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.
I did mention I see merits in rail transit. I’ve lived and/or traveled in many metro areas, and used rail transit (with mixed results, I would add…some are flat out unsafe…).
My chief objection with your proposal centers on the use of 26 miles of prime National Park green space as a commuter corridor. I’ve outlined the rationale for those objections earlier. If you choose to classify that as an “excuse”, that is your prerogative.
More generally though: You need to match up multi-million dollar rail build-outs with actual demand for the ridership services. Otherwise you end up with near empty cars, and a major socio-economic disparity and stigma associated with ridership. It sets things back…it is hard to undo that.
It takes me 18 minutes from CH to drive to an Indians game, park conveniently at Prospect and E. 9th (for a reasonable fee) and stroll 2 blocks to Progressive Field.
I drove to Akron during evening commute hours for a concert at the Civic Center. Drove highway speeds, parked across the street from a sold-out venue for a few bucks, and walked in. (When I did similar outings from San Jose to SF, I had to take off by 3p to avoid traffic on 101. The rail options never got me close enough to the venues. And parking? Nightmare).
It is way too easy here. It’s not “basking”, it’s characterizing the situation. I’m afraid you won’t have the ridership…yet.
I hope the projects you outlined do yield results on urban density. It’s great for the city.
I am old enough to remember what so many said before Los Angeles set about projecting, voting for then executing rapid transit/commuter rail system. "They're crazy" ... "LA is too spread out; too low of density for it to work" ... "Nobody rides the bus, now" ... and, of course, the old GM-hypnotic catchphrase: "Americans have a love affair with their cars" and the LA trains won't change this... Like you, many worried trains would be riding empty.
Fast forward 30 years later. LA has one of the largest, busiest and still fastest-growing transit network in the nation. Whereas downtown LA in the early 90s, honestly (when my company had an Orange County office) was little bigger than downtown Cleveland -- yet LA, even then, was nearly 10 times Cleveland's size population-wise. Angelenos, actually now have a "love affair" with their trains and they would fight you bitterly to take them away...Downtown LA has ground huge and vibrant with graceful NYC/Chicago style luxury highrise apts and condos. Dense TOD has sprung up near hundreds of train lines -- and it just keeps growing. And the light rail, heavy rail (subway), commuter rail network, totaling around 500 miles, keeps growing, as well; the latest soon to open is the 9-mile Purple Line HRT subway under Wilshire Blvd, through dense, upscale downtown Beverly Hills ending in similar downtown Westwood, a few miles north and east of Santa Monica (which is directly served by the Expo LRT).
... Look, you see the urban world differently than I, esp cities like Cleveland. My goal is not always to circumvent traffic; I enjoy getting out walking and interacting with people and places on vibrant Main Streets (in this case, Euclid Ave, 4th Street; West 25th (easily served by the Red Line with a 1-stop hop over the Flats) You like driving, I get it and that's your right. Yeah, sure, some days, maybe most days (esp weekdays) you can jet down to Progressive Field in 16 or so mins, then hop in your car and head home afterward. But know for a fact, that cannot be the case on weekend baseball (Guardians) game nights, esp when, say, there's a Cavs game or any other event in the center of town. Those warm summer weekend nights when sidewalks are packed and there are actually traffic cops at main intersections. I have ridden with guys to/from Indians games during that time, and we always took a good 16-20-mins just to get free of downtown traffic -- and, heck, that was last year when the Cavs were horrible-- I can only imagine what it will be like now that fans are selling out games and embracing the hottest, best surprise team in the NBA.
I am old enough to remember what so many said before Los Angeles set about projecting, voting for then executing rapid transit/commuter rail system. "They're crazy" ... "LA is too spread out; too low of density for it to work" ... "Nobody rides the bus, now" ... and, of course, the old GM-hypnotic catchphrase: "Americans have a love affair with their cars" and the LA trains won't change this... Like you, many worried trains would be riding empty.
Fast forward 30 years later. LA has one of the largest, busiest and still fastest-growing transit network in the nation. Whereas downtown LA in the early 90s, honestly (when my company had an Orange County office) was little bigger than downtown Cleveland -- yet LA, even then, was nearly 10 times Cleveland's size population-wise. Angelenos, actually now have a "love affair" with their trains and they would fight you bitterly to take them away...Downtown LA has ground huge and vibrant with graceful NYC/Chicago style luxury highrise apts and condos. Dense TOD has sprung up near hundreds of train lines -- and it just keeps growing. And the light rail, heavy rail (subway), commuter rail network, totaling around 500 miles, keeps growing, as well; the latest soon to open is the 9-mile Purple Line HRT subway under Wilshire Blvd, through dense, upscale downtown Beverly Hills ending in similar downtown Westwood, a few miles north and east of Santa Monica (which is directly served by the Expo LRT).
