The WFL set us back decades, in terms of transit investments.  Poster child for waste and poor planning.  And as noted, White was the first to start aggressively suburbanizing the city, the polar opposite of TOD.  And don't forget what he did to the Flats.  Michael White might be the most destructive mayor Cleveland ever had, and that's saying something.

 

Good point, the collateral fallout from the WFL in terms of transit investment setbacks can't be measured.  The Euclid Avenue BRT may have become a part of an extended light-rail line; instead we got a bus lane and a dead-end train at the Muni lot cutting through the east bank flats, the very same area White led to destruction.  Yes, White is way up there and is just a part of the overall lackluster, inept and corrupt leadership Cleveland thrives on. 

 

 

  The City of Cleveland was run into the ground, the worst recent culprit being Mayor Michael White. 

 

 

 

You may have meant to type "most recent culprit," but you wrote "worst recent culprit."  I think that's why you got the response you did.

 

No, White's the worst of the most recent culprits, not the worst in Cleveland history, but the worst in its recent past.

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "recent".

 

Kucinich may be the worst unindicted executive in US history.

 

 

  The City of Cleveland was run into the ground, the worst recent culprit being Mayor Michael White. 

 

 

 

OK, so most recent would be Mike White since he came after Kucinich.  Jeez, forget it.

You may have meant to type "most recent culprit," but you wrote "worst recent culprit."  I think that's why you got the response you did.

 

No, White's the worst of the most recent culprits, not the worst in Cleveland history, but the worst in its recent past.

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "recent".

 

Kucinich may be the worst unindicted executive in US history.

The WFL set us back decades, in terms of transit investments.  Poster child for waste and poor planning.  And as noted, White was the first to start aggressively suburbanizing the city, the polar opposite of TOD.  And don't forget what he did to the Flats.  Michael White might be the most destructive mayor Cleveland ever had, and that's saying something.

 

Good point, the collateral fallout from the WFL in terms of transit investment setbacks can't be measured.  The Euclid Avenue BRT may have become a part of an extended light-rail line; instead we got a bus lane and a dead-end train at the Muni lot cutting through the east bank flats, the very same area White led to destruction.  Yes, White is way up there and is just a part of the overall lackluster, inept and corrupt leadership Cleveland thrives on. 

 

There was no "fallout" from building the WFL. 

 

The Waterfront Line was totally separate from the Dual Hub subway, which is what the Health Line BRT should have been.  Ron Tober, RTA GM at the time, was fighting hard for Dual Hub when the Bicentennial Committee for Cleveland came up with/drafted a resolution IIRC that the Waterfront Line be a so-called Legacy project-- planners raced to get it done in time (both for Moses' B'Day as well as to handle the crowd crush into the Flats Bicentennial weekend).  In so doing, they ended up bypassing Federal Funding/red tape, and got a boost from the State, where ex-Cleveland mayor George Voinovich was more than happy to assist. 

 

Dual-Hub was a big ticket item and NOACA, Tim Hagen and the County Commissioners and White decided it was too rich for their blood and went with the HL -- had nothing at all to do with the Waterfront Line.  Tober also wanted RTA to develop commuter rail as well as consider other rapid transit expansion but, in true Cleveland fashion, they ran him out of town as a too-big spender and we ended up with Joe C and, well...

 

The total amount for the WFL was about $55-58M (not counting discretionary road reconfiguration the City decided to undertake) -- meaning, all told, it was about $70-72M... And even that amount, even by 1996 standards, is a drop in the bucket compared to, say, about $350M a piece for both the HL and the OC (highway) projects...

 

I can't believe how people continue to get their hair on fire about a cheap, largely grade-separated, 2-mile rapid transit extension that, is (sorry PHS14) is stimulating (albeit slowly) development along the waterfront.  I wish there would have been more teeth gnashing about the Opportunity Corridor, an urban highway designed to serve impatient West Siders that will dump autos, cause traffic snarls and hamper walking in University Circle.  I wish folks had better priorities.

The problem with the WFL is that it accomplishes so little, and in doing so, serves so few.  And any development taking place along it has to be weighed against the destruction of the original Flats, which was contemporaneous with the WFL.  Why arrange those two things at the same time?  Even if there was no financial crash and the current FEB existed in 2010, that's still a long timeframe where the Flats are sitting there dead around this brand new train.  Nothing about it makes any sense.

The problem with the WFL is that it accomplishes so little, and in doing so, serves so few.  And any development taking place along it has to be weighed against the destruction of the original Flats, which was contemporaneous with the WFL.  Why arrange those two things at the same time?  Even if there was no financial crash and the current FEB existed in 2010, that's still a long timeframe where the Flats are sitting there dead around this brand new train.  Nothing about it makes any sense.

 

What's the point of keeping the east side segment of the Red Line?  It hasn't much, if any, true TOD.  The HealthLine does the job and provides riders with access along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to University Circle. 

 

Stated this many times, the WFL needs to run through, at a minimum, the CBD and ideally extend to the west side. 

 

Not sure why all the transit advocates in this forum are so against enclosing the WFL through CBD yet are keen on a $1 billion Red Line extension to Euclid, hoping that this extension, with less TOD potential than the WFL, is going to create a renaissance on the east side.

The problem with the WFL is that it accomplishes so little, and in doing so, serves so few.  And any development taking place along it has to be weighed against the destruction of the original Flats, which was contemporaneous with the WFL.  Why arrange those two things at the same time?  Even if there was no financial crash and the current FEB existed in 2010, that's still a long timeframe where the Flats are sitting there dead around this brand new train.  Nothing about it makes any sense.

What's the point of keeping the east side segment of the Red Line?  It hasn't much, if any, true TOD.  The HealthLine does the job and provides riders with access along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to University Circle. 

 

45 minutes vs 15... the health line is very slow.  And its shelters don't really shelter.  They made the walls smaller than the frames.  The red line also goes by the juvenile court on Quincy, which helps a lot of people in a way the health line can't.  And besides, it's already there so we might as well use it.  Are you proposing we stop?

