DM4, I hope you and others will read through this and digest it carefully. While it may be difficult for you to accept some of these constraints Greater Cleveland and other cities are facing, they are nonetheless real. And the sooner we recognize them, the sooner we will be able to focus our energies on productive efforts that have a real chance of achieving success and making parts of Greater Cleveland very transit oriented. So....

 

First, Greater Cleveland will have a very difficult time getting federal funds (the essential ingredient for major transit capital projects) for building rail expansions. In fact, most if not all cities will have an increasingly difficult time getting federal funds for any new transportation projects. The federal government has become an increasingly unreliable and unavailable funding partner -- like our state government already is! Our mission is made more difficult by a NE Ohio Congressional delegation of diminishing influence and which does not serve on transportation committees or subcommittees. Furthermore, our lack of highway traffic congestion will harm the ability of funding applications for rail projects to achieve high ratings from the Federal Transit Administration. Other than the Dual Hub project, the Red Line extension to Euclid is the only rail expansion project GCRTA has studied (including to Berea/Strongsville, Lakewood/Westlake/Lorain, Highland Hills/I271 & Solon/Aurora) in the past 30 years which has merited a high enough FTA score to justify federal funding, and that's with the Euclid extension generating 13,000 new transit trips per day. It will compete for federal funding with other rail projects in other cities that are projected to generate 20,000 - 100,000 new transit trips per day. And GCRTA's operating funding is limited and restricts its ability to subsidize new, large-scale operating costs.

 

So now that we know where the walls to the maze are, now we can find our through to accomplish some things......

 

Some federal funding may be available, but it won't be the 80 percent of years past. It may not even be 50 percent anymore. Instead, we will likely have to rely on local/regional funding sources to be the dominant source of capital construction funding. One of the most promising is tax-increment financing from developments within TIF districts around new or future rail stations. These could be part of a mix of funding sources to support individual expansions costing in the neighborhood of $100 million to $200 million to build and $5 million/year or so to operate which points to smaller-scale projects such as a streetcar 2-4 miles in length, or a light-rail extension 1-3 miles in length.

 

There is a small chance of getting other funds added to the mix such as Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Commission toll credits, but since they are administered by ODOT this is going to be very difficult to get for transit projects. As for  transit money, ODOT budgets only about $35 million for the entire state. This could be increased in the future, but if their recent public input survey is any indications, don't expect a meaningful bump in funding. If it doubles to $70 million, I would be shocked. And $70 million for a state of 11.5 million people is a pittance.

 

BTW, some of your expectations of potential transit users is not what is typically seen in more transit-oriented cities. Not only are families not a major source of transit ridership, they're not even a major part of the population. Households with children represent only one of four households in the USA and in Greater Cleveland. By comparison, Millennials and Baby Boomers are a significant source of existing and potential transit ridership. They represent half of this country's population. And just as the average number of occupants per car on the road is 1.2 people, most people ride transit without a companion, too. So expecting couples to be a meaningful source of transit ridership is not realistic, either.

 

Instead, 60 percent of all transit riders are using it to go to work. The next biggest trip purpose is to attend school (10.6%). After that, in order, the most common transit trips are shopping/dining (8.5%), social (6.8%), personal business (6.3%), medical/dental (3%) and other. These and other ridership characteristics are found here: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/transit_passenger_characteristics_text_5_29_2007.pdf

 

Please also know that the Great Reset of housing choices, location choices and lifestyle choices all centered around downsizing offers real opportunities for developing around existing rail stations and small-scale expansions. If you are unaware of this trend reversal from the past 50 years of suburbanization and its auto-dependent lifestyle, I encourage you to start with this document:

https://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/fitchwire/fitchwirearticle/U.S.-Transportation-Trends?pr_id=823514

 

While we may be able to achieve some small-scale rail expansions in Greater Cleveland, my serious suggestion is if you want rail transit to be near your house, move your house.

^Very interesting and comprehensive KJP; thanks for that.

Thanks. BTW.....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=22318.msg717990#msg717990

^ (Edit: @clvlndr)

 

Its convenience. If it takes 10+ minutes to drive to a station its not worth it it many cases. Westlake, Bay Village, Strongsville, Southern Suburbs, Eastern Cuyahoga County, and all of Lake County do not have convenient connections. Yes maybe some of the Western suburbs pass stations, but that is already 15 minutes into their trips. Why stop and park, wait for train (could take awhile), and then take the longer journey on the train? Then transfer to the waterfront line (could take awhile as well). If its two people, RTA will cost them $10. a way bigger hassle and longer trip. You can easily find parking for cheaper than that. Make that a family of four, or a group of friends, and thats $20 for RTA.  And that is for the people who technically have access. Like I mentioned earlier, most of the region does not. Lake County alone is home to 230,041 people, none of which have access to rail.

 

You're proving my point.  You are presenting a Cleveland-type argument against using the trains that you hear less of elsewhere with rapid rail.  Note also that, during rush hour, West Side Red Line trains into downtown leave about every 7-8 minutes.  Not much of a wait.  And Cleveland offers relatively cheap fares and free parking, which many systems (like the DC Metro, among others, do not).  Btw, I do know of people in Strongsville who drive in to Brookpark and take the Rapid downtown everyday.  But the mentality you are espousing is typical here.  People go out of their way not to ride the rails... The good news is, that seems to be changing for the better.

 

Additionally, it seems that more affluent riders have much less of an aversion to trains than to buses.  This also explains driving to Brookpark rather than catching a bus in Strongsville.

Additionally, it seems that more affluent riders have much less of an aversion to trains than to buses.  This also explains driving to Brookpark rather than catching a bus in Strongsville.

 

I think you're right, E Rocc.  Look at the bizarre fact that Brookpark is RTA's 2nd busiest station and sits where practically nobody lives within a sq./mi of the station.  But it DOES sit at the junction (and off-ramps) of 3 feeder freeways (I-71, 480 and Ohio 237), which weirdly marries Cleveland's car craziness with the wise assessment of these far-away drivers who prefer the ease of downtown access via the Red line .. However, I do agree with KJP's assessment that developers/planners are steadily buying into the idea of putting more housing close to stations and that this will ultimately help alter the local public's use and attitude towards using transit.

One of the most promising is tax-increment financing from developments within TIF districts around new or future rail stations.

