clvlndr

Well KJP, maybe we need to look beyond the Feds if we want to get it done -- ... We did it with the Waterfront Line because we needed it done fast, without Fed hoops to get it done in time for Cleveland Bicentennial. Obviously the local climate was extremely favorable for getting state support for the WFL -- Voinovich was governor and was deeply interested in this project for his hometown, Mike White and Ron Tober (another Cleveland native) worked with the Bicentennial Commission to get it done IIRC... Also, Detroit has put together a group of businessmen, headed by Dan Gilbert, to finance a 4.5 mile LRT up Woodward from downtown. I wish, here in Cleveland, we had someone in power who would champion Rapid Transit and rail expansion; someone like Dan Onorato who, as Allegheny County comptroller and Executive pushed hard for both the crosstown and North Shore LRT expansions in Pittsburgh (the latter is nearly finished). Too bad we can't coax Betty Blair out of retirement and get her elected here in Cuyahoga County. Her strong political/public voice for the West Shore Commuter rail was unique for these parts... Someone like that with influence (nee: a bully pulpit) would go a long way toward getting projects like the Blue Line done -- and, in this case, motivate local creative financing to bypass the FTA... it just seems like a short rail extension such a no-brainer: 2 LRT terminals within 1.5 to 3 miles of our Outerbelt system... Perhaps the Baltimore approach, with stretches of single-track rail, out to the Hunt Valley Mall, is something RTA should look at in order to cut down costs.

So would a few other folks I've spoken to in the last few days. They wondered why these east-side transit projects (Blue Line extension, Red Line/HealthLine extension etc) keep getting proposed. The same people (east-siders, no less!) suggested extending a Red Line branch to Lakewood or a BRT to Parma. I think that's because people interested enough to study and comment on transit want to see our rail network grow regardless of what side of town it's on... present company, included.

Interesting.... I doubt RTA would fudge numbers, just take a more conservative spin... For example, I see a lot of potential in the Highlands, even though, as you noted, the Jacobs' screwed up density there... right now, nobody lives at or near the Richmond/Harvard intersection, except Marriott hotel guests. So there's plenty of room for high-density infil. Those office buildings, though not directly at the interestection, are easy walking distance from it. ... with a little planning, and minor reconfiguration of the Harvard Park shopping Center, planners could develop a Crocker Park East, only with directly rail transit, larger/more significant office buildings and a large hotel. It's kinda like the Van Sweringens -- in today's climiate, officials would have said they were crazy to build rail lines out to farmland, as they did in the 1910s; FTA would have nixed the project. But of course, the Vans, and other foward-thinking transit builders planned for growth and, therefore, did not base plans merely on transporting the population that was already there ... b/c there were only 200 residents in Shaker Village when the 1st section of Green Line was built in 1913... It's not just RTA, but I feel there's a fundamental misunderstanding (esp in the Midwest) of what rapid transit can and should do.

Is Shaker Heights on board with the Van Aken express buses? I'd be surprised if they were. Also analogyzing the parallel decision to go bus on the the Health line: "The problem is that light-rail never would have gotten funded," said Michael J. Schipper, RTA Deputy General Manager, noting daily ridership on the Healthline is now up to about 15,000. "We can talk about it forever, but it took 15 years to get funding for the bus line on Euclid." Mr. Schipper doesn't get it. He doesn't account for the fact that people and developers are more attracted to rail, and that you'd probably get 3 times the HL patronage if it were built as a rail line tied into the existing Rapid network....Given RTA's mentality, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave very conservative passenger projections for a Blue Line rail extension.

I'm not wild about the grey skin, either... At least it appears they'll be mixing light and dark panels to give it a little pizazz, anyway.

Thanks for the update, gottaplan... it all sounds good... This will be the 1st downtown rental new construction in a while...

^Excellente!