... Look, you see the urban world differently than I, esp cities like Cleveland. My goal is not always to circumvent traffic; I enjoy getting out walking and interacting with people and places on vibrant Main Streets (in this case, Euclid Ave, 4th Street; West 25th (easily served by the Red Line with a 1-stop hop over the Flats) You like driving, I get it and that's your right. Yeah, sure, some days, maybe most days (esp weekdays) you can jet down to Progressive Field in 16 or so mins, then hop in your car and head home afterward. But know for a fact, that cannot be the case on weekend baseball (Guardians) game nights, esp when, say, there's a Cavs game or any other event in the center of town. Those warm summer weekend nights when sidewalks are packed and there are actually traffic cops at main intersections. I have ridden with guys to/from Indians games during that time, and we always took a good 16-20-mins just to get free of downtown traffic -- and, heck, that was last year when the Cavs were horrible-- I can only imagine what it will be like now that fans are selling out games and embracing the hottest, best surprise team in the NBA.
We can agree to disagree.
OK, fair enough.
I’d counter-argue that you see the natural world (green space and national parks) differently than I. . The CVNP usage proposal is the main basis for my objection.
Couple side points though, since the debate has expanded.
1) You have me pegged wrong. I do not particularly like driving. We specifically moved to our current neighborhood so we could take advantage of walkable corridors to conduct many day-to-day affairs. (Many posters here were helpful in that search). We split one car for multiple adult drivers in the house-hold.
2) The modern LA transit build-out began in earnest in 1980, with the passage of a sales tax to fund transit corridors. LA had already become a congested, smog-choked mess by the 1970s. Staring ahead at exponential population growth projections, there was absolutely a crisis at hand, driving the case for action and economic justification for the new transit lines.
3) In my former west coast haunts (Bay Area, Sac, Portland…), many of my progressive neighbors liked the idea of transit, and the cachet it seems to bring, while they would not personally be caught dead on Portland MAX light rail, or BART, or the SacRT. Why? Socio-economic disparities and public safety concerns. I’m wary of motivations for projects like these…many seem to be as much about status as they are about practicality.
I do admire your vision and passion.
Last edited by SlideRules99; 02-23-2022 at 07:30 AM..
One other note. Any solution will need to pass the economic laugh test. If we build a rail road and it costs $150M but only gets riders on game day or weekend drinkfests, I have to cry foul. You can argue that we subsidize highways and big oil, but these are truly the economic backbone of our economy (along with rail freight.) And maybe we should not subsidize them as much - and 2 wrongs don't make a right. So any future government subs should be scrutinized.
I guess we all have our passions. I would pay more tax to subsidize this kind of infrastructure. BTW, I would also pay more tax for more rail transit in some areas, like the TOD mentioned above, perhaps upgraded rail cars, etc.
I’d counter-argue that you see the natural world (green space and national parks) differently than I. . The CVNP usage proposal is the main basis for my objection.
Couple side points though, since the debate has expanded.
1) You have me pegged wrong. I do not particularly like driving. We specifically moved to our current neighborhood so we could take advantage of walkable corridors to conduct many day-to-day affairs. (Many posters here were helpful in that search). We split one car for multiple adult drivers in the house-hold.
2) The modern LA transit build-out began in earnest in 1980, with the passage of a sales tax to fund transit corridors. LA had already become a congested, smog-choked mess by the 1970s. Staring ahead at exponential population growth projections, there was absolutely a crisis at hand, driving the case for action and economic justification for the new transit lines.
3) In my former west coast haunts (Bay Area, Sac, Portland…), many of my progressive neighbors liked the idea of transit, and the cachet it seems to bring, while they would not personally be caught dead on Portland MAX light rail, or BART, or the SacRT. Why? Socio-economic disparities and public safety concerns. I’m wary of motivations for projects like these…many seem to be as much about status as they are about practicality.
I do admire your vision and passion.
Appreciate your comments.
One thing though, I LOVE the CVNP as well as all the lush and gorgeous natural parks, ridges, woods and beaches surrounding Cleveland. I would fight anyone who would want to harm them... I practically grew up hiking and picnicking in several portions of our famed Emerald Necklace. These amazing natural areas, both inside the City and nearby, are one of the many aspects that make living in Greater Cleveland a great experience.
