clvlndr

^^^^Dan, your answer 1st surprised me, but you've since filled in some of the blanks. Admittedly, as an East Sider, I mainly hang in the east portion of Lakewood around Edgewater and the Gold Coast. Even though Lakewood could stand to have more rail (hopefully KJP's Lorain commuter rail quest is successful), this burb is generally seen as one of the best served, transit-wise [extensive buses, many of them rail feeders, w/ the W. 117 Rapid on its eastern border]. You mentioned the difficulties your brother would have shopping in Westgate, Parmatown & Strongsville, but wouldn't you, as an in-city D.C.-er face much worse headaches traveling to DC shopping centers like Tyson's Corner or Landmark or Potomac Mills? I grant you, w/ 106 route miles (to our 32), the Metro is far more extensive in the burbs. But that's in comparison to most cities -- and D.C.'s rare in having so many suburban malls and shopping centers directly fed by Metro as most U.S. cities -- given Americans' xenophobia, most have malls/shopping centers and, now, lifestyle centers, are deliberately made to be NOT readily transit-accessible to "them." [And for the record, while DC kicks our butts in downtown employment/excitement -- we're getting there -- hands down, I'll take our "character" neighborhoods and suburbs over Washington's generally bland, cookie-cutter burbs; also for the record, even given Metro's great extensiveness, a large number of people must access it via feeder buses or cars, where people there are much more open to so doing than lazy, complaining Clevelanders, here] ^^^^^btw -- we love My Friends restaurant on Detroit in Edgewater. I twisted her arm, but my friend and I, last winter, experimented taking 2 Rapids (Blue/Green + Red) and then the 326 which, during the workday, ran every 5-10 mins. It was a snap; we walked (our food off) back to the West Blvd station-- no prob. If you want quintessential Cleveland -- a true snapshot of our town -- Friends is the restaurant, a diverse place w/ every kind of customer from bikers, almost all racial groups in the metro area, gays, straights, punkers, union blue-collar types and the occasional yuppie (I guess that was us, more than anything). The food is cheap and good ( I love the hotcakes, she, the homefries) -- its an old-time diner-like place sans the railroad car, itself; it even has throwback, big-haired waitresses who call you "Hon." ... the joint's an absolute hoot; and 24 hours to boot. We stumbled on it around 5 years ago searching for an after-hours eatery after a Sat night downtown; got there around 3am and practically EVERY TABLE WAS FILLED. It's still like that. It's a tribute to the West Edge neighborhood that a number of 24-hour joints exist (and all are similarly popular). Definitely gives Cleveland a 'big city' feel.

^^ Wow, interesting numbers; the ones RTA would rather you NOT know. I think there's a plan to deemphasize rail even given its much greater load/cost efficiency (even here). It would be interesting, also, to know how expensive is it for the Red Line to run an extra, unmanned car more often off peak, like during the work day. How much electric vehicle miles would they really "waste" by allowing more passenger room on the expanded cars vs. jamming into one car (and greatly slowing service on top of that). Esp. given your numbers about the greater expense of man-hours in light of the fact that: a) RTA, throughout the day (except during rush hour) and most weekends, only uses off-car fare takers in 4 stations (the 2 Tower City stations, Airport and Windermere), and b) a two-car train can be run by one person (and thank God, they finally have learned both cars can be used IF the driver/fare collector merely does the 'hard work' of eying the platform making sure board-ees come up front to pay). No one's asking RTA to foolishly throw away $$ on running the Rapid, but the way rail is such an underappreciated and belittled asset in the RTA hierarchy viz other cities, one must really start pressing Q: when does transit stop emulating a penny-pinching business and start emulating the tax-funded service it's supposed to be? With more younger people living in town and greater entertainment/eating options downtown and in transit-accessible neighborhoods, why isn't RTA doing more to make rail more attractive rather than less? RTA's so gung-ho in cutting down to singer cars that are often overcrowded while, at the same time, employing a number of personnel to quickly break down the units. How much is RTA REALLY saving, esp since, as you hint, so much duplicative, expensive, more cost INeffective bus routing is utilized. As I've long suspected, and noted here, I believe there's SO much to make our current Rapid so much more useful, but in the long run, concomitantly making the system more cost effective and efficient.