^Lots of expenses, to be sure.  But no pain, no gain.  If leaders from this region really were interested in transit and smart growth, they could make it happen -- at least, some of it.  Meanwhile out in the woods just off I-271, Pinecrest in Orange village, Fairmount's East Side answer to Crocker Park, is rising.  Just more sprawl -- only this project, like CP, will be another cute little, faux urban-looking, mixed-use neighborhood ... but like with CP, at the edge of the county. 

 

Pinecrest isn't even close to the "edge of the county", indeed it's pretty close to the geographic center of the east side of the river.

 

Ironically, downtown is on the edge of the county.

 

I can't believe how people continue to get their hair on fire about a cheap, largely grade-separated, 2-mile rapid transit extension that, is (sorry PHS14) is stimulating (albeit slowly) development along the waterfront.  I wish there would have been more teeth gnashing about the Opportunity Corridor, an urban highway designed to serve impatient West Siders that will dump autos, cause traffic snarls and hamper walking in University Circle.  I wish folks had better priorities.

 

And south siders.....and out of towners arriving from the airport....and allow for rebuilding of the other routes without instilling severe traffic on those not being worked on.....

The problem with the WFL is that it accomplishes so little, and in doing so, serves so few.  And any development taking place along it has to be weighed against the destruction of the original Flats, which was contemporaneous with the WFL.  Why arrange those two things at the same time?  Even if there was no financial crash and the current FEB existed in 2010, that's still a long timeframe where the Flats are sitting there dead around this brand new train.  Nothing about it makes any sense.

What's the point of keeping the east side segment of the Red Line?  It hasn't much, if any, true TOD.  The HealthLine does the job and provides riders with access along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to University Circle. 

 

45 minutes vs 15... the health line is very slow.  And its shelters don't really shelter.  They made the walls smaller than the frames.  The red line also goes by the juvenile court on Quincy, which helps a lot of people in a way the health line can't.  And besides, it's already there so we might as well use it.  Are you proposing we stop?

 

So, the east side Red Line is convenient for Juvenile Court.  In Cleveland, that may be the best traffic generator for the Red Line.  The Euclid Avenue corridor is the main artery between Downtown-UC and the BRT, despite the time etc. still takes riders directly to, for example, the Clinic, Cleveland's largest employer.  The BRT has many stops for access all along Euclid Avenue.  If you live in UC and work, say in Playhouse Square, are you going to take the Red Line or the HealthLine or you work somewhere in midtown (most likely you will drive) but the option is not the Red Line unless, apparently, your child is in the Juvenile Court system.

 

Same argument for the WFL, it's already there, so we might as well use it.  Problem being not many use the WFL and the Red Line in general but the east side line in particular.  Of the 2 lines, the HealthLine provides the best access; the Red Line cuts through abandoned areas.

The problem with the WFL is that it accomplishes so little, and in doing so, serves so few.  And any development taking place along it has to be weighed against the destruction of the original Flats, which was contemporaneous with the WFL.  Why arrange those two things at the same time?  Even if there was no financial crash and the current FEB existed in 2010, that's still a long timeframe where the Flats are sitting there dead around this brand new train.  Nothing about it makes any sense.

 

Please name one (1) TOD development that came about because of the WFL; in other words, a developer that stated a project was going in because of the WFL.

 

I know the Maron Bros. wanted Uptown and their Ohio City project accessible to the Red Line (any #s on rider increase because of this?).  We all know they don't use the Red Line.

^If a development is convenient to a rail station, what difference does what the developer says make?

It was stated up-thread that the WFL gets utilized on Browns game days.  Simply said, that's because people know parking is at a premium around the stadium those days, and traffic is horrendous.  In some cities, cities where rail is successful, the city is like that everyday.  The best option is for people to get on a train so they don't have to spend hours in traffic just to get to their destination and spend another half hour looking for parking.  Cleveland is simply too easy to drive around, and making investment in rail a tough pill to swallow for some.  The first question I believe we need to ask is, by increasing rail service, are we making the lives and daily commutes for NE Ohioans easier?  How do you answer that?

 

As far as TOD, we have several location around rail stations that are prime for TOD.  West Blvd for example is a good example.  However surrounding the station are abandon commercial and residential building (at least they were last time I went through there).  Developers know building at exit ramps around Cleveland is a safer bet then building around rail stations. 

 

I would much prefer Cleveland to be heavily dependent on rail, but I don't think that can happen until we make driving around the city more difficult.  It's just to easy because of abandon city neighborhoods that have minimal density.  By lobbying to eliminate interstate exit ramps, reducing two lane roads to one, and reducing parking spaces for new developments, I think we can make that happen. 

 

Also, I am not singling Cleveland out here.  I truly believe if Columbus, Cincy, Detroit, Indy etc built a rail network with similar rail miles as GCRTA's, they would have similar ridership numbers after a couple years, if not less, as Cleveland. 

^If a development is convenient to a rail station, what difference does what the developer says make?

 

That the project is being designed and implemented because of its proximity to, in this case the WFL, for use by visitors, residents and employees. 

 

There is a picture in today's PD of an empty WFL train bridging the FEB area with the caption that parking issues will, hopefully, lead to increased transit use.  Even one rider on that train in the pic would be a 100% increase in ridership on that run. 

 

FEB should increase the WFL ridership somewhat, especially in the summer.  However, it will continue to have a confined ridership base with limited use.

I would much prefer Cleveland to be heavily dependent on rail, but I don't think that can happen until we make driving around the city more difficult.  It's just to easy because of abandon city neighborhoods that have minimal density.  By lobbying to eliminate interstate exit ramps, reducing two lane roads to one, and reducing parking spaces for new developments, I think we can make that happen. 

 

You're asking people to spend tax money to make things more difficult and inconvenient for themselves. 

 

That's not going to happen.

I don't believe in the City/region making driving difficult merely to tacitly force people to use transit.  I do however believe that driving/driving conveniences can and should be restricted, limited and even eliminated, where auto traffic harms walkability in certain walking districts, and in Cleveland, there are several ways the City can and is doing this.  One biggie is the elimination of auto traffic through Public Square.  The downgrading of Shoreway West to a boulevard is another. 

