Transit debate redirected from the Public Square construction thread.....

 

Public Square should have been designed as one park, no bus lane through it.  The ring of steel around the Square now doesn't seem to be that bad but the bottom line is that Public Square should no longer be the city's bus depot.  This will create short term issues for the new Public Square.

 

Why shouldn't it? It's been the transit hub since the 1850s. With it being the hub of streets, it's a natural transit hub too. So why is that suddenly bad? All public realms in this city belong to everyone.

 

With the goal of making Public Square more inviting, leaving it as the bus-hub kind of holds it back from those goals. We can't deny that the bus stops have been an underlying cause of unpleasant situations or public disturbances that have given Public Square its reputation. Just because it's been the hub through time doesn't mean it cannot change. Times Square is a hub of streets, but it isn't NYC's bus hub. It's more focused on visitors' experience and the aesthetics, which makes it enjoyable. Moving the hub away from the square would just make the "new" Public Square more enjoyable and more comfortable for those who want to enjoy it peacefully.

 

Times Square was never THE transit hub of NYC. We can argue whether it was a transit hub at all.

 

Let's be honest what moving transit off Public Square is all about. It's about shoving poor people and minorities into dark corners of the city where we can forget about them in furtherance of desires to create a caste system for America where different classes no longer mix.

 

 

Well it's about time. Get them off the square. Next, apply this to tower city and then we really got something.

 

 

Opinion as someone who used to own a store in Tower City.

 

*side note* sorry to quote from so far back up thread

 

Tower City, Cleveland's original TOD.  Frome Gucci to Hootchie. I knew a store owner in the Arcade so I can imagine what you dealt with in TC. 

I love people who blame Tower City's failed existence on a certain group of people. The problem is that malls in urban areas had a very short lived life EVERYWHERE, not just in Cleveland. They don't work. Our retail landscape changed dramatically from the 90s until now. Pretending you can pin the problem on "minorities" or "those in poverty" is laughable at best. The problem is that it was a model that was almost immediately dated after completion and has only further separated itself from how people shop in the years following its opening.

I love people who blame Tower City's failed existence on a certain group of people. The problem is that malls in urban areas had a very short lived life EVERYWHERE, not just in Cleveland. They don't work. Our retail landscape changed dramatically from the 90s until now. Pretending you can pin the problem on "minorities" or "those in poverty" is laughable at best. The problem is that it was a model that was almost immediately dated after completion and has only further separated itself from how people shop in the years following its opening.

 

Not every urban mall was a failure.  Also, Tower City tanked by the late '90s, it wasn't due to recent changes in taste.

 

Why isn't there any retail in downtown Cleveland then?  Not just TC or Galleria but in general, there is no retail downtown or in the city generally.  Could it be demographics and Cleveland's high poverty rates?

 

To say that certain classes of people, in a city like Cleveland, didn't have a part in Tower City's decline is naïve as well.  The whole concept of a luxury mall in downtown Cleveland in 1990 as a complement to Galleria (1986) was misplaced.

 

That said, however, with the increasing residential population of downtown Cleveland, there is hope that a revival in Tower City along with retail in general for downtown.

I thought the downtown ambassadors have done a pretty good job of cleaning up Public Square (until construction). I remember what a unkempt mess it was before the ambassadors.

 

The downtown ambassadors have done a great job in PS and downtown generally.

I love people who blame Tower City's failed existence on a certain group of people. The problem is that malls in urban areas had a very short lived life EVERYWHERE, not just in Cleveland. They don't work. Our retail landscape changed dramatically from the 90s until now. Pretending you can pin the problem on "minorities" or "those in poverty" is laughable at best. The problem is that it was a model that was almost immediately dated after completion and has only further separated itself from how people shop in the years following its opening.

 

Well, when your city customer base has the highest rates of poverty in the U.S. and your downtown office work force is declining, and you open a high-end luxury mall in the center of this, the minorities and those in poverty certainly couldn't afford this place.  So they do have a hand in it. 

 

As far as urban malls go, Tower City is one the best designed and has stood the test of of time (26 years).  It's still open and the Ritz-Carlton is still there so with the professional residential population of downtown Cleveland surging, there's still hope for TC.  It's a cool place, let's reinvent it so everyone can use it.

let's reinvent it so everyone can use it.

 

That's not what you are advocating.

let's reinvent it so everyone can use it.

 

That's not what you are advocating.

 

OK Amrap.  Coming from the segregated land of Amrap, you shouldn't throw rocks.

let's reinvent it so everyone can use it.

