biker16

The garage is unsuitable for modern needs, there was a reason it was not used for the welcome center, it is very old and is reaching the end of it's useful life. I don't think anyone is interested in spending the money needed to upgrade the structure. can you see it standing another 2 decades at the current state of investment in it? If it does not make sense now maybe it will in the future. I think the halle building makes more sense to develop first, than the may company building. plus I don't like idea of providing anymore incentive to adding more surface lots to the East 4th district.

I will make a Sketchup of my idea when I have time. the idea is that in the early part of the 20th century Cleveland's blocks were consolidated into mega block, block like the what the may company building and the WTC in NYC sit on, the new idea is to bisect the the mega block with roads and side walks to make the scale of the blocks more human. more walkable, more accessible. If the logical retrofit of the may company building is into housing, you simply do not have enough windows to make this concept work, even if you added skylight,( which would drastically reduce the leaseable space of the building), it sitl may not be enough light to make it marketable. My idea would be to tear down the Garage on prospect, and Ontario, (its coming down regardless). bisect the may company building maintaining the facades on both Prospect and Euclid, but opening the space in the middle with direct access to Ontario and though to Prospect. providing an opportunity for development on the corner of prospect and ontario, now surrounded on all four sides with light, and road access. I think it is the best way to preserve this landmark, other than converting it back into a department store.

from an adapitve reuse POV, the MAY company building is to large. for that matter the Block between euclid and prospect is too large, this maens you iwll have to add atriums to get light to the interior of the building. or... you can cut the building in two and put a street there. effectively making the large building into two medium size building more appropriate for mixed use redevelopment.

To add to what KJP said, I think Ohio is so backward it'll be years before anything happens if it's left to its own devices. A ballot initiative would be very difficult to pull off and there would be serious opposition from highway contractors, Republicans, tea partiers, NIMBY's and Kasich if he's still around. This would definitely be an uphill struggle and if it went down, we will have poisoned the well for years to come. I think the best chance we have is to try to take advantage of Ohio's geographic position astride the Chicago-east coast corridor thru the northern end of the state and focus on ways to improve current Amtrak service there. This could create several trains a day thru Toledo and Cleveland, giving us a base level of service to point to for the rest of the state. These would likely be conventional trains with a top speed of no more than 90 mph (avg 60 mph). Keep in mind also that in terms of political outlook, NE Ohio is not like other areas of the state and already has the state's biggest transit system, light rail and intercity rail passenger service (even if it's in the middle of the night). I think there is a growing awareness that the tea-party/Republican dominated state government is not going to do anything to help urban areas in NE Ohio and that they will have to fend for themselves. NOACA has already taken a position that they are not going to be building any more new freeways and transit use is booming. Plainly, there will be a move toward more public transportation and intercity rail should be a part of that mix, beginning with a new intermodal hub. Toledo is also very supportive of rail and might step up if there's a real chance something could happen in northern Ohio. they already made a substantial investment in the train station there. Ditto Sandusky and Elyria. We have to build a solid business and economic development case for this to happen. At least in northern Ohio we have some things in our favor. Personally, I'd like to see a northern Ohio transportation authority formed to deal with issues common to that part of the state. The only other choice is to make a legal case that Ohio's transportation system violates the ADA and civil rights statutes. Much cheaper than a ballot intiative, but no guaranteed outcome. I think the call to arms needs to be the state gas tax itself, the lack of accountability of ODOT, the need for local control of transportation funds. Defund, Restructure and Redirect We are non longer asking. Defund the centralized bloated ODOT political machine Restructure ODOT to be more decentralized with most planning, contracting and decision making taking place at the district level, not in Columbus. Redirect ODOT towards multi-modal investment, direct by local officials, not bureaucrats in Columbus you have to build enough grassroots support for it, to make opposition to it futile, this involves shame and embarrassment of the opposition, redistribution of wealth, inequality towards the 8%of Ohioans who do not drive. the cronyism of ODOT, etc... Local control is the key ODOT needs to become an advisory board for local transportation issues, not the heavy handed group of thugs in protected positions. A restructured less centralized ODOT, that is accountable to local counties and municipality, not the Governor. the at the state level the role of ODOT would be to facilitate and mange projects that are outside the jurisdiction of the local offices and to coordinate local branches of ODOT. local ODOT leaders would be appointed by the counties that make up that district, and no longer appointed by the governor. A transportation funding mechanism to provide consistent funding for transit operations, from gas tax and or toll revenue. either way to mandate a place at the table for transit agencies, outside of the scope of political interference in Columbus, make it local, make it regional, make it better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/nyregion/report-disputes-christies-reason-for-halting-tunnel-project-in-2010.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all

