10 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Better serving downtown and university circle is top priority. That said, when you consider the blue line extension through Highland Hills to Harvard/271, the UH hospital (Ahuja) and Tri-C East at the end of that line would be good ridership generators.

Agreed on the first point, but not convinced on the second.  Ahuja and Tri-C East are surrounded by acres of nothing.  Hard to say whether that is permanent -- if density is promoted and developed along the route to there, then it would be easier to justify the expense.

 

I tend to agree with NR, rail beyond the inner ring suburbs is not high on my priority list.  In part because their low density doesn't justify the expense. 

7 hours ago, NR said:

My thoughts:

1- I'm not worried about extending rail to the Suburbs, those folks chose to leave the city and live in the sprawl, let them drive.

2- That being said, if they live in the burbs they probably have a car, and either way I don't think you'd add that many riders. So instead of extending those lines short distances and gaining few riders, take the money from each and put it toward the new lines in the city.... where you'll have way more riders.

 

But if we can build up high-density, high-employment "nodes," then it may make sense to drive rail to them to serve the reverse-commuters.  I'd encourage the suburbs to create those dense local "downtowns" if they want rail.

Regarding Lakewood, the wide I-90 median out to Warren Ave. was intended for transit.  Any chance it could be incorporated into future rali routes being discussed here?  I never see this considered anywhere.

30 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Regarding Lakewood, the wide I-90 median out to Warren Ave. was intended for transit.  Any chance it could be incorporated into future rali routes being discussed here?  I never see this considered anywhere.

 

Same deal as what's been written about here. Where does the ridership come from unless we're going to tear down single-family homes alongside the highway for mid- and high-rises. Transit was proposed along this corridor with park-n-ride lots to commute downtown. Since every building downtown has a parking garage or lot and many workers have free parking, and we don't have traffic congestion (except in/near UC), I don't see it making a lot of sense. There is a rail line that NS seems to consider superfluous to its operations -- enough that it chose to not use it for two months this past winter. That rail line is within walking distance to a lot of residential density and employment.

31 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Regarding Lakewood, the wide I-90 median out to Warren Ave. was intended for transit.  Any chance it could be incorporated into future rali routes being discussed here?  I never see this considered anywhere.

Please no! Highway medians are terrible transit corridors. When pedestrians have to cross a highway bridge to get to the platforms, it really hurts ridership. Plus, the NS RoW is quite close to Detroit Ave throughout Lakewood and Rocky River. Much better alignment than 90. 

I always was a fan of cities running rail along the highway. I feel like a rail extension along I-90 in Cleveland would do well.

Seeing that Cleveland ran the highway through the neighborhoods and Cleveland has the second highest carless percentage in Ohio, this idea could work.



Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

10 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I always was a fan of cities running rail along the highway. I feel like a rail extension along I-90 in Cleveland would do well.

Seeing that Cleveland ran the highway through the neighborhoods and Cleveland has the second highest carless percentage in Ohio, this idea could work.



Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

I think that picture does a good job of demonstrating how completely miserable waiting for a train in the middle of a highway median is. There are fumes, tire & brake particulate, and car noise, plus it’s windy and cold or too hot. It’s awful. The Chicago blue line experience is terrible (specifically stations along the highway, but also the O’Hare terminal walking distance). The highway (that one in particular because it’s so wide) makes ToD difficult to do - everything is too long of a walk. The Chicago Blue Line exacerbates this with big parking lots once you get past the highway at the stations closer to O’Hare.  I think the Blue Line is a great example of why we shouldn’t use highway medians for rail transit. 

I-90 was definitely rammed through the west side without  much consideration of what land uses should flank it.  One area that strikes me as a potential hub for development of density is the Lorain Station area, especially the triangle consisting of Lorain Ave, W 98th St., and Denison.  Another area which has been discussed here is West 41st to West 44th.  There is fairly decent bus service on Lorain.

Highway medians make a lot of sense for park-and-ride transit.  But park-and-ride transit doesn't really draw like it used to.  We need to build transit where there exist adequate ridership generators within walking distance.  Or more likely, develop more ridership generators within walking distance of our existing high frequency transit.

Regarding the suggestion to run one of the Shaker lines through University Circle to downtown, I am assuming that this would replace the Health Line BRT that comes from Windermere.  If this is so, how would you replace the bus service between Windermere and UC, extend the #28 west to CCF?  

 

 

14 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Regarding the suggestion to run one of the Shaker lines through University Circle to downtown, I am assuming that this would replace the Health Line BRT that comes from Windermere.  If this is so, how would you replace the bus service between Windermere and UC, extend the #28 west to CCF?  

