1 hour ago, Ethan said:

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.

Not to disagree, but here's why I am eager for a downtown loop.  Right now the rail system brings people into downtown and dumps them off in one corner at Tower City.  As a result, it's not at all convenient to multiple downtown destinations, including for Playhouse Square visitors, Cleveland State students/workers, or Tri-C students/workers.  Having such a loop would greatly expand the destinations accessible by rail.  Having all or part of that loop underground would be even better, but probably 100x more expensive.

 

I would certainly like to see many of your proposals come to fruition as well. 

My rankings (after I get past 5 or 6 it's really just a crapshoot)....

 

1. Blue Line to Cleveland Clinic

2. Blue Line to I-271/Harper

3. Green Line to Beachwood Place via John Carroll (ie: abandon Warrensville-Green segment) 

4. Downtown Loop (with development along it, offers direct rail link between eastern suburbs and CSU)

5. Extend Blue Line to Downtown Loop

6. Red Line branch to Westlake P&R or Crocker Park

7. Red Line to Euclid (possibly only to Highland Rd)

8. Tower City-Playhouse Square subway

9. Streetcar on Pearl to Old Brooklyn

10. Streetcar on Superior to East Cleveland

11. Streetcar on Detroit to West Boulevard

12. Waterfront extension to Gordon Park development/arts district

21 hours ago, KJP said:

My rankings (after I get past 5 or 6 it's really just a crapshoot)....

 

1. Blue Line to Cleveland Clinic

2. Blue Line to I-271/Harper

3. Green Line to Beachwood Place via John Carroll (ie: abandon Warrensville-Green segment) 

4. Downtown Loop (with development along it, offers direct rail link between eastern suburbs and CSU)

5. Extend Blue Line to Downtown Loop

6. Red Line branch to Westlake P&R or Crocker Park

7. Red Line to Euclid (possibly only to Highland Rd)

8. Tower City-Playhouse Square subway

9. Streetcar on Pearl to Old Brooklyn

10. Streetcar on Superior to East Cleveland

11. Streetcar on Detroit to West Boulevard

12. Waterfront extension to Gordon Park development/arts district

KJP for RTA president.  (What, I don't have the deciding vote?!?)

On 1/8/2024 at 4:27 PM, 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.

A question, how does this compare to a similar overall line but instead connecting Cedar Avenue to Euclid Avenue via either MLK Jr Drive and/or Stearns Drive and a interchange stop where the blue passes under the red line?

5 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

A question, how does this compare to a similar overall line but instead connecting Cedar Avenue to Euclid Avenue via either MLK Jr Drive and/or Stearns Drive and a interchange stop where the blue passes under the red line?

The routing you described is what was originally proposed for phase 2 of the Dual Hub plan. The problem with it is that it would result in VERY long walks from UH and much of the CWRU campus. The advantage of using Adelbert Rd is that the entire UH campus would be within a 5 minute walk of a station on Adelbert (near Euclid), dramatically increasing usage. Forcing UH / CWRU north campus to go the Red Line and switch to the Blue line (or a really long walk to a station on MLK near Euclid) would make travel times to Shaker Square / Shaker Heights too long, which would decrease ridership.

 

Cleveland Dual Hub proposal (late 90's):

On 2/18/2024 at 10:53 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

The routing you described is what was originally proposed for phase 2 of the Dual Hub plan. The problem with it is that it would result in VERY long walks from UH and much of the CWRU campus. The advantage of using Adelbert Rd is that the entire UH campus would be within a 5 minute walk of a station on Adelbert (near Euclid), dramatically increasing usage. Forcing UH / CWRU north campus to go the Red Line and switch to the Blue line (or a really long walk to a station on MLK near Euclid) would make travel times to Shaker Square / Shaker Heights too long, which would decrease ridership.

 

Cleveland Dual Hub proposal (late 90's):

 

OK, thank you for your answer. It's not quite what I suggested but I get your general point of walking distance from stations. Speaking of that it seems often in this thread that stations are expected to have an uptake from an area 5 minutes walking distance from them, but I have in most other discussions on these matters encountered an expectations of 10 minutes walking distance. (Of course in dense environments shorter distances might be OK). Another question, for the new rolling stock, does anyone know if they will be more like the Calgary vehicles or more like the shorter and more nimble SF-vehicles?

 

Btw, might as well get this out at the start; I'm not a Clevelander or American, so my interest in this thread is not to get a better commute or something like that. Just a nerdy fascination with this system with so much unused potential. So there will probably be more questions later.

6 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

OK, thank you for your answer. It's not quite what I suggested but I get your general point of walking distance from stations. Speaking of that it seems often in this thread that stations are expected to have an uptake from an area 5 minutes walking distance from them, but I have in most other discussions on these matters encountered an expectations of 10 minutes walking distance. (Of course in dense environments shorter distances might be OK). Another question, for the new rolling stock, does anyone know if they will be more like the Calgary vehicles or more like the shorter and more nimble SF-vehicles?

 

Btw, might as well get this out at the start; I'm not a Clevelander or American, so my interest in this thread is not to get a better commute or something like that. Just a nerdy fascination with this system with so much unused potential. So there will probably be more questions later.

Welcome to virtual Cleveland! To answer your questions: best ridership for transit is within 5 minute walk, then pretty good ridership up to ten minute walk, then it really drops off. And it depends a bit on type - full metro / proper rapid transit with good frequency and people will walk ten minutes, while a streetcar probably gets most of its ridership from within a five minute walk. 
 

