But why spend millions to rebuild built rail lines? when: a) there is TOD potential untapped by existing lines, which are finally being explored, b) there is even some TOD growth near the lines you wish to replace (ie the Juvenile Justice center going up near the new Quincy/E. 105 Red Line Station, c) Building rail lines in freeway medians may be cheap, but it stymies, not adds to TOD growth, d) converting the rapid lines to trolleys will slow them down, hurt ridership.

 

You don't seem to want to answer those questions, KJP, about your Opportunity Corridor.  Why?

 

Jesus Christ, how many friggin different ways should I phrase the same answer??

 

A. I don't believe the existing line is capable of drawing any meaningful TOD. There may be some townhouses built someday here and there, but where are the plans? Is that enough? Can the existing street grid foster a well-planned, high-density mixed-use TOD? Where is the spider-web style street grid spreading outward from the existing stations that enhance pedestrianism? Look at Shaker Heights as the design model. Look at my earlier maps of how the street-grid can be reshaped with the Opportunity Corridor to create such a spiderweb.

 

B. If the Juvenile Courts building is a TOD, then I'm tall, dark and handsome. Even so, go back and look at my maps of the Opportunity Corridor. Do you see anything in there that suggests I wish to eliminate the East 105th/Quincy station?

 

C. Even ODOT doesn't propose a freeway. That's your term. Still, I'm not happy with ODOT's proposal, which is too high speed for my tastes and, more importantly, too high speed for the Opportunity Corridor Steering Committee. Both sides are at an impasse. I support a design like the Shaker Boulevard. Anything more speedy should not be built.

 

D. Converting the Red Line to something like the Green Line will lower its average speed over two miles of the realignment. The Red Line averages 24-30 mph from East 79th to University Circle; the Green Line averages 17 mph between Shaker Square and Green Road. That will increase the running time from 4 or 5 minutes to 7 minutes. How much can that be speeded up using signal preemption -- something that has never been added to the Shaker Lines for reasons I do not know nor understand? That technology could reduce the running time along the Opportunity Corridor by a minute or two, but we may lose that savings by longer waiting times at stations from increased passenger loads. Now, if we're not going to do something because the trains are slowed by increased ridership, then it's time to pack up and go home.

 

Now, let me ask you this question, if the Opportunity Corridor is built without rail in it, and RTA follows through with its desire to add express bus service along it, how soon do you think it will be before RTA seeks to downgrade (further reduce train schedules, eliminate stations, etc.) or even abandon the Red Line on the East Side? Consider what happens if the OC is built and Buckeye Road is widened from the OC to Shaker Boulevard, as ODOT proposes? How long do you think it will be before the Green Line is also downgraded or even abandoned?

 

If the Red Line isn't realigned between East 55th and East 105th, where should the interface be with future regional/commuter rail to the southeast? Where should the interface be with the Blue/Green Lines? What likelihood is there for having two regional rail stations so close (0.3 of a mile) together? Are you familiar with the natural topography and built environment around those two locations, and thus the cost of building of these two stations? Look at my map of the realigned Red, Blue and Green lines converging in that area along with an intersecting southeast regional rail line. How can we create better interconnectivity between rail lines than that? Perhaps we could continue the Green/Blue lines down Buckeye to the existing Red Line, but would rather make transfers using a rail transit line a trench or at a surface alignment? And where are we going to come up with the money to clean up the 40+ EPA Superfund sites along the Red Line from East 55th to University Circle? We don't have sufficient EPA Superfund or brownfield remediation funding to deal with such a massive problem. We do have highway funding to tackle it.

 

Are you prepared to:

> Fight ODOT to abandon the Opportunity Corridor entirely?

> Fight RTA to abandon its desire to offer express bus service on the OC?

> Fight Congress to increase U.S. EPA Superfund funding?

> Fight the Ohio General Assembly to increase Brownfields funding?

> Fight RTA's rail skepticism and TOD-lip service?

> Advocate that the affected CDCs take an aggressive TOD approach to capitalize on the presence of the Red Line?

 

I'm suggesting that we can tackle two or three of these, but not all of them. And these few battles are those that I believe I can win within 5-10 years. Even so, that's going to be one hell of a convincing job.

 

But I'm disappointed that you aren't buying my argument. Usually, we agree on so many things. I wish we didn't have to build the Opportunity Corridor to eliminate dozens of poisoned properties or to put rail in the OC to save it from it from being marginalized and rendered prematurely obsolete. Unfortunately, I don't think we have any choice.

 

Don't ever ask to me restate that answer again!

^Awesome.  Let's hope you can continue to have good Red Line experiences and become a regular rider.  The wacko cost of gas may make the decision even better for you.

 

Yeah, I like you wish we could beef up Rapid services.  I also realize that it's a hard sell in Cleveland right now.  The economy is stagnant in the metro area, overall, and there's a ton of downtown office vacancies.  But the housing market, particularly downtown and in many of the trendy neighborhoods -- including those served by the Rapid (Ohio City, Univ Circle/Little Italy and the Flats/Warehouse Dist) is picking up, and this bodes well for potential rail expansion.  It's just that there are not a lot of options to extend RTA finds viable, and that's a shame b/c they're out there.  And as you may have heard, at nearly its 10-year anniversary, developers have finally discovered this struggling, potential transit gem in the Flats area known as the RTA Waterfront Line, and are fighting with each other to build the biggest TOD residential project near it.

 

I'm a big proponent for extending the Waterfront Line East along the Lakefront, but if you actually drive the projected route and check it out on Google Earth, you'll see that potential TOD region overlooking the Lake is thick with industry, both derelict and extant.  There are mounds of coal at the huge old processing plant just east of E. 72nd (where a Rapid stop is projected) and there's got to be God-knows-what kind of chemical wastes embedded for decades -- over a century -- in the soils along that stretch of the lakefront: brownfields for miles that will require a massive EPA-financed cleanup effort.  It will take a long while to convert even some of that property over to high-end/high density residential... perhaps, though, the conversion of the Nickolson terminal Warehouse over to the upscale Quay 55 townhomes (at E. 55) may serve as a beacon for rail extension.

 

Your new town, Lakewood, has some of the highest density residential areas in the state and is one area rapid rail extension should be seriously looked at... We'll see what happens.

And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow.

 

In the 1960s, the cost of reactivating the rail line up Cedar Glen and Euclid Heights Boulevard was estimated at $16 million. The tracks and catenary support poles were kept in place until the Urban Mass Transit Administration and local officials said they wouldn't pay the amount. That infrastructure, preserved for some 15 years after streetcar service ended in the early 1950s, was removed.

But why spend millions to rebuild built rail lines? when: a) there is TOD potential untapped by existing lines, which are finally being explored, b) there is even some TOD growth near the lines you wish to replace (ie the Juvenile Justice center going up near the new Quincy/E. 105 Red Line Station, c) Building rail lines in freeway medians may be cheap, but it stymies, not adds to TOD growth, d) converting the rapid lines to trolleys will slow them down, hurt ridership.

 

You don't seem to want to answer those questions, KJP, about your Opportunity Corridor.  Why?

 

Jesus Christ, how many friggin different ways should I phrase the same answer??

 

A. I don't believe the existing line is capable of drawing any meaningful TOD. There may be some townhouses built someday here and there, but where are the plans? Is that enough? Can the existing street grid foster a well-planned, high-density mixed-use TOD? Where is the spider-web style street grid spreading outward from the existing stations that enhance pedestrianism? Look at Shaker Heights as the design model. Look at my earlier maps of how the street-grid can be reshaped with the Opportunity Corridor to create such a spiderweb.

 

B. If the Juvenile Courts building is a TOD, then I'm tall, dark and handsome. Even so, go back and look at my maps of the Opportunity Corridor. Do you see anything in there that suggests I wish to eliminate the East 105th/Quincy station?