 

Reducing cheap parking should be another.  Cheap parking downtown, especially in areas like the Flats, should be limited.  Its availability induces more people to drive and, yes, hurts transit.  People may have short memories, but back during the years immediately following when the WFL opened, there was significant, in some cases heavy, train patronage on weekend nights.  That's when the Flats clubs were packed and parking was limited. 

I still don't get how the west shoreway is for pedestrians, at any speed limit.  There's only one place north of it to walk to and it's already served by tunnels.  To the south it's all bluffs.  It's like Columbia Pkwy in Cincinnati.  It might connect walkable areas that aren't walkable to each other, but it's not remotely a walkable area in itself.  So why pretend it is?  The new speed limit seems more spiteful than anything else.  The unpleasantness of commuting on it now is considered a feature, except by people who actually have to do that-- which includes everyone on the 55.  Every attack on cars is an attack on mass transit too.

Every attack on cars is an attack on mass transit too.

 

Huh?

It was stated up-thread that the WFL gets utilized on Browns game days.  Simply said, that's because people know parking is at a premium around the stadium those days, and traffic is horrendous.  In some cities, cities where rail is successful, the city is like that everyday.  The best option is for people to get on a train so they don't have to spend hours in traffic just to get to their destination and spend another half hour looking for parking.  Cleveland is simply too easy to drive around, and making investment in rail a tough pill to swallow for some.  The first question I believe we need to ask is, by increasing rail service, are we making the lives and daily commutes for NE Ohioans easier?  How do you answer that?

 

As far as TOD, we have several location around rail stations that are prime for TOD.  West Blvd for example is a good example.  However surrounding the station are abandon commercial and residential building (at least they were last time I went through there).  Developers know building at exit ramps around Cleveland is a safer bet then building around rail stations. 

 

I would much prefer Cleveland to be heavily dependent on rail, but I don't think that can happen until we make driving around the city more difficult.  It's just to easy because of abandon city neighborhoods that have minimal density.  By lobbying to eliminate interstate exit ramps, reducing two lane roads to one, and reducing parking spaces for new developments, I think we can make that happen. 

 

Also, I am not singling Cleveland out here.  I truly believe if Columbus, Cincy, Detroit, Indy etc built a rail network with similar rail miles as GCRTA's, they would have similar ridership numbers after a couple years, if not less, as Cleveland.

 

Cleveland's rail network needs to be singled-out as the worst designed and routed system.  None of the cities stated would build a rail system based on Cleveland's and would, therefore, have higher ridership. 

 

Look at Cinci's new streetcar line.  Despite its questionable financing structure and long-terms goals, at least its routed better than Cleveland's WFL and other rail segments.  There are multiple downtown and ORT stations, also known as where people are and where people want to go at a $1.00 a ride.  Boondoggle or success, at least it has more potential than Cleveland's rail lines, for now.  It needs to extend to other areas for the ebb and flow of people into downtown though.  Time will tell.

 

What's maddening about Cleveland is the system is in place and just needs some tweaking to increase its use and development potential.

 

Cleveland's rail network needs to be singled-out as the worst designed and routed system.  None of the cities stated would build a rail system based on Cleveland's and would, therefore, have higher ridership. 

 

So, in your opinion, would Cleveland be better off without the Rapid?  You've said as much several times.

Every attack on cars is an attack on mass transit too.

 

Huh?

 

Buses are mass transit, and buses share the roads with cars.  Some here have suggested road policies that would hamper cars or make driving them unpleasant, to prod people toward transit use.  Hard to implement those policies without also affecting bus riders, the majority of transit users.  Taking cars off the road will reduce congestion, but if that's done via policies to make the roads less expedient, buses become less expedient as well.  Defeats the purpose.

 

Cleveland's rail network needs to be singled-out as the worst designed and routed system.  None of the cities stated would build a rail system based on Cleveland's and would, therefore, have higher ridership. 

 

So, in your opinion, would Cleveland be better off without the Rapid?  You've said as much several times.

 

Cleveland's rail system, especially the light-rail, needs to be tweaked/extended to maximize its use and development potential.  I only mentioned the east side Red Line due to the much better service and access the HealthLine provides.  Too bad the Euclid Avenue corridor couldn't have had a light-rail line connected to a larger light-rail system.  Cleveland's light-rail is not used enough because it's not accessible and has a very limited route.  The Red Line has better potential since it spans the east and west sides with a direct connection to the airport.  However, its route as well is out of the way for the most part and runs through now low-densely populated areas.

 

Cleveland leaders are to blame for the past, resulting in the current transit issues.

 

Population and employment growth both in the city and region will increase the odds of higher ridership in its current configuration and increase the odds of extension potential.  Creating a convention business downtown as a complement to the IX Center could creat a dual hub for visitors and conventioneers to transport from downtown hotels out to the IX Center and vice-versa.  The IX Center was supposed to create a hotel demand in and around the airport/Brookpart Road.  A Red Line spur would have helped.

 

Cleveland's rapid transit system will languish until its use and development gets updated.

 

Cleveland's rail network needs to be singled-out as the worst designed and routed system.  None of the cities stated would build a rail system based on Cleveland's and would, therefore, have higher ridership. 

 

So, in your opinion, would Cleveland be better off without the Rapid?  You've said as much several times.

 

Cleveland's rail system, especially the light-rail, needs to be tweaked/extended to maximize its use and development potential.  I only mentioned the east side Red Line due to the much better service and access the HealthLine provides.  Too bad the Euclid Avenue corridor couldn't have had a light-rail line connected to a larger light-rail system.  Cleveland's light-rail is not used enough because it's not accessible and has a very limited route.  The Red Line has better potential since it spans the east and west sides with a direct connection to the airport.  However, its route as well is out of the way for the most part and runs through now low-densely populated areas.

 

Cleveland leaders are to blame for the past, resulting in the current transit issues.

 

Population and employment growth both in the city and region will increase the odds of higher ridership in its current configuration and increase the odds of extension potential.  Creating a convention business downtown as a complement to the IX Center could creat a dual hub for visitors and conventioneers to transport from downtown hotels out to the IX Center and vice-versa.  The IX Center was supposed to create a hotel demand in and around the airport/Brookpart Road.  A Red Line spur would have helped.

