Good catch, KJP[/member]. Very interesting. Yeah, the timing makes very little sense, but gives a ray of hope that something better might come out of this.

The design of the new 34th St. Station is absolutely horrible in every conceivable way.

The design of the new 34th St. Station is absolutely horrible in every conceivable way.

 

Elaborate

^I assume he's referring the early scheme KJP posted on the previous page of this thread, with the elaborate ramping system.

^ I know, but I'm just curious what is so "horrible" about it. It's not my ideal design for a station, but I don't think it's bad considering you have to make it ADA compliant with such a steep grade change all the while spending the smallest possible amount of money on it.

The design of the new 34th St. Station is absolutely horrible in every conceivable way.

 

Elaborate

 

1. You're forcing people to walk up/down a long hill which, itself, makes the street distant from trains. An elevator should be built right at the head of the platform at the bridge so the distance from the street-to-rail is closer.  (and who/what entity, what standard, etc. determined that putting an elevator here is not cost efficient where 2 just went in at Lee Road, and 2 are about to go in (a 2nd one that is) at E. 105 which, from my unscientific visual observation, is serving the same or even less than E. 34th currently at its current (agreed poor) location?

 

2. the hill is so long, you need to build "rest areas" for people.

 

3. You're forcing people to walk across the tracks of live rail in the busiest stretch of RTA rail, which will both slow rail (I've seen how slow it is at the present Brookpark temporary station where there's a similar grade crossing for heavy rail and where trains must wait for peds to cross -- and now we try this on a main trunk-line rail stretch serving 3 different lines) and make it semi dangerous for pedestrians.

 

4. Overall it just looks like a cheesy, cheap solution  -- something rail riders have come to expect from RTA from the beggars-can't-be-choosy playbook.

 

I'm sure there are other reasons I dislike this, and I'll share when they come to mind.

^ I know, but I'm just curious what is so "horrible" about it. It's not my ideal design for a station, but I don't think it's bad considering you have to make it ADA compliant with such a steep grade change all the while spending the smallest possible amount of money on it.

 

Stop right there.  This is the flawed type of thinking we get from RTA especially when it comes to the Rapid ... We know RTA's desire was to simply close this station (although of late, I've seen more and more people using it).  So instead, because of public outcry, RTA has elected to rebuild but in the cheapest way.  Now, in making it ADA compliant, they are rebuilding the station that will make it less convenient to the majority able body constituency, by forcing them to walk up and down a long hill (and crossing a live track) just to reach the trains... and oh, by the way, making the train line itself less efficient as trains must now slow down and/or stop for a passenger grade crossing. 

 

Yes, the station should have been moved to a better location, but RTA apparently was deaf to this (as it is to most expansions or improvements to rail).  Instead, they have created what I see as a lose-lose solution for everyone using rail... at the very least the East Side division of the Rapid. 

 

Put it another way C-H-E-A-P...

^ In theory, I don't disagree with you at all. But, considering the extremely low ridership of this station, I don't want them to be spending a huge amount of money for an elevator. It's not worth the cost in this case.

^ In theory, I don't disagree with you at all. But, considering the extremely low ridership of this station, I don't want them to be spending a huge amount of money for an elevator. It's not worth the cost in this case.

 

I disagree for a coupl reasons.  First as I noted, in not building an elevator, you're suddenly not only making it more inconvenient for those who do use the station who aren't disabled, you're making unsafe for them and inconvenient for those (like me) who use the line to-from downtown (and beyond) in having to slow and wait for those who cross the tracks.

 

Second, more people are using this station by the day... don't look at stats from a few years ago, look at usage today.  I think it's a by product of the fact that rail usage is going up (for a number of reasons-- including greater health of downtown/neighborhoods near rail and the closing of so many bus lines that are forcing more to use rail, etc...).  It seems more CCC students are using the station, despite its poor location...

^as the saying goes: RTA is robbing Peter to pay Paul; only in this case the robbing of Peter is far greater than the paying of Paul imho.

^ In theory, I don't disagree with you at all. But, considering the extremely low ridership of this station, I don't want them to be spending a huge amount of money for an elevator. It's not worth the cost in this case.

 

I disagree for a coupl reasons.  First as I noted, in not building an elevator, you're suddenly not only making it more inconvenient for those who do use the station who aren't disabled, you're making unsafe for them and inconvenient for those (like me) who use the line to-from downtown (and beyond) in having to slow and wait for those who cross the tracks.

 

Second, more people are using this station by the day... don't look at stats from a few years ago, look at usage today.  I think it's a by product of the fact that rail usage is going up (for a number of reasons-- including greater health of downtown/neighborhoods near rail and the closing of so many bus lines that are forcing more to use rail, etc...).  It seems more CCC students are using the station, despite its poor location...