 

I'm still extremely skeptical given that our development environment requires substantial subsidy (i.e., public money needs to go in, not out), but I'd be curious to see a specific Cleveland proposal to better understand the economics and the political viability.  I could see something like KC's special taxing/assessment district possibly working better, but I imagine that too would be a tough political sell.  Has AAO done any legal research on the steps needed to set up these mechanism in Ohio? I'm curious how involved the state would have to be.

I'm still extremely skeptical given that our development environment requires substantial subsidy (i.e., public money needs to go in, not out), but I'd be curious to see a specific Cleveland proposal to better understand the economics and the political viability.  I could see something like KC's special taxing/assessment district possibly working better, but I imagine that too would be a tough political sell.  Has AAO done any legal research on the steps needed to set up these mechanism in Ohio? I'm curious how involved the state would have to be.

 

All Aboard Ohio hasn't -- others have. The level of development that's in the cards for some major thoroughfares, such as Detroit Avenue and West 25th Street, is incredible. I don't say this out of speculation. I say this because of conversations with people who are helping to put deals together. Having higher-level transit (ie: BRT or streetcar) for these corridors will help developments in these corridors win financing by reducing costs of development and lowering the cost of housing by reducing the parking needs of these developments. And TIFs are very much part of the discussions.

OK, cool, I'll stop being such a nay-sayer and wait to see it play out.

 

That spot just north of the water treatment plant tanks is interesting because it's immediately adjacent to the Red Line between 105th and UC/Cedar.  You could route to either station, potentially continuing past 105th to the edge of the CC property. 

Thanks for posting the information about the housing trend reversal and the federal funding issue, KJP. People who work in real estate and development are aware of the trends underway and are investing in walkable dense communities with access to transit. 

 

As far as funding goes, I am wondering what people on this forum think about the future of state funding for transit. I know that our current state government in Ohio has been unfriendly to transit, but with the rising cost of health care costs which the state has had to pay in Medicaid, there is an opening for more funding for transit and walkable communities as a health issue.  With the Medicaid expansion, the federal government is picking up most of the tab for Medicaid. Still health care costs are rising and obesity linked to sedentary lifestyle drives up health care costs. So, there may be an opening for transit funding and pedestrian pathways to schools just to offset the government's expenditure towards health care.

Thanks for posting the information about the housing trend reversal and the federal funding issue, KJP. People who work in real estate and development are aware of the trends underway and are investing in walkable dense communities with access to transit. 

 

In many large cities, this is certainly the case. Cleveland developers are starting to recognize this. Some know it well. Others don't know it all. And then you get to some suburban cities or the smaller cities like Toledo, Youngstown or Erie and it's as if the 1980s never ended.

 

As far as funding goes, I am wondering what people on this forum think about the future of state funding for transit. I know that our current state government in Ohio has been unfriendly to transit, but with the rising cost of health care costs which the state has had to pay in Medicaid, there is an opening for more funding for transit and walkable communities as a health issue.  With the Medicaid expansion, the federal government is picking up most of the tab for Medicaid. Still health care costs are rising and obesity linked to sedentary lifestyle drives up health care costs. So, there may be an opening for transit funding and pedestrian pathways to schools just to offset the government's expenditure towards health care.

 

I respond to your interesting question here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9832.0.html

this is an Interesting new way to be a transit planner

 

http://www.transitmix.net/

 

I think everyone should try it out.

 

BTW

 

GCRTA  cost per hour is

 

Bus ~$130 per hour

Light rail $257

Heavy rail $271

 

 

Portland's Light rail $175

 

 

DM4, I hope you and others will read through this and digest it carefully. While it may be difficult for you to accept some of these constraints Greater Cleveland and other cities are facing, they are nonetheless real. And the sooner we recognize them, the sooner we will be able to focus our energies on productive efforts that have a real chance of achieving success and making parts of Greater Cleveland very transit oriented. So....

 

this quote rubs me the wrong way. It means that anything Anyone who has a more ambitious ideas for what transit should be, should GIVE UP and Stop wasting their time because in your opinion it will never happen.

 

IMO this is wrong, all ideas in the "ideas for the future" should be expressed.

 

First, Greater Cleveland will have a very difficult time getting federal funds (the essential ingredient for major transit capital projects) for building rail expansions. In fact, most if not all cities will have an increasingly difficult time getting federal funds for any new transportation projects. The federal government has become an increasingly unreliable and unavailable funding partner -- like our state government already is! Our mission is made more difficult by a NE Ohio Congressional delegation of diminishing influence and which does not serve on transportation committees or subcommittees. Furthermore, our lack of highway traffic congestion will harm the ability of funding applications for rail projects to achieve high ratings from the Federal Transit Administration. Other than the Dual Hub project, the Red Line extension to Euclid is the only rail expansion project GCRTA has studied (including to Berea/Strongsville, Lakewood/Westlake/Lorain, Highland Hills/I271 & Solon/Aurora) in the past 30 years which has merited a high enough FTA score to justify federal funding, and that's with the Euclid extension generating 13,000 new transit trips per day. It will compete for federal funding with other rail projects in other cities that are projected to generate 20,000 - 100,000 new transit trips per day. And GCRTA's operating funding is limited and restricts its ability to subsidize new, large-scale operating costs.

 

Things weren't always the way they are right now, this doesn't mean things cannot or will never change.

 

State

I hear over and over again, The state of Ohio doesn't fund transit, My challenge to you is what are WE doing to change this?

 

The waterfront line was funded by the State of Ohio, traditionally the state has been a much better partner for transit than they are today.

 

the issue is less ideological than one where most Ohioans are not touched by transit and don't feel any benefit from transit systems they are a part of.

 

Federal

 

the FTA's scoring system Has changed, this chnage has allowed the Red line extension to score as well as it will. 

I repeat: changes at the FTA have allowed Cleveland to be more competitive for FTA dollars.  this doesn't mean we will win but we have a chance.

 

The federal transportation issues will be address sooner or later and we must be ready with proper plans and local consensus on what we want in our 21st century Transit system.

 

Local

 

In case you guys didn't know I am the founder of Cleveland Streetcar, a board Member of All Aboard Ohio, and Staff member of Bike Cleveland.

 

there are parallels to cycling advocacy and transit Advocacy. advocacy helps people become aware, and better understand the issues.

 

Ask yourself how many people in Cleveland cared about bike lanes 5 years ago vs today? what do you think changed? better advocacy of issues that affect people on bikes, we made people care about bicycling.

