EVERYTHING I SAID BELOW!

[like I said BEFORE, the Green/Blue lines have gotten the short end of the stick since the overhaul!

 

We were promised but never got:

- Heated covered shelters that blend into the neighborhood

- Time tables & maps at every statioin

- Public and station announcements system

- Extentions to Richmond & 271

 

This is the chance for use to make the system much more user friendly and a true rail station, like in every other big city!

 

Bad execution and implementation!

THANKS RTA!  :x

 

 

Agree with most of these points.  I'm surprised Shaker Heights allowed RTA to stick those ugly brass 'n glass bus shelters at Blue/Green stops, esp at the stops near the beautiful homes.... Sadly, MTS, the Green Line extension to I-271 was shot down in the early 80s, a movement largely spearheaded by urban planner guru Norm Krumholz (ex (prof) from CSU and Kucinich's mayor admin).  Krumholz "wisely" said the extension would only serve wealthy "fat-cats" at the expense of poor city residents.

 

More recently, RTA's JoeC has followed this lead and bottled up any rail extension talk, including extending the Blue Line from Van Aken Warrensville thru Highland Hills along Harvard to I-271... And people wonder why people like me gripe so much why we have such 'anti-urban' elements that hold Cleveland back?... puuullleeeeze!!  {yeah, I know this has little to do w/ a new fare system, but I had to get this rant off my chest}

 

 

Back then, there weren't a whole lot of jobs out there and the transit system was undergoing major changes.  I understand that Krumholz was setting priorities for the urban poor with the little means the system had, but I wouldn't be surprised if he would be more open to the idea now, seeing as an extension could serve as a means of getting the inner city poor out to good jobs in the 'burbs.

 

On a side note, the City of Cleveland once owned a big chunk of land out that way.  They wanted to develop it as a mixed-use, mixed-income community, but the neighboring suburbs said no way.  I'm pretty sure the land is now suburban office parks...

As one of the busier rush-hour stops in the system, it always frustrates me that the attendant booths are empty after 5:30 and all riders (more than 20 is not uncommon) have to board via the front door and pay as they get on.  This makes for a delay that should be avoided. 

 

To add to my frustration, I found the following during my commute home one evening.  This was posted on the upstairs booth on the Cedar/University station platform.  Sorry for the poor image quality, I took it with my cell phone!

 

 

The caption could read: "Welcome to the cultural center of the region... too bad you're now stuck on this lousy platform!" 

Agree with most of these points.  I'm surprised Shaker Heights allowed RTA to stick those ugly brass 'n glass bus shelters at Blue/Green stops, esp at the stops near the beautiful homes.... Sadly, MTS, the extension to I-271

 

They were supposed to be "georgian style" brick shelters, the only thing RTA did was renovate the "historic" stations like the coventry station.  but they were supose to build smaller replicas of those stations opposite so that there would be balance on both sides of the track.

 

There was no station at Attleboro or Eaton and I think the lee road green station for almost three years.  IIRC, the "new" shaker platforms didn't have shelters for approximately two/2½ years after the rebuild as shaker fought those horrible glass stations, but customers want/needed something and those glass stations were supposedly "temporary".....yet they've been there for what 18 years? 

 

And our "neighbors" in beachwood screwed us out of extention East!  agh!

any word on the final 2006 ridership numbers?

 

Were your ears burning?

__________________

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1168508569313960.xml&coll=2

 

Ridership on RTA rises for 4th year in row

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Sarah Hollander

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The number of people riding RTA buses and trains grew for the fourth straight year in 2006, the second longest stretch since the public transit agency started more than 30 years ago.

 

Despite a fare increase, and volatile gas prices, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority counted 150,000 more rides for a total of 57.2 million trips.

 

The rapid transit lines did particularly well. Use of light rail service, which includes the blue and green lines through Shaker Heights and Cleveland, jumped 5.1 percent.

 

Ridership on buses and paratransit for disabled people also increased. Ridership on circulators dropped slightly.

 

....

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4816

Love this part!!!  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

 

The rapid transit lines did particularly well. Use of light rail service, which includes the blue and green lines through Shaker Heights and Cleveland, jumped 5.1 percent.

 

I think 5 minutes is good (for the green/blue lines) but the evening rush needs to be extended to 7:30 PM for people going into Playhouse square or events downtown.  Then another set of 5 minute departures from downtown after each special event and when PSH is in full swing, say 9:30pm to 10:30pm.  Seems the trains only run special events times when indians/cavs browns games are going on, they need to realize this could be beneficial to all downtown businesses.

There's a lot of great dialogue going on here, and many excellent questions and suggestions.

 

Now I have some questions myself, of all of you: how many of you have posed these questions or suggestions to RTA, and via what venue? Have you attended any Board meetings, public hearings, or other feedback opportunities? Have you ever sent an e-mail to ANYONE at RTA? Have you done anything other than discuss it here? If you haven't, then now is as good a time as any to get started (make it your belated New Year's Resolution).

