11 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

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] 

 

D@mn, that's cringy as hell.  Obviously drinking and driving is extremely dangerous and there are legal consequences but not the most appropriate place to put something like that. Someone made a really good point on the forum, many years ago, saying, 'You'd think MADD would be the biggest advocates of public transportation." It makes sense. It's particularly bad in the smaller cities/towns where there is no train, bus service, no uber/lyft, no taxi service, etc. I know people in small towns who would gladly pay 10 dollars to be shuttled from the bar to somewhere near their house, to avoid driving. It's a lot cheaper than a DUI. Good luck finding a DD at 2am... Also, there are people who lose their license for a number of reasons. Some people are too blind to drive. If you go to the doctor because you had a seizure, I think they're legally obligated to report it to the BMV and you're not legally allowed to drive until you've been seizure-free for 6 months.

People in Columbus (or any other major city) use buses all the time for other reasons, especially in areas where parking is so scarce. We have neighborhoods you can't park in, unless you have a permit and proof of your residence in said neighborhood. If that isn't a sign that a city needs to be on the up-and-up in terms of public transit, I don't know wtf is.

Edited June 12, 20214 yr by David

On 6/7/2021 at 2:54 PM, 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

 

 

Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this proposal by the powers-that-be? NOACA? City of Cleveland? The County?  Is it just me, or is it strange that "The Center for Cleveland" put all this time and effort into this outstanding proposal, and then have seemingly done nothing to actually promote it?  I don't think they even acknowledged my retweet and substantial thread on the proposal which was mostly enthusiastic - you would think they would want to drum up support.  Zero engagement with anyone following their initial Tweet.  Is their any politicking going on behind the scenes?

 

With the Infrastructure Bill and the budget bill, there's probably going to be some big federal money getting invested.  I think the cities that have big projects queued up will benefit.  I'd like Cleveland to be putting in the effort on something big like this.  I continue to think this would be the most impactful project (of the at least somewhat-realistic ones) that's been proposed for Cleveland.  (Not just transit related - I'm talking out of ALL projects.)  Am I missing something?

Yes, that it will take many years and perhaps $100+ million to conduct the alternatives analyses, preliminary engineering and environmental clearances before funding can be secured. And it is highly unlikely that Cleveland would be able to win New Starts money considering Cleveland's low population, low transit ridership and low traffic congestion.

1 minute ago, KJP said:

Yes, that it will take many years and perhaps $100+ million to conduct the alternatives analyses, preliminary engineering and environmental clearances before funding can be secured. And it is highly unlikely that Cleveland would be able to win New Starts money considering Cleveland's low population, low transit ridership and low traffic congestion.

But why did "The Center for Cleveland" put time and effort into the report if they weren't going to follow up with efforts to build support?  That's the part I'm not following.

Assuming we do get a consolidated light rail fleet, I'd love to see either the Blue or Green line be extended across the viaduct to serve Ohio City.  I'd only run it to the W. 25th station and then turn it back around - I don't think the other stations would generate enough passengers to be worth it - but getting it to Ohio City dramatically improves the frequency between OC and downtown.  That one station connection could be a popular route with sufficient frequency.  I think the additional running time could be justified by the increased ridership.

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Assuming we do get a consolidated light rail fleet, I'd love to see either the Blue or Green line be extended across the viaduct to serve Ohio City.  I'd only run it to the W. 25th station and then turn it back around - I don't think the other stations would generate enough passengers to be worth it - but getting it to Ohio City dramatically improves the frequency between OC and downtown.  That one station connection could be a popular route with sufficient frequency.  I think the additional running time could be justified by the increased ridership.

Don't know what the ridership looks like for the current Red Line, but a number of years ago, the west side used to have more service than the east side.  There were specific trains that would arrive from the west side and turn back at Tower City.  It would be interesting to know what passengers got on either the Green or Blue Line and transfer to the Red Line to go to the west side.  A potential ride generator could be W. 150th.  The line contributed the most transfers to continue to the west side would be through-routed.  Through-routing either the Green or Blue Line would replace the Red Line turn back. 

 

Agree that any of the other stations, aside of the Airport or West 25th, would not have enough patronage to warrant having through service.  A West 25th turn back would not add a tremendous amount of extra mileage as compared to the turn back on the viaduct.

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

But why did "The Center for Cleveland" put time and effort into the report if they weren't going to follow up with efforts to build support?  That's the part I'm not following.

 

For the same reason I throw ideas out there -- to see if anyone of them will find support among a strong interest group that could make it happen. AAO is too small to make things happen by itself. We just keep the pilot light on just in case anyone with fuel shows up to crank up the fire.

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Assuming we do get a consolidated light rail fleet, I'd love to see either the Blue or Green line be extended across the viaduct to serve Ohio City.  I'd only run it to the W. 25th station and then turn it back around - I don't think the other stations would generate enough passengers to be worth it - but getting it to Ohio City dramatically improves the frequency between OC and downtown.  That one station connection could be a popular route with sufficient frequency.  I think the additional running time could be justified by the increased ridership.

 

In the early mornings and early evenings, I would run several express trains from Green Road to the Airport, stopping only at Warrensville, Shaker Square, Tower City and Triskett. The westbounds in the early morning would leave Green Road at 4:30 a.m., 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. and take 40-45 minutes to get to the Airport. Those trains would return east as regular-schedule rush hour Red Line trains to Tower City and layover during the day at Central Rail. In the evening, the three expresses would be sent from Central Rail as regular Red Line rush hour trains to the Airport, and return as expresses to Green Road, leaving the Airport at 6 p.m., 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., stopping only at the express train stops already noted.

