May 9, 20214 yr Cleveland.com "NOACA invites public comment on draft update of Long Range Transportation Plan, which strives for equity" https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/05/noaca-invites-public-comment-on-draft-update-of-its-long-range-transportation-plan-which-strives-for-equity.html
May 9, 20214 yr ^”A major thrust of the plan is to seek balance in a system that leans heavily toward ownership of a car as the price of entry to the region’s job market.” Sounds promising, but after reading I still get the impression that for NOACA public transportation is primarily for people who cannot afford a car. This isn’t the best messaging for selling the idea of better transit.
May 9, 20214 yr What caught my attention was the expanded regional rail transit plan. I would be for some of these additional, and if the Amtrak station is moved to Tower City I think expansion of local and regional trail becomes much more practical. However, the build out phase doesn't make any sense to me. Why start with the outlying suburbs in phase 1 then create the dense interior lines? Seems like that is going to continue to perpetuate sprawl, making transit less effective/efficient. The argument is that these are the areas where population is growing, but if living in the city or inner ring suburbs is more convenient than the exurbs because of an efficient rail system you might be able to flip the narrative of growing exurbs. Arguably it's already happening...
May 9, 20214 yr If a connecting county would help out in paying for the expansion, I can see where that might be attractive. Otherwise it should be where can there be the most bang for the buck.
May 9, 20214 yr 51 minutes ago, audidave said: If a connecting county would help out in paying for the expansion, I can see where that might be attractive. Otherwise it should be where can there be the most bang for the buck. Are all of the major universities in Ohio in close proximity to rail?
May 9, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Luke_S said: What caught my attention was the expanded regional rail transit plan. I would be for some of these additional, and if the Amtrak station is moved to Tower City I think expansion of local and regional trail becomes much more practical. However, the build out phase doesn't make any sense to me. Why start with the outlying suburbs in phase 1 then create the dense interior lines? Seems like that is going to continue to perpetuate sprawl, making transit less effective/efficient. The argument is that these are the areas where population is growing, but if living in the city or inner ring suburbs is more convenient than the exurbs because of an efficient rail system you might be able to flip the narrative of growing exurbs. Arguably it's already happening... I agree - those blue and orange lines are almost the exact opposite of the order in which they should be done. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
May 9, 20214 yr 35 minutes ago, surfohio said: Are all of the major universities in Ohio in close proximity to rail? If you mean an active railroad track, yes. If you mean an active passenger rail line, no. I'm a die-in-the-wool rail advocate, although somewhat burned out at this stage of my life. But that NOACA map is crazy. There's a few good candidate rail lines on there. But rail along I-480 and I-271??? Uh, no. That's where a frequent express bus service should operate and connect to all of the other intersecting radial bus lines. What I want to know is what incentives is NOACA willing to bring to bear to encourage high-density, mixed land uses around existing and future rail stations. Drawing lines on a map is easy. Offering urban development subsidies that are more attractive than those which continue to encourage suburban sprawl has to be a part of any plan. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 9, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, KJP said: I'm a die-in-the-wool rail advocate, although somewhat burned out at this stage of my life. But that NOACA map is crazy. There's a few good candidate rail lines on there. But rail along I-480 and I-271??? Uh, no. That's where a frequent express bus service should operate and connect to all of the other intersecting radial bus lines. One has to wonder where the idea of rail along the I-480 and I-271 express lanes came from. It is way, way too late in the game for that to ever happen. It would be prohibitively expensive to add rail on either one of those corridors. The population density of the area would not support the ridership to justify the the cost to build either one of those routes.
May 9, 20214 yr Orange and blue should be flipped in terms of urgency, corridors along 480 and 271 make no sense, and service into Medina county but NOT akron/summit county makes no sense.
May 9, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Pugu said: Orange and blue should be flipped in terms of urgency, corridors along 480 and 271 make no sense, and service into Medina county but NOT akron/summit county makes no sense. Agreed but I assume that a holistic plan of how that is sequenced and prioritized isn't depicted since NOACA and AMATS are different MPOs. Smells reminiscent of the MSA vs CSA discussion in the population trends thread...or of course the regionalization thread/western reserve threads. Seems clear to me that commuter rail between Cleveland and Akron should be light-years ahead of prioritizing rail to Medina, particularly when NOACA tries to champion equality measures in its highway project funding evaluations. If only we could bring back the ABC railroad (but faster than the 2.5 hours it took back then).
May 10, 20214 yr 22 hours ago, audidave said: If a connecting county would help out in paying for the expansion, I can see where that might be attractive. Otherwise it should be where can there be the most bang for the buck. It seems that the rail connections to neighboring counties is a way to get buy-in for rail expansion from the NOACA members in those counties.