 

I'm a relative newcomer here, and maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but to think that messages posted here will get the attention of the "powers that be" reeks of hubris of the highest level, and their possible ignorance of this board has NOTHING to do with "sticking it to the little guy". MyTwoSense and clvlndr, I don't mean to single you out, but you have definitely been among the more vocal critics in recent discussion. Have either of you ever engaged anyone at RTA in any kind of dialogue (without using terms like "half-assed", "screwed", and "shafted", if you can avoid it)?

 

If not, I suggest that you do so. You've got questions that deserve answers (and they are answers I'm certain the rest of us would like to hear), so seek them out from the people best able to provide them. If you have had such communication, I'd be curious to know what your experiences have been.

Back then, there weren't a whole lot of jobs out there and the transit system was undergoing major changes.  I understand that Krumholz was setting priorities for the urban poor with the little means the system had, but I wouldn't be surprised if he would be more open to the idea now, seeing as an extension could serve as a means of getting the inner city poor out to good jobs in the 'burbs.

 

 

I doubt it.  Shortly after the Waterfront line opened, in '96, Krumholz rode it and reported the story was reported on Channel 3.  In the report, Norm complained the WFL was slower than the Loop bus to City Hall -- where I surmise he held some post in the White Admin.  This, despite the fact Norm lived in Shaker Hts (that's amazing in itself -- I used to see him on the Rapid) and had a one-seat ride straight through to E. 9th.  He also bitched that at the uphill walk up the E. 9th street bridge over the tracks and how hard it was on his legs.  He said the $70M on the WFL (of which some $20M was actually discretionary expenses redesigning Old River Road and some of the streets around the WFL) could have been better spent.  (natch!)

 

A few years later, EcoCity Cleveland did an extensive study into possible commuter rail lines after the 1999 NEO Rail study was issue by RTA (under outgoing GM Ron Tober; certainly not the incoming JoeC).  In the report, EcoCity extensively interviewed: guess who?  And guess what he said?  -- no surprise, Norm, once again, noted how wasteful spending on rail is in Greater Cleveland.  That people loved their cars and money would be more practically spent on upgrading RTA's bus system.  I never could understand why such a progressive organization as EcoCity went to a guy who most could have predicted such an anti-transit stance...

 

... so, no, all evidence up to this most recent report shows that old tiger Norm hasn't changed his anti-rail spots.  Greater Cleveland has more anti-rail crusaders than you can shake a stick at... damn shame.

They were supposed to be "georgian style" brick shelters, the only thing RTA did was renovate the "historic" stations like the coventry station.  but they were supose to build smaller replicas of those stations opposite so that there would be balance on both sides of the track.

 

There was no station at Attleboro or Eaton and I think the lee road green station for almost three years.  IIRC, the "new" shaker platforms didn't have shelters for approximately two/2½ years after the rebuild as shaker fought those horrible glass stations, but customers want/needed something and those glass stations were supposedly "temporary".....yet they've been there for what 18 years? 

 

And our "neighbors" in beachwood screwed us out of extention East!  agh! --MyTwoSense

 

 

I didn't know that.  Certainly brick shelters would be tons nicer than what we have.  And isn't amazing that in Shaker, of all places, they went so cheesy; those glass boxes especially look out of place next to those 2 beautiful Van-built ones at Coventry and Lynnfield...

 

... As to your comment about Beachwood "screwing us out of the I-271 extension, you might want to recheck your facts... I thought surely Beachwood was all for it, esp since it would have lie entirely w/in their borders and could have led to highly concentrated development at I-271-Richmond & Shaker.  There was also to be a so-called 'mode-mixer' parking lot to be exclusively fed by I-271 which would have put the Green line's convenience to far NE burbs all the way into Lake County.  All that for a measly 1.5 mile extension, but no -- OIC (only in Cleveland) could we find a way to fight it and, I'm sure, Krumholz led the charge and the wimpy, new RTA quickly backed down and abandoned the project which (as w/ the old CTS scuttled subway) the populace was anxious for.

There's a lot of great dialogue going on here, and many excellent questions and suggestions.

 

Now I have some questions myself, of all of you: how many of you have posed these questions or suggestions to RTA, and via what venue? Have you attended any Board meetings, public hearings, or other feedback opportunities? Have you ever sent an e-mail to ANYONE at RTA? Have you done anything other than discuss it here? If you haven't, then now is as good a time as any to get started (make it your belated New Year's Resolution).

 

I'm a relative newcomer here, and maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but to think that messages posted here will get the attention of the "powers that be" reeks of hubris of the highest level, and their possible ignorance of this board has NOTHING to do with "sticking it to the little guy". MyTwoSense and clvlndr, I don't mean to single you out, but you have definitely been among the more vocal critics in recent discussion. Have either of you ever engaged anyone at RTA in any kind of dialogue (without using terms like "half-assed", "screwed", and "shafted", if you can avoid it)?

 

If not, I suggest that you do so. You've got questions that deserve answers (and they are answers I'm certain the rest of us would like to hear), so seek them out from the people best able to provide them. If you have had such communication, I'd be curious to know what your experiences have been.

 

I emailed RTA and my council person.  of course I bitch here, but send "edited" emails.

JeTDog, if you only knew the half of my efforts on voicing these issues.  I use channels which I feel is most effective for me.  And yes, I've attended meetings in the past, not recently.  Not everyone is going to choose the same approach but, believe me as a Shaker Sq resident and rider, I've voiced these concerns...