 

That's not what you are advocating.

 

OK Amrap.  Coming from the segregated land of Amrap, you shouldn't throw rocks.

 

1. I didn't throw any and you are assuming I'm white. I don't equate bus transit with minorities and homeless.

2. Are the mods asleep? If MTS was talking like this (which he never would) this thread would be locked.

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the project. No one is saying that the rail extension would trail development. In fact, it was proposed as a joint transportation/land use development. Real estate experts from around the country were brought in and said that if the Red Line was extended, tied in with a multi-city redevelopment plan including land assembly, site clean-up funding and targeted infrastructure modernization, it would be a strong district of industrial zones, innovation districts and mixed-use TODs.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

I just wish we could act now before we allow the bones of a large urban corridor to rot away.

 

Well this is a very good argument, but is 90% of Cuyahoga's pop loss in this area? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the worst, but I also know a lot of it was stable until recently. Everything between the lake and Mayfield has really changed, but it's not unique in that regard. I think another area that has especially fallen is the W. 25th corridor, even as 5 blocks of it have become the hottest neighborhood in town.

 

I think we have to triage in some places and build partnerships in others. If we don't triage the northeast side, which I know we'd all hate to see, then we need to build partnerships. My main point was just that I really want to see Lake County step up to the plate here, because if they don't stop the bomb going off on the northeast side, pretty soon (30 years of destabilization) all of Lake County will look like a bad mix of Euclid and Painesville (even Willoughby).

That's not a terrible idea actually.  Good road and rail networks are not mutually exclusive.  Plenty of cities have both.  Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both have full-blown freeways connecting their downtown and uptown areas.  Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Lack of transit support is an independent problem.  Development around any road or rail line will be influenced primarily by planning and zoning.  If those policies demand sprawl, that's what we'll get.

 

What is the egregious sprawl-type development in Hough?

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the project. No one is saying that the rail extension would trail development. In fact, it was proposed as a joint transportation/land use development. Real estate experts from around the country were brought in and said that if the Red Line was extended, tied in with a multi-city redevelopment plan including land assembly, site clean-up funding and targeted infrastructure modernization, it would be a strong district of industrial zones, innovation districts and mixed-use TODs.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

I just wish we could act now before we allow the bones of a large urban corridor to rot away.

 

Were any of companies along the route specifically asked about their thougths on the project?  I wonder what Lincoln Electric's position would be. 

Besides hundreds of people working at the terminus of the line, they are breaking ground on a large training facility / welding school there.  A Red Line extension would benefit both.

If a large employer were behind a project, a lot of political people would be more vocal in support.  Of course, the flip side is true as well

That's not a terrible idea actually.  Good road and rail networks are not mutually exclusive.  Plenty of cities have both.  Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both have full-blown freeways connecting their downtown and uptown areas.  Meanwhile, Cleveland is seeing the most egregious sprawl-type development in areas like Hough that are nowhere near any freeway.

 

Lack of transit support is an independent problem.  Development around any road or rail line will be influenced primarily by planning and zoning.  If those policies demand sprawl, that's what we'll get.

 

What is the egregious sprawl-type development in Hough?

 

He replied in the "suburban sprawl" thread....

Were any of companies along the route specifically asked about their thougths on the project?  I wonder what Lincoln Electric's position would be. 

Besides hundreds of people working at the terminus of the line, they are breaking ground on a large training facility / welding school there.  A Red Line extension would benefit both.

If a large employer were behind a project, a lot of political people would be more vocal in support.  Of course, the flip side is true as well

 

I asked that question at the public meeting in Collinwood. The answer is that GCRTA gave a presentation to a committee of one of the civic groups, like the Greater Cleveland Partnership, which included representatives of the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals and a few other stakeholders along the route. But none of the stakeholders' were individually approached. It sounds like GCRTA did just enough to claim they tried.

...It sounds like GCRTA did just enough to claim they tried.

 

What else is new?

 

I asked that question at the public meeting in Collinwood. The answer is that GCRTA gave a presentation to a committee of one of the civic groups, like the Greater Cleveland Partnership, which included representatives of the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals and a few other stakeholders along the route. But none of the stakeholders' were individually approached. It sounds like GCRTA did just enough to claim they tried.

 

And people wonder why I distrust Joe Calabrese when it comes to rail transit in this town.