I agree totally... What you say is sad, but true, our political/planning leaders are totally clueless in terms of TOD (save, perhaps, Shaker Heights); we have zero plans for TOD for our rail lines -- we do everything to hurt rail service and TOD, not enhance it (sprawl like Steelyards and the W. 117 big boxes (which have all but killed the prospects for a major retailer downtown based on proximity), and of course, we built the Waterfront Line and then walked away from it... ... The ONLY hope lies in progressive developers, like Ari Maron & family. Consider that each of their highly-successful, mixed use projects: E. 4th, United Bank/Ohio City, and U.Circle, Uptown, are ALL adjacent to rapid transit stations... Wolstein/Fishman are developing the TOD in the Flats near the Flats East Bank Waterfront Line station. Point being, these individual developers have vision. I don't see any plan from Frank Jackson and the like toward TOD (oh yeah, he's pushing for the Opportunity Corridor, paralleling the Red Line, the West Shoreway project, Steelyards and the W. 117 big boxes (as City Council President),... I just wish he threw his weight behind serious TOD.... UCI's Chris Ronayne, a moving force behind Flats East Bank (as Jane Campbell's planning guy) AND Uptown, gets it...

I understand FTA the funding formula, I'm just suggesting we may have been conservative in terms of ridership potential, particularly re Outerbelt drivers and density growth potential of the Highlands itself... Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board in terms of our calculations.... But if we must go without FTA funding, then we could try and be creative. As they say, if there's a will there's a way... RTA got the Waterfront Line built for approx $70M without Federal funding because they were on a short turnaround with the City Bicentennial in 1996, and RTA had no time for an alternative analysis (or whatever it's called)... We somehow got it done; and remember, this is Cleveland, THE most anti-rail, rail city in America. Also, how did Baltimore get a similar line done out to an area of similar light density and even greater sprawl (and no community college served, either)?

^I appreciate AAO's suggestions for modifications to the LPA. A couple things: - As I mentioned, before, I tend to disagree with the concept that Blue Line (rail) extension to Chagrin Highlands would not justify the costs, and that the analysis may need to be modified to consider: a) the route stops directly on the large Tri-C East campus. College students traditionally are high-volume transit users, and the Blue Line, alone, would offer a 1-seat ride from such TOD residential areas as 1) downtown, 2) Shaker Square and the existing TOD at Warrensville/Chagrin which, of course, is going to be greatly strengthened... Also, don't forget the 1-stop transfer, across the Cuyahoga River, from Ohio City via the Red Line -- you can bet a lot of Tri-C East riders from Ohio City would use rail. b) any Blue (or Green) Line extension that interfaces with the Outerbelt freeways (I-271 and 480) will draw considerable long-distant commuters who would be enticed to leave their cars and ride rail directly to downtown, or perhaps, one of the intermediate TOD points such as Shaker Square. c) Planners sould observe the northern portion of the Baltimore Light Rail, which extends about 17 miles north of downtown Baltimore. It serves a very low density area of many low-rise, suburban-campus office complexes before dead-ending to a sprawling shopping center and mall. Unlike a potential Blue Line extension to the Highlands, Baltimore's Light Rail does not at all interface with Baltimore's Beltway freeway system, although it significantly penetrates it -- there is no mode-mixer type parking lot to attract circumferential drivers. Despite this, the Baltimore Light rail has been very successful in attracting riders in its north corridor. I think LPA planners may not have seriously considered the potential of Outerbelt transfer, rail park 'n ride drivers who, more than likely, would consider a rail option rather than the planned bus option (or any bus option, including one directly into downtown Cleveland). Planners should look to the success of such lots on the West Side Red Line, such as Brookpark and W. 150/Puritas. d) get more of a commitment to the Aurora-Mantua commuter rail route. I'm glad AAO has mentioned the potential of this route -- it would be nice if somehow planners could be committed to seriously study implementation of this rail line, esp given the fact that it is one of the few growth corridors in NEO. Hopefully the planners will consider some of these points.