June 2, 20214 yr On 5/9/2021 at 9:30 AM, Luke_S said: Cleveland.com "NOACA invites public comment on draft update of Long Range Transportation Plan, which strives for equity" https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/05/noaca-invites-public-comment-on-draft-update-of-its-long-range-transportation-plan-which-strives-for-equity.html A reminder that today is the last day to comment on NOACA’s long-range draft plan. (Tweet was from yesterday). NOACA is much better than it used to be, but the I’d still like to see significant changes in their priorities. Let’s make our voices heard. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 2, 20214 yr ^ Here's what I submitted: I like many things about the NOACA long range plan. The emphasis on the need for multi-modal transportation is good. I also really appreciate that NOACA pushed back on the proposed new highway interchanges - there is no need to be spending money on new interchanges or highway expansions in a region with no growth. Also, I believe that the report is saying many of the right things - the focus on equity, the acknowledgement of a substantial population of poor people and the challenges they face, and the need for better job related transportation. All of that said, I would like to focus my comments on constructive criticism. I think there are several missed opportunities in this plan. Please add focus in the following areas: - EVERY existing Red/Blue/Green station should be aggressive in pursuing Transit-Oriented Development. Nearly every station features a parking lot and no ToD. Rather than trying to figure out how to expand transit to get to remote jobs, encourage development that makes existing rail stations job-friendly. Push the city to revise zoning in support of ToD. - Put much more emphasis on developing proper bike infrastructure. Bike lanes are NOT sufficient - there need to be buffers between cars and bike lanes. These infrastructure improvements will make biking accessible to a much larger number of people. Simply put - most potential riders aren't comfortable on unprotected bike lanes. - Pedestrian safety needs to be prioritized. Roads in residential and retail areas should be designed to reduce speeds and calm traffic. Initial phases should just be paint and perhaps jersey barriers, with later phases more permanent. This isn't just about reducing pedestrian deaths, but also all the health benefits that accompany walking. People who aren't comfortable walking miss out on the health benefits of walking. This is the main driver of the American obesity epidemic, yet somehow it is rarely discussed. - Amtrak is proposing a massive expansion. If Congress funds these proposals, Cleveland will benefit perhaps more than any other city in the country. Yet somehow intercity passenger rail wasn't even discussed in this plan. (I suppose most of the work on this project was done before the Amtrak proposal, but this really needs to be revised to factor that in.) - Advocate for moving Amtrak back to Tower City to better align with existing transit infrastructure, thus supporting the Plan's multi-modal transit goals. - PLEASE STOP WASTING MONEY ON HYPERLOOP. It is unlikely that the many technical challenges will ever be sufficiently addressed to make hyperloop feasible. But more importantly, even if they get the tech figured out, the capacity of hyperloop is TERRIBLE. High Speed Rail is proven technology with outstanding capacity, and the Chicago - Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Philly - NYC is the best potential High Speed Rail corridor in the entire world that isn't currently served by such service. Hyperloop isn't enough faster than High Speed Rail to justify the tiny capacity, let alone that it is completely unproven technology. - The "Visionary Rail Network" expansion proposal in the Plan is strange - it expands to far off places without addressing the shortcomings of the existing system. Any expansion concepts should start with better serving downtown and University Circle and then better connecting those two points. A Euclid Avenue subway (similar to the 90's era Dual Hub proposal) would be FAR more impactful to the overall transit infrastructure and tax base of the region than any of the expansion proposals in the NOACA plan. (Underground downtown and UC, surface running on Euclid through Midtown.) And in the mean-time, please put pressure on RTA to fix the Healthline. It is much slower than it used to be. In order to decrease driver time spent collecting fares, implement proof-of-payment with civilian enforcement and civil (not criminal) penalties so as to comply with the court ruling and then get the priority signalization of traffic lights. This will trim a dramatic amount of time off the run, allowing more frequent service and/or lower operating costs. - Coordinate with Akron, Canton, and Youngstown! Northeast Ohio is one region and we need to act like it. I realize those are separate planning areas, but we need to work together instead of treating Akron like competition. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 7, 20214 yr https://www.centerforcleveland.org/red-line RED LINE REALIGNMENT: A NEW SUBWAY PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND June 2021 A short, 1.7-mile realignment of the RTA Red Line between Tower City and East 34 St. to provide three Downtown subway stations—at E. 9-Prospect, E. 17-Euclid, and E. 22-Community College Ave—would transform Cleveland—not just Downtown, but the entire City and Region. With infrastructure a key priority of the Biden administration and with over $4 trillion aimed at economic recovery, the opportunity for construction of the subway is more achievable now than at any time in decades. The project would help the City resume its trajectory of economic and population growth and regain its global significance
June 7, 20214 yr I like the idea of an E 9th station, but I'd rather eliminate the other two stations and run a new light rail line up Euclid or Carnegie to University Circle than just adding a bunch of random new Red Line stations and making the trip to UC even longer. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
June 7, 20214 yr Love it, but I would still take an extension out through Lakewood first over anything!
June 7, 20214 yr Quote Is this plan still feasible if they are closing up some of the old subway tunnels?
June 7, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Luke_S said: Is this plan still feasible if they are closing up some of the old subway tunnels? No. I was talking to Mark a couple hours ago and he wasn't aware of it. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 7, 20214 yr What I like about this proposal, is that it strikes my novice eyes as more feasible than a lot of the other proposals. I still doubt it will happen, but it doesn't seem like Cleveland would be biting off more than it can chew with this. Plus, I like that it is leaving room, and creating opportunities, for future expansions.
June 7, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, Whipjacka said: https://www.centerforcleveland.org/red-line RED LINE REALIGNMENT: A NEW SUBWAY PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND June 2021 A short, 1.7-mile realignment of the RTA Red Line between Tower City and East 34 St. to provide three Downtown subway stations—at E. 9-Prospect, E. 17-Euclid, and E. 22-Community College Ave—would transform Cleveland—not just Downtown, but the entire City and Region. With infrastructure a key priority of the Biden administration and with over $4 trillion aimed at economic recovery, the opportunity for construction of the subway is more achievable now than at any time in decades. The project would help the City resume its trajectory of economic and population growth and regain its global significance 1 hour ago, skiwest said: I think I would rather see the downtown loop. A nice option is to have near the station at E.17-Euclid is a junction (or shifting around the station/junction)with an extension of the Waterfront Line. With the possibility of dual-platform rail cars coming, the options for flexibility become even better.
