Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

To me, that defeats the purpose of having a rail station!

that is a total of 9 differnt shuttles in UC maybe more for the VA and UH, in the Same area.

FYI, the VA doesn't provide shuttles within the UC area, just one down to the Parma clinic.

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

To me, that defeats the purpose of having a rail station!

 

why? I might just be missing your point. Can you explain?

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

the congestion of  Mayfield through little Italy would keep any sane shuttle service from using it. 

 

you could place a stop west of the mayfiled station.

 

 

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

To me, that defeats the purpose of having a rail station!

 

than you should move not only the station but the entire rail network.

 

the redline is more comparable to the LIRR or Paris's RER, than a true urban metro, the stop are on average 1 mile apart, not the .5 miles for a subway system.   

 

because the ROW is so far from the axis of development (I.E. the road.) you must have a way to get people from the station to where they want to go.

 

You can't lose the sight of our primary goal, to increase ridership and the utilization of the Rail network.  Using downtown as an example, having a free circulator downtown, has helped increase ridership, because pedestrians are transit riders, and the average pedestrian is only willing to walk for 1/4 of a mile between the Stop and their destination. 

 

1/4 mile equals a 5 min walk.

 

East 6th street is not within 5 min (1/4mile) of tower city.

 

so by having a circulation system in downtown, you effectively increased the range of every rail rider by over a mile. placing all of downtown cleveland within reach.

 

the genius of the 5 min walk was not loss on early transit planners thus they placed most subway stations within 1/2 mile of each other  providing ever person on the route a maximum 5 min walk to the station.

 

the redline has the worst aspects of commuter rail and urban rail.  stops too far apart, but too close together for prolonged running at high speeds, yet the system doesn't reach far enough to be a real commuter railroad.  combined with a ROW that misses the hearts of neighborhoods where redevelopment would naturally take place.

 

We are lucky to have a rial system at all, I just want people to understand it's flaws.

 

 

Great points, biker16.  And I strongly agree that "Walkable Communities are key to greater transit ridership."

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

To me, that defeats the purpose of having a rail station!

 

than you should move not only the station but the entire rail network.

 

the redline is more comparable to the LIRR or Paris's RER, than a true urban metro, the stop are on average 1 mile apart, not the .5 miles for a subway system.   

 

because the ROW is so far from the axis of development (I.E. the road.) you must have a way to get people from the station to where they want to go.

 

You can't lose the sight of our primary goal, to increase ridership and the utilization of the Rail network.  Using downtown as an example, having a free circulator downtown, has helped increase ridership, because pedestrians are transit riders, and the average pedestrian is only willing to walk for 1/4 of a mile between the Stop and their destination. 

 

1/4 mile equals a 5 min walk.

 

East 6th street is not within 5 min (1/4mile) of tower city.

 

so by having a circulation system in downtown, you effectively increased the range of every rail rider by over a mile. placing all of downtown cleveland within reach.

 

the genius of the 5 min walk was not loss on early transit planners thus they placed most subway stations within 1/2 mile of each other  providing ever person on the route a maximum 5 min walk to the station.

 

the redline has the worst aspects of commuter rail and urban rail.  stops too far apart, but too close together for prolonged running at high speeds, yet the system doesn't reach far enough to be a real commuter railroad.  combined with a ROW that misses the hearts of neighborhoods where redevelopment would naturally take place.

 

We are lucky to have a rial system at all, I just want people to understand it's flaws.

 

 

We're going to disagree on some of this.

 

Because of the ROW, we need to have better bus connections from stations without paralleling the stations.  Not always an options and folks in cleveland are spoiled by One Seat trips.

 

Yes, we want to increase ridership,  and TOD will greatly help, but running all these specialty shuttles (not including handicapped/senio), IMHO, is a waste.

 

The Red Line when built was sustained by because it went thru neighborhoods close to factories, which today on the eastside isn't the same.

 

I would agree with some of the worst traits.

 

 

 

 

Biker, you raise some cogent points about the Red Line’s configuration. 