With regards to the rail car order - I didn’t realize SF’s rail cars were that different from Calgary’s, but RTA has been describing these vehicles as an updated version of the Siemens S200 that Calgary has. 
 

Forum member @KJP did a detailed write up of the vehicles on his blog when the order was first placed last April:
https://neo-trans.blog/2023/04/18/gcrta-gives-final-ok-to-new-rail-car-purchase/

 

St Louis more recently placed an order for basically the same vehicle. For us in Cleveland, it’s really nice to know that we are finally standardizing our fleet and other cities are using the same model. It gives us much more confidence in the long term maintainability of this fleet. 

On 2/21/2024 at 4:24 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Welcome to virtual Cleveland! To answer your questions: best ridership for transit is within 5 minute walk, then pretty good ridership up to ten minute walk, then it really drops off. And it depends a bit on type - full metro / proper rapid transit with good frequency and people will walk ten minutes, while a streetcar probably gets most of its ridership from within a five minute walk. 
 

With regards to the rail car order - I didn’t realize SF’s rail cars were that different from Calgary’s, but RTA has been describing these vehicles as an updated version of the Siemens S200 that Calgary has. 
 

Forum member @KJP did a detailed write up of the vehicles on his blog when the order was first placed last April:
https://neo-trans.blog/2023/04/18/gcrta-gives-final-ok-to-new-rail-car-purchase/

 

St Louis more recently placed an order for basically the same vehicle. For us in Cleveland, it’s really nice to know that we are finally standardizing our fleet and other cities are using the same model. It gives us much more confidence in the long term maintainability of this fleet. 

Oh, re the 5-minute I have never thought about it that way, but I guess if you use 10 minute circles you need to have some overlap anyway and in a dense citycape there could of course be closer spacing if not to avoind voercrowding platforms. And for the new rolling stock I was just curious to see if GCRTA could save some money by having similar stock as other cities. BTW, how are GCRTA's finances? I quickly googled and they seem to state that they had greater income than expenses but there might be more than that? Also the comuter rail that is mentioned sometimes, where only the Solon to Lorraine seemed to make sense, what were the other destinations? How would pass through central Cleveland, passed Tower city station or through the lakeside Amtrack station?

On 2/24/2024 at 1:27 PM, Smaug_Puck said:

Oh, re the 5-minute I have never thought about it that way, but I guess if you use 10 minute circles you need to have some overlap anyway and in a dense citycape there could of course be closer spacing if not to avoind voercrowding platforms. And for the new rolling stock I was just curious to see if GCRTA could save some money by having similar stock as other cities. BTW, how are GCRTA's finances? I quickly googled and they seem to state that they had greater income than expenses but there might be more than that? Also the comuter rail that is mentioned sometimes, where only the Solon to Lorraine seemed to make sense, what were the other destinations? How would pass through central Cleveland, passed Tower city station or through the lakeside Amtrack station?

We are a LONG way from overcrowded platforms here. Honestly it's depressing anytime I pass a Green Line train on Shaker Blvd - often empty and never more than a handful of people. But anyway, if you were designing a proper subway, yes, there would definitely be overlap of 10-minute walk circles and maybe even of 5 minute walk circles.

RTA's finances face similar challenges to most transit authorities - definitely concerns when stimulus bill funds run out. They probably aren't as bad as some services because they do have a dedicate 1% sales tax in the county (1.2M people).

Regarding the "commuter" rail proposals: there was a feasibility report published in 2001 (December) that studied several routes, with the existing Lakefront Amtrak location as the downtown station

Route 1: Lake West - Lorain

Route 2: West-Elyria-Amherst

Route 3: SW-Medina Only (via Rockport)

Route 4D: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Hudson)

Route 4E: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Kent)

Route 6: East: Solon-Aurora-Mantua

Route 7: Lake East: Lake County - Ashtabula

 

They determined that the best cost/performance ratio starter project would be a combination of Routes 1 and 6, so Lorain-Sheffield-Avon-Westlake-Rocky River-Lakewood-Cleveland Lakefront-East 55th/Euclid (?)-East 131st/Miles-North Randall / Bedford Heights-Harper Road (Nestle plant)-Solon-Geauga Lake (sigh)-Sea World (sigh)-Aurora-Mantua. (This Solon line is what the last Cleveland commuter rail line followed, and went all the way to Youngstown.)

 

 

18 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

We are a LONG way from overcrowded platforms here. Honestly it's depressing anytime I pass a Green Line train on Shaker Blvd - often empty and never more than a handful of people. But anyway, if you were designing a proper subway, yes, there would definitely be overlap of 10-minute walk circles and maybe even of 5 minute walk circles.

RTA's finances face similar challenges to most transit authorities - definitely concerns when stimulus bill funds run out. They probably aren't as bad as some services because they do have a dedicate 1% sales tax in the county (1.2M people).

Regarding the "commuter" rail proposals: there was a feasibility report published in 2001 (December) that studied several routes, with the existing Lakefront Amtrak location as the downtown station

Route 1: Lake West - Lorain

Route 2: West-Elyria-Amherst

Route 3: SW-Medina Only (via Rockport)

Route 4D: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Hudson)

Route 4E: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Kent)

Route 6: East: Solon-Aurora-Mantua

Route 7: Lake East: Lake County - Ashtabula

 

They determined that the best cost/performance ratio starter project would be a combination of Routes 1 and 6, so Lorain-Sheffield-Avon-Westlake-Rocky River-Lakewood-Cleveland Lakefront-East 55th/Euclid (?)-East 131st/Miles-North Randall / Bedford Heights-Harper Road (Nestle plant)-Solon-Geauga Lake (sigh)-Sea World (sigh)-Aurora-Mantua. (This Solon line is what the last Cleveland commuter rail line followed, and went all the way to Youngstown.)