One thing though, I LOVE the CVNP as well as all the lush and gorgeous natural parks, ridges, woods and beaches surrounding Cleveland. I would fight anyone who would want to harm them... I practically grew up hiking and picnicking in several portions of our famed Emerald Necklace. These amazing natural areas, both inside the City and nearby, are one of the many aspects that make living in Greater Cleveland a great experience.
I don't doubt everything you're saying or your stats -- yes, Cleveland overall has lighter traffic than some larger metro areas with better transit. But, again, this should not be the catchall reason to not build esp, as I have noted, again and again, Cleveland has natural advantages for rail transit: notably: 1. a 100-year head start with rapid transit compared to similar size/density cities, and 2. freight rail lines, many at or near abandonment, that radiate out from the downtown core, many sharing ROWs with the Rapid into our amazing mixed-use Tower City terminal.
And light traffic? Again, I list for you: Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Nashville, Sacramento, Austin, Orlando, Minneapolis all have built commuter rail within the last 2 decades, and in most cases, are expanding it. With perhaps a minor, minor exception, these cities all have lighter traffic than CLE and are smaller. I'll say it again: it is much easier to make up excuses for not to build transit than to build. Ohio is such a stick-in-the-mud on so many levels; we are going backward. I just always believed that Cleveland was more progressive than the rest of the state, esp in mass transit... We WERE up to about 40 or so years ago, but we are succumbing; turning into a typical Ohio City.
Sprawl is good, right?
... and while some are basking in Cleveland's alleged light density, light traffic and easy parking, some good news is on the horizon. We actually are creating neighborhood and corridor density; even a few TOD developments. Look at Uptown/Little Italy and Ohio City/Duck Island TOD. And now, the huge Circle Square highrise apt development, coupled with the huge and gorgeous and graceful nearby One University Circle 20-story apt tower.
And downtown, we are finally filling in those dreaded surface parking lots with new skyscraper offices (Sherwin-Williams) and apartment highrises: Beacon, Lumen (and soon Lumen Act II), City Club and, yes, the 33-story Hilton hotel.... More density and foot traffic; less cheap/free parking; ... more traffic. Cleveland is becoming, once again, a truly urban city... And true modern urban cities require quality transit solutions, not Hyperloop or self-driving car fantasies.
This isn't true. Minneapolis, Orlando, Austin, and Nashville definitely have worse traffic than Cleveland. Like, it's not even a debate. I have no experience with ABQ, Salt Lake City, or Sacramento. But four of the cities on your list absolutely have worse traffic than Cleveland. Also, all four of these cities are larger than Cleveland either by city or metro population, and all four are growing significantly quicker (Minneapolis might be leveling off).
Cleveland also already has substantial public rail transit, so unlike those other four cities when they started their projects, a significant number of people here are already using the train, so there's a diminishing returns thing that you're not accounting for.
This is not me making the claim that we definitely don't need a rail route between Cleveland and Akron. Just pointing out that there are reasons why these supposedly small-time cities underwent new rail projects and we didn't.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 02-24-2022 at 09:59 AM..
This isn't true. Minneapolis, Orlando, Austin, and Nashville definitely have worse traffic than Cleveland. Like, it's not even a debate. I have no experience with ABQ, Salt Lake City, or Sacramento. But four of the cities on your list absolutsely have worse traffic than Cleveland. Also, all four of these cities are larger than Cleveland either by city or metro population, and all four are growing significantly quicker (Minneapolis might be leveling off).
Cleveland also already has substantial public rail transit, so unlike those other four cities when they started their projects, a significant number of people here are already using the train, so there's a diminishing returns thing that you're not accounting for.
This is not me making the claim that we definitely don't need a rail route between Cleveland and Akron. Just pointing out that there are reasons why these supposedly small-time cities underwent new rail projects and we didn't.
This is unconvincing.
Just because Cleveland had a 'head start' on transit, shouldn't be an excuse to stand pat. You build on the system that's there to make it better.
And I wish people would cut the 'Cleveland has no traffic' vibe... Every time I get stuck in traffic in Cleveland, and it is often, esp around rush hour, I get P.O.'d at the folks peddling this argument. Try traveling through University Circle or Chagrin, or I-480 or 77, to name a few. Downtown would not have traffic cops if there was 'no traffic'. This image the people can just glide wistfully down any street and park for free right in front of their destination as if this were Zanesville or Lodi or someplace, is absurd.
