August 2, 200717 yr What is the difference between the 1960's-1970's, when a lot of US cities expanded their rail lines, and now? I'm sure expanding rail has always been expensive but the costs didn't seem to bother some cities. I'm wondering why Cleveland's rail seems so second rate compared to other cities of the same size. i think a major difference is in the expectation for the future. rail expansion has largely been driven by population growth, mitigating traffic congestion, etc. It hasn't always been done for transit oriented development, although, again, Cleveland was ahead of the times by the Shaker Square development. since the population estimates show a stagnant future (based on current trends), this influences a lot of people's outlooks, and ultimately willingness to invest in billion dollar projects. the one good thing is that RTA has a dedicated sales tax in cuyahoga county. one of the best things that could happen is that the county stops bleeding jobs and retail purchases, so that 1% of each purchase goes back to RTA. this might actually allow small service expansion, studies, etc. i think it is also important that a vision is articulated of walkable, sustainable, economically diverse communities is our goal. who cares if cleveland has 500,000 people or 1 million. a well run transit system can signifcantly improved quality of life and impact economic development.
August 2, 200717 yr i think a major difference is in the expectation for the future. rail expansion has largely been driven by population growth, mitigating traffic congestion, etc. It hasn't always been done for transit oriented development, although, again, Cleveland was ahead of the times by the Shaker Square development. since the population estimates show a stagnant future (based on current trends), this influences a lot of people's outlooks, and ultimately willingness to invest in billion dollar projects. the one good thing is that RTA has a dedicated sales tax in cuyahoga county. one of the best things that could happen is that the county stops bleeding jobs and retail purchases, so that 1% of each purchase goes back to RTA. this might actually allow small service expansion, studies, etc. i think it is also important that a vision is articulated of walkable, sustainable, economically diverse communities is our goal. who cares if cleveland has 500,000 people or 1 million. a well run transit system can signifcantly improved quality of life and impact economic development. I would also think a stronger mass transit system could actually help reverse the population loss, no? I can understand RTA's wariness in building rail extensions, but I would think that strengthening the mass transit in the city would help in making it more attractive to people that the city wants anyway .. people interested in living in a truly urban, walkable environment. Is there any way to voice concerns/desires to the powers that be in these situations? I'm not sure what good that would do considering it's all about finances, but I'm tired of feeling powerless, dangit. :)
August 2, 200717 yr Author Is there any way to voice concerns/desires to the powers that be in these situations? I'm not sure what good that would do considering it's all about finances, but I'm tired of feeling powerless, dangit. :) Join the All Aboard Ohio team! www.allaboardohio.org Also feel free to drop me a line via PM. The discussion of whether rail gets built in cities with population growth, worsening traffic etc. reminds me of a simple question. Does transportation follow economic development, or does economic development follow transportation? The simple answer is both, but does the weight of the argument go to one side or another? In Cleveland (especially at organizations with a social service mindset like RTA) the weight of the argument leans heavily to "transportation follows development." I take the opposing view - development follows transportation. RTA will say where's all the development along their rail lines? I ask them how can an organization whose culture and objectives are to provide a way to get the downtrodden to jobs, shopping, medical appointments etc. be expected to take a totally different approach, one that carries the risk-taking of an entrepreneur, and promote transit-oriented development. Since it takes years (if not decades) to change organizational cultural, I would love it if RTA instead contracted out ALL of its development-related initiatives to a private entity (or even to CDCs) to undertake: + land use planning within 2,000 feet of stations, transit centers, major transit route intersections. + work with Planning Commissions and City Councils to adopt the land use plans so that they carry the force of law. + property acquisition, demolition of structurally deficient buildings, site clean up. + RTA backing low-interest loans (ala a port authority) or lease-back financing to end users of buildings that meet goals and criteria of the site's land use plan. RTA already is contracting out the development of land use plans and that's an excellent