KJP

I thought the plan was to move the Euclid/East 120th station to a point that's midway between Euclid and Mayfield (with pedestrian access to both)? Has this changed? The last time I spoke with Calabrese (almost a month ago), I thought he said RTA will be designing the new University Circle station later this year.

I think this can all be boiled down into the concerns expressed by Hunter Morrison. What economic development impact will be leveraged by this $900 million investment by ODOT in Cleveland's core? ODOT's investment is a monumental sum of money, but if it's simply to renew an existing infrastructure, then it's impact will be minimal. Granted, the added lane in each direction across the Cuyahoga Valley bridge will make it easier to access downtown Cleveland. But the reduction of access points in the trench area will at least negate that gain and even turn the wider bridge(s) into a negative impact on Cleveland's core by making it easier to simply drive through the city. The end result is that this $900 million project could end up hurting the city. ODOT acts like they don't know how to build highway infrastructure that benefits an urban area. Yet their Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati, their High Street cap in Columbus, and even their traffic circle for the Quigley Road Connector in Cleveland shows they do. Smaller and less obtrusive makes for a better urban highway. Even worse is that the city doesn't know what to ask for from ODOT. They only seem to know what they don't want.

They claimed it would bring noise and traffic (and, shhh, undesireables!) to their bucolic piece of SUV-loving, soccer-momming, McMansion-debting paradise. I forgot about the "environmental" concerns! :weird:

A press release detailing the EcoVillage award was posted at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4859.msg84614#msg84614

There was a part of Columbus (NE side?) where residents "fought" the construction of sidewalks (and streetlights) because they feared they would bring crime. They must be related to the idiots in Bath Township near Akron who used their SUVs to block construction equipment from getting access to a site for a new Metro RTA park-n-ride. I'm sure they complained when gas prices hit $3 last fall, and may still be complaining about $2.30 gas. People are stupid.

That's the only part of Cleveland-proper that RTA GM Joe Calabrese was willing to concede has a robust economy.

Good news! Two thoughts: When are they going to relocate downtown? :-D And, this provides yet another reason for more nonstop transoceanic flights to/from Cleveland. See discussion at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7930.0

Because some of us were able to show the true costs of the automobile and it shows that transit really is a bargain.

An interesting site that's worth visiting, about the Nashville commuter rail service, can be found at: http://www.musiccitystar.org/index.html And, as you look at these images (particularly those of the rail cars used), ask yourself if you would like to see this train equipment used for a demonstration/starter service for your city. I say this because there are 15 of these Chicago Metra cars that can be had for free (almost free -- they need some minor work). But they can be had in very short order. If an FTA "Small Starts" grant of probably less than $10 million can be secured for capital/start-up costs and a second grant of say $2 million for operating costs (including locomotive leases), then a 1-year demo/starter service could be operational between Cleveland and Lorain pretty quickly. The question is, would it be OK to make the eastern terminus of this service at the RTA West Boulevard station, with a cross-platform connection to the Rapid? Or would a forced transfer keep away riders, prompting them (you) to ask why doesn't the commuter train run all the way downtown?

More good news! _________________ Contacts: Sarah Grady 202-232-1616 ext. 214 Greg LeRoy 202-232-1616 ext. 211 Zoe Lane 202-232-1616 ext. 210 Cleveland EcoVillage Development Project Cited in Best-Practice Report Washington, DC — Good Jobs First today cited the Cleveland EcoVillage as exemplary in a national survey of transit-oriented development (TOD) projects that benefit working families. The national study features 25 TOD projects which provide increased transit access, good jobs, and affordable housing to low and moderate-income people, including many who cannot afford to own a car. “These projects fill a gap in the landscape of common transit-oriented development projects by creating tangible benefits for people with limited means,” said Sarah Grady, author of the study. “Our heroes are community development corporations, community-labor coalitions, and private developers who are passionate and intentional.” “We believe that economic development subsidies for job creation – if they are serious about reducing poverty – must be better integrated with public transit,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First. “These projects demonstrate many ways that localities are making that connection.” An earlier Good Jobs First study, Missing the Bus, found that all 50 states’ incentive codes are officially indifferent to linking jobs with transit. The Cleveland EcoVillage, developed by the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization, EcoCity Cleveland, and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority was cited for its environmentally friendly rail station, townhouses, and pedestrian pathways in the low and moderate-income Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood. The complete study is visible at www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/makingtheconnection.pdf Good Jobs First is a non-profit, non-partisan resource center promoting smart growth for working families. Its polemic on the sad state of economic development, The Great American Jobs Scam, was published in 2005 by Berrett-Koehler. -30-

