PHS14

Yeah this is pretty bad. There are plenty of other people more deserving. The fact that council voted unanimously to rename the street is yet another reason I think we need to Clean house at City Hall. Certain elements in the city and at City Hall excuse criminal behavior so it's no surprise that these same folks would honor a criminal.

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month. Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain. Look at DC. DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

What do expect from a rail system designed in the early 1900s to transport Shaker Hghts residents to downtown CLE for work and another line routed in the 1950s with one out of the way and unmarked downtown station? What do expect from a city-sponsored light rail extension 20 years ago for the same limited number of Shaker Hts users planning a trip to go drinking in the old Flats? We've seen what has happened to local workforce downtown and let's throw in 60% city population loss. CIN's streetcar, with its limited route, at least will provide multi-stop service from the riverfront to OTR. Fare: $1.00 or $2.00 for a day pass. This is obviously designed to spur use and real collateral development. The same could apply to the WFL but how many people are going to use it with its current configuration? Not many. No one staying at the 9 or the Schofield will use it unless it is accessible at or near 9th/Euclid. I don't think it's too hard to figure out why very few people use the rail system in Cleveland, especially the WFL.

I get yelled at every time I mention this sort of thing, but I'm going to anyway since I believe it to be part of your answer. I ride the trains only occasionally, usually only if going to or from downtown or U/C. Usually on weekends. But in the past couple years, I've *rarely* have a positive experience. Apparently they are always doing track work. On Saturdays. During the day. While the trains are full or very nearly full. The single-tracking produces long delays and makes trip planning close to impossible. Example: a couple weeks ago. Wanted to get from U/C to Triskett. Had to settle for West 98th because of emergency track work. Needed to get a ride from there, whereas from Triskett we probably could have walked. But the worst part is that the train took more than 45 minutes, not the scheduled 27, to travel between these two stations. While the replacement of trains with shuttle buses between West 98 and Triskett was announced, the 18+ minute delay was not. Had I known, we'd have used the HealthLine and 26 to reach exactly our destination from exactly our origin, and, even with the ridiculous Public Square construction delays, it would likely have been faster than the entire trip (with walking from Severance Hall and needing a ride from West 98) turned out to be. Or we could have just driven and it would have been faster, and cheaper as well (because I had 3 kids with me). This is not how you sell a transit system to people who have a choice. Mind you I'm not talking about just potential riders; I'm also talking about the many more people paying the taxes that subsidize, or used to subsidize, having a halfway decent quality of service. It's also not how you get people *without* a choice to and from their jobs, without them getting fired for constantly being late, or fined for overstaying their time at the day care, or screwed out of getting to see their kids' concerts and recitals and volleyball matches because they missed their connecting bus that only runs every hour. I realize a lot of folks at RTA, probably the vast majority, are doing the best they can with very, very minimal funding by historical standards. But if you want to understand and perhaps address at least one of the reasons why people aren't riding the trains - the fact that for most of us, time is money and we can afford to waste neither - then here are a few suggestions, which I believe could be implemented with very minimal cost. 1. Track work should be done during times that are relatively convenient for riders. And it should be announced. If there are going to be delays - and they must be predictable, to some degree, because I can predict one just about every time I use the Red Line on a Saturday afternoon - announce those as well. 2. NextConnect does a reasonably good job of predicting when a bus or train will depart from a given location. It says nothing about how long the trip is going to take. That would be very useful information; I presume it should be reasonably easy to gather, at least on those few lines that still run with some frequency; it would help people to time transfers, and to reduce the percentage of the time they must wait an hour or more for a connection, possibly in the rain or cold or withering heat or in a less than safe neighborhood. I still think RTA does some of its job recruiting at county jail or has a work release program. All of the points you raised are valid and all it takes is some common sense to keep inconvenienced riders informed. One night coming in from the Airport, being tired etc, my stop was supposed to be West Park. Conductor didn't announce any stops at all. I missed West Park; was reprimanded with an attitude by the conductor for not paying attention. Got dumped off at Triskett to wait for the next (and last of the night) train. Temp. was about 20 degrees in driving snow. We both know the system; the concern is out of towners, visitors from the area etc. that are placed in these situations. My case was on inbound Airport train; trust me, if a visitor coming into town on these trains experiences this type of thing (both of our examples) they will be making other arrangements when heading back to the Airport or moving around locally while in town.

