sonisharri

The advantage of bus lanes, even without signal prioritization, is pretty clear when you consider the types of things that delay bus rides. When a bus is stuck behind several cars at a light, the cars prevent it from picking up passengers waiting at the bus stop ahead. When the light turns green, the bus has to wait for those cars to clear the intersection before it can approach the stop so passengers can board. Once all of the passengers have boarded and paid their fare, the light has turned red again. Bus lanes fix the problem by allowing passengers to board at the first red light, so that the bus can go at the first green light. The cumulative delays from multiple extra light cycles can be much more than 3 minutes, and driving a car without stopping will not provide a comparable estimate. Also, keep in mind that a large portion of the lanes that were proposed are rush-hour only, when these types of delays are worst. I think that most of us would love to see your exact streetcar proposal from Euclid to W 25th, and prefer rail to BRT—I absolutely do. However, from the sounds of it RTA has absolutely zero intention of even thinking about building a single new rail line. Yes—if KC can pull off a streetcar then we could too, however we actually have to build a streetcar in order to have one, and the chances of that happening anytime soon are very slim. W 25th bus lanes, on the other hand, are an actual proposal that RTA has supported. The capacity to make a tangible impact in the foreseeable future is much higher. A streetcar will need much of the same infrastructure (dedicated lanes, signal prioritization, etc.) that BRT would, and if the time comes the lanes could be retrofitted with street-running rail. Why not use those lanes for buses in the mean time?

I also wanted to respond to that thread. What's interesting is that virtually all of the cities that were compared (Toronto, Philly, Dublin, Vienna, Prague...) differ in two significant ways from Cleveland: 1) they are much more densely built, so important trips can cover much shorter distances even if at slower speeds; and 2) they all have comprehensive commuter and/or regional rail systems that often allow for longer-distance trips to be made much more quickly than on local buses. I would argue that precisely because Cleveland is less dense and lacks a true regional rail system, it's essential to speed up the buses that medium- and longer-distance commuters rely on. As an example, someone living 0.5 miles from a bus stop in Old Brooklyn might have a 40 minute transit commute compared to only 15 minutes driving. Further, because Cleveland's streets are wider than many of those in the aforementioned cities despite having less traffic, implementing bus lanes is a relatively easy change—parking enforcement is a different matter, but that is a policy barrier rather than a physical one. The stretch of West 25th between Lorain and Detroit has a total of 5 routes that run through it. Bus improvements would benefit a major portion of RTA riders. And except for a few blocks, much of West 25th is wide enough for both bike and bus infrastructure (Cleveland allows bikers to ride in most bus lanes anyway).

I'm taking the Southwest Chief next week from Chicago to LA... I'll be spending 2 nights in coach for the 44 hour trip. I think this is a good example of where improving track conditions even just moderately could speed this trip up enough to become a single overnight. I also think passenger rail would have a lot to gain if it were more similar to air travel in the sense of publicly-maintained infrastructure with a variety of specialized operators. It seems like the current situation—underbuilt private infrastructure and a quasi-public operator constrained by competing political demands and expectations to perform as a profitable business—is holding back the US, compared to many peers in the developed world.

If this project were really replacing 9 bedrooms with 12-15 bedrooms I would definitely be just as skeptical as you. However, the plans from the city planning commission presentation (linked, slides 44-67) call for nine 5-bedroom homes and three 3-bedroom homes. If we can assume vacant rooms are balanced out by shared rooms, then these townhomes would house 54 people, even more than the 30-50 person apartment building and 600% of the current use.

I think the original plan was for 12 homes (6 street-facing and 6 behind), unless anything changed? I'm all for historic preservation—there are a saddening number of iconic, architectural gems all over the city in desperate need of saving, but I'm not convinced that these are anywhere close to the top of that list. I agree that it seems silly to tear down the houses when there are so many vacant lots available. At least it seems like it should be a better use of the property.

