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.

 

I can agree with most of what you say. 

 

From a practical perspective I'm not sure how to implement your proposal to eliminate all subsidies (just as a start, how much to allocate to our military expenditures in Israel - how much of that is about oil?  What about Egypt?  Yemen?  Saudi Arabia -- probably more so, but how much?), so requiring equal subsidies would seem to be easier.  Just not very popular with the voters who vote and the executives funding our legislators' reelection (including the Ohio road lobby).

 

 

 

 

I can agree with most of what you say. 

 

From a practical perspective I'm not sure how to implement your proposal to eliminate all subsidies (just as a start, how much to allocate to our military expenditures in Israel - how much of that is about oil?  What about Egypt?  Yemen?  Saudi Arabia -- probably more so, but how much?), so requiring equal subsidies would seem to be easier.  Just not very popular with the voters who vote and the executives funding our legislators' reelection (including the Ohio road lobby).

 

I don't have a quick or easy solution to that problem.  I wish I did.  Educating ourselves and others about what's going on is probably the most practical thing we can do in the short term.  At the highest levels, what we have in this country - a massive economy driven almost entirely by unsustainable personal, corporate, and government debt - cannot continue forever, by its very nature, and, at some point, there is going to be a "reset."  Things will change, because that which is unsustainable, by its very definition, eventually must.  And when they do, we may get an opportunity to have real input, and to make real changes, which we really don't have at the present time.  The intense centralization of our economy, and the world economy as a whole, is one of those things I expect will change.  Bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington and the boardrooms of multinational megacorps will suddenly find themselves with far less power than they have now, since they can no longer borrow unlimited quantities of money at negative real interest rates.  They will be reduced to making do with what they have or can produce or acquire by lawful means, just like all the rest of us.  At that point, I think our cities, our region, and every other, will suddenly find itself with a great deal more in terms of opportunities to make or to break our own destinies.  If one understands that this is very likely to happen, in some form, sooner or later, then I think it wise to consider what we will do when that time comes.  I've given it a great deal of thought.  I'm not expecting anyone from Washington, nor for that matter Columbus, to swoop in and save the day.  I never did.  I expect that we, the people and businesses and institutions that make up our region, will ultimately be the ones to decide our own fate. 

NOACA's next long-range plan will aim to improve equity in Northeast Ohio for people without cars

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on April 08, 2016 at 6:56 AM, updated April 08, 2016 at 7:09 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Northeast Ohio's top transportation planning agency is preparing a new, 20-year vision for the region that will focus on improving social equity, particularly for households without cars.

 

Among other things, the new long-range plan of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency will address the reality that transportation spending in recent decades, mainly on suburban highways, has privileged the automobile over mass transit and other modes of getting around.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/04/noacas_next_long-range_plan_wi.html#incart_river_home

NOACA's next long-range plan will aim to improve equity in Northeast Ohio for people without cars

 

Worthy goals.  I would love to hear more details on how they could be implemented.  I found the focus on "job sprawl" interesting as it is an often-overlooked aspect of the chicken-and-egg problem of de-urbanization.  I am curious about how it could be addressed given the perverse tax and political incentives already in place for it to continue.  Every locality wants jobs, not for their own sake but for the tax revenues they would bring.  And in spite of the huge infrastructure improvements that will eventually be required.  I think part of the key here is the word "eventually."  The benefits, political and otherwise, are realized relatively soon, whereas the costs and resulting blame are delayed until some other poor schmuck is in office.  Regionalism?  Has worked elsewhere, but the crime and corruption in the city of Cleveland (both real and perceived) have made this a non-starter for generations.  Changes in Ohio tax codes?  These have been explored in other contexts (e.g., to reduce the disparities in funding between city, suburban, and rural school districts) and again have not been politically viable.  So what would be?  How do we incentivize job growth in places that are at least potentially transit-friendly (the urban core and inner suburbs)?  I can't help but think that some of it has to involve addressing the reasons - both real and perceived - why people, and businesses, choose not to voluntarily locate there today.

I like this column. It's better than the city's parking tax which is based on parking transactions. If this parking space excise tax was implemented countywide it would help address sprawl, stormwater management and "parking craters" -- and produce about $30 million per year just in Cuyahoga County, inflation-adjusted based on a 1993 ODOT study. That's enough to reverse Cleveland RTA's proposed cuts, allow for some expansion and help RTA address its state-of-good-repair backlog, including new railcars. If it was implemented for each of the 12 counties of Northeast Ohio, it could generate more than $100 million for a regional network of commuter rail and feeder buses to reach far-flung jobs AND help curb further sprawl....

 

Ohio won’t save GCRTA, so let’s tax parking to fund transit instead

http://timkovach.com/wp/2016/04/08/ohio-save-gcrta-tax-parking-fund-transit-instead/

I like this column. It's better than the city's parking tax which is based on parking transactions. If this parking space excise tax was implemented countywide it would help address sprawl, stormwater management and "parking craters" -- and produce about $30 million per year just in Cuyahoga County, inflation-adjusted based on a 1993 ODOT study. That's enough to reverse Cleveland RTA's proposed cuts, allow for some expansion and help RTA address its state-of-good-repair backlog, including new railcars. If it was implemented for each of the 12 counties of Northeast Ohio, it could generate more than $100 million for a regional network of commuter rail and feeder buses to reach far-flung jobs AND help curb further sprawl....

 

Ohio won’t save GCRTA, so let’s tax parking to fund transit instead

http://timkovach.com/wp/2016/04/08/ohio-save-gcrta-tax-parking-fund-transit-instead/

 

I think that with some refinements this could be made to work in a relatively equitable fashion.  There would have to be some way to adjust for the fact that prime areas (say, 9th and Euclid) are far more valuable and should at least arguably pay more, as opposed to, say, a $5 per day lot in one of the outer suburbs.  And as the article points out, the tax must not be punitive in its intent nor its effect, or it may drive businesses out of the city.  The idea is to offset the costs imposed by those driving into the urban core.  That is one of the very few equitable reasons, IMO, for any tax.  It should go as far as possible toward furthering that goal, but no further.

Except that here are significant costs of free parking, not the lease of which is inaccessibility to those who can't afford to drive and for stormwater management which is the elephant in the room when it comes to taxpayer subsidies for auto-dependency.

Except that here are significant costs of free parking, not the lease of which is inaccessibility to those who can't afford to drive and for stormwater management which is the elephant in the room when it comes to taxpayer subsidies for auto-dependency.

 

I agree, and I like this tax.  But the northeast ohio sewer district is already assessing a fee for stormwater.

http://www.neorsd.org/stormwaterfeemap.php

 

Yes, but the fee could be reduced or certainly the number of new or even existing projects could be reduced with less surface parking. And it doesn't address site-specific retention basins, local sewers, and other costs of so much land devoted to the car.

The PD published an editorial yesterday about RTA's proposed transit cuts that was so much pablum and offered no solutions, I'm not even bothering to re-post it here.  (ie -- the state "needs to do more." ... duh; how about listing some state officials who should be pressured, er, contacted to try and get more RTA funding?)

 

Also I think it's great that Clevelanders for Public Transit has been formed and is active in advocating for the public, esp the transit dependent.  One tactic I wish they would take regarding the Waterfront Line, would be more fact-based and positive.  Some people who dislike the service put it down saying it's for millenials and hipsters who want to hit the clubs and bars.  Truth is, the WFL clientele is anything but.  The small cadre of loyal weekday WFL riders I see are almost always working, non-professionals coming from the EY office building or cooks, waiters and hosts/hostesses from restaurants, clubs and bars.  I get the sense that, for some of these individuals, the WFL is an important lifeline to them.  True, they are small in number, so they really don't have much of a voice, but they're still important too.  And the fact is, the more opportunities that is created with more establishments and residences in/around the WFL -- esp in FEB Phase III, more people will ride.  I do see some lawyer/accountant types on the WFL during rush hour, but overall not that many.  Most of these folks stream, on foot, over and around the WFL tracks to get to their beloved autos, which is too bad.

