Major cities in the US and Canada by count of nearby major cities

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And Ohio is flat (at least where the tracks would run)

Correct, the Southeast third of the state is consistently hilly and thinly populated.

Terminal Tower's old station complex is physically blocked by the courthouse tower:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Th...6zL20vMDM4bWNw

Union Terminal's old platform concourse is physically blocked by the Lindner Family Omnimax Theater...the Lindners are also original Amtrak stockholders:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ci...g%2F11bc6d7dx1

It's a shame that a state struggling with relative decline on the past 50 years doesn't have more ambition.

The city fathers literally physically blocked future use of the two historic train stations.

The Omnimax Theater is especially egregious, as its timing absolutely coincided with the effort to block high speed rail in Ohio. Of course, disassembling the theater is nowhere on par with demolishing the Cleveland Federal Courthouse, but they'd have to go through the region's second-wealthiest family to make it happen.

Carl Lindner was one of the major buyers of Penn Central assets after its epic bankruptcy. He briefly came into possession of Grand Central in NYC, and was intimately involved in the formation of Amtrak. He's a big reason why Cincinnati has almost zero Amtrak service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lindner_Jr.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A bullet train would unquestionably be cool, but does anyone seriously think it would be a remotely Japan-like scenario? In deep-red, truck-loving, postindustrial Ohio? Yeah, there would probably be some ridership, but OH has very little transit ridership, and it has heavy rail, right now, something few states have.

If there were really an OH bullet train, it would be deeply subsidized (by who? The right-wing state leadership?) and run a few trains a day. State is way too decentralized, balkanized and auto-oriented.

The primary problem in the U.S. isn't the lack of transit infrastructure, but the lack of transit orientation.

I assume that people in Ohio use airports, so I see no reason why they wouldn't use train stations.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I assume that people in Ohio use airports, so I see no reason why they wouldn't use train stations.

They aren't the same market. You need airports to go to Mexico and Florida. You don't need trains to go to Columbus and Cleveland. Most of the leisure flights from non-hub Midwest airports are just shuttles to visit Aunt Gertrude in Fort Meyers or to the all-inclusives in Riveria Maya.

Also, trains are perceived as socialist and urban-centered.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They aren't the same market. You need airports to go to Mexico and Florida. You don't need trains to go to Columbus and Cleveland.

Also, trains are perceived as socialist and urban-centered.

There's no evidence at all that people in Ohio would not use trains.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There's no evidence at all that people in Ohio would not use trains.

I think there's plenty of evidence.

Ohio has some of the best trains in America, right now, with minimal ridership. Cleveland is one of only ten U.S. metros with heavy rail service, yet ridership is terrible.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think there's plenty of evidence.

Ohio has some of the best trains in America, right now, with minimal ridership. Cleveland is one of only ten U.S. metros with heavy rail service, yet ridership is terrible.

One rapid transit line in Cleveland is not evidence that the entire state would not use an inter-city rail service. These are fundamentally two different things.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

One rapid transit line in Cleveland is not evidence that the entire state would not use an inter-city rail service. These are fundamentally two different things.

You think that the fact that the most urban, transit-oriented, centralized area in Ohio has piss-poor ridership on a first-rate heavy rail system doesn't mean anything for prospects for more heavy rail? We'll agree to disagree.

Can't think of a place, anywhere on earth, where intercity rail works when urban rail doesn't. That would definitely be a first, given the two work in tandem, feeding and enabling each other.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You think that the fact that the most urban, transit-oriented, centralized area in Ohio has piss-poor ridership on a first-rate heavy rail system doesn't mean anything for prospects for more heavy rail? We'll agree to disagree.

You're basically arguing that because people don't use the subway in Cleveland, then people wouldn't use a plane to fly to Cincinnati. I'm not sure why you're conflating inter-city rail with urban rail transit. I mean, I have my own theories about why transit ridership is low in Cleveland, but they have nothing to do with whether inter-city rail would be patronized.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Can't think of a place, anywhere on earth, where intercity rail works when urban rail doesn't. That would definitely be a first, given the two work in tandem, feeding and enabling each other.

I don't think there is any place on Earth that has an inter-city rail system with good frequency that doesn't get used.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You think that the fact that the most urban, transit-oriented, centralized area in Ohio has piss-poor ridership on a first-rate heavy rail system doesn't mean anything for prospects for more heavy rail

as the only midwest city outside of chicago with a heavy rail rapid transit line, i'm not trying to shit on cleveland here, but "first rate" for cleveland's red line is going a bit far i think.

yes, cleveland's rail transit system is certainly under-used, no argument from me there, but i would argue that one piece of that puzzle, particularly with the red line, is the fact that it's not a true first rate legacy line from the olden days.

the red line was cobbled together in the 50s/60 along old freight line ROWs, and, with a couple of exceptions, most of the stations outside the downtown core are located in more out of the way peripheral spaces, surounded by park n' ride lots, that are not very pleasantly walkable to the areas of the city they serve.

contrast it with a true legacy heavy rail rapid transit line like chicago's northside red line L that runs for like 11 miles through solid high density urbanism (by US standards) with stations tightly nestled directly into, and integrated with, the residential neighborhoods they serve.

[homebucket]

Yeah I'm not really seeing much that could be considered first rate with Cleveland's RTA Rapid Transit system. The rolling stock across the board is ancient, there's only three lines, and the ridership for its heavy rail is the lowest in the country and the light rail lines are also at the bottom.