Glad to hear this is confirmed—I live nearby and this stretch is sorely in need of a refresh. In the January 2025 Complete & Green Streets newsletter, the idea of converting to two-way was mentioned—any info about this? IMO, this would make a lot of sense given that Stokes is supposed to become the main street of the Circle Square retail district. Also, 370+ crashes in 5 years is absolutely ridiculous, but sadly believable: as a 3-4 lane one-way, it gets treated as a freeway and lights are often ignored. Crossing is extremely dangerous as 2 lanes will stop for a light but another car will overtake them in the third lane. Given its width, I'd imagine that a two-way street is perfectly feasible with bike lanes. It would make a lot of sense to add a median on the curved section between Baldwin & MLK—which the Lake to Lakes bike trail already parallels.

Visible above CWRU Freiberger Field

Any reason why this wouldn't work? Definitely not the same as permanent trees, but at least it would be something. This would be an interesting idea, I'd love to see someone do a visualization lol. The only possible challenge would be to avoid blocking any more sightlines, but maybe there's a good way around this.

Cocky's Bagels is open from 7:30am all the way to 2am. The 27 Club (MGK cafe) opens at 7am and has a large menu as well. Google is free 😉

It's awesome to hear that the church will be saved - it's literally one of the only buildings left standing on that stretch of E 79th. Passing it on the Blue/Green lines, I've noticed it deteriorating significantly the past couple years.

I'm just curious which part of it wouldn't be ADA compliant... there's a massive ramp and an elevator to the platform level, and automatic doors.

The 15-minute heater button would be an absolute lifesaver during the winter months—and I say this from experience: a few months ago I practically froze at the Van Aken & Lee rapid station when a train was delayed without notice. My hands were almost too numb to order an Uber. Boston had a similar setup at one of their rail/BRT stations and it seemed to work really well.

On the OC itself, yes. But there's lots of space for development south of it on E 55th and around the Hyacinth Park area.

While this does feel somewhat intuitive, the post mentioned that adding more lines comes with increasing logistical complications. Additionally, running 3x as many trains on the west side's Red Line alignment vs. the east side's seems a little extreme, especially as University Circle is rapidly adding new jobs and beginning to spill over into EC. I think running 2 times as many trains on the western alignment would be a sufficient increase in frequency. Per my last comment, I think there is some logic in leaving the Green Rd park and ride directly accessible to the waterfront.

Under these frequencies, the E 55th to Tower City trunk would be running trains every 3 minutes and 20 seconds during peak, on average, and every 6 minutes and 40 seconds off-peak. The E 55th & Opportunity Corridor area is screaming for TOD.

This is definitely my favorite configuration I've seen, and it wouldn't require any additional physical construction. As someone who used to ride the red line from the West Side to University Circle frequently, I don't think the reduction in frequency would be an issue at all. There are honestly so many routes from Public Square to UC (HealthLine, 9, 11, plus your "Orange Line") that the transfer is basically instant. I actually think I prefer the Blue Line being routed to the West Side/Airport—the connections from the Van Aken district (41/41F, 14/14A) are much more frequent and useful than at the Green Line terminus, not to mention that they will be building a heated indoor waiting area. This would allow, for example, a trip from the Airport to Pinecrest in less than 1.5 hours (with current speeds) and only one transfer. On the other hand, the Green Line terminus, in its current state, is most useful as a massive Park and Ride for downtown events and games. While the Browns' new stadium plans could affect this, it does make sense for a park and ride to be accessible to events in Public Square, The Flats, and the Waterfront. As examples of non-sports events, both Pride and the Eclipse event had Green Line trains packed so full that it would've been impossible to transfer at Tower City even if people wanted to—and I believe RTA was running extra trains. However, bus transfers at Green Rd are much less frequent and the waiting area is just an open bus shelter, so it isn't exactly the optimal rail transfer for westbound passengers.

This needs to be a crime...

This was funny to read

Because there are two factors in the supply and demand equation. Demand may be higher, but the supply of suburban land is even larger by definition.

April update: l

Yes, and it looks like it's been empty for over 15 years.

That checks out... Google Earth shows it under construction since early 2022. It's honestly been so long that I assumed it was another house

Cleveland Heights infill on a formerly vacant lot

ISEB progress (3-29-2025)

I walk past it almost everyday, will do