 

 

My concept is SS-UC-CC, so I’d keep the HealthLine w transfers between them at East 105. If rail was extended to downtown along Euclid, I’d still probably keep the HealthLine from CC to Windermere for better servicing UC through Uptown since Windermere is a decent transit hub. Windermere to downtown - take red line then transfer to Euclid Ave blue line at either UC/Cedar or at TC, depending on your destination along Euclid. There are many options.

Alright, here's my thoughts from the other thread in the Northeast Ohio end of the site.

 

First Phase: the easiest phase. Utilize the existing lower decks of both bridges. That should be pretty inexpensive to do. Huron ave is already a "bridge" as well, so put some tracks under it. The sad parking garage at Tower City loses a few parking spaces but so what! Shouldn't cost too much. On the Detroit end of things, there's going to be a stop at Settler's Landing/Courthouse Plaza. The W25th station gets re-opened. What would it need to be ADA compliant? just an elevator? The tunnel extends a bit past there, but we are going to keep tunneling to the grassy strip between the Shoreway and Detroit ave. That's where the last station will currently be located, roughly Detroit and w38th. That's 0.4 miles of new tunnel, which isn't going to be cheap but that's a fairly short distance. Same thing headed south. Once you leave tower city, the tunnel will follow the gateway walkway and go under Ontario (or sunken onto the hillside if you really want to save some nickels) until it gets to the bridge. Put in a stop at the plaza between Progressive FIeld and RoMoFiHo. I quickly drew out what a station combined with a rebuilt Eagle Ave could look like. Once it crosses the bridge, there can be a stop right after the western set of guardians serving Duck Island (.3 miles from the w25th station). On to w25th. Now we break back out the tunneling machine and go from the end of the bridge to Fulton Road where the last stop of phase 1 would be located. That's .75 miles.

 

This puts stops at both ends of one of the fastest growing neighborhoods in Cleveland. It makes it much easier for the near westside to travel downtown for 2 of our 3 sports teams. On the Detroit ave end it puts a stop fairly close to Garrett Morgan High School.

 

This seems like it could be a pretty easy project to pull off.

I happened to look underneath thr L-C Bridge this morning, and there does appear to be some sort of structure under the main deck (not sure what it can carry, if anything).  It is under the main span, but not to the west of the west bank, where Lorain Ave goes over Columbus Rd. and the RTA tracks.  The route would need to get over these obstacles either on Lorain or alongside it.

1 hour ago, originaljbw said:

First Phase: the easiest phase. Utilize the existing lower decks of both bridges. That should be pretty inexpensive to do. Huron ave is already a "bridge" as well, so put some tracks under it. The sad parking garage at Tower City loses a few parking spaces but so what! Shouldn't cost too much.

With the amount of work you're proposing why not just go one more street over and connect to Tower City Station at Prospect? Slightly more tunneling, but you can reuse a lot of rail, and connect it into the overall network. Is that what you perhaps meant to say?

 

Honestly I think the benefit of connecting just the W25th/Detroit stop to the rest of the rail network might be greater than your entire Lorain leg, so I don't know why you wouldn't connect this to the existing station, both to increase its useful and to be able to reuse the existing track. 

 

Edit: it's also worth pointing out that Bedrock is proposing to remove the section of Huron Road critical to your proposal. 

 

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

I happened to look underneath thr L-C Bridge this morning, and there does appear to be some sort of structure under the main deck (not sure what it can carry, if anything).  It is under the main span, but not to the west of the west bank, where Lorain Ave goes over Columbus Rd. and the RTA tracks.  The route would need to get over these obstacles either on Lorain or alongside it.

 

The Lorain-Carnegie bridge was designed with a subway deck on the lower level.

How's this? Perhaps both the Orange and the Blue could exist with the Orange offering counter-clockwise service with a station added to the existing Rapid at Lorain-Carnegie Bridge. All of the Orange and Blue lines would be streetcars at grade except for the subway decks of the Detroit-Superior and Lorain-Carnegie bridges. Additional rail loops to the east (Midtown/UC/Glenville) and south (Tremont/Clark-Metro) could be added.

9 hours ago, Ethan said:

With the amount of work you're proposing why not just go one more street over and connect to Tower City Station at Prospect? Slightly more tunneling, but you can reuse a lot of rail, and connect it into the overall network. Is that what you perhaps meant to say?

 

Honestly I think the benefit of connecting just the W25th/Detroit stop to the rest of the rail network might be greater than your entire Lorain leg, so I don't know why you wouldn't connect this to the existing station, both to increase its useful and to be able to reuse the existing track. 

 

Edit: it's also worth pointing out that Bedrock is proposing to remove the section of Huron Road critical to your proposal. 