It's definitely not first rate by global standards, and I think most would agree it's not first rate by our low US standards either. It's fringe second rate at this point.

Calling these the best trains in America is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

[Crawford]

I'm talking about the system. Cleveland has a pretty good system, with piss-poor ridership.

The system is centered in the very hub of the region, in a very centralized core, in a grand terminal. The heavy rail line hits the airport, the main university, the walkable neighborhoods, and the densest areas. The light rail hits the most affluent streetcar suburbs. The buses have very high frequency for U.S. standards, including excellent BRT.

Yes, you can nitpick, but the system couldn't be much better considering the region and circumstances. I can nitpick Tokyo's transit system. Old trains, ugly, spartan, confusing terminals, limited underground running, lots of weird non-grade separation, etc. Yet highest ridership on earth. Best system on earth.

Cleveland doesn't have poor ridership bc the system isn't designed perfectly, it has poor ridership bc the region is averse to riding transit. People are always looking to find excuses for why U.S. ridership is so bad, avoiding the reality. People, as of right now, don't ride transit. It has nothing to do with the trains not being shiny enough, or the stations not being perfectly designed to satisfy every snowflake. Cars are easier, they think urbanites are criminals, they think transit is for losers, whatever. The culture has to change.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Cleveland doesn't have poor ridership bc the system isn't designed perfectly, it has poor ridership bc the region is averse to riding transit.

and i'm arguing that both are factors.

and i'll 100% stand by that.



i doubt you'll find too many other transit nerds who will agree with your assessment that cleveland's red line is "first rate", even by stupidly low US standards.

go to google maps and streetview yourself around the stations. most of them are FAR from "first rate" in terms of location/integration.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i doubt you'll find too many other transit nerds that will agree with your assessment that cleveland's red line is "first rate".

What is wrong with Cleveland's Red Line? If you were the local transit head, and given $1 billion, what would you change, which you think would result in a surge in ridership?

[memester]

Originally Posted by Yuri

He talked about "major cities" and "metros" not MSAs. San Francisco-San Jose (and Los Angeles-San Bernardino) is a single metro area.

The US Census Bureau defines San Jose and San Francisco as separate MSAs, same for San Bernadino and LA.

The MSAs are combined in CSAs

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What is wrong with Cleveland's Red Line?

most of the stations are in out of the way peripheral locations that are poorly integrated into the neighborhoods they serve.

Brook Park

West Park

Triskett

W.117 Madison

West Blvd

w.65 Lorain

W.25 Ohio City


and those are just the west side stations, you can do the east side yourself.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and i'm arguing that both are factors.

and i'll 100% stand by that.



i doubt you'll find too many other transit nerds who will agree with your assessment that cleveland's red line is "first rate", even by stupidly low US standards.

go to google maps and streetview yourself around the stations. most of them are FAR from "first rate" in terms of location/integration.

i dk how you would rate rail stations objectively, but anyway the cle red line follows an old row, so yeah some of the stations are ideal and some are far from it. or far from it these days we should say. good news is for the latter is that's all slowly changing, albeit in glacial cleveland terms.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yeah I'm not really seeing much that could be considered first rate with Cleveland's RTA Rapid Transit system. The rolling stock across the board is ancient, there's only three lines, and the ridership for its heavy rail is the lowest in the country and the light rail lines are also at the bottom.

It's definitely not first rate by global standards, and I think most would agree it's not first rate by our low US standards either. It's fringe second rate at this point.

there are four lines, red heavy, green, blue and waterfront light. and also the very nice healthline brt which is best in the country or right up there and functions like a rail line.

i won't argue the pitfalls of the rail service, but would add that the rta acts like they wish it didnt exist sometimes. that said, stations have been upgraded and even moved lately -- and for the poorly sited red line stations tod is coming around and at least regularly talked about. also new trains sets are on the way -- again, all at a typical glacial cleveland pace.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/...-new-year.html

[TWAK]

I didn't even know Cleveland had metro (heavy urban subway) and I just checked the route...basically it hits the outskirts of downtown. Was it going to be a part of a loop?
Same goes for the light-rail...it's just on the outer edges of downtown.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

there are four lines, red heavy, green, blue and waterfront light. and also the very nice healthline brt which is best in the country or right up there and functions like a rail line.

i won't argue the pitfalls of the rail service, but would add that the rta acts like they wish it didnt exist sometimes. that said, stations have been upgraded and even moved lately -- and for the poorly sited red line stations tod is coming around and at least regularly talked about. also new trains sets are on the way -- again, all at a typical glacial cleveland pace.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/...-new-year.html

Gotcha. I read about the Waterfront Line and thought it was closed permanently, but upon further inspection, it looks like it's closed due to bridge repairs needed.

That's good to hear Cleveland will be getting new trains at least.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What is wrong with Cleveland's Red Line? If you were the local transit head, and given $1 billion, what would you change, which you think would result in a surge in ridership?

It's the same problem as St. Louis's light rail system - the Red Line travels on an available ROW, meaning most of the station locations are not within walking distance of neighborhood business districts.

All of the Midwest cities had big-time subway plans in the 1910s and 1920s. These plans would have been under the major arterial streets, at least for some distance, similar to Boston's red line. In Cleveland, it was Euclid Ave. Instead of getting a subway under Euclid in 1925~, they got nothing until the bus lanes in 2007~ or whenever.

In one example after another, all over the United States, we see that building rail transit on available suburban ROW's doesn't work in the absence of a traditional subway in the downtown area and to other major activity nodes.