 

Let's not forget, too, while we may not all be the public advocates some are on these boards, up to the level of, say, a KJP who has made a significant part of his career as a transit advocate, I can tell you that often times, just posting comments on this board gets noticed.  There's a public official who I've spoken to who routinely has his staff monitor UO.com comments... Others (KJP, I'm sure) weigh comments here and move them along.  Just because myself (I won't speak for MyTwoSense) aren't posting open letters and whatnot doesn't mean we are only bitching here...

BTW, Norm Krumholz was City Planning Director under the Stokes, Perk and possibly Kucinich administrations. He was with CSU during the White Administration. Hunter Morrison was director of City Planning during the Voinovich and White administrations.

I didn't know that.  Certainly brick shelters would be tons nicer than what we have.  And isn't amazing that in Shaker, of all places, they went so cheesy; those glass boxes especially look out of place next to those 2 beautiful Van-built ones at Coventry and Lynnfield...

 

... As to your comment about Beachwood "screwing us out of the I-271 extension, you might want to recheck your facts... I thought surely Beachwood was all for it, esp since it would have lie entirely w/in their borders and could have led to highly concentrated development at I-271-Richmond & Shaker.  There was also to be a so-called 'mode-mixer' parking lot to be exclusively fed by I-271 which would have put the Green line's convenience to far NE burbs all the way into Lake County.  All that for a measly 1.5 mile extension, but no -- OIC (only in Cleveland) could we find a way to fight it and, I'm sure, Krumholz led the charge and the wimpy, new RTA quickly backed down and abandoned the project which (as w/ the old CTS scuttled subway) the populace was anxious for.

 

when I was in high school, I used to take the green line from attleboro to south park w/all the Beaumont & Bennie skanks......ick!.  All that was out there was a slab of concrete and immature trees.

 

I think it was beeachwood that did that project in, by claiming the median from Green to Richmond, for some type of development.  Maybe KJP has or knows what really went down.

Back then, there weren't a whole lot of jobs out there and the transit system was undergoing major changes.  I understand that Krumholz was setting priorities for the urban poor with the little means the system had, but I wouldn't be surprised if he would be more open to the idea now, seeing as an extension could serve as a means of getting the inner city poor out to good jobs in the 'burbs.

 

 

I doubt it.  Shortly after the Waterfront line opened, in '96, Krumholz rode it and reported the story was reported on Channel 3.  In the report, Norm complained the WFL was slower than the Loop bus to City Hall -- where I surmise he held some post in the White Admin.  This, despite the fact Norm lived in Shaker Hts (that's amazing in itself -- I used to see him on the Rapid) and had a one-seat ride straight through to E. 9th.  He also bitched that at the uphill walk up the E. 9th street bridge over the tracks and how hard it was on his legs.  He said the $70M on the WFL (of which some $20M was actually discretionary expenses redesigning Old River Road and some of the streets around the WFL) could have been better spent.  (natch!)

 

A few years later, EcoCity Cleveland did an extensive study into possible commuter rail lines after the 1999 NEO Rail study was issue by RTA (under outgoing GM Ron Tober; certainly not the incoming JoeC).  In the report, EcoCity extensively interviewed: guess who?  And guess what he said?  -- no surprise, Norm, once again, noted how wasteful spending on rail is in Greater Cleveland.  That people loved their cars and money would be more practically spent on upgrading RTA's bus system.  I never could understand why such a progressive organization as EcoCity went to a guy who most could have predicted such an anti-transit stance...

 

... so, no, all evidence up to this most recent report shows that old tiger Norm hasn't changed his anti-rail spots.  Greater Cleveland has more anti-rail crusaders than you can shake a stick at... damn shame.

 

I think I agree with Norm on this issue (like many others).  I love rail transit (ergo, "Straphanger") but the WFL line was a complete waste of money.  Not even federal money at that, as I believe it was rushed so fast it didn't qualify for any.  Forget the loop buses, you can walk to city hall from TC in about the same time it takes for the WFL to get there.  And the tens of millions it would have cost to extend the Green Line to I-271 would have been swell for a couple hundred upper middle class people a day who can just as easily drive to the Green Road lot.

 

As a completely non-rhetorical question (seriously), does anyone know of a transit line that serves as low density an area as the Green Line does east of Shaker Square.  I recognize that because of the park and ride lots it actually serves a pretty wide geographical area, but it did always strike me as a bit of a transit oddity (though easily explained by history) but maybe there are similar lines elsewhere?

the Green line extension could have also been a catalyst for a loop between chagrin and the cedar/richmond intersection.

 

In regards to the parking lots, my brother says tells me that on occasion, the parking lot at Green/West Green is so packed that people have to drive to warrensville.  When he drops my nephews and neice of at school, he says that the trains at warrensvile and Belvoir (J. Carroll, Byron students & folks going downtown) are pretty packed in the mornings

I totally disagree, StapHanger, there's no way the Loop (or a pair of feet) beats the WFL to North Point/Erieview/City Hall if you're riding in on a Shaker train straight thru to the WFL.  You've got to factor in the transfer time of getting of the rapid, riding an escalator to the Sq and waiting on the Loop.  In the time it takes you just to get to the surface/Square, the WFL train is halfway to E. 9th.

