 3-C trains start rolling soon, collectively you should take a bow b/c w/o AAO, I just don't see any of it happening.

^Cyclovert, I think you're on the right track. Several posters (including me) have discussed using the D-S subway to rise up for a surface LRT serving W.65... Gordon Square is growing stronger everyday and the streetscaping to narrow Detroit is moving along as well as the (Capital?) movie theatre inside Gordon Sq. North of there, Battery Park, though still only partially developed, has already turned that Detroit-Shoreway section into the hottest/emerging Cleveland nabe. I think the 'boulevarding' of the West Shoreway, at the moment, has more potential than the East, mainly b/c both the RR tracks and the current freeway version of the Shoreway are a barrier btw Battery Pk residents and Edgewater Park (though a ped tunnel is in BP's plans, I think... And w/ it a strong TOD possibility at Battery Park, and in between there and north Ohio City.

The trolleys are interesting and fun; they add a nice dimension to downtown and spark curiosity among visitors (who often ride just to check them out). I hope they remain free, also.