December 14, 201113 yr Redirected from the general UC thread in projects/construction..... Anyone know what is the overall cost of the station? It wasn't in the article The last figure I saw was $9 million, but that didn't include some walkways, etc. And what's the projected date of completion? Probably two years, based on the other station projects. Might take a little less since an existing station doesn't have to be demolished to make way for the new station. The timeline for the East 55th station is probably a good indication since the station was built in a new location and then the old station could be demolished. Problem is, I don't remember the timeline of the East 55th station.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 14, 201113 yr I hope the design looks more like the one you posted, KJP, and not the one from the article. I hate the big green areas RTA is using in their design (such as the UC station design). Are they supposed to be "faux-grass" surfaces (even the vertical ones) or something?
December 14, 201113 yr I hope the design looks more like the one you posted, KJP, and not the one from the article. I hate the big green areas RTA is using in their design (such as the UC station design). Are they supposed to be "faux-grass" surfaces (even the vertical ones) or something? The big green areas in the rendering was a design concept RTA planners were pushing to create a plaza-like setting above the tracks without providing any detail of features (ie: benches, landscaping, public art, etc) to include on the plaza. Ultimately, the overhead plaza proved to be too expensive and no funding support was available. But I credit RTA planners for thinking creatively to push the design envelope and encourage others to think creatively. My hope is that this station will have two station platforms (and thus, two elevators and two stairwells) rather than having to spread apart the existing Red Line tracks to fit a single-platform station in between. I'm not sure which would cost more, however. But spreading Red Line tracks would certainly add more time to the construction period. Perhaps Jerry can add more cost, timeline, design features, etc. details on this project. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 14, 201113 yr The big green areas in the rendering was a design concept RTA planners were pushing to create a plaza-like setting above the tracks without providing any detail of features (ie: benches, landscaping, public art, etc) to include on the plaza. Ultimately, the overhead plaza proved to be too expensive and no funding support was available. But I credit RTA planners for thinking creatively to push the design envelope and encourage others to think creatively. I'm glad they're thinking creatively, too. But I was hoping this wouldn't become the new fad. The UC station design incorporates a "grass roof" sort of idea, and I think it looks awful (in the renderings at least).
December 14, 201113 yr I'm glad they're thinking creatively, too. But I was hoping this wouldn't become the new fad. The UC station design incorporates a "grass roof" sort of idea, and I think it looks awful (in the renderings at least). Here's a 150-page masterplan for the station-area development.... http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/e120/GCRTA%20Little%20Italy%20E120th%20Station%20Master%20Plan.pdf Below is what they had in mind with the overhead plaza (the "Bridge Park"), but it's been hard enough just to get the $9 million for the basic station. I'd like to learn more about the final station cost, and what the $12 million in awarded funds will buy.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 14, 201113 yr I'm glad they're thinking creatively, too. But I was hoping this wouldn't become the new fad. The UC station design incorporates a "grass roof" sort of idea, and I think it looks awful (in the renderings at least). Here's a 150-page masterplan for the station-area development.... I was talking about the Cedar Rd. station (UC station) design. I'm aware of the grassy plaza design for the LI station (where's it's actually usable, not a "roof").
December 14, 201113 yr A press release with more details may be posted later today at www.rideRTA.com. We are working to finalize the finances, and hope to start construction in late 2012. That's all I know for now. I will post the release as soon as I can.
December 14, 201113 yr I was talking about the Cedar Rd. station (UC station) design. I'm aware of the grassy plaza design for the LI station (where's it's actually usable, not a "roof"). Yes, understood. Except I was responding more to the first part of your statement and then took the opportunity to add a link to a plan that many of us either have not seen or may have forgotten was conducted, since the hot news of the day is the UC-Little Italy station. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 14, 201113 yr $12.5 million grant announced for Mayfield Station CLEVELAND - The holidays have come early for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), with the award of a $12.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, via the Federal Transit Administration. RTA officials were informed today of the award, under the TIGER III program, as part of their grant funding program for National Infrastructure Investments. TIGER stands for: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. The money is designated for the Mayfield Road Red Line Rapid Transit Station, which will replace the current station at East 120th Street Station and Euclid Avenue on the Red Line. The new station will be several blocks away, and closer to Little Italy. The entire cost of the project is $17.5 million, which includes the design, construction of the station and rehabilitating two transit track bridges. The design is now 30 percent complete. RTA hopes to begin construction on this station in late 2012. Last year, RTA received a TIGER II grant for $10.5 million, which completed funding needed for the University Circle station.