 

Maybe RTA could serve morning coffee, pastries and WiFi on-board, plus evening wine and cheese? Just kidding -- except for the WiFi.

20 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

For the same reason I throw ideas out there -- to see if anyone of them will find support among a strong interest group that could make it happen. AAO is too small to make things happen by itself. We just keep the pilot light on just in case anyone with fuel shows up to crank up the fire.

 

 

In the early mornings and early evenings, I would run several express trains from Green Road to the Airport, stopping only at Warrensville, Shaker Square, Tower City and Triskett. The westbounds in the early morning would leave Green Road at 4:30 a.m., 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. and take 40-45 minutes to get to the Airport. Those trains would return east as regular-schedule rush hour Red Line trains to Tower City and layover during the day at Central Rail. In the evening, the three expresses would be sent from Central Rail as regular Red Line rush hour trains to the Airport, and return as expresses to Green Road, leaving the Airport at 6 p.m., 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., stopping only at the express train stops already noted.

 

Maybe RTA could serve morning coffee, pastries and WiFi on-board, plus evening wine and cheese? Just kidding -- except for the WiFi.

Not too outlandish of the idea of serving morning coffee and pastries or snack and beverage in the evening.  Between 1941 and 1963, the North Shore interurban (operated between Chicago and Milwaukee) operated two 4-car sets known as "Electroliners".  There was a tavern-lounge section as one of the sections.  After the North Shore quit, both sets were sold to Philadelphia's Red Arrow Norristown high-speed line.  This line starts in Upper Darby, a suburb on the border of Philadelphia at the end of the Market-Frankfort subway-elevated line and runs to Norristown.  The line was later taken over by SEPTA and the car sets known as "Electroliners" ran until 1978.  They offered the morning coffee and pastries or snack and beverage in the evening on the Norristown line.  This was also the line that operated the "Bullet" high speed cars until around 1990.

And yet somehow I cannot seeing GCRTA doing the same thing.

Interesting article on Planetizen comparing average bus stop spacing among cities.  Generally, Cleveland bus stops are some of the closest.  I wonder if we could maintain service levels but reduce costs by adding an extra 20 meters or so between spaces?  It would probably cost a lot of money to move the benches and shelters but it is interesting food for thought.   https://findingspress.org/article/27373-distributions-of-bus-stop-spacings-in-the-united-states

OK, here's a relatively low-cost idea.... RTA acquired property from NS in 2019 in preparation for its East 79th Red Line station rebuild. That included NS property south of the Red Line all the way west to the junction of the Blue/Green and Red lines. So now RTA wouldn't have to acquire any property to build a single connecting track to allow rush-hour-only trains to go from the Van Aken District or Green Road to University Circle and Windermere, and back. The connecting track would measure 2,000 feet long and have a crossover track installed on the Red Line just west of the East 79th station.

 

For something in the range of $20 million to $40 million, GCRTA could provide a one-seat ride by rail from the eastern suburbs to University Circle. I'd prefer it start with a two-track connection but that might be too expensive, and I don't think it would work for more than just rush hours. Off-peak travel could be handled by transfers at East 55th. This also assumes use of a unified light-rail fleet on all rail lines, Proof-Of-Payment on the Blue/Green lines, automation of the Shaker Square junction, and installing equipment that gives trains signal priority at all intersections in Shaker Heights.

 

Here are some comparative travel times (the RAIL+WAIT+BUS+WALK time is the current transit offering but could be reduced by 3-5 minutes or more by implementing POP, SS Jct. automation, and signal priority in Shaker Hts):

 

From the Van Aken District or Green Road to:

 

DESTINATION --- RAIL+WALK --- RAIL+WAIT+BUS+WALK --- CAR+WALK

Euclid-East105 --- 20+13=33 --- 16+8+8+0=32 -------------- 19+3=22

Adelbert Hall ----- 22+7=29 ---- 12+15+15+0=42 ------------ 16+6=22

UH-LernerTwr ---- 24+7=31 ---- 12+15+15+4=46 ------------ 20+2=22

DiSanto FIeld ----- 24+8=32 ---- 12+15+15+13=55 ----------- 23+1=24

 

The tightest curve is slightly less tight than the hairpin curve on the Waterfront Line at the Port of Cleveland. So it will work. But if some re-grading with a retaining wall added below to the Opportunity Corridor overpass and acquisition of publicly owned property are desired, the gentler curve shown in blue in the GoogleEarth map could be accomplished.

 

 

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

OK, here's a relatively low-cost idea.... RTA acquired property from NS in 2019 in preparation for its East 79th Red Line station rebuild. That included NS property south of the Red Line all the way west to the junction of the Blue/Green and Red lines. So now RTA wouldn't have to acquire any property to building a single connecting track that would allow rush-hour-only trains to go from the Van Aken District or Green Road to University Circle and Windermere, and back. The connecting track would measure 2,000 feet long and have a crossover track installed on the Red Line just west of the East 79th station.

