We couldn't go and improve Chester and Carnegie now could we.  Looks like there's plenty of "opportunity" there when I'm on my way to UC.

The truth is, this is a redux of the Shaker Lakes Freeway being rammed down Cleveland's throat by ODOT.  No one was concerned with this area at all until ODOT started imposing its will on this area. 

 

I simply fail to understand how more of the same is going to lead to different results. 

The following is an excerpt from the book Suburban Nation by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk.  It has been reprinted on the internet at [glow=red,2,300]http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbuilding-futility.html[/glow].

 

Why building new roads doesn't ease congestion

An excerpt from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream

by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck

North Point Press, 2000, pp. 88-94.

 

There is, however, a much deeper problem than the way highways are placed and managed. It raises the question of why we are still building highways at all. The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, in fact, it increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse. This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses, who noticed that the highways he had built around New York City in 1939 were somehow generating greater traffic problems than had existed previously. Since then, the phenomenon has been well documented, most notably in 1989, when the Southern California Association of Governments concluded that traffic-assistance measures, be they adding lanes, or even double-decking the roadways, would have no more than a cosmetic effect on Los Angeles' traffic problems. The best it could offer was to tell people to work closer to home, which is precisely what highway building mitigates against.

 

Across the Atlantic, the British government reached a similar conclusion. Its studies showed that increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more--a lot more--such that half of any driving-time savings generated by new roadways are lost in the short run. In the long run, potentially all savings are expected to be lost. In the words of the Transport Minister, "The fact of the matter is that we cannot tackle our traffic problems by building more roads."2 While the British have responded to this discovery by drastically cutting their road-building budgets, no such thing can be said about Americans.

 

There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years' time.3 For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City…As a result of the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city."· This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.

 

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.

 

The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy.·

 

If traffic is to be discussed responsibly, it must first be made clear that the level of traffic which drivers experience daily, and which they bemoan so vehemently, is only as high as they are willing to countenance. If it were not, they would adjust their behavior and move, carpool, take transit, or just stay at home, as some choose to do. How crowded a roadway is at any given moment represents a condition of equilibrium between people's desire to drive and their reluctance to fight traffic. Because people are willing to suffer inordinately in traffic before seeking alternatives--other than clamoring for more highways--the state of equilibrium of all busy roads is to have stop-and-go traffic. The question is not how many lanes must be built to ease congestion but how many lanes of congestion would you want? Do you favor four lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at rush hour, or sixteen?

 

This condition is best explained by what specialists call latent demand. Since the real constraint on driving is traffic, not cost, people are always ready to make more trips when the traffic goes away. The number of latent trips is huge--perhaps 30 percent of existing traffic. Because of latent demand, adding lanes is futile, since drivers are already poised to use them up.4

 

While the befuddling fact of induced traffic is well understood by sophisticated traffic engineers, it might as well be a secret, so poorly has it been disseminated. The computer models that transportation consultants use do not even consider it, and most local public works directors have never heard of it at all. As a result, from Maine to Hawaii, city, county, and even state engineering departments continue to build more roadways in anticipation of increased traffic, and, in doing, create that traffic. The most irksome aspect of this situation is that these road-builders are never proved wrong; in fact, they are always proved 'right': "You see," they say, "I told you that traffic was coming."

 

The ramifications are quite unsettling. Almost all of the billions of dollars spent on road-building over the past decades have accomplished only one thing, which is to increase the amount of time that we must spend in our cars each day. Americans now drive twice as many miles per year as they did just twenty years ago. Since 1969, the number of miles cars travel has grown at four times the population rate.· And we're just getting started: federal highway officials predict that over the next twenty years congestion will quadruple. Still, every congressman, it seems, wants a new highway to his credit.·

 

Thankfully, alternatives to road-building are being offered, but they are equally misguided. If, as is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt, people maintain an equilibrium of just-bearable traffic, then the traffic engineers are wasting their time--and our money--on a whole new set of stopgap measures that produce temporary results as best. These measures, which include HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes, congestion pricing, timed traffic lights, and "smart streets," serve only to increase highway capacity, which causes more people to drive until the equilibrium condition of crowding returns. While certainly less wasteful than new construction, these measures also do nothing to address the real cause of traffic congestion, which is that people choose to put up with it.

 

We must admit that, in an ideal world, we would be able to build our way out of traffic congestion. The new construction of 50 percent of more highways nationwide would most likely overcome all of the latent demand. However, to provide more than temporary relief, this huge investment would have to be undertaken hand in hand with a moratorium on suburban growth. Otherwise, the new subdivisions, shopping malls, and office parks made possible by the new roadways would eventually choke them as well. In the real world, such moratoriums are rarely possible, which is why road-building is typically a folly.

 

Those who are skeptical of the need for a fundamental reconsideration of transportation planning should take note of something we experienced a few years ago. In a large working session on the design of Playa Vista, an urban infill project in Los Angeles, the traffic engineer was presenting a report of current and projected congestion around the development. From our seat by the window, we had an unobstructed rush-hour view of a street he had diagnosed as highly congested and in need of widening. Why, then, was traffic flowing smoothly, with hardly any stacking at the traffic light? When we asked, the traffic engineer offered an answer that should be recorded permanently in the annals of the profession: "The computer model that we use does not necessarily bear any relationship to reality."

 

But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, or are people just stupid? The answer is that people are actually quite smart, and their decision to submit themselves to the misery of suburban commuting is a sophisticated response to a set of circumstances that are as troubling as their result. Automobile use is the intelligent choice for most Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak have explained that:

 

We learn in first-year economics what happens when products or services become "free" goods. The market functions chaotically; demand goes through the roof. In most American cities, parking spaces, roads and freeways are free goods. Local government services to the motorist and to the trucking industry--traffic engineering, traffic control, traffic lights, police and fire protection, street repair and maintenance--are all free goods.·

 

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

This article is an excerpt from Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, North Point Press, 2000, 88-94.