 

It is far from the ideal transit line, but I think you have to consider it’s development viz Cleveland.  You must look at Cleveland in the context its density and development in comparison to other big cities in the U.S.  Very few of them chose or have chosen to tunnel subways down main streets: the most expensive type of mass transit to construct.  On top of that, Cleveland has historically been a moderate-to-low density population city compared to the big-boys in terms of mass transit.  Look at Cleveland, not just today, but in a historical context.  Drive around some of the neighborhoods (or tour them via Google satellite and street views).  Even old neighborhoods, dating back from the late 1800s to the WWI era, were filled with mostly wood-frame single family homes on substantial lots; some “Cleveland Doubles” were thrown in, with a few apt buildings, but this city has always had very few areas that you could come close to calling “apartment districts”.  Shaker Square is one; Edgewater is kinda/sorta another.  We lost quite a bit of brownstone walkups in the Hough area, esp after the 1960s riots, but even if you could magically rebuild them, Hough wouldn’t be anywhere near NYC’s upper east side, or even Baltimore’s Charles St. corridor, density-wise.

 

Then take a look at the 1919 Parson’s study commissioned by the then Cleveland Rapid Transit Commission (which I posted in the “subways told in pictures” thread, which confirms this.  (btw, rapid transit was studied by a lot of Cleveland’s sister cities around this time: Pittsburgh (which was and is better suited for rapid transit b/c of its topographical constraints and pockets of high-density pockets of population: lots of row homes, twins and small brick homes – like our Little Italy – on tiny lots), Detroit, St. Louis and Baltimore.  None of these cities built subways following these early plans – Baltimore finally built its single line HRT/Metro in the early 1980s, and Baltimore, again, has a much denser housing stock than Cleveland – it’s a typical East Coast big city in that sense.  Bottom Line: Cleveland developed rapid transit for the type of city Cleveland was/is: moderate/low density where a winding, high-speed, less expensive (to build) rail line would gather passengers at collection points, where they would arrive either by feeder bus or auto (this is why the CTS/Red Line was one of the 1st rapid transit systems to build extensive, free parking lots at outer rail stations).  btw, the station-every-half-mile model has been abandoned by most modern transit planners in the post horse & buggy era when the Big 4 cities designed their systems that way... (and Chicago has, since, closed many of their close-spaced stations in the city, much to the anger of many Chicago African American leaders).

 

In addition, note (as Parsons did) that because of Cleveland's fanning/splaying street grid, a projected subway up Euclid would not have the traffic impact it would have if the city were a traditional grid like Chicago... and Cleveland, of course, lacked the population density to justify subways or els out such streets as Superior, St. Clair, Lorain or W. 25th... even way back during World War I, when Parsons did their study, they only found a Euclid-Detroit Rd. corridor as being subway-elevated ready.

 

Btw, I’d tend to disagree with you that the Red Line misses all neighborhoods.  It currently stops a block away from the core of Ohio City, a sub-downtown-like area that, obviously, has exploded in popularity in recent years which, likewise I suspect,  has seen growing rail usage at the W. 25 station.  It also passes by the front door of Little Italy which will finally be corrected with a relocated station that will open a couple years from now.  Also, it ends near the center of East Cleveland.  Yes, EC is a seriously distressed urban-burb right now, but this wasn’t always the case and, hopefully, EC officials (notably Mayor Norton) will inject some life in the area.  Also consider that stops like Superior, W. 117 and Puritas/W.150 stop near their core loci… yes, these are imperfect, car-oriented areas (less so Superior), but by CLEVELAND standards, they are pretty transit oriented.  Also consider that the West Sine Red Line has always been more successful because it is a bit more direct than the East Side leg and cuts through neighborhoods (and edges of neighborhoods) that collect a lot more people.  Note too that even the closest West Side stop (W. 25/OC) is a major departure/destination point, and that because of this (and contrary to the bulk of RTA’s rail lines), commuters often begin and end their trips on one side (the West Side) of town.

 

NOTE ALSO: Washington D.C.’s Red Line (Silver Spring/Glenmont leg).  The inner portion of this line is very similar to our Red Line, esp the arcing East Side Red Line leg (ie, stops spaced a mile apart, at neighborhood edges and in a freight RR ROW).  Even before this DC Red Line was extended past Silver Spring, it was/has been traditionally DC’s heaviest used line.  So if it’s so similar in configuration to our Red Line, why is it so successful?  I think a lot has to do with the historical neighborhood character of Greater Washington vs. Greater Cleveland.

