clvlndr

It's tricky DM4 because, as you noted, the really effective options imho would require significant grade separation, which will cost considerable money in a heavy built-up area like Cleveland Heights with few ROW options. The Euclid Heights/Coventry leg provided an opportunity per the old streetcar/interurban route alongside Cedar up the Hill and, then, in EH’s median. But then once you reach the Coventry intersection you’d almost have to drop down into a tunnel because of the car/foot density and tight configuration of the Coventry Rd. intersection. This is (very) roughly similar to Pasadena where LA Metro’s Gold Line drops into a tunnel under the dense Old Town Pasadena restaurant, retail residential area – remember Coventry also is a very heavy apartment district by Greater Cleveland standards. From there, the line could either follow a tunnel/open cut combo route to Coventry and out the Mayfield corridor, or loop back to the Cedar/Beachwood corridor via Washington Blvd. To follow the LA model, we could run a combo of open-cut, aerial, (briefly) in street and behind-the-property-line surface gate-protected ROW. Unfortunately the Heights, with the exception of the current Blue-Green routes, has no RR or other ROW which trains could “borrow”.

^Yep, I get you. I should have referred to your 2nd post because I saw where you were going. I wasn't really directing my comments to you, per se, but just following the general conversation idea... Btw, DM4 I don't know if you've ever been to L.A. Their LRT routes generally are well designed for a moderate density, sprawling city like L.A., mixing more reasonable cost rail with the speed necessary to make it effective. There are mixes of street rail, elevated, RR and freeway ROW and subways -- with all routes grade-separated in the center of town. That model is also applied in Seattle which seems like it could be a winner for Cleveland... of course, we already have the Blue-Green lines which predated that model ... we just need to expand it.

Quality transit is what is needed here to compel riders. E Roc is correct in that most people use transit in Cleveland – and indeed most cities – to commute. Quality though comes at a cost, and too often here in Cleveland we’re just too gun shy to pull the trigger on what WE KNOW is the best transit option, so we settle for cheap(er) and pretend it’s just as good. Exhibit A: the Health Line vs. the Dual Hub (mostly) subway that should have been built. The Heights area, the one DM4 focused on in his (or her) thoughtful pictorial-narrative, is a great area to study (which has been upteen times in the past) due to its size, density of population and super strong nodes that would be ideal for high-density mass transit, to wit: Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount, Severance Center, University/Cedar Center and Beachwood Place… to name a few… I also tend to agree with E Roc on a level (geez, this is scary) that you aren’t going to get people out of their cars for a slow-moving street trolley, no matter how cute and sexy it is (sorry Biker16). The distances are simply not long enough nor arduous enough for people to opt for streetcars alone…You need SPEED … as in RAPID transit. … and that means significant grade separation … and that means EXPENSE. … there’s simply no way around it…. The 1960s Coventry/Heights line via Severance to Warrensvile Ctr Road – and probably all the way out to Golden Gate shopping center and I-271 should have been built… it would have had a transformative effect on the entire Heights area…. But alas, as usual and like Dual Hub, it was deemed too expensive…. And so we have cars, traffic … and sprwal. We can put our collective heads in the sand (as we always seem to do on issues of Rapid transit) and act like it either can’t happen. We can lie to ourselves and say it isn’t happening elsewhere and other cities aren’t building subways (… just ignore new subways and subway segments in cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, LA, San Francisco – with miles of super-expensive BART tunneling down the peninsula to SF Int. Airport and beyond…. We have the opportunity to do something right in University Circle, which is probably our fastest growing population, largest employment center (beyond downtown) and densely trafficked neighborhood… It has very good traffic to it with the Red Line and (to a lesser degree the HL), but expansion of rail transit could happen. RTA is studying expansion of the Red Line or some form of rail to the North East which could tap into growing Lake County – with tons of people working or visiting University Circle, or downtown or Ohio City … or the airport… so once again we’re at the Do the Right Thing vs. do the Cheap Thing crossroads when it comes to transit… … DM4s Cedar Rd-Heights-Beachwood Place proposal looks nice and is compelling… ultimately, I just don’t think it’s enough, in Cleveland, to get significant numbers of people out of their cars to make it worthwhile. It needs to be faster … transit.

Thanks, we needed that... We had just 2 road wins in 35 games and, then, 3 road wins in our last 5. Go figure ... The Deng Difference!

That's where rail transit can, with the proper planning, be a tool for urban growth.

Chapman Ave, like so much of East Cleveland, is maddening. So much wasted density in beautifully designed buildings. Terrible. Too bad the TOD couldn't incorporate rehabbing these structures.

^^Plus, this office building was not in the revised plan, executed some time before Phase I was approved. My understanding is that it wouldn't exist at all but for the potential spillover market as the result of the demand on E&Y.

Just like any new office construction downtown these days. But as the article notes, Fishman probably has a leg up just because of his track record with the E&Y building, which folks thought he was crazy for building such a new building in a totally new (for offices) and untested site. Now he's at almost 100% capacity.... If I were the bank, I roll the dice with this guy.

^Let me grab a shovel and join in! I've been waiting for this for years (on eggshells).