Except their lack of reaching out to individual stakeholders wasn't to stop a rail project. GCRTA hasn't adopted a locally preferred alternative, not even the no-build option. There was a spirited debate at GCRTA on what LPA to select, or even if one should be selected. The wait-to-select contingent won out, arguing that GCRTA should campaign for the funding for BRT, rail or a hybrid combination of the two.

 

However it won't be able to get funding for anything if it doesn't ask for help from stakeholders in making the case to elected officials. That's not because GCRTA is trying to kill the project. It's because that's how Joe C. does things. He'd rather make the case to elected officials himself, which he sees as his burden to shoulder as a leader. Apparently he considers asking for help from constituencies as a sign of weakness.

 

Another example -- how many GCRTA press releases or signs on buses and trains have you seen saying something like: "due to no state funding help, we are forced to consider fare hikes, service cuts, or both. Help us make the case to state lawmakers. Here's how..."

 

GCRTA doesn’t know how it to ask for help anymore. Joe & friends used to know. I don't know what changed.

^ It's not just that Joe thinks it's his own burden to take up, he doesn't trust the constituents to make a positive impact. He thinks that it could be counterproductive if they are viewed as just a bunch of crazy radicals.

That's a reasonable conclusion based on his actions. But my comments are a paraphrasing of what he actually said to me.

That's a reasonable conclusion based on his actions. But my comments are a paraphrasing of what he actually said to me.

 

Likewise

That's just crazy.

^ It's not just that Joe thinks it's his own burden to take up, he doesn't trust the constituents to make a positive impact. He thinks that it could be counterproductive if they are viewed as just a bunch of crazy radicals.

 

There has been little tolerance for agitators that want rail here, rail now. I think Ohio City Inc might be one of the few bastions of professionals who are willing to go out on a limb in advocating for rail.

 

I think for the silent majority of us that want rail, we need to be more supportive of each other, esp for lack of opportunities to support GCRTA. We need to get to a point where it's not a professional liability to be a yuuuuuge rail supporter.

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the project. No one is saying that the rail extension would trail development. In fact, it was proposed as a joint transportation/land use development. Real estate experts from around the country were brought in and said that if the Red Line was extended, tied in with a multi-city redevelopment plan including land assembly, site clean-up funding and targeted infrastructure modernization, it would be a strong district of industrial zones, innovation districts and mixed-use TODs.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

I just wish we could act now before we allow the bones of a large urban corridor to rot away.

 

Were any of companies along the route specifically asked about their thougths on the project?  I wonder what Lincoln Electric's position would be. 

Besides hundreds of people working at the terminus of the line, they are breaking ground on a large training facility / welding school there.  A Red Line extension would benefit both.

If a large employer were behind a project, a lot of political people would be more vocal in support.  Of course, the flip side is true as well

 

 

Having grown up on the east side, I have plenty high school friends who are second and third generation Lincoln Electric employees.  These guys are not living in the city.  They've all fled Euclid, Wickliffe and Richmond Heights long ago to Perry, Madison, Chesterland and other parts east.  Every single one of them. 

That's a reasonable conclusion based on his actions. But my comments are a paraphrasing of what he actually said to me.

 

Is it that he would rather be in control of a smaller less effective system than lose some control in order to make it more effective?

 

That's what it sounds like.

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the project. No one is saying that the rail extension would trail development. In fact, it was proposed as a joint transportation/land use development. Real estate experts from around the country were brought in and said that if the Red Line was extended, tied in with a multi-city redevelopment plan including land assembly, site clean-up funding and targeted infrastructure modernization, it would be a strong district of industrial zones, innovation districts and mixed-use TODs.

 

Unfortunately no one seems interested in this area of the city. Apparently many folks believe it is hopeless and not deserving of investment. So it will likely become the new Forgotten Triangle and continue to account for 90+ percent of the population loss in Cuyahoga County as it has since 1970. Once this area becomes an urban prairie, then ODOT will likely come in with a plan to extend the Opportunity Corridor to Euclid. The result will be more suburban-style land use patterns that can't support transit.

 

I just wish we could act now before we allow the bones of a large urban corridor to rot away.

 

Were any of companies along the route specifically asked about their thougths on the project?  I wonder what Lincoln Electric's position would be. 

Besides hundreds of people working at the terminus of the line, they are breaking ground on a large training facility / welding school there.  A Red Line extension would benefit both.

If a large employer were behind a project, a lot of political people would be more vocal in support.  Of course, the flip side is true as well

 

 

Having grown up on the east side, I have plenty high school friends who are second and third generation Lincoln Electric employees.  These guys are not living in the city.  They've all fled Euclid, Wickliffe and Richmond Heights long ago to Perry, Madison, Chesterland and other parts east.  Every single one of them. 

