biker16

IF this exsisted it could work. there were a streetcar system from ohio city to downtown. you could reduce travel time to public Square form an average of 10 minutes at rush hour down to let say 5-6 minutes. and by developeing a faster routing around the market and signalization prioritization, you can speed traffic through the area. From a service POV you can reduce the 34+ buses per hour on west 25th during peak hours to 20 90 foot trains, that could deliver riders directly to CSU or city hall something the redline cannot do. Reducing the 10 minutes from the schedule of the (22, 35, 51, 79, 20, 81, and 45) and reduces the number of ATU memebers from ~20 to 6 (numbers may not be accurate). If you take the 8am hour. 34+ buses on west 25th and lorain, 30+ going thru 25th to detroit. Bus capasity of 85 persons (40 foot) buses 116 (60 foot) buses. replaced with 10 90 foot LRT vehicles Capasity of 151 persons each. with intervals of 6 mins, add a 4 more and the interval drops to 4 minutes. it has the potential to both Reduce costs, and improve service.

Plan to turn buses around before they hit city I asked Ken this question, about a month ago. would it be worthwhile to force a transfer if it could shorten the overall journey time? Is that one seat ride so important that people would be willing to sacrifice time to not have to get. If a simple Equation could demonstrate the marginal propensity of a customer to tranfer vs an expect reduction in travel time, with the Waiting enviroment factors (i.e. heated/cooled shelters, or waiting area's that are also major shopping areas) think market square, if you force a transfer at the West side market how likeley would the rider be to stop and do some shopping there? how do the nodes of transit distribuion can facilitate Transit oriented development. any hoo, interesting stuff

now if this is successful then we can make a better case for this Start with the Current trolley network. establish a starter loop network to cover MMCC, CSU,playhouse Square, Lower prospect, tower City, and warehous district. 2.59 miles phase II Market Square Connection: 3.1 miles would provide a HQ surface connection From Downtown to Market Square with potential direct Service from market Square to MMCC, CSU,playhouse Square, Lower prospect, tower City, and warehouse district. Phase III split the route to decrease travel time. North Extension: would be 1.09 miles to replace the B line improve service to lakeside ave South Extension: would be .66 miles to improve service to CSU nine-twelvedistrict. system totals: 7.44 miles Requires 6 vehicles with 2 for spare. 7 minute intervals peak (6 vehicles) 13 minute intervals for single vheicles on each route (3 vehicles) and bare bones service at 25 minute intervals (single vehicle) from Market Square to CSU.

because the corridor that the WL covers is empty. while the corridor for the bus is filled with places to get on and get off, i.e. destinations. the L line hits the casino, the convention center and lakefront, all would be door to door service, not an additional 2-5 minute walk from the station like the WL would be. this point out the advantage of being on the street. hopefully this can lead to a Real streetcar system for this area. I don’t buy this thinking. In the late 90s to early 2000, I used frequently travel to North Point for biz purposes, and would intersperse riding the WL with the 247 Loop bus from Public Sq. especially in the good old days when there WL ran every 15 mins all day (every 12 mins during rush hour). Yes, the cars were often pretty empty, but the a Loop buses were emptier. And no, Biker, the bus route didn’t travel pass many destinations to/from Public Sq. where people were clamoring to ride. It zig-zagged along Lakeside, E. 6th and Public Square, passing City Hall and the often near empty, cavernous Convention Center – destinations that were often close enough to walk to-from Public Square. And as for the casino, why would someone rather take this zig-zaggy ride to the casino and transfer outside, where the WL Rapid delivers you indoors? The WL travels it’s route pretty fast as it is. It would be even faster if RTA did the right thing and, at least, instated POP on the WL portion so that drivers aren’t sitting there holding trains while the count pennies (and nickels and quarters) of individual riders. Also, I don’t get this huge, arduous 2-5 minute walk from the Rock Hall to the North Coast WL stop. Honestly, I think Clevelanders are creative in thinking up excuses for people to NOT use rapid transit in this town (but will travel to DC, Chicago and elsewhere and walk blocks on end to use theirs); I just don’t get it. Some people here make it seem like it’s too far of a walk if trains don’t stop right at their bedroom door. Once the Flats East Bank development opens with the planned 10 or so restaurant venues (and hopefully with Phase II apartments soon thereafter), it will make the WL even more viable – but knowing our “planners” we’ll probably run buses and rubber-tired trolleys down to the FEB to “compete” with the WL there as well. As soon as we come to grips with the fact the waterfront line was not what it was sold to be. the honest truth you are trying to force a square peg through a round hole. the ridership numbers prove it. the stop at East 9th is nightmare, the side walks on the bridge are too narrow, and dumps you out onto a very busy roadway. now in the future "IF" the intermodal center is and can connect the line directly to the mall then you will have a point. I love Rail everyone knows this but to argue about the WL vs the trolleys, which right now carry over 1 million people per year vs the 600,000 per year the line garnered from 2000-2008, at a cost of $75 million dollars and 675,000 per year to run when it was being operated. even when it's not being haevily used it cost $300,000 to maintain. look at these maps and tell me which would have the greatest impact on Downtown?