June 7, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, Whipjacka said: https://www.centerforcleveland.org/red-line RED LINE REALIGNMENT: A NEW SUBWAY PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND June 2021 A short, 1.7-mile realignment of the RTA Red Line between Tower City and East 34 St. to provide three Downtown subway stations—at E. 9-Prospect, E. 17-Euclid, and E. 22-Community College Ave—would transform Cleveland—not just Downtown, but the entire City and Region. With infrastructure a key priority of the Biden administration and with over $4 trillion aimed at economic recovery, the opportunity for construction of the subway is more achievable now than at any time in decades. The project would help the City resume its trajectory of economic and population growth and regain its global significance This proposal is AWESOME. It would increase RTA rail ridership by a substantial percentage from Day 1. I think the stations have an ideal spacing and I'm a big fan of this section being primarily subway. Important points / critiques: 1. RTA's proposal to bury the Huron subway makes this harder. That project needs to be halted immediately. 2. In a perfect world with guaranteed funding for additional expansion, I'd probably agree with Heavy Rail, but in the real world I think it need to be Light Rail to maximize flexibility. For example, Light Rail means it also works for the Shaker Lines and Waterfront Line, both of which become far more useful when featuring one seat trips to these stations. Light Rail can still feature level boarding which is usually the main benefit of Heavy Rail. I'm pretty sure top speed on modern LRT is almost as fast as HRT too. 3. It seems the author isn't aware of Ken's findings that modern HRT cars cannot be separated, and therefore are too long for RTA's maintenance facility. Another point for LRT. 4. I LOVE that it is subway and not surface. Make it FAST. 5. Great point by @LifeLongClevelander - if the PHS/CSU station is east of E 17th, a future (or even concurrently built) route could head north up a ramp on @KJP's proposed pedestrian / transit on East 17 to complete the downtown / Waterfront Loop. This could also connect to a future St. Clair streetcar, further maximizing the utility of the Euclid / Huron subway. (Note that the graphic does show the station east of East 17th.) 6. It seems like a bit of a miss to not have a station at the STJ bus depot at Prospect and 22nd, but that station would be too close to the others and many of the bus routes terminating there could probably swing past one of the other stations. 7. This becomes phase 1 of a future Dub Hub line directly connecting downtown to UC along Euclid, replacing (or perhaps complementing) the HealthLine "BRT". That would be completely transformative - 250k jobs on a straight 5 mile corridor. 8. The Euclid/Huron subway also makes it way easier to expand rail, because the rail system would be so much more useful. Expanding the Blue Line to the Chagrin Highlands would be awesome. A Detroit Ave. streetcar becomes way more useful. 9. The taxing proposal is a bit strange. To me it makes more sense to draw a quarter mile circle around every station in the system it put a substantial special assessment on them - those are the properties that will benefit far and away the most from this proposal. Perhaps that could be complemented with a small, countywide assessment. This is the best way to make RTA's rail system completely transformative for Cleveland. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 7, 20214 yr 9 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: 3. It seems the author isn't aware of Ken's findings that modern HRT cars cannot be separated, and therefore are too long for RTA's maintenance facility. Another point for LRT. Done right, paired heavy rail cars CAN be separated; it is one thing that RTA got correct with the current fleet of heavy rail cars on the Red Line. 181-200 are single units with full controls at both ends. 301-340 are "pairs", but those cars have full controls at one end and "hostler" controls at the other for yard/shop movements. Standard couplers are at both ends. All cars from that fleet can be mixed, just as long as full controls are at each end of a train. If one car of a "pair" has problems, all it takes is a simple uncoupling and it can be coupled with another car in minutes, be it another from the 301-series or one of the single units. "Traditional" married pairs have a draw bar to connect the pairs together. It would take many hours to separate and connect those types of pairs for service. From the original heavy rail fleet dating from the 1950's, the 201-270 fleet were of that sort of married pair configuration. Only 101-118 were single units from that fleet. The 151-180 series Airporters from 1967 and 1970 were all single units. All three heavy rail fleets could not be operated together in one train. Based upon the ridership trends on RTA, it is not practical to run 2-car consists around the clock. Each of the current heavy rail cars is 75 feet long. Unless it is a peak period, a single car is more than sufficient to carry the off-peak ridership. There is no need to run multiple-unit consists of 150 feet. A single car has 4 motors and axles. Double that for all service and that practically doubles the cost of operation, less the cost of a second operator. It doubles electrical consumption, mechanical wear-and-tear on the equipment and the labor to maintain it. At this point, it makes no sense for RTA to continue with unique heavy rail and light rail fleets. The merits of one common fleet have been mentioned many times. Hopefully the idea of separate heavy and light rail fleets is a thing of the past.