 

I don't think it would be that big of an inconvenience to walk to the platform. And I just don't see how you can justify spending millions on an elevator that would barely ever be used. And I haven't seen any numbers to indicate that usage is up at this station. Ridership on the light rail is down and last I checked, Red Line ridership was slightly up, but barely (Edit: heavy rail was down 3.3% in the 1st quarter of 2016 compared to 2015 and light rail was down 5.9%).

I'd prefer the station to be relocated between the new Commercial Avenue/East 9th Extension and East 14th. At least it's next to a lot of blank-slate properties. If the Post Office's Carrier Unit were relocated eastward and south of Broadway, it would open a huge development site.

 

Possible new Justice Center site? 

^ In theory, I don't disagree with you at all. But, considering the extremely low ridership of this station, I don't want them to be spending a huge amount of money for an elevator. It's not worth the cost in this case.

 

I disagree for a coupl reasons.  First as I noted, in not building an elevator, you're suddenly not only making it more inconvenient for those who do use the station who aren't disabled, you're making unsafe for them and inconvenient for those (like me) who use the line to-from downtown (and beyond) in having to slow and wait for those who cross the tracks.

 

Second, more people are using this station by the day... don't look at stats from a few years ago, look at usage today.  I think it's a by product of the fact that rail usage is going up (for a number of reasons-- including greater health of downtown/neighborhoods near rail and the closing of so many bus lines that are forcing more to use rail, etc...).  It seems more CCC students are using the station, despite its poor location...

 

I don't think it would be that big of an inconvenience to walk to the platform. And I just don't see how you can justify spending millions on an elevator that would barely ever be used. And I haven't seen any numbers to indicate that usage is up at this station. Ridership on the light rail is down and last I checked, Red Line ridership was slightly up, but barely.

 

Really!?  You don't see the distance walking down this hill is as opposed to just walking down the current short flight of steps to reach the platform as a major time waster/inconvenience?  I'm not talking about overall ridership, I'm talking about ridership at this station; I would be shocked if it hasn't increased in the last year or so.  And why not spend money for the elevator?  You haven't addressed the fact that RTA has just built 2 at Lee Road and is about to install a 2nd at E. 105, which has ridership parallel, if not worse than E. 34... If you're building elevators there, why suddenly go on the cheap here?  Because you (RTA) are simply mad because grass-roots forces demanded you (RTA) not close the station as you (RTA) wanted to.  That seems pretty petty and silly to me.

 

Also this new design is a space-waster too... why build such a sprawling (silly looking station) that forces people to walk across live HRT and LRT tracks?  Suppose there is some kind of light industrial (or other) type of TOD that could be built on this hill.  By building a station in this way, you completely negate such development. 

 

 

TOD? Have you seen the location? It's a wasteland, and with hundreds of acres of vacant, cheaper, and arguably better land out there in Cleveland proper, this compromise saves the cash-strapped RTA a considerable sum of money in capital and operating expenses.

TOD? Have you seen the location? It's a wasteland, and with hundreds of acres of vacant, cheaper, and arguably better land out there in Cleveland proper, this compromise saves the cash-strapped RTA a considerable sum of money in capital and operating expenses.

 

That's why I said light industrial.  People feel the same way about the area in/around E. 79, Woodland and Buckeye, but some businesses have moved in the area and, supposedly because of the OC, more may come.

RTA did do an internal cost study of a station at East 14th/22nd, but I don't know what kind of station they studied. Was it a comparable station to what's being planned at East 34th (ie: with ramps from street level and an at-grade crossing between platforms) or was it a much more costly station involving the spreading of tracks to insert an island platform and an elevator/stairwell tower? If an apples-to-apples comparison wasn't conducted, I would like to know why.

I see RTA is well underway in its reconstruction of the sidewalk area under the RR bridge at its new UC-Little Italy station, which is a good thing.  The sidewalk is now closed and commuters must cross the street and use Mayfield Road's west sidewalk to walk under the bridge toward UC and Uptown.

 

I think RTA and/or UCI should move to get a lighted crosswalk (or even a traffic light) installed over Mayfield at the station.  Crossing Mayfield now without a stoplight or crosswalk at the new RTA station is hazardous enough now with the temporary sidewalk closure, but it will still be an issue even after the new sidewalk is installed since I noticed a bunch of rush hour commuters leaving the station and crossing Mayfield to the bus shelter in order to transfer to the #9 bus up the hill to Coventry, Severance and other Cleveland Heights/NE suburban areas.  Fortunately on Monday, for me coming from the station (and heading Uptown) and #9 commuters, Mayfield Road at rush hour is usually a parking lot (which is a beautiful thing in itself imho) so we were able to walk around the stopped cars, but still...