^Yes, you're right about that. And it's a thick sprawl, at that. I think it's, in part, caused by both the explosive growth DC has had in the last 40-50 years coupled with the dreaded US Capitol Dome/height restriction in downtown DC. Baltimore has received some of throw-off expansion of businesses/agencies that want to be near DC in a city area, but just can't cope w/ the traffic.

^I think you need to specify. Everything is relative and, the fact is, you can get around Cleveland w/o a car much easier than every big city in Ohio, ... and certainly much more so than Detroit. DC vs. Cleveland? Yes, there's more rail, esp in some of the burbs. And regional/commuter/Amtrak is better, largely b/c of the really big cities in nearby in the NE Corridor... But RTA's rail + bus are pretty good in town and in various close-in burbs (like the entire Heights, E. Cleveland, Lakewood, Fairview Pk, Brook Park & a few others), and suburban bus, in Cuy County is very good; better than DC's simply b/c we have more and lighter-trafficked freeways and a better express bus system (not to mention many more wider streets and lighter density)... Cleveland, on a level, has more sprawl, but gridlock in DC's city and burbs are 10 times worse than here. I think, overall, our transit/freeway balance/mobility is better... It's all relative.

... was just past the "temporary" wooden Rapid station at Brookpark the other day on the way home from the airport. It appears nothing's going on at all, yet I thought the construction on the hotel/retail/parking TOD there would be well underway by now as (I thought) was scheduled. Is this project now dead? If not, what's the status?

I know we have the 2 projects going on in Shaker, but maybe this Baltimore TOD can be something of a guide: http://www.davidsbrown.com/commercial/commercial-upcoming/metro-centre.html It's the only TOD I know of that's been inspired by Balto's current rail network.

^^and it never hurts to see one of the world's greatest orchestras for zippo.

I see, the other day, that Mayor Jackson is heating up talks w/ the Crawford Museum about, once again, relocating at the old Aviation HS at E. 40th & the Shoreway (an idea I thought was dead). And why not combine the Crawford with the proposed Trolleyville downtown relocation since, in fact, Crawford wants to expand to encompass a "transportation museum?" Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to at least extend the RTA Waterfront Line to this point? -- esp since running the antique cars over RTA is apparently a part of the plan...

^^KJP's proposal is well taken, and a good idea. I recall the previous discussion he cited. I think, given the concurrent discussion about redeveloping Public Sq. by eliminating cross-traffic, that an east-west subway thru the square, out the D-S bridge, diverting to the Shoreway/Blvd West would be the best alternative. The only tricky thing is that, once the new rail line reaches Edgewater Park, it merges into the territory of the preexisting Red Line (but maybe that's not problem at all, really)... And to the argument against the potentially high cost (I'm not talking spending willy/nilly) I would just note what Bob Stark's been (correctly) saying lately: the failure of Cleveland to succeed is based on it's failure to THINK BIG... I would also note a sports analogy of a long time coach/analyst: no team will EVER be successful (esp in winning a championship) so long as it's primary M.O. is saving money...

^^Vulpster, you couldn't be more dead-on in your assessment, and why I'm lukewarm to all this (PD-spurred) Public Square redevelopment talk: a public sq in itself doesn't draw people, it's what's going on around it. THAT'S WHERE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE. And you're also right about gaining instant insight/ a snapshot of a closed Ontario/southern Sq. half would be like: did you note the crush of traffic forced onto Prospect? What a mess, particularly before/after those Indians-Yankees games... As I've said, elsewhere, if your going to talk about closing those arteries -- esp in the east-west, you either had better: a) beef up current Rapid service (including routing more buses into outer stations, and/or b) revisit the subject of an east-west subway through the Square, which could potentially eliminate all bus traffic through the area.

PD's Ewinger wrote - "Ohio and Indiana are the only Great Lakes states that don't support some kind of passenger service, ..." These 2 states are also the only 2 in the region that went for Bush. Wonder if there's a corelation? Hmmmm... :wink:

Wow, a prominent, pro-Amtrak piece in the PD. Applause to James Ewinger. The Ohio-Hub project can only benefit from such reporting.