December 14, 201113 yr Does RTA have the other $5 million? Are those or will they be non-federal funds? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 15, 201113 yr This article: Cleveland Turns Uptown into New Downtown: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/realestate/commercial/cleveland-ignites-job-growth-with-rebuilding-project.html?_r=1 States the following: "To get residents and visitors to and from the arts district, the Regional Transit Authority is planning to move two existing rail stops on the city’s 19-mile Red Line closer to Uptown" Is a station in addition to E 120 being moved? Or is this an error?
December 15, 201113 yr ^seems to be an error...what other station would be moved and why? Just need one station to serve uptown. More correctly, the two UC stations are being renovated (with 120 being moved to Mayfield...really not that great a distance)
December 15, 201113 yr wait...the price tag is now $17.5 million (up from $9 million in 2010)? Why the major jump? What major design feature changed?? And i have the same question as KJP...where will the other $5 million come from? Side note: updated the wiki page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_%E2%80%93_East_120th_%28RTA_Rapid_Transit_station%29
December 15, 201113 yr Keep in mind that the station itself was previously projected to cost $9.1 million, including rehabbing the RTA bridge over Mayfield. There were extras including a rehab of the easternmost railroad bridge over Mayfield Road into a pedestrian plaza-type link to Tony Brush Park, etc. It may also include an overhead walkway to a parking deck and ancillary development just west of the station (shown on some of the graphics I've shared). Adding those would certainly increase the cost, but other than rehabbing the railroad bridge over Mayfield Road as a pedestrian plaza (which I can't see costing more than a couple million bucks), I don't know for certain what these non-station add-ons are. EDIT: I see from this presentation (albeit it's three years old: http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2008-07-01-MayfieldStation.pdf) that the original $9 million estimate included $7.5 million for the station itself and $1.5 million for rehabbing the RTA bridge over Mayfield. So we have $8.5 million added in for something more, which I think has to be for rehabbing the railroad bridge and constructing an overhead walkway to CIA and/or the proposed Lot 45 parking garage. So it seems the station construction costs are now covered by the USDOT grant, and even a little bit of something extra. It isn't for inflation because prices aren't rising. EDIT2: the $17.5 million doesn't include the parking deck for the Lot 45 development on the west side of the station, as the 1,000-space parking deck alone is projected to cost $22 million (SOURCE: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/03/university_circle_inc_unveils.html). "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 15, 201113 yr From Senator Brown who pushed hard for this project...... Brown Announces New Federal Resources to Relocate and Construct Mayfield Road Transit Station Project Will Further Economic Development of Cleveland’s University Circle Neighborhood December 14, 2011 WASHINGTON, D.C. – New federal resources have been awarded for a public transit infrastructure project in Cleveland. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today announced that a grant, allocated through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER III) program, will be used to relocate and construct the Mayfield Road Transit station under the 82-year-old Mayfield Road Bridge. “A strong public transportation system is critical to a creating a vibrant local economy. University Circle is central to Cleveland’s economic revitalization,” Brown said. “Increased public transportation options will only further boost University Circle’s attractiveness to small business owners, young people, and homeowners. This important federal investment will help improve the quality of life for University Circle residents and add to the appeal of Greater Cleveland.” DOT National Infrastructure Investments, or TIGER III Discretionary Grants, are used to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects throughout the United States. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) was awarded a $12,503,200 capital grant for the Mayfield Road Bridge project. This project is expected to provide access to the emerging Uptown development and the new Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in University Circle. In October, Brown announced an additional $10.5 million in federal funds, provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for the University Circle RTA station. Those funds, awarded through the highly competitive Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II grant program, will be used to upgrade and reconstruct the station. In 2010, RTA owned 85 bridges, employed 2,115 people, and provided more than 44.7 million passenger trips. ### "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 15, 201113 yr Great news... Mayfield/Little Italy is where the station should have always been -- finally, some 58 years later, a major CTS bungle will be corrected... RTA's detailed, 150 plan/report was excellent; kudos to them for excellent planning ... I must agree, though, $17.5 for a single Rapid station seems a bit steep.