 

For something in the range of $20 million to $40 million, GCRTA could provide a one-seat ride by rail from the eastern suburbs to University Circle. I'd prefer it start with a two-track connection but that might be too expensive, and I don't think it would work for more than just rush hours. Off-peak travel could be handled by transfers at East 55th. This also assumes use of Proof-Of-Payment on the Blue/Green lines, automation of the Shaker Square junction, and installing equipment that gives trains signal priority at all intersections in Shaker Heights. Here's some comparative travel times:

 

From the Van Aken District or Green Road to:

 

DESTINATION --- RAIL+WALK --- RAIL+WAIT+BUS+WALK --- CAR+WALK

Euclid-East105 --- 21+13=34 --- 19+8+8+0=35 -------------- 19+3=22

Adelbert Hall ----- 23+7=30 ---- 15+15+15+0=45 ------------ 16+6=22

UH-LernerTwr ---- 25+7=32 ---- 15+15+15+4=49 ------------ 20+2=22

DiSanto FIeld ----- 25+8=33 ---- 15+15+15+13=58 ----------- 23+1=24

 

The tightest curve is slightly less tight than the hairpin curve on the Waterfront Line at the Port of Cleveland. So it will work. But if some re-grading with a retaining wall added below to the Opportunity Corridor overpass and acquisition of publicly owned property are desired, the gentler curve shown in blue in the GoogleEarth map could be accomplished.

 

 

 

We talked about something like this a few years ago, except IIRC it connected around E-116.   It makes sense, but rail would have to become a priority and I don't see any sign that it has.   Not when a glorified "6" bus line is unironically called BRT.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

OK, here's a relatively low-cost idea.... RTA acquired property from NS in 2019 in preparation for its East 79th Red Line station rebuild. That included NS property south of the Red Line all the way west to the junction of the Blue/Green and Red lines. So now RTA wouldn't have to acquire any property to building a single connecting track that would allow rush-hour-only trains to go from the Van Aken District or Green Road to University Circle and Windermere, and back. The connecting track would measure 2,000 feet long and have a crossover track installed on the Red Line just west of the East 79th station.

 

For something in the range of $20 million to $40 million, GCRTA could provide a one-seat ride by rail from the eastern suburbs to University Circle. I'd prefer it start with a two-track connection but that might be too expensive, and I don't think it would work for more than just rush hours. Off-peak travel could be handled by transfers at East 55th. This also assumes use of Proof-Of-Payment on the Blue/Green lines, automation of the Shaker Square junction, and installing equipment that gives trains signal priority at all intersections in Shaker Heights. Here's some comparative travel times:

 

From the Van Aken District or Green Road to:

 

DESTINATION --- RAIL+WALK --- RAIL+WAIT+BUS+WALK --- CAR+WALK

Euclid-East105 --- 21+13=34 --- 19+8+8+0=35 -------------- 19+3=22

Adelbert Hall ----- 23+7=30 ---- 15+15+15+0=45 ------------ 16+6=22

UH-LernerTwr ---- 25+7=32 ---- 15+15+15+4=49 ------------ 20+2=22

DiSanto FIeld ----- 25+8=33 ---- 15+15+15+13=58 ----------- 23+1=24

 

The tightest curve is slightly less tight than the hairpin curve on the Waterfront Line at the Port of Cleveland. So it will work. But if some re-grading with a retaining wall added below to the Opportunity Corridor overpass and acquisition of publicly owned property are desired, the gentler curve shown in blue in the GoogleEarth map could be accomplished.

 

 

Since the opening of the Red Line to Windermere in 1955, there has been a turn-back center track just east of the Cedar-University Circle station.  Another possibility is to add a turn-back track just beyond the Mayfield Road station.  The space is wide enough to accommodate a center track at that location without relocating either main line track.  The University Circle passengers could have access to either one of those stations and the ability to short-turn Blue or Green Line trains without going all the way to Windermere, saving a considerable amount of what would amount to non-revenue mileage. 

 

That connection to allow the Blue/Green Line to head east on the Red Line would be considerably bigger radius than the "universal" turning loop that was at the former Kingsbury Rail Shop site.  That turning loop was designed for rail cars from either current fleet to use it.

Edited August 30, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

Refined the travel times and noted that this could only be done with a systemwide light-rail fleet.

13 hours ago, KJP said:

Refined the travel times and noted that this could only be done with a systemwide light-rail fleet.

Thinking over your proposal a bit more.  To "effectively" handle westbound Red line service via the connecting track to the joint Blue/Green line eastbound would involve adding switches and perhaps crossings to handle the west to east directional change.  The westbound Red Line would have to switch to the eastbound track to enter the connecting track and then once on the joint Blue/Green track, the eastbound train would end up on the westbound track, needing to switch to the eastbound track.  An alternative would be to have the westbound Red Line cross the eastbound track and then cross over the westbound Blue/Green track.  In that case, "wrong direction" travel, even though it is for short distances, can be avoided.  It may be more desirable at that point to just make it a double track connector and be done with it (would save two switches on the connector as well).

 

To sum up:

1.   Single connector track with "wrong direction" travel on Red and Blue/Green lines would require 6 switches.

2.  Single connector track with crossings but no "wrong direction" travel would require 6 switches and 2 crossings.

3.  Two track connector would require 4 switches and 2 crossings.

 

All the more reason to have one systemwide light-rail fleet.  Makes these types of system enhancements far more feasible.  

Are you talking about a grade-separated flyover?

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Are you talking about a grade-separated flyover?