 

C. Even ODOT doesn't propose a freeway. That's your term. Still, I'm not happy with ODOT's proposal, which is too high speed for my tastes and, more importantly, too high speed for the Opportunity Corridor Steering Committee. Both sides are at an impasse. I support a design like the Shaker Boulevard. Anything more speedy should not be built.

 

D. Converting the Red Line to something like the Green Line will lower its average speed over two miles of the realignment from about 30 miles per hour (the Red Line averages 24 mph from Tower City to University Circle, but this is a faster part of the line).  to 25.

 

C'mon, KJP, you know better than that.  You know the ODOT crew and other planners were attracted to this wide rail corridor for their road because it offers the potential for one thing: speed.  It is a sunken ROW allowing for a limited access road aimed at U. Circle and the Heights -- limited access road: that's the definition of a freeway to most people.  It makes no sense, from their POV, for ODOT to want this "street" along with a Rapid down the middle of it with lots of TOD type development your reloated Rapids will supposedly bring; although I defy you or anyone to show me where any freeway/rapid transit -- most notably the 3 in Chicago -- has spurred TOD development. 

 

I don't know where your coming from about E.105/Quincy.  I never implied your proposal meant to destroy it.  I was only pointing it out as TOD that is already happening as a result of the existing Red Line WITHOUT ODOT's/your "Opportunity Corridor."  And as for its status as a TOD --  I guess you're tall, dark and handsome.  While it's not the MGM Grand, it still is planned as a high-density employment center (a welcome site to replace the decades-old, decrepit and empty brewry)-- and I have no doubt that the adjacent station along our heavy rail East-West Rapid line was a strong lure.

 

As to Shaker Heights -- it's not a fair comparison.  Yes, the Van-inspired design of radiating streets oriented commuters to the close-spaced stations, but scenario still ignores freeway/high speed nature of this proposed "boulevard".  Despite the occasional speeder (who the Shaker cops usually nab) Neither Van Aken nor Shaker are freeways.  What's more, your comparison ignores the fact that Shaker was an enclave atop the East Side's Appalachian bluffs (now known collectively as the Heights) carved from empty farmland.  The Van Sweringens acres of rural land as their canvass.  What's more, unless you plan putting the Blue/Green lines underground, or at least in an open cut similar to that offered along Shaker Blvd, those lines will be harmed as much or more than the east leg of the Red Line, which is considerably shorter in length. 

 

All I ask is this: why not work to develop around the Rapid that's there, not contort the rail system to a freeway that ought not be built?  Why can't those walkable neighborhoods you propose be oriented to the rail lines that are already there?  I've oft advocated relocating the Red Line's E.79th stop to the heavily-trafficked corner of Buckeye and Woodland.  That industrial wasteland could be cleared and the type of development you are talking about could be built there, as well as the other Rapid stops in the area.

 

Have you been over to the E. 79 Blue/Green Rapid stop?  Believe it or not, new homes are going in there.  Why can't more development occur there?  Look down down Woodland (to around the E. 34th block) at the massive Longwood Estates develpment.  Why can't something like this happen at E. 79 where a rebuilt rapid stop (only 2 decades old) and rehabbed rapid route (completed only a few years ago) exist?  Why do you want to conform to ODOT, build yet another damaging (to the City) urban freeway whose main purpose is to speed Heights and West suburban commuters in opposite directions?...  I'm curious.

And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow.

 

If I recall from something I read years ago, the stumbling block was the big intersection at the top of the hill where it was deemed too expensive to build the necessary rail underpass... damn shame.

In the 1960s, the cost of reactivating the rail line up Cedar Glen and Euclid Heights Boulevard was estimated at $16 million. The tracks and catenary support poles were kept in place until the Urban Mass Transit Administration and local officials said they wouldn't pay the amount. That infrastructure, preserved for some 15 years after streetcar service ended in the early 1950s, was removed.

You know the ODOT crew and other planners were attracted to this wide rail corridor for their road because it offers the potential for one thing: speed. It is a sunken ROW allowing for a limited access road aimed at U. Circle and the Heights -- limited access road: that's the definition of a freeway to most people.

 

Ah, now I see your confusion.... An early option proposed using the rail corridor for the road. That was rejected a long time ago as too expensive. The least expensive and favored OC alignment is a surface route south and east of the existing rail freight/Red Line corridor through an area that today has some rural portions. If ODOT builds the road the way it wants, it would have intersections with Kinsman, Buckeye, Woodland, etc. but still be a 45 mph road. The steering committee overseeing ODOT's work wants a slower speed road and to keep Buckeye Road at its existing width. Planning work has apparently stopped over this impasse and the Steering Committee has not met in a long time because ODOT hasn't come back with significant revisions.

 

Please go to the Opportunity Corridor web site to see the routing options, cost components, features, etc.... http://www.innerbelt.org/OpportunityCorridor/OCfrontpage1.htm

 

And the map below shows the four basic options that were studied. The purple line is the option which most on the steering committee seem to favor:

 

http://www.innerbelt.org/OpportunityCorridor/OC_4ALTS.jpg

 

As for the county's youth intervention center, that is NOT a TOD. It is not mixed use and therefore will not foster more frequent multi-purpose trips throughout the day that a TOD would offer. Increased ridership may occur at shift changes, and some visitors to the facility may take the Red Line -- depending on how the facility is designed. The current proposal is to build it at the farthest point on the cleared brewery property from the Red Line station (probably because of the proximity of noisy, vibrating freight trains -- one reason why I want the Red Line away from the freight tracks for the sake of encouraging other developments!). The intervention center is a single-use function for the massive site, which will limit ridership potential compared to a mixed-use, high-density development that should be built adjacent to the station. It's a huge missed opportunity and I'm miffed over the loss of this site to future mixed use. BTW, the site is totally cleared of any structures from the old brewery. You may be thinking of another site.

 

There are some opportunities for mixed-use, high-density redevelopment along the north side of Quincy, near the Red Line station, but there are no active development proposals for this to my knowledge. Those features are included in the Fairfax Renaissance Development Corp.'s masterplan for the Quincy Corridor (as is the favored Opportunity Corridor Boulevard alignment) see below....

 

Appreciate the correction.  Here are a few comments on your comments and the “Opportunity Corridor” link:

 

KJP wrote: “As for the county's youth intervention center, that is NOT a TOD. It is not mixed use and therefore will not foster more frequent multi-purpose trips throughout the day that a TOD would offer. Increased ridership may occur at shift changes, and some visitors to the facility may take the Red Line -- depending on how the facility is designed. The current proposal is to build it at the farthest point on the cleared brewery property from the Red Line station (probably because of the proximity of noisy, vibrating freight trains -- one reason why I want the Red Line away from the freight tracks for the sake of encouraging other developments!). The intervention center is a single-use function for the massive site, which will limit ridership potential compared to a mixed-use, high-density development that should be built adjacent to the station. It's a huge missed opportunity and I'm miffed over the loss of this site to future mixed use. BTW, the site is totally cleared of any structures from the old brewery. You may be thinking of another site.”

 

No, I’m thinking of this exact site, prior to the leveling of the buildings.  Point being, thought the YIC may not be perfect – I will concede your point that it’s not, at the moment, a traditional TOD (but can you say that if spin-off development grows on-site such as some kind of retail and/or contractor-law-related office facilities?) – it is far better than the crumbling brewery that was sitting there for decades.   