June 8, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said: Done right, paired heavy rail cars CAN be separated; it is one thing that RTA got correct with the current fleet of heavy rail cars on the Red Line. 181-200 are single units with full controls at both ends. 301-340 are "pairs", but those cars have full controls at one end and "hostler" controls at the other for yard/shop movements. Standard couplers are at both ends. All cars from that fleet can be mixed, just as long as full controls are at each end of a train. If one car of a "pair" has problems, all it takes is a simple uncoupling and it can be coupled with another car in minutes, be it another from the 301-series or one of the single units. "Traditional" married pairs have a draw bar to connect the pairs together. It would take many hours to separate and connect those types of pairs for service. From the original heavy rail fleet dating from the 1950's, the 201-270 fleet were of that sort of married pair configuration. Only 101-118 were single units from that fleet. The 151-180 series Airporters from 1967 and 1970 were all single units. All three heavy rail fleets could not be operated together in one train. Based upon the ridership trends on RTA, it is not practical to run 2-car consists around the clock. Each of the current heavy rail cars is 75 feet long. Unless it is a peak period, a single car is more than sufficient to carry the off-peak ridership. There is no need to run multiple-unit consists of 150 feet. A single car has 4 motors and axles. Double that for all service and that practically doubles the cost of operation, less the cost of a second operator. It doubles electrical consumption, mechanical wear-and-tear on the equipment and the labor to maintain it. At this point, it makes no sense for RTA to continue with unique heavy rail and light rail fleets. The merits of one common fleet have been mentioned many times. Hopefully the idea of separate heavy and light rail fleets is a thing of the past. Ken reported that RTA discovered that no suppliers will deliver new Heavy Rail in “separable” cars - you always get two joined cars as the smallest unit. Which is why new HRT won’t fit in RTA’s maintenance facility. That adds to your other points about why only Light Rail makes sense here. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 8, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: Ken reported that RTA discovered that no suppliers will deliver new Heavy Rail in “separable” cars - you always get two joined cars as the smallest unit. Which is why new HRT won’t fit in RTA’s maintenance facility. That adds to your other points about why only Light Rail makes sense here. Well, that is unfortunate, considering that it has been done before and in the long run, a huge labor-saving feature. It is not some sort of new, revolutionary concept. Considering labor is one of the biggest, if not the biggest on-going cost transit agencies are faced with, to take a step backward is not an improvement. Even if it is more expensive initially to build a fleet in that manner (non-permanently joined pairs), in the long run it will be a big money saver. I just hope that the whole heavy rail, high-platform only operation is essentially going to be gone in RTA's future. Pre-pandemic, RTA's Red Line's ridership was under 6 million passengers in 2019 and the last time it was over 7 million was in 2008. From its inception in the 1950's for CTS, the heavy rail line has never lived up to the projected ridership numbers. In transit operations, the Red Line's ridership is more like a light rail line. The technology is proven to have one type of rail car to serve both high and low platforms. The people who run RTA should have the knowledge and common sense should see this and stop making the same repeat mistakes. There is also something else to consider. The fact that no builders would even entertain the idea of making paired heavy rail rapid transit cars that could be coupled and uncoupled easily for RTA, shows how little the system is viewed in rail transit. Major systems that have big orders and can be expected to be making repeat orders in the not-too-distant future are "respected". Prospective builders show this respect by incorporating "special wishes" for bid packages. The builders know that the potential for major repeat business for these systems are a possibility. Rail car builders don't see this in RTA. RTA's order is small and will need to conform to unnecessary features. There are serious questions about its leadership. Add-on options will probably be exercised, but even then the complete order will be fairly small. Based upon past history, it will be decades before RTA will even contemplate its next rail car purchase. For a major builder like Siemens, this order is no more than a gap-filler. Edited June 8, 20214 yr by LifeLongClevelander
June 8, 20214 yr I hope they make high platforms the standard for the whole system eventually, as high platform trains are more accessible.
June 8, 20214 yr 21 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: This is the best way to make RTA's rail system completely transformative for Cleveland. Is it? I'm not convinced that it is better than KJP's suggestion of "completing the loop" downtown using the Waterfront Line to transition to a streetcar along E17/E18 or thereabouts past CSU and TriC. KJP's plan seems likely to be cheaper as well. I completely agree that a subway would be faster and far more desirable but I think the cost is prohibitive. It's unfortunate that this report's "alternatives" that were considered/proposed do not take that Waterfront Line extension concept into account for comparison.
June 8, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Foraker said: Is it? I'm not convinced that it is better than KJP's suggestion of "completing the loop" downtown using the Waterfront Line to transition to a streetcar along E17/E18 or thereabouts past CSU and TriC. KJP's plan seems likely to be cheaper as well. I completely agree that a subway would be faster and far more desirable but I think the cost is prohibitive. It's unfortunate that this report's "alternatives" that were considered/proposed do not take that Waterfront Line extension concept into account for comparison. I love the subway plan! It will also give Cleveland that "big city" feel that has been slowly dissipating. It doesn't conflict with KJP's waterfront loop as that comes from the northern part of Downtown and this is the southern part and they should meet at some point so transfers can be made between the two. Yes, subway is more expensive--but not cost prohibitive as there are federal infrastructure stimulus funds that can be used--and the subway will bring more development than a streetcar route. But, in any event, both projects should be done. The waterfront line shouldn't just dead-end at a parking lot.
June 8, 20214 yr On 6/7/2021 at 3:24 PM, Luke_S said: Is this plan still feasible if they are closing up some of the old subway tunnels? On 6/7/2021 at 3:29 PM, KJP said: No. I was talking to Mark a couple hours ago and he wasn't aware of it. RTA is so anti-rail, its mind-boggling. Construction work on the subway entries has not happened yet. If RTA wanted this plan, they could simply NOT seal the subway entries. Otherwise undoing such RTA stupidity once Birdsong is booted out will just add millions to this project.