 

Cleveland's rapid transit system will languish until its use and development gets updated.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I would just put things into perspective.

 

Cleveland has done quite well with mass transit, even though we're frustrated that service is shrinking,  trains are falling apart and patronage is below what it should be....  No American city of Cleveland's medium size and low/moderate density has built, or is building, subways through core neighborhoods.  (if you look at the Cleveland-commissioned subway study of 1918 -- the one that recommended streetcar subway loops under Public Square -- even though Cleveland was in a boom period heading toward it's greatest in-city size as the nation's 6th largest city, it still had moderate, uneven density with largely wood-frame, individual housing that planners had to cope with).  Cleveland, historically, was not a well zoned or planned city.  Railroad lines splayed all over the city; factories sprung up along these rail lines (which, as we know, both killed off Millionaire's Row and ruined our eastern shoreline for residential uses) and neighborhoods sprung up around these factories, where employees could walk to work.  Early subway planners noted this made Cleveland a-typical in terms of planning trunk-line subways -- hence, they recommended the short subway loops, ... to be extended and upgraded to HRT at a later time...

 

Even Denver, which I greatly admire, is building over 100 miles of electrified LRT and HRT commuter rail, but isn't building any subways -- it's entire network is at surface, within freeway medians or, like Cleveland, extensively along freight RR ROWs  (Denver is exploiting RR ROW's like we should be doing despite our nearly 100-year head start). 

 

Baltimore, which is somewhat like Cleveland, has one HRT subway route.  But Baltimore's an old, Eastern row-house city that's denser than Cleveland (7,671/sq mi vs. 5107/sq mi). 

 

Buffalo is the one city that's slightly smaller than Cleveland, and with a Cleveland-type density, that actually DID build an LRT subway up it's main artery (literally under Main Street), but Buffalo's LRT weirdly surfaces at the edge of downtown and runs in city streets through downtown.  Also Buffalo's  1 LRT line is the only one they've built after over 30 years. 

 

I would like Cleveland to be doing more given that it was a pioneer in light rail and even heavy rail, for mid-sized, moderate/light density cities.  Unfortunately the United States is a very conservative country when it comes to publicly funding mass transit and, quite obviously, Cleveland is in an extremely conservative/backwards state in this regard.  If this were Cleveland, Ontario, Canada, things would be much better...

 

Cleveland's rail network needs to be singled-out as the worst designed and routed system.  None of the cities stated would build a rail system based on Cleveland's and would, therefore, have higher ridership. 

 

So, in your opinion, would Cleveland be better off without the Rapid?  You've said as much several times.

 

Cleveland's rail system, especially the light-rail, needs to be tweaked/extended to maximize its use and development potential.  I only mentioned the east side Red Line due to the much better service and access the HealthLine provides.  Too bad the Euclid Avenue corridor couldn't have had a light-rail line connected to a larger light-rail system.  Cleveland's light-rail is not used enough because it's not accessible and has a very limited route.  The Red Line has better potential since it spans the east and west sides with a direct connection to the airport.  However, its route as well is out of the way for the most part and runs through now low-densely populated areas.

 

Cleveland leaders are to blame for the past, resulting in the current transit issues.

 

Population and employment growth both in the city and region will increase the odds of higher ridership in its current configuration and increase the odds of extension potential.  Creating a convention business downtown as a complement to the IX Center could creat a dual hub for visitors and conventioneers to transport from downtown hotels out to the IX Center and vice-versa.  The IX Center was supposed to create a hotel demand in and around the airport/Brookpart Road.  A Red Line spur would have helped.

 

Cleveland's rapid transit system will languish until its use and development gets updated.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I would just put things into perspective.

 

Cleveland has done quite well with mass transit, even though we're frustrated that service is shrinking,  trains are falling apart and patronage is below what it should be....  No American city of Cleveland's medium size and low/moderate density has built, or is building, subways through core neighborhoods.  (if you look at the Cleveland-commissioned subway study of 1918 -- the one that recommended streetcar subway loops under Public Square -- even though Cleveland was in a boom period heading toward it's greatest in-city size as the nation's 6th largest city, it still had moderate, uneven density with largely wood-frame, individual housing that planners had to cope with).  Cleveland, historically, was not a well zoned or planned city.  Railroad lines splayed all over the city; factories sprung up along these rail lines (which, as we know, both killed off Millionaire's Row and ruined our eastern shoreline for residential uses) and neighborhoods sprung up around these factories, where employees could walk to work.  Early subway planners noted this made Cleveland a-typical in terms of planning trunk-line subways -- hence, they recommended the short subway loops, ... to be extended and upgraded to HRT at a later time...

 

Even Denver, which I greatly admire, is building over 100 miles of electrified LRT and HRT commuter rail, but isn't building any subways -- it's entire network is at surface, within freeway medians or, like Cleveland, extensively along freight RR ROWs  (Denver is exploiting RR ROW's like we should be doing despite our nearly 100-year head start). 

 

Baltimore, which is somewhat like Cleveland, has one HRT subway route.  But Baltimore's an old, Eastern row-house city that's denser than Cleveland (7,671/sq mi vs. 5107/sq mi). 

 

Buffalo is the one city that's slightly smaller than Cleveland, and with a Cleveland-type density, that actually DID build an LRT subway up it's main artery (literally under Main Street), but Buffalo's LRT weirdly surfaces at the edge of downtown and runs in city streets through downtown.  Also Buffalo's  1 LRT line is the only one they've built after over 30 years. 

 

I would like Cleveland to be doing more given that it was a pioneer in light rail and even heavy rail, for mid-sized, moderate/light density cities.  Unfortunately the United States is a very conservative country when it comes to publicly funding mass transit and, quite obviously, Cleveland is in an extremely conservative/backwards state in this regard.  If this were Cleveland, Ontario, Canada, things would be much better...

No one mentioned building a subway in Cleveland and we all know what should have and could have been in Cleveland's transit history. 

 

Given the statements in your last paragraph indeed, things don't look good transit-wise in Cleveland.  Cleveland needs population and employment growth.