 

As to your comment about the location of the YIC on the site being distant from the ROW b/c of railroad vibrations: that’s an assumption on your part -- you did use the word “probably”.  If your assumption about railroad vibrations is accurate, how come thriving employment centers/neighborhoods hug active railroad corridors such as University Hospitals (which is in the life saving business, no less), Little Italy, and Edgewater, among others.  Why is there plans for a hotel/retail TOD at Brookpark, perhaps the busiest freight rail corridor in all of Cleveland?   And what about the expanding, upscale apartments and condos going in and around the old Chicle chewing gum factory that sits adjacent to not 1, but 2 busy railroad corridors.  I don’t buy it.  Your rationale sounds like a parallel to those folks who attack the Waterfront Line in a way to excuse the City’s foolishness for not developing TOD around it… it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Some random notes & thoughts I made on the OC powerpoint presentation:

 

- It starts out on the wrong foot (with me, anyway) quoting the history of the Clark Freeway debacle 30+ years ago.  If OC is truly not a freeway – which, for the most part, it does not appear to be,  then why the reference?

-There is projected an “interchange” at E. 55 meaning a partial freeway.

- It mentions “travel routes” mainly focusing on West Sider’s commutation to U. Circle

“RTA Retail” at the E. 55 stop.  Are they serious?  Is this a first step in the yuppification/gentrification of Slavic Village (Ohio City’s Market Square business district seemed to be ignited, in part, by the upgrade of the W. 25 Rapid Staton).

-It is interesting to see Councilman Brancatelli, in his 11/9/05 letter oppose the alternative #4 south E. 55 alignment that will destroy many Slavic Village homes – good for him!  Btw, $8M for the new E. 55 RTA station (per Councilman Brancatelli’s letter)? wow, that’s a lot of $ for a lightly-used stop -- but I guess that's investing on positive future TOD growth, and that should be the name of the game.

 

 

BOTTOM LINE: the info in this power-point presentation is enlightening and eases my mind, but only a tad.  Overall, I’m still highly skeptical, at best.  I still don’t understand why, once again, we’re turning to massive infrastructure rebuilding (which stands to displace residents ) which ultimately will be for the convenience of the almighty auto as a means, allegedly, to rescue our city when, really, we should be focusing on maximizing the infrastructure that’s in place in this particular: the roadways and the transit lines.   I don’t believe you need to rebuild the rapid lines in this area to successfully have TOD in the so-called “Forgotten Triangle.”   Unlike this OC (and your proposed Rapid reconfiguration to go along with it), I was totally on board with relocating the Red Line to the Dual Hub (at least partial) subway project out Euclid because, with that project, the advantages both to transit and high-density city building were clearly discernable.  Here, I don’t see it at all.  Ultimately, I think this proposal will hurt, and possibly destroy rail transit (you did once say the ultimate goal was to convert the Red and Green lines into BRT – if that happens, Cleveland would be, once again, the laughing stock of the world).

 

And whether or not this road is in the ditch or out of it (which you’ve convinced me the planners have opted for), there are still freeway-ish aspects to it that are troubling (esp the huge "diamond interchange" at E. 55 where the Slavic Village folks are, understandably having issues with it).  Moreover, you/ODOT still have not convinced me that the genesis for this is roadway is more for the rebuilding of this neighborhood as opposed to a mere backdoor for commuters – commuters who, by the way, will be drawn away from commerce, retail and entertainment venues (existing now and in the future) along Midtown Corridor where ECP/BRT will serve and where there’s been a massive effort, over the decades, to upgrade.

 

I think one very important distinction has to be made here:  I don't advocate building the Opportunity Corridor. I advocate for the inclusion of rail in the Opportunity Corridor if it is built. I do so only because of my fear that the rail transit lines, especially the Red Line, will otherwise be rendered more invisible, and thus further marginalized (or considered unnecessary) if the OC happens.

 

One thing does excite me about the OC: the chance at having a single transfer point among multiple transit lines as I've posted on the OC thread. Here is the map I posted, which could turn the Forgotten Triangle into a "third downtown" (after the real Downtown and UC):

 

Regional view -

 

 

 

Close-in view -

 

 

Except for heritage streetcars and tourist trolley lines, here are the three least used light-rail transit services in the U.S.:

 

City/System   -  yearly total ridership

 

Baltimore LRT  -  5.8 million

Buffalo LRT     -  5.4 million

Cleveland LRT -  2.7 million

 

 

The Buffalo numbers are actually quite remarkable.  Their single rail line is just 6.4 miles long.  Metro Rail is free above ground in the downtown area. Proof of payment is needed to travel underground, fare is $1.50. Proof-of-payment can be a valid: Metro Rail Ticket, Metro Pass, Transfer from a connector bus.  BTW, the numbers quoted above are a bit off.  The latest report from NFTA says Buffalo's light rail line on its 21st anniversary (May 18, 1985 opening) is carrying 23,000 riders each weekday.  That compares with RTA's 9,900 Blue/Green/Waterfront line average weekday riders reported for May 2006.

 

Also of interest to transit geeks like me is that Buffalo is studying returning cars to the downtown Main Street right-of-way that for the past 21 years has been exclusively for the light rail cars. 

 

http://www.buffaloplace.com/aboutus/planning/returnoftraffic.html

 

Anyways, free ridership areas in places like Buffalo and Portland certainly help boost ridership.  Best local evidence is RTA's downtown Trolleys, although it's hard to tell what ridership effect the new vehicles, more practical routing, and better service frequencies had relative to the free ride.  I know eliminating the farebox has made operations a lot zippier.

 

 

Archer, to be sure, those numbers are depressing for RTA, obviously.  But keep in mind, our light rail system is hard to compare to others: it was built as/has more in common with traditional eastern-style commuter rail lines -- to many NYC friends, the Shaker Lines remind them of the Long Island Railroad branch lines.

 

Remember, the Shaker lines were designed by the Vans solely to develop and sell lots in then-new Shaker Heights.  Unlike Buffalo, Baltimore and others, its goals, therefore, were limited.  And as a commuter railroad-type system with in-city stops along railroad rights-of-way and terminating in a single station downtown, the Blue/Green lines have few trip generators outside of Shaker Square, the on-going mega decline of downtown as an employment center has had a much greater impact on our light rail system than on a more typical, modern LR system.

 

That is interesting. I was thinking this morning as I walked to my Rapid stop, on the whole, the rail system doesn't go the places it needs to go. I mean, it's too bad that the Rapid doesn't go to Beachwood, for example. I'd get on in Lakewood and take it there on occassion. Or even in the city of Cleveland -- I'm so thankful it hits UC and Little Italy -- but man, it'd be awesome if it also went to Cleveland State, too -- a commuter school like Kent State and Akron U. that could really attract rail traffic, and the campus is looking pretty good these days with all the restoration/construction.  It's even more stupid, to me, that there isn't more TOD, as it's called. How are you supposed to increase ridership when the routes go to undesirable/vacant locations? Once you pass Tower City, the train picks up like 2 people at every stop, at most. What's the point of having a transit system if they don't tweak the options to increase usage? This just pisses me off because in the old Eastern cities, rail is so important, and it could be just as useful to the people who live here. Instead, we get a bunch of inefficient buses that take 10 years to get anywhere. I take use the Lakewood Circulator as a supplement to the Rapid, but on the whole I HATE buses. Too slow! Maybe the Euclid Corridor buses will be better, but I'd rather light rail ::sigh::

 

The problem I underestimated with about the public transportion around here is the general negative view of it by the average person. This week, I started taking RTA to work, and I've become a little bit of a novelty to people I know because I know some bus routes and I have the Red Line down. People don't want to be around poor people I guess is the main problem. No matter who I talked to, no matter what they did for a living, they couldn't comprehend taking a train or bus to work, or even taking the bus a mile down the road to a meeting. I tried to explain to everyone that I took public transit because I wanted to and I thought it was fun and worth it, but they always feel guilty and say they would have given me a ride somewhere, as if public transit is a punishment. I own a car! I don't need a ride. Public transit offers a lot of perks: In the morning, I can really experience the city by walking to the Rapid and then walking from Tower City to work, and although Euclid Avenue looks like ass, it still feels good in my gut. It's the CITY!!. Coming out of TC onto Public Square and you see enter that veranda and the Key Tower goes skyward in the giant windows, and it's AWE-INSPIRING! It's so beautiful! You come out on the street, hit the sidewalk and you can feel the beat, even if it is faint compared to NYC.

