biker16

I agree that's why the healthline is there, it is Semi grade separated and would gain alot in a conversion to rail. no where in this conversation does the demand require a subway, right now but things change. I never said convert the Red Line into a streetcar (mixed traffic) but into a modern LRT system. I am proposing moving the WFL to the Waterfront. What would convince You this isn't the end of the world? even this was paid for by developers and given to RTA to run, would you still be against it? You need to Read more Barrier Effect This is acute to all connection to the lakefront, the volume of vehicles creates a barrier to pedestrian travel that studies show deter some pedestrians from crossing it. A Stadtbahn (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtatˌbaːn]; German for "city railway"; plural Stadtbahnen) is a tramway or light railway that includes segments built to rapid transit standards

Wow 1/2 the ridership on St Pats. Can't be just the weather difference, can it? I was in the parade the weather was very unpleasant.

8% grade is within the spec. The gradient of the the University hill looks to be worse than columbus. http://www.inekon-trams.com/trio_low-floor_tram_tech_specs.html 3 issues i have one technical and one spacial and one operational 1) I'm concerned about getting into Tremont on a very narrow road on potentially unstable slope, that may or may not be cpable of sustained operations from a 60,000lbs vehicle. 2) Travel demand: I believe most Tremont residents gravitate towards: 1st Ohio city -Shop+play 2nd Downtown -Work+play 3rd regional rail connection with the Rapid system-Work+play+shop Even though you'd have a transfer station in the flats, it wouldn't be a natural node that Ohio City is, and you'd ignore the fact that hundred of Tremonts of residents walk to the redline station right now and to make a case to replace the 81 in Tremont with a Streetcar you would have to take into account that you would be greatly inconveniencing the existing transit users without providing a benefit. 3) operationally the major transfer station for the bus network is downtown, with this proposed Streetcar network and Rapid restructuring you can see that ohio city could become a second downtown, and RTAs second largest transfer node, ( if it isn't already) with continued growth in retail, residential and commercial development. To route a Scranton extension through Tremont bypasses strongest node (Ohio City) could weaken the case for TOD on Scranton. I have doubts about a transfer station on the Viaduct to connect with rapid services being worth the cost. , if you are going to bypass tower city you need a direct connection to rapid services Ohio City would be a the next logical choice since you are crossing the river Ohio city would be the best choice. hmm. that is expensive I'd hope it wouldn't be $100 million. BTW if you used a TIF and Scranton is roughly 10-12 time the area of FEB-2 and ~5 times the size of the lakefront development you would be looking at up to 6000 residential units, and over $800 million dollars in development. gain about 3-4 million per year from the TIF (City of Cleveland only). if you added a SID that took $400 per $100,000 of property value, you add another 3-4 million per year.

Not at all. they can climb up to 9% grades. My problem with your analysis is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of downtown nor does it account for its rapidly evolving nature. Downtown Cleveland may not be congested on a Sunday afternoon with no sporting events in town, but it becomes very congested on weekend nights, esp when there's a game (sometimes multiple games), concerts around Gateway and, of course, the continuing popularity and growing crowds in/around the casino on Public Sq. It’s an absolute joy to sit at an outdoor café table on a warm summer Friday/Sat night in/around E. 4th after an even average Indians crowd, and watch cars and buses inch up Prospect as if it were a mass parking lot (knowing my car is either home or at a Rapid Stop) And as we know, this is on top of a number of major residential/hotel/retail projects that are currently being built: FEB (which is only 1/3 finished), the multiple developments around E. 9th and the largest hotel in all NEO (not to mention the return/upgrade with Westin coming online on St. Clair). And if we’re successful in redesigning Public Square cutting off through traffic on both Ontario and Superior (which I hope happens) through the very core of the City, auto and bus congestion will likely double (or more) than what it is now… Point being: Downtown is one of the fastest growing Cleveland neighborhoods, if not THE fastest. So to assume it's static traffic-wise is a big mistake. there is this idea that rail line don't move, but they often do move, usually for the reasons You listed. understand the issues you listed happen all the time, and all transit is subject to those delays. the lakefront is an exception because of the concentration of events down there, but think about how often those roads are empty? think about the travel generators from a residential development? what times of day will they happen? unlike A commercial district with heavy peak demand and marginal off peak demand, there simply isn't the same type of demand. there is more than enough room to add dedicated lanes for transit on this route. Prospect can be nightmare, but for very different reasons, it is chaotic and most of the congestion is due to congestion on Ontario and East 9th st. the volume of buses on the prospect create alot of delays As well, A road diet would help move traffic more smoothly on prospect. From a vehicle perspective There isn't a difference between a Low floor LRT and a streetcar/ Tram. if you look at atlanta's Streetcars they are shortend versions of the same Seimens S70s that dallas and portland use for the light rial systems. The model I'm following isn't the US model but the European model of Tram technology. In Europe it isn't uncommon to find tram routes that operate in mixed Traffic in dense city centers, tunnels, beneath some areas of the city for speed, and in medians or Dedicated lanes in low density suburban areas. all with the same vehicle. So imagine a 240 passenger (7 module 125ft) vehicles operating in two vehicle Trains for high capacity rapid regional service, to a shorter 5 module 180 passenger (5 module 90ft) vehicle for less dense routes where the demand is lower, and (120 passenger) 3 module 63ft vehicles operating as a circulator connecting neighborhoods together. The fleet could share maintenance Facilities, and all running gear would be the same, and depending on use they could have up to 4 powered trucks, for better acceleration. roughly 2000 Trams Are being produced every year, bombardier has already thousands of 100% low floor trams all over the world.