 

The important thing is to shout down the WFL haters, like a Mark Naymik or a Norm Krumholz, with facts to drown out their empty, anti-rail rhetoric.  The WFL definitely needs more friends and supporters because far too often, the transit "advocates" are quick to throw this important service under the bus, metaphorically, while advocating for their own particular service... Transit advocates should, indeed, advocate for all transit and not nitpick on behalf of their own particular route while trashing others.  This type of approach will get us absolutely nowhere, other than less (state) funding, more cuts and more misery.

The Waterfront line isn't going away, so it makes more sense to make the best of this fixed facility rather than trying to make it less useful. I've said it a million times before but if the city is interested in making use of this asset then it must bring to bear all the tools at its fingertips to encourage transit-supportive development around this long-term infrastructure. Indeed, the city must do this around all rail stations, BRT stops and busy transit intersections.

^The city has been massively subsidizing development along the WFL. Everything along that route is either publicly funded or involves huge public infusions of money. The city bent over backwards to make FEB happen, even making its eminent domain powers available to the development team.  I don't think there's anything more the city can really do for the WFL line.

 

Personally, I think off-peak WFL service is exactly the right place to look for savings, so hope this is what gets the ax. Almost all of the small number of riders who would be affected can replace the lost service with a 1km walk or a free trolley ride to Public Square. From a transportation service perspective (which is what I want RTA to focus on), preserving bus service with more riders and fewer substitutes makes total sense to me.

^The city has been massively subsidizing development along the WFL. Everything along that route is either publicly funded or involves huge public infusions of money. The city bent over backwards to make FEB happen, even making its eminent domain powers available to the development team.  I don't think there's anything more the city can really do for the WFL line.

 

Personally, I think off-peak WFL service is exactly the right place to look for savings, so hope this is what gets the ax. Almost all of the small number of riders who would be affected can replace the lost service with a 1km walk or a free trolley ride to Public Square. From a transportation service perspective (which is what I want RTA to focus on), preserving bus service with more riders and fewer substitutes makes total sense to me.

 

A city subsidizing in-city, esp downtown, isn't unique and shouldn't geared toward boosting the WFL.  I also disagree with your comment that there isn't any more development that can happen (either influenced by the City, RTA or whoever) to make the WFL successful, because there can be.  The recent FEB development is great, but, in the larger scheme of waterfront/lakefront TOD development, it's only a 1st step -- or, at least, it should be.

 

There's are still acres and acres of empty land in around the WFL abuting the waterfront -- i.e., what about all that empty land north of WFL's elevated portion north of Front Street near where it used to dead-end into Old River Rd?  There is a widened area just NE of the WFL hairpin turn where a Rapid station had been projected.  Planners have talked of building everything from townhouses to a World Trade Center and/or other office at this location.  Yet today 20 years after the WFL opened this land still sits fallow with a giant pile of salt and silos sitting nearby.  Why?  Is this the failure of the WFL and the planners who built it, or the City (and others) for not getting their act together not developing TOD as have many other more progressive cities would have done (ie: Toronto, Boston, D.C., Chicago, even Minneapolis, etc)? 

 

And then there's the much-discussed North Coast Transportation Center, which is still iffy?  Why isn't this worthwhile being built to it's fullest potential... if at all?  And why is there no indoor connection from a WFL platform to directly inside the Convention Center a la Tower City?  WFL pass right by the lakefront windows of the CC with no connection at all.  So the solution is cut WFL service and save a whopping couple under thousand bucks a year?  That's really progressive... :roll:

 

These are all wasted TOD/smart growth opportunities, but the tendency in Cleveland is to blame the rail transit planners who had the foresight to execute and actually build the rare rail transit extension as being extravagant and/or short-sighted rather than go ahead and do the right and smart thing, and develop TOD around the rail line.  No, the solution here is to cut the rail service rather than holding those in position to influence and execute development accountable.

 

Also, your premise that the city should do for the WFL is flawed: the city should develop in the best interests of the City. The WFL is, as KJP correctly id'ed it, an asset that is not being used to its fullest potential.  The goal should be smart growth, and such growth isn't much smarter than TOD, which a rapid transit rail line can and should promote.

^The city has been massively subsidizing development along the WFL. Everything along that route is either publicly funded or involves huge public infusions of money. The city bent over backwards to make FEB happen, even making its eminent domain powers available to the development team.  I don't think there's anything more the city can really do for the WFL line.

 

You know what that's called? A good start. The lakefront development will be great too, but is decades overdue.

 

But what's just as overdue is development on the Muny Lot and Davenport Bluffs. That huge sea of parking next to a rail transit line that doesn't contribute to the transit is a tremendous waste. And there's no reason on earth why high-rise downtown development suddenly ends at East 12th along on a bluff overlooking a Great Lake with a rail transit station so close. The construction of the low-rise WKYC and the FBI HQ in this area shows either A. how bad land use planning is in Cleveland that these two uses were permitted at that location; or B. how weak the real estate market market has been in Cleveland that the city felt compelled to allow these low-rise bunkers that can't contribute to transit ridership to locate here because they're better than nothing. In a downtown setting, there's needs to be Flats East Bank-scale development at each station on the line, including the as-yet unbuilt Dock 20 station.

how weak the real estate market market has been in Cleveland that the city felt compelled to allow these low-rise bunkers that can't contribute to transit ridership to locate here because they're better than nothing.

 

Is this even a question? Even today, amid our downtown residential "boom," the only response the city got to its Chester Ave surface lot RFP was from a surface lot operator. The reason why the towers end at east 12th street is that almost no new towers get built, despite as-of-right tax abatement, widely available TIF, and anything else the city can afford to offer. The lack of development near rail stations is a symptom of the much bigger problem. In fact, if you look at what's actually been built in the city over the past 20 years, most of it (a vast majority?) has been near BRT or rail stations. The problem is the denominator, not the numerator.

 

I don't disagree with your overall policy view: I think the city should try to steer public development near rail stations and encourage private development in those areas too. I just don't think that's been the real problem in the case of the WFL. From day 1 it's been a solution in search of a problem. That might change over the years as FEB fills in and as other things change, but I have no problem skimping on service till then if it serves RTA's customer base better.

Except there has been new housing built in Cleveland in the past 20 years. If I'm king of Cleveland, I'm issuing an RFP for developing the Muny Lot (with the city creating a TIF to fund and build supportive streets and sewer infrastructure) and seeing what responses I get.

 

The reason why Shaia was the only response to the Greyhound block parking is because every developer knows that Geis wants that entire block and won't act on it until the Greyhound station is gone. Geis was ready to go ASAP two years ago but a little nonprofit organization called All Aboard Ohio convinced the city it was in their best interest to relocate the Greyhound station next to the Amtrak station and develop an intermodal station rather than relocate Greyhound in a pre-fab shed out in Siberia at the east end of the Muny Lot. Shaia's response to the RFP is a placeholder for Geis until Greyhound vacates its building. The city will acquire it and issue and RFP for it too. Geis, shockingly, will be the only respondent. That's when the entire block will be redeveloped by Geis.

^ 2 (big) thumbs up for AAO.

Thanks, but it came with the trade-off of delaying a major development by Geis. But we did it because the city said it wasn't going to build two Greyhound stations -- a temporary station at the East end of the Many Lot and a permanent one next to Amtrak. So we had to get those two stations together right off the bat. Besides, I've seen a lot of "temporary" stations continue in operation for 30 years.

So we had to get those two stations together right off the bat.

 

Keep up the pressure -- the current station design still leaves a lot to be desired!

The PD published an editorial yesterday about RTA's proposed transit cuts that was so much pablum and offered no solutions, I'm not even bothering to re-post it here.  (ie -- the state "needs to do more." ... duh; how about listing some state officials who should be pressured, er, contacted to try and get more RTA funding?)

 

Also I think it's great that Clevelanders for Public Transit has been formed and is active in advocating for the public, esp the transit dependent.  One tactic I wish they would take regarding the Waterfront Line, would be more fact-based and positive.  Some people who dislike the service put it down saying it's for millenials and hipsters who want to hit the clubs and bars.  Truth is, the WFL clientele is anything but.  The small cadre of loyal weekday WFL riders I see are almost always working, non-professionals coming from the EY office building or cooks, waiters and hosts/hostesses from restaurants, clubs and bars.  I get the sense that, for some of these individuals, the WFL is an important lifeline to them.  True, they are small in number, so they really don't have much of a voice, but they're still important too.  And the fact is, the more opportunities that is created with more establishments and residences in/around the WFL -- esp in FEB Phase III, more people will ride.  I do see some lawyer/accountant types on the WFL during rush hour, but overall not that many.  Most of these folks stream, on foot, over and around the WFL tracks to get to their beloved autos, which is too bad.

