clvlndr

^Forget Columbus, Ann Arbor could have light rail before Detroit!

I'm talking about straight out private investment to assist RTA and the Feds in paying for this rial extension. Private monies from giant employers like UH or CWRU Why? Because the Rapid does/will drop doctors, nurses, students, researchers, etc. right at their door. Good transit is in their best interest. Dan Gilbert is helping finance rail in Detroit. Why can't, say, UH do it here. Also, why are we acting like this is a "new start" rail system as opposed to a 6 mile extension to a 32-mile network?

^Appreciate the detailed answer and some fair points. But what about a public-private arrangement of the type I cited, which have been utilized here and elsewhere to fund capital transit costs? ... Also, even though Denver has growth potential, supposedly, what about the fact that, at least to my knowledge, they have no University Circle-like high density employment/residential areas? Or the fact that Denver is lighter density and more spread out that Greater Cleveland ... and yet, they're getting it done? Yes, I understand we're a not-growing, Rust Belt city, but (as you acknowledged) there is U.Circle that is growing in the corridor, and that the rail line is the most direct route from inside or near the Lake County Line? Let me also add that it''s very depressing that, despite the population/traffic potential you cite, ODOT is seeking private corporate funding to get the Opportunity Corridor roadway funded to serve Univ. Circle, and yet, we're not hearing about such a funding possibility for rail transit. It just shows where our priorities lie ... and yes, Keith, I share your skepticism.

OK, we're saying that it's too expensive, and basically impossible, to extend the Red Line approximately 6 miles along a RR ROW to a potential multi-modal, park-and-ride to draw passengers from freeways running deep into the suburban area.... But what about Denver? They are building their FasTracks network including their EAST LINE, a 23-mile, electric commuter rail line to Denver Int'l Airport (from an newly-built underground Union Station downtown). This line travels through a considerably lighter density area than the East Red Line, and the last 8-10 miles of the Denver East Line travels through an area of zero population. Why is a such a, from-the-ground-up, zero-to-23 mile line possible line possible while an extension of the existing RTA Red Line 6 miles is not? Also, FasTracks’ ambitious plans ran into funding issues so, as the below link notes, the Denver transit agency (RTD) as entered into a public private agreement to get it done. In Cleveland, we’ve entered into public-private funding to build the Health Line BRT (but not for the proposed Dual-Hub subway), and for the excellent downtown Trolley system… and (get this) the PD this morning reported that ODOT is even pushing for public-private funding to shove the so-called Opportunity Corridor freeway-like road through the East Side along the Red Line ROW (now expanded from 2 lanes each way, to 3) down our throats… Even in Detroit, Dan Gilbert’s part of an private consortium to finance an LRT up Woodward Ave. But here in Cleveland, where is talk about public-private funding for an this important expansion of our 90+year old rapid transit network? Is RTA pursuing this? Is All Aboard Ohio putting a bug in their ear or helping facilitate such funding? AAO has spearheaded a number ofgreat, progressive rail projects (like the Kasich-killed 3-C passenger rail, and the still-alive West Shore Commuter rail project) -- seeking funding for expansion of the Red Line in tandem with the DMU commuter rail into Lake County would certainly be another AAO worthwhile endeavor. Or are we only interested in privately financing road projects and buses? RTD Staff Outlines Strategies to Fund FasTracks Projects Process The RTD staff presented to the RTD Board additional items that can contribute to the agency's internal savings account to fund FasTracks projects that aren't fully funded. Click here for the presentation. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/Board_Pres_11_13_12_FasTracks_FINAL.pdf

I understand the difficulty with a lot of the industrial land needing cleanup along the rail route that may be, in the near term, a challenge to develop. However, hope the possibilities of a rail terminal at Euclid Square are fully examined. This location is at the junction of freeways extending in 3 different directions outbound from Cleveland, leaving the possibility of a mode mixer: a large factor in the success of the Brookpark and Puritas stations on the West Side. I-90, SR-2 and Euclid US - 20 extend deep into highly populous Lake County. The terminal, itself, is in the heart of of one of Cuyahoga County's most populous suburbs. I hope any such study is accurate and forward-looking -- ie, predicting travel numbers based on such updated factors as the Little Italy/UC station location, and the upgrade of TOD in that area, not population/transit projections based on, say, the 2010 census or before. I would hope we don't rule out possibilities before fully exploring potential.