 

I also strongly disagree the WFL was a waste of money.  It is a failure, now, because Cleveland, unlike other cities that would kill for such a line, failed to follow through and develop all that empty land adjacent to station/stops into TOD.  Finally, a mere 10 years later, Wolstein is trying to correct that with his substantial E. Bank development adjacent to the WFL.  Once completed (if he can ever defeat those do-nothing leeches in court), there will be a substantial upsurge in WFL patronage and, no, even Norm Krumholz won't even be able to out-bitch that...

 

StrapHanger you, like other WFL critics make the cardinal mistake of attacking the WFL and not the city for following thru.  Study your history, the WFL was not 'rushed through' but, rather, the end result of over a decade of discussion and planning geared toward improving public trans to the Flats -- the idea was 1st broached publicly (if I recall) by Jeff Jacobs around the time he opened his Nautica development on the West Bank... Your mentality (as is Krumholz's) is very Cleveland -- that is, let's save money and do nothing.  That's why it's so hard to move beyond the status quo here; and why people who hate the city and true urban living/lifestyle keep winning.

 

As a completely non-rhetorical question (seriously), does anyone know of a transit line that serves as low density an area as the Green Line does east of Shaker Square.  I recognize that because of the park and ride lots it actually serves a pretty wide geographical area, but it did always strike me as a bit of a transit oddity (though easily explained by history) but maybe there are similar lines elsewhere?

 

The ends of most of the Washington Metro lines serve some pretty low-density areas.  These stations tend to have enormous parking lots/garages (some garages exceed 5000 cars).  This is changing, though, albeit slowly thanks to all the suburban NIMBYs. 

 

 

The ends of most of the Washington Metro lines serve some pretty low-density areas.  These stations tend to have enormous parking lots/garages (some garages exceed 5000 cars).  This is changing, though, albeit slowly thanks to all the suburban NIMBYs. 

 

Cleveland's Rapid outer parking lots (the old CTS and Shaker lines) were studied and incorporated into the DC Metro.  But DC, unlike Greater Cleveland, fully embraced the Metro and not only reconfigured many of its lots to garages, they built extensive TOD at outer Metro stops -- to the point, I'd have to say DC is THE TOD city in America.  A city we could (and should) all learn from.

they built extensive TOD at outer Metro stops

 

I think you and I are talking about two different Metro systems!  LOL 

Once completed (if he can ever defeat those do-nothing leeches in court), there will be a substantial upsurge in WFL patronage and, no, even Norm Krumholz won't even be able to out-bitch that...

 

I really hate to sound so negative, but this is a bet I'm happy to take: barring gas hitting $5 a gallon, I predict ridership increase on WFL as a result of the FEB project to be modest at best (speaking of course of # of riders, not percentage increase).  I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I just don't expect people to ride from FEB to Tower City when they can walk faster than it takes to wait for a train.  Perhaps there will be an uptick in trips from the East Side to the FEB as a result of the retail/office there, but not sure it will be "substantial".

 

I'm not anti-rail at all.  I would have been thrilled to see the ECTP built with rail, even though a lot of reasonable people would (and did) view it as extravagent.  I think an LRT on the rail line that runs the width of Lakewood would be fantastic-all that residential density- and I hope the KJP-backed commuter rail project is a great success.  I could even see surface LRT running down St. Clair or Superior, avenues wide enough that separated ROW could be carved out without much problem and proven ridership bases.  It's really just the near-zero ridership routes that make me cringe.

 

As for loop bus vs. WFL, I really don't know.  I've ridden the rapid from Shaker to City Hall dozens of times, many via WFL and many on foot from TC to City Hall and each morning my decision was based on mood more than schedule.  Maybe there is a 2 min time saving or so, but I doubt it's much.  But there is a right answer: anyone out there make this commute each day and want to collect some stats?

It just seems we here are always so 'logical' about why rail won't work; and we almost always don't build.  Meanwhile, in smaller cities: Denver, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, their building and expanding rail while we twiddle our thumbs.  Why should only a surface light rail along our most dense corridor -- Euclid -- only been OK?  Pittsburgh, having already bested us with a subway, is tunneling under its river poised to extend rail 20 miles to its thriving airport.... St. Louis (400,000>St. Louis) has a downtown subway as well and, now, a much bigger network than Cleveland after having opened rail only 14 years ago.

 

We're such a 'can't' city while others are 'can' places that constantly move past us...

It just seems we here are always so 'logical' about why rail won't work; and we almost always don't build.  Meanwhile, in smaller cities: Denver, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, their building and expanding rail while we twiddle our thumbs.  Why should only a surface light rail along our most dense corridor -- Euclid -- only been OK?  Pittsburgh, having already bested us with a subway, is tunneling under its river poised to extend rail 20 miles to its thriving airport.... St. Louis (400,000>St. Louis) has a downtown subway as well and, now, a much bigger network than Cleveland after having opened rail only 14 years ago.

 

We're such a 'can't' city while others are 'can' places that constantly move past us...