 

The place I used to work had a few forner LE employees and I know others from other directions.

 

This is my experience as well.  Their bonus system simplifies putting down a down payment, getting financed, and heading outwards. 

Is it that he would rather be in control of a smaller less effective system than lose some control in order to make it more effective?

 

That's what it sounds like.

 

Seems to be a lot of that going around. One can argue that many of the stagnant/shrinking Rust Belt cities have city leaders who don't want to bring in more immigrants because it would dilute their powerbase and thus weaken them.

I think some of these so managers spend a lot of time in self-congratulation, going to meetings learning how to be "leaders" rather than being citizens

These pictures and drawings are amazing KJP. Thanks for posting them. Makes me want to cry though thinking of what was lost and what could have been.

First time I've seen this, so more later, most likely....

 

If you like that, you're going to love the report I'm going to post next. :)

 

How did I just see this now?  Wow.

 

Gotta share some in the Maple Heights history/"alumni" group.

How did I just see this now?  Wow.

 

Gotta share some in the Maple Heights history/"alumni" group.

 

Dude. I have been waiting for you to chime in on the Maple Heights Rapid Transit Line for three months.

How did I just see this now?  Wow.

 

Gotta share some in the Maple Heights history/"alumni" group.

 

Dude. I have been waiting for you to chime in on the Maple Heights Rapid Transit Line for three months.

 

Those overheads just miss my old plant by a matter of feet (it was just south on Dunham Road), and by extension what was the MHTS bus garage that was sort of nestled within our site. 

 

As I've said elsewhere, Maple was a rather transit friendly suburb well into the 80s.  This would have only helped, though it would have competed directly with the MHTS route downtown.

 

Did it not happen because of MHTS opposition?

 

It's noteworthy that it did not go all the way downtown.

Those overheads just miss my old plant by a matter of feet (it was just south on Dunham Road), and by extension what was the MHTS bus garage that was sort of nestled within our site. 

 

As I've said elsewhere, Maple was a rather transit friendly suburb well into the 80s.  This would have only helped, though it would have competed directly with the MHTS route downtown.

 

Did it not happen because of MHTS opposition?

 

It's noteworthy that it did not go all the way downtown.

 

I don't know why it wasn't built. I suspect Al Porter had a lot more to do with it than MHTS which could have redeployed its express buses to downtown to instead operate moreso within and near the suburb. CTS planned to debt-finance this project. Perhaps it could not get private sector bond or a federal loan to construct it. At the time, CTS was cannibalizing itself to break even on its operating costs. The city refused to subsidize CTS, so the municipal transit agency was selling off its assets (copper wires for its electric trolley buses, old streetcar carbarns, maintenance garages, properties, etc) to make ends meet. Word gets around, so perhaps CTS wasn't seen as a stable financial investment for the private sector.

 

The newly built tracks didn't need to go all the way downtown. Trains to Maple Heights would have used the CTS/SHRT joint line from East 55th into Union Terminal/Tower City Center. CTS was so sure it was going to build this line it starting acquiring property for it. RTA still owns some of it, through the Kingsbury Run and behind the Garden Valley Estates to near East 79th.

Those overheads just miss my old plant by a matter of feet (it was just south on Dunham Road), and by extension what was the MHTS bus garage that was sort of nestled within our site. 

 

As I've said elsewhere, Maple was a rather transit friendly suburb well into the 80s.  This would have only helped, though it would have competed directly with the MHTS route downtown.

 

Did it not happen because of MHTS opposition?

 

It's noteworthy that it did not go all the way downtown.

 

I don't know why it wasn't built. I suspect Al Porter had a lot more to do with it than MHTS which could have redeployed its express buses to downtown to instead operate moreso within and near the suburb. CTS planned to debt-finance this project. Perhaps it could not get private sector bond or a federal loan to construct it. At the time, CTS was cannibalizing itself to break even on its operating costs. The city refused to subsidize CTS, so the municipal transit agency was selling off its assets (copper wires for its electric trolley buses, old streetcar carbarns, maintenance garages, properties, etc) to make ends meet. Word gets around, so perhaps CTS wasn't seen as a stable financial investment for the private sector.

 

The newly built tracks didn't need to go all the way downtown. Trains to Maple Heights would have used the CTS/SHRT joint line from East 55th into Union Terminal/Tower City Center. CTS was so sure it was going to build this line it starting acquiring property for it. RTA still owns some of it, through the Kingsbury Run and behind the Garden Valley Estates to near East 79th.