^I'm not saying that most growth isn't with the drivers, nor am I saying a huge number of people are giving up their cars in favor of transit. All I'm saying is that there is some growth in those areas. For example, I know for a fact that in the last 5 years, more Case and other U.C. students are using the Rapid to go downtown -- which has become more relevant as a dining and entertainment destination and Ohio City. As someone who worked in/around University Circle during the last decade and a half, I know the soon-to-close E. 120 station used to see zero riders and while, today there aren't much, there are some now -- I even see groups of (seeming) Case/CIA kids on the E. 120 platforms or coming/going from the station's entrance. That just didn't exist before... I know that more people in the Shaker Square/Larchmere area are connecting with downtown and Ohio City as well. And we're not even talking about the folks who live in Van Aken area apartments, the Tremont folks who walk or take the 81 over to W. 25, the Cedar-Fairmount folks who walk or bus down Cedar Hill to the Red Line (as we know, 32 buses don't go downtown anymore) ... and others. And it's not just people going into downtown, but I note downtown residents (most of whom couldn't have existed 15/20 years ago) heading into Tower City station --- or getting off the late-evening inbound Green (or Blue) line trains ... as if they are heading downtown ... and home! I just don't think you can dismiss this growing group of people as if they don't exist. I just think we (collectively) are slow to change our paradigm when it comes to driving and transit. We either don't see it; or refuse to see it. I also know that, if downtown employment has risen in recent years, it isn't by that much. The growth in the aforementioned areas as "go to" areas, ... along with the 24/7 casino sitting atop Tower City, is boosting off peak ridership as it has rarely been boosted in recent history.

^RTA's Mary Shaffer attributes RTA's rail gains solely to more people driving to free Rapid station parking lots. However, this ignores Cleveland's population and demographic shifts to more walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods such as downtown, Ohio City, University Circle/Little Italy, Shaker Square and, even Detroit-Shoreway, which has produced (at least in my un-scientific "eyeballing survey") a growing number of new, younger walk-up rail users in addition to a growing drive-n-park crowd.

^Wow, a whole new building at 9th & Euclid!

^^ Wait, ... that's not MyTwoSense?

3-2 is very acceptable on any West Coast swing... this was true even during the LeBron days. The difference, of course, is that at 14-25 we're behind the 8-Ball and are almost forced to win the road trip lest we fall further out of the playoff picture... When LeBron was here, we were nearly unbeatable at the Q and split on the road. Denver's going to be a tall order. The've slipped somewhat since earlier in the season and, at 20-18 are 2 games out of the 8th seed in the very competitive Western Conference. True, we beat them convincingly in Cleveland, but that very fact means they'll be looking to even the score coupled with our still awful road record (though we've doubled our road win total to 4 wins in the 1 week of the Deng era).

I agree, that black does look kinda slick and a nice contrast to the silver... oh well, either way this place, which is already a hit, will take it to the next level... Can't wait.

I agree. I see 2 major factors causing this... One is pretty obvious: that cab-signal/wayside signal switchover at E. 79 brings trains to a dead stop (with the driver manual locking/unlocking with a skeleton key), before trains can proceed... In the olden days, cars just cruised through E. 79, often without slowing down. The other is at Shaker Square. It seems that when the new traffic lights were installed there a few years ago, a concerted effort was made to allow auto traffic to clear the tracks by giving left turners off Shaker Blvd, both east and westbound, extra time -- with green lights on North and South Moreland... Green lights for trains are on short cycles, and trains have a disproportionate amount of red-light time... This means that Shaker Sq. has become a major bottleneck in the system. Westbound trains cruise slowly across the Shaker Sq. east roadway (NB North Moreland), only to get stuck in the square waiting for a green light at the west roadway (SB South Moreland)... Likewise, I've been on eastbound/outbound trains that take as much as 5 mins or more, just to get through the Square; rarely do such trains make the light after detraining passengers at the light... Put this all together, including frequent slow zones with cars entering/exiting the E. 55th street yard where Cab signals often go off when there's no train anywhere nearby, ... and you've got much slower trains than the mid-70s when none of the above-mentioned schedule-slowing factors existed.

I'm fine with the design. The red brick and indented balconies kind of mimics River Bend down the river which is pretty cool in my book... The sign is a bit garish; it's like those old factory billboard signs. But I understand the need to give the development a sense of place in visitors minds. I don't have a big problem with it.

Impressive... thanks for the update.

Awesome angle. I applaud the architects for meshing such a large complex, particularly the office tower, into a difficult topographic area that is further hemmed in by the Main Ave. bridge.

^^Works for me.

^I've suggested that the Shaker station could be used for an LRT replacement of the Health Line. It would follow the current HL (with a lot fewer stations), but at the western end of CSU, it would drop into a subway, doglegging under Huron to the Van Sweringen's grade separation KJP noted was built as part of the Union Terminal project in the late 1920s... This means the HL replacement line could move separately from the Blue/Green/Red trunk-line in/out of the reopened Shaker Station... West of the Station, these LRTs could exit Tower City, then shift over to the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge where a still-extant station under W. 25th still exists.