No, I am thinking that the connector tracks would form junctions with the Red Line and joint Blue/Green Line tracks in the same manner as where the Blue and Green lines separate at Shaker Boulevard and Van Aken Boulevard.  There wouldn't be enough traffic to warrant the cost of grade-separated flyovers.  Those would greatly increase the cost of the connector.  Simple signal protection would be enough for each end of the connector tracks at the junctions.  A theoretical maximum of a 4-car LRV train (roughly 300-320 feet in length) would not interfere with regular trains on either line.  The bridge on the Waterfront line was designed to hold 2 fully loaded 3-car trains of LRV's, so I gather that is the longest consist that would see in normal service.  The only time that I know of a 4-car LRV train operating was due to one 2-car train breaking down and it needed to be towed by another 2-car train.  The normal maximum on the current heavy rail fleet is 3 cars as well.  

 

It is also worth noting that in the late 1940's and then again in 1978-1979, the Shaker Rapid and RTA operated as many rapid transit cars just on the light rail lines as RTA currently operates on their entire system today.  The at-grade junction at Shaker and Van Aken wasn't an issue back then and the service on the proposed connector would not compare to they frequencies operated on the Shaker and Van Aken lines in the past. 

Edited September 1, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

I guess I'm not understanding how your proposal is different than what I already proposed, unless you're proposing all-day service between Van Aken-UC which would then necessitate a double track connection.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

I guess I'm not understanding how your proposal is different than what I already proposed, unless you're proposing all-day service between Van Aken-UC which would then necessitate a double track connection.

Just looking at some of the infrastructure changes and operational concerns.  In your original proposal, in the P.M rush hour, a trip from UC to Van Aken would need to cross from the westbound Red Line westbound track to the eastbound Red Line track to enter a single-track connector.  Upon exiting the connector, the Van Aken bound trip would be on the westbound Blue/Green line track before switching to the eastbound track.  It would involve running in the opposite direction of normal train service twice.  For normal, daily service in peak periods, that is not the best operating scenario.  To eliminate that sort of operation, the switch from the westbound Red Line would involve a single crossing of the eastbound Red line to get on the connector.  Then, another crossing would be needed to cross the westbound Blue/Green track to directly switch to the eastbound track.  Both of these options require switches to be engaged four times (by automated control to control the route taken or spring-switches when joining the other route).  

 

In my proposal, it would reduce the number of times switches would be engaged with the overall number of switches (and the associated maintenance) reduced.  Grading for a double-track connector isn't much more than for a single track section.  The savings from eliminating some of the special work would go a long way in paying for a full double-track section.  Plus, if the service ends up being more popular than anticipated, it would be in place to handle it as compared with trying to change it later.

Actually, I'm proposing to have the connection track come off the LRT siding/running track that comes out of Central Rail and has an existing switch onto the Blue/Green trunk line and a universal crossover just west of the East 79th station. 

 

So only four new switches would need to be installed for this new connection: one on the LRT siding and three on the Red Line.

On 9/1/2021 at 11:26 PM, KJP said:

Actually, I'm proposing to have the connection track come off the LRT siding/running track that comes out of Central Rail and has an existing switch onto the Blue/Green trunk line and a universal crossover just west of the East 79th station. 

 

So only four new switches would need to be installed for this new connection: one on the LRT siding and three on the Red Line.

This is better, but there shouldn't be any reverse direction operation on the Red Line.  Have a switch and crossing to the connector.  I am curious if government regulators might have an issue with normal reverse direction as a part of standard operations, especially if there is no overwhelming reason why it should occur.  

 

If a connector is built, even for one track, it should be graded for double track for future possibilities.  The overhead structure can be set up with one wire, but with the provision for two tracks.  A center pole holding the wire can be engineered to have one on the other side or if the line poles are outside the track, just have space to span a potential second track/wire underneath.

Edited September 4, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

Interesting......

 

 

Piggybacking off of what @NRhas proposed.  I've often thought we should use our wide boulevards to rebuild neighborhoods, Shopping districts and transportation routes.

 

We also need to think of a whole city transit system instead of a spoke / business hour model. in 2021, we have more neighborhoods that are active at all hours and not just Downtown.  This plan connects, all major work centers, schools, cultural and business attractions.

 

If money for construction and 10 years of operation, after the last line is completed, was no issue, I would like to see the Lorain-Carnegie and Detroit–Superior Bridges be transferred to RTA and propose the following lines

 

Bridge work

Detroit-Superior Bridge would be fitted with 4 tracks maybe 5 on the lower level.  Inner tracks lead through downtown and continue east.  Outer track enter/exit the bridge via the old Shaker Rapid terminal turn around.

 

Current Cleveland Rapid:

The line would be turned into an express and local route.

The line would have two additional tracks added in each direction from Windemere to the Airport.  This would be an Express route, benefiting workers and passengers traveling between the Airport, Downtown or UC.  the only stations this route would serve would be Airport, W 98 St, W 25, TC, E 55 St, UC and Windermere.

Expansion of the current red line would be in two parts and service as a Local Route.  The current Airport terminal would be moved south to the Cuyahoga County Fair grounds, giving the Fair and BW service.  On the East side the line would be extended to Babbitt Road

 

Detroit-Superior:

Detroit/Riverside via Detroit and Superior to Superior/Euclid.  Express tracks 98/West Cudell to East 9 Street. 

Two tracks Riverside/98, four tracks 98 St to East 9, two track E 9th to Superior/Euclid.

 

Shaker Rapid:

Shaker/271 to Lakeside/E 55th

Extend the line East to 271, it would continue on it's current route, but instead of dead ending at Muni lot, it would continue along Lakeside to E. 55

At 271 there would be a park-n-ride with only access to 271 itself.  There would be space for Kiss-n-ride drop off and pickup.