to a less continous idea, I hope. The Scranton Road WFL extension. I see two logical destinations for people who would live or work on a Developed Scranton peninsula, Downtown and Ohio City/Market district. This extension would connect the lakefront to the Ohio City. I strongly believe that a Bike/pedestrian bridge from the peninsula directly into Tower city is a must for developing this land. thins bridge would reduce a 15-20 minute walk to Public Square into a far more reasonable 5-7 min walk. I'd estimated costs for this 1.1 mile extension 10-20 million to refurbish the Rail bridge over the River. 20-35 million for the extension, variables would be the utilities beneath the route and preparation of the ROW. 30-55 million. There opportunity to capture the of the increases in land value for both the pedestrian bridge and the WFL extension. which would have a combined 35-60 million dollars, setting aside 2-4 million per year in TIF/TID revenue to pay off bonds and operate both systems.

those tunnels were built for a reason, to avoid delays related to surface traffic congestion. Downtown Cleveland for better or worse has very little congestion and plenty of excess road space. the combination of low traffic volumes and excess road capacity makes Surface transit a better option for Cleveland. you don't spend money to avoid a problem that doesn't exist. Speed is relative, substituting a 5 minute walk for additional 5 minutes on a train is a compromise most people are willing to make.

Your statements totally miss/ignore my point: why are you putting the cart before the horse? Why would you spend gazillions to relocate the WFL anywhere when the city has either failed or has been very slow to embrace TOD that would boost WFL ridership? Why are you relocating the WFL to north of the stadium for development that’s been proposed, but hasn’t even been built yet? Of course it may make more sense to have built the WFL north of the stadium. Better would have been not to have rebuilt the stadium at all at W. 3rd. It isn't putting the cart before the horse. you can't compare the potential for Development around two trenches with the potential for development around the harbor. Even if the stadium wasn't there you would still have connectivity issues to the WFL. Alot of the Cities you mentioned still use Mixed traffic streetcars or are planning to build them in the near future. Except NYC have mixed traffic segments and they evolved from streetcars into the systems that are today. Traffic clogging? You sound like Rob Ford, burying the streetcar lines was due to extreme congestion on the surface, and made far worse by the Automobile. Congestion is not an issue in Cleveland today, therefore the forces that create the need for tunnels don't exist right now. If it becomes an issue you can make dedicated lanes for the streetcar. to keep the car from getting in the way. Boston Atlanta Pittsburgh St Louis philidelphia It is disappointing that you feel so threatened by someone posting on a internet forum, and that you cannot see the forest through the trees. the goal of transit is mobility and placing a transit line in a difficult isolated location is a drain on the system, if RTA doesn't have to pay a dime to move the line and the property owners are will to pay for its operation why would you be against it?

if the analysis shows the benefits of moving the waterfront line to the waterfront it should be done. But these questions will never be answered if you are too afraid to ask.