 

Cleveland was densely populated when its rapid transit system was built and now it is not.  This is the reason, along with an employment decline, ridership has dwindled (pretty much commiserate with Cleveland's 60% population decline) and weekend bar hopping riders will not save it.  The lakefront pedestrian bridge will pretty much eliminate any need for the WFL from TC to the lakefront.  If one is staying at the Hyatt Arcade, why would you schlepp to the bowels of TC, pay up to $5.00/rt for one ticket, and ride to the lakefront when walking is free and much quicker?

 

Btw, Buffalo has a higher daily ridership on its light-rail line than Cleveland's 3 lines.  Buffalo is not the best comparison with Cleveland since there are many more people living around Cleveland than Buffalo.

No one mentioned building a subway in Cleveland and we all know what should have and could have been in Cleveland's transit history. 

 

Actually, you implied as much earlier in stating that the east Red Line is superfluous since we have the HL.  The HL is the cheap version of the up-the-gut rapid transit line, principally a subway, that was being discussed.

 

This is the reason, along with an employment decline, ridership has dwindled (pretty much commiserate with Cleveland's 60% population decline) and weekend bar hopping riders will not save it. 

Cleveland was densely populated when its rapid transit system was built and now it is not.  This is the reason, along with an employment decline, ridership has dwindled (pretty much commiserate with Cleveland's 60% population decline) and weekend bar hopping riders will not save it. 

 

Yes, Cleveland had about 11,500/sq mi in 1950... The Shaker Rapid was, then, over 35 years old.  The Red Line was just starting construction.  Employment decline and suburbanization along freeway freeway routes certainly fueled Cleveland's population decline.  No one is saying bar hopping will "save" ridership, but I specifically noted one tiny subset of this and you ran with it: that people did use the WFL when FLATS BARS were jammed ON WEEKEND NIGHTS and there was LIMITED PARKING along the East Bank.  There's no reason to believe this won't happen again, once the new FEB grows into Phase III and parking options, once again, become limited.

 

  The lakefront pedestrian bridge will pretty much eliminate any need for the WFL from TC to the lakefront.  If one is staying at the Hyatt Arcade, why would you schlepp to the bowels of TC, pay up to $5.00/rt for one ticket, and ride to the lakefront when walking is free and much quicker?

 

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the main potential WFL ridership is people coming in from the outer rail system and riding the WFL to waterfront destinations, NOT people using it to move about downtown.  There are/can be instances where the latter could be practical, but that's not the main advantage of the WFL, largely because downtown is so compact.  The stiff hills into/out of the Flats can make the WFL advantageous to some people, though.

 

Btw, Buffalo has a higher daily ridership on its light-rail line than Cleveland's 3 lines.

 

Not true.  Buffalo's daily LRT ridership is 15,700.  While Cleveland's RTA doesn't post daily numbers, the best estimate from multiple sources, including the APTA which doesn't have RTA daily numbers either, is about 22-27,000 daily on the Red Line, and 10-12,000 on the Blue/Green lines.  This means the Red Line alone carries more than Buffalo's NFTA rail line.

 

Buffalo is not the best comparison with Cleveland since there are many more people living around Cleveland than Buffalo.

 

My point was that Buffalo compares better in the one aspect I mentioned in that they did build an up-the-gut subway line and we haven't and, yet, they are smaller.  You missed the point.

No one mentioned building a subway in Cleveland and we all know what should have and could have been in Cleveland's transit history. 

 

Actually, you implied as much earlier in stating that the east Red Line is superfluous since we have the HL.  The HL is the cheap version of the up-the-gut rapid transit line, principally a subway, that was being discussed.

 

This is the reason, along with an employment decline, ridership has dwindled (pretty much commiserate with Cleveland's 60% population decline) and weekend bar hopping riders will not save it. 

Cleveland was densely populated when its rapid transit system was built and now it is not.  This is the reason, along with an employment decline, ridership has dwindled (pretty much commiserate with Cleveland's 60% population decline) and weekend bar hopping riders will not save it. 

 

Yes, Cleveland had about 11,500/sq mi in 1950... The Shaker Rapid was, then, over 35 years old.  The Red Line was just starting construction.  Employment decline and suburbanization along freeway freeway routes certainly fueled Cleveland's population decline.  No one is saying bar hopping will "save" ridership, but I specifically noted one tiny subset of this and you ran with it: that people did use the WFL when FLATS BARS were jammed ON WEEKEND NIGHTS and there was LIMITED PARKING along the East Bank.  There's no reason to believe this won't happen again, once the new FEB grows into Phase III and parking options, once again, become limited.

 

  The lakefront pedestrian bridge will pretty much eliminate any need for the WFL from TC to the lakefront.  If one is staying at the Hyatt Arcade, why would you schlepp to the bowels of TC, pay up to $5.00/rt for one ticket, and ride to the lakefront when walking is free and much quicker?

 

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the main potential WFL ridership is people coming in from the outer rail system and riding the WFL to waterfront destinations, NOT people using it to move about downtown.  There are/can be instances where the latter could be practical, but that's not the main advantage of the WFL, largely because downtown is so compact.  The stiff hills into/out of the Flats can make the WFL advantageous to some people, though.

 

Btw, Buffalo has a higher daily ridership on its light-rail line than Cleveland's 3 lines.

 

Not true.  Buffalo's daily LRT ridership is 15,700.  While Cleveland's RTA doesn't post daily numbers, the best estimate from multiple sources, including the APTA which doesn't have RTA daily numbers either, is about 22-27,000 daily on the Red Line, and 10-12,000 on the Blue/Green lines.  This means the Red Line alone carries more than Buffalo's NFTA rail line.

 

Buffalo is not the best comparison with Cleveland since there are many more people living around Cleveland than Buffalo.

 

My point was that Buffalo compares better in the one aspect I mentioned in that they did build an up-the-gut subway line and we haven't and, yet, they are smaller.  You missed the point.

 

I would have stated subway; not imply it.  The HealthLine does do more than the Red Line, namely because it has passengers.

 

The tiny bar hopping segment is just one component in the WFL's tiny ridership.