 

2

Donald D.T. Chen. "If You Build It, They Will Come…Why We Can't Build Ourselves Our of Congestion." Surface Transportation Policy Project Progress VII.2 (March 1998): I, 4.

 

3

Ibid., 6.

 

·

Carol Jouzatis. "39 Million People Work, Live Outside City Centers." USA Today, November 4, 1997: 1A-2A. As a result of its massive highway construction, the Atlanta area is "one of the nation's worst violators of Federal standards for ground-level ozone, with most of the problem caused by motor-vehicle emissions" (Kevin Sack. "Governor Proposes Remedy for Atlanta Sprawl." The New York Times, January 26, 1999: A14).

 

·

Jill Kruse. "Remove It and They Will Disappear: Why Building New Roads Isn't Always the Answer." Surface Transportation Policy Project Progress VII:2 (March 1998): 5, 7. This study, in analyzing sixty road closures worldwide, found that 20 percent to 60 percent of driving trips disappeared rather than materializing elsewhere.

 

4

Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak. The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial; Impacts on the Economy and Environment. Pasadena, Calif.: New Paradigm Books, 1993, 122.

·

Jane Holtz Kay. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America, and How We Can Take It Back. New York: Crown, 1997, 15; and Peter Calthorpe. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993, 27. Since 1983, the number of miles cars travel has grown at eight time s the population rate (Urban Land Institute traffic study). The greatest increases in automobile use correspond to the greatest concentrations of sprawl. Annual gasoline consumption per person in Phoenix and Houston is over 50 percent higher than in Chicago or Washington, D.C., and over 500 percent higher than in London or Tokyo (Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy. Winning Back the Cities. Sydney: Photo Press, 1996, 9). Currently, almost 70 percent of urban freeways are clogged during rush hour (Jason Vest, Warren Cohen, and Mike Tharp. "Road Rage." U.S. News & World Report, June 2, 1997: 24-30). In Los Angeles, congestion has already reduced average freeway speeds to less than 31 mph; by the year 2010, they are projected to fall to 11 mph (James MacKenzie, Roger Dower, and Donald Chen. The Going Rate: What It Really Costs to Drive. Report by the World Resources Institute, 1992, 17).

·

Almost any situation seems acceptable to justify more highway spending, even the recent road rage epidemic. Representative Bud Schuster, the chairman of the U.S. Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, made this recommendation: "The construction of additional lanes, the widening of roads and the straightening of curves would decrease congestion and reduce the impatience and unsafe habits of some motorists" (Thomas Palmer. "Pacifying Road Warriors." The Boston Globe, July 25, 1997: A1, B5).

·

Stanley Hard and Alvin Spivak, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial, 2. Much of the information here on the science and economics of traffic congestion comes from this book, which should be required reading for every professional planner, traffic engineer, and amateur highway activist.

 

The logic behind the desire to make use of free goods is suggested by an argument overheard at a recent planning conference: "Of course there's never enough parking! If you gave everyone free pizza, would there be enough pizza?"

 

 

Dan,

 

I don't disagree with most of what you say.  However, your reasoning doesn't apply to the Forgotten Triangle.  No one is trying to put a road through Shaker Lakes.  No one is trying to give E

 

This is what frustrates me with the reactions that some people have towards the OC: some people are so anti-highway that they are can't calm down enough to see that this is not another highway that would wipe out neighborhoods or open up cornfields for development.  Its not that I believe that the OC is a panacea for Cleveland's ills, but we do need to carefully look at all the ways to improve the city.  To sit and think that commuter rail is the only way to improve our city is short-sighted. Creating an area where  industrial businesses can set up shop is vital to growing this city's tax base.  Without improved revenue, we are never going to improve our schools and neighborhoods.  Without improved schools and neighborhoods, we will be severely limited in our attempts to improve the economy, built dense and vibrant urban cores, and support TODs. 

 

I love that we are calming the Shoreway.  That is a fantastic idea that will improve that part of Cleveland.  I wish that we could do away with the innerbelt bridge altogether.  Let's turn I-490 into the the first leg of the innerbelt and route traffic through I-77 till it hits deadman's curve. I wholeheartedly agree that the elimination of roads can improve a city. Yet, the Atlanta and Los Angeles examples show a poor ability to compare and contrast the unique situations that each city faces. 

 

I don't like your question, particularly because it implies that *something* must be done with the corridor *immediately*, and this is not necessarily the case.  This is not unlike the convention center debacle, where the necessity was never debated, but the first question became, "What is the best option?".  There are many other, better located areas of Cleveland that could stand the investment before this forgotten corridor.  In this case, I propose do nothing with the corridor, and invest the money elsewhere, preferably in expanded public transit infrastructure like commuter rail.

 

How will that help open up this place for industrial redevelopment?  Or, do you think that is not a priority? 

The problem as I see it is that we are debating the merits of individual projects, rather than our overall transportation policy and the spending choices that stem from it. When we debate individual projects, the result is that they tend to get built because there is a fear that the areas they would serve won't be able to compete without it. In a respect, that's true, because the same kinds of transportation facilities (ie: highways) have been built in other parts of the metro area with which the affected area must compete. Plus, in the absence of funding for transport alternatives, regions like the Forgotten Triangle or University Circle feel they have no choice but to tap into highway funding to compete within the established structure.