RTA is also completing structural repairs and have started painting their underpass on MLK by Case. It will have been repainted twice whereas the CSX/NS tracks (not sure who runs on it) hasn't been touched and is looking ratty.

CSX and NS have their own bridges and maintain them separately. CSX is the westernmost set of tracks with NS tracks between the CSX and RTA's tracks. There is actually a fourth right of way in between CSX and NS (two track spaces for Cleveland Union Terminal passenger trains) but those tracks were pulled in the late 1970s. Through University Circle/Little Italy, CSX owns much of the former CUT ROW under its New York Central Lines LLC subsidiary.

 

EDIT: here's some photos I shot of RTA's underpass work on Mayfield. Yes, there needs to be a pedestrian signal to cross Mayfield at the RTA station.

 

 

 

...I think RTA and/or UCI should move to get a lighted crosswalk (or even a traffic light) installed over Mayfield at the station.  ...

 

Completely agree. The request has been sent to the city's traffic engineering department

 

 

 

The only transit component of the Opportunity Corridor project:

 

East Design Review District

Agenda

(9:00a.m., Tuesday, October 25th, 2016)

Cornucopia Place, 7201 Kinsman Avenue

9:00a.m. 1. East 2016-024 – Opportunity Corridor Section 2 RTA Rapid Station Extension ©

Location: E. 105th Street and Quincy Avenue, Ward 6

Opportunity Corridor Design Review District

Proposed expansion of existing Rapid Transit Station. Project Representative:

Jason Fischer, The Great Lakes Construction Co.

^and that's only expanding the Quincy/E. 105 station's platform length to the normal length it should have been to begin with, so there's no real net-gain transit component to this highway project whatsoever.

^^This exposes yet another Opportunity Corridor lie.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR PHASE 2

E. 105th ‐ Quincy Station Expansion

Presented to: Planning & Development Committee

November 1, 2016

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-11-01E.105station.pdf

Greater Cleve RTA ‏@GCRTA  10m10 minutes ago

Warrensville Green Line Rapid Station Ribbon Cutting! @ShakerHeightsOH

I'm looking forward to the Brookpark station being done; I use that one most frequently.  As far as the new stations go, which one(s) were the most expensive to construct?  I would imagine the Brookpark station is up there as far as costing.

I'm looking forward to the Brookpark station being done; I use that one most frequently.  As far as the new stations go, which one(s) were the most expensive to construct?  I would imagine the Brookpark station is up there as far as costing.

 

Adjusted for inflation, it has to Triskett. I believe it was one of the factors that cost Ron Tober his job. Although when all of the track, bridge and station costs were included, Little Italy may have been the most expensive. That was also one of the most aggressive rail projects RTA has undertaken since the Waterfront Line. It was also one of its smartest.

GCRTA E-News - Dec. 1, 2016

 

Two pleasant holiday surprises for rail customers

 

On Nov. 22, officials from RTA and the City of Shaker Heights dedicated $1.8 million of upgrades to the Warrensville Station on the Green Line -- part of RTA's continuing effort to make all key rail stations ADA compliant. On Nov. 26, RTA re-opened the popular westbound Track 8 at the Tower City Station -- just in time for holiday crowds at Winterfest. The work is part of $8 million of track work to replace aging rail in the transit hub.

Nice. So that broken elevator is now out of service for good?

Nice. So that broken elevator is now out of service for good?

 

Don't understand

Nice. So that broken elevator is now out of service for good?

 

Don't understand

 

The elevator that serviced track 7, worked at best 50% of the time.  Now without a station to service it can be shut down for good, or hopefully fixed so that when the next set of tracks are replaced there it wont be such a pain point

Nice. So that broken elevator is now out of service for good?

 

Don't understand

 

The elevator that serviced track 7, worked at best 50% of the time.  Now without a station to service it can be shut down for good, or hopefully fixed so that when the next set of tracks are replaced there it wont be such a pain point

 

That temporary station will be reactivated for westbound trains when money is found to rebuild the eastbound station track. Then, eastbound trains will be detoured over the newly rebuilt westbound track during reconstruction of the eastbound track.

Nice. So that broken elevator is now out of service for good?