 

So the station would be roughly where the food court balcony is located, maybe one level down between things and the red/green/blue lines. Ramming every train through the same set of tracks seems like a long term bad idea.

Underside of LC Bridge  from  Canal Rd.

 

There's a lot of vacant land down there.  What could it be?

Not just Cleveland, but not sure which other thread this this would be appropriate for. Here an academic proposal for a northeast transnational high-speed loop from Adam Paul Susaneck (segregationbydesign on Twitter and Instagram). https://www.instagram.com/p/C0He3eEsaJM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Not just Cleveland, but not sure which other thread this this would be appropriate for. Here an academic proposal for a northeast transnational high-speed loop from Adam Paul Susaneck (segregationbydesign on Twitter and Instagram). https://www.instagram.com/p/C0He3eEsaJM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

 

 

 

Cool proposal. Though it seems like it's going out of its way to make a loop even when it probably doesn't make sense. Boston to Montreal is fairly suspect, and connecting Detroit to DC prior to connecting Detroit and Chicago also seems like a decision that only makes sense if the goal is to make a loop. I'm no expert, but I'm not sure how much value is added by looping intercity trains, I'm sure some, but probably not enough to justify a sub-optimal routing. For example Alon Levy's proposal goes NYC to Montreal through Albany, that destroys the loop concept, but I think would make more sense.

 

Also there's some disagreement and errors with the maps. Youngstown is shown as a stop on the physical map, but not on the subway style version. Also, Ann Arbor is in the wrong spot. 

 

Very cool idea though, and fun good for thought! 

Why not post it to the hyperloop thread and ask that it be renamed as "new rail technologies, ideas"?

So I made a casual comparison in a NEOtrans article recently that the cost of the Cleveland Clinic building another 3,000-space parking garage like the one at East 105th and Cedar could cost about $75 million, equal to 40-50 percent share of the cost of extending the Blue Line from Shaker Square to Cleveland Clinic. I got a bit of reader interest in that. Of course, other stakeholders should contribute shares (or lobby state officials to provide it instead) to a rail extension too (ie: University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, ODOT, RTA etc). Maybe even leverage some federal funds, too (or not, to simplify things and reduce costs!). Cleveland Clinic execs have told me in interviews they HATE having to build and maintain these massive parking garages and decry the Red Line because it doesn't go near them. Well....

 

I think, given the growth that's happening at UC, this is the most important rail extension GCRTA should consider and could offer some interesting route combos in conjunction with the new LRT fleet....

 

Blue Line extension to Cleveland Clinic via UHHS/CWRU,

 

followed by

Blue Line extension to I-271/Highland Hills,
Downtown Loop,
Euclid Red Line extension (phase 1 to Nottingham/Highland),
Convert 3 miles of the HealthLine between Cleveland Clinic to the Downtown Loop to rail,
Build a Red Line branch to Rocky River, then possibly to Westlake,

Extend Green Line to Beachwood Place via John Carroll University.

 

Each of these are 2-4 miles long, costing about $200 million to $500 million each.

 

We need a countywide sustainable local revenue source for all of this, such as replacing a property tax with a land value tax.

 

 

 

 

 

###

This has always been my number one rapid expansion.  The Heights are so close to UC but it seems as though public transportation to this key employment hub from the Heights and beyond is lacking (it exists  but it seems so slow and cumbersome that people just prefer to drive).

 

While I like the idea of the spur starting on Shaker Square and going north on N. Moreland and Kemper since it a bit denser and would hit the busiest point of the Larchmere shopping corridor, the Skating Club and many more apartment buildings, I am wondering if it might be cheaper to start the spur at the E.  116 st station.

 

This is something that all UC institutions should be lobbying for as well as Shaker Hts, University Hts, Warrensville Hts and Beachwood as it would only make these communities more attractive to potential home owners.  

36 minutes ago, KJP said:

So I made a casual comparison in a NEOtrans article recently that the cost of the Cleveland Clinic building another 3,000-space parking garage like the one at East 105th and Cedar could cost about $75 million, equal to 40-50 percent share of the cost of extending the Blue Line from Shaker Square to Cleveland Clinic. I got a bit of reader interest in that. Of course, other stakeholders should contribute shares (or lobby state officials to provide it instead) to a rail extension too (ie: University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, ODOT, RTA etc). Maybe even leverage some federal funds, too (or not, to simplify things and reduce costs!). Cleveland Clinic execs have told me in interviews they HATE having to build and maintain these massive parking garages and decry the Red Line because it doesn't go near them. Well....

 

I think, given the growth that's happening at UC, this is the most important rail extension GCRTA should consider and could offer some interesting route combos in conjunction with the new LRT fleet....