 

 

 

Does any of the Cleveland Clinic shuttles run through Little Italy? If so, that could be useful once the mayfield road station is constructed.

 

To me, that defeats the purpose of having a rail station!

 

than you should move not only the station but the entire rail network.

 

the redline is more comparable to the LIRR or Paris's RER, than a true urban metro, the stop are on average 1 mile apart, not the .5 miles for a subway system.   

 

because the ROW is so far from the axis of development (I.E. the road.) you must have a way to get people from the station to where they want to go.

 

You can't lose the sight of our primary goal, to increase ridership and the utilization of the Rail network.  Using downtown as an example, having a free circulator downtown, has helped increase ridership, because pedestrians are transit riders, and the average pedestrian is only willing to walk for 1/4 of a mile between the Stop and their destination. 

 

1/4 mile equals a 5 min walk.

 

East 6th street is not within 5 min (1/4mile) of tower city.

 

so by having a circulation system in downtown, you effectively increased the range of every rail rider by over a mile. placing all of downtown cleveland within reach.

 

the genius of the 5 min walk was not loss on early transit planners thus they placed most subway stations within 1/2 mile of each other  providing ever person on the route a maximum 5 min walk to the station.

 

the redline has the worst aspects of commuter rail and urban rail.  stops too far apart, but too close together for prolonged running at high speeds, yet the system doesn't reach far enough to be a real commuter railroad.  combined with a ROW that misses the hearts of neighborhoods where redevelopment would naturally take place.

 

We are lucky to have a rial system at all, I just want people to understand it's flaws.

 

 

We're going to disagree on some of this.

 

Because of the ROW, we need to have better bus connections from stations without paralleling the stations.  Not always an options and folks in cleveland are spoiled by One Seat trips.

 

Yes, we want to increase ridership,  and TOD will greatly help, but running all these specialty shuttles (not including handicapped/senio), IMHO, is a waste.

 

The Red Line when built was sustained by because it went thru neighborhoods close to factories, which today on the eastside isn't the same.

 

I would agree with some of the worst traits.

 

I see what you are saying about the shuttles, I think UCI is doing a study to increase collaboration between and parties involved to create a more efficient system. 

  the great failing of the current system is Cleveland Clinic's shuttles not connecting with a Redline station.  simply publicizing the shuttles would do wonders for ridership.

 

Since all these institution are already spending money on circulation service I would like to see them take the lead not RTA.

 

 

 

 

Read the blurb about the "renovation" of the Cedar Rapid Station in GCRTA's "e-news" and the proposed names for that new station and the new station to be constructed near Mayfield Road. Who comes up with these names? I serious assume the two names proposed will confuse the heck out of the the public for time immemorial.

 

I propose: Cedar-University Circle Station; and

Little Italy-University Circle Rapid Station

 

There would be far less confusion if people think of one as "Cedar" (it will be right on Cedar Road, after all) and "Little Italy" (which it will be right on the border of) - while still getting the "University Circle' phrase in so both will be considered the two "University Circle stations."

So you don't like that it is called Cedar - University Rapid Station and want Circle added to it like University Circle - Little Italy Rapid Station is? Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying or were reading.  I copied and pasted the station names in my comment from the RTA website under projects.

No - I wrote "Little Italy-University Circle Rapid Station."  If "Cedar-University Circle Rapid Station" is used there will be total consistency.  Both stations will both be linked with University Circle equally. If someone wants to know what stations serve University Circle the response will be the "Cedar station" and the "Little Italy station."

I see Lafont's point, but if I'm remembering correctly, I think the plan described by RTA is actually an improvement from and earlier plan, which would have dropped "University" from the Cedar station altogether.  Or something like that.

 

But really, I'm just really excited to see this project finally get off the ground.  It's been a long time coming and I'm really psyched by the design.