 

Man, wouldn't that be nice. Does that Solon right of way exist any more? I remember them trying to give it up for a multipurpose trail a couple years ago. Maybe it was a different line. 

3 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Man, wouldn't that be nice. Does that Solon right of way exist any more? I remember them trying to give it up for a multipurpose trail a couple years ago. Maybe it was a different line. 

Solon rail is still used for freight to Harper Rd (Nestle Plant). East of that the track is still intact, although there are substantial trees growing between ties because it's been so long since it was used. The multipurpose trail to Chagrin Falls is going on a different old rail RoW - that project would not interfere with potentially restoring this line, and that old RoW was already destroyed because Kruse Blvd replaced it west of SOM Center. I think the RoW in Mantua on the Youngstown-bound route may have been converted to trail.

I was just looking at the tortured ownership history of that line.... Norfolk Southern's Randall Industrial Track has been leased to OmniTrax and previously leased to Cleveland Commercial Railroad. NS got it in 2000 in the NS/CSX takeover of Conrail. From 1976-2000 it was Conrail's Randall Secondary. From 1960-1976 it was the Erie-Lackawanna Mahoning Division First District. From 1883-1960, it was the Erie Railroad Mahoning Division's First Subdivision. From 1872-1883 it was the Cleveland and Mahoning Valley Railroad and from 1856-1872 it was the Cleveland & Mahoning -- with different railroad companies leasing those real-estate owning companies prior to Erie buying the tracks its leased.

 

In 1890, it was the first railroad line into Cleveland that was double-tracked because it was overwhelmed with traffic -- including its ore and coal docks on the old river channel near Whiskey Island. The second track was ripped out east of Randall Yard in 1965 several years after the last intercity passenger train ran on this line. The last commuter train ran on this line on Jan. 14, 1977 -- the weekdays Cleveland-Youngstown run. Freight traffic east of the Carlon plastics plant on Chamberlain Road in Mantua Township was ended in 1980. ICC gave permission to abandon the tracks east of there, plus the tracks from the Cuyahoga drawbridge to the Riverbed ore docks in Cleveland and the Leavittsburg-Youngstown portion in the fall of 1981. Tracks east of Mantua were removed in 1983. The Carlon plant switched to trucks and the last train east of Harper Road in Solon to the Carlon plant was in 1993. I remember when Conrail rebuilt the tracks with new ties and ballast in 1988 and some old-timer quipped "Welp, that line's done for. They'll rip it out in a few years."

Didn't they remove (pave over) the track crossing of Harper Rd?  

Yes, as was done to all crossings east of there even though most of the track is still there and the line isn't legally abandoned until it reaches the Portage County line -- just past Geauga Lake and Brewster Road -- about 2,500 feet from where I lived from 1978-93.

BTW, OmniTrax got money to rebuild the Randall Industrial track and the work appears to be underway. There's a work train based out of Von Wilier Yard west of East 55th.

https://www.rtands.com/freight/omnitrax-railroad-receives-grant-for-track-rehabilitation/

 

I wish they could cross the NS mainline at a second location (old Harvard Tower) so OmniTrax could unite their Cleveland operations. 

21 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Didn't they remove (pave over) the track crossing of Harper Rd?  

 

20 hours ago, KJP said:

Yes, as was done to all crossings east of there even though most of the track is still there and the line isn't legally abandoned until it reaches the Portage County line -- just past Geauga Lake and Brewster Road -- about 2,500 feet from where I lived from 1978-93.

Tracks are still intact across Solon Rd and Flanders Rd, although the former will certainly be paved over whenever they get around to repairing the road. Flanders Rd (east Solon) even has crossing gates! I bet the housing developer loved having to put those in on an unused line. And of course there is the wonderful two track RoW bridge over SOM Center. 

The crossing gates on Flanders were put in months if not weeks before Conrail stopped using it.

On 2/27/2024 at 3:49 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

We are a LONG way from overcrowded platforms here. Honestly it's depressing anytime I pass a Green Line train on Shaker Blvd - often empty and never more than a handful of people. But anyway, if you were designing a proper subway, yes, there would definitely be overlap of 10-minute walk circles and maybe even of 5 minute walk circles.

RTA's finances face similar challenges to most transit authorities - definitely concerns when stimulus bill funds run out. They probably aren't as bad as some services because they do have a dedicate 1% sales tax in the county (1.2M people).

Regarding the "commuter" rail proposals: there was a feasibility report published in 2001 (December) that studied several routes, with the existing Lakefront Amtrak location as the downtown station

Route 1: Lake West - Lorain

Route 2: West-Elyria-Amherst

Route 3: SW-Medina Only (via Rockport)

Route 4D: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Hudson)

Route 4E: South: Canton-Akron-Cleveland (via Kent)

Route 6: East: Solon-Aurora-Mantua

Route 7: Lake East: Lake County - Ashtabula

 

They determined that the best cost/performance ratio starter project would be a combination of Routes 1 and 6, so Lorain-Sheffield-Avon-Westlake-Rocky River-Lakewood-Cleveland Lakefront-East 55th/Euclid (?)-East 131st/Miles-North Randall / Bedford Heights-Harper Road (Nestle plant)-Solon-Geauga Lake (sigh)-Sea World (sigh)-Aurora-Mantua. (This Solon line is what the last Cleveland commuter rail line followed, and went all the way to Youngstown.)