 

Note:  once thriving (since US Airways dropped Pitss as a hub), other than that, I agree 100% with your very well stated post!  It's as you've been in my head, as I've sent (almost word for word, which is erie) this very same email to Mayors Campbell/Jackson, RTA, City Council, the County commissioners, my council person, STJ...etc.

BTW, Norm Krumholz was City Planning Director under the Stokes, Perk and possibly Kucinich administrations. He was with CSU during the White Administration. Hunter Morrison was director of City Planning during the Voinovich and White administrations.

 

Yep, I know he got his start as a hippie-leftie under Stokes and I'm almost certain he served under Dennis.  I know Hunter was George & Mike's guy, but Norm could have been going to Mike's City Hall for some consulting or something -- I know he claimed 'trying to use' the WFL to get there... It's ironic; I probably agree w/ 95% of Norm's views, politically.  But in the issue of rail, I'm dead set against him... Hey, Paul Weyrich is a right-wing creepazoid, often credited as the father of neo-conservatism.  But he's as staunch a transit advocate as you'll ever see... That's got to make him, perhaps, the weirdest man in America.

^ you're right, MTS, Pitt's airport has been hurting since USAirways' financial struggles.

It just seems we here are always so 'logical' about why rail won't work; and we almost always don't build.  Meanwhile, in smaller cities: Denver, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, their building and expanding rail while we twiddle our thumbs.  Why should only a surface light rail along our most dense corridor -- Euclid -- only been OK?  Pittsburgh, having already bested us with a subway, is tunneling under its river poised to extend rail 20 miles to its thriving airport.... St. Louis (400,000>St. Louis) has a downtown subway as well and, now, a much bigger network than Cleveland after having opened rail only 14 years ago.

 

We're such a 'can't' city while others are 'can' places that constantly move past us...

 

Clvlndr, I hear you.  I would love for there to be some ambitious rail planning.  There is no reason we can't build what other cities have.  But the WFL wasn't that!  St. Louis's ridership isn't 6 times higher than Cleveland's because St. Louis built a dog that no-one finds useful to ride!

 

As for downtown subways: Portland seems to be doing just fine without one.  And Euclid is hardly a dense corridor- building rail there would have been a bit of a gamble too, but one that to me makes more sense (I depart with Norm there)- it actually goes somewhere.

yet we have two bridges leading into reinvegorated areas, RTA could:

 

A) send trains under D-S Bridge right up Detroit (underground), to the current Red Line.  A spur could be build run down Clifton as light rail.  the Detroit line could be express the Clifton line could be local.

 

B) run a line from CSU on Carnegie under the L-C Bridge our Lorain to the airport

 

C) run a line either underground starting at stonebridge under W 25 to the zoo and south.  this line would have transfer point at w/25 & Detroit; w/25 & Lorain; down pearl to atleast the zoo.

 

D) if they run a line up Payne to at least 55 street.

 

E) Bring the WFL up to street grade to hamilton or St. Clair

 

That a start...and wishful thinking.............

Actually, the Waterfront Line was rushed. It first appeared in an official document in 1985 as the Flats Trolley, costing about $10 million. It was to run as a U-shaped route from the East Bank of the Flats to the West Bank via the B&O bascule bridge (located next to Nautica Stage/Scene Pavilion). A later version had it running on basically its current route (minus the bridge bridge over the lakefront freight tracks -- it would have stayed on the south side of those tracks). Yet, it would still be only a single-track line served only during special events by heritage trolleys.

 

When the city went a-hunting for bicentennial legacy projects that could open in 1996, RTA GM Ron Tober and Assistant GM RoseMary Covington repackaged the Flats Trolley as a full-blown light-rail line. It would be an extension of the Blue/Green lines, with double-tracks, substantial stations, streetscaping, parks, and the big bridge over the lakefront freight tracks. The new version was projected to cost $45 million -- minus the parks.

 

Between the fast-tracking of the project (they avoided federal funds to avoid the environmental reviews and thus speed up the project) and the addition of the Settlers Landing Park, the project cost ballooned to $72 million. The cost would have been even higher if some station features were included, such as the center canopy at the Flats East Bank station, the extended canopies over both platforms at the North Coast station, and a pedestrian walkway below East 9th Street to reach the east side of the street at North Coast Station.

 

Here's where the Waterfront Line failed...

 

1. It has no ridership anchor at its end -- just a municipal parking lot. Even an anchor as strong as Hopkins International Airport isn't sufficient to keep Red Line trains from emptying out as they head farther from downtown.

 

2. The Waterfront Line was built as an end-product. Transit projects seldom do well when they are built in that way. They perform much better when they are built as one of the tools to achieve a larger vision of community planning and economic development.

 

3. The Waterfront Line is too slow. It plods along in some sections. Stops and sometimes waits for a Red Line train to clear before climbing the ramp into Tower City Center. And the bridge/elevated section over the lakefront freight tracks is about as circuitous as a bridge could be (I realize it was designed to serve an aquarium that was never built). Much of this would mean less if places along the Waterfront Line were destinations for trains coming from both directions. But since the Waterfront Line lacks decent pedestrian-oriented ridership generators at its end, it depends on ridership sources east of Tower City to provide its ridership. And the Red Line doesn't help the Waterfront Line. Most of the neighborhoods along the Red Line east of Tower City has withered away. West of Tower City, taking the Red Line and transfering to the Waterfront Line takes a lot longer than just hopping an RTA bus or driving.