I've been ridin' the rails here since moving to Cleveland  39 years ago.... The past few years I've seen plenty of rider confusion with such terms as "Stokes Blvd" stop vs. the "Lou Stokes Station" vs. "Windemere," "University Circle Station" not being on Euclid, etc., etc.  Something significant can be done here to minimize confusion for many years to come!

 

Stations should have geographic names so people know where they are. The station should be E. 120 (or whatever the appropriate number), or as an alternative, E 120-Mayfield.

 

Stations should not be named after people or arbitrary names. If names are included it should be after the geographic marker. I saw a bus the other day going to Stephanie Tubbs. Where the hell is that? It doesn't make any sense. If it said E. 19 & Prospect, everyone would know where the bus was going.

 

For example, if I said I was going to Tambo, would you know where I was going? (Some here may, but most probably would not.)

 

 

 

Except that naming rights are increasingly popular financing tool for public infrastructure projects. These articles show the financial predicaments that require such approaches, but they also show that keeping familiar landmarks in the names are important.....

 

http://americancityandcounty.com/finance/cities-consider-consequences-selling-naming-rights

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/To-boost-revenue-transit-agency-execs-try-to-think-outside-the-farebox--26840#

 

^I don't think RTA got a lot of money from Stokes or Tubbs-Jones. 

^I don't think RTA got a lot of money from Stokes or Tubbs-Jones. 

 

Not from their personal accounts, no. But both did a lot to bring significant federal money to RTA. That's what gets your name immortalized on a facility like that.

touché!

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) invites local residents and businesses to attend a community meeting on the current status of the University Circle - Little Italy rapid transit station project. The proposed rapid transit station will be located on GCRTA’s Red Line on Mayfield Road between E 117 and E 119 St. It will replace the current station at E 120 / Euclid Avenue.

 

The community meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, at 6:00pm at The Alta House, 12510 Mayfield Road, Cleveland, OH 44106.

Speaking of my proposals for naming the two new stations, near Mayfield Road and on Cedar Road, why is it a handout on the buses says the new name of the current one on Cedar is "University Circle Rapid Station," and it was formerly the "Cedar-University Rapid Station," while on GCRTA's website, under "Planning & Development: Major Projects," the text refers to its current name as Cedar - University Rapid Station" and says it was formerly the "University Circle Rapid Station?"  The e-news sent a few days ago agrees with the latter.

 

Of course, neither works with the other proposal "University Circle - Little Italy Rapid Station."

 

Again, I'm proposing the following totally consistent and logical combination for University Circle's two Rapid stations:

 

                                                                  Cedar - University Circle Rapid Station

 

                                                                  Little Italy - University Circle Rapid Station

adding speculation to our normal banter.

 

At today's  planning meeting.

 

there was a rezoning of a brownfield site on fulton and Bailey avenues in ohio city, from industrial into retail. it seemed stanrge for such a location.

 

then the Ohio City CDC mentioned that Rta is studing a Redline stop at Fulton avenue because of it's location within such a dense neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

 

Not from their personal accounts, no. But both did a lot to bring significant federal money to RTA. That's what gets your name immortalized on a facility like that.

 

KJP---you saying that those two projects got funding --or more funding than otherwise--because of their names?  I certainly hope not.

 

This is really important--stations, airport, highway exits, etc. should be geographic!

 

 

^I think KJP's point was that the station was named in her honor not because of personal funds she contributed (naming rights like Progressive Field) but due to her efforts to secure federal funds as a member of Congress.

adding speculation to our normal banter.

 

At today's  planning meeting.

 

there was a rezoning of a brownfield site on fulton and Bailey avenues in ohio city, from industrial into retail. it seemed stanrge for such a location.

 

then the Ohio City CDC mentioned that Rta is studing a Redline stop at Fulton avenue because of it's location within such a dense neighborhood.

 

Very interesting.  Though I wonder how much ridership such a station would really generate.  It's a pretty bleak walk down Fulton towards Clark there, especially with the highway overpass, and that neighborhood seems to be amidst a long term de-densification... The area north of the tracks is already pretty weel served by the two existing stations on either side. Could be interesting, though, if that industrial/scrapping site at Monroe and Fulton were to be redeveloped.