 

Van Aken Rapid:

Clifton/Summit (guess) to TriC/Harvard Park

The 55BRT would be eliminated and be rebranded with at grade rail service along Clifton.

Trains would run from Clifton to W 98 (which would now be a transfer station w/the Cleveland Rapid and the D/S Line). After leaving Clifton the trains would dip underground and run outside the D/S express tracks, to TC where the line would diverge from the D/S Bridge to the old Shaker Rapid station and continue East via it's current route.  At Warrensville, the line would cross onto Northfield and continue to Harvard, turn East on Harvard to Harvard Park/271 with a park-n-ride and kiss-n-ride components.

 

Lorain-Carnegie: 

Airport to UC Station

Two track from Rocky River via Lorain, across the bridge, and Carnegie to the UC Station.

Line connects with Red Line at three locations Airport, W. 65 and Univ. Circle

 

West 25-Parma Lines.

Three lines from Main Street in the Flats to Pleasant Valley along Pearl, Broadview, & State.  Taking buses of the streets.  These routes would run similar to the Shaker lines from TC to SQ or the Boston Green lines.

Between the Flats and where the three streets branch off there would be four tracks, The "state" line would be the only Express service in the section.  The other two lines would be local.At Broadview the trains would exit a portal and then run at grade.  Between Broadview and Pearl, there would be a no car, rail only transit mall.

 

St. Clair Line

Two track line running from Main St. in the flats all the way to Euclid Sq. Mall 

 

Broadway line

I hanged this in my head.  Starting East 9, then runs through Tri-C, turning south to broad way at 35 or 40 street. The line would connect with 34 Street, then continue east on Broadway to Libby ending at Southgate.  A second terminal would be at Broadway/Warrensville.

 

Downtown, this line would have transfer points to each East/West line.  it would connect with the Shaker Line in two points.

 

Harvard-Memphis Crosstown line

The only line not to route into downtown

Tri-C Harvard Park to Fair Ground/Baldwin Wallace

Starting at the Fair Ground the train would head north to Puritas, then turn east. then on Memphis to the Zoo, with a connection the Parma Lines.  Then finally onto Harvard to the dend of the line.

 

Fairmont Line

UC Station to John Carroll

Reconstruct the Fairmont line as the poles have never been remove.  This line would continue to John Carroll

 

Former Clifton BRT equipment would be moved to Hayden, E 152 to serve loops to connect the Collinwood areas to the St. Clair and Euclid lines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The interstate highway system was not initially intended to go through cities, but near or around them.  If we revert to that pattern, what would that look like for Cleveland?  From the east, I-90 to I-271 then I-480.   Maybe I-71 and I-77 terminate at I-490 into boulevards, and I-90 from I-71 to I-271 is eliminated/downgraded.

 

If I-90 from downtown to I-271 was converted to a boulevard with BRT, we might also make room for rail + TOD -- that would open up a ton of land for redevelopment.  Interstates have 12-foot lanes with a 10-foot to 50-foot median and 4-foot+ breakdown lanes -- I-90 east of downtown is about 150 feet wide, and N. and S. Marginal roads add another 50+ feet. 

 

A boulevard would be around 70-feet wide, freeing 80-to-130 feet of former right-of-way for rail, parks, or concentrated TOD around rail/BRT stations.  How much new development would you need to create new taxable property and reduce maintenance expenses to justify the loss of federal maintenance-assistance? 

 

I don't expect to see this ever happening but it's an interesting thought experiment.

@Foraker I've thought about this many times, going back to the 1990s. I think it would be a great way to honor Mr. Eisenhower and restore greatness to America's cities.

This is why I’m generally against free transit fares. A better way to spend that money would be to increase frequency - that will help existing riders more than cutting fares, and it would attract more choice riders. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This is why I’m generally against free transit fares. A better way to spend that money would be to increase frequency - that will help existing riders more than cutting fares, and it would attract more choice riders. 

 

 

Frequency, convenience, reduce travel time and security are all factors when it comes to the desirability of transit service.  My employer (as do others) has a program to fully pay for mass transit usage.  So where I work, RTA essentially has free fares since the fares are already paid.  Yet, even with having free mass transit, the vast majority would rather pay for parking, gas, wear-and-tear and all the other associated costs to commute with their own cars instead of using RTA.  As time has gone on, more decided give up free mass transit and use their cars.  It is direct commentary on the desirability (or lack thereof) of using RTA.  Free transit fares didn't matter.

Cedar-East BRT idea.

I was looking at the population densities of greater Cleveland communities and noticed that the densest communities are Lakewood, University Heights, and then Cleveland Heights.  None of which have easy access to rail, although Lakewood does have a BRT line now.

 

With the recent and planned construction in Cleveland Heights at Cedar-Fairmount and Cedar-Lee, and proposed residential developments at University Square (Cedar-Warrensville), increasing density is happening in the business districts along Cedar at intervals of 3/4 mile - 1.5 miles.  Hopefully transit is also in Cleveland Heights's and University Heights's plans.  The next major intersection would be Cedar-Green, and moving east you get to Legacy and Beachwood. 

 

What would it take to get RTA to plan a BRT line from the Cedar Hill Rapid station to a park-n-ride on some of those rarely-filled parking lots at Beachwood? 