start. But there needs to a cohesive strategy that ties together all phases of the transit-oriented development process. Simply coming up with a plan for a site and offering a few pieces of RTA property for sale or lease to an end-user is not going to spur redevelopment along transit lines. RTA has immense bonding and financing power in its permanent 1-cent sales tax that generates in excess of $250 million per year. Compare that with Ohio port authorities, which are typically supported by much smaller tax rates and have to be renewed every 5-10 years. But they make their weaker bonding capabilities work to much greater effect on spurring development than RTA does. The only thing holding back RTA is its mindset as a social service organization. It doesn't need to. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 2, 200717 yr I agree. It's time for RTA to start thinking outside the box for once. It sounds like there's some progress, and it's encouraging that ridership numbers continue to increase, but I'd like to see more. Am I the only one? As far as mass transit expanding in Cleveland, though, I think it's also coupled with a mentality that pervades most Clevelanders .. especially suburbanites: "I don't want to leave the comfort of my car." It's understandable; mass transit forces you to ride with other people, it's not as convenient, etc. But I think the majority of people are just not willing to realize the great benefits mass transit has over regular transportation, if people would only increase in their support of it. I'm not even talking about the suburbs necessarily; the suburbs are what they are because people choose to live in that type of environment. It would be great if at least mass transit within the city of Cleveland would be able to continue to grow and improve. It seems as though that's happening here and there, but I would just love to see Cleveland become a truly walkable city, where people can choose to leave their cars and take mass transit to where they need to go. It's such a valuable asset. Living in NYC, I have such an incredible appreciation for the system here. I don't need to have a car, and mass transit is much cheaper and relatively convenient. Anyway, sign me up for allaboardohio! :)
August 2, 200717 yr Little Italy/Coventry needs a Red Line stop.. I don't care if it's feasible or not.. I WANT IT :-D
August 2, 200717 yr lol...don't get me started (and off topic) with what I want. I would love a line on that heads north of N. Moreland to Coventry that terminates at Mayfield/Coventry. As well as a second line down fairhill to at least the UC Redline station. I hate taking the 48/48a when I have to go to UC/Cleve. Clinic.
August 2, 200717 yr ^I never found the 48 that terrible. It wasn't as frequent as i would have liked it, But it certainly served its purpose for me when i lived on the square and was at CWRU.....
August 2, 200717 yr ^I never found the 48 that terrible. It wasn't as frequent as i would have liked it, But it certainly served its purpose for me when i lived on the square and was at CWRU..... its not that bad, i just enjoy the comfort/ride of the train over the bus.
August 2, 200717 yr Trains > Buses You dont have to tell me. In Cleveland, if I can avoid a bus, I will.
August 3, 200717 yr well i'm sure most of us agree that you're way more likely to get first time riders' on a train rather than a bus. (i'm sure there's some study out there for this too)
August 3, 200717 yr it is also good to note that a significant portion of the current rail system in cleveland was privately built and financed. it may seem farfetched today, but i think it would be similar to p.b.lewis and the progressive group paying for and building rail extensions that served the east side and developments where their employees lived. or the clinic paying for a rail, instead of bus, line. or hyland software paying to extend the rapid out west. there wasn't some major public financing of the rail system, at least initially. so would anyone step up today and finance and support such a massive investment? and if not, why not? (granted some of the system was a private entity) as a region we've got to continually think, dream and execute on a BIG scale.
August 3, 200717 yr ^is there any privately owned transit systems in the us? (no greyhound doesn't count) point is, its a public good.
August 3, 200717 yr ^is there any privately owned transit systems in the us? (no greyhound doesn't count) point is, its a public good. but, it wasn't *built* that way. i agree that today it is a public entity and public good, but there was also significant private support of the venture. i would argue that their isn't much private support of extending/expanding the existing system, and until we get back to a point where private entities see the value in rail and transit (lower costs for employees, happier employees, broader base of employees to recruit, etc.), then transit will be viewed as a straight cost, and on that end a system that only generates 20% of its operating costs from passenger fares will never succeed.