^I most certainly will give RTA input on this issue. Dual-height LRTs, the middle ground between the current separate fleets or low-floor LRT throughout, would not be bad -- in fact, it was the idea I initially felt made the most sense, since it would allow 1 set of cars to utilize the current rail infrastructure as-is with no modification. However, as I've seen both the city develop along the current system fueling, in part, the rapid increase along the Red Line both West and, steadily, East, (esp with the relocating UC/Little Italy station coming on Line the the growing Uptown TOD), I see a more unified East-West Red Line service developing. The Red Line has 3 primary TODs that are flourishing and/or ripe near-term growth: Downtown/Public Sq, Ohio City and University Circle. The areas around the Blue and Green Lines are pretty much built out, with the exception with the Warrensville-Chagrin-Van Aken TOD redevelopment at the Blue-Line's end. FEB and the Med. Mart construction does portend Waterfront Line growth, but probably not as much as that along the Red Line. Bottom Line: Red Line is and should be it's own service, which is more "heavy rail" in nature --yes, even in Cleveland's lower hurdle interpretation of heavy rail -- and the very well established (nearly century old) Blue-Green service stands on its own as light rail.

The DMU commuter train over NS tracks, into or near Tower City, alone, is not a bad idea -- it is certainly superior to extending BRT. KJP mentions extending the Red Line is "probably" too expensive. I like the idea of extending the Red Line to Euclid Park & Ride with the DMU extending into Lake County as suggested. I believe the relocated Little Italy station along with the mushrooming TOD near it with Uptown, and esp the Intesa development, will raise demand for Red Line high-density rapid transit to Euclid near the Lake County border.

So let me understand, if RTA employs low floor as you propose, RTA would cut down the high platforms so they could accommodate low floor LRVs just so Blue/Green cars can travel all over the system? That seems counterproductive. High platform rail transit is the ultimate service; it is the easiest and fastest boarding and attractive to the physically infirm because of its step-less nature. It is expensive to build. But if you already have it in Cleveland, why throw it away? I don't get it. (have fun lugging airport luggage up to the low-floor cars upper level and squeezing down narrow aisles)... Seems like there's much more productive ways to enhance our transit network. We need to live with the fact that the Blue-Green suburban, commuter rail type service is not directly compatible with the Red Line's cross-town more urban/heavy service -- they're separate, different operations. That they share tracks, stations and maintenance facilities is great in terms of ease of use and operations, but leveling much-desired high platforms just to have uniform cars and because low-floor cars are the rage, isn't the way to go... ... but, of course, this is all fantasy/speculation anyway; so as somebody else on this board would say, ... just my 2 .... well, y'know.

I really don't see the point of LRVs of any kind on the Red Line, esp low floor. They have much less capacity, slower, more arduous boarding (due to interior steps, narrower aisles, etc... Red Line service is larger than Blue/Green and growing at a considerably faster pace ... Red Line service, esp on the West Side is not compatible with the Blue & Green Lines. Downgrading the Red Line to low floor LRV to save a buck would be a step backwards for RTA.

Awesome photo-essay, eurokie. That I've emailed it to friends who've never been to Cleveland let's you know what I think of it... It also is visual evidence that our development of the Cuyahoga riverfront residentially is a lot more advanced that many of us think <--- serious cognitive dissonance.

DING! DING! DING! DING!

... Mystery of Life: why are RTA's digital clocks (at least along the Green/Blue lines) perpetually 2 mins slow? I thought they were GPS controlled and on Greenwich Mean Time, as is my cellphone clock... apparently not.