The WL is greater than 2000 feet from the rock hall and Science Center. And far more than 2000 feet from the stclair entrance to the MMCC. there is another disadvantage because the line is below grade visitors do not know it exists, furthermore the frequency of service of the trolley is 10 mins a pace the Cleveland's LRT simply cannot match, TC simply is not set up to handle round trips from the WL to TC for extended periods of time. I think this is a great idea, and I will give Rta an A for collaborating with the DCA and other stakeholders to gt this done. This is an example of strong public private partnership I hope can be a model for other areas of town. Then how does Pittsburgh deal with their fare free zone? Seems like the service area would be similar. because the corridor that the WL covers is empty. while the corridor for the bus is filled with places to get on and get off, i.e. destinations. the L line hits the casino, the convention center and lakefront, all would be door to door service, not an additional 2-5 minute walk from the station like the WL would be. this point out the advantage of being on the street. hopefully this can lead to a Real streetcar system for this area. While this is true in the current iteration of the flats, the FEB should be coming online soon. When that happens there will be destinations right along the line. You could say the same thing about the L-Line right now, both end points have attractions and nothing in between. Convention Center - not open Westin Cleveland - not open The Marriott is on the L-Line route, but the Renaissance and Ritz are attached to TC. We have the Waterfront Line vastly underused, I believe that making better use of the service would be of more use to visitors and Clevelanders alike. I'm sure the trolly service will be used, however it is my belief that it is not the highest and best use for those funds. A connection to Ohio City would provide more opportunities. Then where does it stop? If you include Ohio City, then I think you'll need to include Asian Village and who pays for all this?

because the corridor that the WL covers is empty. while the corridor for the bus is filled with places to get on and get off, i.e. destinations. the L line hits the casino, the convention center and lakefront, all would be door to door service, not an additional 2-5 minute walk from the station like the WL would be. this point out the advantage of being on the street. hopefully this can lead to a Real streetcar system for this area.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/09/04/u-s-dot-wisconsin-dot-in-violation-of-civil-rights-act/ Is Ohio next?

Jerry, are the layover stops for the trolleys going to be moved to public square? I ask becuase catching a trolley from City hall to tower city usually require tranfering to antoher trolley at RTA HQ, which IMO is insane. why don't they contiue all lines to public square and wait there since it is the #1 destination in downtown?

how hard would it be to get free WiFi at major rail stations like downtown, UC , airport, and shaker square? and in the future to have WiFi on the trains themselves? If we want more drivers to chose transit have to offer amenities they can't get while driving.

Well with an 11 ft travel lane you're not really accomplishing much slimming except for getting rid of excess lane capacity...unless there is regulation dictating lane widths somewhere? Some cities have that problem, but for example, 9 ft lanes are standard for major avenues in Midtown Tulsa (large area between 11th-51st) and it really gets the Hummers and Land Rovers to slow away down.. The average bus or semi truck is 8'4" wide I am all for narrow lanes but not that much. The magic of traffic, calming is more about creating a feeling of claustphobia for driver, not that does not require supper narrow lanes to do that. ODOT will not let a state route like Chester or prospect have lanes narrower than 11 feet. The most benfifcial road way feature for pedestrians is on street parking that provides a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk, plus provides a running effect for drivers to reduce speed. In the end I think we are on the same page, and the university has been talking city traffic engineers on how balance the new developments on campus with the editing traffic patterns, and what effect the changes on campus are having to the traffic patterns. Then find the funds to move the curbs will be easier.

the crossing distances on chester are too great. CSU in coordination with the Langston development is reducing Chester from 6 to 4 lanes by using bumpouts and on street parking this should reduce crossing distances by 33%. reducing crossing distances means the cycling of light for pedestrians can be reduced allowing traffic to move better even with the lane reduction. the elephant in the room at CSU are the freeways know as east 21st and east 22nd, they are far too wide for the traffic volume. both should be reduce to 2 lanes with 2 turning lanes and one thru lane on 22nd and Chester, with 21st being 2 lanes only from Chester to euclid and 2 thru lanes and one left turning lane on 21st at Euclid. with the nominal lane width being reduced from 12-13 feet to 11feet for traffic calming purposes. IMO.

