TranP

First - housekeeping. This is my first post, but I have been lurking... I am an employee at RTA within the engineering division so all of my responses on these threads will be in that light. This is also to give me some "street cred" so to speak. JeTDog and I have discussed some upcoming outreach we will be doing and this forum is a good place. That said - relative to this project I am a part of the RTA team. We thank your enthusiasm on the progress so far. It was an interesting year long planning study for us. KJP's comment on development was inline with our thinking on the initial approach to the project. Studying the development options was part of the criteria used in selection, but advantages in the preferred scheme outweighed the limited development potential. Regarding the reconfiguration and specifically the north-only entrance, 3231 summarized it very well, especially in regards to cost and the effects on the design of the rest of the project. We did look at overhead walkways, but the penalty of going further up from being above the roadway and back down were brutal - especially if you want to cross the freight railroads which require a minimum of 23' above the top of rail. The only other parts I would like to add are: 1. We did a survey of passenger movements around the station. We like data :-D. The decision was not taken lightly; however there were light movements between the south entrance and direct loading at the slip - which are the Cleveland Heights, etc. routes. Most people exiting that entrance went to the bus area. 2. Existing conditions have two 4' or so sidewalks with the ever-so-lovely jersey barrier as protection from the cars. The rest is 6 lanes of auto traffic and the south bus slip (and the eastbound lanes are split by the bridge pier). Moving all of the bridge abutments - most of which are in the control of the NS / CSX - was not an option. When we eliminate the south bus slip, we re-rationalize the traffic centered on the piers and can make an approximately 10' wide walk on the north side while maintaining the south walk. That allows us to construct structure, as permitted by the NS / CSX, to not only protect but make the walk a pleasant experience that will be compliant with ADA requirements. The existing width is not conductive to any significant improvements. 3. This is one of our largest bus interfaces. If we were not building a train station with bus loop, we would be building a transit center. Therefore, we have people who are attempting to leave only the loop. Trying to go anywhere towards the north (John Hay / CWRU) is not pretty. Cleaning up the intersection allows for adequate pedestrian cycle times for those who now want to go back south. Passenger safety after they leave the train / bus is very important to us. 4. Construction does not preclude putting in a south entrance with a curb side bus stop in the future. Finally - and in grave danger of being in trouble for talking about Mayfield here - 1) relocating the station entrance was confirmed through extensive public outreach during a TLCI planning study; 2) it is in schematic development; 3) both stations are in our future capital budgets and they are not "shovel ready" for stimulus fund eligibility. (Fun and useless history: The original plans for the interurban portion of CUT from 1929, which were never realized, had both a Mayfield and Euclid entrance with a long platform between. And no - that is definitely not in the budget so don't even ask.)