 

 

Re the green line, is it a bit of going through low density neighburhoods and a bit of having a low frequency? Would it be possible to redirect it close to the eastern terminus? Btw at tower city center, are there reserve platforms available that could handle through traffic?

 

For the commuter rail study, a fully built system would have three branches so there might been enough services in the central part to almost have an S-Bahn-system in the city centre maybe? Did the study suggest any train frequencies? Is the commuter rail system thing completely dead now? Btw, how does it work legally to run a transport scheme that runs traffic in more than one county?

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by Smaug_Puck

2 minutes ago, Smaug_Puck said:

Re the green line, is it a bit of going through low density neighburhoods and a bit of having a low frequency? Would it be possible to redirect it close to the eastern terminus? Btw at tower city center, are there reserve platforms available that could handle through traffic?

 

For the commuter rail study, a fully built system would have three branches so there might been enough services in the central part to almost have an S-Bahn-system in the city centre maybe? Is the commuter rail system thing completely dead now? Btw, how does it work legally to run a transport scheme that runs traffic in more than one county?

Green Line - it isn’t helped by low frequency, but the main problem is low density. As far as redirect, Ken has strongly recommended redirecting it at Warrensville Center Road a bit to the north so it would better serve John Carroll university campus and the higher density of University Heights. It could continue to the east through Beachwood Mall, where there are many apartments and room for many more, then further east to the Landerhaven office park, then northeast to Hillcrest Hospital. I think another solution would be high density infill housing in the RTA median of Shaker Boulevard between Warrensville Center Rd and Green Rd - it’s HUGE - but that would be extremely difficult politically. 
 

Regarding regional rail, you could have an S bahn system, but that route won’t serve much of the current need. I would not prioritize regional rail until rapid transit better serves the hospitals and other ridership generators in the city. The commuter rail study was 20+ years ago and it is not on any political leader’s mind at this time. 
 

Yes, political entities are part of the challenge. RTA only serves Cuyahoga county. This makes direct connections to Akron, in the next county to the south, much more difficult. Akron is also a separate metropolitan MSA area, with a separate regional planning organization.

I made a file with most of the proposals for Cleveland metro rail expansions that have been proposed or talked about on this forum. I thought it would be a useful reference. One version below has my thoughts and rankings, but I've also uploaded one without that table. 

 

Feel free to (respectfully) discuss/debate. 

 

 

On 2/28/2024 at 9:32 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Green Line - it isn’t helped by low frequency, but the main problem is low density. As far as redirect, Ken has strongly recommended redirecting it at Warrensville Center Road a bit to the north so it would better serve John Carroll university campus and the higher density of University Heights. It could continue to the east through Beachwood Mall, where there are many apartments and room for many more, then further east to the Landerhaven office park, then northeast to Hillcrest Hospital. I think another solution would be high density infill housing in the RTA median of Shaker Boulevard between Warrensville Center Rd and Green Rd - it’s HUGE - but that would be extremely difficult politically. 
 

Regarding regional rail, you could have an S bahn system, but that route won’t serve much of the current need. I would not prioritize regional rail until rapid transit better serves the hospitals and other ridership generators in the city. The commuter rail study was 20+ years ago and it is not on any political leader’s mind at this time. 
 

Yes, political entities are part of the challenge. RTA only serves Cuyahoga county. This makes direct connections to Akron, in the next county to the south, much more difficult. Akron is also a separate metropolitan MSA area, with a separate regional planning organization.

 

19 hours ago, Ethan said:

I made a file with most of the proposals for Cleveland metro rail expansions that have been proposed or talked about on this forum. I thought it would be a useful reference. One version below has my thoughts and rankings, but I've also uploaded one without that table. 

 

Feel free to (respectfully) discuss/debate. 

 

 

@Boomerang_BrianThe green line expansion seems like a fairly logical extension, did @KJP try to cost it? Re the regional rail improving the existing sytem should of course go before maybe a new systm, but OTH it would be interesting to see at least a feasibility study for an in-county commuter rail. To see if two branches, one from Bedford and one from Solon who on the shared parts could have stations at E79 (Interchange), Euclid Av, Lakefront (interchange), W Blvd -Cudell and Hopkins intl airport. It might make the current waterfront line more useful, wouldn't it? Speaking of that @Ethan, haven't extending the waterfron line as a tram/streetcar line? dor example converting bus line 1 by a ramp either from North coast stn up onto E12st and then to the current line 1 terminus alternatively after south harbor station and upon E18st with stations every halfmile downtown and 0,6-0,8 further out.

 

Lastly, I played around a bit with the GCRTA interactive map, and I noticed there are many of the high frequency bus lines that come into the city centre and then reverses. Have it been considered to merge some buslines to crate through lines? For example merging line 22 with line 3 (and maybe 28-28A?)  or merging the health line with 51-51A  and so on?

GCRTA has operated lines through downtown before like the 3 and the 26. But the route suffered serious on-time performance problems. This would work if GCRTA had more contactless fare payment and interactive traffic signals. Not only would this save GCRTA a lot of operating cost money, but also dramatically speed up transit services and make them more attractive. 

I definetely prefer the Green line going to downtown, and don't usually like loop type lines, but what about this idea....