^^Jamiec, have you considered walking down Cove to Detroit and catching the frequent #326 bus into the West Blvd-Cudell Rapid Station? A 1-hour for a commute is awfully slow even for someone, as yourself, who enjoys the Rapid. Btw, I empathize with your comments about extending the Rapid. But as you're finding, however, even in it's current form, it's more useful than locals give it credit for. The real problem is Clevelanders need to expand their minds about transit before expanding the tracks. I get the same sympathy/scorn for using the Rapid among friends which you wouldn't get in Boston or D.C., and that's not just because those systems are more extensive. In some larger cities, like Chicago, most people do NOT live within a few blocks of a rapid transit station and must use buses to begin or complete their trips. Ironically, in such bigger cities, people will put up with more hassles where size and traffic fear is greater than in smaller, lighter-traffic cities like Cleveland, where lazy commuters won't ride unless trains take them to their door (preferably their front door, as complainants about the Waterfront line gripe). You see how traffic fear, even here in Cleveland, dramatically spikes ridership. An example was last night's fireworks/Cleve Orchestra extravaganza on the square w/ the Indians-Orioles game at the Jake, where there was suddenly Manhattan-like crowding on the trains.

Wow, awesome. Quintessential Cleveland. Amazing factories like these built this city. Good to see this one's still in working order... er, somewhat.

Nice pics mrnyc, at least it seems NYC is poised to NOT make the same egregious error of the early 1960s when the cash-starved Penna RR destroyed its gem of an architectural landmark in order to milk some air-rights $$. Then, to add insult to injury, the whole damn railroad filed a Chapter 11 making the Penn Station take-down a total waste (sometimes bitingly called the greatest public rape in American history). I understand, mrnyc, that some of the rail lines (NJT, I'd guess) are not going into the P.O. location... ... anyway, here's the latest LRT discussion from MOTOWN: Did you know . . . the Woodward Corridor currently has more bus riders than many successful new rapid transit lines? Including all DDOT and SMART lines on Woodward and within a few blocks of Woodward, over 31,000 people now ride the bus along Woodward each weekday. Many cities that have recently installed very successful light rail rapid transit lines began with far fewer average daily riders: Denver – 11,000 riders on their first line, 28,000 riders on first two lines Minneapolis – 16,000 riders in their first year Dallas – 18,000 riders on their first line, 42,000 riders now on two lines Salt Lake City – 19,000 riders In most cases, 40-70% of light rail riders are new to transit. Therefore we could have 40-50,000 daily riders on a new Woodward light rail line. Once built, light rail is less expensive to operate than busses - a Woodward light rail line could save money and increase the effectiveness of our transportation investment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Details: Over 31,000 people now ride the bus along Woodward each weekday. Here is the average weekday ridership for Woodward corridor busses - as of Oct '05 for DDOT and May '04 for SMART (ridership has risen since then): DDOT #53 – 10,935 riders DDOT #16 – 9,938 riders DDOT #23 – 3,221 riders SMART #450/460 – 3,393 riders SMART #410 – 1,545 riders SMART #495 – 1,953 riders SMART limiteds (#445/465/475) – 455 riders Several cities have installed light rail rapid transit lines in the past decade which have proved to be very popular and successful. Here are several with their average daily ridership, generally during the first year of the transit lines' operation: Denver – 11,000 riders on their first line (31% above projections) 28,000 riders on first two lines (27% above projections) Minneapolis – 16,000 daily riders in their first year (58% above projections) Dallas – 18,000 riders on their first line (20% above projections) 42,000 riders now on two lines Salt Lake City – 19,000 riders (35% above projections) St. Louis – 44,000 riders after one year (only projected 17,000!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if you live in Wayne, Oakland or Washtenaw counties, urge your local elected officials to support and push for rapid transit on Woodward and Ann Arbor to Detroit. Ann Arbor to Detroit matters to people who care about southern Woodward because TRU's alternative for the Ann Arbor to Detroit rapid transit would have not only a commuter rail line from Ann Arbor to Detroit's New Center, but also a light rail transit line from New Center to downtown, potentially the start of a much bigger Woodward light rail line. Contact TRU for more details. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Owens Executive Director, Transportation Riders United 500 Griswold, Suite 1650 [email protected] Detroit, Michigan 48226 www.DetroitTransit.org Phone: 313-963-8872 Fax: 313-963-8876 Our mission is to improve transportation access and mobility in Greater Detroit.