 

The important thing is to shout down the WFL haters, like a Mark Naymik or a Norm Krumholz, with facts to drown out their empty, anti-rail rhetoric.  The WFL definitely needs more friends and supporters because far too often, the transit "advocates" are quick to throw this important service under the bus, metaphorically, while advocating for their own particular service... Transit advocates should, indeed, advocate for all transit and not nitpick on behalf of their own particular route while trashing others.  This type of approach will get us absolutely nowhere, other than less (state) funding, more cuts and more misery.

 

The WFL is great if you live in, for example, Shaker Square and work in E&Y Tower.  Otherwise, the WFL  is lacking core commuters/riders which are needed to sustain this line.  People drive their cars because it's more convenient.  The base WFL commuters is very limited even though one can access the WFL from the northern core of downtown, esp. North Pointe, City Hall, Federal Building.  Where are all of those workers on the WFL? 

If they even use transit, let alone a rail line, they walk to Tower City for the Red Line.  Again, key being ''if'' they use transit at all.

The WFL was designed for bar-hopping in the 1990s with an expanded station for 8 Browns games a year.

^The city has been massively subsidizing development along the WFL. Everything along that route is either publicly funded or involves huge public infusions of money. The city bent over backwards to make FEB happen, even making its eminent domain powers available to the development team.  I don't think there's anything more the city can really do for the WFL line.

 

You know what that's called? A good start. The lakefront development will be great too, but is decades overdue.

 

But what's just as overdue is development on the Muny Lot and Davenport Bluffs. That huge sea of parking next to a rail transit line that doesn't contribute to the transit is a tremendous waste. And there's no reason on earth why high-rise downtown development suddenly ends at East 12th along on a bluff overlooking a Great Lake with a rail transit station so close. The construction of the low-rise WKYC and the FBI HQ in this area shows either A. how bad land use planning is in Cleveland that these two uses were permitted at that location; or B. how weak the real estate market market has been in Cleveland that the city felt compelled to allow these low-rise bunkers that can't contribute to transit ridership to locate here because they're better than nothing. In a downtown setting, there's needs to be Flats East Bank-scale development at each station on the line, including the as-yet unbuilt Dock 20 station.

 

I hope the areas you mention and generally the lakefront attracts lots of residential development.  Do you think the WFL would take off then?  If any of these residents work downtown, most likely many would walk to work, another appeal of living downtown. 

 

Besides a quick jump to the Flats, less of a quick jump to the airport, why would these residents use the WFL in its current configuration in numbers sufficient to support the WFL?

 

Residential development is great; CLE needs employment growth ASAP though to really boost transit ridership.  Daily commuters.

Besides a quick jump to the Flats, less of a quick jump to the airport, why would these residents use the WFL in its current configuration in numbers sufficient to support the WFL?

 

What else is a short walk from a Rapid/BRT station and other connecting high-frequency transit lines?

The PD published an editorial yesterday about RTA's proposed transit cuts that was so much pablum and offered no solutions, I'm not even bothering to re-post it here.  (ie -- the state "needs to do more." ... duh; how about listing some state officials who should be pressured, er, contacted to try and get more RTA funding?)

 

Also I think it's great that Clevelanders for Public Transit has been formed and is active in advocating for the public, esp the transit dependent.  One tactic I wish they would take regarding the Waterfront Line, would be more fact-based and positive.  Some people who dislike the service put it down saying it's for millenials and hipsters who want to hit the clubs and bars.  Truth is, the WFL clientele is anything but.  The small cadre of loyal weekday WFL riders I see are almost always working, non-professionals coming from the EY office building or cooks, waiters and hosts/hostesses from restaurants, clubs and bars.  I get the sense that, for some of these individuals, the WFL is an important lifeline to them.  True, they are small in number, so they really don't have much of a voice, but they're still important too.  And the fact is, the more opportunities that is created with more establishments and residences in/around the WFL -- esp in FEB Phase III, more people will ride.  I do see some lawyer/accountant types on the WFL during rush hour, but overall not that many.  Most of these folks stream, on foot, over and around the WFL tracks to get to their beloved autos, which is too bad.

 

The important thing is to shout down the WFL haters, like a Mark Naymik or a Norm Krumholz, with facts to drown out their empty, anti-rail rhetoric.  The WFL definitely needs more friends and supporters because far too often, the transit "advocates" are quick to throw this important service under the bus, metaphorically, while advocating for their own particular service... Transit advocates should, indeed, advocate for all transit and not nitpick on behalf of their own particular route while trashing others.  This type of approach will get us absolutely nowhere, other than less (state) funding, more cuts and more misery.

 

The WFL is great if you live in, for example, Shaker Square and work in E&Y Tower.  Otherwise, the WFL  is lacking core commuters/riders which are needed to sustain this line.  People drive their cars because it's more convenient.  The base WFL commuters is very limited even though one can access the WFL from the northern core of downtown, esp. North Pointe, City Hall, Federal Building.  Where are all of those workers on the WFL? 

If they even use transit, let alone a rail line, they walk to Tower City for the Red Line.  Again, key being ''if'' they use transit at all.

The WFL was designed for bar-hopping in the 1990s with an expanded station for 8 Browns games a year.

 

I would definitely count the  Federal Building, North Point, the AT&T (or Verizon) complex, City Hall, Erieview/Galleria, etc, etc,...

 

Query: if you are already ON a Blue or Green Line train coming from Shaker/the East Side heading through to the Waterfront, why would you get off and walk to any of those places, if the WFL will take you within a block/block and a half of those places much faster than walking?  That's counter-intuitive, and this is during NICE WEATHER; the case gets even stronger against your premise when the weather is bad.

The PD published an editorial yesterday about RTA's proposed transit cuts that was so much pablum and offered no solutions, I'm not even bothering to re-post it here.  (ie -- the state "needs to do more." ... duh; how about listing some state officials who should be pressured, er, contacted to try and get more RTA funding?)

 

Also I think it's great that Clevelanders for Public Transit has been formed and is active in advocating for the public, esp the transit dependent.  One tactic I wish they would take regarding the Waterfront Line, would be more fact-based and positive.  Some people who dislike the service put it down saying it's for millenials and hipsters who want to hit the clubs and bars.  Truth is, the WFL clientele is anything but.  The small cadre of loyal weekday WFL riders I see are almost always working, non-professionals coming from the EY office building or cooks, waiters and hosts/hostesses from restaurants, clubs and bars.  I get the sense that, for some of these individuals, the WFL is an important lifeline to them.  True, they are small in number, so they really don't have much of a voice, but they're still important too.  And the fact is, the more opportunities that is created with more establishments and residences in/around the WFL -- esp in FEB Phase III, more people will ride.  I do see some lawyer/accountant types on the WFL during rush hour, but overall not that many.  Most of these folks stream, on foot, over and around the WFL tracks to get to their beloved autos, which is too bad.

 

The important thing is to shout down the WFL haters, like a Mark Naymik or a Norm Krumholz, with facts to drown out their empty, anti-rail rhetoric.  The WFL definitely needs more friends and supporters because far too often, the transit "advocates" are quick to throw this important service under the bus, metaphorically, while advocating for their own particular service... Transit advocates should, indeed, advocate for all transit and not nitpick on behalf of their own particular route while trashing others.  This type of approach will get us absolutely nowhere, other than less (state) funding, more cuts and more misery.

 

The WFL is great if you live in, for example, Shaker Square and work in E&Y Tower.  Otherwise, the WFL  is lacking core commuters/riders which are needed to sustain this line.  People drive their cars because it's more convenient.  The base WFL commuters is very limited even though one can access the WFL from the northern core of downtown, esp. North Pointe, City Hall, Federal Building.  Where are all of those workers on the WFL? 

If they even use transit, let alone a rail line, they walk to Tower City for the Red Line.  Again, key being ''if'' they use transit at all.