 

who is advocating for better transit in Cleveland? who is building the coalitions needed to get the political system to care about Transit?

 

Cincinnati built a coalition that has become very effective at getting people to listen to them.

 

the core of effective Advocacy begins at the grassroots, you have show that people actually care about transit before Local, state and federal officials begin to give a Crap about it.

 

 

So now that we know where the walls to the maze are, now we can find our through to accomplish some things......

 

 

 

Some federal funding may be available, but it won't be the 80 percent of years past. It may not even be 50 percent anymore. Instead, we will likely have to rely on local/regional funding sources to be the dominant source of capital construction funding. One of the most promising is tax-increment financing from developments within TIF districts around new or future rail stations. These could be part of a mix of funding sources to support individual expansions costing in the neighborhood of $100 million to $200 million to build and $5 million/year or so to operate which points to smaller-scale projects such as a streetcar 2-4 miles in length, or a light-rail extension 1-3 miles in length.

 

Short term you are correct. , Transit must become a desirable mode of travel, it doesn't do anyone any good if our rail system doesn't go where people want to go,  you cannot expect the region to return to the Way it was 60 years ago when 80% of all county residents lived in the city of Cleveland. even in Regions where new lines are being built they go where the people are, Minneapolis built the Blue line to reach mall of america and the Airport now the green line cuts though a dense urban area with rail, above grade where the people and the jobs are.

 

There is a small chance of getting other funds added to the mix such as Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Commission toll credits, but since they are administered by ODOT this is going to be very difficult to get for transit projects. As for  transit money, ODOT budgets only about $35 million for the entire state. This could be increased in the future, but if their recent public input survey is any indications, don't expect a meaningful bump in funding. If it doubles to $70 million, I would be shocked. And $70 million for a state of 11.5 million people is a pittance.

 

Grassroots organizing is what is needed to change ODOT.

 

 

BTW, some of your expectations of potential transit users is not what is typically seen in more transit-oriented cities. Not only are families not a major source of transit ridership, they're not even a major part of the population. Households with children represent only one of four households in the USA and in Greater Cleveland. By comparison, Millennials and Baby Boomers are a significant source of existing and potential transit ridership. They represent half of this country's population. And just as the average number of occupants per car on the road is 1.2 people, most people ride transit without a companion, too. So expecting couples to be a meaningful source of transit ridership is not realistic, either.

 

Instead, 60 percent of all transit riders are using it to go to work. The next biggest trip purpose is to attend school (10.6%). After that, in order, the most common transit trips are shopping/dining (8.5%), social (6.8%), personal business (6.3%), medical/dental (3%) and other. These and other ridership characteristics are found here: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/transit_passenger_characteristics_text_5_29_2007.pdf

 

True TOD requires more trips than work trips to be successful.

 

Please also know that the Great Reset of housing choices, location choices and lifestyle choices all centered around downsizing offers real opportunities for developing around existing rail stations and small-scale expansions. If you are unaware of this trend reversal from the past 50 years of suburbanization and its auto-dependent lifestyle, I encourage you to start with this document:

https://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/fitchwire/fitchwirearticle/U.S.-Transportation-Trends?pr_id=823514

 

While we may be able to achieve some small-scale rail expansions in Greater Cleveland, my serious suggestion is if you want rail transit to be near your house, move your house.

 

I think moving is start but you still must work harder to high quality transit within range of more jobs. 

State

I hear over and over again, The state of Ohio doesn't fund transit, My challenge to you is what are WE doing to change this?

 

The waterfront line was funded by the State of Ohio, traditionally the state has been a much better partner for transit than they are today.

 

the issue is less ideological than one where most Ohioans are not touched by transit and don't feel any benefit from transit systems they are a part of.

 

Biker, I don't think the Waterfront Line is a good example of Ohio largess toward Cleveland based on a number of unique/weird circumstances:

 

First, at the time Ohio had a popular Cleveland ex-mayor (Voinovich) as the sitting governor, something I'm not sure had/s ever happened before (or since). 

 

Second, you had a popular sitting mayor (Mike White) who, not only was pushing this project, but one who had a familiarity and good working relationship with Voinovich, whom White had recently succeeded as mayor. 

 

Third, you had Cleveland's Bicentennial quickly coming up in 1996 and the Bicentennial Commission decided that the WFL would be the City’s Legacy Project, but there was not enough time for RTA to seek Federal funds and thus have the Waterfront Line project vetted through the time-consuming (by then UMTA) process, including such things as environmental-impact and alternative-analyses studies.

 

Fourth, Voinovich was rare on 2 fronts: he was Republican who favored Cleveland and so, because he was strongly behind the Watefront Line project, it was doubtful the usual downstate Republican anti-Cleveland contingent would cross him. 

 

Fifth, Voinovich was instrumental in securing the Rock & Roll HOF project in the mid-1980s which originally targeted for Tower City, but was teetering on collapse and removal to another city because of (IIRC) a legal/sales-rights dispute with a Tower City record store… However, the Rock Hall project was revived/saved thanks largely to efforts by White, to be built at North Coast and was slated to open in 1995, 1 year prior to the Bicentennial and would be directly served by the Waterfront Line that next year.

 

Sixth, anguished Ron Tober and RTA were watching their Dual-Hub subway project go down the tubes (pun intended) and ultimately morph into the concept that materialized as today's Health Line BRT that was opened in 2008.  The Waterfront Line, therefore, was seen as a sort of consolation rail prize (and no doubt a way to save face) that, unlike Dual-Hub, was relatively cheap -- pegged originally at around $50M -- as opposed to the near $1B for Dual Hub...

 

My point being, Biker, is that if all those particular stars didn't align, the State of Ohio wouldn't have backed the project and there would be no Waterfront Line.  So I don't think Ohio was really any friendlier toward Cleveland and transit then as it is now, all things considered (sure having a rare powerful, popular Cleveland guy sitting in the guv’s mansion tipping the balance toward NEO where usually our town is despised downstate, was probably a game changer)... I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone will correct he on this.

 

My view is that Ohio's largest cities need to build a fiscal Hadrian's Wall between themselves and the rest of the state which is dominated by rural interests who see their small towns dying while Ohio's cities are booming with new construction. While we in the cities see the suburbs and especially the rural areas soaking up our tax dollars, the rural interests see it the other way around -- that they are the tax donors. So I suggest the fiscal Hadrian's Wall. Rural interests will probably support it because they somehow believe they do not need to pay taxes, and I would hope that urban interests will support it especially if urban areas can unite with each other to carry out projects of mutual interest (ie: transportation, infrastructure, utility, energy, environmental sustainability, etc).