 

The FEB may again turn the WFL into a bar hoppers delight however a major difference with the old and the new Flats is the clientele is a bit more upscale more and not as likely to park at West Park at 8:00pm (ladies make sure you have your mace), wait while avoiding the pigeon poop at the same time being leery of the others waiting for the train , ride the Red Line to TC, transfer to WFL, wait and ride.  It's difficult to admit to something that isn't happening with the feeder traffic into the WFL.  Then reverse this after cocktails and a night out at 1:00am.  Sounds so convenient.

 

The FEB may again turn the WFL into a bar hoppers delight however a major difference with the old and the new Flats is the clientele is a bit more upscale more and not as likely to park at West Park at 8:00pm (ladies make sure you have your mace), wait while avoiding the pigeon poop at the same time being leery of the others waiting for the train , ride the Red Line to TC, transfer to WFL, wait and ride.  It's difficult to admit to something that isn't happening with the feeder traffic into the WFL.  Then reverse this after cocktails and a night out at 1:00am.  Sounds so convenient.

 

Stereotyping mass transit, eh?  Nice.

 

The FEB may again turn the WFL into a bar hoppers delight however a major difference with the old and the new Flats is the clientele is a bit more upscale more and not as likely to park at West Park at 8:00pm (ladies make sure you have your mace), wait while avoiding the pigeon poop at the same time being leery of the others waiting for the train , ride the Red Line to TC, transfer to WFL, wait and ride.  It's difficult to admit to something that isn't happening with the feeder traffic into the WFL.  Then reverse this after cocktails and a night out at 1:00am.  Sounds so convenient.

 

Stereotyping mass transit, eh?  Nice.

 

What you call stereotyping, I call using Cleveland's West Park Red Line station.

boy talking about the past on an ideas for the future thread is rough, ha.

 

i cant believe the shoreway re-do doesn't contain rail or a healthline type brt. or at least will be set up to add that in someday. that one seems like a lot of positive bang for the buck. head to lakewood and hop on and off at the beach?

 

also, the local supporters of the aerial tram in cle are ahead of the game as thoughts and plans of that style of transport are really picking up in popularity lately elsewhere, like more in nyc and in new places like toronto. who would have thought this would grow into serious discussions and actions. in fact i think lagos in nigeria is now instituting aerial trams in that big city:

http://ropewaystransport.com/index.php/en/?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&catidddd=122

http://gondolaproject.com/2013/04/11/lagos-cable-car-infographic-and-interview/

 

boy talking about the past on an ideas for the future thread is rough, ha.

 

i cant believe the shoreway re-do doesn't contain rail or a healthline type brt. or at least will be set up to add that in someday. that one seems like a lot of positive bang for the buck. head to lakewood and hop on and off at the beach?

 

also, the local supporters of the aerial tram in cle are ahead of the game as thoughts and plans of that style of transport are really picking up in popularity lately elsewhere, like more in nyc and in new places like toronto. who would have thought this would grow into serious discussions and actions. in fact i think lagos in nigeria is now instituting aerial trams in that big city:

http://ropewaystransport.com/index.php/en/?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&catidddd=122

http://gondolaproject.com/2013/04/11/lagos-cable-car-infographic-and-interview/

 

Not sure what the reference is to the past but the future should include light-rail extension along Detroit Avenue, providing, among other things, access to the lakefront. 

^I believe a line along Detroit should originate in Tower City; jog over to the Detroit-Superior subway deck utilizing the still existing subway station at W. 25.  Then surfacing on Detroit heading westbound to Lake Av and to the beach.

I love this Detroit Ave idea, but I would send it straight through Lakewood to downtown Rocky River.

I love this Detroit Ave idea, but I would send it straight through Lakewood to downtown Rocky River.

 

Dense population.  Other transit connections.  Heavily traveled bus route and commuter car route.  All the makings of a great transit line.  Which means RTA and our backwards state won't touch it.

I love this Detroit Ave idea, but I would send it straight through Lakewood to downtown Rocky River.

 

Eventually or with an initial Detroit extension.  Guessing that Lakewood would be more receptive to a rail line than Rocky River.  Route to the tracks cutting through Lakewood now.

 

I would also loop a line south at 65th Street, hit the 65th/Madison Red Line station, east on Lorain, W 25th Red Line, over the Hope Memorial to E 9th Street and back east along the existing Green/Blue line.

 

Dust-off the old CTS plans for developing a station at W 44th Street.  This would bring a growing lakefront population south of Lorain Avenue.

 

Cleveland's west side lakefront, at least for now, has major high-density population potential.  The population will come back to Cleveland west side between the lakefront to Lorain Avenue, at least up to w 65th Street as Madison Avenue will then become the southern border. 

 

Why not service the area with an extension of the existing light-rail lines?  This would be a nice start to Cleveland's transit, all premised, of course, on attracting employed and tax paying citizens.  New jobs=new people.

 

 

Agreed, the west side is ripe for new southbound rail to spur growth.  It's a pity we aren't putting high-density developments along the western lakefront.  But there's a slope to the south, so there's no limit to the lake views we can sell if we build upward.  Bringing this area into the rail system would help.  Not much abandonment in the Clark-Fulton part of town, lots going on actually.  Some targeted investment there could go a long way.

"Unfortunately" I will be in Chicago that day. But I wanted to make sure you all are aware of the public meeting on June 1 about the update of the region's long range transportation plan. Here are the details:

 

http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=32&recordid=8516&returnURL=%2findex.aspx

 

This is the first of a number of meetings NOACA will have in the coming months. The update of the long range plan is an important opportunity to set new priorities and influence the spending of $10 billion of transportation funds in the coming years.

 

For example, NOACA could adopt new performance measures that would emphasize community health and sustainable transportation modes rather than level of service for cars. Here are some good ideas for alternative performance measures: 

 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/sustainable_transpo_performance.pdf

 

And there could be a much greater focus on equity and environmental justice. Here are good perspectives on that:

 

http://www.equitycaucus.org/home

 

I hope you will get involved and voice your concerns about the need for a more sustainable and equitable transportation system

 

Thanks!