 

 

What if we were to combine some of the Shaker Square/UC connector and Cleveland/University Heights ideas into a new green line, and then up the blue line to 15 minute frequency? The green line would have Green-1 and Green-2, both would start and end in the E83rd area (best place to have a point to reverse/switch tracks at on the Healthline rail).  You could send it all the way Downtown, but that's probably getting too long for a streetcar-ish style line.  This would effectively give these areas 2 rapid transit lines, serve both JCU and Case, and a population of around 52-55k(and growing) within a 5-10 minute walk of a stop.  I'm not sure how many Case and JCU students are included in the 2020 census numbers for these neighborhoods, so that number could be 10-12k higher during the school year.

 

Green-1 would start in UC on the healthline track, go up the hill, down EH Blvd to hit Coventry density, then connect back to Cedar using the Washington Blvd median.  Then complete the rest of the loop from there.

 

Green-2 could just go up the hill, or take the fun Adelbert route mentioned by @KJP to Shaker Square.  Multiple routes could be used to get there, but I went MLK to Larchmere to Moreland to maximize population.  You would have some great views of Downtown in this section

 

At a little bit faster than a streetcar pace, around 14.5 mph avg speed, it would take around 55 minutes to complete the loop. It could probably be a few minutes faster since a lot of the line will be running on a median, but being conservative here.  Having a 1 hour run time+buffer/wait time also is convenient for running a lot of different frequencies on a consistent schedule.  BUT no one is ever actually going to take the entire 55 minute ride, and probably never a ride longer than 20-25ish minutes.  For example, JCU students would have around a 20-22 minute ride to the Cedar Red line stop going in either direction.  This just maximizes the use for everyone while only building a little bit more, vs just having a direct route to UC for both.  Shaker Square people can take it to University Heights, JCU students to Cedar Lee/Coventry/Larchmere/Shaker, UC/Hough/Fairfax folks to Shaker Square/Cedar Lee/Coventry/Fairmount, etc.  And the interconnectivity of the lines could give you a lot of flexibility with lines like the Van Aken development to Downtown via the Healthline rail, University Heights to the airport... you get the idea of the possibilities.  It connects so many popular mixed use neighborhoods, grocery stores, students, residents, and jobs.  I think it would also maximize the use for the investment of these lines. 

 

 

Here are potential 5/10 minute walk radius maps., and the potential timetable using 4 trains in each direction and 15 minute frequencies.  It could also be bumped up to 5/6 trains in each direction in 12/10 minute frequencies during rush hour, or to 3 trains every 20 minutes during slow times

 

 

 

 

This could also be the start of an east side outer ring line going down Warrensville that would connect the ends of current and future lines, eliminating the need for people to travel into town to just head north or south. It would also give these lines incredible flexibility to change routes for any major events or other demand needs.  A direct line between East Cleveland and Shaker Square, Cedar Lee to Bedford, etc.  Maybe even Glenville or Waterloo to Bedford if the 1 or 10 bus is upgraded to rail.  I think maximizing potential flexibility is one of the best arguments to have on our side for the "why invest in rail over cheap bus routes" questions.  It's was a main excuse for why many streetcar lines were removed for busses in the first place.

 

 

These lines plus the existing 15 minute frequency 1, 3, 10, 14, and 15 busses would put most of the east side within a 10 minute walk, or .5 miles, of a 15 minute or better line.

 

 

 

On 3/3/2024 at 6:03 PM, KJP said:

GCRTA has operated lines through downtown before like the 3 and the 26. But the suffered serious on-time performance problems. This would work if GCRTA had more contactless fare payment and interactive traffic signals. Not only would this save GCRTA a lot of operating cost money, but also dramatically speed up transit services and make them more attractive. 

Is there some way that GCRTA could get some federal funds for an upgrade of the ticket system? For the lakewood branch you posted in april last year here, am I getting you right that you imagine it to be double track to the Rocky River and then single track until the terminus? Or just single track crossing the Rocky river?

Probably could. I haven't kept up to date on fare collection tech to see if GCRTA's new buses and trains will be equipped with new fare machines and cell phones can be used to pay fares.

 

GCRTA could do a mix of single track but GCRTA doesn't trust its train operators to operate safely on single track. Otherwise we might have had a single track Blue Line to Harvard/I-271 by now. Instead, a double-track was too expensive and didn't meet the criteria for federal funds. So I don't see GCRTA accepting any single-track extensions. Pity.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

GCRTA could do a mix of single track but GCRTA doesn't trust its train operators to operate safely on single track.

What does the operators union say about this? 

19 hours ago, KJP said:

Probably could. I haven't kept up to date on fare collection tech to see if GCRTA's new buses and trains will be equipped with new fare machines and cell phones can be used to pay fares.

 

GCRTA could do a mix of single track but GCRTA doesn't trust its train operators to operate safely on single track. Otherwise we might have had a single track Blue Line to Harvard/I-271 by now. Instead, a double-track was too expensive and didn't meet the criteria for federal funds. So I don't see GCRTA accepting any single-track extensions. Pity.

I asked because you wrote this "I estimate a running time of 35 minutes (vs 60-75 minutes by bus) from the Crocker/Bassett station to Tower City Center. Headways of 15 minutes from 4 a.m. to 1 a.m. Eastbound trains would wait at the east end of extended double-track West Clifton station in Lakewood for the westbound train to pass, then enter single track across Lakewood. When the eastbound returns to double track at West 110th Street, the next westbound is allowed to enter the Lakewood single track."  and I wasn't really sure what you meant but was it that there would just be a small stretch of single track somewhere? Btw, how is the system signalled on the grade separated parts?

