Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cleveland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-23-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
3,961 posts, read 5,701,224 times
Reputation: 4709

Advertisements

Cleveland-Akron Commuter Train Would Cost $171 Million - 19 Action News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports

This is an old news clip but I wonder if anyone knows if the proposal has gone on in any way since then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,412 posts, read 5,082,003 times
Reputation: 3081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant View Post
Cleveland-Akron Commuter Train Would Cost $171 Million - 19 Action News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports

This is an old news clip but I wonder if anyone knows if the proposal has gone on in any way since then.
Right here is another example of a much better use of the money allocated for the Opportunity Corridor, for 1/2 the cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 06:17 PM
 
1,066 posts, read 2,404,898 times
Reputation: 643
I'm trying to figure out how competitive it would be for commuters. $3/per trip, one way(and remember, this article is 10 years old).

So for someone living in Fairlawn commuting to Cleveland, working 5 days a week...

$30 a week in train fare + however much gas it takes to commute to downtown Akron + Parking in downtown Akron.

The only way I could see this being a viable option for most commuters is if people are willing to pay extra in order to avoid traffic(that appears to be what the study was banking on). Downtown to Downtown is about 45 minutes with no traffic. 1 hour only makes sense if you're avoiding gridlocked traffic on 77.

Is traffic that bad now? Because Northeast Ohio has been decreasingin population over the past couple decades. So traffic will likely get better before it gets worse(unless someone else has a scenario they would like to share).

Personally, I would have used that train every weekend when I lived in Ohio. I could ride a bike downtown and take the train to Cleveland? That would have been great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,044 posts, read 12,306,095 times
Reputation: 10365
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksu sucks View Post
I'm trying to figure out how competitive it would be for commuters. $3/per trip, one way(and remember, this article is 10 years old).

So for someone living in Fairlawn commuting to Cleveland, working 5 days a week...

$30 a week in train fare + however much gas it takes to commute to downtown Akron + Parking in downtown Akron.

The only way I could see this being a viable option for most commuters is if people are willing to pay extra in order to avoid traffic(that appears to be what the study was banking on). Downtown to Downtown is about 45 minutes with no traffic. 1 hour only makes sense if you're avoiding gridlocked traffic on 77.

Is traffic that bad now? Because Northeast Ohio has been decreasingin population over the past couple decades. So traffic will likely get better before it gets worse(unless someone else has a scenario they would like to share).

Personally, I would have used that train every weekend when I lived in Ohio. I could ride a bike downtown and take the train to Cleveland? That would have been great.
The commuter train from Akron to Cleveland would be more important for people from Akron or Canton than people from Cleveland. If you look at the numbers, Summit County and Stark County have decreased slightly from 2000-2010 (under 1%) but are still both more populated now than they were in 1990. They will have to deal with more traffic than Clevelanders. Keep in mind that the Cleveland area still encompasses more than 2 million people. I think the idea of a commuter train might not be as far-fectched as some may assume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 06:44 PM
 
1,066 posts, read 2,404,898 times
Reputation: 643
I don't think the idea is far fetched, I'm just not sure how much sense it would make for Akronites when they could just drive.

I'd be interested to hear from people who make that commute daily. How long does it take with traffic? Would you a train make financial sense given the cost of parking, etc?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
3,961 posts, read 5,701,224 times
Reputation: 4709
Such a commuter train line should not be viewed as an alternative to driving or a traffic congestion reducer only. As long as it is done right, a region can create all types of interesting development around the train line (think 21st Century Van Sweringen Brothers). More importantly, the line would connect two major cities and would make it far easier for someone without a car to travel between the two. BJimmy is right, this particular commuter rail line is not far fetched. Given if there is money available, it would be just as long as one of Boston's existing commuter train lines such as the Haverhill Line. It can be done.

That said, it cannot be more stressed that it has to be done right. I'm curious to see if Parsons Brinkerhoff found if there is sufficient demand from the local population for the line. Even if this is not the main driving force (believe me, contrary to common belief, public demand alone may not be enough to stop a planning project - the decisions of public officials are the biggest drivers) it is an important indicator of whether the line will be successful or not. Projects completed without sufficient public support tend not to be as successful as intended. We have one of our own in the Greenbush Commuter Rail Line, a line that cost over twice the money originally provided to build and draws sufficient ridership only during rush hours. The lone subway line in Buffalo NY that goes nowhere and doesn't even exit the city limits can be viewed as another. The planners of these projects failed to grasp the overall demand for them and relied too much on grandiose predictions that if they build it, more people will ride it. Demand drives ridership not supply. To get sufficient demand, there must be sufficient development along the line, places where people want to go to or from.

Overall I think this particular line is a very good idea. I'm pretty sure there are people in both cities and along the way without a car that will ride it. And is one sure those big parking lots in Downtown Cleveland are going to be there forever?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,044 posts, read 12,306,095 times
Reputation: 10365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant View Post

Overall I think this particular line is a very good idea. I'm pretty sure there are people in both cities and along the way without a car that will ride it. And is one sure those big parking lots in Downtown Cleveland are going to be there forever?
Those parking lots should be gone 10 years ago. I think their days are numbered, though it won't happen immediately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Ak-Rowdy, OH
1,522 posts, read 2,986,570 times
Reputation: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksu sucks View Post
I don't think the idea is far fetched, I'm just not sure how much sense it would make for Akronites when they could just drive.