Problem with dual-powered cars is, as I understand, they're often too heavy. Logic would dictate that, if trains are going into Tower City, the wires should be extended. The ROW is there, the track is there, why not? St. Louis has extended Rapid Transit into the cornfields of Southern Illinois, yet we have to whisper around corners about extending wires a few miles to/through our most densly populated hood to connect with our 90+year old transit system lest our transit chief and the powers that be get upset. Why must we always do things on the cheap? (not you, KJP, of course; you're only trying to succeed in this mental box called "The Cleveland Mindset"). Boston has BRT, but they're using conventional, electric trolley buses so as to allow their BRT to have fancy, smoke-less underground stations. Imagine that? I wish you the best of luck with this endeavor, but sometimes you've got to just step back and shake your head at how progress-resistant Cleveland can be.

As many of you have heard, the much anticipated release of the last report on the Ann Arbor to Detroit rapid transit line has again been postponed. According to SEMCOG, the consultants doing the analysis were not quite finished with all the analysis they needed for a truly complete study. The latest schedule anticipates the report finished and released by the end of July. It will include a detailed analysis of the five alternatives, including estimated ridership, travel time and cost of each. SEMCOG will schedule three public hearings in August with the hope of deciding which option is the best, the "locally preferred alternative," by October. Public input will be critical in ensuring that the best option, not just the cheapest option, is selected. TRU will notify you as soon as the report is out and the hearing dates are announced. We will have a response to the report available as well. In the meanwhile, we will continue the important work of building support and figuring out funding for this line. To review the five alternatives under consideration or for more information, visit http://www.annarbordetroitrapidtransitstudy.com/. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Owens Executive Director, Transportation Riders United 500 Griswold, Suite 1650 [email protected] Detroit, Michigan 48226 www.DetroitTransit.org Phone: 313-963-8872 Fax: 313-963-8876 Our mission is to improve transportation access and mobility in Greater Detroit.

^ one more advantage to my proposal: this proposed Yellow Line Rapid would enjoy preexisting terminal facilities in Tower City where the Brookpark rush-hour shuttle terminate in the stub/dead-head track. Of course, some Yellow Line cars could also extend further east to the busy U. Circle stop (perhaps during rush hour) where a currently unused, middle-track, turnback facility exists just east of the U. Circle station.

KJP, here’s a minor, but important (in my mind, anyway) alteration in the Project Greeway proposal, assuming the demonstration can be pulled off as planned: RTA extend a short, 2-track, at-grade (junction), fully-electrified branch off the Red Line at West Blvd. This branch -- let’s call it the Yellow Line – would extend along the roughly NS ROW/track .7 miles to just short of W. 117 Street where a projected Yellow Line/Greenway commuter joint terminal. The Upside: - you now have a 2-track, island-station terminal for both the Rapid and the Lorain commuter rail line allowing for a much easier (than at West Blvd) cross-platform transfer between Rapid and commuter rail as trains from both can access the station from opposite directions; - (probably most importantly) as a destination point, you finally bring Rapid Transit to w/in easy walking distance of the most densely populated, most desirable apartment/condo district in all of Ohio, which also happens to be between 2 popular, high-trafficked retail districts on Clifton/W.117 & Detroit/W.117; - you also terminate the commuter line in an area w/ the same advantages; - you can develop a major bus-transfer terminal at this station, too--in addition to the busy Circulator and W. 117 local buses, RTA also can divert/terminate half or more downtown-bound buses (the 326s and 55s) off of Detroit and Clifton, respectively; - no need to alter the recently-built West Blvd RTA station; - this new joint terminal station would be built just inside the Cleveland line, thus negating any potential NIMBY squawking from Lakewood completely; and - even if/when the commuter trains are eventually extended over the main NY/Chicago NS mainline into downtown – the most desirable outcome-- this W. 117 transfer station/terminal would remain a viable station stop, unlike the proposed West Blvd transfer station, where commuter trains would, no doubt, bypass completely. The Downside: - extending the Rapid (tracks, electric, signaling) would constitute an expense, although all told, it would be a RELATIVELY MINOR EXPENSE compared to most extensions (it would feature: a short distance, cheaper-grade level junction, an all at-surface extension (as in no grade separation of any kind needed), leading to, of course, an at-grade terminal/transfer station; - Lorain Commuters would now have to make 2 transfers to reach Hopkins rather than the one at West Blvd under the current scenario. (of course once trains bypass the West Blvd transfer point headed into downtown, these airport commuters would face even tougher obstacles – chances are, eliminating far West Side airport commutation via rail all together). Obviously, my proposal makes a number of assumptions: that the Project Greenway both gets off the ground and is successful (which I believe it would be IF it gets off the ground); that, even if both these occur, you would still have to move staunchly pro-bus (BRT)/anti-rail Joe Calabrese – and that’s a HUGE assumption. Assuming all this happens, however, I can see no real downside to such an altered proposal to an already extremely worthwhile project. ... thoughts?