As I understand it, the local equity in the subway might range between $100 million and $200 million. That's a big difference. If it's $100 million, the local government might be able to leverage anywhere from a $100 million to $400 million federal grant. If the local equity is $200 million, that might be used to leverage anywhere from a $200 million to $800 million federal grant. If the city and transit agency can set up a tax-increment financing district along the route to leverage property taxes from the added land value of future development, then that could take care of the additional operating subsidy for the LRT. Whatever that amount is will determine how much LRT right of way can be built north and south of the subway portion. Europe does have smaller commuter rail cars, but they don't meet U.S. buffer strength standards, given the heavier freight equipment/loads of U.S. railroads.

Yep, which was for the eventual construction of a third runway, which would also require the demolition of the new Concourse D. But then, Hopkins officials also said their long-range plan is to build a new centralized, midfield terminal roughly where the I-X Center now stands (in between 6R-24L and the new third runway that would likely be named as the new 6R-24L)....

Problem is, any equipment that's designed to fit in the tunnels would likely not meet Federal Railroad Administration buffer-strength (crash-impact) standards. Any commuter rail vehicle that operates in a mixed-traffic environment with freight needs to be of a heavy-duty construction. It is possible to build just about anything these days, so I'm not saying it's impossible. If the buffer-strength standards cannot be met, then the LRT (diesel/electric or straight electric) would have to have a dedicated passenger only rail track (with sufficient lateral separation from the nearest active freight track -- I think it's 25 feet from the track centerlines). Or, there would have to be a time-of-day separation from freight traffic on the mixed-traffic portion. The latter is where the problem comes in, as the two I-75 rail lines (CSX and NS) are heavily used, and a time-of-day separation of traffic is pretty unlikely.

FYI.... First, the new 6L-24R 7,000-foot runway that was added in 2002 and extended to 9,000 feet in 2004 (with the old 6L-24R becoming 6C-24C and used as a taxiway/emergency runway): Now, an overview of the airfield from 2003 or 2004, showing the construction work on the extension of 6L-24R and the space available for the extension of 6R-24L to 11,250 feet. Nothing physically stands in the way of this extension:

....Who lived for 26 years on the east side.

This is old news (well, for me at least). I'm glad you're so proud of that. Let me guess, you have a picture of yourself in your wallet with some lip-shaped smudge marks on it.... The IX Center isn't in the way of this runway extension project.

I don't know if construction has started yet, but they do have the funding to carry it out. I suspect I'll have to drive by the site off Ruple Parkway to see for myself.

Thanks. Neat site for the tower.

I'm having a hard time picturing the location. Can someone post a map?

While researching information for a Sun column on this subject, I found the following that may be of interest to many of you.... From a June 2000 Environmental Impact Statement of the extension of Runway 6R-24L from 9,000 feet to 11,250 feet, by Landrum & Brown Inc.: The primary physical airfield constraint inhibiting the development of long-haul transoceanic flights (over 3,500 nautical miles) originating from CLE is insufficient runway length. Due to this physical constraint, airlines wishing to depart on long-haul transoceanic flights must sacrifice payload in order to have enough fuel capacity for the flight. In addition, during the winter and spring seasons, unscheduled fueling stops on long-haul domestic air service (Los Angeles, San Francisco) have occurred due to strong west headwinds. The Master Plan forecast investigated the potential need for transoceanic service at CLE. These forecasts concluded that CLE could support up to four transoceanic international flights, servicing principal European gateways (i.e., London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris). The analysis of runway length requirements determined that a runway length of 11,250 feet is sufficient for a Boeing 767-400ER to depart CLE at 100 percent of maximum take-off weight to London or Paris and at 97 percent of maximum take-off weight to Frankfurt (loss of 3,000 pound of payload). The Boeing 767-400ER is Continental’s replacement aircraft for its DC10-30 aircraft now serving international markets and it is reasonably foreseeable that the Boeing 767-400ER would serve current European markets from Cleveland in the future.2 In addition, a length of 11,250 feet would also be sufficient for passenger service to other European cities or the Pacific Rim using other modern aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400, 777-200, and the McDonnell-Douglas MD-11.