 

My thought would be for RTA to conduct a study and announce a plan -- contingent on both funding and a minimum density at stops along the way -- that could be used by NOACA, the County, and the cities along the route to encourage increasing density sufficient to trigger the transit investment.  Maybe at X1 density RTA could justify additional frequency.  At X2 density, RTA could implement signal prioritization.  And at X3 density, RTA would apply for BRT funding for dedicated lanes and stations.  I think that RTA announcing a plan would be really important and would help cities along the route attract development, even before there is any funding available to implement the plan.

 

OK transit experts -- what are those density levels?

I saw a report a while back that suggested 30-50 dwelling units per acre within two blocks of stations.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/service_design_guidelines_vta.pdf

 

What would it take for RTA to undertake the initial planning?  I assume a request from the cities along the route, and some promise of financial assistance for the study from those cities and perhaps the county and NOACA.   

^Should continue on to CLE Clinic using HealthLine lanes. Love the idea. (Much like how 25th Connects BRT proposal needs to be extended across Detroit Superior bridge to Public Square. )

Has there ever been a serious study about y-ing the red line off through Lakewood? I'm envisioning building next to the existing freight rail lines. It seems to me like the best combination of attainable and transformative for Cleveland rail. But what do I know? 

9 hours ago, Ethan said:

Has there ever been a serious study about y-ing the red line off through Lakewood? I'm envisioning building next to the existing freight rail lines. It seems to me like the best combination of attainable and transformative for Cleveland rail. But what do I know? 

There was a late 90s / early 00s proposal for “Commuter Rail” through Lakewood along the freight rail line. It would have switched to the Red Line tracks at West Blvd and ridden them all the way to Terminal Tower. (An EMU passenger train is functionally interchangeable with a Heavy Rail metro like the Red Line.) it would have been, and still would be, awesome. There was interest and some traction. Then Kucinich came out against it, because he is a moron. I don’t know if it would have happened if he wasn’t in a position of power, but he certainly made it more difficult. 
 

The US needs to upgrade all commuter rail to “regional rail”. Electrification, level boarding, and high frequency. With that in mind, I’ll refer to the Lakewood line as regional rail. In order to get good frequency, the Lakewood proposal would have required implementing @KJP’s proposal to reroute Norwood Southern freight rail off the lake on other area tracks. Even just this NS bypass would have been a huge win for both Lakewood and city of Cleveland - imagine if the NS lift bridge at the mouth of the Cuyahoga spent more time open?
 

All of these things can still happen! Let’s bring Regional Rail to northeast Ohio.

There's a rumor going around in the railfan community that Norfolk Southern intends to abandon the NS line through Lakewood. Specifically, the plan is reportedly to remove the tracks from the east end of the Sheffield Yard at Avon Lake to the Cloggsville Connection just west of West 25th Street. Unless the online communities clamor for and possibly even fund a rail transit line, it's not going happen. RTA isn't going to pursue it or fund it. RTA can't even afford to replace its buses let alone its rail cars. So if this rumor is true, look for a trail. At best, a transit right of way could be preserved next to a trail. But after the freight trains are gone for a few years, no one is going to want any form of rail to return.

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

There was a late 90s / early 00s proposal for “Commuter Rail” through Lakewood along the freight rail line. It would have switched to the Red Line tracks at West Blvd and ridden them all the way to Terminal Tower. (An EMU passenger train is functionally interchangeable with a Heavy Rail metro like the Red Line.) it would have been, and still would be, awesome. There was interest and some traction. Then Kucinich came out against it, because he is a moron. I don’t know if it would have happened if he wasn’t in a position of power, but he certainly made it more difficult. 
 

The US needs to upgrade all commuter rail to “regional rail”. Electrification, level boarding, and high frequency. With that in mind, I’ll refer to the Lakewood line as regional rail. In order to get good frequency, the Lakewood proposal would have required implementing @KJP’s proposal to reroute Norwood Southern freight rail off the lake on other area tracks. Even just this NS bypass would have been a huge win for both Lakewood and city of Cleveland - imagine if the NS lift bridge at the mouth of the Cuyahoga spent more time open?
 

All of these things can still happen! Let’s bring Regional Rail to northeast Ohio.

The reason Lakewood is such a good location for potential expansion is that it would be used by so many people besides just commuters. There's a lot of cool stuff in Lakewood, I'd use the line plenty. So I agree, regional is a much better descriptor than commuter.

 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

There's a rumor going around in the railfan community that Norfolk Southern intends to abandon the NS line through Lakewood. Specifically, the plan is reportedly to remove the tracks from the east end of the Sheffield Yard at Avon Lake to the Cloggsville Connection just west of West 25th Street. Unless the online communities clamor for and possibly even fund a rail transit line, it's not going happen. RTA isn't going to pursue it or fund it. RTA can't even afford to replace its buses let alone its rail cars. So if this rumor is true, look for a trail. At best, a transit right of way could be preserved next to a trail. But after the freight trains are gone for a few years, no one is going to want any form of rail to return.

I was envisioning adding new lines, but if the current owners don't want them... But of course, it all comes down to Money, and our lack of it. With money this would easily be a great opportunity. 

 

A trail would still be cool. And if we can preserve the right of way for a rail line at a later date, I'm fine with that. Planning for the future is essential.

 

I'm also having the pointless thought that this would be a great location for cut and cover construction to (comparatively ) cheaply bury the line, but if we don't have the money for new rail cars then I'm just dreaming with that thought.  