MTS is correct... Clevelander17, I don't know what "blah" means. Van Aken homes are equal to, or better than, most of those of upper middle class West Side burbs like Bay, Rocky River or Westlake... Most are post World War II, esp south of the street, but are very large in size, and many occupy substantial lots -- esp those on corners, like those at the Onaway and Kenmore Rapid stops. Van Aken houses may seem "average" contrasted to the classic Shaker Heights, World War I era Tudors, Georgians, and Flemish styled homes along S. Woodland and to the north (or south, if your talking streets like Parkland and Aldersyde. It's all a matter of context. As much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of it is racial (of which I am NOT accusing you, Clevelander 17) -- the bulk of the Van Aken homes on the south side of the street are owned by African Americans -- but they are professional African Americans.... And of course as I noted above, one has to love the historic TOD clusters along (and near) Van Aken, including some more modern pieces, including the upscale Sussex Court townhomes and Avalon Station condos (even though the latter has had some sales issues in the down RE economy)... Anyway, back to the topic of the Blue Line extension -- I still strongly believe that Van Aken Blvd. is important enough, residential, that you don't want to increase heavy large-vehicle traffic on it such as the proposed bus of the Baseline proposal, ESPECIALLY SINCE you have an excellent rapid rail line, speed-wise, capacity-wise and coverage-wise.

^btw, just drove down Van Aken today... There are very nice homes on BOTH sides of the street, it's just that some of the older classics are on the North Side. To even classify Van Aken as an "average" residential street is unfair, it's much more than that. (not saying you do, KJP, but others do).

I know (hope) you're kidding... It's odd that they've had that blue sking (which looks like insulation) up so long, even to the point of businesses starting to move in the north building... weird.

"For what it's worth, I work in Playhouse Square and drive in to work. Where I live I'm a 15 minute walk to a bus station and a 25 minute walk to a rapid stop. The rapid only gets me to Tower City and then it's another 15-20 minute walk to my office. The bus requires a transfer. Neither method can get me to my office in less than an hour." Really? I don't know what station you get on at, but most outer stations have free parking. If you're a 25 min walk to the Rapid, you're probably 5 mins or less, driving. The longest rapid ride to downtown is about 25 mins, and during rush hour, there's a HL bus or free trolley (2 routes) heading up Euclid every couple mins. Admittedly, given the popularity of the HL, it can be slowed by crowding, but the trolleys are quick -- no more than 5-8 mins to Playhouse Sq. Overall, the car-to-rapid-to-bus-to-Playhouse Sq route should take you less than 1 hour on most days, I would think.

^ Fair points, a couple clarifications: Bus/Rail competition... I'm not talking about people living along Van Aken -- people living beyond the planned rail terminal at the Van Aken-Northfield TOD may be motivated to take the bus (and thus bypassing the new Blue Line terminal) rather than riding feeder buses or driving into the terminal. Doncha think this kinda defeats the purpose of spending millions to extend/relocate the terminal to make it more attractive to these further-out drivers/bus riders? --- The homes on Van Aken aren't near the value of those on Shaker Blvd, of course. But there are a number of valuable, architect-designed classics on the north side of the street; not to mention some very attractive, high-end apartments/condos along the street; esp the Van Sweringen-era Tudors west of Lee Road along with semi-luxury buildings btw Lynnefield and Farnsleigh. ---- BRT and TOD -- note, I specified "high density" development... Hey, I'll be the 1st to applaud the growth along Euclid that has followed the Health Line. But it's not the kind of super dense, station-focused type of development you see along rapid rail lines. Euclid's growth in the CSU/Midtown area is more parallel to that along lower Woodward Ave (Detroit) north of Grand Circus park and south of New Center, which is a busy bus/car corridor. It's less like Silver Spring, Ballston, or Crystal City (D.C. Metro), to name a few ... or even Shaker Square, the TOD pockets along Van Aken, Flats East Bank or UC Uptown, here in Cleveland... ---- Access to University Circle? Aside from transferring to the #48 bus at Shaker Square, a lot of people can (and will in the future), just stay on inbound Blue/Green trains and transfer at the new E. 55 station (which is now a pleasant, easy-to-use transfer point with a climate-controlled waiting area, if needed), for a relatively fast, all-rail route to U. Circle, even though they have to back-track, geographically, a bit. --- Bus interference in Shaker Square. As one who lives not far from the Square, and frequents it often, trust me, a new, relatively high-frequency bus like, like that planned in the Baseline, can potentially cause traffic problems in the square. During the rush hour period, which is what the Baseline is probably geared to, there is a lot of through auto traffic and peds that share this relatively small, people-friendly space. Also, the traffic signals have been reset recently, which slows traffic even further -- which I like! (the problem is that it has totally kneecapped trains and has added 1-3 mins on each Blue/Green train run... more on that, later...