 

Even without urban areas pooling their resources, Ohio's metro areas are sufficiently capable of sustaining their own capital improvements. The Greater Cleveland area alone has the same economic output of Hungary. The last time I checked, Hungary had a pretty good rail and transit system. So can we if we were more able to determine our economic destiny as a veritable city-state that can form partnership with other Ohio city-states.

State

I hear over and over again, The state of Ohio doesn't fund transit, My challenge to you is what are WE doing to change this?

 

The waterfront line was funded by the State of Ohio, traditionally the state has been a much better partner for transit than they are today.

 

the issue is less ideological than one where most Ohioans are not touched by transit and don't feel any benefit from transit systems they are a part of.

 

Biker, I don't think the Waterfront Line is a good example of Ohio largess toward Cleveland based on a number of unique/weird circumstances:

 

First, at the time Ohio had a popular Cleveland ex-mayor (Voinovich) as the sitting governor, something I'm not sure had/s ever happened before (or since). 

 

Second, you had a popular sitting mayor (Mike White) who, not only was pushing this project, but one who had a familiarity and good working relationship with Voinovich, whom White had recently succeeded as mayor. 

 

Third, you had Cleveland's Bicentennial quickly coming up in 1996 and the Bicentennial Commission decided that the WFL would be the City’s Legacy Project, but there was not enough time for RTA to seek Federal funds and thus have the Waterfront Line project vetted through the time-consuming (by then UMTA) process, including such things as environmental-impact and alternative-analyses studies.

 

Fourth, Voinovich was rare on 2 fronts: he was Republican who favored Cleveland and so, because he was strongly behind the Watefront Line project, it was doubtful the usual downstate Republican anti-Cleveland contingent would cross him. 

 

Fifth, Voinovich was instrumental in securing the Rock & Roll HOF project in the mid-1980s which originally targeted for Tower City, but was teetering on collapse and removal to another city because of (IIRC) a legal/sales-rights dispute with a Tower City record store… However, the Rock Hall project was revived/saved thanks largely to efforts by White, to be built at North Coast and was slated to open in 1995, 1 year prior to the Bicentennial and would be directly served by the Waterfront Line that next year.

 

Sixth, anguished Ron Tober and RTA were watching their Dual-Hub subway project go down the tubes (pun intended) and ultimately morph into the concept that materialized as today's Health Line BRT that was opened in 2008.  The Waterfront Line, therefore, was seen as a sort of consolation rail prize (and no doubt a way to save face) that, unlike Dual-Hub, was relatively cheap -- pegged originally at around $50M -- as opposed to the near $1B for Dual Hub...

 

My point being, Biker, is that if all those particular stars didn't align, the State of Ohio wouldn't have backed the project and there would be no Waterfront Line.  So I don't think Ohio was really any friendlier toward Cleveland and transit then as it is now, all things considered (sure having a rare powerful, popular Cleveland guy sitting in the guv’s mansion tipping the balance toward NEO where usually our town is despised downstate, was probably a game changer)... I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone will correct he on this.

 

go back even further, to the reconstruction of the shaker rapid, I believe that the state had a hand in funding that and the Healthline. 

 

My view is that Ohio's largest cities need to build a fiscal Hadrian's Wall between themselves and the rest of the state which is dominated by rural interests who see their small towns dying while Ohio's cities are booming with new construction. While we in the cities see the suburbs and especially the rural areas soaking up our tax dollars, the rural interests see it the other way around -- that they are the tax donors. So I suggest the fiscal Hadrian's Wall. Rural interests will probably support it because they somehow believe they do not need to pay taxes, and I would hope that urban interests will support it especially if urban areas can unite with each other to carry out projects of mutual interest (ie: transportation, infrastructure, utility, energy, environmental sustainability, etc).

 

Even without urban areas pooling their resources, Ohio's metro areas are sufficiently capable of sustaining their own capital improvements. The Greater Cleveland area alone has the same economic output of Hungary. The last time I checked, Hungary had a pretty good rail and transit system. So can we if we were more able to determine our economic destiny as a veritable city-state that can form partnership with other Ohio city-states.

 

there is power in numbers.

90% of ohioans live in Urban areas

 

the majority of Ohioans live in Metropolitain areas. the metro areas around the 3Cs are home to almost half of all Ohioans.

 

we have ashared interest in better urban policies from the state.

 

 

These should replace Cleveland's light Rail fleet.

 

^These are obviously state-of-the-art cars.  Obviously, if RTA took them for Blue/Green they would have to be adapted for more seating, as our system is geared for longer riding and more seated passengers than TTC's streetcars.  Also obviously (and hopefully) RTA will have junked the archaic Blue/Green on-board fare payment system for POP for the quick boarding of these cars will be useless to RTA.

^These are obviously state-of-the-art cars.  Obviously, if RTA took them for Blue/Green they would have to be adapted for more seating, as our system is geared for longer riding and more seated passengers than TTC's streetcars. 

 

The vehicles in the video have maximum capacity of 190 persons (70 seated) current LRT cars have 74 seats.

 

My proposed varaint of this tram for Cleveland would have up to 74 seats and room for 116 standees , 4 bikes, and 2-4 wheelchairs.

 

In a related note having More seats that cannot fit people with long legs defeats the purpose of having large numbers of seats.

 

Also obviously (and hopefully) RTA will have junked the archaic Blue/Green on-board fare payment system for POP for the quick boarding of these cars will be useless to RTA.

 

This is a chicken and Egg thing, it would be Assumed that POP would be used with these vehicles.

 

 

 

 

The Little Italy-Mayfield station isn't really an infill station since it's replacing the existing Euclid-E120 station. Where would you put Cleveland's first infill station and why?

 

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  8m

#Boston opens it's first rapid #transit infill station in 27 years in #Somerville http://bit.ly/1Cmk9U5

The Little Italy-Mayfield station isn't really an infill station since it's replacing the existing Euclid-E120 station. Where would you put Cleveland's first infill station and why?