 

Solutions:

 

1. It's never to late to use the Waterfront Line as a tool for achieving community planning goals. Keep promoting development designed around the Waterfront Line -- Flats East Bank, Pesht, Lighthouse Landing, lakefront plan, redevelopment of the municipal parking lot, and if people so choose, deactivation and redevelopment of Burke Lakefront Airport. As long as there are different uses along the Waterfront Line (grocery stores, shopping, banking, post office, schools, work, nightlife and recreation) then it can be used as a shuttle within downtown and even as a ridership source, not just a ridership destination.

 

2. Extend the Waterfront Line someplace where it can tap ridership sources and be a part of a redevelopment plan (ie: lakefront plan). Right now, that's not a saleable idea. It will be viewed as running empty trains farther. So get what's in #1 above and then look to where full trains can be extended. Perhaps to the northeast to East 55th, Brahtenal, Collinwood or even Euclid. Perhaps as a downtown loop. Perhaps both. But only as an instigator of a larger end-product.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Certainly Pesht, if realized, will have an impact on the WFL, as could anything that happens at Burke.  Now, will the WFL have to be rerouted and the bridge demolished to fit Stark's planned grid?

Actually, the Waterfront Line was rushed. It first appeared in an official document in 1985 as the Flats Trolley, costing about $10 million. It was to run as a U-shaped route from the East Bank of the Flats to the West Bank via the B&O bascule bridge (located next to Nautica Stage/Scene Pavilion). A later version had it running on basically its current route (minus the bridge bridge over the lakefront freight tracks -- it would have stayed on the south side of those tracks). Yet, it would still be only a single-track line served only during special events by heritage trolleys.

 

When the city went a-hunting for bicentennial legacy projects that could open in 1996, RTA GM Ron Tober and Assistant GM RoseMary Covington repackaged the Flats Trolley as a full-blown light-rail line. It would be an extension of the Blue/Green lines, with double-tracks, substantial stations, streetscaping, parks, and the big bridge over the lakefront freight tracks. The new version was projected to cost $45 million -- minus the parks.

 

Between the fast-tracking of the project (they avoided federal funds to avoid the environmental reviews and thus speed up the project) and the addition of the Settlers Landing Park, the project cost ballooned to $72 million. The cost would have been even higher if some station features were included, such as the center canopy at the Flats East Bank station, the extended canopies over both platforms at the North Coast station, and a pedestrian walkway below East 9th Street to reach the east side of the street at North Coast Station.

 

Here's where the Waterfront Line failed...

 

1. It has no ridership anchor at its end -- just a municipal parking lot. Even an anchor as strong as Hopkins International Airport isn't sufficient to keep Red Line trains from emptying out as they head farther from downtown.

 

2. The Waterfront Line was built as an end-product. Transit projects seldom do well when they are built in that way. They perform much better when they are built as one of the tools to achieve a larger vision of community planning and economic development.

 

3. The Waterfront Line is too slow. It plods along in some sections. Stops and sometimes waits for a Red Line train to clear before climbing the ramp into Tower City Center. And the bridge/elevated section over the lakefront freight tracks is about as circuitous as a bridge could be (I realize it was designed to serve an aquarium that was never built). Much of this would mean less if places along the Waterfront Line were destinations for trains coming from both directions. But since the Waterfront Line lacks decent pedestrian-oriented ridership generators at its end, it depends on ridership sources east of Tower City to provide its ridership. And the Red Line doesn't help the Waterfront Line. Most of the neighborhoods along the Red Line east of Tower City has withered away. West of Tower City, taking the Red Line and transfering to the Waterfront Line takes a lot longer than just hopping an RTA bus or driving.

 

Solutions:

 

1. It's never to late to use the Waterfront Line as a tool for achieving community planning goals. Keep promoting development designed around the Waterfront Line -- Flats East Bank, Pesht, Lighthouse Landing, lakefront plan, redevelopment of the municipal parking lot, and if people so choose, deactivation and redevelopment of Burke Lakefront Airport. As long as there are different uses along the Waterfront Line (grocery stores, shopping, banking, post office, schools, work, nightlife and recreation) then it can be used as a shuttle within downtown and even as a ridership source, not just a ridership destination.

 

2. Extend the Waterfront Line someplace where it can tap ridership sources and be a part of a redevelopment plan (ie: lakefront plan). Right now, that's not a saleable idea. It will be viewed as running empty trains farther. So get what's in #1 above and then look to where full trains can be extended. Perhaps to the northeast to East 55th, Brahtenal, Collinwood or even Euclid. Perhaps as a downtown loop. Perhaps both. But only as an instigator of a larger end-product.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

I agree with most of this, esp the part about extending along the East Lakeshore where development growth + ridership could really expand.