We have an old system of rail, that was designed over 50 years ago, without taking into account the tremendous growth of the suburban and exurban areas in the intervening years. plus the overall metropolitan area have not grown as fast as other areas of the country. this means the cost of driving in Cleveland is not high enough in time nor in money, to push people into wanting more transit options. plus our state is one of the most urbanized in the country, but has no defined policy towards urban areas or addressing the needs of urban areas. nevermind those areas generate 75% of state GDP, their is 0 focus on these areas from the state level. in closing there are number of macro economic factor out side of the technical challenges that impede better rail service in cleveland.

the plan is to tear down the eastbound bridge shortly after the west bound bridge opens, at least a few years. then according to ODOT the westbound bridge will have 4 lanes west bound and 2 lanes east bound. keep in mind most east bound exits will be in accessible for the most part especially Ontario and East 9th. this is expected to go on until the new eastbound bridge is completed.

making a Series of hops to eventually reach the desired goal. example would be cleveland -> Toledo -> Toledo -> Detroit Toledo-> Fort Wayne. chicago -> Gary Gary -> Fort Wayne Gary -> Indianapolis this is how the interstate highway system was built. the issue is selling the public on such an abstract goal. I would Sy that Cleveland and by extension the state of Ohio, should be focused on making those connections that make sense, focusing on city pairs, but always planning for trains that can go through those cities. focusing on common standards, voltages, gauges, etc, to maintain compatibility. For cleveland the City pairs that are most obvious are: Akron Pittsburgh Columbus Toledo. Buffalo. Detroit. I think the idea of using existing Rail ROW, for True HSR, may not be the way to go, but to use Public ROW, I.E. interstate Hwy ROWs which could be procured at 0 cost, and corridors that may better suited for high-speed rail, than existing rail ROW. especially outside of urban areas. where land for new corridors are less expensive. while 220mph would be nice between cle and Akron it is not needed. but longer legs between cle and Columbus would require greater speeds. curiously the US senate Transportation Bill mandated that all states develop comprehensive Rail plans, I think it was passenger and freight Rail. either way, I think the opportunity to develop robust commuter rail services on the back bone of HSR, is definitely possible, it would increase the usage of the Rails, and the stations. allow greater utilization of infrastructure.

you read my mind. It took a decade to finish HS1, I have ridden eurostar 4 times from 2001 to , every time I rode it was faster than the last. because of the cost of construction, the concept of constant incrementalism. IMO the biggest obstacle to true HSR in the US is the lack of electrification of our rail network. even with Euro star that had an existing electrified network to start with which made it possible to operate service once the Channel tunnel was built. is it no surprise that the only High speed corridor operating in the US has been electrified for over 100 years. In order for passenger to be suscessful at attracting enough ridership to make it vialble to attract investment it needs to go faster, to go faster we need electrification, form a cost perspective eletrification expensive, and not cost effectvie unless you are running alot of trains. with alot of people. California's predicament should be a wake up call for all proponents of HSR. The political environment combined with the very long lead times in building out a high-speed network puts IMO a high premium on short term results than long-term results. in order to keep the public's trust and their money, planning must be more focused on showing benefits to the public, and less on longer term visions. unlike the interstate freeway system which before it's completion was being used by drivers, HSR in the US will be useless until the final mile of a segment is completed, leaving a large gap between project go ahead and project competition that makes it vulnerable to politics. after reasearching the current alignment, I cannot figure out why the easiest cheapest route was not chosen, using the I5 corridor which is owned by the state, is flatter, and has far fewer obstacles than the current alignment. I would hope that a midwest proposal would better consider these realities.

the consequences of slower speeds on the final legs through the most urban parts of the network. but.... the TGV has to slow down on the last 25km in paris too. I think we should always understand that High-speed through megacities like SF and LA will not be possible without extensive investments tunneling, viaducts and other expensive forms of construction. for a new start system it is best to start in the least expensive green field segments that yield the greatest bang for the buck, and look to a longer term upgrade path for the most urban segments of the corridoor. for a HSR segment in Chicago you may require Metra electrify some segments in order for bullet trains to use their rails north of union station, and upgrades to the metra electric lines to add capacity to operate intercity trains on those lines. At this point the 1500vdc voltage being used on the metra is would be factored into the development of the HSR trains. unlike the electrification of the BART and LA commuter lines which because they are all new could operate at 25k VAC. metra like Caltrain has been unwilling to carry the cost of electrification of their lines ,but if they can spend someone else money to upgrade they change their tune, especially since the price of fuel in going up not down.

the contract for the upgrade has been awarded, should be done in a few months.