 

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  8m

#Boston opens it's first rapid #transit infill station in 27 years in #Somerville http://bit.ly/1Cmk9U5

 

On the Red Line, nowhere.  It's very nature isolates its stops to some degree (Mayfield will be an exception, Brookpark, 105th and UC-Cedar, for example, decidedly are not).  It's better utilized with each station serving as a mini-hub of sorts, supporting buses and perhaps light rail.  You'd likely get more TOD with this approach than by adding a station.

On the Red Line, nowhere.  It's very nature isolates its stops to some degree (Mayfield will be an exception, Brookpark, 105th and UC-Cedar, for example, decidedly are not).  It's better utilized with each station serving as a mini-hub of sorts, supporting buses and perhaps light rail.  You'd likely get more TOD with this approach than by adding a station.

 

I rely on you to be the voice of Cleveland past, to explain why things cannot be done. I look for ideas from others on where infill stations can be added to support the continued rebirth of the city.

The location isn't ideally situated, mainly because it's directly north of I-90 thus being cut off from residential areas to the south, but it would be nice if there was a stop at W 41st. It's still a bit of a hike to Lorain, and not a ton else around there, so I doubt ridership numbers would ever justify construction of a station there.

 

Also would be nice to have a stop right near the Ontario/Carnegie/I-90 intersection. That'd make taking the train to the Jake or Q real convenient, as well as getting to areas to the immediate south or east of downtown (not that there's a whole lot going on in those areas at the moment now).

On the Red Line, nowhere.  It's very nature isolates its stops to some degree (Mayfield will be an exception, Brookpark, 105th and UC-Cedar, for example, decidedly are not).  It's better utilized with each station serving as a mini-hub of sorts, supporting buses and perhaps light rail.  You'd likely get more TOD with this approach than by adding a station.

 

I rely on you to be the voice of Cleveland past, to explain why things cannot be done. I look for ideas from others on where infill stations can be added to support the continued rebirth of the city.

 

but he has a good point that some advocates willfully ignore the fact that we have put our railway is such poor locations to make it extremely difficult the build TOD around them.

 

E Rocc is right the Redline works best as a regional express for local bus service. unfortunately RTA thinks its better to send buses Downtown than to transfer riders to the rapid.

 

The same people will at once tout the benefits of our rail system yet,  say it will never be expanded, and others argue that we shouldn't try to apply for Federal funding for the Redline Extension.

 

The location isn't ideally situated, mainly because it's directly north of I-90 thus being cut off from residential areas to the south, but it would be nice if there was a stop at W 41st. It's still a bit of a hike to Lorain, and not a ton else around there, so I doubt ridership numbers would ever justify construction of a station there.

 

Also would be nice to have a stop right near the Ontario/Carnegie/I-90 intersection. That'd make taking the train to the Jake or Q real convenient, as well as getting to areas to the immediate south or east of downtown (not that there's a whole lot going on in those areas at the moment now).

 

I agree a station across from the Gateway could encourage more dense development, in an area that is close to the amenities of downtown and offers valuable land for development. I could see Air rights over this station and a potential P3 to fund this development.

 

To those who say it too close to Tower City, I feel they miss the point of TOD and the fall into an old line of thought about the difference between train station and a transit station. Access does matter and having only one station in Downtown Cleveland isn't good, neither is funneling event riders into tower city center only to have them take a 10-15 minute walk through a walkway and in  to get to an Indians game.  not to say that tower city doesn't benefit from the traffic but that traffic would stay in downtown longer if there were more pedestrian oriented development along Ontario that this perspective infill station could provide.

The Little Italy-Mayfield station isn't really an infill station since it's replacing the existing Euclid-E120 station. Where would you put Cleveland's first infill station and why?

 

I would put a new red line stop at W. 85th & Franklin. The industrial areas around it along Madison and Detroit could be developed as TOD residential/mixed use. This station would be in walking distance to two commercial streets, and would also help revitalize the sketchy area that currently exists between Gordon Square and Edgewater/Lakewood.

but he has a good point that some advocates willfully ignore the fact that we have put our railway is such poor locations to make it extremely difficult the build TOD around them.

 

 

Since the Red Line will not be moved, how do we make the best of it. And yes, I can imagine cost-effective ways to develop around them. But I post too much here and want to see what ideas people have. I hope the limitations of the Red Line foster more creativity, not less.

I'd do an "el-style" station in the Flats, where the Red Line passes over Center St.  It would put all of the Columbus Road peninsula in an easy walk of the Red Line, as well as slightly longer but still reasonable walking distance to the West Bank via the Center St. bridge and Scranton Peninsula via the Carter Road lift bridge.

On the Red Line, nowhere.  It's very nature isolates its stops to some degree (Mayfield will be an exception, Brookpark, 105th and UC-Cedar, for example, decidedly are not).  It's better utilized with each station serving as a mini-hub of sorts, supporting buses and perhaps light rail.  You'd likely get more TOD with this approach than by adding a station.

 

I rely on you to be the voice of Cleveland past, to explain why things cannot be done. I look for ideas from others on where infill stations can be added to support the continued rebirth of the city.

 

There’s a difference between “it can’t be done” and “it shouldn’t be done”.

 

Of course it can be done.  You could put in so many stops it looks like the BRT.  Is it a good idea?  No.  There's an optimum number of stations that maximizes service and speed.  I suspect we are there, or even a little above it.

 

The Red Line is isolated because it’s fast and it’s noisy.  It would be counterproductive to do anything about the former, and very expensive to do anything about the latter.  What it’s good at is eating up the miles on crosstown trips.  It’s not good at taking people door to door, unless it’s supplemented by buses, light rail, or park and ride lots.

 

My view has always been that there doesn’t need to be that many Red Line stations, but each should be a hub of sorts. 

 

I would put an infill station at Lakeview Ave in East Cleveland -- and not just b/c the Vans planned one there (I guess there's still a station "vault" there) ... I may be one of the few people on the planet who actually believes EC can, and should, be saved, and Red Line TOD would be a great way to do so, even though after nearly 60 years of service, it hasn't yet been seriously explored... I also think that, with the relocation of E. 120 station to Little Italy, there'll be too wide a gap between Superior and the new stop and too much walkable area will be missed.  Even though, apparently, some non-TOD use is planned for the recently cleared industrial site along Lakeview adjacent to the Red Line elevated tracks, the station would still be near the (still) new Circle-East townhouses right along the E.C. line at Euclid.  More, and even denser development could come with a Lakeview station stop.