Commuting, visualized. Check it out for Cuyahoga & surrounding counties.

 

http://bigbytes.mobyus.com/commute.aspx

Looks like something that NE Ohio counties should be doing!! SEMCOG is SE Michigan's version of NOACA....

_____

 

June 29, 2016

Contact: SEMCOG Information Center, 313-324-3330

 

SEMCOG invites public comment on the

FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program adoption and

2040 Regional Transportation Plan amendment

 

SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, announces the public comment period for FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a list of specific projects selected from the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan (RTP) for implementation by cities, villages, county road agencies, transit providers, and the Michigan Department of Transportation over a four-year period.

 

Background

The TIP is a scheduling document used to implement the goals, objectives, and projects found in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan (RTP). Action to approve the new TIP will authorize the receipt of federal funds for project development. Action to amend the RTP will align the TIP with the RTP and maintain the fiscal constraint of the RTP.

 

The proposed FY 2017-2020 TIP contains over 300 projects. Estimated expenditures for projects being programmed total $4.41 billion, representing $2.44 billion in federal, $707.7 million in state, and $1.26 billion in local/other funding (including over $500 million from Canada).

 

The proposed FY 2017-2020 TIP includes a variety of projects, including safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), transit, pavement, bridge, and capacity expansion projects.

 

SEMCOG published a call for projects to amend the FY 2014-2017 TIP to help align old and new TIP versions across FY 2017, which is shared in common by the two versions of the TIP. After reviewing the projects received from this call to amend the FY 2014-2017 TIP, SEMCOG determined that all projects proposed for amendment would be covered by the proposed FY 2017-2020 TIP adoption and administrative action.

 

Amendment evaluations

The adoption requires all proposed projects undergo a series of evaluations, including identification of financial resources, an air quality conformity review, an environmental justice analysis, and a public comment process.

 

Project details and evaluation results are available online or by contacting SEMCOG’s Information Center at 313-324-3330.

 

Coverage of this notice

SEMCOG public notices of public involvement activities for Southeast Michigan’s TIP satisfy public participation requirements for the Section 5307 Program of Projects of public transit agencies receiving federal funding in the SEMCOG region.

 

How to comment

Please address written comments to SEMCOG Information Center, 1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400, Detroit, MI 48226; send faxes to 313-961-4869; call 313-324-3330, or e-mail [email protected]. Comments can also be made in person at the following meetings where amendments will be considered:

 

Transportation Coordinating Council, Thursday, July 21, 2016, 9:30 a.m., SEMCOG offices – Present and discuss actions, and recommend Executive Committee approval; and

Executive Committee, Thursday, July 28, 2016, 1 p.m., SEMCOG offices – Discuss TIP adoption and RTP amendment and take final action to approve.

-##-

^Doesn't NOACA do this same thing? http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=73

^Doesn't NOACA do this same thing? http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=73

 

They do (as does everyone MPO), but the devil is in the details of SEMCOG's plan.

 

EDIT: actually, this the web page that persons should be visiting: http://www.noaca.org/index.aspx?page=6479

 

Note the upcoming public input meetings on July 13 and July 27. Let NOACA know what SE Michigan is doing, how they're connecting their mulit-county region with trains and transit, and that NE Ohio should be doing the same to give our labor force more access to distant jobs in a more timely manner. Right now, only one in four jobs in NE Ohio are accessible by public transit. If we're serious about addressing poverty, then we need to do a better job at bringing more people to jobs AND bringing the jobs closer to more people.

REMINDER:

 

A Framework for Action - History of Transportation Planning in the NOACA Region lunch meeting, Wednesday, July 13, 12 noon - 1:30 p.m. Location: NOACA's office, 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114.

 

Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2040 Community and Social Impacts Meeting, Wednesday, July 27, 6 - 7:30 p.m. Location: NOACA's office.

 

LRTP 2040 Business and Economic Impacts Meeting, Wednesday, August 31, 6 - 7:30 p.m. Location: NOACA's office.

 

LRTP 2040 - A 20-year Vision for Transportation, Tuesday, September 20, 6 - 7:30 p.m. Location to be determined.

There has been some chatter lately of raising Cleveland's very low surface parking tax rate and using the revenues to support public transportation. Cleveland's rate is currently an 8% gross receipts tax and raises only about $15 million per year. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a 50% gross receipts tax. If Cleveland levied an amount comparable to Pittsburgh's, it could generate about $94 million per year. That amount would be sufficient for RTA to reverse recent cuts and fare hikes, and avoid more catastrophic cuts next year. In fact, it would be enough for RTA to expand some services and address most if not all of its current state-of-good-repair backlog (including a new railcar fleet).

 

City Council could increase the parking tax without a public vote. The funds could be used to directly support transit services, or in keeping with a land use related tax, it could be directed to support transit-oriented developments such as grants for cleaning up polluted properties within 1,500 feet of  high-frequency transit routes and/or providing low-interest loans to private developers seeking to provide affordable housing and jobs within 1,500 feet of high-frequency transit lines.

 

In order for the city to then support the expansion of transit services, the city could establish corridor-based TIF districts to then provide a steady stream of operating funding for select transit routes. If the surface parking tax succeeds, there will actually be less tax revenue from it as time goes on.

 

EDIT: you'll notice that Cleveland has one of the lowest parking tax rates among cities surveyed...

http://www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf

They could triple it, have less than half Pittsburgh's, and still make a killing.  It's also a green policy because of water runoff.  They're already talking about more income tax, why not this?  Unlike income tax, you can avoid a parking tax by using transit. 

I think this would be the best route to take. I don't see the state stepping up their game for transit anytime ever, and I don't think the voters would stomach a general sales tax increase after the increase for the Convention Center. Also, it would help rectify this perceived problem of the city/county subsidizing suburbanites and visitors from out of county since they tend to be the primary users of downtown parking.

Would the tax have to be countywide, to fund RTA?

 

The lot owners and operators would be opposed even though they would pass it directly on.  Not a bad idea.

Would the tax have to be countywide, to fund RTA?

 

The lot owners and operators would be opposed even though they would pass it directly on.  Not a bad idea.