The WFL was designed for bar-hopping in the 1990s with an expanded station for 8 Browns games a year.

 

I would definitely count the  Federal Building, North Point, the AT&T (or Verizon) complex, City Hall, Erieview/Galleria, etc, etc,...

 

Query: if you are already ON a Blue or Green Line train coming from Shaker/the East Side heading through to the Waterfront, why would you get off and walk to any of those places, if the WFL will take you within a block/block and a half of those places much faster than walking?  That's counter-intuitive, and this is during NICE WEATHER; the case gets even stronger against your premise when the weather is bad.

 

Your premise assumes that there are lots of workers living along the Blue Line that work in and around the locations you mentioned.  I included North Pointe etc., basically anywhere adjacent or close to the lakefront.  These folks are already a part of the est 400 daily riders on the WFL.  I asked where all these people are now?  Those using the WFL are already doing so in minimal numbers. The Green/Blue Lines have low ridership numbers anyway regardless of destination.

 

Erieview, for example, is struggling with its commercial space and is another candidate for residential conversion.  I bet not many, if any, workers there now use the WFL.  Why would they?

 

Why would a Red Line commuter working at, say, E9th/St Clair walk to the WFL, ride it to TC, then wait for a Red Line.  Inclement weather may bump rail ridership on occasion but that, along with ''downtown events'' are not sufficient to carry Cleveland's current rail line configuration. 

 

There needs to be serious job creation and expansion convenient to rail to increase the daily ridership with a complement of riders going to the lakefront, sporting events and other events such as the Cleveland Film Festival; only then will CLE have robust rail transit again.

 

I've stated this before: no other city implementing or expanding rail transit is looking at Cleveland as a model. 

This has been a really interesting thread to read, because it speaks to an underlying tension that's often present with rail transit: whether rail should serve areas of existing demand, or if it should shape development in a way that induces demand.  I know that grade-separated light/heavy rail is different than an at-grade streetcar, but a similar conversation has taken place repeatedly in the past 10 years or so that the streetcar has been in planning stages and construction in Cincinnati.  Critics would state that the line 'doesn't go anywhere' (particularly on the north side of the line, which terminates in a pretty quiet part of OTR), while supporters would counter with the point that the streetcar is going to generate development.  So far, without the line even being open yet, development has really taken off around the streetcar line.  Not all of this development is directly attributable to the streetcar, but it's certainly a factor that is helping to steer development. 

 

I think the Waterfront Line would definitely benefit from an extension.  I actually thought about how a streetcar between the lake/Rock Hall/Science Center and the real core of downtown would be incredibly useful when I was in Cleveland last summer.  If the Waterfront Line could somehow turn up 9th and continue up to Prospect before turning to head back towards Tower City, that would be amazing.  It would totally focus the 'core' of Cleveland's core, and would create a situation where nearly all points of downtown would have easy access to the lake, Tower City, the Q/Jacobs Field, E 4th, etc.  The Health Line (which hopefully will be upgraded to LRT at some point) would provide an excellent feeder to this line, meaning that it wouldn't have to rely so much on hyper local support, such as TOD.  I know this is all fantasy given the budget constraints RTA is faced with, but a transit line does have to go somewhere to make it an asset worth developing around.  Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise.  I would say that leadership should either focus on making the WFL work/rebranding it as a downtown loop (fairly strong precedent for a downtown transit loop in the Great Lakes...), or cut the losses, and focus those resources on other, more viable bus and rail options that are in need of help.  The tracks and station infrastructure would still be there, and if the funding situation for RTA was ever improved, it could be brought back fairly easily, I'd guess. 

The PD published an editorial yesterday about RTA's proposed transit cuts that was so much pablum and offered no solutions, I'm not even bothering to re-post it here.  (ie -- the state "needs to do more." ... duh; how about listing some state officials who should be pressured, er, contacted to try and get more RTA funding?)

 

Also I think it's great that Clevelanders for Public Transit has been formed and is active in advocating for the public, esp the transit dependent.  One tactic I wish they would take regarding the Waterfront Line, would be more fact-based and positive.  Some people who dislike the service put it down saying it's for millenials and hipsters who want to hit the clubs and bars.  Truth is, the WFL clientele is anything but.  The small cadre of loyal weekday WFL riders I see are almost always working, non-professionals coming from the EY office building or cooks, waiters and hosts/hostesses from restaurants, clubs and bars.  I get the sense that, for some of these individuals, the WFL is an important lifeline to them.  True, they are small in number, so they really don't have much of a voice, but they're still important too.  And the fact is, the more opportunities that is created with more establishments and residences in/around the WFL -- esp in FEB Phase III, more people will ride.  I do see some lawyer/accountant types on the WFL during rush hour, but overall not that many.  Most of these folks stream, on foot, over and around the WFL tracks to get to their beloved autos, which is too bad.

 

The important thing is to shout down the WFL haters, like a Mark Naymik or a Norm Krumholz, with facts to drown out their empty, anti-rail rhetoric.  The WFL definitely needs more friends and supporters because far too often, the transit "advocates" are quick to throw this important service under the bus, metaphorically, while advocating for their own particular service... Transit advocates should, indeed, advocate for all transit and not nitpick on behalf of their own particular route while trashing others.  This type of approach will get us absolutely nowhere, other than less (state) funding, more cuts and more misery.

 

Does anyone use the Muni Lot and then use the WFL to get to their jobs downtown?

I like the waterfront line, but it's flawed right now.  If it were extended as a loop through campus it would make a lot more sense, and have higher ridership numbers.

 

In its current form it really doesn't connect people efficiently (in my opinion)

 

HOWEVER: Maybe RTA can go to flats / Lakefront developers and the Browns to ask for a subsidy to keep the WFL running.

 

(At the end of the day I admit I am discussing this based on my impression.  Is there current data on ridership, or cost per travel to compare with other rail/bus routes?)

 

 

This has been a really interesting thread to read, because it speaks to an underlying tension that's often present with rail transit: whether rail should serve areas of existing demand, or if it should shape development in a way that induces demand.  I know that grade-separated light/heavy rail is different than an at-grade streetcar, but a similar conversation has taken place repeatedly in the past 10 years or so that the streetcar has been in planning stages and construction in Cincinnati.  Critics would state that the line 'doesn't go anywhere' (particularly on the north side of the line, which terminates in a pretty quiet part of OTR), while supporters would counter with the point that the streetcar is going to generate development.  So far, without the line even being open yet, development has really taken off around the streetcar line.  Not all of this development is directly attributable to the streetcar, but it's certainly a factor that is helping to steer development. 

 

I think the Waterfront Line would definitely benefit from an extension.  I actually thought about how a streetcar between the lake/Rock Hall/Science Center and the real core of downtown would be incredibly useful when I was in Cleveland last summer.  If the Waterfront Line could somehow turn up 9th and continue up to Prospect before turning to head back towards Tower City, that would be amazing.  It would totally focus the 'core' of Cleveland's core, and would create a situation where nearly all points of downtown would have easy access to the lake, Tower City, the Q/Jacobs Field, E 4th, etc.  The Health Line (which hopefully will be upgraded to LRT at some point) would provide an excellent feeder to this line, meaning that it wouldn't have to rely so much on hyper local support, such as TOD.  I know this is all fantasy given the budget constraints RTA is faced with, but a transit line does have to go somewhere to make it an asset worth developing around.  Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise.  I would say that leadership should either focus on making the WFL work/rebranding it as a downtown loop (fairly strong precedent for a downtown transit loop in the Great Lakes...), or cut the losses, and focus those resources on other, more viable bus and rail options that are in need of help.  The tracks and station infrastructure would still be there, and if the funding situation for RTA was ever improved, it could be brought back fairly easily, I'd guess. 

 

You raise some good points and, yes, there is the ongoing tension re rail transit, esp in Cleveland.  I would only modify one comment: 

 

"Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise."

 

My problem is that I don't judge a rail line's asset/non-asset, success or failure status based on developers not building TOD.  This is because, as a metropolitan area, we don't have a clue about TOD-- It seems that, after Shaker Square in 1929, we've forgotten what it is... Once again, look at all the undeveloped land around our Rapid stations and, even where there's potential; look at all the gas stations, juvenile prison complexes along with the endless array of strip shopping, fast foods, used car lots and 1-story buildings along with, often, ... nothing, built next to high-potential, high-speed rapid rail stations...