 

I found it noteworthy because some of us have been speculating about why both Shaker lines need to go downtown and I've said for awhile that the 55th street rapid station should be more of a hub.

Thanks, TPH2 for the mention of Clevelanders for Public Transit.  I have joined and agree we need a group to keep RTA accountable and to show the lawmakers in Columbus that the citizens want more transit.  Sometimes these groups start out small and then grow and grow until they become mainstream.

We need everyone to want/need public transportation, and the easiest way to do that is by making driving more difficult.  Cleveland, by no means, is a difficult city to drive in.  Even at rush hour.  Now with fuel prices at low costs, combined with easy traffic situations, it is even more enticing to drive versus using public transportation.

We have talked multiple times on this site in different threads that Cleveland, in the 40's and 50's, was developed for continued growth as it had experienced for the century prior.  It was a boom town developing at a rapid pace, and car ownership was I the rise.  Highways were developed with the thought that over the nex 50 years, more drivers would continue to clog up the roads.  We all know the the region stopped growing, and what we are left with today is a highway network designed to transport people in a region that has a much larger population than ours.

Closing exit ramps and reducing freeway lanes is an easy way to make vehicular traffic still relatively smooth, but definitely not as easy.  Just looking at I 71, I would propose closing Denison and 65th and Fulton.  I would reduc it by a lane from 150th all the way to 25th.  I travel that route often, and think how it reminds me of the Dan Ryan in Chicago with a quarter the commuters.

Public transit is a priority IMHO, but unfortunately, it's a tough sell on a majority of people in a town that just dosent have bad traffic and bad parking situations.  Almost like asking someone in North Olmsted who owns a car to wait for a bus to get to Great Northern.  Maybe a bad analogy , but somewhat true.

Why do I not take a bus to get to work?  Because it would take longer, and my time is extremely valuable.  There is a direct route to the city 5 minutes from my house, but it still takes me a half hour longer  than driving my own car.  In a day, that's an hour more commuting time, and time I just don't have.

Speaking of... Wow someone actually promoting you can get somewhere on public transit!!!

Cleveland shouldn't do anything to make anything more difficult for residents.  That's a surefire way to chase them off, which is the last thing we need.  And though we have less traffic than some cities, if only through shrinkage, we still have traffic problems and we can't fix them by pretending otherwise. 

 

The best ways to increase transit ridership are to offer transit options that are useful, and to plan development in ways that increase transit's utility.  Right now we offer minimal bus service, and no rail service, to suburban job centers.  Meanwhile we are still suburbanizing the inner city, redesigning formerly walkable neighborhoods for cars.  That won't help. 

 

Right now we are still treating downtown as another neighborhood.  That won't help either, because it isn't and it can't be.  Instead it's supposed to tie all the actual neighborhoods together into something greater.  People who don't live or work downtown need more reasons to go there on a regular basis.  Instead we have focused public investment on a park redesign that seeks to divide the rail system from the bus system.  That's just plain counterproductive, if transit utilization is what we want.

^i undertand your point, but the problem is, the region is not growing.  In fact, most estimates show that it is shrinking.  I like the idea of TOD along transit routes, however openings more square footage of retail, office and industrial will have an effect on the existing space.  Vacancy will develop in other established areas leadin g to blight somewhere else.  Shuffling Clevelands activity IMHO, is not the answer, right sizing it is.  Utilizing transportation to do this is a good start and shuttering some road networks that the city and ODOT is responsible for. 

I have felt regions should make a deal with the state that they will abandon useless lanes, interchanges and roads for increased funding or mass transit.  A compromise in a sense.

I don't think driving needs to be made more 'difficult.' But people do need to actually pay for the cost of mode of transportation that they choose. Driving is subsidized in a myriad of ways from parking to gas tax to road construction. If you consider a greater financial burden more difficult than I'm on board. I realize shifting to this would be extremely difficult.

 

In somewhat more practical terms, I do agree with 327[/member]. Be best way to get people to use GCRTA is to make it as convenient and useful as possible.

Do we have any information on whether or not RTA is doing all they can do to seek funding besides raising fares? Is it the role of a transit organization to pursue funds or is it the role of local elected officials? I agree with the letter to the PD that we really need to be talking about how to get RTA more funding instead of talking about which routes to cut. RTA has tried to limit the conversation to just two options - raise fares and/or cut service. 