 

Blue Line extension to Cleveland Clinic via UHHS/CWRU,

 

followed by

Blue Line extension to I-271/Highland Hills,
Downtown Loop,
Euclid Red Line extension (phase 1 to Nottingham/Highland),
Convert 3 miles of the HealthLine between Cleveland Clinic to the Downtown Loop to rail,
Build a Red Line branch to Rocky River, then possibly to Westlake,

Extend Green Line to Beachwood Place via John Carroll University.

 

Each of these are 2-4 miles long, costing about $200 million to $500 million each.

 

We need a countywide sustainable local revenue source for all of this, such as replacing a property tax with a land value tax.

 

 

 

 

 

###

It's a wonderful plan. The advantage of going north out of Shaker Square instead of connecting at East 116th / MLK is that it would cost a lot less (with the latter in its underpass) and also would serve the density along Fairhill straight north of the Square. I would definitely combine this with the removal of Shaker Blvd through the Square. Then there would be plenty of room for a new SS station just east of the merge. And you could remove that first Blue line station just east of the Square to speed up operation.

 

Back at CWRU, the university would benefit tremendously. CWRU had actually considered a light rail connection from the main campus to the newer West campus and Medical School. They couldn't figure out how to make the cost work by themselves, but could be a local contributor. (The  connection conversation is what eventually led to the Nord Greenway in front of the art museum.)

 

This would be completely transformative for Shaker Square. Having a direct, frequent. comfortable connection to the hospitals would enable many households to go car-light or even car free, saving them significant amounts of money that could go back into the local economy. Sale for all the apartments along the blue line, and of course it would magnify the benefits of the recent investments at Van Aken.

 

@KJP - I'm thinking the Adelbert bridge over the tracks could be kept open to traffic by building new rail bridges closer to the parking garage. Since the parking garage already has the separate entrance on the lower level, the Adelbert entrance to the garage right by the tracks is a bit redundant and could be removed.

 

In short, this is the single most beneficial and cost effective transportation investment proposal in the entire region.

I opted for the routing north from Shaker Square because I thought it might be cheaper than building the two track ramps and one rail bridge over the remaining Green Line at East 116th. The dense housing and east end of the Larchmere District north of Shaker Square was a bonus. The two-track routing including track ramps north from Shaker/East 116th to Stokes/East 116th is about 4,200 feet vs about 6,300 feet from Shaker Square to Stokes/East 116th.

38 minutes ago, KJP said:

So I made a casual comparison in a NEOtrans article recently that the cost of the Cleveland Clinic building another 3,000-space parking garage like the one at East 105th and Cedar could cost about $75 million, equal to 40-50 percent share of the cost of extending the Blue Line from Shaker Square to Cleveland Clinic. I got a bit of reader interest in that. Of course, other stakeholders should contribute shares (or lobby state officials to provide it instead) to a rail extension too (ie: University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, ODOT, RTA etc). Maybe even leverage some federal funds, too (or not, to simplify things and reduce costs!). Cleveland Clinic execs have told me in interviews they HATE having to build and maintain these massive parking garages and decry the Red Line because it doesn't go near them. Well....

 

I think, given the growth that's happening at UC, this is the most important rail extension GCRTA should consider and could offer some interesting route combos in conjunction with the new LRT fleet....

 

Blue Line extension to Cleveland Clinic via UHHS/CWRU,

 

followed by

Blue Line extension to I-271/Highland Hills,
Downtown Loop,
Euclid Red Line extension (phase 1 to Nottingham/Highland),
Convert 3 miles of the HealthLine between Cleveland Clinic to the Downtown Loop to rail,
Build a Red Line branch to Rocky River, then possibly to Westlake,

Extend Green Line to Beachwood Place via John Carroll University.

 

Each of these are 2-4 miles long, costing about $200 million to $500 million each.

 

We need a countywide sustainable local revenue source for all of this, such as replacing a property tax with a land value tax.

 

 

 

 

 

###

Any chance of this happening? 

3 minutes ago, JB said:

Any chance of this happening? 

 

Let me charge my crystal ball. In all seriousness, nothing I've proposed or led a lobbying effort for has ever happened (except for Amtrak's Pennsylvanian extension that lasted less than five years 1998-2003). Amtrak screwed that up and I gave up on passenger rail advocacy for about five years after that train died (er, after Amtrak murdered it).

Ken it you are estimating that this expansion could be construction for just north of $150,000,000.00 it is a no brainer.  I imagine that is less than what it cost to build just the Dulles Airport station on the Silver Line extension.  Somebody needs to take the bull by the horns and get the institutions to contribute.

5 minutes ago, JB said:

Any chance of this happening? 