The downtown free zone ended several years ago. Also, at first, MAX (Portland's transit agency) was not very supportive of the streetcar and refused to provide any funding for it -- the city had to provide it all. As time went on and they began to see how the streetcar played a big part in the city's transportation system, MAX began to see that they should provide some funding for it. Give it 10 years and the same thing will happen in Cincinnati. Portland's streetcar, like CIN's, has a limited route but unlike CIN, Portland's streetcar is connected to a light-rail network bringing in lots of riders. However, even Portland's transit system has financial strains and overall transit use has actually been stagnant. The metro area is growing so not all the new residents use transit. Streetcars can be slow; the reason Portland has recently closed several stops to speed things up. Residents have opted to walk in lieu of riding the streetcar to downtown locations. Obviously CIN's $1.00 fare is not designed to bring in cash but spur use and collateral development. Time will tell.

Where is Danny Greene Blvd.? King was well known among 'doze guys.

Clevelands wide streets are often attributed to it's heavy use of streetcars in the late 19th/early 20th century, long before autos ruled the roads. Regardless, Cleveland is not planned well.

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$ but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route. No system makes money except in NYC, some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit? Transit systems are subsidized and I certainly know Metro doesn't make a profit let alone bring a lot of money with its low ridership numbers.

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$ but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route. No system makes money except in NYC, some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit? I know transit systems don't make a profit but a new rail line should be expected to generate more than $4,600 or so per day; however, the Streetcar is a development catalyst. The fare of $1.00 to $2.00 certainly speaks for itself as the Streetcar is not going to be generating much cash at all from the farebox. The intent of the Streetcar then is for the taxpayers to subsidize its operation etc. while the line generates other forms of income and revenue (ie. property values, business and population increases). I believe sections of Porland's downtown streetcar are free. I've used it a few times and recall this feature; same thing may apply for the downtown lightrail. The lightrail lines are zoned and radiate across the Portland area.

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$ but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile. There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis. The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities. This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. Not true. All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars. In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by horse 'n buggy. Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize. Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE? CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize. Correct me I'm wrong, but aren't those wide streets a legacy of the transit being referenced by PHS? The roads are wide because they used to have lanes in each direction for horse and buggy, with a streetcar going down the center. These streetcar transit lines have since been paved over (i.e., St. Clair) I should qualify my statement, Cleveland, at a minimum, post-WWII has been planned around the automobile. Correct, the streetcars lines were removed for buses and the automobile to dominate.

Is Cincinnati that densely populated to support such an extensive rail network? Is there any info on the fare structure and predicted ridership numbers for the initial Streetcar line opening in September? Considering the current lackluster ridership numbers generally, curious as to how the Streetcar estimates were calculated.

Please enlighten us as to why Cleveland's rail system, the light-rail lines in particular, have such dismal ridership numbers...and how would you remedy the issue to increase ridership?

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile. There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis. The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities. This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city. Not true. All large Nineteenth Century/pre-WWI cities like Cleveland, Detroit, KC and others, grew up around transit: mainly streetcars. In fact, when Public Square was designed, I don't believe there were even any horse cars -- people either walked or traveled by horse 'n buggy. Midwestern cites became more car-oriented in the 1950s, but with Cleveland maintaining more of a transit focus than any other, save Chicago -- a fact you don't seem to want to recognize. Well of course Public Square was around before automobiles but did you ever notice how wide the streets are in CLE? CLE wasn't really a large city in the 19th Century and CLE's ''transit focus'' has been trumped by the automobile, a fact you don't seem to want to recognize.

The city was also planned for, like many Midwestern cities, the automobile. There are millions of people, they just live around the city now and don't have the need to go downtown for work, shopping etc on a regular basis. The post-war era was not kind to Cleveland and many other cities. This, again, is why the Public Square and Mall can be used to attract people, including families, as a reintroduction to the city.

The original Mall Plan, as you know, was designed as an example of the ''City Beautiful'' school over 100 years ago. The problem with Cleveland's and other cities with this design (San Francisco and a few others) was the creation of dead zones by, at least in Cleveland's case, lining the Mall with government offices that closed at 4:30pm and, as you pointed out, don't front on the Mall. The Hanna Fountains used to attract lunch crowds and a couple of Parties in the Park but these were special events and the off hour foot traffic was thin. The new hotels opening on the Mall should increase day and evening foot traffic. The Mall is a work in progress and with the Lakefront Pedestrian Bridge going in should only increase the foot traffic flow. I think Mall A needs a perimeter café and outdoor seating, set back enough to leave the War Memorial open and clear. An outdoor area at the Drury Hotel would help. Mall B is open and great for special events but one gets the feeling that you don't want to walk on the grass there. The Senior Games flame fixture should be removed as it mars the open vista. Mall C should get busier with the Hilton opening and the ped bridge and could use some seating/café type of thing. Food trucks would be cool there on occasion as well. Bottom line on the Malls, Public Square and other such projects is to bring a cohesiveness to downtown Cleveland, something downtown lacked for decades. A north-south flow from Gateway and Tower City to the lakefront via the Mall on foot.