^That said, I think planners are missing a very important aspect of expanded rail -- the mode-mixing potential: that is, you could expect a significant number of outerbelt freeway drivers, from the edges of Cuyahoga County and beyond, to park their cars at Blue Line extension stations located near freeway interchanges... Evidence that this would be the case is on the West Side Red Line at Triskett, Puritas/W.150 and (especially) Brookpark... Also, it doesn't seem the cost of rail is/should be prohibitively expensive, even taking into account the building of new ROW and extension of trolley or catenary: the planned route would be totally at grade with no bridges or tunnels... I don't doubt the cost/benefit analysis of the Feds, but it seems to militate unfairly to Cleveland... Pittsburgh's just about to open a $550M, 1.2 mile river tunnel, subway-elevated extension to it's North Shore (on a rail system that's smaller and carries less people than our Rapid), and yet we've got to jump through hoops and meet strict passenger projection criteria to extend a surface line a few miles. I know part of it is that Pitssburgh wisely planned tight, high-density TOD at the end of their rail extension while we tend to leave our rail lines to twist in the wind (ie, the Waterfront Line plus all the empty lots next to many Red Line stops, esp on the West Side).

Thanks Jerry, I'd like to attend but probably will not be able to (I'll sure try, though...) ... I understand the thinking behind the Baseline idea, but I still believe it's flawed because: - it's Univ. Circle bus line serves/competes with with an existing rail line, - Van Aken is not a major truck or large bus corridor; you have some very expensive homes in this area and pavement challenges (like much of Cleveland in this in climate area), so heavy buses certainly won't help the situation. - Shaker Square itself is a great intimate, high density, narrow street, heavy-traffic-but-traffic-calmed area. Squeezing No. 48 and (light-frequency) No. 11 buses through there is tight enough. Adding this high-frequency bus line through there will only cause traffic headaches, as well as probable headaches/danger to pedestrians, at in the small square area. - Flawed thinking rapid rail transit spawns, supports high-density TOD (of the type planned here by Shaker), NOT BUSES... BRT or otherwise. - the planned Baseline bus route would be slowed/calmed by the reconfiguration of the street grid at the TOD, whereby through Van Aken-to-Northfield routing will be eliminated; thus tending to defeat the efficiency of the planned bus (as well as the aforementioned Shaker Square bottleneck) anyway. - The Baseline can potentially shift the original focus from boosting and serving the planned TOD/intersection reconfig near the SE corner of Shaker Heights – to sending BUSES to/from U. Circle to the freeway Outerbelt… I'd be disappointed if rail was not extended but could live with the short (across-the-intersection) extension of the Blue Line interfacing with a bus TERMINAL serving buses to North Randall and/or the Highlands.... This new new through-bus idea in the Baseline is just a very bad idea.

I was indifferent to against this proposal -- I really believe a larger aquarium on the lake along the Flats east bank would have been better. That said, these photos look interesting and I'd rather have this aquarium than none at all. Let's hope this is just the 1st part of an expanded building in the future... I do hate the fact that the easiest access from the East Side is Center Street, and that the Swing Bridge, as usual, is broken/out-of-commission indefinitely.

The "Baseline" proposal doesn't make sense to me... When did direct bus service to University Circle become a main focus? (kind of like how Shaker Square access helped muddle the Dual Hub) Why run competing bus service against the Van Aken Rapid -- unless, once again, some party has the fantasy of converting the Rapid to BRT (if this express buss runs along Van Aken through Shaker Square, what's the point of the Rapid? Bus riders from Chagrin Highlands and/or N. Randall can merely ride through and transfer at Shaker Square if they want to go dontown... right? ... I thought the focus was to best access the newly-developing TOD at Van Aken/Warrensville (hooray for Shaker as being the one party that gets it!); not running competing bus service against rail... The "do nothing" option makes more sense than the "Baseline", because either way, more people will be attracted to the Rapid to access the newly minted TOD... er, that is unless we decide to phase out rail for buses... just one more example that Cleveland so doesn't get TOD and urban transit.