 

Why does this keep happening?  And forget TOD, it took this town 61 years to relocate a Rapid station just a thousand feet from the edge of Lakeview Cemetery to the front door of the bustling main street of Little Italy which is perhaps Cleveland's most densely populated residential district ...

 

... ya think, collectively, we just may not have gotten this whole rapid transit thing down?

 

It's largely because the prevailing viewpoint that has taken hold here, over time, is that rapid transit (of the rail type), isn't all that special.  To some, including various unnamed leaders, the view is that the Rapid is little more than an overly expensive bus line with headaches and expensive maintenance issues... If you could somehow lift up our Rapid system and drop it on any number of other cities that are lacking in transit, you'd see high-density, high-quality TOD all over the place.  Other places appreciate rail.  Not here.

 

...  So, as I see it, the problem isn't the Rapid ... As the saying goes: "We've met the enemy, and it is us..."

 

 

Does anyone use the Muni Lot and then use the WFL to get to their jobs downtown?

I do not know, but RTA also has the "NineTwelve" trolley that operates during weekday rush. It serves nearly the same function as the loop suggestion above. From the muni lot up E. 9th. It doesn't go all the way to Prospect and then loop, it circles around  at Chester and returns via E.9th to the lot.

 

This would serve residential on the muni lot for anyone working along that corridor as well as provide a faster and free connection to the HealthLine than the WFL would.  However, these enormous lots sitting right along the WFL is a crime. Residences here would have access to incredible views, activate the E. 9th St. Pier and other downtown lakefront amenities. Via the Waterfront Line they add traffic to the FEB neighborhood and can get to the transit hub and the heart of downtown, plus they're a transfer and 1 stop away from the West Side Market and W.25th.  The aforementioned trolley delivers them to the HealthLine if they're Clinic employees. You could easily go carless but if not, you could literally be pulling out of a parking garage and be on the Shoreway in 1 minute, where a short drive east or west gets you to the rest of the lakefront parks.  Tailgaters be damned, these lots need to be developed.

 

This has been a really interesting thread to read, because it speaks to an underlying tension that's often present with rail transit: whether rail should serve areas of existing demand, or if it should shape development in a way that induces demand.  I know that grade-separated light/heavy rail is different than an at-grade streetcar, but a similar conversation has taken place repeatedly in the past 10 years or so that the streetcar has been in planning stages and construction in Cincinnati.  Critics would state that the line 'doesn't go anywhere' (particularly on the north side of the line, which terminates in a pretty quiet part of OTR), while supporters would counter with the point that the streetcar is going to generate development.  So far, without the line even being open yet, development has really taken off around the streetcar line.  Not all of this development is directly attributable to the streetcar, but it's certainly a factor that is helping to steer development. 

 

I think the Waterfront Line would definitely benefit from an extension.  I actually thought about how a streetcar between the lake/Rock Hall/Science Center and the real core of downtown would be incredibly useful when I was in Cleveland last summer.  If the Waterfront Line could somehow turn up 9th and continue up to Prospect before turning to head back towards Tower City, that would be amazing.  It would totally focus the 'core' of Cleveland's core, and would create a situation where nearly all points of downtown would have easy access to the lake, Tower City, the Q/Jacobs Field, E 4th, etc.  The Health Line (which hopefully will be upgraded to LRT at some point) would provide an excellent feeder to this line, meaning that it wouldn't have to rely so much on hyper local support, such as TOD.  I know this is all fantasy given the budget constraints RTA is faced with, but a transit line does have to go somewhere to make it an asset worth developing around.  Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise.  I would say that leadership should either focus on making the WFL work/rebranding it as a downtown loop (fairly strong precedent for a downtown transit loop in the Great Lakes...), or cut the losses, and focus those resources on other, more viable bus and rail options that are in need of help.  The tracks and station infrastructure would still be there, and if the funding situation for RTA was ever improved, it could be brought back fairly easily, I'd guess. 

 

You raise some good points and, yes, there is the ongoing tension re rail transit, esp in Cleveland.  I would only modify one comment: 

 

"Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise."

 

My problem is that I don't judge a rail line's asset/non-asset, success or failure status based on developers not building TOD.  This is because, as a metropolitan area, we don't have a clue about TOD-- It seems that, after Shaker Square in 1929, we've forgotten what it is... Once again, look at all the undeveloped land around our Rapid stations and, even where there's potential; look at all the gas stations, juvenile prison complexes along with the endless array of strip shopping, fast foods, used car lots and 1-story buildings along with, often, ... nothing, built next to high-potential, high-speed rapid rail stations...

 

Why does this keep happening?  And forget TOD, it took this town 61 years to relocate a Rapid station just a thousand feet from the edge of Lakeview Cemetery to the front door of the bustling main street of Little Italy which is perhaps Cleveland's most densely populated residential district ...

 

... ya think, collectively, we just may not have gotten this whole rapid transit think down?

 

It's largely because the prevailing viewpoint that has taken hold here, over time, is that rapid transit (of the rail type), isn't all that special.  To some, including various unnamed leaders, the view is that the Rapid is little more than an overly expensive bus line with headaches and expensive maintenance issues... If you could somehow lift up our Rapid system and drop it on any number of other cities that are lacking in transit, you'd see high-density, high-quality TOD all over the place.  Other places appreciate rail.  Not here.

 

...  So, as I see it, the problem isn't the Rapid ... As the saying goes: "We've met the enemy, and it is us..."

 

Probably the best post I've read on any thread recently. 

 

So we need to explore what caused RTA to finally change the location of the Little Italy station?  And what do we do to make them think this way in other areas, or bring developers to the table in existing locations?

The LI station was in the pipeline for nearly a decade and used an existing station vault built in the early 1900s (I think 1920s but not positive).  It's also a dense neighborhood already located on the existing line.  I'm afraid there aren't that many replicable situations available at the moment.

The LI station was in the pipeline for nearly a decade and used an existing station vault built in the early 1900s (I think 1920s but not positive).  It's also a dense neighborhood already located on the existing line.  I'm afraid there aren't that many replicable situations available at the moment.

 

There are some though, many are mentioned in this thread (E 105th and E34th).  What about moving W65th so it's not tucked away behind a corner, and is on a main street? 

^^^ Well, thank you.

 

I do not know, but RTA also has the "NineTwelve" trolley that operates during weekday rush. It serves nearly the same function as the loop suggestion above. From the muni lot up E. 9th. It doesn't go all the way to Prospect and then loop, it circles around  at Chester and returns via E.9th to the lot.

 

This would serve residential on the muni lot for anyone working along that corridor as well as provide a faster and free connection to the HealthLine than the WFL would.  However, these enormous lots sitting right along the WFL is a crime. Residences here would have access to incredible views, activate the E. 9th St. Pier and other downtown lakefront amenities. Via the Waterfront Line they add traffic to the FEB neighborhood and can get to the transit hub and the heart of downtown, plus they're a transfer and 1 stop away from the West Side Market and W.25th.  The aforementioned trolley delivers them to the HealthLine if they're Clinic employees. You could easily go carless but if not, you could literally be pulling out of a parking garage and be on the Shoreway in 1 minute, where a short drive east or west gets you to the rest of the lakefront parks.  Tailgaters be damned, these lots need to be developed.

 

As the late Cleveland talk-show host, Gary Dee, would say: Amen and Hallelujah!

This has been a really interesting thread to read, because it speaks to an underlying tension that's often present with rail transit: whether rail should serve areas of existing demand, or if it should shape development in a way that induces demand.  I know that grade-separated light/heavy rail is different than an at-grade streetcar, but a similar conversation has taken place repeatedly in the past 10 years or so that the streetcar has been in planning stages and construction in Cincinnati.  Critics would state that the line 'doesn't go anywhere' (particularly on the north side of the line, which terminates in a pretty quiet part of OTR), while supporters would counter with the point that the streetcar is going to generate development.  So far, without the line even being open yet, development has really taken off around the streetcar line.  Not all of this development is directly attributable to the streetcar, but it's certainly a factor that is helping to steer development. 

