Ethan

From what I can gather from reading about it, this seems to be doing little traffic calming or lame reduction. 75% of the length of this corridor is staying the same width, it's only losing width between Clifton and Detroit. So for the most part, the bike path is coming at the expense of the tree lawn. Hopefully they will minimize harm to existing trees, and plant high quality tall native trees when they are done. https://www.lakewoodoh.gov/bunts-rehab/ https://www.lakewoodoh.gov/accordions/bunts-road-frequently-asked-questions/

I mean I'll take them, they're a lot better than nothing or a standard turnstile, but these are also the perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. A poorly engineered solution that is overly complicated and prioritizes aesthetics over actually solving the problem. I could get through this without paying, and so could most young males (statistically the people most likely to commit crimes). Granted it would be very noticeable and more difficult than jumping a standard turnstile. That makes it much easier for a guard to prevent fare evasion, and that's good, but it's still a far cry from a proper solution like the "prison turnstile" that isn't easily defeated by a motivated fit person, and doesn't require a guard present at all. I'd rather have the turnstile that fully solves the problem than the pretty one, but I'll be content with either. Maybe we can paint the effective version with pretty polka dots? \s

I'm for whatever best solves the problem. I favor a physical barrier because as others have noted the people required to enforce fare payment often don't want the headache of actually enforcing fare payment. Whether that's a driver or a security guard just watching people jump the gate, reliable enforcement is difficult to ensure. And while these are more up front cost they will pay themselves off in the long run if they can result in less security or a better experience for the riders.

I agree that they're not paying, and I agree that it likely wouldn't get any worse if the trains were made free. What I'm saying is that if it were physically impossible for anyone to board the train without paying, many of the homeless and mentally ill would go elsewhere. Obviously not all, as a train ticket would still be the cheapest way to get a roof over their head, but it would reduce the problem. It's not the entirety of the solution, but I'd argue it's a necessary component of any realistic solution to the problem GCRTA faces.

I think the problem is specifically the homeless and mentally ill. Making sure RTA gets their money is a tertiary concern. A mandatory nominal payment to make sure the transit service is a transit service, not a mobile homeless encampment or mental health facility is the best way to accomplish that goal. And accomplishing that goal is necessary to get the broader public to use transit. Particularly the everyone that isn't an able bodied male. I suppose security guards would work too, but the cost of gates vs the amount of security guards that would be necessary would pay itself off so quickly that the smart decision is clear.

I think it would be useful to have a feature allowing non moderators to flag a post as off topic. I think this would help make the Moderators' job easier, while also giving normal commentators a more productive action than meta posting or dragging the thread further off topic. Reporting a post seems too extreme, especially since there isn't an option under report like "this post is off topic for the thread but otherwise fine." Ideally I'd like a flag as off-topic option under the ... button, but I think a specific off topic option under the reporting sub menu would also be fine. Just my 2¢. I've been seeing more off topic posts recently, and don't feel like there's a productive response for normal commentators.

Anything would be helpful, I like this type because they are basically un-evadable. A lot of the more modern designs are sleeker looking and more complicated, but simply don't solve the problem as well as this classic design. No need to reinvent the wheel. They should put in the cheapest solution that works. If there's a modern solution that's cheaper and can't be jumped, we should use that.

Put these in at every red line station.

I use this crosswalk frequently, and basically every time there are multiple people crossing. I understand your point, but if there are worthwhile things on both sides, which there already are thanks to the rock gym, people will use the crosswalk. So yes, it will result in more traffic on both sides of the street.

I had the same thought. What I like about the consensus proposal is that it reorients the park to face MLK and the cultural gardens. While details are sparse to non-existent, I really like the idea of a Clevelanders Garden. That seems like a cool way to cap the cultural gardens and transition into Gordon Park. Removing the car entrance from the MLK side also seems like a great idea. In general I like the Eastern third of the proposal. But yeah, removing the ball fields seems like an interesting decision. Not sure it makes sense. Hopefully analytics were considered. E.g. are those fields necessary for local T-ball? how often were they used? etc. I'm not opposed to removing them, largely because I'm not a baseball player. I just hope the necessary due diligence was done. I dunno, maybe they could stripe for all grass fields? Or add one or two without disrupting the rest of the field? Or maybe they've already looked into it, and these just aren't needed anymore. -- It's too bad moving I-90 south in line with the Green Ribbon Coalition's proposal is off the table. That would effectively move this land north of the highway and turn it into lakefront. It would then make sense for the Metroparks to purchase the power plant site like @marty15 suggested.