 

Anyway, before I go off the deep end, can anyone tell me what Lakewood Circulator would get me to the W. 117 Rapid stop fastest in the morning. I live on the corner of Lake and Cove. I think one of them goes up 117 and dumps people at the corner of Madison and 117, which is close enough to the stop. I looked at the schedule, and it looks like most of them pass my apartment and 40 minutes later end up at the Rapid stop, which is a waste of time because I can walk there in half the time. I enjoy walking, but I imagine one of these days, the weather will be lousy and not good for walking. Thanks for the bus help =)

Since you live a block from me, and I've lived in this neighborhood for 10 years, I figured I'd chime in with an answer. There are three operating scenarios for the Lakewood Community Circulator in our part of town. First, the first few/last few bus trips of the day go back and forth between Winton Place and the West 117th/Madison Rapid station via Lake, Cove, Clifton and West 117th. Second, the rest of the day, there are two Circulators that run from Winton Place, but stay on Lake before turning south on West 117th. The first of these that's scheduled to show up on Lake turns west from West 117th onto Detroit Road. The second Circulator bus that's scheduled to show up on Lake continues south on West 117th to the Rapid station. Here's a timetable you can print out, study, and keep with you.... http://www.riderta.com/pdf/804.pdf

 

Once the Rapid station's reconstruction is completed, the circulators will once again drop passengers at the main station entrance, which makes for a very short walk to the trains.

 

I hate to say it, but the only time I use the circulator to go to the Rapid station is when I'm going to the airport. Otherwise, it's out of my way. When I'm heading downtown, I take the #55 bus down Clifton. Buses run every 5-7 minutes from the corner of Clifton and Cove, with every other bus skipping stops (all buses stop at Cove). Every fourth #55 trip during the rush hours operates via the Gold Coast. Since the #55 uses the Shoreway to get into downtown, it's a very quick ride -- much faster than the #326 down Detroit Avenue, and is competitive with the Red Line -- moreso from where we live. The #55 buses pass through Public Square, making transfers to the other rail lines pretty easy. Here is a #55 schedule:  http://www.riderta.com/pdf/55X.pdf

 

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks for the help! I have inspected that route schedule, and it is the only RTA map I've seen so far that I don't understand! Well, I understand where the routes go basically but when it comes to real life, it seems like every Circulator bus has a different little label on their signs, so I can't ever tell who is going where. It looks like from the map that that the Madison 804 bus would go from our neighborhood back to the Rapid, rather than the other buses that start at the Rapid, come to my apartment building and then drive all over Lakewood.

 

For some reason, I just enjoy taking the Rapid. My commute goes from 15 minutes by car to a full hour by foot and train, so that may be why people think I am crazy.

jamie, I think you summed up a lot of what I feel about taking the rapid.  I have other options, sure, but I like riding it for a number of reasons...convenience, affordability, and yes, the geeky thrill I get of riding the rails!  I think that you're right about the common perception of the system by Clevelanders, but I think that is also changing.  The next generation of adult riders have been to other cities and enjoyed riding transit and I think that will help.  And hopefully, with potential TODs and other transit improvements (BRT, etc) in the works, it will become a more functional, and more attractive system.

 

But it's true...some people look at you funny and kind of feel bad when you tell them you take the train...but don't you kinda feel bad for them sitting in traffic and chugging gasoline and trying to talk on their phones while they're getting on the highway?

Here's how I learned the circulator route: in basic, it makes a circle of the city with half of the buses running clockwise and the other half running counterclockwise around the circle. The tricky part is in our neck of the woods, where an appendage to the circle goes to/from the Gold Coast. The problem comes when drivers forget to change the destination sign on the buses at their layover point at the Rapid station and at Winton Place.

 

At least for me, a real simple way for RTA to ease the confusion is for them to get rid of the street names on the destination signs and replace with "Clockwise" and "Counterclockwise." The signs wouldn't have to be changed anywhere. Thus, if a bus shows up in the Gold Coast area and has a destination sign say "Clockwise" then it's going to the Rapid station. If it says "Counterclockwise" then it's going down Detroit Avenue.

on a side note, who knows what the rules are for taking bikes on the Red Line?

 

I got on a single-car Red Line train yesterday at University Circle and had to wait for about 12 people to board before me so that I could squeeze into the little space at the front of the train. (the conductor closed the door before the last three of us could get on...I guess he was tired of waiting for everyone to get their change in order before we could pull out!)  So anyway, I'm on and I'm out of the way and there's another little dirt bike on the other end of the train (how he got down there, I don't know) and we pull up to E. 79th, where there's a guy with a bike waiting to board.  The driver tells him he can't get on... "come on man, I'm trying to get to work and I've been waiting here for this train."  Nope, no dice.  What's that all about?  There was ample space next to me or if the driver would open up one of the other doors on the train.  What gives?  Is there a two-bike limit?  It's not like they post this information anywhere in the stations...or the web site, for that matter!

 

I thought this was a really shitty situation and one that would prevent me from ever trying to take my bike on the train again if it had happened to me.  I felt bad for the guy...

http://www.riderta.com/ro_bike.asp

 

Riding Options: Bike

Bikes on Transit

 

100% of RTA buses have bike racks. Just signal the bus driver before boarding and load your bike. For the rapid transit just roll your bike on and stand with it (this is not available on weekdays during rush hour or during special events).

 

On the RTA Rapid Transit

An adult must accompany anyone under the age of 18 with bicycles.

 

• With 100 percent of buses sporting bike racks, RTA officials want to allow more bikes on the Rapid Transit lines. The times when bikes are prohibited has been decreased from four hours to two hours. Bikes are prohibited on the Rapid Transit from 7-8 a.m. and 4:30-5:30 p.m. each weekday. Bikes are also prohibited during special events and whenever bicycles cannot be reasonably accommodated. No tandems, recumbents, mopeds or tricycles are permitted.

 

• At the Tower City station, bicycles may enter and leave by taking the elevator between the station level and Prospect Avenue level (3rd floor), using the Prospect Avenue doors to the left and right of the elevator.

 

• Bicycles are prohibited from all other areas of The Avenue at Tower City Center, including stairs, escalators and retail areas.

 

• At Tower City, cyclists can transfer between Blue, Green, Waterfront and Red Line Trains using the fare gates designated for wheelchairs.

 

• At Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, bicycles may be locked outside in designated areas. For safety reasons, bicycles are not permitted inside terminal buildings.

 

• Bicycles are not allowed on the escalators at any station. Cyclists must use stairs and elevators only.

 

• No more than two bicycles are permitted per car, with space available on a first come, first-served basis.

 

• Like other passengers, cyclists must yield to wheelchair passengers.
  

 

• Cyclists must board the train after other passengers, and must stay with their bicycles for the entire ride.
  

 

• Bikes must not block aisles or doorways on RTA trains, and must be securely held or tied in place.
  

 

• When on the platform, please keep your bicycle well away from the edge at all times.
  

 

• Cyclists will obey all posted signs and instructions from all authorized personnel, including RTA Transit Police, Service Quality Management, Rail District operating and supervisory personnel and municipal police.
  

So, KJP, all the buses come up through the GC. I would probably jump on at that stop on the corner of Edgewater and Cove. In an ideal world where the signs are updated, should I be looking for the one that says Madison to get me to the Rapid fastest? I guess I could just ask the bus drivers, lol. Thanks for all your help.