August 3, 200717 yr Author I know this is belaboring the obvious, but private investment in transportation happens only when the investor expects to a return on his/her investment. The Van Sweringens probably didn't expect to make any money on the Shaker Rapid lines (and they got some big breaks, too -- read the book "Invisible Giants: The Empires of Cleveland's Van Sweringen Brothers"), but the Rapid lines were deemed essential to marketing real estate in their planned community of Shaker Heights. Today, some major employers (not so much here in NE Ohio) have been known to help subsidize bus transit services to get employees (often from the inner city) to fill employee shortages at their suburban locations. That's pretty common around the country. Private enterprise involvement in financing fixed-guideway transit is pretty rare. However, a new philosophy called design-build is getting private enterprise back into the development of rail transit lines -- but not without public funding. One of the most active corporations in design-build is Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. In Portland, Ore. the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation (Tri-Met) District awarded a design-build contract to Bechtel for the light-rail extension to Portland International Airport. Bechtel not only designed and built the new line but also provided significant project funding. In return, Bechtel received a lump sum payment of $125 million from Tri-Met as well as development rights along part of the rail line. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 3, 200717 yr Is there any way to voice concerns/desires to the powers that be in these situations? I'm not sure what good that would do considering it's all about finances, but I'm tired of feeling powerless, dangit. :) Join the All Aboard Ohio team! www.allaboardohio.org Also feel free to drop me a line via PM. The discussion of whether rail gets built in cities with population growth, worsening traffic etc. reminds me of a simple question. Does transportation follow economic development, or does economic development follow transportation? The simple answer is both, but does the weight of the argument go to one side or another? In Cleveland (especially at organizations with a social service mindset like RTA) the weight of the argument leans heavily to "transportation follows development." I take the opposing view - development follows transportation. RTA will say where's all the development along their rail lines? I ask them how can an organization whose culture and objectives are to provide a way to get the downtrodden to jobs, shopping, medical appointments etc. be expected to take a totally different approach, one that carries the risk-taking of an entrepreneur, and promote transit-oriented development. Since it takes years (if not decades) to change organizational cultural, I would love it if RTA instead contracted out ALL of its development-related initiatives to a private entity (or even to CDCs) to undertake: + land use planning within 2,000 feet of stations, transit centers, major transit route intersections. + work with Planning Commissions and City Councils to adopt the land use plans so that they carry the force of law. + property acquisition, demolition of structurally deficient buildings, site clean up. + RTA backing interest loans (ala a port authority) or lease-back financing to end users of buildings that meet goals and criteria of the site's land use plan. RTA already is contracting out the development of land use plans and that's an excellent start. But there needs to a cohesive strategy that ties together all phases of the transit-oriented development process. Simply coming up with a plan for a site and offering a few pieces of RTA property for sale or lease to an end-user is not going to spur redevelopment along transit lines. RTA has immense bonding and financing power in its permanent 1-cent sales tax that generates in excess of $250 million per year. Compare that with Ohio port authorities, which are typically supported by much smaller tax rates and have to be renewed every 5-10 years. But they make their weaker bonding capabilities work to much greater effect on spurring development than RTA does. The only thing holding back RTA is its mindset as a social service organization. It doesn't need to. Excellent points. As we know, the best historical example of development following transit is right in our backyard: the aforementioned Van Sweringens who built Rapid lines into empty farmland with the idea they would stimulate upper class and high density development. We've had many decades to recover our early 20th Century swagger (in city reform + building and the arts) after hits like the Depression, industrial decline and social upheaval of the 60s. We should get away from the idea of transit as a social service agency but as a city-building tool... You'd think that an comically distressed city would be more open to such thinking... ... then again, you'd think Geo Bush wouldn't have been allowed to squeeze Amtrak during post-911 and the oil crisis ... but he was.
August 3, 200717 yr RTA has immense bonding and financing power in its permanent 1-cent sales tax that generates in excess of $250 million per year. umm, KJP, while I don't disagree with the majority of what you're stating, your revenue figures seem to be a bit inflated... according to RTA's 2006 Annual Report available at http://www.riderta.com/annual/2006/, their total 2006 sales tax revenue was $168,615,372; total revenue from all sources for the year was $248,669,803
August 3, 200717 yr Author I probably recalled the total revenues. Thanks for the clarification. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 4, 200717 yr ^I'd argue (with no facts of course) that for the longest time Cleveland was an excellent example of good mass transit for a city its size. However, in recent years its being jumped over by the likes of St. Louis and Minneapolis and Dallas and Denver and....... You're right, but Minny as yet is in the bullpen... Fact is, most of these larger systems have to be as large as they are to chase the greater-than-Cleveland sprawl they've experienced in being so car-oriented. But that doesn't let us off the hook.
August 4, 200717 yr comically distressed :drunk: LOL Yeah, my late night posts can produce some amusing results.
August 7, 200717 yr Author RTA took a beating from this morning's heavy rainstorm that dumped several inches of rain in 45 minutes. The Blue and Green lines were shut down for their entire length, replaced by shuttle buses. The Red Line's airport subway tunnel was flooded, forcing RTA to replace trains with buses between the Brookpark and Airport stations. And, here's what RTA's brand-new rapid station at West 117th looked like this morning. I was one of the reporters on the scene, watching Lakewood firefighters and divers in a powered rubber raft check to make sure that there was no one in a minivan and a car that were completely submerged. Fortunately, everyone got out unharmed. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 7, 200717 yr RTA ferry service? we can have a direct connection now for the Cleveland-Port Stanley ferry to an RTA station.
