DontGiveUptheFight

A thought exercise: since much of Cleveland does not have the density to make subways cost-effective, what are people's thoughts on street-level light rail? Let's say we had the option of converting our busiest bus routes into surface-level light rail, funding, NOACA protestations, ODOT, etc. aside. If I recall correctly, they would be: - Detroit-Superior - Euclid - Lorain-Carnegie - W. 25-Pearl - E. 9th-Broadway. I'm thinking that such a plan would mean taking two lanes (one lane and one parking row, or Euclid's BRT) away from the streets to put the rail ROWs in. Any existing buildings, houses, or business establishments would not be torn down. Considering the traffic lanes taken away and the number of street-level crossings that the light rail lines would encounter, would the logistics make the negatives outweigh the positives? (and we should think of alternative routes instead?) Or would a cost-benefit analysis say that these lanes along these major roads can be eliminated in favor of light rail? I'm thinking that Euclid's could be justified, although a subway is preferable. :evil: Detroit maybe up to the Red Line West Blvd station, which would then jump to the N&S tracks (although light rail and heavy rail are different kind of tracks, so...). I know there was a study done for W. 25-Pearl to Parma where nothing happened, although I don't know too much about how Lorain-Carnegie and E. 9th-Broadway would be affected.

Ah well. But yes, you're right - our metro area (and nation as a whole) does have too many roads to maintain. I'm just hoping that there'd be some reason to get more people around these Red Line stations. I hope what KJP said about rail by itself being able to generate TOD in other cities will hold true for Cleveland. I had thought that the lackluster TOD along west side Red Line stations were due to geographic constraints, and I'd like for these to be overcome. That being said, a place like Tremont doesn't have major avenues running through it, so creating a sense of place along these stations should be possible. I'm just impatient when it comes to city revitalization. :roll: I haven't looked at other case studies of industrial rail ROWs being taken for transit and the resulting TOD. My limited experience has been based on transit that connects already existing places. In a city like Cleveland where neighborhoods have been emptying out, I do think that creating "some place" out of "no place" is definitely something worth doing, but I think it's much more difficult than connecting places that already exist. Instead of harnessing existing energy, it's trying to create that energy elsewhere. You're being way too polite. I love Cleveland so much. But along the Red Line the aesthetic message our city sends is "Welcome to the ugliest place in America." I found this really funny. Thanks for the laugh. I enjoyed the laugh too. :laugh:

Part politics, but, with the creation of the Ohio 9th Congressional District along the lake, could we get more of a unified vision to push the Westshore commuter rail through?

The Red Line goes through some not-so-aesthetically pleasing parts of the city and doesn't run along the main thoroughfares of the city. While I'd prefer it to be rerouted near or under Lorain and Euclid Aves (probably prohibitively expensive), the discussion on Shaker/Opportunity Corridor TOD got me wondering - could we invert the idea of placing transit along existing roads and instead build a new road along existing transit to boost ridership? My thought is to extend Berea Road along the west side Red Line so that it actually connects Hopkins Airport/Berea to the West Shoreway. This road would open up places along the Red Line to more traffic and possibly more riders, especially if the new road and transit together can spur mixed-use development on formerly industrial land. - Red is the Red Line - Yellow is Berea Road as it exists now - Light blue is a possible 1st-phase extension of Berea Road through current industrial areas From Google Maps, it looks like that some of these places that look like industrial wastelands are still places of employment. Somehow developing this land for mixed use would have to account for where these jobs would go. - Pinkish-purple is the 2nd-phase, much more speculative extension - Green are neighborhoods that the new road would affect (through demolition, road widening, increased traffic) and would probably oppose this project The area around Mohican Park/Triskett Station has two possible routings because one route would cut through the park and the other would require building a bridge over the tracks to avoid the park. The former would be cheaper but would probably face more opposition. The routing south of Puritas is very much speculative. Part of it is currently an industrial parkway, and if the road is not connected to the Berea Freeway or the Brookpark Rapid Station, the whole segment of the road south of W 150th Station probably won't get much traffic. A connection to the freeway and the station is needed to bring in more traffic from Berea and the airport that add to the use of the street. New road to spur development - cheaper than re-routing the Red Line along existing traffic patterns?

How do we get this to happen? Circulate a petition? Write city council? Write the mayor? Run for elected office? I'd like to get a land-value tax passed ASAP to replace those parking lots with honest-to-goodness buildings that will concentrate activity. I hope that the completion of the Flats East Bank will give incentives to develop those lots when there's going to be lots of people coming in, though I can see the opposite scenario as possible as well. So many people coming into downtown would also drive up the price of parking, creating another disincentive to develop those lots.