December 15, 201113 yr I found some answers but raised new questions...... This document (http://www.noaca.org/2011RTAprojdes.pdf) says: Mayfield Road Rail Station Rehabilitation – This project involves reconstruction of the E. 120th Street Rail Station and the Mayfield Bridge. The station will be moved to Mayfield Road. The station will include ADA accessibility and green technology. This project is for the construction phase of the project. Earmark funds to partially fund the construction are programmed in 2011 to support the construction phase. And this document (http://www.noaca.org/2011RTAGrantProg.pdf) says: GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY FFY 2011 GRANT PROGRAM ALI # PROJECT & TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET FEDERAL LOCAL Section 5309 Rail Formula (OH-05-XXXX) 12.31.02 Mayfield Station Rehabilitation Design $150,000 $120,000 $30,000 12.76.91 Mayfield Station Rehabilitation Land Acquisition $100,000 $ 80,000 $20,000 Section 5309 Bus & Bus Facilities Earmarks 12.33.02 Mayfield Station Rehabilitation Construction T-648 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 And this document (http://www.noaca.org/GCRTA2012GrantProgram.pdf) says: GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY FFY 2012 GRANT PROGRAM ALI # PROJECT & TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET FEDERAL LOCAL Section 5309 Rail Grant (OH-05-0103) Revisions Mayfield Station Rehabilitation Design T-2282 $200,000 $160,000 $40,000 So this project already had $2.5 million earmarked for construction. Then there's $100,000 for land acquisition. And the design costs noted above ($350,000) are partial, because I've seen numerous reports that GCRTA awarded $1.1 million in 2008 for the architectural design and engineering of the Mayfield Station to City Architecture et al. So we're probably talking several million dollars or more are already in hand and/or already spent. Right? Then, Page 184 of this document (http://www.noaca.org/sfy20122015tip.pdf) says: Project 90104 for GCRTA is Rehabilitation of Mayfield Road Track Bridge with total local and federal funding committed (projected as needed?) for 2013 at: $2,180,100 And Page 190 of the same document shows the station as a separate project (which can always be combined under a same federal grant): Project 90171 for GCRTA is Mayfield Rd. Rapid Transit Station Reconstruction with total local and federal funding committed (projected as needed?) for 2013 at: $9,595,000 So the NOACA TIP shows that $11,775,100 is needed for the combined bridge and station project. As for where the money is to be spent, GCRTA's 2010-2014 capital improvement program (http://www.riderta.com/pdf/budget/2010/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf) shows these amounts: Mayfield Road HRV Station $10,506,250 Track Bridge Rehabilitation - Mayfield Road $ 1,882,500 TOTAL $12,388,750 I understand the small discrepancy between NOACA's TIP amount of $11,775,100 and GCRTA's capital program amount of $12,388,750. This $613,650 difference can be accounted for by including soft costs like design changes, land acquisition, engineering, etc. But what I can't account for is the more than $5,000,000 in additional station project costs that brings this to $17.5 million. I can't find any document on the Internet that suggests federally compliant planning (which requires public review and input of plans) for anything that would bump up the cost of the project so much. Maybe it's for enhancing the underside of the bridges, a contribution to building the parking deck, a multi-modal station add-on at the Lot 45 TOD project? Something else? What? What is this extra $5+ million for? Help me understand this. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 15, 201113 yr Does RTA have the other $5 million? Are those or will they be non-federal funds? As I said before, we are working to finalize all the financial aspects. Construction won't start until we do. Any comments as to the source of the funding (federal vs non-federal) would only be speculation at this point.
December 15, 201113 yr As I said before, we are working to finalize all the financial aspects. Construction won't start until we do. Any comments as to the source of the funding (federal vs non-federal) would only be speculation at this point. Thanks for your reply. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 16, 201113 yr Re the Mayfield RTA station relocation: --- Will RTA re-route the Health Line (via Mayfield & E.119) to the new stop? Might make sense given the expanded, more transit-friendly development E. Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton is building/planning along Euclid.
December 16, 201113 yr Re the Mayfield RTA station relocation: Will RTA re-route the Health Line (via Mayfield & E.119) to the new stop? Might make sense given the expanded, more transit-friendly development E. Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton is building/planning along Euclid. Excuse my good-natured chuckle at your question. The house has not been even built yet, and you are asking if you can park your car in the driveway. First things first, but thanks for asking.
December 16, 201113 yr Excuse my good-natured chuckle at your question. The house has not been even built yet, and you are asking if you can park your car in the driveway. First things first, but thanks for asking. Jerry, The reason why it makes sense to ask those questions now, to continue your metaphor, is to ensure the house is designed in such a way to accommodate the extra car. In fact, I am aware that University Circle Inc. considers it a high priority for include a place for buses to stop on the west side of the new Mayfield station. UCI hasn't said anything about HealthLine buses, but they are suggesting that there be an off-street layover/pullover location for buses with a waiting area for connecting passengers. You can see it identified on one of the aerials I posted earlier in this thread. If not, I'll find a better image. So stop laughing! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 16, 201113 yr Yea KJP, you want to ask the question after they sell off the only place that you could possibly put the Bus layover/shelter to a parking lot owner. Build the whole new lashup..... Then they have to buy it back at 8X the cost after they realize they need it back.