^btw, I'd have to seriously question your high-expense differential between low-platform (or low floor) LRT's as opposed to dual-height ones. Maybe you're talking about trains with a movable floor, where the costs would be higher (and maybe that's what SF has, I don't know). But I know Pittsburgh cars merely board from different doors... We could design cars with 8-doors, instead of the current 6-door arrangement on Blue/Green LRTs -- and doors on each side (and since, by that time, we'll have hopefully junked the archaic Shaker confusing east-west pay-on-board arrangement in favor of system-wide POP, we'll be able to have doors on opposite sides at the cars front, as opposed to merely on the right-hand-side doors up front to facilitate fare(box)-paying entrants). Thus, the ends of the car would be low platform; middle high platform.

I haven't heard that about San Fran., and if they are thinking to do this, it doesn't make much sense, given the extremely high-volume passenger usage in the shared, trunk-line LRT subway under Market Street. ... in sum, I just wish here in Cleveland, we would move away from the status quo analysis: spend freely to build highways and BRT (and then bloat BRT's success with phony RE "growth" statistics) -- while putting every rail project, including our current growing system under the constant microscope designed to shrink what service we have... I guess you're not in objection to running BRT along the OC competing directly with the Red Line -- while simultaneously not pushing the TOD the Red Line, or any rail line, needs for success... Then you can come back and say: See, I told you people aren't riding the trains...

Biker, you completely misread my Albert Porter reference. The point is: low ridership has been evidenced since the beginning of Cleveland heavy rail: it's nothing new. So to keep bringing up the fact that Cleveland has among the lowest (not THE lowest) heavy rail ridership is like: blah, blah, blah ... to me. We KNOW this; so what?... In Philly, SEPTA’s Chestnut Hill East and West lines, both about 11/12 miles long (roughly the length of the West Side leg of the Red Line), fully electrified with super heavy railroad EMUs and conductors, but carrying on average less than 6,000 passengers per day, each. In the 90s, SEPTA even replaced an 1880s trestle, serving the last 3 stops of the East line which serves probably 1,000 people or less each day. (btw, even our low ride producer, the Blue/Green/Waterfront lines, which run about 15 total miles, carry on average about 12,000 riders, making them superior performers than the 2 Philly regional rail lines I cite, and at a much lower, LRT operating expense… What about that? I bring this up because, in Philly, they’re not crying about costs and advocating downgrading service as you are, they’re actually IMPROVING service: more high platforms, new Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V EMUs… SEPTA’s even looking into double-decker cars in the future. And they pushed for, and won, a $300M state transit subsidy. Is RTA pursuing this approach? Seems like the agency has, through a degree of serious pain for some riders, pruned service and implemented cost-saving measures like POP which recently produced a surplus and allowed RTA to actually EXPAND service (ie. The new Brookpark Road bus serving the West Side VA hospital, and the restored daily Waterfront lines). I know you love tram/streetcars and would love to replace our current Rapid system with these, but that’s not feasible. Plus you’re 100 years late; the Van Sweringen’s saw that people, back then weren’t moving to the Heights because of the very same slow streetcars you advocate now – that’s why they built the Blue and Green lines -- as truly RAPID transit -- which, despite current low ridership, have been an astounding success in terms of the real estate development they’ve spawned at Shaker Heights, Shaker Square and, of course, Tower City… Btw Biker, why does the idea of a high-low platform car ..."make no sense at all." Why do they work in Pittsburgh and San Francisco? We could put them in here little (or no) additional costs – and probably plenty of cost saving… Why is tearing down platforms to low level so important to you? ... Maybe that’s because you’re so hell-bent on Tram-ing our Rapid system.

Your general point is well taken. Quite obviously we have way more cars than are needed to operate the system at current passenger levels. When RTA made the car purchases in the early 1980s, it was no doubt responding to the explosive growth in riders upon the creation of RTA and the drop to 35-cent fairs (not to mention, for the 1st time, free transfers between the Shaker Rapid and the rest of the old CTS bus and rail network). And as I said, I don’t object to smaller and even universal high-low LRT-type cars for the entire system. Other Cities, like Pittsburgh, uses them… But this wacky idea to bulldoze the Red Line high platforms into low platforms to the tune of several hundred million bucks with no real showing of cost saving, simply doesn’t make sense. OK, so we have among the lowest ridership for heavy and light rail in the country. Big deal. We know, also, that we have a local leadership that is ignorant to urban environmental improvements that could boost rail… namely TOD. Maybe we need to focus on that rather than wringing our hands about low ridership… And if you think RTA’s got it tough cost-wise, consider Philadelphia’s 200+ mile, fully-electrified commuter rail system, where most lines carry equal-to-or less than RTA’s and are all, but 2 o 3, longer (considerably longer) than RTA’s Rapid lines… And SEPTA’s regional rail uses standard railroad-size (very heavy) rail cars – with conductors!.. So what did SEPTA do? They just got their legislature to pass a $300M transit bill to upgrade infrastructure and improve rail service… I think improvements (TOD and otherwise) is what we need to focus on rather than wasting time talking about downgrading or rail system.