… As I (and others like the respected Morrison) have said umpteen times, Biker, the fault is not with the WFL… It was built with the intent of capitalizing on an up trending part of the city … it’s waterfront… Maybe Biker if you, and others (Calabrese, the Sky Tram folks and others), focused more on building the type of development suitable for a high capacity infrastructure asset like Rapid Transit that already exists – you know, like NORMAL cities do -- rather than trying to develop some new cockamamie, fancy-shmancy (usually rubber tired in Calabrese’s case) transit mode, we’d be better off…. … but alas, the logical approach is usually/often lost on Clevelanders. Chasing our tail is the oft favored modus operandi. when you put a transit line in the middle of a trench that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to put the develop near the Transit line. I consider the Waterfront line in the flats as perfect example of how to develop a TOD station, it has multiple way to access the station. It fits with the natural walkablity of the neighborhood much like the green and Blue lines east of Shaker Square, the waterfront line on the lakefront has the same issues as the Red line does, it interacts poorly with the surrounding community. This matters because People using the those station in downtown are on foot, and placing your activity centers 3-5 minute unpleasant walk away from each station. other than that we all have OPINIONS of these things and some of us will never agree on these things, I will leave it at that. beign obsessed with "rapid transit" over short distances is silly and misguided, the goal ought to be Mode shift, not speed or finishing what was unfinished decades ago. I can waste 20 minutes of my life drawing maps showing the access issues with the lakefront segment of the waterfront line but I don't think it would persuasive enough for you. That's one part of the puzzle. Get in a room with a business person, a politician, a financial expert, an engineer and a strategist who have experience in delivering projects and then design a rail line. If you don't want some of those people messing up your design, then an urban planner devolves into nothing more than an artist who draws perfect and pretty images that are unlikely to be built. Its great to have the courage of your convictions, but you also should have the courage to compromise any of your ideals in order to achieve some of them. Most of the ideas I put out don't get latched onto, some do but it happens years later and when they do they go in one end of a process involving dozens of people representing many of the facets of life I mentioned at the start of this message and they come out the other looking quite different. But that's OK. I got some of what I wanted. An example was the Pennsylvanian extension. It was the first project I ever took under my wing while I was in college in the late 80s. I envisioned it as extending the route of the Amtrak service linking NYC-Pittsburgh west to Youngstown and Cleveland. As the process moved forward and was shaped by various inputs (local officials, federal officials, railroad officials, etc), several issues emerged that we would have to work around. There would be no financial support from Ohio for capital or operating money. So no funding would be available to open the more populous route through Youngstown and that an intact, high-quality route was available through Alliance. We finally got the train extended west to Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago. The Chicago endpoint was required because we would use package express revenues to pay the operating subsidies. And the train ran through Alliance. I had gotten more than $10,000 in donations from Youngstown-area interests to advocate for that route. I got beaten up pretty badly for that in the media and by two city councils -- all before the age of 25! But we got the train extended, and it ran for five years until Amtrak got out of the express business. I was very angry that Amtrak cut "my train" but we had a nice little run there for a while. But you put aside the emotion, take stock of everything, and apply the lessons for the next opportunity that either you create or that falls into your lap. No matter how the opportunity comes to you, it will never emerge from the process the way you expect it will. I understand what you saying, I always have, i simply cannot give up on a good idea, especially one being explored on a INTERNET FORUM. What happened in the 1980s doesn't exactly translate into Advocacy in 2014, times have changed, I think for the better. The past is still a guide, when you are competing with cars, you have to make transit as convenient as possible to use. developing 1,200 apartments on the lakefront combined with the existing attractions is a good reason to consider moving the waterfront line northward to increase ridership.

I'm not a mayor, but I am a urban planner. :?

In portland thye have done really short extension in response to new development in the city, it was made easier because the increased property value could be Assessed by the city and used to fund the extension, the philosophy was to build a transit first culture, to do that they needed to be responsive to where development was happening in the city, not to simply wait for it to happen. here is link to how these segment were funded.

And you sound like you want to build a rail line first, then find a way to justify it. Isn't that the story of the Waterfront line? they are still trying to find ways to justify it. The question is will the 2000 or so residents and millions of visitors be more likely to use the reroute than the current Route? as the Geis brothers build out thier office campus and the 1200 units of residential housing begin to bloom how many of those trips won't be captured because of the waterfront line is in the trench and has poor access to the lakefront? this isn't about finding ways to justify a 1 mile ($20-30 million route) but how to make sure we are not adding 2000 more parking spaces to the lakefront. Any hoo Routes 1/8 mile buffer current route 1/8 mile buffer Waterfront streetcar. Scranton zoom to connection with existing waterfront Line. Route plus 1/8 mile buffer around stops only .56 mile extension Plus 2 walk up stops. CRUDE drawing of potential street grid, roads in blue, Freight rail in Black, streetcar route in White.