Archer, to be sure, those numbers are depressing for RTA, obviously. But keep in mind, our light rail system is hard to compare to others: it was built as/has more in common with traditional eastern-style commuter rail lines -- to many NYC friends, the Shaker Lines remind them of the Long Island Railroad branch lines. Remember, the Shaker lines were designed by the Vans solely to develop and sell lots in then-new Shaker Heights. Unlike Buffalo, Baltimore and others, its goals, therefore, were limited. And as a commuter railroad-type system with in-city stops along railroad rights-of-way and terminating in a single station downtown, the Blue/Green lines have few trip generators outside of Shaker Square, the on-going mega decline of downtown as an employment center has had a much greater impact on our light rail system than on a more typical, modern LR system.

Appreciate the correction. Here are a few comments on your comments and the “Opportunity Corridor” link: KJP wrote: “As for the county's youth intervention center, that is NOT a TOD. It is not mixed use and therefore will not foster more frequent multi-purpose trips throughout the day that a TOD would offer. Increased ridership may occur at shift changes, and some visitors to the facility may take the Red Line -- depending on how the facility is designed. The current proposal is to build it at the farthest point on the cleared brewery property from the Red Line station (probably because of the proximity of noisy, vibrating freight trains -- one reason why I want the Red Line away from the freight tracks for the sake of encouraging other developments!). The intervention center is a single-use function for the massive site, which will limit ridership potential compared to a mixed-use, high-density development that should be built adjacent to the station. It's a huge missed opportunity and I'm miffed over the loss of this site to future mixed use. BTW, the site is totally cleared of any structures from the old brewery. You may be thinking of another site.” No, I’m thinking of this exact site, prior to the leveling of the buildings. Point being, thought the YIC may not be perfect – I will concede your point that it’s not, at the moment, a traditional TOD (but can you say that if spin-off development grows on-site such as some kind of retail and/or contractor-law-related office facilities?) – it is far better than the crumbling brewery that was sitting there for decades. As to your comment about the location of the YIC on the site being distant from the ROW b/c of railroad vibrations: that’s an assumption on your part -- you did use the word “probably”. If your assumption about railroad vibrations is accurate, how come thriving employment centers/neighborhoods hug active railroad corridors such as University Hospitals (which is in the life saving business, no less), Little Italy, and Edgewater, among others. Why is there plans for a hotel/retail TOD at Brookpark, perhaps the busiest freight rail corridor in all of Cleveland? And what about the expanding, upscale apartments and condos going in and around the old Chicle chewing gum factory that sits adjacent to not 1, but 2 busy railroad corridors. I don’t buy it. Your rationale sounds like a parallel to those folks who attack the Waterfront Line in a way to excuse the City’s foolishness for not developing TOD around it… it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some random notes & thoughts I made on the OC powerpoint presentation: - It starts out on the wrong foot (with me, anyway) quoting the history of the Clark Freeway debacle 30+ years ago. If OC is truly not a freeway – which, for the most part, it does not appear to be, then why the reference? -There is projected an “interchange” at E. 55 meaning a partial freeway. - It mentions “travel routes” mainly focusing on West Sider’s commutation to U. Circle “RTA Retail” at the E. 55 stop. Are they serious? Is this a first step in the yuppification/gentrification of Slavic Village (Ohio City’s Market Square business district seemed to be ignited, in part, by the upgrade of the W. 25 Rapid Staton). -It is interesting to see Councilman Brancatelli, in his 11/9/05 letter oppose the alternative #4 south E. 55 alignment that will destroy many Slavic Village homes – good for him! Btw, $8M for the new E. 55 RTA station (per Councilman Brancatelli’s letter)? wow, that’s a lot of $ for a lightly-used stop -- but I guess that's investing on positive future TOD growth, and that should be the name of the game. BOTTOM LINE: the info in this power-point presentation is enlightening and eases my mind, but only a tad. Overall, I’m still highly skeptical, at best. I still don’t understand why, once again, we’re turning to massive infrastructure rebuilding (which stands to displace residents ) which ultimately will be for the convenience of the almighty auto as a means, allegedly, to rescue our city when, really, we should be focusing on maximizing the infrastructure that’s in place in this particular: the roadways and the transit lines. I don’t believe you need to rebuild the rapid lines in this area to successfully have TOD in the so-called “Forgotten Triangle.” Unlike this OC (and your proposed Rapid reconfiguration to go along with it), I was totally on board with relocating the Red Line to the Dual Hub (at least partial) subway project out Euclid because, with that project, the advantages both to transit and high-density city building were clearly discernable. Here, I don’t see it at all. Ultimately, I think this proposal will hurt, and possibly destroy rail transit (you did once say the ultimate goal was to convert the Red and Green lines into BRT – if that happens, Cleveland would be, once again, the laughing stock of the world). And whether or not this road is in the ditch or out of it (which you’ve convinced me the planners have opted for), there are still freeway-ish aspects to it that are troubling (esp the huge "diamond interchange" at E. 55 where the Slavic Village folks are, understandably having issues with it). Moreover, you/ODOT still have not convinced me that the genesis for this is roadway is more for the rebuilding of this neighborhood as opposed to a mere backdoor for commuters – commuters who, by the way, will be drawn away from commerce, retail and entertainment venues (existing now and in the future) along Midtown Corridor where ECP/BRT will serve and where there’s been a massive effort, over the decades, to upgrade.