 

Also, I agree that transit needs to be convenient and pleasant. Even if it takes longer than driving, there is not the hassle of parking and on transit  you can read or check your phone - things you can't or shouldn't do while driving.

 

Cleveland shouldn't do anything to make anything more difficult for residents.

 

Agree. Right now a huge percentage of small businesses are reliant on automobile traffic. Like everyone here I want to see the region become less auto-centric, sure, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about that.

We need everyone to want/need public transportation, and the easiest way to do that is by making driving more difficult. 

 

Many people, in fact *most* people outside the cores of the most densely populated urban areas, have no choice but to drive.  You want to make their lives harder in order to make yours easier?  To delay, and perhaps murder, people who need those roads to reach doctors and hospitals and accident sites and other places they need to be?

 

That doesn't make you a good transit advocate.  It makes you sound like a jerk who shouldn't and probably won't be taken seriously.

 

If you pit 200 million drivers against 20 million transit users, and make it clear that only one or the other prevail, TRANSIT LOSES.  Every time.

 

If you want to make transit better, find a way to do that that is win-win for everyone involved.

We need everyone to want/need public transportation,

 

Why?

 

and the easiest way to do that is by making driving more difficult.  Cleveland, by no means, is a difficult city to drive in.  Even at rush hour.  Now with fuel prices at low costs, combined with easy traffic situations, it is even more enticing to drive versus using public transportation.

We have talked multiple times on this site in different threads that Cleveland, in the 40's and 50's, was developed for continued growth as it had experienced for the century prior.  It was a boom town developing at a rapid pace, and car ownership was I the rise.  Highways were developed with the thought that over the nex 50 years, more drivers would continue to clog up the roads.  We all know the the region stopped growing, and what we are left with today is a highway network designed to transport people in a region that has a much larger population than ours.

Closing exit ramps and reducing freeway lanes is an easy way to make vehicular traffic still relatively smooth, but definitely not as easy.  Just looking at I 71, I would propose closing Denison and 65th and Fulton.  I would reduc it by a lane from 150th all the way to 25th.  I travel that route often, and think how it reminds me of the Dan Ryan in Chicago with a quarter the commuters.

Public transit is a priority IMHO, but unfortunately, it's a tough sell on a majority of people in a town that just dosent have bad traffic and bad parking situations.  Almost like asking someone in North Olmsted who owns a car to wait for a bus to get to Great Northern.  Maybe a bad analogy , but somewhat true.

Why do I not take a bus to get to work?  Because it would take longer, and my time is extremely valuable.  There is a direct route to the city 5 minutes from my house, but it still takes me a half hour longer  than driving my own car.  In a day, that's an hour more commuting time, and time I just don't have.

 

This is exactly the wrong approach to take.  It sounds like your intent is to spend tax money to inconvenience people to get them to live the way you want them to live.  It's pretty much becoming the strawman some conservatives would like to portray the left as.  As an open strategy it will be emphatically rejected, as a secret one it will be suspected until finally it comes out as being intentional.

 

If that's not your intent, that's still how it will be portrayed.

 

All it can really do is backfire.

We need everyone to want/need public transportation, and the easiest way to do that is by making driving more difficult. 

Many people, in fact *most* people outside the cores of the most densely populated urban areas, have no choice but to drive.  You want to make their lives harder in order to make yours easier?  To delay, and perhaps murder, people who need those roads to reach doctors and hospitals and accident sites and other places they need to be?

 

It is a problem that most people outside a certain distance from the core have no choice but to drive.  Choice would be helpful.  How do we increase transportation choices?

 

As others have laid out in this forum at various times, the real problem is that with the limited dollars available for transportation we cannot afford the road/bridge network that we currently have in Ohio.  That's why we have so many low-rated bridges in Ohio -- we don't have enough money for maintenance (the fix-it-first movement pushes for fixing those bridges before any new roads or bridges are built, but is having little success to date). 

 

Making it "harder" for people outside some particular distance to get into the city center without taking transit is not the same as making it impossible.  Congestion charges in London, for example, just means that only the wealthy drive all the way into the core. Parking costs in downtown city centers already makes it "harder" and some people choose not to come downtown at all. 

 

And increased spending on transit isn't necessary to make the lives of people who are auto-dependent harder -- our failure to maintain Ohio's bridges to an acceptable level for the past 20+ years will inevitably either lead to accidents or bridges being closed -- no increased spending on transit required since even with zero transit spending there isn't enough money in the transportation budget to fix every bridge. 