In my current opinion (I'll change my mind in 5 minutes), if you're going to move the waterfront line from the trench and make it a streetcar, I'd rather see it moved up to Lakeside so it goes through downtown. Then you could have it turn back southward at either 13th or 17th and loop around to Huron and enter Tower City through the tunnel. http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/downtown-loop/

You sound like Joe Calabrese, "I am not chasing ridership" as an excuse for doing nothing. Transit First if a development isn't transit first it will become Car first. The Reasoning behind relocating the line is to provide a Transit first option for the users of the Lakefront and future developments on the lakefront, including the any potential development on Burke airport. I'd keep the west 3rd street station open for events where congestion would affect service or multi car trains would be required, (Browns games) Scranton peninsula: The idea to make a 1/2 mile extension to the Scranton peninsula and to lakefront is to help build true TOD development in both locations, this is back to the Future you build the transit line first and develop a neighborhood around it.

They would operate the same way buses would operate. That plan hasn't been finalized yet. there isn't enough space for dedicated lanes on Lorain before Denison without long the cycle track.

Yes, if it is shown to produce enough new ridership vs. keeping the existing route to justify the cost. That will not be difficult. how many people use the route between mini-lot and FEB anyway?

Yep that's Close to what I'm talking about. I think people would travel to Ohio city more than to downtown creating a route through Tremont and back to market square would be a unique opportunity, creating a one seat ride from the lakefront thru the flats, thru Tremont, and ending at market square, or crazy enough continuing to downtown via the DS bridge. The ugly truth about the waterfront line is that it really doesn't go downtown it goes around downtown. KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

From 30,000 feet up, I can see the potential for the conversion of the waterfront line into a standalone route, with a streetcar used as the primary connection from the Riverfront to the lakefront. With its southern terminus on the Scranton peninsula, which would be a half mile extension of the waterfront line south. this route would/could replace blue and green line trains from tower city. the route would have 1 train and run at 15-18 minute headways all day. cost would be ~1.3 million per year. Another option would be to move the waterfront line out of the trench and crate a 1 mile 2 way streetcar extension following west 3rd to Erie side Dr. with a terminus east of East 9th st near Burke Lakefront Airport. this would connect directly to the 1200 new apartments on Erieside, and provide ample value capture opportunities for the route. THE ISSUE IS HOW TO CONNECT to Tower City. from an operational perspective the Southern extension make it almost impossible to connect to Tower city in a smart way. an option is to remove connectivity to Tower city and build a transfer station on the viaduct for Rapid transit and a walkway from a Huron streetcar station to a station in the flats. either way creating a WYE in the flats for a Scranton peninsula route would be expensive to operate. I don't know, it would be difficult to support this route without direct connectivity to other transit routes (that includes buses). Ok, I've read your post 5 times and while it may be the head cold causing most of the confusion, I can't picture what you're talking about. I can see what you saying. Not at a PC right now will post some maps later. The typography is very interesting down there. Scranton peninsula development http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4043.0.html

From 30,000 feet up, I can see the potential for the conversion of the waterfront line into a standalone route, with a streetcar used as the primary connection from the Riverfront to the lakefront. With its southern terminus on the Scranton peninsula, which would be a half mile extension of the waterfront line south. this route would/could replace blue and green line trains from tower city. the route would have 1 train and run at 15-18 minute headways all day. cost would be ~1.3 million per year. Another option would be to move the waterfront line out of the trench and crate a 1 mile 2 way streetcar extension following west 3rd to Erie side Dr. with a terminus east of East 9th st near Burke Lakefront Airport. this would connect directly to the 1200 new apartments on Erieside, and provide ample value capture opportunities for the route. THE ISSUE IS HOW TO CONNECT to Tower City. from an operational perspective the Southern extension make it almost impossible to connect to Tower city in a smart way. an option is to remove connectivity to Tower city and build a transfer station on the viaduct for Rapid transit and a walkway from a Huron streetcar station to a station in the flats. either way creating a WYE in the flats for a Scranton peninsula route would be expensive to operate. I don't know, it would be difficult to support this route without direct connectivity to other transit routes (that includes buses).