December 16, 201113 yr Re the Mayfield RTA station relocation: --- Will RTA re-route the Health Line (via Mayfield & E.119) to the new stop? Might make sense given the expanded, more transit-friendly development E. Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton is building/planning along Euclid. Not meaning to split hairs on this, since I think it's a great project, but to say that Mayor Norton is building, or even planning, it is a misrepresentation: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/university_circle_reaches_into.html
December 17, 201113 yr Re the Mayfield RTA station relocation: --- Will RTA re-route the Health Line (via Mayfield & E.119) to the new stop? Might make sense given the expanded, more transit-friendly development E. Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton is building/planning along Euclid. Not meaning to split hairs on this, since I think it's a great project, but to say that Mayor Norton is building, or even planning, it is a misrepresentation: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/university_circle_reaches_into.html You're correct, the loft building rising near Euclid-Lakeview was a UCI influenced project. ... However, Norton clearly has extensive plans, and is moving forward with massive land clearing -- as in, tear down dilapidated/nuisance property, near this site as well to greater enhance East Cleveland as a gateway to UC Uptown. Hey, the fact this guy isn't corrupt, in jail (or all over the net wearing women's panties) is a step up for an EC mayor... But to be fair, Norton comes in better qualified (CSU Urban Planning degree and work with the County Commissioners <-- yeah, cue the jokes), and actually has serious plans to begin to rescue/bring back his troubled community to which I say: Hats Off! ... and yes, he actually sees direct, center city service on Ohio's only heavy rail transit line as an asset.
December 17, 201113 yr Agree about Norton being a big improvement... but the HealthLine doesn't need any more stops. If anything I'd remove a few.
December 17, 201113 yr More fun with math: in order for GCRTA to receive this $12.5 million federal funding award (which requires a 20 percent local match), GCRTA will have to come up with $3.125 million in local funds. As stated previously, GCRTA has a $2 million earmark from the Federal Transit Administration's Sec. 5309 bus facilities account for the Mayfield station, which it leveraged with a 20 percent local match -- or $500,000. According to my math, that's $18.125 million. Not $17.5 million. Point is, this station project is going to involve a lot more than just the station and two bridges over Mayfield, whose most recent combined estimated cost was $12.4 million. And most of those additional investments involve the Lot 45 TOD on the west side of the station, which this funding will certainly help to instigate. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 18, 201113 yr Followup ... to answer my own question, sort of, I checked into RTA's 150p planning report for the E. 120 Red Line station relocation and it stated clearly that bus routes (like the Health Line) were a couple blocks from the planned Mayfield stating and that there were NO PLANS to reroute any of these lines into the station. Perhaps this could change, but I wouldn't count on it. ESCALATORS. More disturbingly, I checked the report (and did word searches, that turned up futile) for escalators. I found references to elevators, but not escalators. Also, looking at the artist's rendering, you can see only steps up from street level to the platforms... Not good. Whatever the final station expense is, there really needs to be up escalators (preferably up-down ones,... but I'll take just the up)... I know they are expensive and a pain in the ass to maintain (they breakdown often), but they are necessary for high-volume stations -- and this relocated station will likely have a significant ridership bump over the old one -- more likely because it'll be modern and safe seeming more so than its relocation a couple hundred yards... I sure hope RTA doesn't make the mistake of the new W. 150, where they actually did not install an escalator in a high-volumne stop that previously had one -- that should not have happened. RTA stations often cause many non-disabled riders to use the ADA-compliant elevators, which are not a great substitute for escalators... Technically, this may be illegal (I'm not certain, but it may be). SIDE (escalator) NOTE: someone has posted, on flickr, recent photos of stations on the soon-to-open Pittsburgh LRT North Shore Connector tunnel/el extension -- at the North Shore terminal, there are BOTH UP AND DOWN escalators at the station. BOTTOM LINE: RTA needs to moderate its expenses on the frilly stuff for the new Mayfield station (expensive art work, overhead gardens/park (which I believe is now dropped) and the like), and focus on the basics: providing a safe, warm (as in temp controlled), comfortable, easy-to-navigate, reasonably pleasurable experience -- it's a rapid transit station, folks, not a branch of the Cleve Mus. of Art. Part of that comfort is quick ease of movement from one level to another... solution: build escalators...period.