Yeah that area isnt that dense to begin with, with things only getting worse, especially to the south. The station location would terrible disconnected to the south, do to the tracks, and highway, and to the north is a cemetery on the west side of fulton, and a factory on the east side.

 

The density just isnt there

 

^I think KJP's point was that the station was named in her honor not because of personal funds she contributed (naming rights like Progressive Field) but due to her efforts to secure federal funds as a member of Congress.

 

Yup.

 

Yeah that area isnt that dense to begin with, with things only getting worse, especially to the south. The station location would terrible disconnected to the south, do to the tracks, and highway, and to the north is a cemetery on the west side of fulton, and a factory on the east side.

 

The density just isnt there

 

 

If there's a sizable, pedestrian-friendly development tied in with a new station in this area, then it could stimulate more growth in that area. But if it's just a rapid station without any investor commitments to build anything supportive nearby, I wouldn't do it.

 

The section of the Red Line between the West 65th and Ohio City stops is one of, if not the longest stretch of rail transit in Cleveland without any stations. In about 1970, Mayor Carl Stokes and Planning Director Norm Krumholz were seeking a public funding (HUD?) for a multi-tower apartment complex built on a retail platform atop a Red Line station in the basement between West 41st and West 44th along the then-new I-90.

 

There are numerous active and abandoned industrial sites in that immediate area which make a Rapid station and any spin-off development unattractive --

> 2391 West 38th Street: Metal-Mation Inc (http://www.wellwalker.com/);

> 3301 Monroe Avenue: Brandon Partners recycling plant, linked to various companies by an interesting character named Bill Baumann Sr. and his sons (was a Dow Chemical plant and later, an American Can Co. plant -- read more here http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/mister-toxics-neighborhood/Content?oid=1474690);

> 2300 Fulton Road: Former Fulton Auto Wrecking, now vacant and owned by DeSoto Properties LLC (target of rezoning listed below);

> 3506 Vega Avenue: Former Devern Manufacturing Corp, now vacant and owned by 3506 Vega Avenue LLC (shell company created by Horwitz Group LLC http://thglawfirm.com/) but the statutory agent is a Parma Heights real estate investor named Michael Goebel;

> 3400 Vega Avenue: Caraustar Cleveland Recycling (http://www.caraustar.com/) owned by Brieten Gunter;

 

Some of these are troubled properties that are dragging down surrounding neighborhoods. Right now it's not the best area for a Rapid station.

 

BTW, here's the rezonings that were on Planning Commission's agenda Friday.....

 

Ordinance No. 922-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone and Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Changing the Use District of land located on the north side of Chatham Avenue at Fulton Road to Local Retail Business. (site of La Borincana Foods)

 

Ordinance No. xxx-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use District of lands located on the southwest corner of Fulton Road and Bailey Avenue from General Industry to Two Family Residential and Local Retail Business. (former Fulton Auto Wrecking listed above)

 

Ordinance No. 921-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use District of lands located on the west side of West 76th Street to Local Retail Business. (next to Battery Park)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/07202012/index.php

Yeah, btw 41s and 44th would make more sense to me.  I've heard a potential Fulton Rd station as well (I think tossed out by the OCDC), but a station there makes little sense for the reasons mentioned; light density, industrial and too close to W. 25th/Ohio City...  At West 41/44, there is OC housing in the area, plus a station there would serve (and potentially generate TOD) along Lorain Ave. north of there.  It's certainly worth looking into.  Lorain could really use an anchor development in this area.  Right now, it's too spoty.

 

 

"Mayor Carl Stokes and Planning Director Norm Krumholz were seeking a public funding (HUD?) for a multi-tower apartment complex built on a retail platform atop a Red Line station in the basement between West 41st and West 44th along the then-new I-90."  Wow, Norm Krumholz actually favored a rail rapid transit project!?  That fact belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

^I think KJP's point was that the station was named in her honor not because of personal funds she contributed (naming rights like Progressive Field) but due to her efforts to secure federal funds as a member of Congress.

 

Yup.

 

Yeah that area isnt that dense to begin with, with things only getting worse, especially to the south. The station location would terrible disconnected to the south, do to the tracks, and highway, and to the north is a cemetery on the west side of fulton, and a factory on the east side.