I'd be interested to hear from people who make that commute daily. How long does it take with traffic? Would you a train make financial sense given the cost of parking, etc?
Hey, Metro runs commuter buses weekdays between Akron and Downtown Cleveland. They've got their park and ride lot on Ghent for it. However a few bus trips in the morning and a few bus trips in the evening doesn't equal out to the kind of demand that would be needed for rail.

I would love to have that kind of transportation infrastructure here like they do in the Northeast, but I think the political and social headwinds are moving against it. Look at Cleveland, the Rapid is a fantastic resource that really should be expanded upon but has been left largely the same for decades.

Also it appears that BRT has become the go-to compromise for expanded transit. I think you'll see dedicated bus lanes on I-77 before you see regional rail.

Detroit just barely got approval for their first rail transit line (outside of the People Mover) and all they could get through was 3 little miles, which almost seems like it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2013, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
3,961 posts, read 5,701,224 times
Reputation: 4709
Quote:
Originally Posted by SquareBetterThanAll View Post
Hey, Metro runs commuter buses weekdays between Akron and Downtown Cleveland. They've got their park and ride lot on Ghent for it. However a few bus trips in the morning and a few bus trips in the evening doesn't equal out to the kind of demand that would be needed for rail.

I would love to have that kind of transportation infrastructure here like they do in the Northeast, but I think the political and social headwinds are moving against it. Look at Cleveland, the Rapid is a fantastic resource that really should be expanded upon but has been left largely the same for decades.

Also it appears that BRT has become the go-to compromise for expanded transit. I think you'll see dedicated bus lanes on I-77 before you see regional rail.

Detroit just barely got approval for their first rail transit line (outside of the People Mover) and all they could get through was 3 little miles, which almost seems like it wouldn't be worth the effort.
True, if this proposed service only tried to compete with commuter buses during rush hours, then it would end up a colossal failure because for starters, it is an expensive endeavor (the Americans with Disabilities Act stipulates all stations have to be wheelchair accessible and that will cost a lot) and then running the line for so few hours each day would not justify having a line at all.

On the other hand, the line would service cut off communities such as the suburbs of Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, and Slavic Village in Cleveland. I thought these were predominantly low income neighborhoods - precisely the types of neighborhoods that need affordable alternative transportation. That's where great ideas can come about, ideas ranging from transit oriented development to connectivity between neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Marshall-Shadeland, Pittsburgh, PA
32,604 posts, read 77,242,002 times
Reputation: 19066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant View Post
Such a commuter train line should not be viewed as an alternative to driving or a traffic congestion reducer only. As long as it is done right, a region can create all types of interesting development around the train line (think 21st Century Van Sweringen Brothers). More importantly, the line would connect two major cities and would make it far easier for someone without a car to travel between the two. BJimmy is right, this particular commuter rail line is not far fetched. Given if there is money available, it would be just as long as one of Boston's existing commuter train lines such as the Haverhill Line. It can be done.
I agree completely. Let's presume Cleveland (proper) continues to gentrify and become an even greater city than it already is. As has been happening in Pittsburgh's city proper you'll start to see your housing prices soar. Those who seek an urban living existence but can't afford to live in Downtown Cleveland, Detroit-Shoreway, Ohio City, etc. anymore may consider living in new apartments near a train station in Downtown Akron. They'll pay 60% as much in rent for a 1-BR apartment in Downtown Akron vs. Downtown Cleveland (let's presume $1,200/month for a 1-BR in Downtown Cleveland vs. $720/month for a 1-BR apartment in Downtown Akron). They can ride the train back-and-forth to Downtown Cleveland for work while still enjoying the benefits of urban living in Downtown Akron, which will also improve as more residential growth occurs around the train station. Even when factoring in the monthly cost to take the train and the extra 45 minutes it would take to ride the train between Downtown Akron and Downtown Cleveland vs. just walking 15 minutes from their front door in Ohio City many young professionals would consider it a "good deal" to eschew overpaying rent in Downtown Cleveland for cheaper rent in Downtown Akron.

Of course this will benefit Akron much more than Cleveland. I doubt anyone living in Ohio City right now is saying "I wish I could ride a train to Downtown Akron! YAY!" On the other hand this rail line would be a BOON to Downtown Akron. I'm not a fan of suburbia, but in this case Akron would more closely-align itself as a true "satellite city" of Cleveland, much as how White Plains is a "satellite city" of NYC or how Worcester is a "satellite city" of Boston or, on a smaller scale, how Greensburg is a "satellite city" of Pittsburgh. All three smaller cities in these examples have a well-built core conducive to urban living. Akron would always fall well within the shadow of Cleveland; however, it would be great for Cleveland to have a "Plan B" for its young professionals once the city core becomes too expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cleveland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top