^^Yes, StrapHanger, Portland's MAX, w/ downtown surface rail, has been wildly successful -- one of the heaviest LRT ridership nationwide, accd'ing to Wikipedia-- and continues to expand, route-wise.  That said, I still don't like downtown surface running for rapid transit systems.  This seems to be an American el-cheapo convention/consession shared by a few of Canada's smaller metro areas -- actually, off the top of my head, only Calgary (metro pop just over 1M vs. nearly 2.2-2.5M for Greater Cleveland -- even little Edmonton has a subway and, if memory serves, Calgary is studying burying its highly successful LRT downtown).  Having high speed transit cars slow down and trundle among st autos and pedestrians as they enter downtown areas just isn't efficient people moving and partly why some interurbans failed in yesteryear... As noted above, RTA's WFL should have presented Cleveland with an opportunity not only to develop the Flats but to extend along the lakeshore.  After all, despite some minor flaws in intersecting w/ Red Line traffic entering Tower City, it does present a direct entry into our central transit hub.

 

Consider, Straphanger, that Cleveland hasn't made one extension to an outer portion of its rail network since the 4-mile Airport extension ... 39 years ago!!!!  That's metropolitan lethargy if I've ever seen it.

 

 

1. It has no ridership anchor at its end -- just a municipal parking lot. Even an anchor as strong as Hopkins International Airport isn't sufficient to keep Red Line trains from emptying out as they head farther from downtown.

 

 

The mega-condo/apt/retail Davenport Bluffs to be built at/over WFL's muny lot terminal sure would have generated a lot of transit patronage.  Instead, we've got the ugly fortresses for Channel 3 and the FBI.  Yet another blown Cleveland opportunity.

 

 

1. It has no ridership anchor at its end -- just a municipal parking lot. Even an anchor as strong as Hopkins International Airport isn't sufficient to keep Red Line trains from emptying out as they head farther from downtown.

 

 

The mega-condo/apt/retail Davenport Bluffs to be built at/over WFL's muny lot terminal sure would have generated a lot of transit patronage.  Instead, we've got the ugly fortresses for Channel 3 and the FBI.  Yet another blown Cleveland opportunity.

 

However that is not RTA's fault. Honestly, I don't think the city was ready for that project, nor would it have been a quality project.  Just a rush job.

Certainly Pesht, if realized, will have an impact on the WFL, as could anything that happens at Burke.  Now, will the WFL have to be rerouted and the bridge demolished to fit Stark's planned grid?

 

Stark has discussed seeing the Waterfront Line rerouted, but admitted he didn't have an answer for how to do that. I don't know if that's a battle he wants to fight yet.

Certainly Pesht, if realized, will have an impact on the WFL, as could anything that happens at Burke.  Now, will the WFL have to be rerouted and the bridge demolished to fit Stark's planned grid?

 

I don't know if that's a battle he wants to fight yet.

 

Why do you say that?

 

^^Doesn't Wolstein plan to put an office building inside that bridge? And also put a station right outside the building?  It seems like it may be difficult to demolish the bridge once an office building has been built that depends on that bridge being there. 

Why do you say that?

 

Think of what Stark has to do just for his $1 billion phase one in the Warehouse District. Extending the street grid north of the railroad tracks (and deciding the route of the Waterfront Line) is a ways off. He's probably a decade away from that. The fact that he didn't even account for the location of the Waterfront Line in his conceptual masterplan shows it's not a priority for him.

 

Wolstein's plans may complicate Stark's, as FrqntFlyr notes.

Then unfortunately, it would seem that this is a battle Stark has to fight, and soon.

RTA News

Jan. 11, 2007

 

RTA ridership grows for fourth straight year

 

CLEVELAND – Despite a mid-year fare increase and rapidly declining gas prices, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has recorded its fourth straight year of ridership increases.

 

That is the first time that has happened since the agency was formed in 1970s. RTA was created in 1975, and saw increases in five straight years, 1976-1980.

 

“We are absolutely delighted,” says RTA CEO and General Manager Joe Calabrese. “RTA now serves more than 200,000 customers on a typical weekday. This increased ridership is a function of the continually increasing quality of our service.”

 

Calabrese pointed to this ridership growth:

 

52.7 million in 2002

53.5 million in 2003

55.5 million in 2004

57.1 million in 2005

57.2 million in 2006, an increase of 0.3 percent, or 150,000 rides

 

 

Four of RTA’s five modes showed growth – big bus, heavy rail, light rail and Paratransit. Only Community Circulators showed a decline.

 

Light rail: up 5.1 percent

Big Bus: up .05 percent

Heavy rail: up 0.5 percent

Paratransit: up 1.2 percent

Circulators: down 2.0 percent

 

 

Ridership highlights:

 

8.4 million passengers rode the Rapid, the highest total since 2001.

 

More than 380,000 passengers have jumped on the new downtown trolleys since they were introduced in April.

 

More than 13,600 rides were provided during the week of Dec. 4 – a new record.

 

Nearly 2,200 bike-related transit trips were taken in December.

 

http://www.gcrta.org/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=992

Ridership highlights:

 

8.4 million passengers rode the Rapid, the highest total since 2001.

 

More than 380,000 passengers have jumped on the new downtown trolleys since they were introduced in April.

 

More than 13,600 rides were provided during the week of Dec. 4 – a new record.