Thanks! The Aloft was nice. Very sparse, modern decor. It's actually a lower-mid tier brand, but with a decidedly modern design aesthetic. The room was slightly small, but it worked for our needs. As a guest, you can either use the small hotel gym, or the EB gym downstairs, which is FANTASTIC. We went twice. People complain (online) about the train noise, but it didn't bother me or seem too noticeable. I will say that both nights, right after we'd climbed in bed and turned the lights off, trains went by that made the bed vibrate!! I'm not sure whether that says more about the building or the train! i loved the rooms At the Aloft, very moderns very comfortable, I would often sit in the window and look out at the lakefront and the River, it was gorgeous. the issue my wife had, (which means I had a problem) was the frequent ringing of the bells for the waterfront line, and to a lesser extent the rumble from the freight trains. I would like to see something done about the bells for the grade level crossing, do they "need" to be that loud? imagine if RTA had crossing gates with bells in Shaker Hts, how well would they respond to that?

Portland uses some TIF dollars to pay for operational expenses, which BTW are ~12 million per year, with ridership near 6 million. Questions I have are: why doesn't the city have a Department of Transportation? having so many divisions working on transportation project Stifles innovation and add needless complexity to transportation projects.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT. my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic. Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development. I have to disagree. What is the benefit of using the bridge? It would be extremely costly to build the streetcar ramps to get the trains down under the bridge and then back to the surface. And what for? Just to cross a relatively short span? Also the ramps are extremely ugly and take up a lot of space. The bridge could be useful if we were to build a complete subway system, but for a surface level system, detouring to under the bridge makes no sense other than being able to say "we used the bridge!" If it was cost effective, I'd use the lower level to avoid the intersections of Detroit and West 25th and Superior and Huron. eliminating those intersection can shave 2-4 minutes off of travel time to downtown, I was originally planning to avoid the lower level, but the delays on both ends of the bridge combined with difficulty locating stops make the lower level attractive. plus being able to operate at higher speeds for 1/2 mile is better for service. I don't know if I need to respond to this. generally we don't have a congestion issue in downtown Cleveland. I tried to place the route in the least congested road in downtown. Payne is the heart of Asiatown not Superior, I have asked development people and they agree there would be more potential development on Payne than on superior. Payne has more Potential to be Transformed into a pedestrian centered corridor than superior IMO. The spacing is better with St Clair, Payne and Euclid. Issues with Peak congestion on superior around the inner-belt Ramps Superior would have to be a Transit priority network would have to terminate in east Cleveland in order to maintain Ridership, that would be an extra 5 miles. in comparison to the 1 (St Clair) the 3 (superior) has less ridership roughly 80% the ridership of the 1. Payne as a Connector not transit priority means it would not have to run 24/7 it would not need to run at 10 min frequencies all day, and its operating costs would not be As high as a Higher intensity transit Corridor like Euclid is, and could be entirely funded within a Transportation Improvement District and TIF. I think choosing Payne over superior sounds strange at first but when you look at under utilized parcels Payne has more potential. Re-read what I said. I said Superior from EAST of Asiatown. I'm fine with a streetcar on Payne east from downtown to say, East 55th, then jog over northward to Superior and continue east. So east of East 55th the distance between east-west streetcar lines on St. Clair, Superior and Euclid would be pretty evenly spaced. Oh, I see. i don't know I kind like continuing out past east 55th to university circle Via Hough. taking the scenic route past the VA medical center by Wade Oval and terminating at a inter-modal station in little Italy.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT. my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic. Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development. I'd use the lower deck of the bridge but not take it underground into tower city, the streets are where the people are, I'm am curious where it would go after it enters tower city.... I'd bet you'd use the Huron subway right? which happens to bypass alot of downtown. and would cost alot more than what a surface route would and be less effectvie at driving development too. 2 options [*]you exit the Detroit Superior bridge on superior and have the option of taking the route east to public Square, south to the gateway district on prospect or north towards the Warehouse district on W6th street. [*]or you take it into tower city either go east on the CUT eastern approach, or spend hundreds of millions of dollars avoiding the East 4th entertainment district, in a subway with maybe 2-3 stops in downtown. Which one is most likely to succeed? If you wanted to expand the Streetcar system what option makes it the easiest to do so? how can you build a streetcar system which would cost 200 million dollars to get from west Blvd to west 6th and then add on an Additional 500-700 million dollars for a 1.5-2 mile subway that misses most of downtown? this is about being cheap this is about being effective. Basic comparison Cleveland Huron subway stops at tower City East 9th st east 14th east 18th downtown streetcar loop http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/downtown-loop/ stops at tower city west superior + west 6th st west St Clair + west 6th st Ontario + st Clair east 6th st + St Clair east 12th st + St Clair Superior + East 12th Chester + east 12th E 17th st + Chester E 18th st + Euclid E 14th st + Prospect East 9th + Prospect East 4th Street + prospect Huron Subway jobs within 1/4 mile (5 min walk) 33,987 jobs within 1/2 mile (10 min walk) 84,876 jobs within 3/4 mile (15 min walk) 97,318 Downtown Loop jobs within 1/4 mile (5 min walk) 79,790 jobs within 1/2 mile (10 min walk) 91,657 jobs within 3/4 mile (15 min walk) 99,436 From this basic analysis you see that streetcar loop would provide better access to jobs than a Huron subway would. It would directly connect those jobs to rapid Transit at tower City, and this loop would carry all of the Radial streetcar routes too. meaning that the 6 routes (Pearl, Lorain, Detroit, St Clair, Broadway, Kinsman/central) would feed into the loop much like the loop in Chicago and distribute riders throughout Downtown without a transfer. Travel time savings would be less than <7 mins for the subway, from Tower City to East 18th St. depending on congestion. but if you happen to have a job at Erieview that time savings is wiped out by a longer walk. simply put when the distances are this short speed becomes less important than convenience. This isn't about being cheap this about making smart decisions that can be built upon, not make decision that can lead to much tougher decisions down the line.