 

Don't understand

 

The elevator that serviced track 7, worked at best 50% of the time.  Now without a station to service it can be shut down for good, or hopefully fixed so that when the next set of tracks are replaced there it wont be such a pain point

 

That temporary station will be reactivated for westbound trains when money is found to rebuild the eastbound station track. Then, eastbound trains will be detoured over the newly rebuilt westbound track during reconstruction of the eastbound track.

 

Boy that'll be fun.  I guess when that happens, Waterfront Line service will suspended because there's no rail connection between the eastbound WFL track into TC and Track 8, right?  If not, I can't see WFL single tracking into Track 7 and the temporary station because there would be too much opposing westbound Red, Blue & Green service to allow eastbound WFL trains to share that one track and temp station platform.

 

Aren't there universal crossover tracks as the west throat of the station?

Aren't there universal crossover tracks as the west throat of the station?

 

Going strictly by recollection, it seems as though, upon entering Tower City, the eastbound Red Line track switches then veers away (to the right) from the Red Line's center TC terminal track and connects with the outer eastbound WFL track before the 2 lines/joint track  enters the TC platform.  I don't believe that interlocking has a connection that would allow eastbound WFL trains to switch all the way over to Track 8 to access the (normal) westbound platform.  ... again, I could be wrong.  TC track config anyone?

Aren't there universal crossover tracks as the west throat of the station?

 

Going strictly by recollection, it seems as though, upon entering Tower City, the eastbound Red Line track switches then veers away (to the right) from the Red Line's center TC terminal track and connects with the outer eastbound WFL track before the 2 lines/joint track  enters the TC platform.  I don't believe that interlocking has a connection that would allow eastbound WFL trains to switch all the way over to Track 8 to access the (normal) westbound platform.  ... again, I could be wrong.  TC track config anyone?

 

I couldn't find anything definitive, but what you can see on Google Maps satellite view of the tracks before they disappear under Tower City confirms what you are saying.

GoogleEarth from June 2016 shows the universal crossovers are on the Red Line west of where the Waterfront Line rises up to Tower City track level. So unless there's a second sect of crossovers under Tower City, east of the Waterfront Line's turnouts onto the Red Line (which I highly doubt), then a Waterfront Line train inbound to Tower City can't use the westbound station track (#8) unless the Waterfront Line runs as a single-track operation between Tower City and just west of West Third station where there are universal crossovers next to the Port of Cleveland.

GoogleEarth from June 2016 shows the universal crossovers are on the Red Line west of where the Waterfront Line rises up to Tower City track level. So unless there's a second sect of crossovers under Tower City, east of the Waterfront Line's turnouts onto the Red Line (which I highly doubt), then a Waterfront Line train inbound to Tower City can't use the westbound station track (#8) unless the Waterfront Line runs as a single-track operation between Tower City and just west of West Third station where there are universal crossovers next to the Port of Cleveland.

 

It could back down the red line track to use the crossover. :P

They'd probably have to single track the northbound chute. I doubt it'd be that bad with the frequency.

They'd probably have to single track the northbound chute. I doubt it'd be that bad with the frequency.

 

That would probably be possible, although they'd have to contend with westbound red line trains (at the crossover point) in addition to westbound waterfront line trains.

 

Although, looking on Google Maps satellite view, it seems as if the first opportunity to switch back on the Waterfront Line is just before the West 3rd station, so it would have to be single-tracked all the way from there (unless there's a crossover under the Detroit-Superior bridge that can't be seen).

They'd probably have to single track the northbound chute. I doubt it'd be that bad with the frequency.

 

That would probably be possible, although they'd have to contend with westbound red line trains (at the crossover point) in addition to westbound waterfront line trains.

 

Although, looking on Google Maps satellite view, it seems as if the first opportunity to switch back on the Waterfront Line is just before the West 3rd station, so it would have to be single-tracked all the way from there (unless there's a crossover under the Detroit-Superior bridge that can't be seen).

 

You are correct.  It's odd because on most rail lines where there's a branch line, there's usually a crossover just after the line branches off (ie both the Blue and Green Lines at/near Shaker Heights) for this reason.  Don't know why on the WFL they waited until near W. 3rd.

I see that, at the Red Line's Little Italy station, they've completed cleaning up and lighting the east walkway; now they're working on the west walkway which is now closed and jack-hammered.  The east walkway looks much better, although there was some slight water run off/pooling along the wall and sidewalk under the NS portion of the bridge following Monday night's heavy rains.  While improved, I wish they had emulated what was done at the Cedar-University station .5 miles away where they built a semi-enclosed, lighted walkway under the bridge so that, in terms of water dripping or concrete flaking from the Red Line's NS' bridge, pedestrians don't have to worry.  Any idea why this wasn't done at Little Italy?