 

Yet, the policy ultimately results in urban replacement and hemogeny, in which the older, denser parts of the city lose their density, and land use design looks more and more like the suburbs. It has to, in order to accommodate the increased number of cars as well as the "geometry" of cars. This geometry refers to the actual size of each car, the number of parking spaces per car (I think it's something like four spaces per car), and the need to be able to maneuver cars at a speed to give it an advantage over walking, biking and transit.

 

This will put more pressure on local officials to implement zoning, building design codes and other land use controls, while resisting widened roads or sweeping turning lanes that discourage a safe pedestrian setting. In the absence of these controls, the affected areas are likely to become less walkable, more heavily trafficked with cars, and offer fewer characteristics that distinguish these areas from other parts of the metro area.

 

I believe we need to have a "Greater Cleveland Transportation Summit" to decide what our transportation future, and thus our land use future, should be. As it happens, I'm drafting a "Citizens Transportation Study of Greater Cleveland" for a local environmental organization. The study will deal with many of these issues and, as it turns out, shows we already possess the tools (and funding) to reshape our transportation system in more sustainable ways. The question is, do we possess the knowledge and the will to make better decisions?

All,

 

On Monday, Dec. 19, RTA and ODOT staff will meet to discuss the possibility of including in the Opportunity Corridor study a consolidation of existing RTA Rapid lines in the median of the proposed boulevard to University Circle. Please click on the link below to view a presentation of this concept, and why a study of this proposal is worth pursuing (feel free to copy and paste this message in an e-mail to whomever you wish).

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/OpportunityCorridorRapidREV.pdf (2MB)

 

ODOT appears interested in the idea, but RTA staff may not be, even though it is in their best interest to participate in a study to consider the financial and ridership potential of this project. Therefore, please contact RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese (216-566-5219 [email protected] ) or at least one RTA board member this week to ask that RTA staff work with ODOT on undertaking such a study.

Great work, KJP!  That presentation makes a very stong case.  Hopefully RTA and ODOT will agree.  I think that this is the sort of multimodal approach that has the best potential for improving the neighborhood.

Wimwar, the truth is that there are already highways all over Cleveland.  It's not that commuter rail is a panacea for Cleveland's ills, but one has to admit that the transportation system is heavily tilted in favor of cars.  What will a continuation of failed Eisenhower-era policy produce for Cleveland now that it hasn't done already?  Never mind that this boulevard will directly undermine the existing Red Line infrastructure that has been bought and paid for. 

 

Simply stated, Cleveland is ceasing to be a city for people, and is accelerating its progress toward becoming a city for cars.  The two goals, as KJP described, are mutually exclusive, as cars and people function better in spatial relationships that are drastically different from one another. 

 

Much like the convention center "debate", backers of this boulevard have automatically assumed that new investment will occur along this corridor.  This is NOT a foregone conclusion!  It's even more disingenuous to extend the argument to claim this roadway will benefit schools.  What it will do, is allow Unversity Circle employees to live further away on the West Side, contributing to sprawl, and introduce increased traffic and congestion along the corridor and in the University Circle area itself.   

 

Let me reiterate that this project was never intended to open up this corridor for development.  It's a highway project rammed down Cleveland's throat by ODOT, nothing more.  The "development" aspect was concocted by ODOT's PR team in an effort to sugar coat the bitter pill of a highway on the East Side, knowing full well that the vulnerable residents who live in under-invested neighborhoods will bite.  I have every reason to believe the alleged economic benefits have been overstated.  There are plenty of other areas in Cleveland, notably along Chester Avenue, that could stand to be redeveloped, and already have access to both roadways and transit.  Why would this corridor develop when the existing corridors have not?  Why spend money to do something that doesn't need to be done?

I've made some minor text changes and corrected some typos in the presentation at the following link:

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/OpportunityCorridorRapid.pdf

 

finally, the loss of jobs in cleveland around the "opportunity corridor" has already happened. so some action needs to happen to open up that brownfield land for redevelopment. i think time & money are better spent right now further cleaning up sites and promoting tod and urban forms. that does not rule out beefing up roadways and auto access, but that should not be the primary change as odot and others try to force it to be. that area begs for a serious detailed master planning guide rather than these piecemeal ideas.

 

 

Burton, Bell, Carr is working on a Master Plan for the Forgotten Triangle.  It would be interesting to see some of what they are considering.  It sounds like they are in the early stages right now.

 

http://bbcdevelopment.org/bbc/forgottentriangle.htm

"pretend it's a foregone conclusion, much like the "need" for a new convention center."

 

:roll: Roldo, is that you? I know this is off-topic but I get tired of people suggesting that the current facilities are just fine and dandy. I'm not saying a new center is the answer to all of Cleveland's ills, but to suggest that what we have now is sufficient is as disingenuous as it gets.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the current convention center is functionally obsolete. It's not a matter of "ooh, looky - Pittsburgh and Columbus have new shiny centers, we need one too!!!". And we KNOW that convention centers have historically required hefty subsidies. It's a matter of what the industry requires - a middle-of-the-road center has around twenty loading docks in order to stage standard shows. Cleveland's convention center has TWO. That results in East 6th Street becoming a clusterf#ck of a marshalling yard - and let's not forget that the truck drivers aren't idling for free.

 

The center's main exhibit hall is unusable for a majority of shows - the columns prevent exhibitors from displaying any kind of sizable booth, the wiring is run under carpets creating 'speedbumps', and of course the cave-like ambiance doesn't help.

 

Is a new center the answer? I don't know, but I do know the current center is woefully inadequate for the market that Cleveland serves.

I want a Corvette, but I figured I was better off paying rent and buying groceries first.