By the way, rail rapid transit isn't built merely to 'relieve' traffic, it is principally designed to foster 'smart growth' in cities. Locally, the Blue and Green Rapid Transit Lines (formerly the Shaker Rapid) were built out to farmland ... which eventually developed into some high-density corridors (ie Shaker Square, Van Aken). This was often the case for pioneering rapid transit: New York's first rapid transit was elevated rail lines that ventured to Central Park and then north Manhattan when the city's population was then confined to the southern portions of the island. Early Chicago L photos (1890s, 1900s) features trains literally rolling over pastures with cows.
There can be little argument that Greater Cleveland has substantial sprawl that, sadly, is continuing: little to no population growth (even substantial population shrinkage) yet much wider land-use guided by freeways and cheap land. Rail transit, esp commuter rail, is a means to turn this around and create more smart growth. Los Angeles is an extreme example -- the biggest, sprawling metro area in the industrialized world. LA's growing rail network has not cured all these ills, but the city has come a long way with tons of smart growth.
It is so-Ohio to look at the transit status quo and be content while other cities and states move to get better.
Just because Cleveland had a 'head start' on transit, shouldn't be an excuse to stand pat. You build on the system that's there to make it better.
And I wish people would cut the 'Cleveland has no traffic' vibe... Every time I get stuck in traffic in Cleveland, and it is often, esp around rush hour, I get P.O.'d at the folks peddling this argument. Try traveling through University Circle or Chagrin, or I-480 or 77, to name a few. Downtown would not have traffic cops if there was 'no traffic'. This image the people can just glide wistfully down any street and park for free right in front of their destination as if this were Zanesville or Lodi or someplace, is absurd.
By the way, rail rapid transit isn't built merely to 'relieve' traffic, it is principally designed to foster 'smart growth' in cities. Locally, the Blue and Green Rapid Transit Lines (formerly the Shaker Rapid) were built out to farmland ... which eventually developed into some high-density corridors (ie Shaker Square, Van Aken). This was often the case for pioneering rapid transit: New York's first rapid transit was elevated rail lines that ventured to Central Park and then north Manhattan when the city's population was then confined to the southern portions of the island. Early Chicago L photos (1890s, 1900s) features trains literally rolling over pastures with cows.
There can be little argument that Greater Cleveland has substantial sprawl that, sadly, is continuing: little to no population growth (even substantial population shrinkage) yet much wider land-use guided by freeways and cheap land. Rail transit, esp commuter rail, is a means to turn this around and create more smart growth. Los Angeles is an extreme example -- the biggest, sprawling metro area in the industrialized world. LA's growing rail network has not cured all these ills, but the city has come a long way with tons of smart growth.
It is so-Ohio to look at the transit status quo and be content while other cities and states move to get better.
Cleveland's traffic is worse than Zanesville; we agree there. It is not, I promise you, worse than the traffic in Minneapolis, Orlando, Austin, or Nashville.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and I'm certainly not persuading you to abandon any of your ideas. I'm just correcting what is in my opinion a pretty major mischaracterization.
The CVNP ecosystem goes way beyond the Towpath trail. It’s a natural gem, a haven for native wildlife and plants, with all the protections afforded it as a U.S. National Park - the only such park in the state. These types of places are rare. Call me a tree hugger, but I value them immensely.
CVNP is pretty strange for a national park. It's on the small size and there's almost no camping (no dispersed backpacking options at all). The interstate that already cuts through the park is a pretty obtrusive presence, far more than a few trains a day would be.
Since it's the site of a landfill and an old NBA stadium, I think there's an argument to make it sort of a showcase of responsible land use in a metro area. It doesn't need to be a 100% pristine nature reserve, and it already isn't that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
And I wish people would cut the 'Cleveland has no traffic' vibe... Every time I get stuck in traffic in Cleveland, and it is often, esp around rush hour, I get P.O.'d at the folks peddling this argument. Try traveling through University Circle or Chagrin, or I-480 or 77, to name a few. Downtown would not have traffic cops if there was 'no traffic'. This image the people can just glide wistfully down any street and park for free right in front of their destination as if this were Zanesville or Lodi or someplace, is absurd.
Ultimately most people in the metro area making trips in the sprawling suburbs and exurbs. Actual traffic jams that noticeably slow down a trip are a rare experience for most people in the area.
"You'll save time" is one of the weaker arguments for transit in Cleveland. I think it's more about saving money and having less stress and hassle.
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.
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.
. The CVNP usage proposal is the main basis for my objection.