June 8, 20214 yr RTA's Central Rail Maintenance Facility was designed specifically for the rail fleets they currently have. The biggest problem in the facility is the transfer table that is used to move rail cars from one side of the shop to the other. The longest rail car it can handle is not much bigger than the 77-foot long Breda LRV's. As the Tokyu HRV's are 75-foot long (uncoupled), they have no problem. I don't think going though the labor-intensive effort to disconnect two semi-permanently joined cars will be feasible. It has been quite a while since I was in the facility, but I don't know if some of the inside tracks are accessible by any method other than shifting via the transfer table. The other significant issue involves the hydraulic lifts that are set in the concrete floor. There are specific ones spaced for the jacking points of an articulated Breda LRV (3 trucks per car with the middle one under the articulation point). There are others that are set for the jacking points of the 2-truck Tokyu HRV's. Back when they still had some of the older PCC's, Bluebirds and Airporters, only one pair of jacks could be used. The other end needed to be lifted with portable jacks. As no company will accommodate RTA's limitations, it may be extremely expensive to be able to modify the building to service 150-foot long rail car pairs. It would take a huge amount of clear space to be able to operate a transfer table of over 150 feet long. There may be other restrictions where track work cannot be changed for access points and switches. Hopefully if RTA does go with an articulated LRV to serve all lines, only the hydraulic jacks need to be spaced differently in part of the shop.
June 9, 20214 yr On 6/7/2021 at 7:11 PM, Boomerang_Brian said: This is the best way to make RTA's rail system completely transformative for Cleveland. 4 hours ago, Foraker said: Is it? I'm not convinced that it is better than KJP's suggestion of "completing the loop" downtown using the Waterfront Line to transition to a streetcar along E17/E18 or thereabouts past CSU and TriC. KJP's plan seems likely to be cheaper as well. I completely agree that a subway would be faster and far more desirable but I think the cost is prohibitive. It's unfortunate that this report's "alternatives" that were considered/proposed do not take that Waterfront Line extension concept into account for comparison. YES, absolutely yes! Quite frankly, the misgiving I've had about @KJP's East 17th proposal for the loop is that it basically misses the central business district - E 17th is 0.43 miles to E 9th, meaning the walk from an E 9th office tower to an E 17th light rail station would be between 10-15 minutes. Best transit usage is walks under 5 minutes, decent usage for 5-10 minute walks, and then it really drops off. (This is why I'd been suggesting an alignment of either E12 or E13.) On the subway proposal, the East 9th / Huron / Prospect station immediately becomes one of the most important stations in the entire system. The Cuyahoga County office building and Medical Mutual are basically right on top of this to get immediate riders. The development potential is amazing - look at the 5 minute walk radius in the map below. The AT&T tower is super close plus all the surface lots for Gateway that are the rumors of redevelopment efforts. The biggest thing for me, though, is operating time. As outlined in this new subway proposal, this extension would only add 2.8 minutes per one way trip. In other words, if I'm going from West Park to University Circle, I'm hardly inconvenienced at all. Yet the new Red Line would provide great coverage to half of downtown and OK coverage to another quarter. By comparison, the original late 90s Waterfront Loop (basically same as what we've recently discussed here) would be 25 minutes around the loop! I wouldn't want to add that to a Red Line trip. Which means you have to transfer at Tower City to utilize the loop if you're coming from the Red Line. (Or you'd have to split the west side Red Line from the East side Red Line so both could use the loop - still requires a transfer for cross town trips.) It isn't cohesive. (And it still leaves a big donut hole in the CBD!) https://www.centerforcleveland.org/red-line Waterfont Loop projected travel times: Furthermore, this proposal accomplishes some of the same goals as the downtown Loop, in that it makes the Waterfront Line WAY more useful. (Assuming they use light rail, not heavy rail.) Today the Waterfront Line isn't particularly useful because it doesn't go very many place one would want to go. But if you could hop on a train in the East Bank and go directly to CSU or Playhouse Square or Heinen's, the line is substantially more useful. (And it could replace parts of the Trolley service.) I'd send Blue and Green lines through this tunnel too, to add the same benefits. I also think it's super important that this proposal would essentially complete the most important and most expensive phase of a proper Euclid Ave rail connection between downtown and UC. Anything that gets us closer to that is worth pushing for. This downtown subway could also be a trunk line for a network of streetcars in some utopian future. It's important to note that the Waterfront Loop proposal would complement this well - I'd even try to do them at the same time. Anyway, lots to like about this proposal. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 9, 20214 yr Traditional heavy rail rapid transit should not be considered going forward in Cleveland. The ridership on the system does not warrant it as things currently stand. Light rail is already in use and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be adopted as the system-wide standard. Nationally, most new rapid transit construction follows the light rail model. With the proven technology for LRV's to support both high and low platforms currently in use, there isn't a valid reason why it cannot be used here. Furthermore, adopting one standard rail vehicle for system-wide use is the most prudent fiscal solution for RTA to embrace. For a system where its leaders have cried out for better funding, they need to operate the system in the best fiscal manner. Eliminating the duplication required to support multiple incompatible rail fleets will go a long way towards better financial management. Also, ordering two different small rail fleets will result in significantly higher costs per rail car, not to mention the higher ongoing operating/maintenance costs for their service lives. This system does not have the scope where supporting multiple types of rail cars is needed, especially when they already share common track and facilities.
