Please Help Settle A Dispute About Cleveland (Lorain, Euclid: neighborhoods, school)

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by Minervah

On the Portland forum, a poster from Philadelphia has stated for whatever reason that Portland should have a subway system and has mentioned and even posted a picture of Cleveland's subway as one that runs underground. He uses Cleveland as an example I think because of similar population numbers but the topography is very different and people are trying to explain that to him to no avail.

No, that is not the reason I posted the pic of Cleveland's subway. Remember I stated that Miami, Atlanta, and Cleveland all had a subway system. Then you replied to that post by stating that Cleveland did not have a subway system at all, which was completely false. I showed you a link proving that Cleveland does indeed have a subway.

[Cleveland_Collector]

About a mile of it runs under the downtown area and the airport. The rest runs in the outdoors and through tunnels. I don't understand the debate, really. Much of Chicago's "El" is similar (outdoors and elevated). It's only a "subway" where it needs to be which is the same as it is in Cleveland. Outside of Manhattan, NYC's is the same also. Clearly, of the three, New York's total underground rail is much more extensive. However, I don't think their is any quantitative rule as to what defines a "subway" system. If a rapid transit rail line runs underneath a city, even in part, isn't that what a "sub" way entails?

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

About a mile of it runs under the downtown area and the airport. The rest runs in the outdoors and through tunnels. I don't understand the debate, really. Much of Chicago's "El" is similar (outdoors and elevated). It's only a "subway" where it needs to be which is the same as it is in Cleveland. Outside of Manhattan, NYC's is the same also. Clearly, of the three, New York's total underground rail is much more extensive. However, I don't think their is any quantitative rule as to what defines a "subway" system. If a rapid transit rail line runs underneath a city, even in part, isn't that what a "sub" way entails?

Trust me, I don't understand the debate either. The last thing Portland needs is a subway. Unless of course, we are talking about a sandwich.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Clearly. An on-the-ground system is much easier and cheaper to build and maintain. The factor is about 5:1 for the build and 2:1 in maintenance. Portland has a great system. Who gives a s*** if it's underground or not?

[Peregrine]

I am curious why Minervah thinks Portland does not need light rail.

We do not have a subway system. Period. I don't consider our train to be a subway. Subways run underground. That's what I was taught in school. Running UNDER one building, and under the airport does not make it a "subway". We call it "The Rapid" because that is what it is.
It is "Rapid transit" or "Light rail".

There may not be a "quantitative rule" Cleveland Collector but there is certainly a DEFINITION of the word SUBWAY which does not even remotely apply to ours.

Allow me to lot Google weigh in:

"Google, define: subway"
Noun
An underground electric railroad.
A tunnel under a road for use by pedestrians.

"Google, define: rapid transit"
Noun
A form of high-speed urban passenger transportation such as an elevated railroad system.

No there is no defined quantity of how much must be underground to be considered a subway... but I bet if there was it would be a lot more then the 2% that Cleveland has underground.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I am curious why Minervah thinks Portland does not need light rail.

We do not have a subway system. Period. I don't consider our train to be a subway. Subways run underground. That's what I was taught in school. Running UNDER one building, and under the airport does not make it a "subway". We call it "The Rapid" because that is what it is.
It is "Rapid transit" or "Light rail".

There may not be a "quantitative rule" Cleveland Collector but there is certainly a DEFINITION of the word SUBWAY which does not even remotely apply to ours.

Allow me to lot Google weigh in:

"Google, define: subway"
Noun
An underground electric railroad.
A tunnel under a road for use by pedestrians.

"Google, define: rapid transit"
Noun
A form of high-speed urban passenger transportation such as an elevated railroad system.

No there is no defined quantity of how much must be underground to be considered a subway... but I bet if there was it would be a lot more then the 2% that Cleveland has underground.

The red line is absolutely not light rail though.

[Peregrine]

Of course it is:
"Google, define: light rail"
Light rail or light rail transit (LRT) is a form of public transport using a steel-tracked fixed guideway that operates primarily along an exclusive right of way and has vehicles capable of operating as a single unit or as multiple units coupled together.

How is it not?

[bjimmy24]

If we're using wikipedia definitions:

Passenger rail terminology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

heavy: It is characterized by high-speed, passenger rail cars running in separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded.

light: not necessarily grade separated from other traffic for much of the way

Also, Red line operates much more frequently and carries many more passengers than the Green/Blue/Waterfront lines.

[Minervah]

To answer the question as to why I do not think Portland does not need light rail, actually I do not think Portland needs more light rail. I think Portland is overextended with light rail and now we need a good BRT system to meet the needs of the rest of Portland.

As an example, I think we do not need another light rail line and so do most of the people in the Portland suburb of Milwaukie where they fought the implementation of a light rail line. I am one of the many who believe Portland would be better served by a BRT system. So far our present light system has cost far more than anticipated, breaks down quite a bit, has a poor on time record and, in my opinion at least, does not serve as many people who need public transportation. Recently on the news, it was shown how some of the tracks are being a serious deterioration and will need repairing. Where will the money come from? More increased fares? More bus route cutbacks to support light rail?

Each time a new light rail route is implemented, bus routes are curtailed or removed completely. Often for whatever reason, probably financial, the bus routes that are removed or cut back are not even any where near the light rail routes. So we don't even get an alternative. Many like me who have depended solely on the bus system for decades will tell you that this has been a real detriment to our getting around the city.

There are those who support more bus service and those who support more rail service in Portland. I am on the side of BRT. A lot of that has to do with the way Portland is laid out. Buses can go where trains cannot. You can run in bus in any neighborhood in which a car can go but you cannot lay down tracks in every neighborhood.

Our public transportation system more and more is becoming geared toward the commuter and occasional leisure rider, the user who takes it downtown for entertainment purposes. The riders who require it in the off hours to get around for general purposes from neighborhood to neighborhood for shopping or doctor appointments etc are finding it increasingly difficult to do find public transportation
that will get them where they need to go.

And have your seen our downtown area? Trains going this way and that way. Buses, cars, bikes. Where is there room for more trains? More stations? Our neighborhood streets are narrow. Where are the tracks going to be laid? How will they be accommodated?

Right now TriMet is in a crisis. They are bleeding money. The citizens are angry with them and the union and everyone is on edge. Fares are continually being increased while service is being cut back. The subject of public transportation in this city right now is a kind of a sore issue.

Thirty five years ago when I first moved to Portland, I could go anywhere at most any time by bus. That was before light rail. Today that is not possible. So call me selfish, but I want my buses back. Those are my reasons.

Of course there are those who disagree and of course everyone has the right to their opinion. But I have found that they are those who are able to use alternate means of transportation like cars or bikes as well as public transportation. I honestly have yet to find a single person like myself who has relied on public transportation alone over the years who does not agree with me.

Sorry, Cleveland, this is a Portland problem. But since someone asked my reasons there they are.

[bjimmy24]

Minervah, your perspective is interesting. Thank you for sharing it! Most people never seem to associate any kinds of issues with more rail. But I definitely understand where you're coming from. Buses can be pretty flexible, just lacks "sex appeal."