 

The density just isnt there

 

 

If there's a sizable, pedestrian-friendly development tied in with a new station in this area, then it could stimulate more growth in that area. But if it's just a rapid station without any investor commitments to build anything supportive nearby, I wouldn't do it.

 

The section of the Red Line between the West 65th and Ohio City stops is one of, if not the longest stretch of rail transit in Cleveland without any stations. In about 1970, Mayor Carl Stokes and Planning Director Norm Krumholz were seeking a public funding (HUD?) for a multi-tower apartment complex built on a retail platform atop a Red Line station in the basement between West 41st and West 44th along the then-new I-90.

 

There are numerous active and abandoned industrial sites in that immediate area which make a Rapid station and any spin-off development unattractive --

> 2391 West 38th Street: Metal-Mation Inc (http://www.wellwalker.com/);

> 3301 Monroe Avenue: Brandon Partners recycling plant, linked to various companies by an interesting character named Bill Baumann Sr. and his sons (was a Dow Chemical plant and later, an American Can Co. plant -- read more here http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/mister-toxics-neighborhood/Content?oid=1474690);

> 2300 Fulton Road: Former Fulton Auto Wrecking, now vacant and owned by DeSoto Properties LLC (target of rezoning listed below);

> 3506 Vega Avenue: Former Devern Manufacturing Corp, now vacant and owned by 3506 Vega Avenue LLC (shell company created by Horwitz Group LLC http://thglawfirm.com/) but the statutory agent is a Parma Heights real estate investor named Michael Goebel;

> 3400 Vega Avenue: Caraustar Cleveland Recycling (http://www.caraustar.com/) owned by Brieten Gunter;

 

Some of these are troubled properties that are dragging down surrounding neighborhoods. Right now it's not the best area for a Rapid station.

 

BTW, here's the rezonings that were on Planning Commission's agenda Friday.....

 

Ordinance No. 922-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone and Ward 3/Councilmember Cimperman): Changing the Use District of land located on the north side of Chatham Avenue at Fulton Road to Local Retail Business. (site of La Borincana Foods)

 

Ordinance No. xxx-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use District of lands located on the southwest corner of Fulton Road and Bailey Avenue from General Industry to Two Family Residential and Local Retail Business. (former Fulton Auto Wrecking listed above)

 

Ordinance No. 921-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use District of lands located on the west side of West 76th Street to Local Retail Business. (next to Battery Park)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/07202012/index.php

 

not relatede to this thread but it seems this

 

Ordinance No. 921-12(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use District of lands located on the west side of West 76th Street to Local Retail Business. (next to Battery Park)

 

is to convert warehouse into residential loft space and is owned by the Catan family Of Pat Catans fame.

 

So that is good news.

I think RTA should consider 3 in-fill stations for the Red Line that would help boost the economics of their surrounding neighborhoods:

 

- W. 41 (or 44th)

 

- W. 85th

 

- Lakeview (E. Cleveland)

 

... one other, that actually came up under the Voinovich (as mayor) admin: E. 89th & Woodland.

Speaking of my proposals for naming the two new stations, near Mayfield Road and on Cedar Road, why is it a handout on the buses says the new name of the current one on Cedar is "University Circle Rapid Station," and it was formerly the "Cedar-University Rapid Station," while on GCRTA's website, under "Planning & Development: Major Projects," the text refers to its current name as Cedar - University Rapid Station" and says it was formerly the "University Circle Rapid Station?"  The e-news sent a few days ago agrees with the latter.

 

Of course, neither works with the other proposal "University Circle - Little Italy Rapid Station."

 

Again, I'm proposing the following totally consistent and logical combination for University Circle's two Rapid stations:

 

                                                                  Cedar - University Circle Rapid Station

 

                                                                  Little Italy - University Circle Rapid Station

I just saw the brochure again which is currently being handed out on the buses. It says the station is now called "University Circle Rapid Station" and was "formerly known as the University-Cedar Rapid Station."

Whoosh! 