KJP,

 

help me out.  How is your rail in the so-UCAB freeway plan re the beneficial:

 

- in helping spur rail traffic when UCAB will induce more people to drive directly in a corridor already inhabited by the Red Line?  Why won’t your plan ultimately destroy the Red Line, traffic-wise while simultaneously damaging Blue/Green ridership and spurring freeway driving?

 

- In making it easer (per DaninDC's comment) for people to live further away from the urban University Circle (mainly on in the Western burbs) and drive in easer?

 

- in making the Blue-Green lines slower by removing them from their current direct, high-speed/car-free  right of way to a more circuitous route down the middle of Buckeye stopping at traffic lights?

 

- in supposedly saving RTA money (even with the token $2.5 'scrap' amount you mention), w/ RTA having to rebuild rail right-of-ways RTA has just poured millions into (ie, in eliminating the Kingsbury tunnels at the junction as well as the total rehabbing of the E. 75-to-Woodhill Blue/Green line segment?

 

- In supposedly helping local residents with a brand new freeway in an area that features both the lowest income and lowest auto ownership in the metro region?

 

- In smashing a freeway through an area the Burton, Bell & Carr firm already has a more transit-oriented master plan for, and in fact, has already developed new housing in (on and just off Kinsman and near the current Blue/Green Line embankment off the E. 79th stop)?

 

- making rail access for the locals even more difficult in moving rail stations further away from the large Garden Valley CMHA development as well as the one at Woodland/E. 79th low income housing development?

 

- In helping RTA while not adding any rail mileage while adding/encouraging more urban freeway growth, esp to an area with comparatively modest rush-hour traffic and an overabundance of freeways?

 

- In lending the ODOT highway backers a boost by getting RTA (and transit backers) support with a project that’s supposed assist to transit is merely illusory?

 

Since this freeway-rail ‘vision’ is your baby, I think it only fair for you to answer these questions.  Thanks in advance.

 

Ask some fair questions, and you'll get some fair answers. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the OC Boulevard won't be built. I am operating under the assumption that it will. Under my assumption, wouldn't it make more sense to pull the Red Line out of the trench than let it sit there and wither invisibly while cars speed by on the visible land above?

 

If the OC Boulevard is built and the rail line isn't consolidated in the middle of it, here's what I see happening:

 

1. RTA puts express buses on the OC Boulevard, heading toward Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, via UC. Their staff has already told me this is a desire of theirs.

 

2. Single-level, low-density light-manufacturing plants and distribution centers are built along the OC, sitting behind parking lots, making them difficult to serve with transit. This style of development is the preference for industrial and commercial users because it puts all production/distribution on the same floor. The promise of these jobs will be too enticing for city officials to insist on more compact land uses.

 

3. While overall transit ridership goes up, a percentage of the rail ridership is diverted to the express buses. RTA staff look at their worsening balance sheets and see the glaring rail expenses in their operating and capital budgets. Even though rail represents 11 percent of RTA's ridership, it comprises 26 percent of RTA's 5-year $524 million capital budget and a like amount of its operating budget.

 

4. As RTA began facing a budget crisis in 2005, RTA raises fares (if they haven't done so already by the time the OC Boulevard is opened) and further reduces rail service frequencies on the east-side rail lines to cut back their cost per hours of service. Ridership on the rail lines slides further.

 

5. By 2020, despite a total rebuilding of the light-rail and heavy-rail fleets 10-15 years earlier, the equipment is nearly 40 years old and continue to show their age. RTA cannot justify afford to replace them with new equipment at their current fleet levels. RTA decides to replace the Green Line and the east-side Red Line with express buses. RTA orders high/low-floor light-rail vehicles and sells the old rail fleets while they still have some useful miles left on them. The new equipment comprising the much smaller rail fleet is used to combine the Red Line on the west side with the Blue Line on the east side as a single route. The Waterfront Line is operated by historic trolleys during special events.

 

Don't laugh. RTA isn't sure how it's going to be able to afford the operating and maintenance costs associated with the Euclid Corridor! Expect a fare increase soon, and if gas prices keep going up, expect service cuts to accompany the fare increase. RTA has the WORST performing rail lines in the U.S. and while I've argued that TOD will help change that, RTA has made only token gestures to pursue TOD. The only thing that keeps RTA from ripping up the rail lines is that they represent a 50+ year investment and would rather just maintain them than expand them. I say that two of the oldest rights of way be modernized to reduce operating costs with the financial assistance of an interested project partner -- ODOT.

 

Those two rights of way are the 85-year-old elevated Shaker line between East 93rd-Kinsman, including its substantial bridge structures. The other is the Red Line between Kinsman and University Circle, which was built in the late 1920s by the Van Swerigens. While the tracks and stations were built in 1955 and much of it since rebuilt, the bridges, catenary poles and concrete retaining walls were all built more than 75 years ago. The reconstruction or replacement of infrastructure along these two rights of way will come due someday, and the cost will be substantial.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to join with ODOT now and share the costs of a new right of way, rather than wait to shoulder the full cost of modernizing two rights of way in the next decade or two? I believe the very existence of these rail lines in the not-too-distant future is at stake. And, unless state and federal policy is more supportive of transit in the future, I am convinced this is the only way to save the quantity of rail transit we have on the east side.

Good god.  Is the head cheese at RTA appointed?  Can someone please call Frank Jackson and nominate KJP?!  (or at least ask KJP who is right for the job if he doesn't want it)

 

Seriously, KJP your answers are almost always well thought out and well written.  Such clear and reasoned thinking is needed at RTA. 

 

Keep up the good fight.

Shoot me first, then make me general manager.  :shoot:

it's insane to think that odot is finally tenatively coming around to supporting rail investment just at the time when rta is backing off. so in that spirit, i am heading down to charlotte to get some hair clippings from ron tober's barber, maybe someone at the cleveland clinic can clone him and we can install him back to run rta!!! frankentober is better draculabrese.