December 18, 201113 yr Followup ... to answer my own question, sort of, I checked into RTA's 150p planning report for the E. 120 Red Line station relocation and it stated clearly that bus routes (like the Health Line) were a couple blocks from the planned Mayfield stating and that there were NO PLANS to reroute any of these lines into the station. Perhaps this could change, but I wouldn't count on it. ESCALATORS. More disturbingly, I checked the report (and did word searches, that turned up futile) for escalators. I found references to elevators, but not escalators. Also, looking at the artist's rendering, you can see only steps up from street level to the platforms... Not good. Whatever the final station expense is, there really needs to be up escalators (preferably up-down ones,... but I'll take just the up)... I know they are expensive and a pain in the ass to maintain (they breakdown often), but they are necessary for high-volume stations -- and this relocated station will likely have a significant ridership bump over the old one -- more likely because it'll be modern and safe seeming more so than its relocation a couple hundred yards... I sure hope RTA doesn't make the mistake of the new W. 150, where they actually did not install an escalator in a high-volumne stop that previously had one -- that should not have happened. RTA stations often cause many non-disabled riders to use the ADA-compliant elevators, which are not a great substitute for escalators... Technically, this may be illegal (I'm not certain, but it may be). SIDE (escalator) NOTE: someone has posted, on flickr, recent photos of stations on the soon-to-open Pittsburgh LRT North Shore Connector tunnel/el extension -- at the North Shore terminal, there are BOTH UP AND DOWN escalators at the station. BOTTOM LINE: RTA needs to moderate its expenses on the frilly stuff for the new Mayfield station (expensive art work, overhead gardens/park (which I believe is now dropped) and the like), and focus on the basics: providing a safe, warm (as in temp controlled), comfortable, easy-to-navigate, reasonably pleasurable experience -- it's a rapid transit station, folks, not a branch of the Cleve Mus. of Art. Part of that comfort is quick ease of movement from one level to another... solution: build escalators...period. ESCALATORS, ESCALATORS, ESCALATORS!
December 18, 201113 yr BOTTOM LINE: RTA needs to moderate its expenses on the frilly stuff for the new Mayfield station (expensive art work, overhead gardens/park (which I believe is now dropped) and the like), and focus on the basics: providing a safe, warm (as in temp controlled), comfortable, easy-to-navigate, reasonably pleasurable experience -- it's a rapid transit station, folks, not a branch of the Cleve Mus. of Art. As long as there is federal funding available for improving the visual appearance of stations with public art, transit agencies are going to apply for it (http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/about_FTA_10642.html). And there is considerable interest in the Greater Cleveland area in stimulating the "art economy" here. Remember that a majority of us voted for a county-wide art tax in 2006. Transit is seen as one way to support the visual arts. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 19, 201113 yr ^Good point about the art, and RTA's station artwork has generally been very tasteful and of high quality... ... still hope they put in escalators at Mayfield, though.
December 21, 201113 yr Continuing my never-ending quest to figure out what GCRTA might use the $5+ million for (after the bridges over Mayfield are rebuilt and the station is built), I am getting closer to believing that this could/would/should go to building access streets for the Lot 45 Transit-Oriented Development. The streets (extending Circle Drive and East 115th) are essential for provision of the intermodal transit hub, for which $2.5 million in local/state bus transit funding for the Mayfield Station could be used. I came to that presumptuous conclusion after reading through this document.... UPTOWN DISTRICT CLEVELAND, OHIO A TRANSPORTATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OCTOBER 2010 http://www.noaca.org/uptowntlci.pdf In this document, it shows that the street infrastructure for this area is projected to cost $4,765,000. Now why would GCRTA build streets? For the same reason it extended East 17th Street from Euclid to Prospect as part of the Euclid Corridor project -- it was deemed as needed for better vehicular circulation and economic development surrounding a major new transit facility. The same might be said for the new streets as part of the Lot 45 TOD and Mayfield Station, especially if GCRTA buses (ie: the #9, the #48 or the CircleLink) are to be routed through an extended Circle Drive/East 115th. But since there is no apparent agreement yet between GCRTA, UCI and a Lot 45 TOD developer, it would be even more presumptuous for any of these parties to suggest that this is where the additional $5 million for the Mayfield Station project would be spent. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 22, 201113 yr I love that graphic. Imagine what a huge difference that will make to that area. Were about 1/4 ways done!