I don't know. All of this is just playtime stuff. Nothing serious. My days of being serious about rail expansions are over.

On 3/12/2024 at 12:13 AM, KJP said:

I don't know. All of this is just playtime stuff. Nothing serious. My days of being serious about rail expansions are over.

OK, I am sorry to hear this, but I might see what has led you there.

 

 

Anyway, does anyone know who owns the track marked in purple?

14 minutes ago, Smaug_Puck said:

OK, I am sorry to hear this, but I might see what has led you there.

 

 

Anyway, does anyone know who owns the track marked in purple?

Norfolk Southern

 

You might find this map useful.

 

https://ohiodot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=82f597df8411453cafb18d62c371bc47

11 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Norfolk Southern

 

You might find this map useful.

 

https://ohiodot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=82f597df8411453cafb18d62c371bc47

I can't get the map to work at the moment but I'll try again later. Is the track in question heavily used?

 

Edit: Btw, the Waterfront line terminus hasn't got any easy access to either the lakeside airport or downtown, has it?

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by Smaug_Puck
Forgot one point

6 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

I can't get the map to work at the moment but I'll try again later. Is the track in question heavily used?

 

Edit: Btw, the Waterfront line terminus hasn't got any easy access to either the lakeside airport or downtown, has it?

 

Your second question would be better answered by someone like @KJP. 

 

But looks like this ROW is heavily used with 40-50 trains per day. 

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by Luke_S

7 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

I can't get the map to work at the moment but I'll try again later. Is the track in question heavily used?

 

Edit: Btw, the Waterfront line terminus hasn't got any easy access to either the lakeside airport or downtown, has it?

Correct, the WFL terminus has no access to the lakefront airport (because of the Shoreway highway) or downtown (pretty substantial bluff - downtown elevation is quite a bit higher than those parking lots). Plus that airport doesn’t really have any public commercial passenger service. It’s all private flights, reliever airport status, and Cleveland air show. Many are advocating to get rid of it. 

 

That purple line is Norfolk Southern’s mainline. @KJP put together a Norfolk Southern downtown bypass proposal together years ago - if you search this site in the railroad thread you might be able to find a link to it. That plan would have reported the mainline well south of downtown, meaning the only freight on the the line you highlighted would be local (including the busy port). That RoW has space for four tracks. American crashworthiness requirements would make it difficult and expensive to use it for Metro or light rail vehicles, but proper regional rail / commuter rail could use it. 

That's correct. You can also find my 2003 Lakefront Bypass report I did for the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition by doing a google search.

 

Another option is, if you built the lakefront bypass, you'd have four largely freight-free rail spokes into a downtown lakefront hub -- lakefront to Airport, lakefront to Collinwood, lakefront to Avon, lakefront to Geauga Lake. Or they could be done as an X routing with Airport-Collinwood and Avon-Geauga Lake sharing the ROW from West Boulevard RTA to just east of East 9th on the lakefront.

11 minutes ago, KJP said:

That's correct. You can also find my 2003 Lakefront Bypass report I did for the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition by doing a google search.

Found it here on the NEO Trans site for anyone interested:  https://neo-trans.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/LakefrontBypass-report-2003.pdf

20 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Correct, the WFL terminus has no access to the lakefront airport (because of the Shoreway highway) or downtown (pretty substantial bluff - downtown elevation is quite a bit higher than those parking lots). Plus that airport doesn’t really have any public commercial passenger service. It’s all private flights, reliever airport status, and Cleveland air show. Many are advocating to get rid of it. 

 

 

I was thinking if there could be a pedestrian walkway/footbridge from the downtown area above and perpendicular to the tracks, with some kind of ramp/stairs/elevator down to the station's platforms to improve the acessability of the station. Even though there is a need to extend the line somewhere to increase its attractiveness.

NOACA study may lead to more bike lanes downtown

https://www.clevescene.com/news/noaca-study-details-dangers-of-downtown-cleveland-streets-paves-way-for-solutions-43905052

Has RTA ever posted any ridership numbers by line?  The PowerBI COTA publishes is very nice to see.RTA's ridership reports aren't very helpful, and often times aren't even posted.  They haven't posted one since July.

GCRTA used to post them but doesn't anymore. Not sure why. Given the systemwide ridership, the route data is likely so low they don't want the budget-minded politicians to realize how irrelevant transit has become to all but the transit-dependent.

So asking for individual station numbers would make even less sense then? Btw, when the new rolling stock arrives, could there be some services from the green/blue line to the airport? Have there been any TOD the recent year?

5 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

So asking for individual station numbers would make even less sense then? Btw, when the new rolling stock arrives, could there be some services from the green/blue line to the airport? Have there been any TOD the recent year?

I’m sure I’ve seen station numbers within the last couple of years, so I think that info is available. 
Yes, in theory once the new vehicles arrive there could be direct green/blue (Shaker lines) service to the airport. I don’t think that’s a high priority for RTA, but they have talked a lot about system flexibility including showing through-routes with the new vehicles. 
The new Van Aken District at the end of the blue line is wonderful ToD. Much of the development near West Side Market is arguably ToD (Red Line west 25th station). And there is some ToD going in near the West Blvd station (Red Line). Overall ToD is lacking, but that Van Aken Didtrict is a wonderful local example for us to replicate elsewhere on the system. And there is substantial ToD along the BRT HealthLine (established approximately 2010) that follows Euclid Ave. That project should have been rail, but unfortunately was watered down to BRT. It has some good BRT features (center running, level boarding, station fare boxes, dedicated lane for 2/3rds of route) but other misses (most fare collection is onboard because RTA can’t use transit police for fare checking due to a court case and still haven’t fully implemented fare ambassadors, no signal prioritization, loses dedicated lane through University Circle).  