I don't know if the northern part of campus is safer, I don't pay that close attention to the crime statistics or bulletins. In regards to closing streets off, if that's not an option, they should at least try to do some things to slow down the traffic along Prospect and even Chester. I know that the speed limit on those streets in the campus area is 25 mph, but people usually drive much faster when they can. With the new developments and retail, maybe including some street parking (like you see along Coventry or Mayfield in Littly Italy) would make it easier for pedestrians and force drivers to slow down a bit, while also giving the campus a more unified feel. the key isn't closing streets but in reducing the crossing distances from curb to curb, prospect is ~50 feet wide by using road design techniques it would be possible to shave 16 feet off of the crossing distances, and slow/calm traffic as well. you do this by moving from 4 12 foot lane to 2 travel lanes one turning lanes, with 2 8 foot parking lanes on each side. of the street, by adding bumpouts at the crosswalks, this effectively shrinks the road and makes the driver behave like he or she is on a narrower road even though the lanes are approximately the same width. the transit cenet is an obstacle for pedestrians walking from the garage to campus, because there isn't an formal sidewalk, you feel like you are walking in the street. and 22nd Street is pretty busy. My solution would be to either raise the walking path way 6 inches above the road way, kinda like place the pedestrians on a pedestal, and or create more of buffer from the roadway by moving the path further from the road. the obstacle of course if RTA, and those buses need to have greater turning radii and limits on the approach and departure angles. the real obsitcle to using the soouth garage is ther eisn't anything around it. the new building will help in that regard

The issue is an insidious one. light rail began as a inexpensive alternative to "expensive" heavy rail Streetcars are light rail. when they began to add heavy Rail features to light rail they became just as expensive as heavy rail. The issue of mission creep and failure to understand the limitations of each rail mode gets you the green line in Cleveland, which had most of the cost of heavy rail but lack the maintence and durability advantages of heavy rail. in the beginning the LRT ansetor the interurban, never had dedicated platfroms throughout the route, it wias more cost effective to operate in road ROWs in higher density areas, and defualt to dedicated high speed ROW in less Dense/ lower land cost areas. modern LRT never left the dedicated ROW and as a result had the same ROW cost as heavy rail. By using things like "platfoms" and stations instead of curbs, you again increase to parity with Heavy Rail. there is an issue of gold plating of transit projects. When the absolute requirement is dedicated ROW and double track, with fancy stations, and premium rolling stock. the need to value engineers projects to remove amentities that do not add value or stray from the original goal of project. this back to basics thinking gets you back to the original interurban and the original streetcar concepts. Thus the Rapid Streetcar concept. The reaction to the demise of the Streetcar, was to get them out of the street, Using exsting 1950s technology led to heavy Rail, which proved too expensive for all but the largest cities to afford. Which led to the the invention of Light Rail in the 1980s as a less expensive alternative to heavy rail.

if you break the rule you pay the penalty. if you don't like the penalty don't break the rules. how complex is this to understand? So all moving violations are a money grab too. or red light cameras? even though both are proven to save lives, it must be the Gubment trying trying to take your money, right? It is hard to get a speeding ticket if you don't speed. Stop acting like a child, there are consequences to everyone's actions.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 Rapid Streetcar concept gaining ground www.railwayage.com

I believe our local leaders sometime in the near future need to have a plan on how to best leverage the the IMO inevitable return of passenger rail to clevelland which is a logical gateway to the east coast. Cleveland is the X on the rail map Chicago hub Ohio hub system Cleveland will be the HSR 150 MPH+ connection between Chicago and Pittsburgh and the most used node of the Ohio hub system. being a major transfer point on the future passenger network requires that Cleveland focuses on leveraging the 6.8 million trips that a 220mph link between Chicago and Cleveland, the 2.5 million trips A 110mph system between Cleveland and Cincinnati, and the 860,000 trips between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. that is roughly 10.4 million trips beginning or ending in a passenger rail station in Cleveland. the question is how can the region best leverage this traffic into economic growth. I will tell you dumping 10.4 million people into a lake front station away from the Core of our Region transit hub at tower city does not offer the bang for the buck that a new passenger Rail station at tower city. building a new passenger rial corridor From Chicago that a 220mph connection will require easily 3-4 billion dollars to connect the rural line to a hypothetical station on the Cleveland lakefront. it could cost 1 -2 billion more to Redirect that connection into tower city and integrate the 220mph line with the Ohio hub network connections to Pittsburgh, buffalo, and Columbus. some way somehow, we have to unify all passenger rail plans into plan most beneficial to the region, and get our local leaders and stakeholders behind it. Cleveland needs a Vision just like Chicago's Union station master plan here . the first step could be the lakefront inter-modal center, and Amtrak improving service to it's existing station, either way it is back to the future with a new union station project. Source http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Midwest_Network_Benefits_Study_2012.pdf http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/Ohio_Hub_Final_Docs/Final_Document_Rev_12_06_07/Executive_Summary_Full_Report.pdf