I've started this string based on a post from another unrelated string to keep that one on subject. Plus, I think this issue of Ohio's Constitutional restriction is a discussion point that deserves its own string anyway... An interesting example is Michigan, where they have the same constitutional restriction on the use of gas taxes as we have. But they found an old state law that refers to railroads as a public highway! That allows them to use a small portion of their gas taxes to fund rail and transit programs. In Oregon, which also has a constitutional restriction on the use of gas taxes, that state uses the portion of non-highway generated gas taxes for non-highway uses (namely funding passenger rail services). What sources of gas taxes are non-highway? Lawnmowers, chainsaws, landscaping, farm equipment, etc. Oregon officials calculated that the amount totaled about $7 million per year. So I did a little back-of-the-envelope figuring for Ohio, using a per-capita calculation, and estimated that somewhere between $20 million and $30 million per year is generated from non-highway generated gas taxes in this state. That's a pretty sizable sum. If you use some or all of it to issue and retire a bond issue, that can mean an even larger amount up-front.

Will do. Thanks.

I suspect it goes back to the line's original design, which had narrow platforms, but were wide enough for design standards of the day (1950s and 60s). Since then, federal regulations addressing disabled access require that there be enough space between the platform's tactile edge (the warning strip next to the edge to warn blind patrons of its presence) and fixed objects on the platform so that wheelchairs can move by them safely. RTA didn't spread the tracks farther apart for the rebuilt stations due to the cost. A second entrance is a good idea, as is offering direct pedestrian access to the east side of the station site.

Outstanding. Do you have a larger picture of the LRT passing the condos under construction? I'd like to use it for an upcoming newsletter I'm working on. :wink: BTW, I found some other stuff on Minneapolis TOD, which I'm posting in a TOD-oriented thread.

Rail lines, and stacked retail below restaurants that are below offices that are below housing sound really awesome but developers are out to make money and building vertically costs a lot more. I've yet to hear of a developer that was dragged kicking and screaming into building vertical mixed use. In fact, it's very profitable -- you just said the reason why: "It's awesome" to a large enough market that's being rediscovered on a massive scale. And do you know how much it costs to build, maintain and pay taxes on a parking lot? Do a Google search on it sometime. We think it's free. It's actually extremely expensive, and it also requires cities to increase taxes to build massive storm water maintenance systems to cope with sprawling, non-porous landscape. Also, limiting the number of lanes on a street doesn't cause people to take city buses and rail, it just makes them pissed off drivers. Actually, the opposite tends to happen, when combined with land uses that promote walking (forget transit for now). I suspect you've heard of the practice of Traffic Calming? If the opposite of traffic calming made drivers happy, Los Angeles and Atlanta would be a driver's paradise of fluid highways where road rage is an unknown. It's time we realized that there is no way to reduce traffic congestion (aside from draconion measures like taxing gasoline at $10 per gallon). Traffic is like water, and will always find its own level. But like addicts, we falsely believe that more of what ails us will make us feel better. It "works" for a brief while, but ultimately make us more dependent and less able to find a painless way out of the vicious cycle. The only solution is to promote alternate lifestyles that give people a real choice, a freedom from car dependence. But communities lack the planning tools, incentives, the experience and, sometimes, the awareness to implement those choices.