 

Transit advocates aren't out to make the car-dependent people's lives harder so that transit-users' lives will be easier, they're trying to reduce the number of people who are car-dependent and have no choices, and to make the transit system better.  One reason why they're advocates for transit is that the dollars needed for operating a transit network are much smaller than the dollars needed for maintaining corresponding distances in a road network.

 

That doesn't make you a good transit advocate.  It makes you sound like a jerk who shouldn't and probably won't be taken seriously.

 

If you pit 200 million drivers against 20 million transit users, and make it clear that only one or the other prevail, TRANSIT LOSES.  Every time.

 

If you want to make transit better, find a way to do that that is win-win for everyone involved.

 

I don't think a win-win solution is possible.  We have X dollars.  We have built more lane-miles of roadway and more bridges than we can maintain with those X dollars.  We can repair some, but eventually we will have to abandon lanes and/or bridges.  People who now rely on roads/bridges that are going to be abandoned or downgraded or more congested in the future are going to be unhappy with our failure to provide alternative transportation options. 

 

Even if we spend more money on transit, there are going to be losers.  And that's because we also cannot afford to provide transit to everyone in Ohio everywhere where they currently live and work, even with all of the dollars currently available for transportation. 

 

I don't think we are likely to completely abandon all roads or all personal vehicles in any of our lifetimes, we just aren't able to afford the road network we currently have.  Transit advocates are taking a fiscally conservative approach, advocating for a transportation network that benefits the most users with the fewest dollars and the most choices possible with those dollars.

 

[if you know how we can increase funding sufficiently to maintain our current road network, by all means let us know.]

The majority of transit users (bus riders) depend on roads and bridges, and suffer from traffic congestion, as much as anyone else does.  Road spending is not an either/or proposition.  The appropriate cliche here is not robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

I'd love to see money shifted toward passenger rail but there's no chance of that here with our current local leadership.  Until RTA is willing to push for it, it simply will not happen.  Not with local money, or state, or federal.  The decision to pursue it must happen here first. 

We need everyone to want/need public transportation,

 

Why?

 

and the easiest way to do that is by making driving more difficult.  Cleveland, by no means, is a difficult city to drive in.  Even at rush hour.  Now with fuel prices at low costs, combined with easy traffic situations, it is even more enticing to drive versus using public transportation.

We have talked multiple times on this site in different threads that Cleveland, in the 40's and 50's, was developed for continued growth as it had experienced for the century prior.  It was a boom town developing at a rapid pace, and car ownership was I the rise.  Highways were developed with the thought that over the nex 50 years, more drivers would continue to clog up the roads.  We all know the the region stopped growing, and what we are left with today is a highway network designed to transport people in a region that has a much larger population than ours.

Closing exit ramps and reducing freeway lanes is an easy way to make vehicular traffic still relatively smooth, but definitely not as easy.  Just looking at I 71, I would propose closing Denison and 65th and Fulton.  I would reduc it by a lane from 150th all the way to 25th.  I travel that route often, and think how it reminds me of the Dan Ryan in Chicago with a quarter the commuters.

Public transit is a priority IMHO, but unfortunately, it's a tough sell on a majority of people in a town that just dosent have bad traffic and bad parking situations.  Almost like asking someone in North Olmsted who owns a car to wait for a bus to get to Great Northern.  Maybe a bad analogy , but somewhat true.

Why do I not take a bus to get to work?  Because it would take longer, and my time is extremely valuable.  There is a direct route to the city 5 minutes from my house, but it still takes me a half hour longer  than driving my own car.  In a day, that's an hour more commuting time, and time I just don't have.

 

This is exactly the wrong approach to take.  It sounds like your intent is to spend tax money to inconvenience people to get them to live the way you want them to live.  It's pretty much becoming the strawman some conservatives would like to portray the left as.  As an open strategy it will be emphatically rejected, as a secret one it will be suspected until finally it comes out as being intentional.

 

If that's not your intent, that's still how it will be portrayed.

 

All it can really do is backfire.

 

I don't, per se, making driving more difficult is the way to go, although, indirectly, I have no problem with it, such as projects like the Public Sq improvements cutting off through traffic or the Shoreway West boulevard-ing project...