On 3/31/2024 at 3:59 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m sure I’ve seen station numbers within the last couple of years, so I think that info is available. 
Yes, in theory once the new vehicles arrive there could be direct green/blue (Shaker lines) service to the airport. I don’t think that’s a high priority for RTA, but they have talked a lot about system flexibility including showing through-routes with the new vehicles. 
The new Van Aken District at the end of the blue line is wonderful ToD. Much of the development near West Side Market is arguably ToD (Red Line west 25th station). And there is some ToD going in near the West Blvd station (Red Line). Overall ToD is lacking, but that Van Aken Didtrict is a wonderful local example for us to replicate elsewhere on the system. And there is substantial ToD along the BRT HealthLine (established approximately 2010) that follows Euclid Ave. That project should have been rail, but unfortunately was watered down to BRT. It has some good BRT features (center running, level boarding, station fare boxes, dedicated lane for 2/3rds of route) but other misses (most fare collection is onboard because RTA can’t use transit police for fare checking due to a court case and still haven’t fully implemented fare ambassadors, no signal prioritization, loses dedicated lane through University Circle).  

I was thinking in case there is no rail eaxpansion in the near future (Except for maybe the red line NE), increasing the traffic over th river instead of reversing at Tower city center could maybe drive TOD. Since the western part was built in steps, there are some stations on the western part where the trains can reverse at platform, isn't there? I knew some posters here suggested stations at Fulton Rd, between Ohio city and Tower city (but maybe at French street instead? Would be roughly halfway between stations by foot according to google maps), one at the stadiums and the Guardians staff parking?

 

Re the TOD, what tools do the city- and county government have when it comes to that? Zooning  is of course a thing but are there any other? Btw, it's google map, but there are some parking lots close to public square that are bing built upon, aren't there?

Taking some of the Ohio City conversation to this thread.

 

It doesn't exactly help the Lorain situation, but I've thought a streetcar connecting the near west side would be a huge hit.  It would basically act as an offshoot of the red line.  The green line on the pictures the W25th the Old Brooklyn line, and this NWS line would share track along W25th before breaking off to go to Tremont.  Thursday afternoons through Sundays this could potentially be the most popular line in the network.  It'd be great for residents, local visitors, and tourists.  Connecting the Cudell Station, Detroit Shoreway, Gordon Square, Hingetown, top of the West Bank of the Flats, Irishtown Bend, Ohio City, W25th Station, Duck Island, and Tremont.  I would have it avoid the W25/Lorain intersection by going down Bridge behind the WSM parking lots, which hopefully are converted to parking garages with housing on top and mixed use development at street level similar to these speculative designs from a local architect I shared in the other thread.  These renderings would have to be altered for the streetcars, but just to show potential ideas.

 

https://www.instagram.com/wspr_architecture/reel/CyZOzPEv-Wi/?hl=en

 

https://www.instagram.com/wspr_architecture/reel/C3g3pT7tLDy/?hl=en

 

 

The purple lines running off of the blue are potential alternate routes.  One to avoid the W65 intersection and offer an Edgewater Park stop while hitting more density, another going south through Tremont and ending at the Clark/W25 intersection, and then finally using the old Flats Industrial rail lines to go through the Scranton Peninsula.  If we wanted to get really crazy, fix one of the old bridges to allow it to cross the river.  The Carter Rd rail lift bridge could allow it to connect to the WFL, and maybe use those tracks to get it into Tower City, creating a direct route to the Scranton Peninsula and Tremont.  The Scranton Peninsula could be home to 2-3 thousand people in the next decade if more development follows the 2 current projects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would make Cudell the West Side hub.  It would have...

-The Red line

-A new rapid line out to Crocker or the Westlake PnR using the NS RoW

-A commuter line to Lorain or Sandusky on the same RoW

-The Detroit/Tremont streetcar

-Then you could also have a streetcar line down Madison through Lakewood that terminates here. 

-Same for a Lorain streetcar out to Kamms or Fairview.  This could also end at W65, I don't see this working well with the Lorain Bikeway from W65 to W25.

-Improve frequency of the 18 bus which goes from here to Garfield.  This would connect this station to a new SE hub near W93rd and Harvard if something were able to be worked out on the CCR RoW.  With lines to Solon and Bedford(potential extensions to Kent, Cuyahoga Falls, and Akron)

-Possibly some sort of trolley route north to Edgewater, the Gold Coast, and Lakewood Park areas.

 

Edited April 12, 20241 yr by PlanCleveland

City launches ‘Cleveland Moves’ initiative, seeks public input on 5-year transportation plan

Published: Aug. 02, 2024

By Courtney Astolfi, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city of Cleveland is seeking public input and engagement on its ambitious five-year transportation initiative that aims to enhance the safety, comfort and convenience of walking, biking and using public transit across the city.

 

In a news release Friday, the city said it hopes to harness the feedback and build upon the multimodal transportation plan, dubbed “Cleveland Moves,” which includes five key components:

 

• Bikeway Master Plan Update: The city will refresh its 2007 Bikeway Master Plan to propose a comprehensive bike network suitable for all ages and abilities, with rapid implementation over the next three years.