 

I don't think it would have to be countywide, but I wouldn't expect the resulting benefits (ie expanded service) to be countywide. If the city of Cleveland pays extra tax to support GCRTA, I would expect its elected leaders to demand more service in Cleveland.

As NOACA begins its public meetings for its new long-range transportation plan, let's take a look back in history.

 

Here is a summary of Cleveland's first major long-range plan from 1969. It was developed by NOACA's predecessor, SCOTS.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B16RJdSArUFaWWNDSkc2UlFxa0E/view

 

 

SCOTS became part of NOACA in 1969, and then NOACA adopted a 1985 focused plan in 1974.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B16RJdSArUFaSjhTdW9QZFl1RUE/view

 

 

You'll notice transit expansion was a big part of the plans, and unfortunately that is the part that did not come to fruition.

Good info TPH2.  ... It's instructive to note that, of the recommended rail transit extensions from 1980 (many of which had been on planners' radar for decades before then), not one inch of them was ever built.  What does that tell you?

On politically tricky transit projects, many cities let voters weigh in

 

Cities nationwide have crafted and acted on ambitious blueprints for light-rail and other forms of mass transit, but unlike the Twin Cities, many of them have asked their voters whether they want higher taxes to help pay for it.

 

Ballot initiatives “give local officials the ability to turn a tricky political decision over to the voters,” said Jason Jordan, executive director of the Center for Transportation Excellence, a Washington, D.C., group that tracks transit spending. Since 2000, transportation initiatives have been on the ballot in 41 states, with an average of 71 percent passing.

 

 

A referendum of this sort has not been considered in Minnesota because the Legislature would have to authorize it. And, since efforts to pass a half-cent metro sales tax for transportation were thwarted by light-rail-averse Republicans last spring, that seems unlikely.

 

http://m.startribune.com/on-politically-tricky-transit-projects-many-cities-let-voters-weigh-in/386224721/

Cleveland transit plan-KJP-2035 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Cleveland transit plan-downtown-KJP-2035 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Cleveland 2035 transit & redevelopment plan

 

PURPOSE AND NEED: To reduce the region's per-capita transportation costs which exceed the national average (SOURCE: CNT), improve access to available urban and suburban jobs of which fewer than 20 percent are within a 90-minute transit trip (SOURCE: Brookings), to provide non-highway alternatives to specific congested roadways, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support transit-oriented development opportunities.

 

To serve the above purpose and need, the following improvements and expansions are proposed:

 

By 2025, replace and expand existing, aging rail fleet with standardized electric and dual-mode (DMU: electric-diesel) fleet = $400 million

 

By 2025, eliminate GCRTA's state of good repair backlog = $300 million

 

RAPID+ EXTENSIONS (DMU, FRA compliant, freight-rail segregated)

Westlake/Crocker-West Boulevard -- 12.3 miles -- CAPITAL $200 million (RE: Austin MetroRail + NS ROW acquisition + Red Line interlocking) -- OPERATING $20 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak)

Solon/SOM-Warrensville -- 8.5 miles -- CAPITAL $220 million (RE: GCRTA Blue Line/Northfield + Austin MetroRail) -- OPERATING $17.5 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak)

Tower City-Cuyahoga Valley shuttle -- 9.5 miles -- CAPITAL $100 million (RE: CVSR + inflation) -- OPERATING $5 million/yr. (assumes operation of hourly shuttle trains Tower City-Rockside)

 

LIGHT-RAIL EXTENSIONS

Richmond-Green Line extension -- 1 mile -- CAPITAL $50 million (RE: Blue Line Ext study) -- OPERATING $2.2 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak)

Shaker Sq-Playhouse Sq Blue Line -- 6 miles -- CAPITAL $350 million (RE: Blue Line Ext study) -- OPERATING $6 million/yr. (assumes 7.5 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak)

Downtown loop - 3 miles -- CAPITAL $550 million (RE: Dual Hub/Waterfront II studies) -- OPERATION $6 million/yr. (assumes 3 minutes peak, 7.5 minutes off-peak)

 

HEAVY-RAIL EXTENSION

Euclid Red Line extension -- 6.5 miles -- CAPITAL $917 million (RE: Red Line Ext study) -- OPERATING $12 million/yr. (assumes 7.5 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak)

 

BUSWAYS

I-271/I-480/Crocker Busway -- 50 miles -- CAPITAL $250 million (RE: Healthline project) -- OPERATING $15 million/yr. (assumes 15-minute all-day headways)

 

Rapid and Rapid+ rail system increases from 37 miles to 84 miles

 

TOTAL CAPITAL $3.337 billion

 

 

Assumed:

Half of state of good repair needs to paid for by federal government (or $350 million)

40% of Red Line Euclid extension to be paid for by federal govt (or $367 million)

40% of Downtown loop to be paid for by the federal government (or $220 million)

40% of Rapid+ extensions to be paid for by the federal govt (or $208 million)

50% of I-271/I-480/Crocker busway to paid for by the federal/state govts (or $125 million)

TOTAL NON-LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS $1.27 billion

 

Leaves $2.1 billion to be locally financed

 

A 20-year, $2.1 billion bond issue at 2.5% would require about $135 million per year

 

TOTAL NEW OPERATING COST $72 million per year

 

Annual Clear-N-Clean land prep program for station-area development: $20 million per year

 

TOTAL FINANCIAL NEEDS ARE ABOUT $227 MILLION PER YEAR

_________

 

PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES

 

A half-cent county-wide sales tax for transit capital would generate about $90 million per year

Frees $35 million/yr from the existing RTA sales tax for operations

A 50 percent citywide parking tax would generate about $80 million per year

The current sin tax that is about to expire generates about $25 million per year

 

TOTAL REVENUES FROM THESE SOURCES ARE ABOUT $230 million per year

 

 

ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SOURCES COULD COME FROM:

Replacing park-n-ride bus routes (GCRTA) with rail extensions could save $2 million to $4 million per year

Tax Increment Financing & Transportation Improvement Districts could provide additional millions per year

Advertising, sponsorships and other revenues could provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

 

END