 

The commuter rail idea is great, but some of that rapid transit connectivity can also be achieved via improved BRT on Clifton and, in a dream scenario, Madison (I'm still bitter the new #25-Mdison bus stops running through Lakewood in the evenings). As has been pointed out, a long-term growth scenario where that rail segment plays into a much larger regional rail scheme is a different story.

 

That being said, having that ROW become a true bike/ped commuter trail could be pretty transformational for the area in terms of inducing actual mode shift. Madison, WI has some excellent commuter paths that are very similar and they get heavy use all year. Lakewood to W25 is a pretty prime spot for this type of trail, especially since it can tie in to the existing trail network pretty easily. If it extended to Avon Lake then that would be another huge asset, but there is a core commuter population in Lakewood and the west side that would probably utilize it pretty heavily.

 

14 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

When Anthony Giunta was mayor of Euclid (and one-time RTA board member), he was a major proponent of an extension of the Red Line to at least Euclid.  The current Red Line heavy rail cars came with Mentor destination signs.  As the mainline railroad traffic has declined, especially since the loss of coal traffic for the Lakeshore and Eastlake power plants, there would no big issue shifting the Norfolk Southern traffic to the CSX line.  Even if traffic is heavier than the single mainline and siding that CSX has through much of its east side right-of-way, it wouldn't be overly expensive to restore a track.  Within the last few years, one storage track on that line was ripped up and the original right-of-way accommodated four tracks.  The then former Norfolk Southern line could be a two-track rapid transit extension.  On both the CSX and Norfolk Southern lines, the infrastructure is already in place for the number of tracks that would be required.

Through traffic on the NS has increased in recent years to 18-20 trains a day to/from New York state and New England. CSX freight traffic is about 60 trains per day.

It pains me to say this (since rail is my favorite form of travel) but we are getting squat. Until the political leadership in Ohio changes from Red to Blue public transit will remain underfunded to the extent that rail will become extinct and we'll probably be down to a handful of bus routes in the larger cities. 

 

As long as Columbus has the ability to sh*t-can Amtrak and starve locally funded transit operations I'm afraid the auto will remain king. I was so excited to read about the massive Federal funding for Amtrak. Having a mini-hub in Cleveland, connecting the three C's with rail and even creating some form of high-speed rail got my juices going. Stupid me. I forgot Columbus had the ability to veto it all. 

 

You know what they say, elections DO count.

 

@cadmen I replied to your post here since most of what you're writing about is Amtrak/intercity rail, not urban/intracity rail. Ohio views urban/intracity as the responsibility of counties because they invoke home rule when it suits them.

 

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Through traffic on the NS has increased in recent years to 18-20 trains a day to/from New York state and New England. CSX freight traffic is about 60 trains per day.

The space for capacity on the CSX line is there.  Norfolk Southern recently has done some track removal in Lake County.  Considering the number of trains that once used the former New York Central mainline, at most it may take is laying down some track that has been pulled up.  At least all of the other infrastructure is place, aside of the connection between the two main lines.

The routing with the highest ridership potential was to extend the Red Line straight east along NS and go no farther than a huge parking deck at the site of the Euclid park-n-ride. There was to be a crossover bridge (somewhere near Ivanhoe, IIRC) to take the Red Line from the south side of the NS line to the north side.

 

Doesn't make sense to debate any of it because it's never going to happen in this sh!thole anti-progressive, anti-democratic state.

8 hours ago, KJP said:

Doesn't make sense to debate any of it because it's never going to happen in this sh!thole anti-progressive, anti-democratic state.

We would easily build another 250 Avon Lake style freeway interchanges before a plan like this would even be mentioned at ODOT.  

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

We would easily build another 250 Avon Lake style freeway interchanges before a plan like this would even be mentioned at ODOT.  

The real problem starts at the local level.  Despite all the rhetoric, RTA's leaders, both current and past, haven't been acting at a real sense of urgency to replace their rail car fleet.  The bus operations are a joke.  The county's leadership has been sloshing around in the mud with incompetent leadership and numerous scandals.  If they cannot even handle current operational needs, how can we expect any sort of cohesive vision for the future if the agency and local level cannot provide it?

23 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

The real problem starts at the local level.  Despite all the rhetoric, RTA's leaders, both current and past, haven't been acting at a real sense of urgency to replace their rail car fleet.  The bus operations are a joke.  The county's leadership has been sloshing around in the mud with incompetent leadership and numerous scandals.  If they cannot even handle current operational needs, how can we expect any sort of cohesive vision for the future if the agency and local level cannot provide it?

 

It goes back to the merger era, and even the decisions that led to it.  It's human nature not to prepare for changes one opposes, even as they become inevitable.   The merger incentives from the feds, based on the now laughable idea that bigger and more centralized is more efficient, was only the start.   The "one size fits all" mindset of Krumholtz and others ignored the fact that changes gave people more options and the political power to make them happen.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

It goes back to the merger era, and even the decisions that led to it.  It's human nature not to prepare for changes one opposes, even as they become inevitable.   The merger incentives from the feds, based on the now laughable idea that bigger and more centralized is more efficient, was only the start.   The "one size fits all" mindset of Krumholtz and others ignored the fact that changes gave people more options and the political power to make them happen.

If Ron Tober had been permitted to do what he wanted to do back in the 1990's without receiving push back from those like Krumholtz, I think that RTA would have never faced the massive decline that it has seen in the last 20+ years.  Extensions to Euclid, Lakewood and so on would have happened.  When he didn't fall into line with the Mike White and kicking in a massive amount of money to pay for the stadium plus those who had a different agenda, Tober decided to leave town.