 

I wish the Rapid was more accommodating for bikes, but the cars aren't built well to take them on because of that school bus-style seating. I got on a Rapid this week and a kid was sitting in the middle of the car with his bike and because bikes are long, he made a row of seats in front of and behind him unavailable to anyone else. Of course, I got on at 8 p.m., so it was pretty empty, lol.

 

I prefer the NYC style of seating because even though there are probably fewer seats, it's less intense to sit down next to someone you don't know. Even when the Rapid is full and you're standing, 33% of the seats are empy because people situate themselves so no one can sit next to them. Someone should teach them public transportation etiquette! The more people who get on, you gotta skoot over so people can sit down!

^Hey, thanks for that!  I swear I searched the entire site and found squat!  So, as I suspected, there's a 2-bike limit.  That may be an issue every once in a while, but this would so clearly have been an acceptable time to let the guy on.  Every seat was taken, but I was the only one standing in the door areas.  I really felt for the guy...not enough to offer to get off the train, though! (I was late enough as it was...really!)

^^Jamiec, have you considered walking down Cove to Detroit and catching the frequent #326 bus into the West Blvd-Cudell Rapid Station?  A 1-hour for a commute is awfully slow even for someone, as yourself, who enjoys the Rapid.

 

Btw, I empathize with your comments about extending the Rapid.  But as you're finding, however, even in it's current form, it's more useful than locals give it credit for.  The real problem is Clevelanders need to expand their minds about transit before expanding the tracks.  I get the same sympathy/scorn for using the Rapid among friends which you wouldn't get in Boston or D.C., and that's not just because those systems are more extensive.

 

In some larger cities, like Chicago, most people do NOT live within a few blocks of a rapid transit station and must use buses to begin or complete their trips.  Ironically, in such bigger cities, people will put up with more hassles where size and traffic fear is greater than in smaller, lighter-traffic cities like Cleveland, where lazy commuters won't ride unless trains take them to their door (preferably their front door, as complainants about the Waterfront line gripe).  You see how traffic fear, even here in Cleveland, dramatically spikes ridership.  An example was last night's fireworks/Cleve Orchestra extravaganza on the square w/ the Indians-Orioles game at the Jake, where there was suddenly Manhattan-like crowding on the trains.

Thought you all might find this of interest. These are the top-ten RTA bus routes, as ranked by total ridership in 2004....

 

% of

system

Rank Route Ridership total

1. 326 - 3,442,131 8.3%

2. 6 - 2,941,560 7.1%

3. 22 - 2,041,450 4.9%

4. 1 - 2,005,840 4.9%

5. 15/15A-1,958,665 4.7%

6. 14 - 1,888,796 4.6%

7. 10 - 1,866,657 4.5%

8. 20All - 1,351,598 3.3%

9. 2 - 1,228,787 3.0%

10. 40 - 1,210,848 2.9%

 

For those not familiar with RTA's bus system, the routes are:

 

326 - Detroit/Superior Ave

6 - Euclid Ave

22 - Lorain Ave

1 - St. Clair Ave

15/15A - Broadway-Union Ave

14 - Kinsman Ave

10 - East 105th

20All - West 25th-Broadview/State

2 - East 55th/East 79th

40 - Lee Road/Lakeview Road

 

My suggestion to save RTA operating expense is to implement a traffic signal preemption program along all these routes so buses don't have to start/stop at every light. It's already happening along many of these roads (the latest is West 25th), and emergency vehicles are equipped so they will always get a green traffic light. The same equipment should be added to RTA buses. It should pay for itself in reduced fuel consumption, fewer brake replacements, and increased ridership from faster, more reliable service.

 

Oh, by the way, here are RTA's top-ten ridership performers in 2005, among the radial bus routes (as opposed to circumferential routes, freeway expresses, or community circulators etc)...

 

326 Detroit - Superior 3,547,361

6 Euclid Ave   3,071,548

1 St. Clair 2,144,667

22 Lorain   2,070,102

15 Union   2,069,559

14 Kinsman   1,932,469

35 Broadview - Quincy 1,125,976

20/A W.25-Broadvw/State 1,079,360

19 Broadway - Miles   1,059,658

25B/W Madison 874,478

weird. I wish someone could explain why on w25th and Detroit the 326 only runs everyone 25 minutes or so and the 20A runs almost every 5-10, yet the 326 has a larger ridership?  The 326 if often full and 20A isn't. Whats up?? Maybe the 326 runs more often east out of tower city.I'm a  326 fan as you can imagine and wish it ran more frequently on my side of town.

The 326's buses run through downtown without added/subtracted buses, and are scheduled to run every 6-10 minutes weekdays. The only section where it runs less frequently is west of the West Boulevard Rapid station, where 25 minute headways are offered in the middle of the day. See http://www.riderta.com/pdf/326.pdf

 

However, because the buses run for such a long distance across town, it is common for an unlucky bus to miss a disproportionate number of traffic lights. That delay causes the number of waiting passengers to increase ahead of its arrival and the bus slows further to pick up the riders collecting at the stops. Meanwhile, a nearly empty bus behind it starts to catch up to the crowded bus. So, if you're waiting for a long time on Detroit or Superior for the 326, chances are two buses will eventually show up -- one that's packed to the doors and another that's virtually empty. And they'll run in tandem the rest of the way along its route. Screws up return trips too.

 

It's another reason for equipping buses and traffic signals with signal preemption devices....

good analogy for rta to take heed of up there. the buffalo line is located right downtown where the people are. the cleveland rapid lines are located where the people are not. got it joe?

I just noticed... RTA's top eight bus ridership routes carry more people than COTA's entire system.

 

And, mrnyc, those are just the bus route ridership rankings. Including rail, the Red Line is the top route in terms of ridership -- 5.45 million and the Blue/Green Lines carried 2.77 million. Both of those are 2005 figures, representing ridership increases of 8 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively, over 2004.

 

Here's how the top-ten routes would rank if I included rail (which I should have, but the spreadsheet from RTA I was using listed only buses)...

 

66 Red Line                      5,450,000

326 Detroit - Superior        3,547,361

6 Euclid Ave                     3,071,548

67X/AX Blue/Green Lines     2,770,000

1 St. Clair                        2,144,667

22 Lorain                         2,070,102

15 Union                          2,069,559

14 Kinsman                      1,932,469

35 Broadview - Quincy       1,125,976

20/A W.25-Broadvw/State  1,079,360

 

On that score, RTA's top FIVE busiest routes carry as many people as the entire COTA system. And, that's not to slam Columbus, but to slam COTA!

 

good figures KJP. 

 

On the traffic preemption, i agree with you 100%, however, I don't believe that any lights in cleveland currently have preemption (eg, for fire or ems).  there was an article in the PD this winter talking about how all of the suburbs have adopted different systems because cleveland never set a standard, and surprise surprise, ems and fire trucks traveling between jurisdictions cannot preempt sometimes. 

I believe West 25/Pearl will -- that's the project now underway. And I'm familiar with the signals on Lorain Road in North Olmsted and Fairview Park, which I'm pretty sure have the preemption for emergency vehicles. But, like you say, that may not be compatible with the others. Here's where the region has flunked Regionalism 101.

And, to bring ourselves back down to earth, check out this posting about Cleveland streetcar ridership in the 1920s. Very sobering...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6369.msg63500#msg63500

wow...sobering indeed!  Well, what percentage of Clevelanders had cars in the 1920s and how many of them lived in and worked in the city and its core neighborhoods?  We don't need to answer that question, because we all know what I'm getting at.