Unfortunately, the 1910 version of Cleveland is not the 2016 version. The only difference is population and jobs. I'd rather work on those problems than trying to make a suburban park in the middle of the city. Those are huge differences, population and jobs, and you can't have one without the other. The fact that downtown Cleveland is on a road-diet, for example closing off the square for cross-traffic is another indication that Cleveland 2016 is not Cleveland 1910. The city needs to adapt to present day reality and my only issue with the redesign is that Superior Avenue still cuts through the Square; the redesign looks great and Corner is the best urban designer today. Cleveland is in the process of reintroducing itself to area residents as well as to the nation and world generally with all eyes on Cleveland this summer in particular (RNC and hopefully a Cavs finals series with a Cavs victory (optimistic)). I think this project will be great for Cleveland in the short and long-term. Drawing people and families downtown to enjoy public spaces will only help with the city's otherwise lackluster reputation and assist in building the groundwork for jobs and population.

Unfortunately, the 1910 version of Cleveland is not the 2016 version.

The in-city neighborhoods are growing people-wise and expense-wise but the city overall, the county and region are still losing population. I wouldn't be surprised if the city population started to increase provided that the popular in-city neighborhoods continue to grow, some with nice, density projects on the boards with a nice collateral effect on the tax base and an expansion into other neighborhoods. The lakefront areas on the west side and eventually the east side lakefront I think will see decent to strong population growth=density=transit demand. However, until the region and county increase its population then the city growth is just population shuffling. Yet RTA has studied a $1 billion extension of the Red Line to Euclid. Take the light-rail out to the west side along Detroit Avenue. A streetcar would introduce a 3rd type of rail service, another disconnect from extended one-run service.

Really!? How about: what Cleveland pols and leaders wanted. In 1953 Cuyahoga County voters voted 2-1 to build a downtown loop subway. Yet, the County Commissioners, egged on by County Engineer Albert Porter, thwarted voters' wishes, and didn't build it... In the 1990s, Cleveland was poised to build the Dual Hub Subway up Euclid, but instead, decided it was too expensive and, hence, we have the cramped, slow-moving, Health Line BRT. RTA had a transit chief, Ron Tober, who wanted to expand rapid transit and develop commuter rail in many of the ways discussed up thread (Tober btw pushed hard for the Dual Hub rail subway project), but local leaders thought him to be too grandiose and ran him out of town -- he landed in Charlotte and led development of Charlotte's first (and expanding) LRT system. Instead, leaders opted for the more conservative Joe Calabrese who was more their speed. How different would Cleveland have been if these projects had been built? It was leadership, not the people, who did this. ... Oh yeah, and it was also leadership who opted to build the $350M Opportunity Corridor highway through the city, led by Gov/Pres hopeful John Kasich, at the same time the State has become among the stingiest in the nation toward funding public transit.. I'm talking about the 1950s subway and the regional rail intent of the 1970s RTA system which, by not being built 60 and 40 years ago would have offset CLE's sustained decline and slow ''recovery''. The Opp Corridor as far as I know was not on the ballot so maybe this will clear up your confusion on my point. Also, the Dual Hub corridor was not on the ballot and was a completely different set-up than the 1950s subway. CLE of the '50s was not CLE of the '90s. It's interesting that you neglect the downtown business interests (Higbee's) that contributed to stopping the subway going to PHS where Halle's was. This move help end both Halle's and Higbee's downtown existence. Also, by the time Tober was running RTA, the Dual Hub and other issues pursued by Tober were too grandiose given the condition of the city and region. We got the HealthLine and the City of Cleveland sponsored WFL. My point reads the same way as your ''Really!? How about what Cleveland pols and leaders wanted''. The voters voted for what they wanted; the leaders and pols did what they wanted by not building what the voters wanted.