August 7, 200717 yr Author I wonder how much water that is? Eight feet, according to Lakewood Fire Department. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 7, 200717 yr I thought I didn't hear the blue& green line this morning... Welcome F 18 Superhornet :wave: You're correct the trains were not running. I bet it was like 1985 again with all those buses.
August 7, 200717 yr Thanks for the welcome! :yap: While I was down that way, I did notice a lot of buses( 25, 35 then the 2 shuttles,& the 10)
August 7, 200717 yr Author You're correct the trains were not running. I bet it was like 1985 again with all those buses. Are you referring to when the Blue/Green lines were being totally rebuilt? If so, that was 1979-80. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 7, 200717 yr On the other hand, the "lake" does make the station look marvelous. It makes an excellent boathouse.
August 7, 200717 yr ^All that was needed was some robotic fountains and we would have had our own version of the Bellagio on 117.
August 7, 200717 yr You're correct the trains were not running. I bet it was like 1985 again with all those buses. Are you referring to when the Blue/Green lines were being totally rebuilt? If so, that was 1979-80. No, there was one really really bad flood and a train stalled at 93 St and it messed up the entire system However, that reminds me how bad the trains were during the construction.
August 8, 200717 yr I thought I didn't hear the blue& green line this morning... the annoying thing is that RTA didn't have an announcement on their website and there was no email or text alert that certain trains weren't running. it is 2007, hmmmm, seems like someone might be able to make this happen for about $2. if the system wants more "choice" ridership, they need to start thinking about incorporating these relatively easy information delivery devices.
August 8, 200717 yr I thought I didn't hear the blue& green line this morning... the annoying thing is that RTA didn't have an announcement on their website and there was no email or text alert that certain trains weren't running. it is 2007, hmmmm, seems like someone might be able to make this happen for about $2. if the system wants more "choice" ridership, they need to start thinking about incorporating these relatively easy information delivery devices. Dare I say it. Have you emailed RTA about this? I think its a great, great option, customer and user friendly.
August 8, 200717 yr slightly similar thought, when you call the answer line doing a "problem" you just get ringing and put on hold, not even a broadcast message when you call.
August 8, 200717 yr Author the annoying thing is that RTA didn't have an announcement on their website and there was no email or text alert that certain trains weren't running. it is 2007, hmmmm, seems like someone might be able to make this happen for about $2. if the system wants more "choice" ridership, they need to start thinking about incorporating these relatively easy information delivery devices. I've noticed a decline in the flow and availability of information since the departure of Jerry Masek as RTA's media relations manager. He was replaced by Chad Self, who is not as aggressive in posting news and sharing information, reports, etc. as Masek was. Self used to work as a spokesman for then-Mayor Jane Campbell. I hate to think that her being named to RTA's board had anything to do with Self getting the job as RTA's spokesman. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 8, 200717 yr Well that flooding you all experienced yesterday reached NYC this morning. I just finished my second cup of coffee, started my run, made it a block-and-a-half to the park....then the heavens opened! I was wet to the bone in less than 10 seconds. Subway service in the majority of manhattan has been suspended. Some elevated trains are running in the outer boroughs. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/flooding-cripples-subway-system/index.html?hp http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=72434 I hear downtown is worse, I hope the NYC forumers are all safe and dry.
August 8, 200717 yr The thunderstorms have definitely been very intense. Haven't seen storms like this in a while. By the way, does anyone know if the Rapid is back to running today? I really would love to head into downtown. I tried giving RTA a call to find out but was hung up on (hung up on?).
August 8, 200717 yr The thunderstorms have definitely been very intense. Haven't seen storms like this in a while. By the way, does anyone know if the Rapid is back to running today? I really would love to head into downtown. I tried giving RTA a call to find out but was hung up on (hung up on?). my choo choo was running fine today.
August 8, 200717 yr no the pope takes the green line. If I understand correctly the Red line was unaffected by yesterday's storm.
August 8, 200717 yr Author Not true. Shuttle buses substituted for the Red Line between the Brookpark and airport stations due to flooding in the airport subway tunnel. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 8, 200717 yr Not true. Shuttle buses substituted for the Red Line between the Brookpark and airport stations due to flooding in the airport subway tunnel. Sorry, you did report that yesterday.
Create an account or sign in to comment