 

That said, I'm surprised that the 326 is our most heavily used bus route...surpassing the 6 and all others.  Though, I guess if you looked at corridors, the 20 and the 6, which both run more frequently than the 326, also share the heaviest parts of their routes with several other buses.  The 326, by contrast, is by itself for much of its route, along busy, mixed-use Detroit.  So, if you looked at corridor numbers, Euclid and W. 25th/Pearl may surpass Detroit. 

 

KJP?

wow those numbers! 500m annual riders back in the late 1940's vs only 60m today? that is a remarkable drop-off even considering the city today is half the size it was. everybody and their mother rode back then!

 

drives home how local public transit today is really just a shell of it's former self.

 

Wow.  If you conservatively assume that all bus ridership is on  weekdays, even the 326 only works out to 13,200 riders a day.  That's decent enough, but not particularly busy as far as bus routes go.

 

It kinda makes you realize how car-dominated and sprawled-out the City of Cleveland has become.

I'm surprised too by the 326's ranking. I had heard recently that the #6 was the most-used line in the city.

I've always thought the 326 has the most obvious potential for upgrade to light rail in the city... Perhaps this ranking will help make that case if money for such an upgrade ever becomes available.

I've always thought the 326 has the most obvious potential for upgrade to light rail in the city

 

It would instantly be the busiest light rail line in Cleveland.

^Detroit, Euclid, W. 25th/Pearl all make a lot of sense.  Detroit has so much potential as it is, but just imagine once the Lakefront West project is complete!  Which brings us back to the other threads...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1916.0

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4526.0

The 326 is so busy is because it took two already busy routes, the #3 bus on Superior and merged it with the #26 bus on Detroit. It would be like merging the #6 with the #22 to create a single route. It makes the ridership look more impressive than it otherwise would be if they remained separate routes, but it also causes reliability problems with such a long route.

That said, I'm surprised that the 326 is our most heavily used bus route...surpassing the 6 and all others. 

 

Since the E. Cleveland portion of Euclid was affected in 2005, I'm wondering if the construction on Euclid Ave has affected the number 6 route numbers?

Maybe some, but not enough to knock it out of the top bus route ranking. RTA has another data class they use to rank transit routes: average boardings per in-service vehicle hour. On that score, RTA's top-ten most productive bus routes are the 6, 2, 326, 1, 22, 246, 10, 30, 14, and 251.

 

While the systemwide average for buses is 22 boardings per in-service vehicle hour, the average for rail is more than 50 boardings per in-service hour. So if RTA officials tell you that their rail system is underperforming (and compared to most U.S. rail systems it is), ask why they have been implementing new/expanded bus services when those are less than half as productive as rail. And remember, labor costs (a key component of vehicles in service costs) is by far the most dominant expense RTA has (something like 70 percent of RTA's operating cost structure).

RTA ridership system wide up 6% in June. 

 

Some drop off expected in July due to fare increase.  who knows.

^^ Wow, interesting numbers; the ones RTA would rather you NOT know.  I think there's a plan to deemphasize rail even given its much greater load/cost efficiency (even here).  It would be interesting, also, to know how expensive is it for the Red Line to run an extra, unmanned car more often off peak, like during the work day.  How much electric vehicle miles would they really "waste" by allowing more passenger room on the expanded cars vs. jamming into one car (and greatly slowing service on top of that).  Esp. given your numbers about the greater expense of man-hours in light of the fact that: a) RTA, throughout the day (except during rush hour) and most weekends, only uses off-car fare takers in 4 stations (the 2 Tower City stations, Airport and Windermere), and b) a two-car train can be run by one person (and thank God, they finally have learned both cars can be used IF the driver/fare collector merely does the 'hard work' of eying the platform making sure board-ees come up front to pay).

 

No one's asking RTA to foolishly throw away $$ on running the Rapid, but the way rail is such an underappreciated and belittled asset in the RTA hierarchy viz other cities, one must really start pressing Q: when does transit stop emulating a penny-pinching business and start emulating the tax-funded service it's supposed to be?

With more younger people living in town and greater entertainment/eating options downtown and in transit-accessible neighborhoods, why isn't RTA doing more to make rail more attractive rather than less?

 

RTA's so gung-ho in cutting down to singer cars that are often overcrowded while, at the same time, employing a number of personnel to quickly break down the units.  How much is RTA REALLY saving, esp since, as you hint, so much duplicative, expensive, more cost INeffective bus routing is utilized.  As I've long suspected, and noted here, I believe there's SO much to make our current Rapid so much more useful, but in the long run, concomitantly making the system more cost effective and efficient.

Q: when does transit stop emulating a penny-pinching business and start emulating the tax-funded service it's supposed to be?

 

There is a way to add rail cars during off-peak hours without increasing labor costs, and that's by having a proof-of-payment system enforced by putting more RTA police on the trains. Until this happens, RTA will keep many stations unstaffed especially during off-peak travel hours and limits the length of its trains to control the boarding of passengers via the front door so passengers must walk past the operator to pay their fares.

 

RTA couldn't implement the proof-of-payment soon enough IMHO. It will allow RTA to put the second car back on the Shaker rapids (which the Breda cars' design requires a costly second driver anyway on 2-car trains), allow a second car more often on the Red Line, reduce boarding times on all lines, reduce travel times, reduce in-service vehicle hours, potentially reduce labor costs and increase a police presence on the trains, thereby increasing a sense of security.

 

I don't know why it's taking RTA so long to implement the proof-of-payment system. The only reason I can guess is that it takes time to hire and train more RTA police.

I don't know why it's taking RTA so long to implement the proof-of-payment system. The only reason I can guess is that it takes time to hire and train more RTA police.

 

I don't think RTA has actually decided what payment system to use.  Early talks were for proof of payment, and i think it might still lean that way.  I wouldn't expect ANY fare collection changes until the silver line goes live.   They just approved some expenditures for maintenance and parts on the existing machines for the next couple of years. 

 

hopefully, rail and silver line can go POP ASAP, and then figure out the rest of the buses, although there would then be transfer problems most likely.

I've got a feeling POP fare collection is waaay off in the future.  As was noted, why would RTA invest so heavily, as they have recently, in all the fare card dispensing/reading equipment at a number of Red Line stations only to junk them in a year or so?  As I said, at the very least, the new policy of allowing 1-man operation of 2 car trains (something MU, heavy rail was SUPPOSED to allow), is at least reducing crowding... that is, when RTA decides to run off-peak doubles, which is rare...

 

... as to the issue of bus vs train, vs labor costs and efficiency, part of the problem is RTA's very immature view of rail: to RTA (I feel, at least) they view the Rapid as merely a fancy, expensive bus line, but nothing really special.  And one of my pet peeves about RTA exemplifying this is the silly level of bus duplication of rail we have, esp when it comes to the absurd number of radial bus runs we could eliminate...

 

For example, last week I pulled out my (hard to read/worst in America, desperately needs to be redone) RTA system map, and noted the #45 bus that runs W. 65 and Ridge Rd all the way to Parmatown.  This should simply be a long crosstown bus linking the W. 65 Rapid stop ending at Detroit Road.  So why, then, at Detroit does the route turn East and run into downtown?  Is it #45 riders' God-ordained right to a 1-seat ride into downtown.  Has any transit planner here heard of the term "feeder bus".  :?  Isn't this extremely wasteful, esp when riders (even if they don't like the Rapid) can hop off at Detroit and ride the extremely frequent, 24-hour  #326 into downtown?  And this isn't the only example. 

 

Here's another: why must ALL the #55s down Clifton/Lake, one of the busiest suburban corridors, ride the W. Shoreway into downtown, esp during off-peak hours, when a quick turn at West Blvd, puts you right at the modern, temp controlled Rapid Station at West Blvd/98th & Detroit??  Sure, it would piss off some #55 riders off, but tough you-know-what!  The transit system would function more cost effectively and more like a "normal" bus-rail network SHOULD operate.  Isn't this a big city with a bigtime rapid transit system?  Why continue burn up valuable and increasingly expensive diesel fuel (while assuring empty Rapid seats) with all the foolish bus duplication?