 

I think the Waterfront Line would definitely benefit from an extension.  I actually thought about how a streetcar between the lake/Rock Hall/Science Center and the real core of downtown would be incredibly useful when I was in Cleveland last summer.  If the Waterfront Line could somehow turn up 9th and continue up to Prospect before turning to head back towards Tower City, that would be amazing.  It would totally focus the 'core' of Cleveland's core, and would create a situation where nearly all points of downtown would have easy access to the lake, Tower City, the Q/Jacobs Field, E 4th, etc.  The Health Line (which hopefully will be upgraded to LRT at some point) would provide an excellent feeder to this line, meaning that it wouldn't have to rely so much on hyper local support, such as TOD.  I know this is all fantasy given the budget constraints RTA is faced with, but a transit line does have to go somewhere to make it an asset worth developing around.  Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise.  I would say that leadership should either focus on making the WFL work/rebranding it as a downtown loop (fairly strong precedent for a downtown transit loop in the Great Lakes...), or cut the losses, and focus those resources on other, more viable bus and rail options that are in need of help.  The tracks and station infrastructure would still be there, and if the funding situation for RTA was ever improved, it could be brought back fairly easily, I'd guess. 

 

You raise some good points and, yes, there is the ongoing tension re rail transit, esp in Cleveland.  I would only modify one comment: 

 

"Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise."

 

My problem is that I don't judge a rail line's asset/non-asset, success or failure status based on developers not building TOD.  This is because, as a metropolitan area, we don't have a clue about TOD-- It seems that, after Shaker Square in 1929, we've forgotten what it is... Once again, look at all the undeveloped land around our Rapid stations and, even where there's potential; look at all the gas stations, juvenile prison complexes along with the endless array of strip shopping, fast foods, used car lots and 1-story buildings along with, often, ... nothing, built next to high-potential, high-speed rapid rail stations...

 

Why does this keep happening?  And forget TOD, it took this town 61 years to relocate a Rapid station just a thousand feet from the edge of Lakeview Cemetery to the front door of the bustling main street of Little Italy which is perhaps Cleveland's most densely populated residential district ...

 

... ya think, collectively, we just may not have gotten this whole rapid transit thing down?

 

It's largely because the prevailing viewpoint that has taken hold here, over time, is that rapid transit (of the rail type), isn't all that special.  To some, including various unnamed leaders, the view is that the Rapid is little more than an overly expensive bus line with headaches and expensive maintenance issues... If you could somehow lift up our Rapid system and drop it on any number of other cities that are lacking in transit, you'd see high-density, high-quality TOD all over the place.  Other places appreciate rail.  Not here.

 

...  So, as I see it, the problem isn't the Rapid ... As the saying goes: "We've met the enemy, and it is us..."

 

Much of the delay in relocating to the current Little Italy station location was Little Italy, with its dense population, didn't want it there.  This was a ''closed'' neighborhood prior to its recently becoming a ''hip'' hang out at restaurants etc and now, on occasion, you can be the victim of an armed robbery, even on a Sunday morning.

 

You should judge a rail line's success or asset whatever by its use.  The WFL continues to not be a success. 

 

 

 

I do not know, but RTA also has the "NineTwelve" trolley that operates during weekday rush. It serves nearly the same function as the loop suggestion above. From the muni lot up E. 9th. It doesn't go all the way to Prospect and then loop, it circles around  at Chester and returns via E.9th to the lot.

 

This would serve residential on the muni lot for anyone working along that corridor as well as provide a faster and free connection to the HealthLine than the WFL would.  However, these enormous lots sitting right along the WFL is a crime. Residences here would have access to incredible views, activate the E. 9th St. Pier and other downtown lakefront amenities. Via the Waterfront Line they add traffic to the FEB neighborhood and can get to the transit hub and the heart of downtown, plus they're a transfer and 1 stop away from the West Side Market and W.25th.  The aforementioned trolley delivers them to the HealthLine if they're Clinic employees. You could easily go carless but if not, you could literally be pulling out of a parking garage and be on the Shoreway in 1 minute, where a short drive east or west gets you to the rest of the lakefront parks.  Tailgaters be damned, these lots need to be developed.

 

As the late Cleveland talk-show host, Gary Dee, would say: Amen and Hallelujah!

 

Again, we're supposed to rely on residents in a developed muni lot to save the WFL with occasional rides to FEB, the WSM and Ohio City?  That's not gonna make the WFL a success nor will a rush hour only shuttle up E 9th Street take the place of a rail line connected through the CBD to the Red, Blue and Green Lines.

 

20 years of the City of Cleveland sponsored WFL and its ridership is estimated at 400 riders a day.  Maybe more of the couple of hundred FEB residents will opt to take the WFL to Muni Lot and hop on the E 9th Street shuttle to go to work in say PHS.  Add another 3 riders if that happens.  Besides, the shuttle is for people parking at Muni Lot not the Shaker Square resident working in the 9-12 District; rides in from SS, rides through the Flats, exits train at Muni Lot and shuttles up E 9th.  Not likely or logical.

I like the waterfront line, but it's flawed right now.  If it were extended as a loop through campus it would make a lot more sense, and have higher ridership numbers.

 

In its current form it really doesn't connect people efficiently (in my opinion)

 

HOWEVER: Maybe RTA can go to flats / Lakefront developers and the Browns to ask for a subsidy to keep the WFL running.

 

(At the end of the day I admit I am discussing this based on my impression.  Is there current data on ridership, or cost per travel to compare with other rail/bus routes?)

 

Right now, asking for a subsidy contribution from the Browns etc isn't going to happen.  Browns fans will still go to the games with or without a WFL. 

 

It's current configuration does not connect people and locations efficiently.

This has been a really interesting thread to read, because it speaks to an underlying tension that's often present with rail transit: whether rail should serve areas of existing demand, or if it should shape development in a way that induces demand.  I know that grade-separated light/heavy rail is different than an at-grade streetcar, but a similar conversation has taken place repeatedly in the past 10 years or so that the streetcar has been in planning stages and construction in Cincinnati.  Critics would state that the line 'doesn't go anywhere' (particularly on the north side of the line, which terminates in a pretty quiet part of OTR), while supporters would counter with the point that the streetcar is going to generate development.  So far, without the line even being open yet, development has really taken off around the streetcar line.  Not all of this development is directly attributable to the streetcar, but it's certainly a factor that is helping to steer development. 

 

I think the Waterfront Line would definitely benefit from an extension.  I actually thought about how a streetcar between the lake/Rock Hall/Science Center and the real core of downtown would be incredibly useful when I was in Cleveland last summer.  If the Waterfront Line could somehow turn up 9th and continue up to Prospect before turning to head back towards Tower City, that would be amazing.  It would totally focus the 'core' of Cleveland's core, and would create a situation where nearly all points of downtown would have easy access to the lake, Tower City, the Q/Jacobs Field, E 4th, etc.  The Health Line (which hopefully will be upgraded to LRT at some point) would provide an excellent feeder to this line, meaning that it wouldn't have to rely so much on hyper local support, such as TOD.  I know this is all fantasy given the budget constraints RTA is faced with, but a transit line does have to go somewhere to make it an asset worth developing around.  Given that the WFL has been around for a while at this point, it's clear that developers obviously don't feel that it is such an asset, and expecting new TOD to magically pop-up around a rail line that's been in existence for 20+ years is probably not wise.  I would say that leadership should either focus on making the WFL work/rebranding it as a downtown loop (fairly strong precedent for a downtown transit loop in the Great Lakes...), or cut the losses, and focus those resources on other, more viable bus and rail options that are in need of help.  The tracks and station infrastructure would still be there, and if the funding situation for RTA was ever improved, it could be brought back fairly easily, I'd guess.

 

Cincinnati's streetcar is the opposite situation with CLE's rail lines.  The streetcar being limited to Cinci's compact and walkable downtown; CLE's rail lines extend east-west across the city with some suburban access but with only 1 real station downtown and some side-show light-rail stations skirting half-way around the CBD.

 

Cinci's short-term issue is, after the initial novelty wears off, extending the lines out to the neighborhoods and suburbs to bring commuters and others into the city.  Why drive to a Reds game, pay to park away from the stadium, pay to use the streetcar, wait for it and ride it to the stadium.