While this is a road project, it is next to the recently rebuilt East 93rd/Woodhill Station and isn't just one road crossing overhead, but the convergence of three arterials -- Woodhill, Shaker and Buckeye. So the bridge overpass is very large and wide, and includes tunnel portals below the streets for four tracks. Two were never used and bricked shut decades ago. This was intended to be the routing of a four-track electrically powered interurban railroad linking the booming industrial areas of Cleveland and Youngstown, with two express tracks in the middle and two local tracks on the outside.

 

Anyway :) here's the road project listing on last week's planning commission agenda.....

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for August 17, 2012

 

Ordinance No. 896-12(Ward 4/Councilmember K. Jonson & Ward 6/Councilmember Mitchell): Giving consent of the City of Cleveland to the Ohio Department of Transportation to replace the Buckeye Road (State Route 87) Bridge over Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority railroad located at the intersection of Woodhill Road and Shaker Boulevard; and authorizing the Director of Capital Projects to enter into any relative agreements.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/08172012/index.php

Some variations of the final design for the University Circle-Little Italy Red Line station.........

 

 

 

 

There is also a presentation (plus resident feedback pages, but the deadline passed Aug. 14) available at:

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2012-07-31-UCLIHandoutCommentSheet.pdf

 

If you send the feedback pages in now, I'm sure they'll still include it.

I commented by emailing Valerie Webb and Joe Schaffer.  My comment was that the station should blend with the architecture of the neighborhood.  The concepts I see above fail to do that.

 

I also have a feeling that this station will be more popular than the proposed size may be able to accommodate.

 

Wasnt the Cedar Road - University Circle Rapid Station supposed to break ground in August?

I commented by emailing Valerie Webb and Joe Schaffer.  My comment was that the station should blend with the architecture of the neighborhood.  The concepts I see above fail to do that.

 

I also have a feeling that this station will be more popular than the proposed size may be able to accommodate.

 

 

Depends on which side of the tracks you're talking about. The third, curvaceous-looking station has more in common with the UC-Intesa side of the tracks. But you're right, none blend with the Little Italy side of the tracks. Wonder how they could make the station "transition" between the contemporary/artsy and old-world immigrant architectural styles?

 

Can you imagine how that station might look during The Feast? Maybe like the west-side Red Line stations do during St. Patrick's Day??

 

 

 

Wasnt the Cedar Road - University Circle Rapid Station supposed to break ground in August?

 

That's what RTA still has posted at:

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/cedaruniversity/

Thanks KJP for posting those station renderings.  I think I commented in the general RTA threat when Jerry linked to a presentation that had them, but I should have posted here instead.

 

Anyway, the whole concept of choosing between those three designs based on a helicopter pilot's view is pretty unsatisfying.  The view from the sidewalk level will obviously be infinitely more important, and the pedestrian experience under the rail overpass (i.e., lighting and surface treatments, tight moisture seal) and near the station entry is probably most important of all.  Whether we go with stupid wavy ornamentation or dully blocky construction is kind of immaterial, IMHO. I definitely don't see a need to try to conform the design to the existing neighborhood architecture though.  This is a gateway to our technology and cultural hub, and nothing here will be big enough to really detract from Little Italy's streetscape.

 

Given the limitations on architectural expression on such a constrained site, it also seems as though public art could play a huge role here.  Time for RTA to really announced itself here on the blank wall and roof of the south/eastern pavilion. Some awesome large scale signage that incorporates a count-down clock for the next trains would be super cool and useful.

Looks like our choices are going to be ugly 50's architecture, ugly 70's architecture, or ugly 90's architecture.  Not real inspiring.

Ive said it before but I really think this station should be manned. Major stations such as the Airport, Tower City, Cedar, and Mayfield should all be staffed.

 

Tower City, Cedar, and Mayfield stations are the entrances to our major employment centers. Staffing them provides a sense of safety, and prevents people from hoping on and off the trains without paying at these major stations. Tourists also can use these stations to get to and from Downtown Attractions, University Circle attractions, and Little Italy. Staff will be able to help people unfamiliar with the area and help them find their way around, and also hugely, provide that sense of security, which will keep people riding.