June 9, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: YES, absolutely yes! Quite frankly, the misgiving I've had about @KJP's East 17th proposal for the loop is that it basically misses the central business district - E 17th is 0.43 miles to E 9th, meaning the walk from an E 9th office tower to an E 17th light rail station would be between 10-15 minutes. * * * Anyway, lots to like about this proposal. This is a great discussion. I would love to have a fast, convenient (within five minutes of EVERY building in the central business district) subway line downtown. Man, would I love that (and the lack of snow delays)! I still question whether this is the best way to accomplish that long-term goal. Yes, it adds a lot of connections and not a lot of time to the Red Line. But it's going to be really expensive and still leave out a lot of the central business district. If this short red line diversion sucks up all of RTA's bonus money, is it worth it? That's where I still have my doubts. And yes, the Waterfront Line is too far out for the central business district so even "completing the loop" will require some significant investment in TOD around the new stations to truly make it successful. That is far from ideal, and it's only strong points are that it solves the dead-end problem of the Waterfront line, it will be far less expensive than a subway, and would finally connect a huge part of the region to CSU and Tri-C with just one transfer. If we were to use the RTA lines to bring visitors into Tower City, and we extend the Waterfront line east instead of turning it south, what would the ideal downtown subway loop look like, and could the construction of this red line diversion provide the infrastructure for the first segment of such a loop? If it was part of such a long-term plan I would be more enthusiastic about the expense of such an investment.
June 9, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: This is a great discussion. I would love to have a fast, convenient (within five minutes of EVERY building in the central business district) subway line downtown. Man, would I love that (and the lack of snow delays)! I still question whether this is the best way to accomplish that long-term goal. Yes, it adds a lot of connections and not a lot of time to the Red Line. But it's going to be really expensive and still leave out a lot of the central business district. If this short red line diversion sucks up all of RTA's bonus money, is it worth it? That's where I still have my doubts. And yes, the Waterfront Line is too far out for the central business district so even "completing the loop" will require some significant investment in TOD around the new stations to truly make it successful. That is far from ideal, and it's only strong points are that it solves the dead-end problem of the Waterfront line, it will be far less expensive than a subway, and would finally connect a huge part of the region to CSU and Tri-C with just one transfer. If we were to use the RTA lines to bring visitors into Tower City, and we extend the Waterfront line east instead of turning it south, what would the ideal downtown subway loop look like, and could the construction of this red line diversion provide the infrastructure for the first segment of such a loop? If it was part of such a long-term plan I would be more enthusiastic about the expense of such an investment. Great comments. Regarding your “subway loop” question - I would NOT advocate for a subway loop. Subways are ideal for higher speeds and longer distances. A streetcar loop could be interesting if it complemented a proper through-subway. I do not consider today’s Red Line a proper subway because it only has one downtown station. However, this proposal would give it three excellent downtown stations, plus a downtown-adjacent station (Tri-C / St Vincent hospital). From my perspective, after this Red Line subway proposal, my next highest rated project would be to connect Shaker Square to UC, similar to @KJP’s proposal, except I’d use MLK / 116th to Stokes to the UC station, then Adelbert to Euclid west to the Clinic. (As Ken described, you really want both hospitals to have easy walking distance stations.) Here is an earlier map of this proposal - I’m going to update this to use fewer stations to improve speed. If we have the Red Line subway and the above, it becomes easier to create a rail connection along Euclid. Back to downtown - a worthwhile alternative to the Waterfront Loop proposal would be a streetcar along St Clair. This would be evenly spaced between Tower City and the Waterfront Line. The “loop” would be at West 6th and East 17th, and the proposed Red Line subway. St Clair streetcars from the East and Detroit Ave streetcars from the west could use this loop to maximize their utility and ridership. Somewhat like this, but East 17 instead of East 13, and fewer stations. I’m going to update my transit proposal maps (linked up thread) to reflect these concepts when I get a chance. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 10, 20214 yr Updated my downtown transit proposal map with this Red Line alignment. Screenshots with and without the Waterfront Line downtown loop on 17th. (The Google map has several alternative alignments.) https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1XxnbS1vOcoKUOnn4YXZO7bnbEvzgAn8B&usp=sharing When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 10, 20214 yr ^I’m pretty confused about the map above. It looks like it is co-mingling the red and blue/green/waterfront lines. Or you feel that a subway below with another train directly above would ever be approved. I see it as either the redline option with subway or the waterline loop being finished as 2 best significant transit ideas for downtown. The redline might cost several hundred million dollars more but might be the better long term option.