I see that, at the Red Line's Little Italy station, they've completed cleaning up and lighting the east walkway; now they're working on the west walkway which is now closed and jack-hammered.  The east walkway looks much better, although there was some slight water run off/pooling along the wall and sidewalk under the NS portion of the bridge following Monday night's heavy rains.  While improved, I wish they had emulated what was done at the Cedar-University station .5 miles away where they built a semi-enclosed, lighted walkway under the bridge so that, in terms of water dripping or concrete flaking from the Red Line's NS' bridge, pedestrians don't have to worry.  Any idea why this wasn't done at Little Italy?

 

I don't have direct knowledge but it might have to do with clearance and access of the RR bridge ( don't know who the owner is). It's already low clearance and on top of that the sidewalk is raised.

 

If it was my bridge, especially one in such a condition, I'd want to be able to visually inspect the condition of the underside particularly at the ends. Just conjecture though.

I don't have direct knowledge but it might have to do with clearance and access of the RR bridge ( don't know who the owner is). It's already low clearance and on top of that the sidewalk is raised.

 

If it was my bridge, especially one in such a condition, I'd want to be able to visually inspect the condition of the underside particularly at the ends. Just conjecture though.

 

There are four railroad bridges over Mayfield. From the west, they are owned by:

 

CSX (DBA New York Central Lines LLC, ex-Conrail, ex-Penn Central, ex-New York Central/Cleveland Short Line RR)

CSX (ex-Conrail, ex-Cleveland Union Terminal RR)

Norfolk Southern (ex-Norfolk & Western, ex-Nickel Plate RR)

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (ex-Cleveland Transit System, ex-Cleveland Interurban RR)

I see that, at the Red Line's Little Italy station, they've completed cleaning up and lighting the east walkway; now they're working on the west walkway which is now closed and jack-hammered.  The east walkway looks much better, although there was some slight water run off/pooling along the wall and sidewalk under the NS portion of the bridge following Monday night's heavy rains.  While improved, I wish they had emulated what was done at the Cedar-University station .5 miles away where they built a semi-enclosed, lighted walkway under the bridge so that, in terms of water dripping or concrete flaking from the Red Line's NS' bridge, pedestrians don't have to worry.  Any idea why this wasn't done at Little Italy?

 

I don't have direct knowledge but it might have to do with clearance and access of the RR bridge ( don't know who the owner is). It's already low clearance and on top of that the sidewalk is raised.

 

Interesting point; I hadn't thought of that... you're right, there is lower clearance at L.I. plus the raised sidewalk as this is a duck-under type overpass (as you approach the underpass from either direction on Mayfield at a distance, the tracks appear level with the street), where as the tracks over Cedar Rd. are elevated over the street.

... btw, I also noticed wire conduits protruding from the embankment to the side of the bridge on the west-side ped approach, just under CSX tracks (per KJP's above RR key)... I'm hoping this conduit is for a future lighted RTA Rapid on the west side of the bridge.  When approaching the station from the west along Mayfield, you can see the lighted RTA logo on the station headhouse ... so long as there's no passing freight train along this busy corridor, which is often; thus such a sign is needed.

From an e-mail alert by the city....

 

Construction Update

April 25, 2017

 

Courtland Blvd. RTA Crossing Closed May 3-22

 

Reconstruction of the Courtland Boulevard crossing on the Green Line begins Wednesday, May 3 and ends Monday, May 22 (weather permitting). The work is part of  RTA’s continuing improvements to Rapid rail crossings in Shaker Heights.

 

Vehicular traffic across Shaker on Courtland will be prohibited for the entire 20 days.

 

Pedestrians can cross at temporary crossings just outside the construction area. The crossings will be marked with signs.

 

During construction, traffic on Shaker Boulevard will be reduced to one lane in each direction. Northbound traffic on Courtland will be detoured to Warrensville Center Road via Shaker. Southbound traffic on Courtland will be detoured to Eaton Road via Shaker.

 

Buses will replace trains on the weekends of May 6-7 and May 13-14 when around the clock work will require the rails to be shut down.

 

Please feel free to contact Matthew Zappitelli, Project Manager, at 440-813-6617, with any questions or concerns regarding the construction.

^Thanks for the update... Do you know why the Blue and Green Lines were closed this past weekend?  I didn't see any reason given by RTA (so what else is new?).

^Thanks for the update... Do you know why the Blue and Green Lines were closed this past weekend?  I didn't see any reason given by RTA (so what else is new?).

 

RTA posted on twitter and on their website they were doing a track and bridge project:

 

http://www.riderta.com/service-alerts/construction-work

edit - moved to service thread