 

I also think the WFL's Amtrak stop should be expanded with a connection to the new pedestrian bridge being planned to connect the Convention Center to the waterfront. 

 

Finally, I'm in total agreement with a West 85-Franklin Ave station.  Not only is there quite a bit of higher density living already there, this station could really help struggling Madison Ave, which has a lot of potential.

I'd do an "el-style" station in the Flats, where the Red Line passes over Center St.  It would put all of the Columbus Road peninsula in an easy walk of the Red Line, as well as slightly longer but still reasonable walking distance to the West Bank via the Center St. bridge and Scranton Peninsula via the Carter Road lift bridge.

That's an interesting idea. A station would definitely spur development in that part of the Flats. An elevator would likely be needed for ADA compliance, but a stairwell scaling the bridge would add an interesting vantage point.

 

Also, stairs leading down to the Flats would add another entry/exit point for that pedestrian greenway the Rotary Club wants to build on the bridge.

That's an interesting idea. A station would definitely spur development in that part of the Flats. An elevator would likely be needed for ADA compliance, but a stairwell scaling the bridge would add an interesting vantage point.

 

Also, stairs leading down to the Flats would add another entry/exit point for that pedestrian greenway the Rotary Club wants to build on the bridge.

 

Stairs would only be an emergency backup.  Elevators -- and there should be 2 -- must operate from that height.  Remember, we're talking about a high-level bridge.  For a lot of people, that's not a viable stair-climbing option.

The section of the bridge near Center Street isn't so high compared to other parts, but point well taken. :)

 

Expanding on X's idea, i'd like to see a building integrated into the bridge's lower structure. Similar to the "Bridge Building" in Rocky River but inverted, with the majority of the structure below the bridge deck. The station would be the central component.

 

OTOH I can't really see anything except retail or restaurants going into such a structure.

The section of the bridge near Center Street isn't so high compared to other parts, but point well taken. :)

 

Expanding on X's idea, i'd like to see a building integrated into the bridge's lower structure. Similar to the "Bridge Building" in Rocky River but inverted, with the majority of the structure below the bridge deck. The station would be the central component.

 

OTOH I can't really see anything except retail or restaurants going into such a structure.

 

You're right, at Center Street near the Waterfront Line junction, the bridge is relatively low -- it's not a bad idea, although I think I'd move the station more down the Scranton Peninsula toward where the new Merwin's Wharf restaurant is.  There are a few small joints, including a pizza place, but a number of derelict buildings in that immediate area.  There is still a number industrial sites and that little Flats RR services customers with their switcher engine.  I'm thinking that placing a station at Center Street is awfully close to the existing Settler's Waterfront Line stop.  I understand that Red Line riders can get a one-seat ride to the Flats, but I think I'd rather spread the stations out a little. 

 

If you're looking for a model for a station on the former Cleveland Union Terminal viaduct over the Cuyahoga, look to the Smith-9th Streets station on the F and G lines in Brooklyn. The station is on a tall bridge structure as the F/G lines have to go up and over the navigable Gowanus Canal -- which was/is at least as industrialized as the Cuyahoga River was/is and is also seeing lots of development along it. The Smith-9th Streets station was recently renovated and is now ADA compliant -- and offers one of the best views of the Manhattan skyline of any MTA station (just as a Cleveland Flats/Viaduct station would offer great views of Cleveland).....

 

 

 

^Interesting... Yeah, that area is definitely Flats-like -- in fact the Flats appears to be in a bit better shape per your photo.  That indeed could be a model for the Cuyahoga viaduct.  I'm not sure, but the photo indicates there may be at least an escalator up to those high platforms.  These days they'd also have to have a handicap-accessible elevator too to be ADA compliant.

^Interesting... Yeah, that area is definitely Flats-like -- in fact the Flats appears to be in a bit better shape per your photo.  That indeed could be a model for the Cuyahoga viaduct.  I'm not sure, but the photo indicates there may be at least an escalator up to those high platforms.  These days they'd also have to have a handicap-accessible elevator too to be ADA compliant.

 

I think there's two sets of escalators. The first set of four escalators gets you from the street to the mezzanine where the fare machines, turnstiles and fare-paid areas are. The second set are two escalators each (up/down) for each platform.

The section of the bridge near Center Street isn't so high compared to other parts, but point well taken. :)

 

Expanding on X's idea, i'd like to see a building integrated into the bridge's lower structure. Similar to the "Bridge Building" in Rocky River but inverted, with the majority of the structure below the bridge deck. The station would be the central component.

 

OTOH I can't really see anything except retail or restaurants going into such a structure.

 

That is also what I was thinking, though it may be possible for the building to be next to the bridge with a gangway of sorts, if that would be easier engineering-wise.

If there ever comes a time when the Columbus Road Peninsula is reborn as a fully developed residential/commercial district (a guy can dream, right?), such a station would become a necessity.

If you're looking for a model for a station on the former Cleveland Union Terminal viaduct over the Cuyahoga, look to the Smith-9th Streets station on the F and G lines in Brooklyn. The station is on a tall bridge structure as the F/G lines have to go up and over the navigable Gowanus Canal -- which was/is at least as industrialized as the Cuyahoga River was/is and is also seeing lots of development along it. The Smith-9th Streets station was recently renovated and is now ADA compliant -- and offers one of the best views of the Manhattan skyline of any MTA station (just as a Cleveland Flats/Viaduct station would offer great views of Cleveland).....

 

 

 

 

this bridge, having lived hear it, is more like the Detroit superior bridge.  This area was pure hell in the 90s and I can't imagine what it was like in the 80s although Thing 1 tells horror stories as he grew in that area.  It's recently improved.

and offers one of the best views of the Manhattan skyline of any MTA station

 

To put it mildly.  That's a tremendous shot.

 

It's easy to forget that not that long ago 40 Wall and 70 Pine were considered world class skyscrapers, and Woolworth was once the world's tallest.

Redirected from the Public Square thread...

 

 

The other issue is Public Square and what our vacuous city planners are attempting to do that will ruin public transit in Cleveland as we have known it for about 120 years.  The Group Plan Commission is envious of Campus Martius in Detroit and other similar central downtown program spaces around the country. They couldn’t care less about the buses and if the people who use the buses were to go somewhere else, so much the better.  Basically, the rail hub at Tower City is the only thing that has kept the buses in downtown. However, if another station could be developed somewhere out of the way, and there was sufficient land to allow all of the buses to serve it near downtown, that would be perfect for the lobbyists working on behalf of Forest City and Dan Gilbert. Such a site is the former Norfolk Southern intermodal yards south of the Inner Belt at East 14th Street and Broadway.