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

If Ron Tober had been permitted to do what he wanted to do back in the 1990's without receiving push back from those like Krumholtz, I think that RTA would have never faced the massive decline that it has seen in the last 20+ years.  Extensions to Euclid, Lakewood and so on would have happened.  When he didn't fall into line with the Mike White and kicking in a massive amount of money to pay for the stadium plus those who had a different agenda, Tober decided to leave town.

 

They needed to go to Independence or Garfield/Maple too.   But that might have been too late.    I was taking the bus and rapid to Case in the mid 80s.  You could watch the red line adult ridership decline as they put the busing kids on it.  They used that to boost their ridership numbers, but they weren't paying full fare.  They were loud and boisterous (as teens will be) and that chased away the grownup commuters, who are the backbone of any transit system.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

They needed to go to Independence or Garfield/Maple too.   But that might have been too late.    I was taking the bus and rapid to Case in the mid 80s.  You could watch the red line adult ridership decline as they put the busing kids on it.  They used that to boost their ridership numbers, but they weren't paying full fare.  They were loud and boisterous (as teens will be) and that chased away the grownup commuters, who are the backbone of any transit system.

It should have gone beyond Garfield/Maple to Solon.  The Red Line should have been extended to Berea as well.  As for the school kids riding the system, I have seen comments in the past that stated there was no quicker way to kill a shopping mall than to have RTA terminate a route at a mall (such as the #1 St. Clair at Euclid Square Mall) or route it right next to a mall like Richmond Town Square and Severance. 

^I dunno... E. 260 which turns into Richmond Road had three malls all within a couple miles of each other- Euclid Square, Richmond, and Beachwood.  In the 70s when Euclid Square was built, the county had above 1.7 million people and Euclid had a population of over 70,000 by itself (both declining in population at that point).  With a declining population, one or more of the malls were bound to die off even if the St. Clair bus stopped at the mall.  St. Clair actually begins at Babbit Road in Euclid so there was no way that the bus stop couldn't have been there. Richmond Mall (#94 bus) and Beachwood (#94 bus) both lie along Richmond Road, which runs from E. 260th in Euclid all the way through Tri-C East.  

 

I think population loss along with an overbuilt retail environment had more to do with killing off the malls than transit, but that's just my opinion.

2 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

^I dunno... E. 260 which turns into Richmond Road had three malls all within a couple miles of each other- Euclid Square, Richmond, and Beachwood.  In the 70s when Euclid Square was built, the county had above 1.7 million people and Euclid had a population of over 70,000 by itself (both declining in population at that point).  With a declining population, one or more of the malls were bound to die off even if the St. Clair bus stopped at the mall.  St. Clair actually begins at Babbit Road in Euclid so there was no way that the bus stop couldn't have been there. Richmond Mall (#94 bus) and Beachwood (#94 bus) both lie along Richmond Road, which runs from E. 260th in Euclid all the way through Tri-C East.  

 

I think population loss along with an overbuilt retail environment had more to do with killing off the malls than transit, but that's just my opinion.

Certain elements of society contributed greatly to the demise of two of the malls.  As problems grew, the customers left.  Richmond Town Square got a reputation of it being a hang-out for unruly youths.  Large fights were regular occurrences.  Same thing happened to Euclid Square Mall.  Randall Park Mall got the reputation of being unsafe (fights, muggings and theft).  The last time I was at that mall, for no reason somebody in a group of 3-4 wound up and was ready to give me a roundhouse hit to the head.  As he swung, I ducked, continued in the direction that I was heading, didn't look back and never went back.  Now, the same sort of reputation is building with Beachwood Place.  Shoplifters even use RTA buses to try to get away with stolen goods at the South Euclid Walmart.  

On 3/15/2022 at 9:08 AM, KJP said:

There's a rumor going around in the railfan community that Norfolk Southern intends to abandon the NS line through Lakewood. Specifically, the plan is reportedly to remove the tracks from the east end of the Sheffield Yard at Avon Lake to the Cloggsville Connection just west of West 25th Street. Unless the online communities clamor for and possibly even fund a rail transit line, it's not going happen. RTA isn't going to pursue it or fund it. RTA can't even afford to replace its buses let alone its rail cars. So if this rumor is true, look for a trail. At best, a transit right of way could be preserved next to a trail. But after the freight trains are gone for a few years, no one is going to want any form of rail to return.

 

And from Lakewood dev thread:

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Just imagine if there were a streetcar line from Rocky River to downtown via Lakewood.... 

If NS is truly considering abandoning the Lakewood freight tracks, wouldn’t it be possible to run frequent regional rail on them for a fraction of the capital cost of a streetcar? It seems like it would be pretty convenient to everything a Lakewood streetcar could connect. I assume it would provide much faster service. It’d be nice if someone w the political power to make it happen would have the vision to do so. Somebody could buy a few DMUs to get started. I think the only must from an infrastructure perspective would be a connection to the Red Line tracks at West Blvd and some platforms. (Maybe even encourage a local freight rail to subcontract use of the tracks to Avon at night?)

 

It could later be electrified and use EMUs. Then take those DMUs and run them from downtown to Solon (because a good portion of that is a local freight line, not a main line) and now we have the basis of a regional rail system. 

 

Huge loss if NS tears out the tracks.