Strap, when the METRO was built in the 1970s the Washington area had a population just north of 3 million and was smaller than Cleveland-Akron at the time. It wasn't that densely populated at all and traffic wasn't that bad except for the bridges into downtown. OTOH there was a regional consensus to get it built. I don't ever expect to see a transit consensus like that for NE Ohio or SW Ohio in my lifetime. Of course the Feds, Va. and Md. all played a part in getting it built. The folks at the statehouse in Columbus don't seem to want transit either. That's a very good point, but I still don't think the situations are comparable. Rail is typically planned and built to accommodate projected future needs, not current ones. The DC region in the 70s was almost guaranteed to grow in terms of jobs, income, traffic, and congestion, while Cleveland shrank substantially since then, and is likely to shrink further until the reasons for our economic decline can be admitted, addressed, and corrected. Even I would not advocate trying to build a full-scale metro system here. No matter how much I might like to have one, it would be a poor use of the money compared to, say, properly protecting, educating, and training Cleveland residents so they can eventually participate in the local and national economy, and enhancing the bus and rail systems we already have as part of doing so. For transit to substantially improve, we need to get the economy growing again, and better transit, even if it can be argued to be a necessary precondition to that happening, is not a sufficient one. Other things need to change as well, those things cost money too, and I think it is very reasonable to try to prioritize those transit improvements that are the most cost-effective, which I do think might include regional/commuter rail, but probably do not include bringing back a dense rail network anytime soon. Why was DC almost guaranteed to grow given the state of the District until about 10 years ago? The DC Metro, while extensive, has critical safety issues so, despite its popularity, it has major $$ issues. The Federal Gov't will bail it out I'm sure. This is a nice source of funding for the Metro. DC's new Streetcar is up and running and, as has been stated here about Streetcars, riders have said it's slow. On the other hand, had Cleveland leaders and RTA stuck to what the residents wanted, there would be a much more extensive rail system and, I believe, Cleveland's decline may not have been as steep and its subsequent recovery not as protracted.

Neither go far and are confined to small areas for a rail system. I don't see how you wish you could have CIN's streetcar here yet not advocate a light-rail loop or extension given that our rail lines are now what you are promoting with CIN's UC extension. How is extending CIN's streetcar cost/benefit worthy then? CIN City Hall pushed this project while our City Hall officials go down there for photo opps with the streetcar trains. Like our WFL, the City pushed for it which is why it ends in Muni Parking Lot perhaps. Other cities have distance based fares. Oh, that's right, this is Cleveland.

Missed this but I want to see it. Portland is the gold star transit system in the U.S. However, even with its reputation, Portland has seen budget issues and stagnant to declining ridership numbers. I suspect this has to do with fare increases and a bad economy. The Streetcar Line recently closed 5 stations due to the line running slow. Even if the ridership numbers do increase, Portland's transit share of commuters has been stagnant to decline. Must not be keeping up with the area's growing population; more people getting in cars than on the train. The Pearl District is nice, but an expensive place to live. Something both CIN and CLE need; ORT in CIN with its streetcar and Detroit-Shoreway in CLE with a light-rail extension. I'm less familiar with Portland's system than most of the larger ones (NYC, Washington, Chicago, LA). I do know it is excellent relative to the city's size, but not quite sure why it would be considered the "gold star" system as opposed to any of the others. Am I missing something? Thanks! Not sure if it is fact a gold star system but Portland is said to be transit-progressive, like CLE used to be. People there keep voting for light-rail, even if they don't use it. The NW Pacific vibe. I visit the Portland area every summer and am looking forward to using the new Orange Line. Last summer the rail-bridge was up but not yet running. Looks very cool. Maybe another reason Portland gets transit attention is its newer, progressive look as opposed to the cities you mention; each of which, except LA, are considered to be ''transit legacy'' cities. CLE could have easily been in the transit legacy category had things gone the way the citizens wanted at the time.

Detroit's People Mover, like CIN's Streetcar, are confined to downtown areas only. This is the problem with CIN's Streetcar; who will use this to get around CIN's small, compact downtown? This line has not been extended to create an ebb-flow of people in and out of the CBD and is being built, like Detroit's People Mover, from scratch. Think about a Reds, Bengals or other downtown event: you're supposed to drive downtown, pay to park away from your destination, pay and wait for the streetcar, ride to your event, and do the reverse trip later. During really large events like Oktoberfest, the Streetcar will be closed. Same thing with Detroit's People Mover. CLE's issue is limited and awkward CBD access with rail lines extending east-west across the city. Looping the WFL through the CBD could only help attract potential riders with more access points for short and distant destinations. There should be a different fare structure for local downtown riders ie. going a couple-few stations. CLE's growing tourist and convention visitors could really have quick and inexpensive access. Downtowners may opt to walk and use it on occasion. The light-rail should extend to the west side, preferably along Detroit Avenue, south to Lorain, back downtown. I know BRT is popular and may be placed on W 25th Street, but CLE already has a rail system that could be extended a bit to reach more riders and offer more than 1 downtown station, unmarked and buried under Tower City. It's not like we're building from scratch. People would opt for a train, if available, rather than a bus or trackless trolley.

That's the issue the CIN Streetcar is going to be facing. CIN's downtown is even more compact than CLE's. A minimal route restricted a portion of downtown with no means of importing people to its core from outlying areas/neighborhoods. CLE's rail lines already extend east-west. This is the reason I think the WFL should loop through the CBD and any west extensions of the light-rail would bring people in across the city to their desired destination. Downtowners have the option of walking and on occasion jumping a train, if needed.