^ Not true. Tober has a track record of building beyond the capability of the transit system's revenues to sustain itself. He did it in Seattle and he did it in Cleveland. In both places, the transits were faced with serious budgetary problems as a result of his over-building. Now, he's doing the same thing in Charlotte.

 

There are a select few pro-urban, pro-transit people at ODOT. One of them is John Motl, a modes olanner at District 12. And he was likely the person who put the bug in Craig Hebebrand's ear about rail in the Opportunity Corridor. It's not insane that ODOT made the overture. I have a copy of the e-mail Hebebrand sent to RTA. He really did say it!

 

Tomorrow's the meeting between ODOT and RTA. All that I'm hoping for is that RTA says: "We can't afford rail in the OC right now but maybe we might in the future. Go ahead and study it so we can see what the numbers look like, and so we can make an informed decision."

KJP,

 

been on the run but have wanted to address some of your comments -- guess it'll have to be piecemeal [rippin’ ‘n runnin’, holiday shopping; parties, & all, you understand]. 

 

One thing that I take issue with your take on the expense of the old Rapid right-of-ways and the costs to maintain them.  In Philly, among other places out east, they have ROWs, supports and wire much older than RTA's, (which is what, 75 year-old?), in particular Philly’s famed Main Line, which went electric, I recall, before WWI, and whose superstructure was the 1st of the old Penna RR’s original service to Pittsburgh spanning the state of, you guessed it: Pennsylvania.  What's more, much of the structure and bridge supports on those old lines (including the former Reading Co. lines which were united in the 80s Center City commuter tunnel) were built back when Abe was in the White House -- many bridges carrying still have wooden beam supports over streets – some bridges over tracks are so old, only one auto in each direction can pass.  Philly’s a lot like London and England, in many ways.  It’s rather neat, in my book, on that score.

 

Keep in mind that, re the Shaker ROW from Woodhill to Tower City, it has been completely rehabbed, over the course of the decade since the WL went online -- at the cost of $millions.  The Ambler Rd. bridge was the last to rehabbed.  One engineer I know said its good for another 100 years.  As for the couple mile stretch of Red Line from the current junction (which, itself, was rebuilt just a year ago to replace those old tunnels), there's no rebuilding to do: it sits entirely in a trench from E. 55 all the way to the MLK overpass (what, 3 miles?)  What's to rebuild?  Where’s all this money we’re supposed to be saving if it’s practically all sunk costs – costs already borne by taxpayers.  Besides, even if you want to rebuild the wire support bridges (which, again, I've seen much older, esp w/ Eastern and Chicago commuter RRs), these can be done one by one.  Indeed, I believe RTA has been doing that on main portion where all 3 lines share track into TC.

 

Then there’s that little issue of rerouting/rewiring RTA’s multi-million dollar, gold-plated cab signals program they installed in the late 80s.  Sounds like your proposal would just burn more money for very little benefit.  (plus, you still didn’t address my Qs about the “benefits” of this highway to the low/mod income folks living there.

 

As for any idea that, say, the Green Line would be converted to buses:  forget it.  Shaker Hts may be a tired, old "inner ring" burb to some, but it still houses some of the highest cost RE owned by some of the state's most powerful individuals.  The Shaker Rapid -- today's Blue/Green lines, are as much a part of the heritage of that grand old community as those giant Georgians and Tudor's lining Shaker, S. Woodland, N. Park and South Park, among others.  Not to mention the fact that Shaker Hts., like Cleveland and E. Cleve (you yourself noted in your TOD thread) are seriously and finally pursuing TOD activity across all the existing rail lines – seems like a bad time to discuss rail “poor performance” and abandonment, esp after the gasoline nonsense that we’ve recently suffered – and whose to say, at a whim, we won’t be paying, say, $5, $6/gallon next year?  They do it in Europe.  Israel, etc. 

 

Bottom line, if Joe C and his cronies even hinted of swapping their service for buses, they'd be in the unemployment line faster than you can say... ECP.

 

As for ending Windermere service, I think Case Western U. and their growing and powerful Univ Hospitals would have a few things to say about that.  The high-density growth around the current U. Circle stations is already bumping up rail ridership, esp near the Hospitals and the new Case dorms, and the big development at the Triangle (no, not the so called “Forgotten Triangle”, but the one at Euclid-Mayfield, hasn’t even gotten off the ground in earnest).. and Scott Wolstein, and others, may question turning the Waterfront Line into a tourist "Heritage Trolley" -- weak though the WL may currently be.

 

As much as I object to just about every premise you lay out on the subject, at least I appreciate your honesty and candor (more than anyone could expect from RTA).  At least we know the powers that be really do hope and plan for the abandonment for most of the East Side rapid rail service -- a move that would be unprecedented in the annals of American rapid transit -- at least since GM's Nat'l City Lines coordinated their 40s/50s campaign to buy out and condemn most of the streetcars and interurbans of yesteryear...

 

... at least I don't look like some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.  Your incite gives my 'paranoia' some juice... again, thanks much.

 

KJP, how did that meeting with RTA and ODOT go?  I'd forgotten to ask until now!

I haven't had the courage to ask!

Funny, I was thinking about the same thing today. 

Thought you all might get a kick out of this little graphic I put together. This represents about 215 new single-family homes (in addition to the 50 or so still standing in the area), 630 multi-family units, 50 live-work units, roughly 200,000 square feet of ground-floor retail/restaurants and some 50,000-100,000 square feet of office/medical space. All of this is a very broad brush of course, but I developed this to get a handle on possible ridership from a TOD at East 79th and the Opportunity Corridor. Consider that about 20 percent of TOD residents and visitors typically use transit each day.