 

The vast majority of CIN and CLE population live in the suburbs and other outlying areas so it's a tough sell to get people on transit again in either city other than, in CLE case, going to a special downtown event while CIN's streetcar doesn't sound like it will work for large events (it will be closed for Oktoberfest).

 

The streetcar and the HealthLine may not be spurring development directly but neither is inhibiting development.

 

Cinci needs to be planning and implementing extensions to its streetcar and CLE needs to, at a minimum, enclose the light-rail half-arc around its CBD.

 

Most people visiting CLE would never know there is a rail network in the city.  Other than seeing an empty WFL train go by in the Flats, you would never know there is much more to it.

^ I agree with much of what you've said.  The challenge for Cincinnati is indeed growing its transit network- first to Uptown, and then to other neighborhoods and suburbs.  But neither Cle nor Cincy have debilitating traffic or congestion in the urban core that necessitates transit.  By and large, the car and bus system works pretty well at handling commuting needs with relatively light traffic.  The point of our transit systems should not just be to shuttle commuters from the burbs to work downtown and then home again at night.  Yes, that is an important core block of ridership for any mass transit system, but it should not be the end all, be all goal. Rather, transit should be about connecting neighborhoods, giving citizens access to their own city without requiring car access, and rebuilding our cities around dense nodes and neighborhood centers- many of the things that made Cle and Cincy great cities to begin with. 

 

For what it's worth, I think Cleveland's rapid transit system is one of the biggest built-in advantages the city and region has.  I loved using the Red Line to get to University Circle and Ohio City, and I enjoyed the ease of traveling back downtown after visiting Larchmere and Shaker Square.  The rapid gives Cleveland a big city feel, and I enjoyed seeing the cars go by on the bridge above me when I was exploring the Flats.

 

It might not be important to you, and perhaps (definitely) it could be marketed better to tourists, but it's a huge asset that should be capitalized on more. Its alignment and station location is not ideal in places, and I think serious consideration should go into closing some of the very lightly used Red Line stations to make the trip from Downtown to LI/UC even more of an express trip, but the fact remains that Cleveland has a huge leg up over Cincinnati and other cities with no/fledgling rail systems.  Rather than scoffing at the Rapid's shortcomings, why not work to make what you have better and more successful?

 

 

 

 

Again, we're supposed to rely on residents in a developed muni lot to save the WFL with occasional rides to FEB, the WSM and Ohio City?  That's not gonna make the WFL a success nor will a rush hour only shuttle up E 9th Street take the place of a rail line connected through the CBD to the Red, Blue and Green Lines.

 

20 years of the City of Cleveland sponsored WFL and its ridership is estimated at 400 riders a day.  Maybe more of the couple of hundred FEB residents will opt to take the WFL to Muni Lot and hop on the E 9th Street shuttle to go to work in say PHS.  Add another 3 riders if that happens.  Besides, the shuttle is for people parking at Muni Lot not the Shaker Square resident working in the 9-12 District; rides in from SS, rides through the Flats, exits train at Muni Lot and shuttles up E 9th.  Not likely or logical.

 

No I do not suppose that a couple hundred units built on the muni lot will quote unquote Save The Waterfront Line. The line is inefficient but it does exist.  And so do the muni lots, at the north edge of the CBD, right on this line.  Both are assets.  Both are underutilized.  The waterfront line's full potential will be limited as long as it remains with its existing terminus.  But we can't turn back the clock, and I can't advocate abandoning it when only 0.5 of the 3-4 TOD that should be built along the line have been built.  The argument and economic case for the  loop/extension that is required to make this thing really work for Cleveland can't be made without development on the obvious nodes that do exist.  That development will never happen if you shut the service down, or of it does, you make it much more auto dependent than it needs to be.

Furthermore, transit-accessible housing can be provided using Location Efficient Mortgages, something that the public agencies and banks in this region haven't yet taken advantage of much. As many young people have shown, you can live a full and productive life without owning a car in Cleveland. Developing transit-accessible housing (and jobs) saves a person more than $9,000 per year from having to own and use a mid-sized car. That savings increases your home purchasing/renting power and frees more money to be spent in the local economy (hello RTA countywide sales tax!). This region is developing a lot of housing within a short walk of high-frequency transit but there is still a lot more to do to fill in developable voids at stations. I'd love to see a data-driven scorecard/inventory of the most developable and largest vacant (including surface parking) parcels or combinations of vacant parcels within 500 feet of RTA's high-frequency (15 minutes or better) routes. Certainly there's a college professor or student reading this who could suggest this as a research project. If a professor or student is looking for a nonprofit organization to sponsor this work as an internship, All Aboard Ohio is willing to consider one or more candidates for this work. Send me an e-mail at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

Again, we're supposed to rely on residents in a developed muni lot to save the WFL with occasional rides to FEB, the WSM and Ohio City?  That's not gonna make the WFL a success nor will a rush hour only shuttle up E 9th Street take the place of a rail line connected through the CBD to the Red, Blue and Green Lines.

 

20 years of the City of Cleveland sponsored WFL and its ridership is estimated at 400 riders a day.  Maybe more of the couple of hundred FEB residents will opt to take the WFL to Muni Lot and hop on the E 9th Street shuttle to go to work in say PHS.  Add another 3 riders if that happens.  Besides, the shuttle is for people parking at Muni Lot not the Shaker Square resident working in the 9-12 District; rides in from SS, rides through the Flats, exits train at Muni Lot and shuttles up E 9th.  Not likely or logical.

 

No I do not suppose that a couple hundred units built on the muni lot will quote unquote Save The Waterfront Line. The line is inefficient but it does exist.  And so do the muni lots, at the north edge of the CBD, right on this line.  Both are assets.  Both are underutilized.  The waterfront line's full potential will be limited as long as it remains with its existing terminus.  But we can't turn back the clock, and I can't advocate abandoning it when only 0.5 of the 3-4 TOD that should be built along the line have been built.  The argument and economic case for the  loop/extension that is required to make this thing really work for Cleveland can't be made without development on the obvious nodes that do exist.  That development will never happen if you shut the service down, or of it does, you make it much more auto dependent than it needs to be.

 

The obvious development nodes do exist: they're known as E 9th Street/Playhouse Square/Cleveland State/the 9-12 District/Gateway/The 9/The Huntington Bldg./etc.

^ I agree with much of what you've said.  The challenge for Cincinnati is indeed growing its transit network- first to Uptown, and then to other neighborhoods and suburbs.  But neither Cle nor Cincy have debilitating traffic or congestion in the urban core that necessitates transit.  By and large, the car and bus system works pretty well at handling commuting needs with relatively light traffic.  The point of our transit systems should not just be to shuttle commuters from the burbs to work downtown and then home again at night.  Yes, that is an important core block of ridership for any mass transit system, but it should not be the end all, be all goal. Rather, transit should be about connecting neighborhoods, giving citizens access to their own city without requiring car access, and rebuilding our cities around dense nodes and neighborhood centers- many of the things that made Cle and Cincy great cities to begin with. 

 

For what it's worth, I think Cleveland's rapid transit system is one of the biggest built-in advantages the city and region has.  I loved using the Red Line to get to University Circle and Ohio City, and I enjoyed the ease of traveling back downtown after visiting Larchmere and Shaker Square.  The rapid gives Cleveland a big city feel, and I enjoyed seeing the cars go by on the bridge above me when I was exploring the Flats.

 

It might not be important to you, and perhaps (definitely) it could be marketed better to tourists, but it's a huge asset that should be capitalized on more. Its alignment and station location is not ideal in places, and I think serious consideration should go into closing some of the very lightly used Red Line stations to make the trip from Downtown to LI/UC even more of an express trip, but the fact remains that Cleveland has a huge leg up over Cincinnati and other cities with no/fledgling rail systems.  Rather than scoffing at the Rapid's shortcomings, why not work to make what you have better and more successful?

 

Transit systems should not be built for and used by commuters only but daily commuters are what carry them at the end of the day.  Of course transit should provide use for people like you hopping around town on the rapid.  I take the Red Line to Airport all the time, it's one of the top rail lines into an airport convenience wise and was the 1st in the U.S. to have airport rail (1968).