I could not agree more. they used to own the old observatory off of taylor road, they trashed it. There is a ton of history in that little town. is uverse offered there?

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/ohio_campaign_to_overhaul_redi.html Edited: Due to copyright laws, please do not post entire articles.

I think the use a heavy rail driave the cost of everything too high to make it a viable alternative in this area. I am a firm beiliever ( as everyone knows) of the rapid Streetcar concept that seeks to drastically reduce the cost of rail. I could see RTA buying the Fright line, allowing overnight freight access only and Running redline trains out to Euclid square mall. what I can't see is building a parallel ROW to do the same gosh Darn thing. the most interesting thing to watch in the Alternatives analysis is IF they even propose buying the existing ROW and leasing it back to the Railroads for use at night. A similar strategy should be sought with the Line thru other areas like Lakewood. ALAS when our system is run by people extremely reluctant to change the odds of anything getting through are slim to none. :(

we need an pedestrian crossing across the river, to connect the west bank to downtown.

this was Site 1 site 2 was the lot at east 4th street and prospect, did not replace the 220 spaces in that lots. Also the numbers I had for maximum residential build out for site 1 was 600-700 units. So the additional parking was inadequate for the needs of the Residential development. I disagree but that was her opinion.

what do you want Amtrak to do? you could even throw in Megabus as being cheaper than both air and rail. Amtrak is undercapasity and is using the same profit maximizing strategy that the Airlines have been using for decades. charge as much for each seat as you can. since the demand for that seat is in excess of the supply. Amtrak does this on the Acela, too. until Amtrak can add more capacity I.E. more cars to each train fare will remain higher that they have normally been. The new cars have been ordered and will do much to improve the quality of service and quantity of service. it just takes time.

It possible but for the residential space to be useful it would push further towards the prospect wing and reduce the usefulness of the plaza in between the 2 building. which wasn't my original goal but has become a strong landmark within the development not just of the 1930s building but in the 1890 and the new site on Ontario and prospect. the park is 1/2 acre, in an E4th district devoid of green space outside of the Square. The blank walls of the WT grant building could be mitigated by painting it, large banners or placing reflective glass on the wall. I placed parking in the cavernous lower level of the of the 1920s building, it could accommodate 2-3 levels of parking, the issue of access to the parking was the reason I choose to place a street through the plaza, and an exit onto a wider east 2nd street. you would not want to turn est 1st wide 2 lane street because it reduces the size of the new build site by an additional 10-11 feet, plus the exit is too close to the intersection of prospect and Ontario, (congestion issues). in general I said F parking,which is why I received a A-. I replaced the 650 spaces in garage with a 650 spaces in the Ontario/prospect building and the 2-3 levels of parking underneath the 1920 may Co. building. My philosophy Is with a downtown streetcar system, you can eliminate parking minimums downtown, and the demand for parking from Residents would be reduce allowing for an increase in development without an increase in parking. Parking minimums are evil, in downtown, it is bad enough that there is so much demand for it, without forcing less shared parking on the market. East 1st right now is a tunnel, both the garage of the 1890s building connect to the 1930s building. It is not a pretty site I have some before and afters of both east 2nd and East 1st. turning both alley into a pedestrian friendly corridors was a priority, because right now they are not.

I have some rendering of my Own I'd like to share. what I think could happen to the may company complex, which actually consists of three buildings. I would convert the original 1890s building AND THE 1930s building into residential and demilish the 650 space parking garage on Ontario. the key is to address the super block by cutting through it with pedestrian friendly roads breaking up the enormous site into one that is far more managable. the May company building is unique because it is ~500 feet deep, much larger than other Department stores that have been converted into residential, plus the building is land locked, meaning that for the residences on the interior of the building the only light they would receive would be from the atrium. site plan Looking in from ontario