 

My guesstimate is that the ridership at this station would be about 700 transit trips per day, or approximately 255,000 additional transit trips per year. (By the way, I envision the joint Rapid-NEOrail station would a part-time station, since NEOrail commuter trains would likely operate rush-hours only, at least for the foreseeable future, so having two stations so close together wouldn't slow down Rapids all day). But, a single station might be considered, between East 79th and the NEOrail route (which are 1,750 feet apart at that latitude).

 

Beautiful!

i once mistakenly got on a dead train that went only to E. 79th, at 12 at night. Once there, the driver told me tough luck. That was not fun.

What did you do? Walk to Kinsman or Woodland?

What did you do? Walk to Kinsman or Woodland?

 

ended up calling a friend. I explained my situation to a few other dead train operaters who stopped to contemplate a random white guy standing on a platform. They basically told me "call a cab" and "sucks to be you"

Sorry about your life, pope!

 

KJP, great graphic.  Were you able to share this with anyone at ODOT, RTA, Cleveland or NOACA yet?  This is the type of thing that we need to really drive our development agenda surrounding ginormous infrastructure investments like the Opportunity Corridor intends to be.

 

At present, we're talking about throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at Innerbelt work that will do nothing to improve the situation for surrounding neighborhoods.  That's a huge waste if you ask me!  The Opportunity Corridor, on the other hand, aspires to be a huge economic development tool and I think that TOD and your proposals in particular are a necessary part of it.

 

I'd gladly write letters to officials that have seen or should see this.  Any names you'd like to drop?

 

One final note, the housing element over here is a no brainer as well.  The economic and development impact of the successful projects in Central along Woodland in the E. 30s is already spreading east.  Rysar, for example, recently bought a run down old development on Woodland next to the cemetery and is planning on rehabbing the units, in addition to adding another 100 or so new homes...all for sale at market rates!

 

Imagine the potential along this corridor...

I wish that University Circle could truly be a "Dual Hub."  It would be very difficult to do, but it would be great if the Blue and Green lines split from the redline at the University Circle station.  When I think about living in Shaker Square, it would be great if there was direct rail transit to University Circle.  The community circulator is nice, but it still leaves you stuck in traffic.

oh yeah, there was a point to my story, after standing at the platform for a while, KJPs graphic demonstrates how amazingly obvious and easy/simple some of these TOD projects could be. Especially since i did really nothing but stare at the empty lots and the standing housing stock.

I wish that University Circle could truly be a "Dual Hub."  It would be very difficult to do, but it would be great if the Blue and Green lines split from the redline at the University Circle station.  When I think about living in Shaker Square, it would be great if there was direct rail transit to University Circle.  The community circulator is nice, but it still leaves you stuck in traffic.

 

But what about the people who live on Shaker Blvd between 79 & Shaker Square.

 

I like the Shaker Rapid the way it is!

 

I suggest changing the Red Line to an Express and Local line.  where one train stops at every station and other trains on a second set of tracks hits stations like Airport, Brookpark, W117, W65, TC, E55 Univ. Circle and Windermere.

 

I've also thought how nice it would be to have a line starting on south / north moreland, fairhill right into the wade oval traveling down to UC.  =

But what about the people who live on Shaker Blvd between 79 & Shaker Square.

 

I like the Shaker Rapid the way it is!

 

The Dual Hub Corridor envisioned the Blue/Green lines heading north from Shaker Boulevard at East 116th, then following Doan Creek/Fairhill/MLK to University Circle.

 

Here's the beauty of running the Rapids down the Opportunity Corridor:

1. the Blue/Green lines stay along Shaker to its westernmost endpoint;

2. it offers a transfer point with the Red Line at Buckeye/OC Blvd to University Circle that involves traveling 3 less miles by rail from Shaker to UC;

3. it opens the possibility of a wye track at the location mentioned in #2 for some westbound Blue or Green line trains to make a right turn and go to University Circle, but that would probably be done only if a "sufficient" number of people are making transfers in the arrangement in #2

 

I hear a big industrial park is planned for the area where I've proposed the East 79th TOD. Too bad, cuz my back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest this TOD and another at Buckeye could generate up to 500,000 new rides annually for RTA. And that's a very conservative estimate!

You GO KJP! 

But after what I heard about that site being preferred for an industrial park, all of this is probably just academic. It was fun doodling it, though.

 

An industrial park...Another failure of local imagination like the Inner Belt!

KJP,

 

That area is already pretty much exclusively an industrial zone.  At least half of the area is abandoned with some serious brownfield issues.  Orlando Bakery is also located there.  They employ a lot of people and desperately need to expand. 

This area has often been my urban renewal fantasy sandbox while looking around on GoogleEarth.  Disheartening that it would all become industrial.

Given the amount of land, I don't see why it all has to become industrial. In fact, the area where Orlando Bakery is would stay industrial and have triple the area of industrial land for them to expand onto under my scenario (that's the brown area to the upper-left of the TOD). There is plenty of land for industrial/commercial AND for high-quality neighborhood uses.

 

With the Opportunity Corridor shaping up as a low-density commercial corridor and the Inner Belt eviscerating the east and south sides of downtown, I sense the city is losing a major opportunity to remake itself. It can become an urbane 21st century community of brains, not braun that was Cleveland's hallmark of first half of the 20th century. And all the mistakes we made in the last half of that century, that eroded a dense and diverse city, are being repeated merely because that modus operandi is familiar to us.

I can re-check some maps and let you know. I wouldn't worry at this point. The maps look at the current uses and show how previously isolated industrial acres would become open to redevelopment. There are not any concrete zoning plans for anything at this point. Its way too early in the process.