That depends at least a bit on all of us! We have to push our leaders. Ken's comments on the Clinic garage costing $75M is the biggest supporting evidence. If we consider similar needs at UH, and then CWRU's need for a better connection between the main campus and the medical school, all of a sudden we are more than halfway to necessary funding. Factor in how much more valuable SS becomes and we're than much closer. We also have county leadership that really gets it, and city leadership that is at least approachable. There are many positive factors here. It's still a long shot.

36 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Ken it you are estimating that this expansion could be construction for just north of $150,000,000.00 it is a no brainer.  I imagine that is less than what it cost to build just the Dulles Airport station on the Silver Line extension.  Somebody needs to take the bull by the horns and get the institutions to contribute.

 

In the late 1990s, GCRTA's Dual Hub consulting team estimated the "Shaker Connector" would cost about $70 million, IIRC. Ironically that's how much the Waterfront Line cost. Imagine if we had built the Shaker Connector instead! Anyway, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator says $70 million in the late 90s is about $135 million today. Since infrastructure projects are inflating faster, I went with $150 million. And it would cost more than that since we're not building it right now, and the routing is longer, going via Adelbert and farther into Cleveland Clinic than the Shaker Connector would have.

19 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

In the late 1990s, GCRTA's Dual Hub consulting team estimated the "Shaker Connector" would cost about $70 million, IIRC. Ironically that's how much the Waterfront Line cost. Imagine if we had built the Shaker Connector instead! Anyway, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator says $70 million in the late 90s is about $135 million today. Since infrastructure projects are inflating faster, I went with $150 million. And it would cost more than that since we're not building it right now, and the routing is longer, going via Adelbert and farther into Cleveland Clinic than the Shaker Connector would have.

For people who aren't familiar with it, the "Shaker Connector" route was kind of garbage, though - following the MLK RoW south of CWRU, meaning it really would miss most of the ridership generation of University Circle. Ken's Adelbert Road alignment proposal is FAR superior.

I have some detailed RTA maps and other info about the Shaker Connector. When I get back home this evening I'll post them.

Here's the detail of the Shaker Connector. According to the Dual Hub Corridor Transitional Analysis, Final Report, November 1995, the Shaker Connector would cost about $73,612,000 just to travel from the Shaker-East 116th area to a new junction with the Red Line. So traveling beyond that would cost more. The cost estimates for the transitional analysis were done in January 1995. The $73.6 million in January 1995 would be $150.36 million today, according to the BLS inflation calculator. For infrastructure projects, it will be even more.

 

It is possible that my proposed extension to Cleveland Clinic could cost twice as much as the Shaker Connector that GCRTA proposed in its Dual Hub plan. The length of the Shaker Connector in the Dual Hub plan was about 6,700 feet long. My proposed routing going north out of Shaker Square to the Red Line junction at Stokes is about 9,300 feet long. Then I add another 6,700 feet from the Red Line junction at Adelbert to Cleveland Clinic. So we're probably looking at something in the neighborhood of $300 million to as much as $400 million to extend the Blue Line from Shaker Square to Cleveland Clinic. Is it still worth it?

 

 

 

 

I really think those of us in the advocacy community should sit down and discuss this and the concepts of a UC loop trolley and an intermodal mini-hub at Cedar and then shop these ideas to the powers that be as a single project. The UC area is really a city unto itself and should be treated as such. As it is now, UC is too big to walk for many people, but crowded with too many cars making short hops. Imagine instead that a visitor from Columbus, Toledo or Buffalo arrives by train and simply getting on a loop trolley to complete their journey!

 

In regard to the diagrams posted by KJP, it appears that they have the new line coming off the existing Blue/Green line at E 116th St/MLK to Stokes. Would this work for your proposal, KJP? (I now see you discussed this above)

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by neony

Additional: These ideas should be a part of a call for a rethinking of the entire UC street grid, better transit/intermodal, TOD. Looking at Google Earth, the area is a maze of roadways which should be reconfigured. Time for a charette?

This was the routing suggested by my friend Marvin. He used county GIS housing (and possibly commuting) data to come up with this. It would probably get a ton of use by CWRU students going to/from dorms and apartments and shops at the Top of the Hill. And it avoids constructing any flying junctions with other rail lines. All rights of way are public, and in some cases grassy medians. The Adelbert bridge crossing could be made as a streetcar (which the other option could not). This routing would involve shifting the Cedar Hill roadway onto the former streetcar ROW and thus putting the Blue Line on the north side of Cedar on the hill.

And here's the loop CircleTram idea I came up with a generation ago, which also had the Red Line rerouted down the middle of Euclid and the then-called University Circle Access Boulevard (today's Opportunity Corridor).

Thanks KJP! Now how do we combine these two diagrams in a way that makes sense? Would it be possible to add an intercity/regional rail stop at Cedar or elsewhere?