 

The thinking is going something like this: The Red Line would still go to Tower City. Basically, all the West Side buses would come down the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, except the ones that come into downtown from north of Lorain. Those would come across the Detroit-Superior Bridge and then down Huron to Ontario. East Side buses would turn south on East 9th Street to the transit center. Buses from the southeast would go directly up Broadway to the transit center. So those who need to go to the east of downtown could hop a bus going north on East 9th Street. Anyone else would just stay on the train and go to Tower City. I suppose there could be a trolley that would run north-south and connect to the transit center, if they could find a sponsor for it.

 

This is outrageous, but it isn’t much worse than what Akron METRO ha where all the buses run through some sections of Downtown and end up in a wasteland area south of Downtown. The area between West and East 9th Streets would be ethnically cleansed of bus passengers. It would be like downtown Akron is now, where you could fire a cannon down Cascade Plaza at 10 AM and not hit anyone. I've heard from many that they look at Public Square right now and are disgusted by "those people" who are there now. I look at Public Square and see a busy city center of many different people which is truly representative of Cleveland. But this is the way America is headed -- marginalize those without a voice and sweep them to the side.

 

Public Square must be maintained as the central focal point of the RTA system otherwise the system is wrecked in the name of homogeneity and ethnic purity.  The PD is in bed with the city leaders on this.

 

So, just to be clear, this scheme would involve the construction of a new rail station and transportation center at old Norfolk Southern yards site?  And most non-HL buses would serve only those parts of downtown that are on the way to the new facility--so, for example, east side buses wouldn't go west of East 9th Street and west side buses wouldn't go east of Onterio?  Wouldn't this spell the end of one-seat bus rides to Public Square?

 

Has this scheme been mentioned out loud or is this just some inside intel about internal Group Plan Commission discussions and their possible long term goals?  Any idea how RTA would react?  Obviously the Group Plan Commission has no authority to tell RTA how to route its service, so any change like this would need big time backing by the mayor and county, but who knows how all the local pols feel.

I know people like the original Group Plan around here, but really you can also read it as the first of the "urban renewals" that didn't go so well. The architecture is beautiful, but Burnham's plan didn't really take into account Cleveland's own organic use of its streets and what citizens actually do. It, too, was concerned with moving "undesirables" away. Don't get me wrong I love the Mall and the buildings, but we have to be careful

 

This new, horrifying, Group Plan just shows that when we don't listen to our own organic growth patterns, we run the risk of repeating mistakes of the past. It makes little to no sense to move anything out of Tower City. It's the way Cleveland works, and to force it another way is akin to what happened when we ripped highways through the fabric of our city. Surely there must be a way for us as citizens to nip this in the bud?

I know people like the original Group Plan around here, but really you can also read it as the first of the "urban renewals" that didn't go so well. The architecture is beautiful, but Burnham's plan didn't really take into account Cleveland's own organic use of its streets and what citizens actually do. It, too, was concerned with moving "undesirables" away. Don't get me wrong I love the Mall and the buildings, but we have to be careful

 

This new, horrifying, Group Plan just shows that when we don't listen to our own organic growth patterns, we run the risk of repeating mistakes of the past. It makes little to no sense to move anything out of Tower City. It's the way Cleveland works, and to force it another way is akin to what happened when we ripped highways through the fabric of our city. Surely there must be a way for us as citizens to nip this in the bud?

 

I disagree with your thoughts about moving undesirables away. Zak[/member]

So, just to be clear, this scheme would involve the construction of a new rail station and transportation center at old Norfolk Southern yards site?  And most non-HL buses would serve only those parts of downtown that are on the way to the new facility--so, for example, east side buses wouldn't go west of East 9th Street and west side buses wouldn't go east of Onterio?  Wouldn't this spell the end of one-seat bus rides to Public Square?

 

This shows how half-baked this idea is. GCRTA is bowing to pressure from the CDC and will rebuild the East 34th station "in place" but with a long pedestrian ramp coming down where the old Shaker Rapid tracks climbed up to Broadway prior to 1930. It would be comparable to the Woodhill station with its ramp (albeit that's done as a zig-zag) to comply with ADA but without incurring the cost of building and maintaining an elevator. But the point is that the East 34th be rebuilt where it already is. Then the RTA trains would roll past the new mega transit center at East 9th-East 14th and Broadway without stopping, and continue on to Tower City. One option being considered is to have a shuttle bus run back and forth between the Tower City station and the new bus hub south of the Inner Belt.

 

And yes, under this scenario, east-side bus routes would not go west of East 9th anymore.

 

 

Has this scheme been mentioned out loud or is this just some inside intel about internal Group Plan Commission discussions and their possible long term goals?  Any idea how RTA would react?  Obviously the Group Plan Commission has no authority to tell RTA how to route its service, so any change like this would need big time backing by the mayor and county, but who knows how all the local pols feel.

 

This is some inside intel. The person was so upset about it that the word "ethnically cleansed" was used in his message to me -- but I should have removed it before pasting much of what he wrote. I removed his curse words, however. :)

 

Not many at RTA are aware of this plan and I can tell you that it is not being driven by them. RTA is not happy with many aspects of the Public Square plan. They would rather continue on with Public Square as the city's transit hub, just as it has been for 160 years.

All Aboard Ohio ‏@AllAboardOhio  now5 seconds ago

.@CHARLIExCLE @GCRTA Many rumors out there. We responded to 1 because of source & info. Looking forward to traffic data & more open process.

I know people like the original Group Plan around here, but really you can also read it as the first of the "urban renewals" that didn't go so well. The architecture is beautiful, but Burnham's plan didn't really take into account Cleveland's own organic use of its streets and what citizens actually do. It, too, was concerned with moving "undesirables" away. Don't get me wrong I love the Mall and the buildings, but we have to be careful

 

This new, horrifying, Group Plan just shows that when we don't listen to our own organic growth patterns, we run the risk of repeating mistakes of the past. It makes little to no sense to move anything out of Tower City. It's the way Cleveland works, and to force it another way is akin to what happened when we ripped highways through the fabric of our city. Surely there must be a way for us as citizens to nip this in the bud?