Much has been said about how Cleveland has too many stand-alone projects (e.g., Medical Mart, Gateway, RRHoF) that are believed to be silver bullet answers to the city's woes and not a comprehensive vision of what the city wants to be. If that is the case, what would your overall vision for Cleveland be? I actually have a bit of a problem answering this question myself, because I am not sure where the line between "grand vision" and "large project" is. Posts in this thread ( http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,19103.0.html ) have listed a good number of both, but what is the distinction between "vision" and "project"? What is it that we should be focusing on in the big picture that we aren't doing? Because I do feel that many of the one-shot projects that the city is doing are actually necessary for any large city to be competitive. So what's missing in our strategy?

While probably illegal for the government to run families, support for nonprofits could fill in a similar, though less strong-handed role. Caritas, a Catholic charity, does pretty much this in Mexico. They run boarding houses with adult supervisors who are this 24/7 support system and basically the kids' parents during the week. The kids have the option of going home to see the parents on the weekends. In this system, the parenting, schooling, and mentoring are all separate, which I think provides for a certain amount of openness in the kids' lives. When I visited Puebla, Mexico a few years back, I lived in such a place for a week and was quite impressed by how they ran things. I recommend looking to see if any nonprofits or churches would be willing to run such establishments to help kids achieve more. It's impossible to ask schoolteachers to do everything, which is why I think it's so important to have an at-home mentor role if the parents are incapable of doing so. Of course, getting kids there has to be voluntary (if the parents truly believe that their kids will be better off in such a house) or court-ordered if it is proven that the parents really shouldn't be parents. Background checks on the mentors would also be compulsory, and the mentors would have to ensure cohesion among the kids and prevent bullying. I'd also like to make sure that kids are completely supported in such a home. For instance, if a kid realized that s/he is gay, I wouldn't want the people running the home to have a stance of being gay as being wrong. That could seriously mess a kid up if they are told something like that.

So this means we need a subway under Detroit instead, right? :clap: I do think BRT or streetcar is possible on Detroit, even though it's a narrow street. The current configuration of lanes, from north to south, is: - Parking - Westbound traffic - Turning lane - Eastbound traffic - Parking This could be changed to: - Westbound transit - Eastbound transit - Westbound traffic - Eastbound traffic - Parking A few park and rides will probably be needed along the way, though. There'll probably be a lot of people angry over reduced parking.

Whoops! Clearly I need better reading comprehension when it comes to going through earlier posts! The blue route seems better suited for TOD, going by Wolstein and Tri-C. I'd love more development west of Broadway as well, though I don't see how that would be possible. Is the RTA even considering a Red Line counterclockwise loop, or are they only talking about looping the Blue/Green line?

Is anyone familiar with Waterfire Columbus? An installation piece, which originated in Providence, RI, where cauldrons of fire are placed along the Scioto River? I have to admit that when I first saw that Columbus was getting it, I was not happy. I mean, if ANY city deserves to have an installation piece that sets its river on fire, that city is CLEVELAND, all the way! :-D Although, realistically, I understand that the Cuyahoga River is still used for navigation, so placing an installation piece in the river is probably not practical. What Waterfire Columbus looks like: <img src="http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2011/05/21/b78184924z-1-20110521071738-000gojckevm-2-0.jpg" />

I guess this could have gone in the Ohio Business forum or signature structure for Cleveland, but I couldn't decide, so it ends up in it own topic. I'd actually love for this wind power system to be built on Whiskey Island: <img src="http://64.19.142.10/news.discovery.com/tech/2010/10/15/windstalk-park-825x425.jpg"/> Stalks only, no blades, bird-friendly. It could take advantage of the wind coming off of Lake Erie. Full article here: http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html

Since the RTA has been talking about this for years, have they ever come up with a map of their own? I'm just curious to see where it goes and what people think of their routing. I've heard W. 30th to the Post Office? That makes sense. Then I would have tram lines on W. 6th and E. 9th (unless E. 9th is suitable for LRT?), and I agree that a tram to connect Public Square with Market Square would be a definite plus. My only hesitation in routing through Public Square is that I don't want it to cut through the square if we're going to close off the streets going through it.

I know this is an old, old, old thread, but I was curious to know what has happened with this project. BRT-light only? No further consideration of a light rail from Parmatown to Market Square, via the zoo? If not, it's a shame.

I sincerely hope so. But the length of time that this has dragged on has made me both impatient and skeptical that this will come to fruition. :? And maybe with the ferry terminal there we can finally develop that land just north of the Browns Stadium! Or maybe I'm just dreaming here...

Is it possible to use this delay in bridge funding to ensure that the new bridge includes options for biking, walking, and transit? It'd provide another way for Tremont residents to connect to downtown without needing to drive on the highway.