June 10, 20214 yr 27 minutes ago, audidave said: ^I’m pretty confused about the map above. It looks like it is co-mingling the red and blue/green/waterfront lines. Or you feel that a subway below with another train directly above would ever be approved. I see it as either the redline option with subway or the waterline loop being finished as 2 best significant transit ideas for downtown. The redline might cost several hundred million dollars more but might be the better long term option. Everything will be light rail, so all the lines would go through the new subway tunnel. That's not the author's proposal (he suggests heavy rail, meaning Blue and Green could not use it), but I think that all light rail would improve the usefulness of the project and is the only thing that makes sense anyway, considering new Heavy Rail vehicles won't fit in RTA's maintenance facility. If I'm understanding it correctly, Siemens S200 LRV (like Calgary) do allow for level boarding from medium level platforms (and have gap fillers for different station platform configurations). Separately, anyone who'd like to help me generate some Twitter enthusiasm... When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 10, 20214 yr 14 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: Updated my downtown transit proposal map with this Red Line alignment. Screenshots with and without the Waterfront Line downtown loop on 17th. (The Google map has several alternative alignments.) https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1XxnbS1vOcoKUOnn4YXZO7bnbEvzgAn8B&usp=sharing I like this map, but I would add one stop -- move the St. Vincent stop closer to Community College Ave and add a stop at the Stephanie Tubbs Jones transit center -- I think those changes get you closer to CSU and Tri-C while also providing that direct connection to bus transfers. Then you also could also move the E17th stop to just west of E14.
June 10, 20214 yr 5 hours ago, Foraker said: I like this map, but I would add one stop -- move the St. Vincent stop closer to Community College Ave and add a stop at the Stephanie Tubbs Jones transit center -- I think those changes get you closer to CSU and Tri-C while also providing that direct connection to bus transfers. Then you also could also move the E17th stop to just west of E14. My initial reaction was also that skipping the STJ transit center was a miss, but the 5-minute walking radius map changed my mind. Every point along the subway is already within 5 minutes of a station. My understanding is that anything within a 5 minute walk generates a similar high level of passengers. Adding more stations would reduce speed without increasing ridership. (And dramatically increase capital costs.) As far as transfers at STJ, keep in mind that nearly every bus that goes there would also pass either the Euclid / E 17 station or the E 22 / Tri-C station, so most potential transfers already have a transfer point. I think it's ALL bus lines would have a transfer point if you include Tower City. My thinking on this has evolved a lot - if you go back to my transit maps from a year or two ago, you'll see I had a similar line with stations at Huron/Ontario, East 9th, Euclid/East 14th, Euclid/E21, STJ, St Vincent, AND Tri-C. As I've learned more about effective transit planning, I now understand that having that many stations would most likely result in WORSE ridership than just doing these three, because they would slow down the total speed. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 11, 20214 yr 23 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: My initial reaction was also that skipping the STJ transit center was a miss, but the 5-minute walking radius map changed my mind. Every point along the subway is already within 5 minutes of a station. My understanding is that anything within a 5 minute walk generates a similar high level of passengers. Adding more stations would reduce speed without increasing ridership. (And dramatically increase capital costs.) As far as transfers at STJ, keep in mind that nearly every bus that goes there would also pass either the Euclid / E 17 station or the E 22 / Tri-C station, so most potential transfers already have a transfer point. I think it's ALL bus lines would have a transfer point if you include Tower City. My thinking on this has evolved a lot - if you go back to my transit maps from a year or two ago, you'll see I had a similar line with stations at Huron/Ontario, East 9th, Euclid/East 14th, Euclid/E21, STJ, St Vincent, AND Tri-C. As I've learned more about effective transit planning, I now understand that having that many stations would most likely result in WORSE ridership than just doing these three, because they would slow down the total speed. Valid points. Having to make a transfer already increases travel time, so how can we minimize the disruption of a transfer? That's why I would make transfers, whether to the Healthline or a bus at STJ, as easy as possible -- putting subway exits adjacent Healthline stations, for example, and at STJ. Now, if going to STJ isn't really necessary because "every" bus goes by a subway stop, then problem solved. The walk from E17th&Euclid is a block east on Euclid, a block south on E18 (uphill), and another block and a half into STJ before boarding a bus -- plus the walk up from the subway if it's underground. And it's an almost equal distance to the main classroom building at CSU. I would guess that the actual walk time for many people would be closer to ten minutes. The five-minute walk is not usually a perfect circle -- check this out: https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-lng=-81.68009&0-tt=5&0-mode=ferry&0-title=B. F. Keith Building%2C 1631%2C Euclid Avenue%2C East 4th Street%2C Playhouse Square%2C Cleveland%2C Cuyahoga County%2C Ohio%2C 44115%2C United States of America&0-lat=41.50123 You can move around the center location to see the five-minute walk where each of your stations would be. I think if you could move the station further east to E18th you'd get to 5 minutes to the bulk of CSU, STJ, and Playhouse Square. That might be close enough for this number of stations, but if a lot of people NEED to get to STJ, it would be nice to have a covered walkway from the subway train directly to STJ. Depending on how deep the subway runs and how you dig the tunnels (could we borrow one of the sewer-tunnel diggers?) the tunnels would not necessarily have to follow surface streets and the exits from the subway could be directed to convenient exit points on multiple streets.