 

I think it would cut down on the fare problem greatly. Currently its impossible to get downtown without paying because of the Tower City station. University Circle as our second major employment center, and large tourist area, should be protected in the same mannor. Stopping people from hoping on 105th and riding it to 79th will be impossible to do under this system, and really isnt a large enough number to be concerned over. But ridership is and will be much greater at the University Circle stations. And no im not saying bring back staff to every station, just to the two University Circle stations, stations  in which people are more likely to get off at.

Some variations of the final design for the University Circle-Little Italy Red Line station.........

 

 

 

 

There is also a presentation (plus resident feedback pages, but the deadline passed Aug. 14) available at:

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2012-07-31-UCLIHandoutCommentSheet.pdf

 

If you send the feedback pages in now, I'm sure they'll still include it.

The 3rd one is the obvious choice the other two are just flat out bland

I guess the curvy design (no. 3 ) is the best.  But I'm more concerned by the fact that the tunnel from the station doesn't go all the way under the RR tracks, but only heads east with an opening toward Little Italy.  This means that riders headed for University Circle must head down the stairs (too cheap for escalators that should be there) and then head out of their way  at least 100 feet out the entrance facing east, then U turn and walk back under the wide, exposed trestle of  the Rapid then RR tracks, west to reach U. Circle destinations.  It's not very practical or effective.  A temperature-controlled (and secure) station entrance connecting east and west entrances would be much more preferable.  I'm much less interested in function than looks....

 

We have a beautiful station at W. 25th, but functionally, it's disastrous.  I hope we don't make the same mistake again.  The U. Circle/Little Italy station is too important and potentially too busy to have otherwise.

 

There isnt an entrance under the tracks

I guess the curvy design (no. 3 ) is the best.  But I'm more concerned by the fact that the tunnel from the station doesn't go all the way under the RR tracks, but only heads east with an opening toward Little Italy.  This means that riders headed for University Circle must head down the stairs (too cheap for escalators that should be there) and then head out of their way  at least 100 feet out the entrance facing east, then U turn and walk back under the wide, exposed trestle of  the Rapid then RR tracks, west to reach U. Circle destinations.  It's not very practical or effective.  A temperature-controlled (and secure) station entrance connecting east and west entrances would be much more preferable.  I'm much less interested in function than looks....

 

I don't think the detour east is really all that far.  There may even be an entry almost due south of the headhouse- the plans RTA has shared are kind of hard to read.  This presentation has some pretty detailed floor plans and some sidwalk-level renderings that are a bit more helpful than the aerials posted above: http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2012-07-31-UCLICommunityMeeting.pdf

 

The structure is going to be underwhelming. That was pretty much ensured by the single platform design, the site constraints, and the choice of architect. But someone (RTA, UCI, whoever) better seriously improve the pedestrian experience under that whole stretch of rail overpasses to knit west to east.

Looks like our choices are going to be ugly 50's architecture, ugly 70's architecture, or ugly 90's architecture.  Not real inspiring.

 

Well, that post was sadly accurate.

 

 

Nobody has mentioned this station's redevelopment...I saw it for the first time a couple weeks ago and it's interesting.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/buckeyewoodhill/

Was there parking at the Buckeye/WoodHill station before? if not that's good for Park and riders I guess, assuming they decide to leave their cars in this area.  :-P

Nobody has mentioned this station's redevelopment...I saw it for the first time a couple weeks ago and it's interesting.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/buckeyewoodhill/

 

Noted here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6956.msg576831.html#msg576831

 

 

Was there parking at the Buckeye/WoodHill station before?

 

Yes.

I hope this station no longer floods.

 

I've been riding the rapid for 40 years and if it rains the Mortons salt girl, Gorton's fisherman and Willard Scott would appear at this station.

 

You've been riding for 40 years?? Don't you ever get off to eat/sh!t/shower? Yuck!

 

I'll never forget coming home from school about 20 years ago on the Green Line during a tremendous downpour. We pulled into the Woodhill station and the water was over the rails and platforms! When our train hit the water, a wake sprayed up from both sides of the train. The sound it made was incredible. I've never been on a train before or since that caused a wake, let alone one that splashed as high as the bottom of the train's windows!