^ Yeah, I suspected, but I'm just in a wiggin'-out mood. Lots of little things have not gone well today.

By the way MGD, I have not sent that graphic to anyone other than posting it here on the forum. I drew the graphic Wednesday night (Feb. 8 ), so I haven't had any time yet to distribute it. But feel free to print it out and attach it to a letter to folks like Councilman Cimperman, Mayor Jackson, RTA's Joe Calabrese, NOACA's Howard Maier and ODOT's John Motl.

 

In fact, if you have a color laser printer, could you save an extra printout for me? I've not been able to afford replacing the toner cartridges in my printer for a long time and it will be a while before I can swing the expense! I know, very pathetic....

This second TOD (below) represents about 245 new single-family homes (in addition to the 25 or so still standing in the area), 565 multi-family units, 50 live-work units, roughly 150,000 square feet of ground-floor retail/restaurants and some 25,000-50,000 square feet of office/medical space. Like the other TOD estimate, this is a very broad brush. Considering that about 20 percent of TOD residents and visitors typically use transit each day. My guesstimate is that the ridership at this Buckeye/OC TOD would be about 600 transit trips per day (or about 219,000 trips per year).

 

Nice job.  I think I see that you left St. Elizabeth's intact on Buckeye.  Its on the National Register of Historic Places.  I know that Micelli's is located in that area as well, but I am not exactly sure where.  They are another good company that the city would not want to hinder.

I really like these TOD designs that you're showing, KJP.  If anything, though, I might scale back the retail component.  We have so much vacant retail space and even 800-900 new units of residential supports surprisingly little retail.

 

It looks like there is plenty of potential for further housing infill to the SE of the station, as well.  Are you thinking about further TOD at the next Blue/Green Line and Red Line Stations?

Thanks. I estimated the square footage for the residential and then based my retail estimate by dividing the total residential square footage by six and then by eight. That's half the retail-to-residential/office ratio of Crocker Park and equivalent to that which Stark proposes for downtown. I figure I should use the lesser retail quantity for this two TODs. But my goal was to make it possible to live within a half-mile of the Rapid system and be able to take care of much of your day-to-day needs (work/school, shopping, recreation etc) without having to venture more than half-mile from the Rapid system. Plus, some of the retail can be exchanged for civic/recreation uses, community theaters, social/public assistance needs and so on.

 

BTW, I didn't have much time to delve into developing a TOD concept in the area near the Woodhill station. I needed get these land-use maps done in advance of a meeting tomorrow morning.

an important meeting?  is this one with the powers that be?  I'm sorry I haven't had more time to dedicate to getting the word out about this...

Yes, but the meeting was postponed until later this month.

Sorry about your life, pope!

 

KJP, great graphic.  Were you able to share this with anyone at ODOT, RTA, Cleveland or NOACA yet?  This is the type of thing that we need to really drive our development agenda surrounding ginormous infrastructure investments like the Opportunity Corridor intends to be.

 

MGD, I was meeting with Tim Donovon today of the Ohio Canal Corridor who mentioned that those two TOD graphics have found their way to ODOT (or, actually, that ODOT found their way to them). A meeting on an unrelated subject was held recently in which someone congratulated John Motl (I understand second-hand that he's one of the good guys at ODOT) on the TOD graphics. He corrected the person, saying it was me who did the imagery. I couldn't pick Motl out of a lineup, but would like to meet him someday.

 

Anyway, the word has gotten out, but nothing will happen unless RTA says they want ODOT to include in their analyses a median rail line. Keep sending the communications to RTA (GM Joe Calabrese and Board President George Dixon). Contact info is available in another message I posted earlier in this string.

I modified the East 79th graphic near the top of this page to more accurately portray and emphasize the scale of the industrial sites in the Opportunity Corridor.

 

Here's another graphic (below), to show the juxtaposition of fixed-route transit services in the Greater Cleveland area (current, under construction, planned and proposed). Planned and proposed as still-active is a Lorain-to-Akron area NEOrail route, which is authorized to receive funding (no amount specified) in the recently passed federal surface transportation reauthorization. Also, RTA has the Cleveland-Akron route in its long-range capital budget to advance the planning. And the Waterfront Line extension is in the city's lakefront plan.

 

 

Note one of the service flexibilities of the Opportunity Corridor Rapid Line/Route consolidation.... The combined Red/Blue/Green line crosses the NEOrail route at a single location, as opposed to the current situation of the Red Line crossing it a bit farther north and the Blue/Green Line crossing it a bit farther south.

 

Consider the benefits of this joint NEOrail-consolidated Rapid line station:

 

+ It would allow someone riding a NEOrail commuter train from Summit County or Southeastern Cuyahoga County to be able to easily connect with rapid transit to Tower City, University Circle, Hopkins Airport and two rail lines into Shaker. Consider the ease of reaching University Circle--almost a straight shot by rail (as opposed to the roundabout routing via the region's most congested highways).

 

+ For Cleveland and inner-suburban residents wishing to reach jobs in the booming areas of northern Summit County (or western Cuyahoga County), rail transit lines would approach the joint Rapid-NEOrail station from four directions, with additional access from numerous bus lines. It's an ideal location for such a collector point -- any other station location along the NEOrail line would negate access from one or both of the Rapid lines, or involve making additional transfers.

 

+ For a NEOrail customer going to the airport without this joint station would require two transfers (one from the commuter train to the Waterfront Line and another from the WFL to the Red Line). With the joint station on the OC Boulevard, only one transfer is needed (a joint station could be offered at West Boulevard, but this station would be more costly to build and requires a NEOrail extension west of downtown Cleveland into Kucinich Country).