Loretto, I'm not referring to all the rapid maps... The ones in the trains (above the doors (all lines) and at the ends of Red Line trains are fine). Ditto, the Rapid map depicted on the bus-train system-wide map... Most station maps are also fine (like the ones installed at the Shaker Heights stops which are replicas of the lighted ones on the ends of middle/stub tracks in both Red and Blue/Green stations at Tower City... The rapid map I fine troubling is this one: http://www.riderta.com/pdf/maps/System_Map_Rapid.pdf ... it is on the website listed under Rapid Transit system maps. This map is also in RTA's blue-covered brochure devoted exclusively to how to use the Rapid. And, as noted, it, its at the entrance of the Airport station. I'm aware that maps are not drawn to scale. However, there's an art to it (I can't replicate it, but my eye discerns the difference btw good ones and bad ones). They should have some kind of balance as well as some rough depiction of where the train lines go... Living in Gin must have a knack for drawing them, because his depiction of the dream Cincinnati rail system is excellent. The New York subway, Boston T and Washington D.C. Metro, although done in different styles, are all visually balanced and pleasing... The above RTA rapid map does not have this balance or fluidity. For a lack of better word, it looks twisted to my eye. I know I can be a bit persnickety, but...

^ As far as Columbus is concerned, it appears the environment will never favor rail, locally, regionally or nationally.

btw, it is that twisted Rapid map that greets Cleveland travelers boarding at the Airport station (the map is posted on or near the former fare booth entering the station). Not good.

I agree. I think the system-wide map, with it's thick black lines and numbers on it (for bus routes), is really confusing and very user-unfriendly -- especially when a main street, like Detroit or Euclid, have portions that contain multiple routes and, then, one turns off onto another street. Other cities have thin, color-coded lines (associated with route numbers) representing each bus route, so that when several lines run on one street and, say, one of them turns onto another street, it is easy to follow... unlike RTA's map. Also, the graphics for the current Rapid Transit map on the RTA site is just terrible. It's twisted and out of balance. It makes the Waterfront Line seem as long as the Airport branch, and because it's so twisted, it makes the Health Line look like it travels a straight northeasterly diagonal, rather than the due-east, dogleg northeast (at U. Circle) the HL actually takes. This Rapid map looks like it was either drawn by a child or an adult on drugs... it's an embarrassment to Cleveland.

^I'm not so sure about the 1-downtown station aspect. Downtown employment seems to be concentrated at or near Public Square. Plus, thanks to the lack of subway distribution (namely Dual Hub and the subway killed by Bert Porter in the 50s), E. 9th and Playhouse Sq. is largely vacant employment-wise. I think a far bigger issue that hurt rail riding is the flight of businesses and office space from downtown, period (one of the latest being civic-minded Eaton Corp, which is moving from downtown to Chagrin Highlands). As was noted previously, RTA riding in 1960 was 3 times greater than today (when the total Rapid milage was approx 25 miles as opposed to the expanded 31+ today). And remember, in 1960, you had the seperate CTS and Shaker Rapid systems, with no transfer policy between them; as in full fare if you transferred from one to another ... Then, as now, there was only 1 station (and actually, the now-weekday closed Waterfront Line technically does have other downtown stations, even though people tended to ignore them -- thus leading to the weekday closure)... Also, I recall in the 80s when RTA ridership was much higher, and there were a lot of offices at E. 9 and Playhouse Sq., a lot of people either walked or rode the many Euclid buses (the old No. 6 and several "Loop" buses) back to the Square. We tend to treat Downtown as if it were Manhattan ... or even Center City Philadelphia. The reality is that, although a subway is preferred, our downtown is pretty compact and walkable. I've always heard that the one station caused workers to drive to places like Playhouse Sq. or E. 9th and Euclid, but in reality, I never saw that... Most of those downtown workers just sucked it up, and made it back to Terminal Tower somehow ... sans autos, that is.

^that clears it up... thanks.