 

• Vision Zero Action Plan Expansion: A detailed focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety issues will help identify priority investments to improve safety and comfort for walkers and cyclists.

 

• Program and Policy Review: The plan will assess current programs and policies, addressing gaps related to walking, biking and rolling.

 

• Midway Bikeway Network Development: This involves shaping the design and functionality of the proposed Midway Bikeway Network.

 

• Integration and Prioritization: The initiative will consolidate ongoing projects and new recommendations into a five-year action plan, adhering to the city’s 2002 Complete and Green Streets Ordinance.

 

...

 

Residents are encouraged to contribute by submitting preferred routes, common destinations and identifying barriers through an online interactive map. They can also sign up for email updates to stay informed about the plan’s progress.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/08/city-launches-cleveland-moves-initiative-seeks-public-input-on-5-year-transportation-plan.html

I was thinking, if you can't get the green line rerouted to more dense areas, could you instead try to develop the area between Shaker and Warrensville station and Green road station? Or would this be shut down by the NIMBYs?

4 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

I was thinking, if you can't get the green line rerouted to more dense areas, could you instead try to develop the area between Shaker and Warrensville station and Green road station? Or would this be shut down by the NIMBYs?

Yes it would be shut down by the Nimbys's but here's one idea from @KJP

 

On 6/24/2024 at 10:31 AM, KJP said:

 

The median isn't. And the areas surrounding the stations at Warrensville and Green are vastly underdeveloped for a transit station setting. I especially like the Warrensville station area that could be developed as an extension of John Carroll University, especially with the west side of Warrensville undeveloped from the college to the station. In fact, I renamed the Shaker-Warrensville station as Shaker-College Station.

 

 

 

At the Green station, I made this long before the pandemic. So all of the parking near the West Green station could be developed too.

 

 

This might sound far-fetched but I thought the Red Line could be expanded and turned into a multi-line hybrid metro/commuter rail system. It already looks more like a commuter rail as it uses overhead lines instead of 3rd rail. Also, could they build a commuter line to Akron and other nearby cities?

15 hours ago, Ethan said:

Yes it would be shut down by the Nimbys's but here's one idea from @KJP

 

 

That's the odd thing about rail in alot of neighborhoods in Cleveland.  It's supposed to create dense neighborhoods.  The rails not supposed to chase after them.  That's just my opinion.  I think the extreme lack of traffic amd the ease of parking around Cleveland is the largest opponent to new rail development around the city.  We're left to pioneers that go car free for a cause, or small economic benefit, versus people who move nrar rail to save them hours of time on traffic and drop them off within steps of their office/favorite socializing locations. 

1 hour ago, Jenny said:

That's the odd thing about rail in alot of neighborhoods in Cleveland.  It's supposed to create dense neighborhoods.  The rails not supposed to chase after them.  That's just my opinion.  I think the extreme lack of traffic amd the ease of parking around Cleveland is the largest opponent to new rail development around the city.  We're left to pioneers that go car free for a cause, or small economic benefit, versus people who move nrar rail to save them hours of time on traffic and drop them off within steps of their office/favorite socializing locations. 

 

I suspect that for a lot of reasons, in this area rail will have to chase the neighborhoods that densify for other reasons.  

 

-While there is some demand for density in this area, it's not widespread.   Dense neighborhoods also tend to grow block by block, new ones rarely nucleate.

 

-GCRTA has not prioritized speed.   Anyone who has remotely followed the recent history of the system knows that rail is not a priority.   BRT is in principle a nod towards speed, but without signal prioritization is an oxymoron.  

 

-Since it's my role around here to say the quiet parts out loud: Anyone who has followed the entire history of the system knows that it began with a one size fits all approach that didn't only ignore people with other options, it actively disdained appealing to them in any way.   Despite sporadic efforts to push back against that mindset, to a large degree it has ossified.     People may see it as a benefit of moving to certain areas, but they won't see it as a reason in and of itself.   

 

-To be even blunter, there's still a stigma in most area circles attached to being transit dependent.   It's on GCRTA to change that, and the sort of passive "leadership" it has embraced isn't going to make it happen.

That's a good view on it E Rocc!

 

In the case of Cleveland, much of the development for the better part of the past 50 years has not developed around rail.  In fact, many of the neighborhoods our rail system traverses has deteriorated over that time.  Now, here we are in a post-pandemic commuting environment, or lack there of.  The 80's and 90's, when commuting patterns between suburban locations and Cleveland employment centers was peaking was the time to establish strong, well thought out rail routes that got employee's from home to the office without having to fight what I would consider some moderate traffic, nor spend on gas and an additional car.  Additional development would have occurred along those lines naturally as people continued to fill up downtown office building, and new offices in Independence and Beachwood (Just examples).   Now with employees working from home more and more, I'm not certain where that route would exist.  I commute daily when in town, and can say traffic is nothing what it was 5 years ago.  On top of that, I'm one of very few on my street that even leaves the house in the morning.  This is not to say that rail should be abandon, or that no one uses it.  That's not the case at all.  However the need from a practical standpoint, outside of trying to change peoples mindset, is not there.  I work in Boston quite often, and use rail there daily.  Traffic on 93 is terrible between my house and the city.  Not a chance I would sit in it when I have the rail option.  However in Cleveland, it literally takes me 30 minutes door-to-door to drive 20 miles.  Trust me, I dream of having rail in Cleveland with development along all sides of it, however, I oftentimes think it's a tough sell given that commuting is a non-event for most.