December 22, 201113 yr Thanks! Although I didn't do the CAD work, the graphic was spread across two pages of the TLCI report with a margin between them. So I rejoined them and added labels to the graphic before posting it here. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 14, 201213 yr Proposed Lee-Van Aken station reconstruction, including new headhouse: This is the existing, 1980-built bubble-glass roofed station on Lee. This view looks east: Lee-Van Aken station in Shaker Heights in 1978, about one year before the current station (and all other light rail stations, tracks and electric power supply for trains) saw replacement. This view also looks east: Question -- I wasn't aware GCRTA received federal funding for this? And why the temporary station? I thought the reconstructed station was to be built on the east side of Lee (see top graphic), thus allowing the existing station to operate normally throughout the construction period? Or was this project scaled back from that earlier proposal so it could be funded without tapping federal funds? http://www.riderta.com/bc_contractopps_SolicitationsDetail.ASP?listingid=1118 Solicitation #: 2012-003 Title: Lee/Van Aken Station Reconstruction Issued: 1/9/2011 Description: The project consists of a total reconstruction of the GCRTA train station on the light rail Blue Line at the intersection of Lee road and Van Aken Boulevard in Shaker Heights. Included in the project are: 1. Temporary station for maintaining regular train service during the station reconstruction. 2. Selective demolition of the existing station and platform to permit utilizing part of the foundations and retaining walls. 3. Construction of a new station, with elevators, enclosed stairways, ADA loading platforms, new platforms, and information and security infrastructures. 4. Provisions for maintaining road traffic on impacted city streets. 5. Replacement of trackwork and other related items if Alternate No. 1 is selected to be part of the contract. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 14, 201213 yr Also.... http://www.riderta.com/bc_contractopps_SolicitationsDetail.ASP?listingid=1102 Solicitation #: 2011-165 Title: Airport Ventilation Improvements Issued: 11/28/2011 Description: The existing Airport Station ventilation system is being updated to meet current code requirements. A new Fan House will be added to support a new emergency exhaust/supply fan for the station lobby. Two (2) existing exhaust/supply fans are not fire rated and will be replaced with new units. The existing ductwork in the tunnel is to be removed and capped and an air sampling fire alarm system will be installed throughout the existing tunnel and will tie-into the existing Allen-Bradley controls panel. Addendum No. 1 has been issued. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 15, 201213 yr KJP, since you are the resident rail expert, I have some questions: What neighborhoods in Cleveland could practically be linked via a rail system? I would like to see all of our major neighborhoods at least be able to get downtown via rail. I would love to see a line that links Shaker Square to University Circle/Little Italy to downtown to Ohio City and/or Tremont to the Kamms Corners/West Park area to the airport. I just think that it could strengthen our neighborhoods so much if there was a line that took you to almost every hot spot in the city. Increasing the access to these neighborhoods make it easier for others to get to it, in my opinion. How practical is that? Are we going to get a rail extension into Euclid or are we looking at a Healthline extension, in your opinion? And, with either one, do you think there'd be a stop in Collinwood? If its rail, I'd assume that there'd be a way to do it via Collinwood Yards but, again, I don't know the technical specifications of that. Do you think that the West Shore commuter rail and a downtown stop of the Cuyahoga Scenic Railroad is going to happen? And if so, how long are we looking at until we get it? And finally, I don't know if you've answered this question before and forgive me if you have, but is there any way to get a rail extension out to Chagrin Highlands? Again, I'm ignorant of the details. I would like to see Chagrin Highlands become more integrated with the city transportation system, even though its outside of Cleveland's borders, its still ours, for the most part. I think we have a pretty good public transportation system, but not as good as it should be in terms of connecting the individual city neighborhoods with each other. I'm not a greenie, but I want to be able to choose whether I use my car, just because I don't feel like driving all of the time. I just would like to know how possible is it to better connect the neighborhoods in the city via rail? Thanks