 

I wish somebody at RTA could explain this?  Esp for such a seemingly fiscally responsible operation -- oh yeah, sorry; that fiscal responsibility only comes on the backs of Rapid riders who the RTA power structure could care shit about...  :whip: :shoot:

 

Brewed Fresh Daily's (blog) take on the Rapid's woes.  Many things have been covered here.

 

http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2006/06/26/jamie-carracher-on-the-rta/

 

 

Brewed Fresh Daily

News and opinion from Cleveland, Ohio on a variety of topics

June 26, 2006

« Norm Roulet on Tom Johnson

Tim Russo posts @ BSB »

 

 

 

Jamie Carracher on the RTA

Filed under: Cleveland — George @ 10:22 am

I hate to admit it, but I’ve lived downtown for two and a half years, but have never utilized public transportation:

 

I have been thinking and reading about the Cleveland Rapid rail public transportation system since my reawakening to it yesterday afternoon. As anyone who has visited or lived in any other old, major city in the United States knows, heavy rail, light rail and subways are a huge part of how people get around. In New York, where 5 million people ride the subway each day, it is particularly important.

 

With that in mind, I was a little surprised to read that the Cleveland Rapid moves less than 30,000 people everyday. Only 30,000!  Boston, which has my favorite rail transportation system, the ‘T’, moves about 450,000 people a day.

 

It would be simple to say regular people are to blame in Cleveland, that they are too auto-dependant and selfish. But that is only part of the problem. Also to blame, and probably more so than potential riders, is the actual system and its routes as well as RTA. The Red Line in particular is an amazing option that isn’t living up to its potential. It travels between the aiport and East Cleveland. However, except for Ohio City and University Circle, the stops aren’t really utilized…

 

I need to work on that…

 

* * * *

[jamie's entire comments + some responses]

Good Public Transportation

I have been thinking and reading about the Cleveland Rapid rail public transportation system since my reawakening to it yesterday afternoon. As anyone who has visited or lived in any other old, major city in the United States knows, heavy rail, light rail and subways are a huge part of how people get around. In New York, where 5 million people ride the subway each day, it is particularly important.

 

With that in mind, I was a little surprised to read that the Cleveland Rapid moves less than 30,000 people everyday. Only 30,000!  Boston, which has my favorite rail transportation system, the 'T', moves about 450,000 people a day.

 

 

It would be simple to say regular people are to blame in Cleveland, that they are too auto-dependant and selfish. But that is only part of the problem. Also to blame, and probably more so than potential riders, is the actual system and its routes as well as RTA. The Red Line in particular is an amazing option that isn't living up to its potential. It travels between the aiport and East Cleveland. However, except for Ohio City and University Circle, the stops aren't really utilized. The trains, which are hidden in a giant ditch, often drop you off on the edge of a neighborhood. Unlike successful systems that actually enter into populated areas, the Rapid is hidden away. By getting the trains more integrated into the neighborhoods it services, you can create a desire and need for it. When a bus stops infront of your house and train stops a mile away in a big ditch, you'll probably take the bus even though it is slower and might involve transfers.

 

Another problem is where the trains go. On the West Side of the city, the trains basically ignores dense population centers of neighborhoods like Edgewater in Cleveland and the Gold Coast in Lakewood. Instead, the Red Line hits Lakewood at W. 117 St. in no-man's land, and then heads south to the airport. In my dream world, RTA would extend a line down Clifton into downtown Cleveland.

 

A final problem with placement is where every single Rapid train eventually turns up -- Tower City. If you've taken the Rapid to Tower City for a sporting event or concert, you know how cool that terminal is. But, again, in my opinion we're missing another great opportunity. Trains are coming in from suburbs to downtown Cleveland, stopping at this nice terminal, and then leaving downtown again. What the heck?  Besides Tower City, there are basically no other downtown stops, specifically stops that go into the guts of the city. Take a look at downtown coverage. While the area is served by TWO lines, neither enters into the city, which means if you want to take a train, you're going to have to walk a pretty long distance to get to work.

 

Right now, the Rapid really seems to be relying on people who have no options, teenagers who can't drive and environmentally minded commuters. In order for this system to survive, it needs to be considered USEFUL by the average person not because it is a novelty but because it makes their life better. It's almost there. An unlimited monthly pass costs less than the average downtown parking deck, plus you save on the cost of gas and the frustration of driving in.

 

I hope the city and RTA can capitalize on what could be a golden opportunity. I hope they think of tweaking and improving the system rather than abandoning it in the future.

 

Editor's note: Please realize I have no transportation or city-planning job experience. I didn't study classic rail systems in college. I have just written what I have observed living in other cities. =)

 

Posted by Jamie on June 25, 2006 09:36 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://jamiecarracher.com/blog-mt2/mt-tb.fcgi/45

Comments

i agree, and i don't think you have to be an engineer or urban studies major to make this sort of assessment. To me, many aspects of sound urban planning just require holistic common sense. (holistic as in 'whole'--not herbs, yoga etc....if there was any confusion.)

 

Another--what i feel to be--common sense idea is putting a full-service grocery in the center of downtown. Like in the floudering Tower City. Perhaps my logic is flawed, but it could be a lunchtime destination, a pick-something-up-on-the-way-home-via-RTA and a center for all those loft apartments. To make downtown living—living, not just sleeping—viable there has to be these kinds of services.

 

Posted by: peppermintlisa | June 26, 2006 03:49 PM

 

Thanks for the comment! Interesting idea. I wonder if a grocery store is part of Bob Stark's vision of Pescht in the Warehouse District... There's a Giant Eagle at Crocker Park, right?

 

Posted by: Jamie | June 26, 2006 06:55 PM

 

For the most part, I agree with your post and I for one am glad that people outside of the urban planning profession are taking notice of our maligned transit system. It certainly needs help.

 

However, RTA is not to blame for many of its problems. For one, the past 50 years have reduced the city's population by fully one half! Transit does not work unless there is density.

 

As for the seeminly abandoned redline, RTA has FINALLY begun to look at a policy for TOD (transit oriented development) which essentially builds dense mixed use communities around transit stops. Portland, OR instantly made their MAX lightrail line a success by implementing TOD. The redline,therefor, has the potential (like many things in clevo) to be a humongous asset. It exists in a 'ditch' because that's where the existing ROW (right of way) was, which made it much more inexpensive to construct.

A subway exists in a sort of trench or ditch, yet certainly does not fail as a means of mass transit.

 

As for the density in lakewood not being served by mass transit, Clifton certainly has the width for light rail or BRT (bus rapid transit as it was once served by trolleys, so who knows, BRT may be in the Clifton's future. I think naming it the Gold Line would be apprpriate! ;>)

 

TOD >>http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/transitoriented/tod_main.html

 

Clifton's Future >> http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/home.php?which=1&article_id=610

 

RTA Volunteer Action Committee >> http://staged.cboss.com/gcrta/ar_organization-citizens.asp

 

pEACE

 

Posted by: john | June 29, 2006 10:16 AM

 

Sorry for the delay in getting your comment posted, John. For some reason it needed approval and, of course, I didn't know that. I must have changed on option without realizing it.

 

Thank you for adding those informative and good comments! I could always use some educating =) I think your comment about the Red Line being in the ditch is particularly good because as I've ridden it to work and to get around, I've come to the realization that I doubt the actual routes will ever be changed as drastically as I suggested. The only other option then is to encourage development around them, which is probably a better idea anyway.

 

I don't blame RTA for anything besides not really promoting it like they could. But with the shrinking population and the general ambivalence by the average person toward it, it's a hard nut to crack.