 

+ For Shaker Heights or University Circle residents wanting to go to the lakefront, they would have a more direct, faster route by NEOrail than what is currently available by all-Rapid. I estimate the NEOrail trip from the Opportunity Corridor station (as a point of traveler decision-making) to the lakefront would be about 10-15 minutes, versus 17-33 minutes for the existing Rapid services (the 33 minutes is assumed for travel involving all Red Line trains and most Green/Blue line trains, accounting for transfers to the Waterfront Line).

 

+ NEOrail would also give Shaker Heights residents a faster transit trip to the MidTown area (I assume a NEOrail-Silver Line-East 55th/Euclid station would be desired--MidTown Inc. has it in their long-range masterplan).

 

Without the Opportunity Corridor and a consolidated Rapid line in its median, two NEOrail stations would be needed at present, which is highly unlikely for these reasons:

 

> NEOrail trains would be regional commuter trains, which typically make station stops every 3-15 miles. These two stations serving the two Rapid lines are just 2,000 feet apart -- too close for commuter trains to make dual station stops and too far to ask customers to walk twice each day.

 

> The existing Red Line station at East 79th could be retrofitted to provide access to an immediately adjacent commuter rail station on the overhead NEOrail line, but the Blue/Green line station at East 79th is about 2,000 feet from the NEOrail line.

 

> Both station sites are in troubled neighborhoods. The Blue/Green line passes through a formerly high-density residential area that has a great deal of vacant land for redevelopment using transit-supportive land uses. The Red Line (in the vicinity of the East 79th station) is in a trench which it shares with a moderately busy freight railroad line, and is surrounded by active and abandoned industrial structures (many of which are contaminated sites) that seriously compromise the station area's potential to be redeveloped with transit-supportive land uses.

 

> Building a joint NEOrail-Blue/Green Line station will be very costly owing to the Rapid line crossing the NEOrail route on a large truss bridge that continues west of the NEOrail tracks for a short distance, requiring a full complement of overhead walkways, ramps, escalators or elevators. Furthermore, this site is not very visible to passersby or street traffic, making it difficult for the community to police it. A similar situation exists on the Red Line, as it is located in the railroad trench. It will also require at least one elevator, and possibly as many as three -- again in a unsecure setting.

 

> With the Rapid lines consolidated in the median of the Opportunity Corridor, a very simple and low-cost (to build, operate, maintain and secure) station could be built to link the Rapid line with the overhead NEOrail route. A signaled crosswalk from a Rapid station in the median of the OC Boulevard would get transit customers to the side of the boulevard where the NEOrail station access is located. NEOrail station platforms would be on the west and east sides of the two-tracked Norfolk Southern freight route (which could be triple-tracked in the near future), reached from the street by switchback ramps and stairwells (no elevators or escalators). Grade-separated pedestrian access would be via the boulevard sidewalk, under the NEOrail tracks. With platforms built over the busy boulevard (like at the Cedar, Superior or West 117th Red Line stations), passengers waiting at the station would be highly visible.

 

Is that enough to chew on for a while?

KJP,

 

Is all this a possible reality in the Cleveland area?  I am a rail freak, and would love to see this stuff happen!  I am not even a fraction as informed as you about possible projects when it comes to rail in Cleveland and NE Ohio, but reading this stuff made me pretty excited! (maybe I need to get laid more!)  Is there anyway RTA and there anti rail attitude will somehow screw all this up and turn it into another highway that only allows buses that LOOK like trains on it!?!?!  If the NEohio rail thing happens, I hope it spurs more light rail lines around the city(region)....

All of these projects and concepts are formalized to some degree by the city, CDCs, RTA, Congress and so on. But consolidating the Rapid lines in the OC Boulevard median is just an idea that exists in my over-active imagination and which hasn't been formalized yet by any public body. I hope to change that, and it needs to start with RTA. So if you want to see these things happen, get the word out to RTA, to Cleveland City Council representatives, to the CDCs and so on. RTA has a lot of stuff on their plate, and the only thing that will get their attention is noise (harmonies are better!).

 

Will RTA seek this? Right now, there's no way to know. Only if they can be convinced that simply offering bus service on the OC Boulevard is not beneficial to them. I think I've shown that, because it creates an oversupply of transit service in the area -- already served by two parallel rail Rapid transit lines that are not performing well. I contend that there already is an oversupply of transit there, given the abandonment which that area has seen.

 

So what do you do?

 

Like a business, you use someone else's money to reduce your capital costs, your operating costs and increase your revenues....

 

> Use ODOT funding to create your right of way (the OC Boulevard median).

> Develop TODs at west-side stations by recognizing that those station parking lots are untapped cash machines. Use federal CMAQ funds (through NOACA) to build parking decks to avail land for development.

> That development will generate parking/real estate revenues for RTA.

> Use those revenues to float bonds to raise funding up-front for the local share of the OC Boulevard rail facility construction costs. Leverage federal funding for the remainder (at least a 50/50 matching basis).

> Sell the abandoned portions of the Blue/Green and Red lines to reimburse part of the capital costs, or to undertake other transit capital investments.

> Work with the city, the CDCs, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority and developers to develop the areas around stations with walkable neighborhoods, which in turn would be surrounded with light/heavy industrial uses.

 

Add all that up, and RTA has just reduced its operating cost centers, replaced two 70- to 80-year-old rail transit routes with one brand-new route, created potent ridership/revenue generators in the Forgotten Triangle (as well as at the West Side stations), enhanced the connectivity of transit routes and turned an economic dead zone into a highly accessible magnet for jobs, housing, shopping and upward economic mobility.

 

I don't think I can state it more plainly than that.