2 hours ago, KJP said:

This was the routing suggested by my friend Marvin. He used county GIS housing (and possibly commuting) data to come up with this. It would probably get a ton of use by CWRU students going to/from dorms and apartments and shops at the Top of the Hill. And it avoids constructing any flying junctions with other rail lines. All rights of way are public, and in some cases grassy medians. The Adelbert bridge crossing could be made as a streetcar (which the other option could not). This routing would involve shifting the Cedar Hill roadway onto the former streetcar ROW and thus putting the Blue Line on the north side of Cedar on the hill.

There are a few things that I don’t like about this Cleveland Heights routing:

- Adds quite a bit of time between SS and UC. Travel time is very important for generating ridership.

- Much of that added travel time is through low density areas (along Coventry and Fairmont). I don’t think hitting Cedar-Fairmont justifies all the added time for riders from the current Blue Line service area.

- Most importantly, politics. I suspect that the NIMBYs in Cleveland Heights would push back very hard. This route requires support from Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, and the city of Cleveland. I think that would make it more difficult to achieve. The advantage of using 116th is that the whole project would be in the city of cleveland. Even your north-from-SS route only touches a tiny corner of Shaker Heights, and I suspect local residents there would be more supportive anyway.

 

The best hope for light rail service in Cleveland Heights is a successful extension elsewhere preceding it (specifically the SS-UC-CC project).
 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

And here's the loop CircleTram idea I came up with a generation ago, which also had the Red Line rerouted down the middle of Euclid and the then-called University Circle Access Boulevard (today's Opportunity Corridor).

Regarding this concept - loops generally are not good transit routings. When I look at this map it seems like it would take a LONG time to get around the loop. And it would still miss lot of the heart of University Circle! The rail proposal along Adelbert and Euclid does a much better job of servicing the neighborhood and where riders would want to go - it would have faster trip times for the vast majority of trips. Complement it with good BRT on East 110th, and the system would do a much better job of providing quality transit for the area. (And I would push very hard for grade separation on the Blue Line reroute - travel time is very important.)

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

There are a few things that I don’t like about this Cleveland Heights routing:

- Adds quite a bit of time between SS and UC. Travel time is very important for generating ridership.

- Much of that added travel time is through low density areas (along Coventry and Fairmont). I don’t think hitting Cedar-Fairmont justifies all the added time for riders from the current Blue Line service area.

I tend to agree.  I would think a better connection to the Woodhill redevelopment would do more for the neighborhood, connecting residents to jobs.  Shaker Sq. is already connected to rail and the proposed neighborhoods on @KJP's proposed route aren't dense enough.  E116 from Union to UC and the Clinic seems like a better alternative.  (With more TOD along the route)

 

A better bet for Cleveland Heights would be a new BRT up Cedar Hill and down Cedar to the Beachwood Mall area, with a planned future conversion to light rail.  Density is good at Cedar-Fairmount, about to get a lot better at Cedar-Lee and Cedar-Taylor, and again at Cedar-Warrensville (hopefully).  That's decent spacing for TOD along the route.  More of that, please, to further justify the route.  (Cedar-Green seems to be the biggest hole and desperately needs more density to support BRT.)

I can see the wisdom of coming off the current line at E 116th/MLK to UC. Would it be better to use the proposed 1994 plan or swing over to Adelbert to connect with Euclid Ave? You guys probably know the area better than me.

 

The loop is an open question for me. I do like that it connects to the VA center, among other things. If there's a better way to do this, I'm all ears.

1 hour ago, neony said:

I can see the wisdom of coming off the current line at E 116th/MLK to UC. Would it be better to use the proposed 1994 plan or swing over to Adelbert to connect with Euclid Ave? You guys probably know the area better than me.

 

The loop is an open question for me. I do like that it connects to the VA center, among other things. If there's a better way to do this, I'm all ears.

Straight north out of Shaker Square advantages:

 - There is a lot of density straight north of SS all the way to and along Fairhill. (If you look at Google Maps in image view, you’ll clearly see it.)

- Less expensive connection in SS, which is at grade (at East 116th the rail has an underpass below street grade)

 

East 116th advantage:

- Better for Woodhill residents

Certainly better connecting to the VA is something that needs to be considered - that’s the main reason I’m suggesting that a BRT on East 105 would be important. 

 

21 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Straight north out of Shaker Square advantages:

 - There is a lot of density straight north of SS all the way to and along Fairhill. (If you look at Google Maps in image view, you’ll clearly see it.)