 

I do believe, though, that downtown needs to cut back on the availability of cheap, surface parking, because this really is hurting transit... Why are there umpteen cheap surface lots on the East Bank of the Flats, for example -- as there is in other corners of downtown?  Every time I'm down there during evening rush hour, I see streams of office commuters stepping over the WFL tracks to get to some $4.00-5.00 all day (or maybe even free street parking) lot.  People in this town, especially suburbanites, are lazy; can't even stand to wait the less-than 15 minute transfer to the WFL from a bus or the Red Line (or, like, no wait time at all if you board the Blue or Green Lines from the East side), for example, when heading down to the resurgent FEB clubs and restaurants...

 

Ditto for public events... Much of the crying I heard following the Indians' opener snow-out yesterday is from people who paid all that money for parking... boo-hoo---> take the damn Rapid next time, and maybe on foot you can enjoy more of downtown.

 

 

We have devolved into open appeals to authoritarianism.

We have devolved into open appeals to authoritarianism.

 

Not really.  In point of fact Cleveland, like other cities that are stressing walkability and public transit (well, other, more progressive cities are promoting the latter a whole lot better than Cleveland is), are making urban driving more difficult and less attractive.  That's why the Public Sq and Shoreway projects, as I cited, are happening.  That's why you're seeing more traffic calming devices like speed bumps, crosswalk protection lights, and narrower main drags. 

 

Unfortunately, Cleveland has taken a huge step backward in building the highly foolish Opportunity Corridor urban highway.

Back on planet earth (the Ohio part of it, anyway), the real policy question isn't about coercing drivers to leave their cars, it's how much more money we should spend to iron out every peak-period slow down on the area road network. Increasing future maintenance obligations, despite a stagnant driver base and tax base. Spending user fees disproportionately on expansion and mega-reconstructions but looking to general fund revenue for a big piece of quotidian road maintenance. Using everyone's money to press a thumb firmer and firmer on the highway drive side of the commuting market scale.

 

[Edited for typo]

We have devolved into open appeals to authoritarianism.

The left and right are very frequently guilty of this (albeit in different areas).  I try not to be. 

 

Part of why we're in this mess is that market distortions created by one government intervention are typically "fixed" by others, which need to be "fixed" by still others, and so forth and so on, until even the pretense of personal or economic freedom is no longer plausible, and the whole argument becomes about which brand of authoritarianism people prefer, not whether or not the authoritarian approach makes sense in the first place, which is more or less assumed.

 

I would suggest exactly the opposite approach.  Systematically find and root out those interventions which led us to where we are now.  That is easy to do with transit.  Undo the subsidies for automotive travel, including but not limited to bailouts, military defense of oil-producing regions, etc., and transit automatically benefits, without doing anything to purposely make automotive travel more difficult other, than asking drivers to pay their own way, as they always should have in the first place.

 

In reply to Foraker:

 

1. Choice, all else being equal, is always a good thing.  More transit options outside urban cores would be nice.  But we are starving for choices *within* those cores.  That's what concerns me more at this point. My position is that in the absence of subsidies for roads, cars, etc., users of which insofar as possible should IMO be paying the true market cost of the infrastructure they use, choices would improve.  It's very likely that more intercity transit services would become available.  It's still very unlikely that areas of low population density would ever be served by transit as well as they are now by private auto.  We know from other countries' experience, as well as our own, that some degree of population and employment density are necessary in order for transit to be cost-effective.  By geography, most of the U.S. is rural.  But by population, most of it is urban, suburban, or exurban.  In the absence of bad policy (and the long history of bad policy that has led us to where we are now), the choices available in the marketplace would reflect both facts.

 

2. Things like tolls, congestion charges, etc. are, IMO, acceptable measures to limit congestion and to encourage users of scarce resources to pay something more closely approaching the true cost of the infrastructure they use.  It is far more equitable that users pay, than for them to force others to do so.  This is equally true of roads, bridges, buses, trains, or any other publicly owned resources.  The only difference is that transit is typically subsidized very little compared to roads and cars.  That should change, either by subsidizing both equally, or even better yet, returning most that money to the taxpayers and allowing competitive market-based mechanisms to solve the problem in ways that centrally planned societies cannot.

 

3. It does *not* have to be a zero-sum game.  It can be win-win.  The right economic choices result neither in stagnation, nor boom-bust cycles, but rather in sustainable growth, which, over time, allows the pie to expand, and for everyone to get bigger and bigger pieces even if their share of the pie doesn't change.  We need the vision and the courage to aim for sustainable growth that truly does rise all tides.  Transit is a necessary part of that vision for our city, and for all cities save for, perhaps, the very smallest.  Cars and roads are *also* a necessary part of it, but they should not be subsidized at the expense of transit (nor vice versa).