June 11, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, Foraker said: Valid points. Having to make a transfer already increases travel time, so how can we minimize the disruption of a transfer? That's why I would make transfers, whether to the Healthline or a bus at STJ, as easy as possible -- putting subway exits adjacent Healthline stations, for example, and at STJ. Now, if going to STJ isn't really necessary because "every" bus goes by a subway stop, then problem solved. The walk from E17th&Euclid is a block east on Euclid, a block south on E18 (uphill), and another block and a half into STJ before boarding a bus -- plus the walk up from the subway if it's underground. And it's an almost equal distance to the main classroom building at CSU. I would guess that the actual walk time for many people would be closer to ten minutes. The five-minute walk is not usually a perfect circle -- check this out: https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-lng=-81.68009&0-tt=5&0-mode=ferry&0-title=B. F. Keith Building%2C 1631%2C Euclid Avenue%2C East 4th Street%2C Playhouse Square%2C Cleveland%2C Cuyahoga County%2C Ohio%2C 44115%2C United States of America&0-lat=41.50123 You can move around the center location to see the five-minute walk where each of your stations would be. I think if you could move the station further east to E18th you'd get to 5 minutes to the bulk of CSU, STJ, and Playhouse Square. That might be close enough for this number of stations, but if a lot of people NEED to get to STJ, it would be nice to have a covered walkway from the subway train directly to STJ. Depending on how deep the subway runs and how you dig the tunnels (could we borrow one of the sewer-tunnel diggers?) the tunnels would not necessarily have to follow surface streets and the exits from the subway could be directed to convenient exit points on multiple streets. Yes, I agree on all points. PHS station need to be far enough east of E 17 so that they can grade separate a route that turns north there. And that also covers more of CSU. I would not do tunnel boring - definitely should be cut and cover for most. Huron isn’t THAT busy. And it feels like Euclid is wide enough that you could probably maintain traffic and do C&C using parking lanes and maybe one travel lane. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 11, 20214 yr All these big ideas for Cleveland's transit system. A good start would be steam cleaning the seats on the HealthLine so the vehicles don't reak of malt liquor and goat cheese. Hey, I'm entitled to trash talk. I live in Columbus. We don't even have public transit outside of the occasional bus! I really miss being able to take a train to the airport 100 ft from my apartment. I think it's easy to live in a city and take what you have for granted and focus on what needs to be improved vs. what you have. It's hard for me to believe I literally just walked like 100 ft outside my apartment with my rolling suitcase and was transported directly to the airport in like 35 minutes for my flight to Orlando. The airport was a dump but that's a whole different story.
June 11, 20214 yr I'll tell you what strikes me, though. I noticed during my stint in Cleveland, train stations didn't seem to have a significant impact on nearby economic development. It's quite odd. You would think Shaker Square would be in better shape. There was also a stop at East twenty something I think...somewhere around in there. The train station was absolutely desolate and there was nothing around at all, despite being the closest stop to the university. I'd really like to see transit-oriented development there. I took the red line to East Cleveland one time and couldn't believe how ghetto that area was. The biggest problem is everyone's perception that public transit is for poor people and a last resort. No one focuses on the convenience of it. We lived in Shaker Square specifically because of how well-connected it was to the rest of the city. You could take a train and it would take 14 minutes to go downtown vs. driving literally 45 minutes to the same destination 6-7 miles away. There's no red lights that trains have to stop at and there was only like 4 stops in between. Due to the design of the highway system, it's really hard to get downtown if you live on the east side. Yet people really only go out of their way to use the rapid if they're going to a baseball game. Edited June 11, 20214 yr by David
June 11, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, skiwest said: Hopefully the airport situation will change, but it won't happen for a few years. I heard they're remodeling the airport and dumping a billion or 2 billion into it. I'm usually the first person to call remodeling jobs like that a waste of money but I think when it comes to airports and public transit, high spending is necessary because for those who are visiting, they're going to base their opinion of the town on those things. They probably don't have time to visit Cleveland's great institutions like the Rock Hall and Museum of Art but they're for sure walking through the airport and likely to take the train somewhere.
June 11, 20214 yr Total cost is estimated at $2B in a few phases over 20+ years. First phase is estimated at about $750M.
June 11, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, David said: I'll tell you what strikes me, though. I noticed during my stint in Cleveland, train stations didn't seem to have a significant impact on nearby economic development. It's quite odd. You would think Shaker Square would be in better shape. There was also a stop at East twenty something I think...somewhere around in there. The train station was absolutely desolate and there was nothing around at all, despite being the closest stop to the university. I'd really like to see transit-oriented development there. I took the red line to East Cleveland one time and couldn't believe how ghetto that area was. The biggest problem is everyone's perception that public transit is for poor people and a last resort. No one focuses on the convenience of it. We lived in Shaker Square specifically because of how well-connected it was to the rest of the city. You could take a train and it would take 14 minutes to go downtown vs. driving literally 45 minutes to the same destination 6-7 miles away. There's no red lights that trains have to stop at and there was only like 4 stops in between. Due to the design of the highway system, it's really hard to get downtown if you live on the east side. Yet people really only go out of their way to use the rapid if they're going to a baseball game. Yes, because Cleveland and RTA have traditionally been TERRIBLE at land use around transit. Check out how many rail stations are entirely surrounded by parking lots. Fortunately at least the new Van Aken has been a recent example of decent ToD. Moving the Red Line station from Euclid / E 117 to the heart of Little Italy was also a great step. And Ohio City is becoming another good option. Almost every other station is a blank slate of opportunity. To be crystal clear, RTA’s top priority (now that the system redesign is in place) should be aggressively pursuing ToD on every station parking lot and area. Next priority is fixing (I.e. speeding up) the HealthLine. Then adding more downtown stations would be the third highest priority. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 11, 20214 yr NOACA has finalized their (our?) long range plan. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 12, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, David said: Hey, I'm entitled to trash talk. I live in Columbus. We don't even have public transit outside of the occasional bus! When I lived in Columbus they had drunk driving awareness billboard ads on the buses saying "Johnny drove drunk...so this is his new ride." [insert facepalm emoji]
Create an account or sign in to comment