I made a chart a few months back that categorized line that ran <15 min headway. what you are asking for is a Frequency Map.

The U shaped route pays for itself. Payne is the heart of Asiatown not Superior, I have asked development people and they agree there would be more potential development on Payne than on superior. Payne has more Potential to be Transformed into a pedestrian centered corridor than superior IMO. The spacing is better with St Clair, Payne and Euclid. Issues with Peak congestion on superior around the inner-belt Ramps Superior would have to be a Transit priority network would have to terminate in east Cleveland in order to maintain Ridership, that would be an extra 5 miles. in comparison to the 1 (St Clair) the 3 (superior) has less ridership roughly 80% the ridership of the 1. Payne as a Connector not transit priority means it would not have to run 24/7 it would not need to run at 10 min frequencies all day, and its operating costs would not be As high as a Higher intensity transit Corridor like Euclid is, and could be entirely funded within a Transportation Improvement District and TIF. I think choosing Payne over superior sounds strange at first but when you look at under utilized parcels Payne has more potential. The 10 is a critical north south route that should be extended to independence. It would be my first choice for a non-radial streetcar. Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT. my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown I think you have a point about the connection from SS to UC, that would be best Accomplished thru an extension of the Blue line into UC. How to connect Coventry to UC is a different issue there is a large commute shed there with pockets of high density residential surrounded by low density residential. The funding model for streetcar is based on Value capture, or using the proceeds from property tax from new development surrounding these lines to fund those lines, whilw there is an opportunity for increased development within the Coventry area, I don't know how much development would be allowed to happen in the area. Would Cleveland Hts. allow or even if its possible for those high value low density neighborhoods to be converted into higher density neighborhoods? With the Blue Line extension you have Regional Transit interest with the need for access to UC from the Southeast of our Region, the same Argument cannot be made for a circulator from Coventry to UC as easily. Running a streetcar into Shaker Sq., an area served by the frequent high speed Blue/Green lines doesn't seem palatable to me... But it is weird that this densely populated significant apartment area has no 24-hour transit service. Once the Rapid and the 11 shut down, at around 12:30p, that's it until around 5a. Doesn't make a lot of sense. I think that there is demand for connectivity between UC and SS. understand that the type of rider who would never ride a bus route would ride a train to the same destination. Holistically, the opportunity for a streetcar to make transit more efficient must be weigh against the need to provide economic development, whatever happens the streetcar cannot hurt Bus Service, and provides a opportunity to redesign the entire transit system. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/basics-should-we-redesign-our-bus-network-and-how.html