Gov. Jerry Brown to change high-speed rail plan, lower cost by $30 billion Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/31/4380423/gov-jerry-brown-to-change-high.html#storylink=cpy

this is portland's LRT system the MAX

I agree, i will take time, for the development to take place along the route. But forcing an extension to service an area that could be developed in the next few decades. when there are smart investments that could be done today to improve public transportation in downtown for development going on today.

Because $72 million was invested in it. I view it as a foundation, which by itself isn't very usable. But if finished, it increases the accessibility and attractiveness of otherwise unattractive properties along it -- especially the Muny Parking Lot and Dock 20 at the mouth of the river. If the Waterfront Line were part of a downtown loop that reaches more activity centers, I believe those properties become more developable and the Waterfront Line more usable. But this vision would have to be pushed by the private sector rather than the city (or RTA) to be credible to the rest of the community. That might ease the community's concerns that we're making the same mistake twice. Until the business community pushes this or some other downtown transit agenda, we'll continue to have discussions as we have for the past nine pages. the WFL is ahead of it's time. the issues with any development on the lake is the bluff. crating linkages to from the bluff to the lakefront should be a priority. before any Real development efforts will take hold the issue of pedestrian access must be resolved. in addition to the issues of pedestrian connectivity, the shore way and rail lines are a huge barrier to improving access. of the 3 stations serving the lakefront only one has decent point of access to that lakefront that is the east 9th st station. which east 9th has sidewalks that are far too narrow, and not inviting for pedestrians to use. as it stands now there is no easy way to access the MM from the waterfront line. it seems that the WFL would be great if it were relocated 100 feet to the south or 200 feet to the north. when the time is right, you could build it out, or move the line, to be come more functional.adding another access point to the east. llike this

I agree. Awhile back I actually made my own map which looks very similar to yours. I originally had it running down lakeside but decided st clair might be a better option. http://g.co/maps/gr29d Wow. the connections to Lakeside thru the warehouse district would have been a mess. too much traffic, and after 6pm there isn't much going on on that street.

That's not the craziest idea I've seen proposed, but I don't think you'll sell anyone on it. i think it is easier than going out side of TC to catch the HL

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line? it makes no sense, to double the price of a potential system just to utilize a system that has little relevance to the residents or visitors to downtown. the concept to to circulate people to the major attractions in downtown, the Rock Hall and GLSC are attractions that could be serviced, but for the majority of potential riders the action is on the bluffs, not on the lake. understanding what downtown is transforming into, a tourist, and residential center, along with it traditional commercial office uses. it become more important to help people move to and from the major point of interests downtown. look at this map. I put in the waterfront line in blue. Ken's loop in purple My loop in orange red and green lines are potential connection with the waterfront line in the flats. the grades of the hills may meet the maximum 9% grade requirements, the Green route would be the least steep. stars are points of interest. yellow is residential red tourist attractions pink office commercial.

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/parking-mandates-stymy-development-in-cincinnatis-urban-neighborhoods/

I don;t think that is factually correct. if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason. and there why bother, remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route. if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages. the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC. I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace. I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System. Sweetie before tower city the Shaker lines exited their right of way and went up to Broadway at street level. Then took city streets to Public Square. Remember the section between SQ and UT was built in 2 sections. SQ to 34 street then 34 to TT. I need dates. I think you are saying that this happened in the 1920s. http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=SHRT SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT - The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History The SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT, built by the VAN SWERINGEN† brothers, provided a convenient transportation link from the residential properties they were developing in the suburb to the downtown commercial center. The Shaker Rapid, originally the Cleveland Interurban Railroad, began service on 11 April 1920 with 2 branches, Moreland (later Van Aken) Blvd. and Shaker Blvd. With tracks located on the Shaker and Moreland median strips, the rail rapid transit had a traffic-free right-of-way from its eastern termini to SHAKER SQUARE. From Shaker Square to E. 93rd St., tracks were laid in a cut blasted from solid rock. Westward from there to E. 34th St., they entered KINGSBURY RUN leading to the steam railroads' corridor. At E. 34th St., the rapid cars were forced to climb from their private right-of-way and follow public streets to their loop at PUBLIC SQUARE. When the final leg of their traffic-free route was completed in July 1930, the cars continued on private right-of-way to a station in the newly completed CLEVELAND UNION TERMINAL. The Shaker Rapid, engineered to keep its cars segregated from traffic, delivered quick and dependable transit service. In 1929 the Moreland line was extended eastward from Lynnfield (its original terminus) to Warrensville Center Rd. In 1937 the Shaker line was extended from Warrensville Center Rd. to a new loop at Green Rd. Following the collapse of the Van Sweringens' financial empire, the Shaker Rapid was placed into receivership in 1935; the banks operated the system for 9 years and then sold it to the city of Shaker Hts. Municipal operation began on 6 Sept. 1944. On 5 Sept. 1975, the lines were transferred to the GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, who reimbursed SHAKER HEIGHTS approx. $95,600 for various costs incurred by the city. In 1980 the Authority began an 18-month, $100 million renovation of the system, upgrading it to contemporary light rail standards. Service on the renamed Blue (Van Aken) and Green (Shaker) lines was inaugurated on 30 Oct. 1981. Last Modified: 22 Jul 1997 02:02:40 PM