^True enough; would never want to 'shoot the messenger.' ... I greatly appreciate Jerry's public service here. Am interested in RTA's stance, though. With the casino, FEB coming on line (and the restoration of regular Waterfront Line service), the recent expansion of the Trolleys, both in hours and service area, and just all the people hanging out downtown these days, esp. on weekends and esp. late, the time is esp. ripe to add expanded, late night rapid service, at least on weekends... If anything, RTA's good faith expansion of all the aforementioned service, esp. increasing Red, Blue and Green frequencies (in addition to adding the new Brookpark Rd/Parma VA Hosp. bus), one should be hopeful that, these days, our local transit agency may have a listening ear.

Alot of people have this thought in their head taht things can't be successful in CLeveland like they are in Chicago or Philly. Hopefully now that institutions, poloticians and developers have the opportunity to view the success of resent development projects in Cleveland, we can start to get some dollars infused in the city. Exactly who are these people? I see a lot of things happening in CLE, that have happened in Hoboken, Weehawken, Downtown Brooklyn, and Philly. Our problem is, our neighborhood development/redevelopment were slow to the start (we were 5 years behind the aforementioned cities) and the recession hit us harder than Philly. Now were 10 years behind and still playing catchup, but our city is evolving and for the better. Slow isn't even the word. Projects like Uptown, FEB and others have been on the drawing boards for DECADES and, now, are just coming to fruition. An with other maddening projects -- like the hole in Public Sq/beefing up the Warehouse Dist, the crappy Lakefront, we're still trapped by inertia -- maddening, because we know what needs to be done, we just can't get out of our way to fix it... I'm grateful upbeat new projects like Uptown are here, but we sure lost a lot of time and, of course, 2008 took the steam out of what could have been had we acted more expeditiously. But hey, some really good things are coming on line now. Uptown, esp, has tons of momentum, probably more than any other neighborhood project in Greater Cleveland right now, in large part because it's building on the tradition of historically the leading cultural district in the nation. Things could be a lot worse.

^Thanks, MTS.

Great idea. Great to hear Amtrak service is booming (sure wish, with 4 more years now secure, the Obama admin would increase Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago service).... The casino is a downtown game changer. Sure wish, at least, RTA would consider late night weekend service -- at least. I just don't see how RTA can make a viable argument that increasing rail service beyond midnight, at least on weekends, is NOT economically feasible; not with the number of people downtown lingering around the casino... ... what say you, Jerry?

Yes it does ... in fact, the rendering shows a reflection of the Kingsbury Building in the glass plates of the new station.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I live/grew up 1.5 miles from here, and the building in the pic (the Steph T-J Community Center) is on the WEST side of Lee. The beautiful old, mixed-use Kingsbury Building (not seen here)is on the EAST side of Lee. Trust me on this one.

^^Actually, I think the above rendering of the new Lee Rd/Blue Line station is inaccurate -- the old Library/now Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Community Center in the left corner of the photo/rendering makes the station on the current site on the west side of Lee Rd, when my understanding is that RTA's plan is to flip the new station to the EAST side of Lee Rd.

Dec. 9: Rail frequency increases & 29 RTA schedules adjusted CLEVELAND -- On Sunday, Dec. 9, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will change the schedules of 31 bus and rail routes. Rail service Damage from the 2011 lightning strikes is repaired! Frequency on the Red Line will improve to 15 minutes off-peak, and 7-8 minute service – between the Brookpark and Tower City stations -- during rush hours. When the Airport tunnel is closed for repairs for six months starting on Nov. 27, all westbound Red Line trains will stop at the Brookpark Station, where riders can transfer to a bus for the trip to Hopkins International Airport. During rush hour, the Blue and Green Lines will each provide 10-minute service, with 5-minute service in the common area between Shaker Square and Tower City. http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1812

Interesting. I noted this kind of green sheathing for a student apartment building going up for Temple University near the regional rail tracks in Philly... ... regarding Waverly Square, a couple months ago while driving down Bridge Ave, I was shocked and quite pleased to actually see buildings rising from the ground, since that tract has, for about a decade, been sitting idle after the first housing project for the tract couldn't get financing; it sat a while longer, with a couple mounds of dirt, well after the Waverly Sq. announcment. Any word on any presales in Phase II?