- Less expensive connection in SS, which is at grade (at East 116th the rail has an underpass below street grade)

 

East 116th advantage:

- Better for Woodhill residents

Certainly better connecting to the VA is something that needs to be considered - that’s the main reason I’m suggesting that a BRT on East 105 would be important. 

 

A BRT on E 105th is a great idea and it should extend north and south some distance, maybe as far south as E 105th/Quincy RTA Red Line stop. Don't know how far it might go at its north end.

Edited January 9, 20241 yr by neony

On 1/8/2024 at 2:49 PM, Foraker said:

 

A better bet for Cleveland Heights would be a new BRT up Cedar Hill and down Cedar to the Beachwood Mall area, with a planned future conversion to light rail.  Density is good at Cedar-Fairmount, about to get a lot better at Cedar-Lee and Cedar-Taylor, and again at Cedar-Warrensville (hopefully).  That's decent spacing for TOD along the route.  More of that, please, to further justify the route.  (Cedar-Green seems to be the biggest hole and desperately needs more density to support BRT.)

I don't know half as much as some of the people in this thread, but that said, I've been thinking about this and I've been wondering if a Cedar, Euclid Heights, Washington routing might be better routing, for two reasons. First swinging north towards Coventry picks up a lot more density, and two, both of these roads have medians making conversion to light rail Much easier. 

 

There's an obvious problem of course in that Euclid Heights doesn't actually connect to Washington... I don't think that would be much of a problem for adding rail tracks, but BRT would likely need to be diverted, as I don't realistically see anyone connecting the two roads for BRT. Regardless I still think jogging up to pick up Coventry makes sense as Cedar isn't dense between Cedar-Fairmount and Cedar-Lee. 

 

Another downside is that this pulls the stations for Cedar-Lee and Cedar-Fairmount a bit away from their ideal location. This routing is in effect arguing that walkable (~4mins) from three good nodes is better than ideally placed for two. 

 

 

From here it could jog back down to Cedar a couple of different ways if necessary.* Though to be honest I also question the value in going all the way to Beachwood mall area (at least not in phase 1). The mall itself is a good draw, and there's some decent density around it, but it's a decent distance (~3 miles) through low density car dependant areas. I could certainly be convinced, I just feel like this short route primarily through medians with three good, dense nodes has a bit stronger of an argument. Obviously I'd be more than happy if this hypothetical line went all the way to Beachwood Mall, I'm just trying to consider value. 

 

*There's some complications as Lee isn't overbuilt and Washington ceases to have a median after the intersection, but I'm sure it could be made to work. It would probably require some true signal prioritization, either going down Lee, Taylor, or possibly borrowing some land from the school. 

@Ethan That’s pretty close to a route Cleveland Transit System was near to building in the 1960s that would have used mothballed streetcar tracks down Euclid Heights Blvd and then run on a dedicated line east to Warrensville Center Rd ar Oakwood. It would have cost $16 million to build.

18 hours ago, Ethan said:

Though to be honest I also question the value in going all the way to Beachwood mall area (at least not in phase 1). The mall itself is a good draw, and there's some decent density around it, but it's a decent distance (~3 miles) through low density car dependant areas.

 

I would love to see Coventry-Cedar Fairmount-Cedar Lee-Shaker Square-Severance connected by better transit, starting with BRT. (I view BRT as a necessary evil/precursor to better service via light rail -- but the Healthline on Euclid shows just how far down the road that is).  But I don't think that CH by itself will ever be able to convince RTA to even start a BRT line from the Cedar Hill station up to Cedar-Fairmount or Cedar-Lee or Cedar-Warrensville or anywhere else close to the Heights business districts. That's why I advocated for a route to Beachwood mall. 

 

I agree that Cedar east of Warrensville is low density.  That would need to change before we could convince RTA and all the governments along the route to chip in for a BRT line.  It seems like there is a lot of traffic on Cedar that could be replaced by transit and there are large existing parking lots at Beachwood mall for a park-n-ride -- maybe that would help bridge the gap.  And if CH-UH-SE-Beachwood all asked for a BRT line, maybe it would be more likely than just a CH request.

 

For now I'd like to see 15-minute headways, but even that seems to be a hard sell.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

For now I'd like to see 15-minute headways, but even that seems to be a hard sell.

 

It's a hard sell because GCRTA doesn't have enough operable LRT trains available to run service that frequently.

 

Here's the 1960s Cleveland Heights rapid transit plan including closing Coventry Road in Coventry Village to traffic and building a roadway around it....

 

 

 

 

How about trackless trams for more bus routes?

 https://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690

 

Probably not because ~10% thicker pavement is needed:

Do Trackless Trams need stronger roads? – the “weight ... http://publictransportresearchgroup.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Reynolds-Pham-and-Currie-2021-Trackless-Trams-and-road-pavement-impacts.pdf

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 20241 yr by gildone

49 minutes ago, NR said:

 

The most impactful thing that could be done for the RTA Rapid Lines to be useful would be to complete the downtown loop.