On the note of Gordon Park. This month's Metroparks agenda gives a first glimpse into the plans for Gordon Park. Technical design work is formally kicking off, but the consensus plan is the guide.

I finally ended up listening to this podcast. It's great, and more grounded in reality than most conversations I've seen on this topic. https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/sam-bowman-overcoming-nimbys-housing-policy-proposals/

An interesting example of how architectural beauty (in the classical sense) is necessary for desirable urbanism.

^ Yeah the only route in Ohio Brightline has ever shown any real interest in is a Y shaped Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit line. Personally I'd rather have them build that line anyway. If a private carrier did decide to take the plunge on the 3C+D I would hope they'd lay new track. The Median of I-71 has space for much of the route (though definitely not the whole way). They utilized a highway median for Brightline West, we'll see if it pays off for them, but it should theoretically speed things up. Edit: maybe they could do utilize a combination, use existing freight tracks near and through urban areas to minimize right of way acquisition, and then transition to new tracks in the I-71 median to increase speed and minimize delays.

I'd be fine with this, in fact I'd support it. My opposition is primarily to surface parking. If the parking is on a different level from the ground, either elevated above or dug beneath it, it ranges from a necessary evil, to a boon depending on the execution and context. I'd love a downtown or near downtown stadium if the parking is contained in such a way that allows the stadium to have reasonably good urban form. If it has a dome all the better. Just don't destroy the urban form of the city, and don't screw over the taxpayers. Simple.

What if I actively don't want our lakefront to be a sea of parking? I'd rather send the Browns to Brook Park then surrender our Lakefront to surface parking.

Interesting, do you have any documentation or images of the proposal?

Speaking of which has there been any movement on this?

I mentioned this in the Scranton thread, but I'll repeat it here, if the Jefferson Link discussed in the Vision for the Valley ever gets built, I think it's a logical southern most point. If Tremont can develop up to the river at any point, I think that would merit a stop. Depending on how development unfolds I could easily be convinced that there's little benefit to going past W3rd and that it's the better terminus, but I do think that eventually there should be a Tremont stop of some kind. At present, I agree there's no point going beyond Collision Bend. Until Bedrock gets started, it's hard to justify even that far, but it looks like that project has momentum, and I think at least phase 1 will cross the finish line.

What is CVSR's desired maximum grade? Stupid question, is it feasible to underpass the Norfolk Southern tracks and have the CVSR tracks run parallel to the GCRTA tracks? There looks to be about 40' of elevation difference between the two tracks, and it looks like there may be space for additional rail right of way under the road bridges. edit: something like this:

Maybe, but the current Canal Rd ROW isn't getting vacated, it's becoming a service road. Bedrock isn't going to give up their service road, so the two would have to find a way to coexist. Probably possible, but I understand why they don't want to deal with that. I've previously proposed the old Cleveland Thermal plant as a terminus. All else being equal, it's probably the third best location for the station, but it seems like it might be easier to get Bedrock to accept. A bit more feasible than Tower City or B&O, and still pretty close to the heart of Downtown. The impact on Bedrock's plans would be comparatively minor, but the Eagle Ave bridge would still need to accommodate the train passage underneath.

Eh, in an old pickup maybe. Paying $50 for gas for roundtrip from Cleveland to Detroit would require an mpg of around 20. -- Regardless, it is looking increasingly like the Haslams won't get the taxpayer money they want, at least up front. So it comes back to whether or not they're willing to put up more of the money themselves for a dome in Brook Park. So far, they've seemed completely unwilling to address that thought, at least publicly.

Visualization is a powerful persuasive tool! I was a bit skeptical on the feasibility and utility of this proposal. Seeing it drawn up helps a lot. Confirming this could basically go in the median with only minor adjustment is also a big deal on the political feasibility end.

I think it would be cool if you disguised the C a bit blending it into the stripes. Super quick, super rough sketch just to make my intent clear. Polished up I think it would look better. Thoughts? Intended as a purely positive critique, I like the design for the most part. Edit: it also now evokes a bit of a mechanical key shaft, so it could double as a subtle nod to our industrial history.

Before their rebrand they had more proposals. I don't think these were their best three. Not even close. None of these seem very Cleveland to me. That said, I'm fully on board with replacing the current flag, it's not a good flag. People don't use or recognize it. From a distance it looks like the French flag (reversed), and there is no reason for that design choice. My recommendation would be to go back to the beginning and have the public submit designs again.