I was addressing your comment. Not all its stations. Just a few on the east side Red Line. Most notably Quincy-E. 105. This really needs to be addressed; even if the E. 105 station has to be lengthened cheaply, with a wooden platform extension, it should be done; esp. with the increase in traffic the Red Line has experienced, and will experience (even more) when the Little Italy station is opened/relocated. But regarding the HL, the Red Line gets away with some shorter stations because, unlike LRT trains, passengers can pass from one car to the next through the doors at each end of the rail cars.

I like it very much, too... There are a few constructive improvement (tweaks) needed. One glaring one is the downtown map. While the larger county map was changed and drafted to scale, it appears that the downtown map was drafted along the same dimensions of the old RTA map which makes it feel hand-drafted and unprofessional... for example, look at the lopsided Public Square and the loopy Rapid routes. Also the placement of the Tower City Rapid station makes it look like it sits south of Huron Road (or, in other words, directly on top of the surface portion of the current Tower City parking lot). This could deter visitors on foot from using the Rapid downtown simply because it seems too far from Public Square which we know is not true. Also, much like the old downtown map, this one does a poor job of marking popular districts. Where's E. 4th St? Playhouse Square? The Warehouse District? The Flats? The fact that, like the countywide map, this new downtown map now uses easier-to-read clearly identified, color-coded bus routes, puts it light years ahead of the old one. Still, I think the changes I suggest should be considered.

^^Once again, I agree with the sentiments of Biker16 and others, that it's going to be very difficult for the HL to handle the convergent problems of lack of speed and overcrowding. I haven't ridden the HL beyond CSU (outbound), but it seems to me that the lightly populated/commercial light density segment (Midtown) between CSU and the Clinic would be the segment where HL buses can make up time, speed-wise. I also agree, from my vantage point of a car driver/passenger, that the University Circle segment (from Stokes/E. 107 through Uptown around E. 118) is a very slow HL ride, especially around CWRU/UH during rush hour and the rush hour "shoulder" periods. <--- this area is similar to the bottleneck, slow speeds of the Blue/Green Rapids through Shaker Square (but of course, the extremely high speed sections of the rail lines -- esp between downtown and Shaker Sq -- more than make up for this than I suspect any faster sections of the HL, respectively)... ... Once again, I think that ultimately a light rail replacement (with much higher capacity along with electronic train spacing) will be the only way to satisfactorily fix the crowding/slowness of the HL.

MTS, we may be neck-and-neck in this regard... but I agree with your Shaker Rapid history. IIRC, the absolute tightest headways were during those wacky-crazy late 70s days shortly after RTA was established (in 1975), when 75-cent (no transfer) fares were dropped to 35-cent fares (with complete transfer rights with all the old CTS bus and Rapid routes), and thousands of new riders rushed, and often overwhelmed, the old Shaker Lines during their pre-rehab days; the lines were rebuilt (with the new LRTs) in 1981. I'll see if I can dig out one of those old late 70s era Shaker Rapid line "timetables", as SHRT had called them back then .. The only thing to remember is that the capacity of those old PCC cars was much less than the current LRV's. I don't know the exact figures to do a 1-to-1 comparison, but dare say that a 2-car LRV may be pretty close, in capacity to a 4-car PCC train of the only SHRT (that is crush capacity, standing and sitting and not just seated passengers). ... and I'm all but certain that those 3-car LRV trains RTA has been running for 'big days' in recent years, has more capacity, probably significantly so, than a 4-car PCC train of yesteryear.