 

Nearly 2,200 bike-related transit trips were taken in December.

 

 

Good news.

What was so big about December? The warmth?

Anybody have bike data for the whole year?

 

 

like I said BEFORE, the Green/Blue lines have gotten the short end of the stick since the overhaul!

 

We were promised but never got:

- Heated covered shelters that blend into the neighborhood

- Time tables & maps at every statioin

- Public and station announcements system

- Extentions to Richmond & 271

 

This is what they get in Edmonton to keep the LRT rider's happy for the above ground stations.

 

 

 

 

^ that is nice.  and i think we should expect more from all of our stations.  for instance, some of the newer ones don't even cover most of the platform space?  what is the story with this?

 

on the blue/green line upgrades:  apparently the problem with POP and TVMs is that many of the stations do not have adequate electrictity or fiber to support inclusion in the network.  the cost of adding these was considered prohibitive at this point.   so, it seems the real work (ie innovation) should be taking place around figuring out how to connect these stations through wireless clouds, solar, or other electricity.   onecleveland?  ip over powerlines?  microwave?

 

this is where the disconnect is:  when the going gets tough (ie expensive) in cleveland these days, projects are scrapped or pared down.  as a region, we weren't always like this - we found solutions, and we prospered.  let's step up to the plate and FIND SOLUTIONS, and not let problems like cost and complexity dictate what we get.

Can anyone explain why the Rapid station at W. 117 is taking so long to construct? They put up whole Wal-Mart and Target stores in less time.

Ridership highlights:

 

8.4 million passengers rode the Rapid, the highest total since 2001.

 

More than 380,000 passengers have jumped on the new downtown trolleys since they were introduced in April.

 

More than 13,600 rides were provided during the week of Dec. 4 – a new record.

 

Nearly 2,200 bike-related transit trips were taken in December.

 

 

Good news.

What was so big about December? The warmth?

Anybody have bike data for the whole year?

 

 

 

 

^ And I would really like to know more about this. I wasn't just wondering out load. Any input?

Can anyone explain why the Rapid station at W. 117 is taking so long to construct? They put up whole Wal-Mart and Target stores in less time.

 

There were some unexpected site/soil conditions that had to be addressed that are at least partially responsible.

Can anyone explain why the Rapid station at W. 117 is taking so long to construct? They put up whole Wal-Mart and Target stores in less time.

 

here is a link to the presentation regarding the change order and soil problems at w117:

 

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2006-10-03-West117.pdf

 

 

Musky.... I doubt that the weather has much to do with it.  rather, I think this is a continued trend among people deciding to switch to using transit for both personal economy (gas prices, parking costs, etc) and convenience.  Plus let's give credit to GCRTA for marketing it's product... thought probably not perfect in the view of some.... they are (by my observation) the most aggressive among Ohio transit agencies when it comes to advertising and taking advantage of any "news hook" (like gas prices) to gain the attention of riders.  The fact they are seeing increases in riders at a time when gas prices are declining (now below $2.00) is also interesting, as this may be a sign the public realizes those prices could just as easily rocket back up.

 

Don't know much about bike data.

rather, I think this is a continued trend among people deciding to switch to using transit for both personal economy (gas prices, parking costs, etc) and convenience.  Plus let's give credit to GCRTA for marketing it's product... thought probably not perfect in the view of some.... they are (by my observation) the most aggressive among Ohio transit agencies when it comes to advertising and taking advantage of any "news hook" (like gas prices) to gain the attention of riders.  The fact they are seeing increases in riders at a time when gas prices are declining (now below $2.00) is also interesting, as this may be a sign the public realizes those prices could just as easily rocket back up.

 

we can only hope so... I've been a lifelong transit rider, and as I believe I've mentioned before, I've seen the good (NYC) and the bad (Buffalo), and RTA is far from being "the ugly"... I don't know if we can count on the sheeple to make a reasonable decision about gas prices, as too many of them are too easily distracted/led by the nose, but I for one hope that gas prices don't decline too much further, lest all that progress made in the last eightenn months go for naught...

^i wish i could find it, but remember when gas prices dropped significantly in September/October? Coincidentally, SUV sales saw a significant spike (more than 15%)

There's probably a much better thread for this but I couldn't find it in my brief/lazy search.. Feel free to delete or move or whatever admin magic you can conjure..

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/FREE/70116012/1039/newsletter01

 

Surfing for passengers

 

By JAY MILLER

 

3:06 pm, January 16, 2007

 

There’s a new way to avoid the hand cramps that afflict snowy weather commuters after hours of tightly gripping a steering wheel.

 

Ohio RideShare now is on the web.

 

........

 

For more information, log onto ohiorideshare.com or call 1-800-825-RIDE.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1169028100300621.xml&coll=2

 

RTA buying high-tech fare boxes

Prepay honor system will be tried

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Sarah Hollander

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

New fare boxes and ticket machines and updated passes should speed up boarding time on RTA buses and trains beginning early next year.

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority plans to replace nearly 800 fare boxes and introduce a prepay honor system on some routes as part of a $23 million fare collection upgrade.

 

The board approved two contracts Tuesday for work that should be finished in the summer of 2008.

 

.........

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4816