January 15, 201213 yr I'll try to live up to your expectations! Here's what I would do first... Add a funding mechanism comprised of these two value-capture components: > establish a value-capture district (such as through tax-increment financing, special assessments, etc.) within a defined area surrounding all existing and future rail and BRT stations, then have a portion of the increased income taxes, property taxes and/or special assessment pay for transit capital or operating costs, as well as for financing station-area development, station-area security, and upkeep. But I would feel more comfortable if the station-area real estate development was handled by someone with more experience like a port authority. Such districts are created by the municipalities in which stations are located. > A business-added tax increment. Require RTA to give a percentage (20 percent?) of its contracts to companies which have a significant number of its employees working at facilities located in Cuyahoga County. Then have those businesses provide a portion of their state corporate franchise taxes to the transit authority for capital projects planning, capital improvements and maintenance. That portion of corporate franchise taxes would be equal to the transit agency's revenue-to-cost ratio. So if the transit agency covered 20 percent of its operating costs from internally generated revenues (fares, advertising, etc), then it would get 20 percent of the corporate franchise taxes from transit agency contractors having a significant presence in the agency's county. If the transit agency covered 50 percent of its operating costs from revenues, then it would 50 percent of the corporate franchise taxes. This should apply to all transit agencies in Ohio, but would probably work best in Ohio's largest, most urban counties. With this additional funding mechanism, we can dream a little more about future expansions. Red Line or HealthLine extension to Euclid? I think this could work as a rail extension, depending on if the commuting from the northeast part of Cuyahoga County and Lake County to downtown Cleveland and to University Circle is substantial enough and that rail would be able to grab a significant portion of it, such as 10 to 20 percent. It might work as an extension of the HealthLine, but I think the HealthLine is too slow for it to be extended into such a long route. And RTA already has a problem keeping a reliable service on the existing, shorter HealthLine route without the bunching-up of buses. A longer route would likely cause this to worsen, such as what happened when the busy #3 route (Superior) and the busy #26 (Detroit) were combined as the 326. If anything happens here, I think this will be a Red Line extension if the projected ridership numbers justify what will likely be a large capital expense. I would love to see a line that links Shaker Square to University Circle/Little Italy to downtown to Ohio City and/or Tremont to the Kamms Corners/West Park area to the airport. Most of what you've listed there is already connected by rail. But if you want a more seamless rail system, then we need to replace the two rail fleets (low-platform, light-rail Breda cars; high-platform, heavy-rail Tokyu cars) with a single type of train with high and low floors that meets ADA requirements so it can serve all stations on all lines. That way, trains on one of the Shaker lines can run through to the airport. Or, if the Blue Line was extended to North Randall and a curving track connection was built east of East 55th, some trains could operate from North Randall, through Shaker Square, through University Circle, through Windermere, and to Euclid. However, I'm hearing RTA may go with a bus circulator than an extension of the Blue Line. If that's the case, then I would extend half of the HealthLine buses up Fairhill to Shaker Square. Will WestShore happen? Not until Lorain County has a dedicated source of transit funding, like a countywide sales tax. All of Cuyahoga's collar counties have dedicated transit funding except two -- Geauga County (100,000 people) and Lorain County (300,000 people). Pretty sad for them. So get out there and support the Lorain County Transit Coalition! Contact Virginia Haynes at LCCA http://www.lccommunityalliance.com/ If you want rail transit in the WestShore in less than 12 years (as per WestShore Corridor Transportation Project Alternatives Analysis) relatively soon, then extend a single-track (with passing sidings) branch of the Red Line west from the West Boulevard station to downtown Lakewood first, then farther west such as to the McDonald's on Sloane that will be demolished -- turn it into a park-n-ride! But I don't see this happening as long as Lorain County Transit Coalition has a pulse, and since RTA is already putting millions into the Clifton corridor for faster buses. Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad... With federal budget cuts affecting the National Park Service, CVSR's subsidy is probably going to get cut too. That means less money for the existing service, let alone expansions. An out might be if some philanthropist antes up $20 million for track improvements and stations, and provides an endowment generating hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for operating subsidies to sustain a Cleveland extension. Rail to Highland Hills? Not a good idea. The land uses are too dispersed there to support high-density transit. Fifteen years ago, GCRTA asked the Jacobs Group to support a transit-oriented development vision for the Chagrin Highlands if it extended the Blue Line there. Jacobs didn't support having higher-density development patterns, so GCRTA nixed the Blue Line extension to Chagrin Highlands. Sorry, to have such mixed news. I'd love to offer you more good news, but I think the key is for us to improve the rail system we do have and provide more transit-supportive land uses around it. We have a 31-mile rail system that attracts about 8 million rides per year. That's about 21,000 riders per day, or one-third of what the rapid transit system carried at its peak in 1960. We need to provide more traffic generators at points of origins (housing) and destinations (employers, schools, retailers, health care, etc) surrounding Rapid stations as much as we need to extend the Rapid system. And if we really want to expand the Rapid system, then use business activity resulting from it to help finance it so it creates a feedback loop. And if you believe strongly in improved transit, join All Aboard Ohio at allaboardohio.org -- we'd love to have you on board! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 17, 201213 yr Proposed Lee-Van Aken station reconstruction, including new headhouse on the east side of Lee: This is the existing, 1980-built bubble-glass roofed station on the west side of Lee. This view looks east: Lee-Van Aken station in Shaker Heights in 1978, about one year before the current station (and all other light rail stations, tracks and electric power supply for trains) saw replacement. This view also looks east: Question -- I wasn't aware GCRTA received federal funding for this? And why the temporary station? I thought the reconstructed station was to be built on the east side of Lee (see top graphic), thus allowing the existing station to operate normally throughout the construction period? Or was this project scaled back from that earlier proposal so it could be funded without tapping federal funds? http://www.riderta.com/bc_contractopps_SolicitationsDetail.ASP?listingid=1118 Solicitation #: 2012-003 Title: Lee/Van Aken Station Reconstruction Issued: 1/9/2011 Description: The project consists of a total reconstruction of the GCRTA train station on the light rail Blue Line at the intersection of Lee road and Van Aken Boulevard in Shaker Heights. Included in the project are: 1. Temporary station for maintaining regular train service during the station reconstruction. 2. Selective demolition of the existing station and platform to permit utilizing part of the foundations and retaining walls. 3. Construction of a new station, with elevators, enclosed stairways, ADA loading platforms, new platforms, and information and security infrastructures. 4. Provisions for maintaining road traffic on impacted city streets. 5. Replacement of trackwork and other related items if Alternate No. 1 is selected to be part of the contract. I can't necessarily speak to any other part of it, but the plan has always been for the new headhouse to replace the existing headhouse (what there is of it) on the west side of Lee. The artists' rendering you've referenced is the view from the northeast, looking southwest. As far as federal funding is concerned, yes, just about every infrastructure investment has some federal funding component.
January 17, 201213 yr Thanks J-Dog! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 22, 201213 yr Here's a major construction project that's more of a repair than a capital improvement...... 2012-3 – Authorizing Contract No. 2011-145 with Lake Erie Electric, Inc. under Project 49B, Brookpark Substation Repair (Lightning Damage), as specified and as required, in an amount not to exceed $1,399,632.00 (RTA Development Fund, Engineering and Project Development Department budget) http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1693 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 22, 201213 yr Also, poor downtown distribution (just one station), flat or declining employment downtown over the years, and overall population and employment decline in the core city.
January 22, 201213 yr Why is ridership so low along the RTA lines? I do think its mainly because of poor use around its stations. Most stations are terribly integrated into the surroundings, mainly because the location of the tracks, and many of the surroundings are also wastelands or industrial. In addition, the one downtown station(tower city) can be somewhat far from employment areas, especially in the winter. A downtown loop could do wonders, putting people closer to East 9th/12th, Playhouse Square, and Cleveland State. Also most downtown works dont live in the city, or near the tracks.
January 23, 201213 yr ^I'm not so sure about the 1-downtown station aspect. Downtown employment seems to be concentrated at or near Public Square. Plus, thanks to the lack of subway distribution (namely Dual Hub and the subway killed by Bert Porter in the 50s), E. 9th and Playhouse Sq. is largely vacant employment-wise. I think a far bigger issue that hurt rail riding is the flight of businesses and office space from downtown, period (one of the latest being civic-minded Eaton Corp, which is moving from downtown to Chagrin Highlands). As was noted previously, RTA riding in 1960 was 3 times greater than today (when the total Rapid milage was approx 25 miles as opposed to the expanded 31+ today). And remember, in 1960, you had the seperate CTS and Shaker Rapid systems, with no transfer policy between them; as in full fare if you transferred from one to another ... Then, as now, there was only 1 station (and actually, the now-weekday closed Waterfront Line technically does have other downtown stations, even though people tended to ignore them -- thus leading to the weekday closure)... Also, I recall in the 80s when RTA ridership was much higher, and there were a lot of offices at E. 9 and Playhouse Sq., a lot of people either walked or rode the many Euclid buses (the old No. 6 and several "Loop" buses) back to the Square. We tend to treat Downtown as if it were Manhattan ... or even Center City Philadelphia. The reality is that, although a subway is preferred, our downtown is pretty compact and walkable. I've always heard that the one station caused workers to drive to places like Playhouse Sq. or E. 9th and Euclid, but in reality, I never saw that... Most of those downtown workers just sucked it up, and made it back to Terminal Tower somehow ... sans autos, that is.
Create an account or sign in to comment