 

I'm not scoffing at the Rapid's shortcomings; I use it regularly.  Working to make what CLE has rail-wise even better is why I think the system needs, at a minimum, a little tweaking.  CBD Loop (which you mentioned), extension to west side along Detroit Avenue, even a Red Line extension to the IX Center, the 10th largest convention center in the U.S. with approximately 2 million visitors/year (the new downtown convention center is not CLE's only convention space).  It sits adjacent to the airport.

 

As far as closing east side stations go, good luck with that politically.

 

CLE and CIN transit systems are not comparable but both cities have sprawl and both need residential and employment growth.  The CIN metro may be a bit larger but it sprawls into more rural areas while CLE's CSA is approximately 3.5 million=more people to draw from for potential transit riders.

 

It's been 30 years since CLE's transit ridership cratered; during that time the city built the WFL.  You see how well that worked.  It's all about attracting jobs and residents otherwise, like CIN's streetcar, it will be the occasional users, special events riders (at least in CLE's case-not so much in CIN).

 

Cleveland does have a big-city feel to it, no doubt, it was once a top 5 city and one of the most densely populated cities to boot.

 

Isn't mentioning the shortcomings and offering ideas part of the method to address the shortcomings?  Not sure why you went with the ''scoffing'' route? (pardon the pun)

^ Fair enough. I only said 'scoffing' because you seem to be very critical of any idea posted here to improve the Rapid, other than grandiose, financially and politically implausible ideas.  I agree that acknowledging shortcomings and offering ideas is an important part of the process of achieving change. 

 

I will say, though, it's not uncommon for the city's share of metro population to be fairly low.  DC only has about 700,000 residents, but its metro area is over 6 million.  The fact that the majority of a metro's population lives in the burbs doesn't mean that transit should be oriented around the needs of people in the burbs over city residents and development initiatives.  I would say that Cleveland's system, with its abundant park and rides, already does a pretty good job at catering to commuters. 

 

While infill development along around rail stations won't 'save' the Rapid by itself, it would do a lot to convincing the general public that rail transit is a viable alternative to car ownership and dependency.  I think the strip mall and surface lots by the Ohio City station could be a real model of the power of rail to transform and enhance already successful neighborhoods.  It's also encouraging that two of the most successful, growing parts of the city (University Circle and Downtown) are well served by transit, even if developments occurring in those neighborhoods aren't TOD in the strict sense of the term.  Greater employment and population density in these areas will create more users for the system.

^ Fair enough. I only said 'scoffing' because you seem to be very critical of any idea posted here to improve the Rapid, other than grandiose, financially and politically implausible ideas.  I agree that acknowledging shortcomings and offering ideas is an important part of the process of achieving change. 

 

I will say, though, it's not uncommon for the city's share of metro population to be fairly low.  DC only has about 700,000 residents, but its metro area is over 6 million.  The fact that the majority of a metro's population lives in the burbs doesn't mean that transit should be oriented around the needs of people in the burbs over city residents and development initiatives.  I would say that Cleveland's system, with its abundant park and rides, already does a pretty good job at catering to commuters. 

 

While infill development along around rail stations won't 'save' the Rapid by itself, it would do a lot to convincing the general public that rail transit is a viable alternative to car ownership and dependency.  I think the strip mall and surface lots by the Ohio City station could be a real model of the power of rail to transform and enhance already successful neighborhoods.  It's also encouraging that two of the most successful, growing parts of the city (University Circle and Downtown) are well served by transit, even if developments occurring in those neighborhoods aren't TOD in the strict sense of the term.  Greater employment and population density in these areas will create more users for the system.

 

Critical of what plans to improve the Rapid?  Residential development around rapid stations is a good thing.  The Red Line is different from the WFL; two separate trains and issues.  We already know that UC is growing and has Red Line stations and the HealthLine but the topic is the WFL.

 

Hardly think that running the WFL up E 9th Street is grandiose and it's even more odd since you suggested the same thing.  Talk about grandiose, financially questionable projects, let's start with the CIN streetcar.  You mentioned that it needs to be extended; I mention that CLE's existing light-rail lines should be extended to the west side, and this is grandiose?  CIN city neighborhoods are not what I would call densely populated and yet you suggest a streetcar connecting neighborhoods for occasional riders.  People drive cars in CIN, its current transit ridership is lame for a metro area of its size. Building bus ridership first should be a priority, not building a rail network.

 

Of course metro areas have most of its people in the suburbs which is why DC's system runs to outlying areas.  DC Metro has many safety issues to address so please remember that these rail lines are very expensive to operate and maintain.  The topic cities are CLE and CIN however, both of which had substantial population declines; CIN is est to see its pop. inching up while CLE looks like its still declining.  CLE's system may cater to commuters, at least the ones that use transit and still work downtown.  You should have seen the parking lots at Triskett, West Park, Puritas and Brookpark stations back in the day; packed with cars.  Today, not so much.  The empty land should be used for other purposes like residential and commercial development.

 

No doubt that UC and downtown are served by good transit and of course employment and density will spur more use in these locations in general but the city and region need it in particular.

 

CLE and CIN both are considered to be economically distressed cities (both in the top 10, CLE worst off than Detroit) and both cities have sponsored the WFL and Streetcar respectively.  What are the targeted demographics in CIN's neighborhoods for using the Streetcar?  Given the current streetcar route, CIN comes off a bit like it just wants to say it has a streetcar as a way of changing its image and catering to the millennials' ''demand'' for transit.  Streetcars are not good for regional transit; they can be slow so CIN needs to step it up now with its streetcar extensions otherwise it will have the occasional users and a few core riders.  I don't understand the logic of this route to justify the cost; wait until the operating and maintenance bills start adding up.

 

Where are the millennials in CLE with its, compared to CIN, vast transit system?

 

Alright, I think I'm done here. Feel free to raise some of the questions you have about the streetcar in the Cincinnati Streetcar thread.

Alright, I think I'm done here. Feel free to raise some of the questions you have about the streetcar in the Cincinnati Streetcar thread.

 

OK, got it.  Don't bring up topics such as, in this case, the Cincinnati Streetcar and its future extensions in a Cleveland Transit thread.  This always guarantees no follow-up questions. 

 

Feel free to discuss the Streetcar and its extensions in the Cincinnati Streetcar thread.

Besides a quick jump to the Flats, less of a quick jump to the airport, why would these residents use the WFL in its current configuration in numbers sufficient to support the WFL?

 

What else is a short walk from a Rapid/BRT station and other connecting high-frequency transit lines?

 

Don't understand this question?

Did anyone see the PBS program last night called "10 towns that changed America"? It had a segment on Portland OR's Pearl District at the end which touches on streetcars and the spinoff developments which happened because of the streetcar.

 

I am not saying the same benefits will come to CIN, or CLE if the CLE ever builds a streetcar line (or extends the WFL), but the Portland piece sure does make a case for streetcar lines, and TOD.

 

Here is a link: http://www.oregonlive.com/tv/2016/04/7_takeaways_about_the_pearl_di.html

 

Did anyone see the PBS program last night called "10 towns that changed America"? It had a segment on Portland OR's Pearl District at the end which touches on streetcars and the spinoff developments which happened because of the streetcar.

 

I am not saying the same benefits will come to CIN, or CLE if the CLE ever builds a streetcar line (or extends the WFL), but the Portland piece sure does make a case for streetcar lines, and TOD.

 

Here is a link: http://www.oregonlive.com/tv/2016/04/7_takeaways_about_the_pearl_di.html

 

Missed this but I want to see it.  Portland is the gold star transit system in the U.S.  However, even with its reputation, Portland has seen budget issues and stagnant to declining ridership numbers.  I suspect this has to do with fare increases and a bad economy.  The Streetcar Line recently closed 5 stations due to the line running slow.  Even if the ridership numbers do increase, Portland's transit share of commuters has been stagnant to decline.  Must not be keeping up with the area's growing population; more people getting in cars than on the train.

 

The Pearl District is nice, but an expensive place to live.  Something both CIN and CLE need; ORT in CIN with its streetcar and Detroit-Shoreway in CLE with a light-rail extension.