 

I disagree with your thoughts about moving undesirables away. Zak[/member]

 

The Mall was built on land that was cleared with little regard for the people there. City Beautiful wanted to create cities in an idealized image, not respect and respond to them as living, breathing human creations.

 

Rather like prescriptivists and language, it was all about how things "ought" to be, not the way people actually went about. And it was tied to ideas of class, poverty, and power.

 

This isn't to say the Mall itself was a bad idea, an urban park Downtown is actually a good thing, but it's very hard to argue the Mall was done with local citizen input.

 

Anyway, that's about the past, and this thread is the future. And I think we can all agree, and so does RTA, that moving buses off Public Square simply won't work and will rob Cleveland of vitality and integration afforded by having a Rail and Bus hub right in the center of the action.

I know people like the original Group Plan around here, but really you can also read it as the first of the "urban renewals" that didn't go so well. The architecture is beautiful, but Burnham's plan didn't really take into account Cleveland's own organic use of its streets and what citizens actually do. It, too, was concerned with moving "undesirables" away. Don't get me wrong I love the Mall and the buildings, but we have to be careful

 

This new, horrifying, Group Plan just shows that when we don't listen to our own organic growth patterns, we run the risk of repeating mistakes of the past. It makes little to no sense to move anything out of Tower City. It's the way Cleveland works, and to force it another way is akin to what happened when we ripped highways through the fabric of our city. Surely there must be a way for us as citizens to nip this in the bud?

 

I disagree with your thoughts about moving undesirables away. Zak[/member]

 

I think we have to be clear that “undesirables” don’t qualify as such because of race, economic status, sartorial habits, or even personal hygiene.  They qualify because they refuse to behave properly in public.

 

Every so often, someone will comment here about people they know, most often women, who avoid the square because of the type of conduct that happens there.  Ignoring their concerns means shutting them out of the process, and they potentially contribute much more than all the cat-callers, rowdies, petty thieves, and such combined.

 

Certainly! But the way to solve cat-calling and other grossness is attacking patriarchal norms and dismantling structures of male privilege, combined with education, and police in small doses. It doesn't mean ripping out transit or forcing burden on us transit riders. Also the discussions of Public Square DO very often become race and class related because systems of power exist in that manner. I navigate Cleveland as someone often gender-ambiguous and brown, and it's certainly not beyond me to realize cat-calling is awful.

 

Well that's the short version of my response. If you want my full pages of feminist ranting, idk, I can maybe do that. >_<

Certainly! But the way to solve cat-calling and other grossness is attacking patriarchal norms and dismantling structures of male privilege, combined with education, and police in small doses. It doesn't mean ripping out transit or forcing burden on us transit riders. Also the discussions of Public Square DO very often become race and class related because systems of power exist in that manner. I navigate Cleveland as someone often gender-ambiguous and brown, and it's certainly not beyond me to realize cat-calling is awful.

 

Well that's the short version of my response. If you want my full pages of feminist ranting, idk, I can maybe do that. >_<

 

Damn, unless my alma mater has changed even more dramatically than I thought, you're used to dealing with people of a more politically conservative nature.  Pretty much anyone to the right of Michelle Obama rejects the ideas of male/white "privilege", not to mention "patriarchy".  Those are concepts that will get your arguments tuned out.

 

Allow me to do a "Judge Mulready" (character in my favorite West Wing episode) and say that when you are discussing things with a right leaning or ideologically mixed group, you want to focus on respect for the individual, regardless of race, creed, gender, preference, etc.  You want to talk about going after the influences that make some people think this is acceptable behavior.

 

The norms of society aren't going to change within the two year time frame we have before the national spotlight turns on us, and let's not forget exactly who will be bringing that spotlight with us.  If it were the Democrats, who value "inclusiveness and sensitivity" a lot more, it might be different.  But it's people who value a certain degree of order, and social norms that don't include random shouts of "Hey baby!" (or for that matter more disparaging comments at men they don't respect for whatever reason) in public places.

 

 

Certainly! But the way to solve cat-calling and other grossness is attacking patriarchal norms and dismantling structures of male privilege, combined with education, and police in small doses. It doesn't mean ripping out transit or forcing burden on us transit riders. Also the discussions of Public Square DO very often become race and class related because systems of power exist in that manner. I navigate Cleveland as someone often gender-ambiguous and brown, and it's certainly not beyond me to realize cat-calling is awful.

 

Well that's the short version of my response. If you want my full pages of feminist ranting, idk, I can maybe do that. >_<

 

Damn, unless my alma mater has changed even more dramatically than I thought, you're used to dealing with people of a more politically conservative nature.  Pretty much anyone to the right of Michelle Obama rejects the ideas of male/white "privilege", not to mention "patriarchy".  Those are concepts that will get your arguments tuned out.

 

Allow me to do a "Judge Mulready" (character in my favorite West Wing episode) and say that when you are discussing things with a right leaning or ideologically mixed group, you want to focus on respect for the individual, regardless of race, creed, gender, preference, etc.  You want to talk about going after the influences that make some people think this is acceptable behavior.

 

The norms of society aren't going to change within the two year time frame we have before the national spotlight turns on us, and let's not forget exactly who will be bringing that spotlight with us.  If it were the Democrats, who value "inclusiveness and sensitivity" a lot more, it might be different.  But it's people who value a certain degree of order, and social norms that don't include random shouts of "Hey baby!" (or for that matter more disparaging comments at men they don't respect for whatever reason) in public places.

 

Damn right I'm used to dealing with conservative ideas, that doesn't mean they're immune to privilege and intersectionality. Privilege and patriarchy are very well-studied concepts that have plenty of observational and research backing.

 

I'm a Civil Engineer by degree, but it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life, I'd rather be in anthropology and linguistics (socio-linguistics!). I find the way people and society interact fascinating and worthy of scientific discourse. I realize bringing up patriarchy, privilege, and intersectionality tunes out the right, who'd rather bury their heads in the sand and claim no problems exist within American society.

 

What you are proposing is only temporary, and usually comes as part of the package during big events anyway. It's not going to solve the problem over the long term. We can police and segregate all we want (and will during the RNC 2016) to look good, every city does. But to solve the larger problem will involve digging deep and looking hard at the ideas and social structures that allow it to continue. Increasing police, hiding "undesirable" people, and creating a "sanitized" space is not going be a long-term solution.

 

Also this is way off topic.