If I recall from something I read years ago, the stumbling block was the big intersection at the top of the hill where it was deemed too expensive to build the necessary rail underpass... damn shame. In the 1960s, the cost of reactivating the rail line up Cedar Glen and Euclid Heights Boulevard was estimated at $16 million. The tracks and catenary support poles were kept in place until the Urban Mass Transit Administration and local officials said they wouldn't pay the amount. That infrastructure, preserved for some 15 years after streetcar service ended in the early 1950s, was removed.

Jesus Christ, how many friggin different ways should I phrase the same answer?? A. I don't believe the existing line is capable of drawing any meaningful TOD. There may be some townhouses built someday here and there, but where are the plans? Is that enough? Can the existing street grid foster a well-planned, high-density mixed-use TOD? Where is the spider-web style street grid spreading outward from the existing stations that enhance pedestrianism? Look at Shaker Heights as the design model. Look at my earlier maps of how the street-grid can be reshaped with the Opportunity Corridor to create such a spiderweb. B. If the Juvenile Courts building is a TOD, then I'm tall, dark and handsome. Even so, go back and look at my maps of the Opportunity Corridor. Do you see anything in there that suggests I wish to eliminate the East 105th/Quincy station? C. Even ODOT doesn't propose a freeway. That's your term. Still, I'm not happy with ODOT's proposal, which is too high speed for my tastes and, more importantly, too high speed for the Opportunity Corridor Steering Committee. Both sides are at an impasse. I support a design like the Shaker Boulevard. Anything more speedy should not be built. D. Converting the Red Line to something like the Green Line will lower its average speed over two miles of the realignment from about 30 miles per hour (the Red Line averages 24 mph from Tower City to University Circle, but this is a faster part of the line). to 25. C'mon, KJP, you know better than that. You know the ODOT crew and other planners were attracted to this wide rail corridor for their road because it offers the potential for one thing: speed. It is a sunken ROW allowing for a limited access road aimed at U. Circle and the Heights -- limited access road: that's the definition of a freeway to most people. It makes no sense, from their POV, for ODOT to want this "street" along with a Rapid down the middle of it with lots of TOD type development your reloated Rapids will supposedly bring; although I defy you or anyone to show me where any freeway/rapid transit -- most notably the 3 in Chicago -- has spurred TOD development. I don't know where your coming from about E.105/Quincy. I never implied your proposal meant to destroy it. I was only pointing it out as TOD that is already happening as a result of the existing Red Line WITHOUT ODOT's/your "Opportunity Corridor." And as for its status as a TOD -- I guess you're tall, dark and handsome. While it's not the MGM Grand, it still is planned as a high-density employment center (a welcome site to replace the decades-old, decrepit and empty brewry)-- and I have no doubt that the adjacent station along our heavy rail East-West Rapid line was a strong lure. As to Shaker Heights -- it's not a fair comparison. Yes, the Van-inspired design of radiating streets oriented commuters to the close-spaced stations, but scenario still ignores freeway/high speed nature of this proposed "boulevard". Despite the occasional speeder (who the Shaker cops usually nab) Neither Van Aken nor Shaker are freeways. What's more, your comparison ignores the fact that Shaker was an enclave atop the East Side's Appalachian bluffs (now known collectively as the Heights) carved from empty farmland. The Van Sweringens acres of rural land as their canvass. What's more, unless you plan putting the Blue/Green lines underground, or at least in an open cut similar to that offered along Shaker Blvd, those lines will be harmed as much or more than the east leg of the Red Line, which is considerably shorter in length. All I ask is this: why not work to develop around the Rapid that's there, not contort the rail system to a freeway that ought not be built? Why can't those walkable neighborhoods you propose be oriented to the rail lines that are already there? I've oft advocated relocating the Red Line's E.79th stop to the heavily-trafficked corner of Buckeye and Woodland. That industrial wasteland could be cleared and the type of development you are talking about could be built there, as well as the other Rapid stops in the area. Have you been over to the E. 79 Blue/Green Rapid stop? Believe it or not, new homes are going in there. Why can't more development occur there? Look down down Woodland (to around the E. 34th block) at the massive Longwood Estates develpment. Why can't something like this happen at E. 79 where a rebuilt rapid stop (only 2 decades old) and rehabbed rapid route (completed only a few years ago) exist? Why do you want to conform to ODOT, build yet another damaging (to the City) urban freeway whose main purpose is to speed Heights and West suburban commuters in opposite directions?... I'm curious.