I cannot understand why PTC or whatever RTA would use for non overridable signaling costs so much.

I think I know what you're talking about. When the Blue/Green lines were completely rebuilt in 1980-81 (for what seemed like a huge cost back then -- $100 million), the electric power supply was also replaced. It is possible, although I cannot find documentation, that the voltage was increased on the Blue/Green lines to be equal to that of the Red Line. the PCC operated on 600VDC. the use of more robust LRT trains may have required an increase on the Available Amperage the line needed, more inline to what the heavy rail required. for example it is possible to run a 5 amp, appliance on a 12 amp circuit,, it is not possible to run a 15 amp appliance on a 12 amp circuit. you don't have to change the voltage, just increase the available current.

I don;t think that is factually correct. if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason. and there why bother, remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route. if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages. the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC. I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace. I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System.

Whether anyone rides the Waterfront Line is not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the operating environment. And I cannot say for sure if they are necessarily compatible. When the PCCs were replaced with the Bredas in 1980-81, the entire Shaker Rapid's infrastructure was completely rebuilt and replaced. That was also a decade before ADA and nearly three decades before the FTA's draconian level-boarding requirements. Also are the power supply provisions the same? Would substations and transformers need to be altered? A tram could be designed and built to suit its operating environment, so there would have to be assessment of if and how many changes would need to be made to infrastructure or to vehicle design or if there could be a "meeting in the middle." I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think compatibility can be assumed. The voltage used on the Redline and LRT is the same, Correct? the most important thing is to optimize the type of transit for it's indented use. while it would be nice to purchase 50 new LRT that can make the GB lines ADA compliant, the risk of making the streetcar too expensive to run, and too small to meet the needs of the GB lines. Now 3 decades later after going heavy light rail, we have a light rail that is arguably too large and too expensive for the ridership it receives. using old thinking to address new problems, get us mandates for a isolated ROW and double trackage for a LRT extension to a starter line. the decision to use Breda, has reduced the flexibility of RTA to expand the system. the PCCs used previously were designed for street running how would a rider get from a Red Line station like brookpark. to the MM, CSU, or the galleria, you either walk or you transfer to another bus. it is a reality that riders already are used to, with a dense area like Downtown general people anticipate walking or transferring to get to their final destination. To me Frequency is the problem, transfers are not, a one seat ride to a major destination like Downtown would require most riders to either walk or transfer to another bus or to the current trolleys. this also ignore the 10,000 residents living downtown and the hundreds of thousands of visitors that need to move around downtown. the focus of any functional tram system is to keep the frequency up, while minimizing operating the tram too far out, where it's lack a speed affects performance decreases frequency. remember Streetcar Augment walking, they allow walker to go further than would normally go. this would make it possible for workers who work in playhouse square to eat lunch at tower city or in the warehouse district. I will Try to have something made up to give to Howard and Joe Calabreeze next time I see them. The idea to get across, is to rethink the how LRT is presented, and understand that speed in not always king, and that streetcar can be built at a much lower cost than conventional LRT. that it is proven that trams/streetcars can encourage redevelopment of urban area, downtown streetcar loop could be expanded to other revitalized neighborhoods around downtown like Tremont, Ohio city and Campus district. the effectiveness of placing the route around parking lots to encourage development on those lots. the key to the success of transit and TOD is to reduce Car ownership, and make it easier for residents to access day to day needs via transit.

people ride the Waterfront line? People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail. the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again. It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars. how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered? if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network? will it reduce operating costs? think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together. I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection. And where would people transfer at TC?? they would travel from the platforms 3 levels below west prospect, to the street directly above those platforms, it is literally on elevator ride to from platform level (-1) to street level (3). the tranfer would require less walking than a transfer on public Square.