 

And I'd love to see a "Gold Line" over here! I'd prefer light rail over the buses, of course. I'm very curious to see if the Euclid Corridor project works. It's funny how all this new development/transportation is basically putting in place what we had available 70 years ago.

 

Posted by: Jamie | July 1, 2006 10:36 AM

 

 

Post a comment

 

* * * *

: : Good Public Transportation

 

4 Comments »

I have also noticed some major class distinctions here in Cleveland, which seem to prevent certain folks from taking the bus/rail because it would mean having to sit with “them.” I’ve seen a person shell out $45 for a cab from Clifton and West 117 to Shaker to make a meeting when her car was down; the thought of sitting next to people who weren’t like her scared her way too much.

 

I faithfully took the bus for two and a half years when I was without a car, learned the system, and still take it from time to time because once you know the system and routes, it’s your best bet for downtown/crosstown travel.

 

Most buses and rails are equipped with bike racks, wheelchair lifts, and of course, air conditioning. For a time, you could also buy a newspaper on the bus, which was a great idea.

 

However, going back to class distinctions, park and ride express buses that go from the suburbs to downtown tend to be more comfy and clean than crosstown buses which are the sole method of transportation for many people in Cleveland. It’s shameful.

 

Comment by tim — June 26, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

 

Parking would help. They have giant lots on the west side. If you’re on the east side, you’re pretty much out of luck. Bus transportation is so unreliable in the Heights that the only time I take it is when I’m going to the airport — and I almost missed a flight once because the #7 bus, which is infrequent to begin with, missed a cycle. I ended up walking a mile and a half to the Rapid with an enormously heavy duffle bag.

 

Comment by Ambercat — June 26, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

 

class distinctions and parking are not the major problems. the biggest issue is that the rapid often does not run where the people are and many stops on the rapid are not user friendly. this is changing as rta is at least making some noise that they are interested in tod, but to say tod opportunities are underutilized along the rapid lines is an understatement. waaay more could be done. for example, w65th does not count, that was driven by ecocity and still remains underutilized — rta could help much more there. rta pushed tod at the airport briefly, but nothing ever happened.

 

the downside is that unlike his predasessor ron tober, now head of charlotte and their new rail boom, rta’s current chief joe calabrese is anti-rail. he does not believe rta should be proactive and help steer rational development (ie., like a wfl or other extensions could do). he has not advocated for rail improvements in the slightest, even tho mucho fed money is out there (seattle, denver, etc have gone and gotten $). he has been silent on rta’s role in the innerbelt rebuild and on commuter rail. basically, he is a terrible boss for a rail transit system.

 

rta and rail could be instrumental in improving cleveland. instead calabrese is going retro with this cheapskate gas guzzling euclid ave silver line brt. i hope that works out and sparks some redevelopment along euc, in the end it may, but bah.

 

sorry, i go berzerk about transit!

 

Comment by meesalikeu — June 26, 2006 @ 6:57 pm

 

Cool comments! As I said, I’m not an expert, but I am surprised the Rapid’s ridership numbers are so low because, when you look at the map, it covers a LOT of distance, and it’s not like it goes through a bunch of small towns. It actually goes near dense areas, but it doesn’t hit them smack in the face. That’s a big problem, and it’s also the hardest problem.

 

I guess you can get on people for not taking public transportation. But, most of the time I don’t take it either! I don’t take buses because it’s just like driving your car but slower. I don’t take the Rapid because the stop isn’t close enough to where I live. At 7 a.m., I am being forced to decide if I want to stay in bed a little longer or get up and wait for a bus to take to the Rapid or walk the 30 minute to the stop. The decision will always be “stay in bed” because I have a choice, and the best choice is for me to be lazy.

 

There is a problem of promotion, which I think is the easiest problem. It seems like people think of the Rapid as the Indians/Browns Choochoo, not a viable way of commuting. When I was on it on Saturday, I heard people telling all sorts of wacky stories about Cleveland and the Rapid. I think part of the problem is that this is Cleveland not NYC and most people just haven’t had day-to-day experience with trains, so they don’t understand the whole concept.

 

I think a good PR campaign could really help. First, start a public campaign to publicize the Rapid. That’ll get RTA press right there. Second, make the signage more visible, especially in the older neighborhoods where the stops are hidden. Also, make it clear there are TRAINS at certain stops — people unfamiliar with the Rapid can’t tell a train stop from a bus stop. Third, clean up the stations! Obviously a station is going to get grimy, but you’ve got to keep them a little presentable. I’d also see if there was a way to cut out the creepy stairwells and corridors. Those freak people out. Fourth, do a local media campaign. For example, see if you can get the local news to cover Rapid stories/features. Encourage the local channels to make the Rapid a part of their opening graphics. The whole point of this campaign would be to emphasize that when you think of “big cities” you think of trains, and, hey, Cleveland has ‘em, you should use them!

 

I’m not willing to act like low ridership is all RTA’s fault. There are so many factors involved. The Red Line looks to be a pretty old route, and it’s not like you can wiggle your nose and adjust where the tracks go. I just hope they value what we have here. I know when I got off the train in Little Italy and in 10 minutes I was eating a slice of pizza on the street, I felt pretty dang lucky. Then I took a nap in front of the Cleveland Museum of Art and felt sublime.

 

Comment by Jamie — June 26, 2006 @ 8:25 pm

 

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

 

Leave a comment

Name (required)

 

 

Powered by WordPress

 

 

 

Oh wait a second..

Try this on for irony: I recently got into a fender bender with an RTA bus -- unfortunately it was my fault. No one was hurt and the bus had no damages. Apparently my airbags are set to go off at low speeds. Long story short, now I am getting to work on the bus.

saw a 4-car red line train on the bridge over the river today around 6 pm.  I don't think it was in service, though!

I love watching trains going over that bridge.  I love riding in them even more.

saw a 4-car red line train on the bridge over the river today around 6 pm.  I don't think it was in service, though!

 

Betcha it was inbound (eastbound). RTA collects rush-hour trains at its Brookpark Yard and sends them back closed-door and empty (called a dead-head move) to the Central Rail Facility at East 55th. Sometimes they move six cars back in a single train. Every so often I see the dead-head move, and its a pretty impressive sight. I remember seeing the old "Bluebird" trains on the CTS rapid. They ran three matched dual-car sets (so it looked like six cars) routinely during rush hours. I wished that was the normal length of trains. Add TOD at all stations and push gas prices up to $5 a gallon, and they might just become the rush-hour norm again!

TOD would be great, but I would add most prominently: beef up CBD employment; that will get the crowds back, like RTA's early days (3-car Airporters, 6-car blue trains all rush hour) before all those fat suburban office parks (and nearby shopping malls) along our outerbelt East, South and in Westlake.

 

I actually flew back into town a couple weeks ago on a weekday at rush-hour's end (for Cleveland that's immediately @ 6p) and saw a yard guy coupling a 4-car dead-head to the 55th Street yard.  Of course, we had to wait 3 runs (how inefficient) till he cut a 2-car to a single car for OUR use.  I noted Hopkins' platforms can accommodate 3-car trains, max.  That surprised me.  These current cars can't be longer than those huge "Airporters" of the past.

A quick observation on multi-car trains -- on my trip this morning from Triskett RTS to Tower City I observed all 2-car trains operating. The one eastbound that I just missed, the eastbound I caught and 4 westbound. The timeframe was ~10:25 to 11:00 AM.  I saw the 4th 2-car westbound leaving TC as we pulled in.

 

I ride everyday and this was certainly unusual, normally just see the occasional 2-car off peak. Now if they are starting to run 2-cars outside rush hour, because the single cars can indeed get crowded, lets fill those additional seats!!!