^Awesome. Let's hope you can continue to have good Red Line experiences and become a regular rider. The wacko cost of gas may make the decision even better for you. Yeah, I like you wish we could beef up Rapid services. I also realize that it's a hard sell in Cleveland right now. The economy is stagnant in the metro area, overall, and there's a ton of downtown office vacancies. But the housing market, particularly downtown and in many of the trendy neighborhoods -- including those served by the Rapid (Ohio City, Univ Circle/Little Italy and the Flats/Warehouse Dist) is picking up, and this bodes well for potential rail expansion. It's just that there are not a lot of options to extend RTA finds viable, and that's a shame b/c they're out there. And as you may have heard, at nearly its 10-year anniversary, developers have finally discovered this struggling, potential transit gem in the Flats area known as the RTA Waterfront Line, and are fighting with each other to build the biggest TOD residential project near it. I'm a big proponent for extending the Waterfront Line East along the Lakefront, but if you actually drive the projected route and check it out on Google Earth, you'll see that potential TOD region overlooking the Lake is thick with industry, both derelict and extant. There are mounds of coal at the huge old processing plant just east of E. 72nd (where a Rapid stop is projected) and there's got to be God-knows-what kind of chemical wastes embedded for decades -- over a century -- in the soils along that stretch of the lakefront: brownfields for miles that will require a massive EPA-financed cleanup effort. It will take a long while to convert even some of that property over to high-end/high density residential... perhaps, though, the conversion of the Nickolson terminal Warehouse over to the upscale Quay 55 townhomes (at E. 55) may serve as a beacon for rail extension. Your new town, Lakewood, has some of the highest density residential areas in the state and is one area rapid rail extension should be seriously looked at... We'll see what happens.

I agree with this! I live in Lakewood and work downtown, and I'd LOVE to take the Rapid to work. But there are a few problems. First, the station on 117 is a mile away. That's a long walk for a station, especially when I have to be to work at 8 a.m. and I went to the bar the night before. I could drive and park my car at their lot, but that just seems stupid when it takes me 15 minutes to get into the parking deck via the Shoreway. Finally, a monthly transit pass costs more money than my parking deck costs, so on the whole, it really doesn't equal out. If the station was a few blocks away rather than a mile, there would be no question. And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow. jaimec, ironically, there were plans to extend the Red Line up Cedar hill to Coventry shortly after it opened in 1955, but CTS opted to extend westward to the airport, instead. The Coventry extension, I believe, was deemed to expensive... a shame, in my book... As to your living too far from W.117 street. Have you tried using a bus to the station? I understand, also, Lakewood has an excellent Community Circulator bus -- the most used line of all the Circulators.