The second most impactful thing that could be done to RTA Rapid Lines to be useful would be for the HealthLine to be rail.

The third most impactful thing that could be done to RTA Rapid Lines to be useful would be to make a line down 25th from the Westside Market to ParmaTown or Tri-C West.

 

(Fair warning this is basically a collection of hot takes from a very much non-expert, take it with a grain of salt). 

 

Good post, but I disagree with your ordering. If we aren't considering cost, than I'd put rail down Euclid as priority 1 by a wide margin. 

 

Honestly, a downtown loop probably wouldn't even make my list. I'm open to being convinced, but I don't think it would be particularly useful, at least not with downtown as it currently is. It would add basically one useful stop not served by the new Euclid line or existing lines, that being in the 9-12 district. And even that area isn't all that far from existing waterfront line stops. Not to mention there's a free trolley that basically does this route, maybe it's busy during rush hour, but it's nearly empty whenever I've looked.

 

As I said, I could be convinced on the downtown loop, but the central issue (as I see it anyway) is that downtown just isn't that big (what people think of as downtown, not it's official boundaries). I've yet to see a routing that makes sense to me beyond just doing it for the sake of doing it. The loop is either too narrow, making the stops too close together, or too wide, missing the active areas of downtown. I'd be happy to have it, but I'd take several other routes first.

 

Furthermore, I'm not even sure it's the best possible extension of the waterfront line. As an example, following the existing freight tracks (which I don't think is possible, just an example), picks up Asiatown and Midtown, while then connecting to every rail line Cleveland has (red/blue/green). It could also connect with a Euclid Ave line. It would bring transit to two areas that aught to be hotter than they are, in addition to making tons of connections. I'd take that over a downtown loop. 

 

Things I'd put above a downtown loop: 

- Blue line realignment towards university circle

- W25th rail option

- If it wasn't assumed by rail down Euclid--rail down Detroit till it intersects with the red line again

- A red line branch into Lakewood (could use existing, possibly soon to be vacated, tracks). 

- probably cheating but I'm including it since it would probably make a bigger difference than all of the above--greater frequency on existing rail lines. 

57 minutes ago, Ethan said:

 

(Fair warning this is basically a collection of hot takes from a very much non-expert, take it with a grain of salt). 

 

Good post, but I disagree with your ordering. If we aren't considering cost, than I'd put rail down Euclid as priority 1 by a wide margin. 

 

Honestly, a downtown loop probably wouldn't even make my list. I'm open to being convinced, but I don't think it would be particularly useful, at least not with downtown as it currently is. It would add basically one useful stop not served by the new Euclid line or existing lines, that being in the 9-12 district. And even that area isn't all that far from existing waterfront line stops. Not to mention there's a free trolley that basically does this route, maybe it's busy during rush hour, but it's nearly empty whenever I've looked.

 

As I said, I could be convinced on the downtown loop, but the central issue (as I see it anyway) is that downtown just isn't that big (what people think of as downtown, not it's official boundaries). I've yet to see a routing that makes sense to me beyond just doing it for the sake of doing it. The loop is either too narrow, making the stops too close together, or too wide, missing the active areas of downtown. I'd be happy to have it, but I'd take several other routes first.

 

Furthermore, I'm not even sure it's the best possible extension of the waterfront line. As an example, following the existing freight tracks (which I don't think is possible, just an example), picks up Asiatown and Midtown, while then connecting to every rail line Cleveland has (red/blue/green). It could also connect with a Euclid Ave line. It would bring transit to two areas that aught to be hotter than they are, in addition to making tons of connections. I'd take that over a downtown loop. 

 

Things I'd put above a downtown loop: 

- Blue line realignment towards university circle

- W25th rail option

- If it wasn't assumed by rail down Euclid--rail down Detroit till it intersects with the red line again

- A red line branch into Lakewood (could use existing, possibly soon to be vacated, tracks). 

- probably cheating but I'm including it since it would probably make a bigger difference than all of the above--greater frequency on existing rail lines. 

Yes, I agree with all of this. The best rail project would be Cedar station up Adelbert Rd then west in Euclid. Properly connecting Cleveland Clinic to the rail system would be completely transformative. Then comment that segment the other direction over to Shaker Square as a Blue Line reroute. After that, the brilliant downtown subway proposal (under Huron, Euclid, and East 22). Then connect that subway along Euclid to our CC connector and we’d finally have the Dual Hub the way it should have been built in the first place. After all that we can start thinking about using the Lakewood NS RoW for a rail expansion.