24 minutes ago, Jenny said:

  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.  

Exactly -- and clearly it has been a tough sell as shown by the (lack of) investment in transit.  I am hopeful, however, that more people are at least recognizing the benefits of transit and thinking about it, if not a large enough group actually advocating for it yet.  We will continue to see Boomers aging and their ability to drive will continue to decline.  And the younger generations are delaying learning to drive and showing signs of not wanting to drive.  That could lead to a political coalition in a few years that actually would advocate for better transit and TOD.  Ever the optimist.

On 9/8/2024 at 9:24 PM, Ethan said:

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

 

 

Yes, something like that, although maybe replacing townhouses with some five over ones, could maybe increase density even more?

 

Btw, thepublic transport is (partially?) funded by a sales tax, isn't it? How for does it go to cover both operating expenses and investments? Let's say if the RTA managed to get federal funding for new rolling stock enough to run one of the green or blue line on the waterfront line and the other one on the west part of the network (not necessary all the way to the airport), both with a 15 minute headway, would they have the means to run it?

Serious question, someone will know.   Probably @KJP.

 

How busy are the NY Central (?) tracks that run directly adjacent to the Red Line until the latter ends at Windemere?

 

Would it be practical to connect to the Red Line, or run commuter rail to there with a mutual station?

There are two sets of two-track railroads that parallel the Red Line through University Circle. One is owned by CSX (former New York Central) and the other by Norfolk Southern (former Nickel Plate). At the Superior station in East Cleveland, the CSX/NYC turns north to and through the Collinwood Yard. The NS/NKP continues alongside the Red Line to and through Windermere. 

 

The CSX/NYC tracks host about 50-60 freight trains per day while the NS/NKP tracks host about 15 freight trains per day.

 

The NS tracks would be better for commuter trains because they could serve University Circle and downtown and because they're much less busy. The CSX/NYC tracks don't go downtown. It would be good if the NS/NKP tracks were double-tracked with mainline-quality tracks east of Lincoln Electric to at least Willoughby. Although going beyond Willoughby gets expensive because of bridge construction. 

13 hours ago, KJP said:

There are two sets of two-track railroads that parallel the Red Line through University Circle. One is owned by CSX (former New York Central) and the other by Norfolk Southern (former Nickel Plate). At the Superior station in East Cleveland, the CSX/NYC turns north to and through the Collinwood Yard. The NS/NKP continues alongside the Red Line to and through Windermere. 

 

The CSX/NYC tracks host about 50-60 freight trains per day while the NS/NKP tracks host about 15 freight trains per day.

 

The NS tracks would be better for commuter trains because they could serve University Circle and downtown and because they're much less busy. The CSX/NYC tracks don't go downtown. It would be good if the NS/NKP tracks were double-tracked with mainline-quality tracks east of Lincoln Electric to at least Willoughby. Although going beyond Willoughby gets expensive because of bridge construction. 

 

I realized this morning that the NS/NKP pass within an easy rock toss of the back door of my plant in Mentor.  We're on East Avenue, they are the ones to the south.   The tracks to the north of East (on Hopkins Road) seem much busier.

 

They pass under the 615 bridge in Mentor but are not electrified.

 

If one wanted to be ambitious LakeTran could conceivably run a train or few down those tracks to adjacent to Windermere, sharing a station with GCRTA.   The challenge would be turning around.

7 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I realized this morning that the NS/NKP pass within an easy rock toss of the back door of my plant in Mentor.  We're on East Avenue, they are the ones to the south.   The tracks to the north of East (on Hopkins Road) seem much busier.

 

They pass under the 615 bridge in Mentor but are not electrified.

 

If one wanted to be ambitious LakeTran could conceivably run a train or few down those tracks to adjacent to Windermere, sharing a station with GCRTA.   The challenge would be turning around.

I contacted Laketran before asking if they’d consider adding rail to their services. Got a flat out no, but it’s a good thought.

On 9/25/2024 at 8:11 AM, E Rocc said:

 

I realized this morning that the NS/NKP pass within an easy rock toss of the back door of my plant in Mentor.  We're on East Avenue, they are the ones to the south.   The tracks to the north of East (on Hopkins Road) seem much busier.

 

They pass under the 615 bridge in Mentor but are not electrified.

 

If one wanted to be ambitious LakeTran could conceivably run a train or few down those tracks to adjacent to Windermere, sharing a station with GCRTA.   The challenge would be turning around.

 

Not if it was a push-pull train (ie one with cab cars at either end).

 

One thing GCRTA and its consultants didn't apparently consider was rerouting NS trains via Collinwood Yards and taking over the NS right of way through Windermere to the east for use by the Red Line. Perhaps at least to Wickliffe or even Willoughby. It would have saved building multiple double-track bridges and especially a costly flyover bridge for the Red Line to get from the south side of the NS ROW to the north side. There are a couple of NS freight shippers but that could be handled by a NS using the Red Line tracks at night -- called a temporal separation of freight/transit traffic. It's done elsewhere -- formerly in Baltimore to Cockeysville (15 miles) on a former freight railroad turned into electric light-rail and Pennsauken-Trenton NJ (30 miles) with diesel light rail and heavy freight traffic  still involved.

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Not if it was a push-pull train (ie one with cab cars at either end).

 

One thing GCRTA and its consultants didn't apparently consider was rerouting NS trains via Collinwood Yards and taking over the NS right of way through Windermere to the east for use by the Red Line. Perhaps at least to Wickliffe or even Willoughby. It would have saved building multiple double-track bridges and especially a costly flyover bridge for the Red Line to get from the south side of the NS ROW to the north side. There are a couple of NS freight shippers but that could be handled by a NS using the Red Line tracks at night -- called a temporal separation of freight/transit traffic. It's done elsewhere -- formerly in Baltimore to Cockeysville (15 miles) on a former freight railroad turned into electric light-rail and Pennsauken-Trenton NJ (30 miles) with diesel light rail and heavy freight traffic  still involved.

I am trying to understand this proposal.  Are you saying, run the NS freight trains, east of Superior RTS, up the CSX (New York Central) short line to Collinwood and along I-90/SR-2 out to somewhere in Lake County, where they would connect back to the NS line?  The rapid transit would then use the current NS line that runs north of Euclid Avenue, or is it something else?  There are a number of at grade crossings in South Collinwood, Euclid and Wickliffe.

I was thinking, in a scenario with no track expansion but an improved service frequency, say minimum 15 minute headway each line weekdays at off peak and maybe 12 minute at peaks. Could that make infill stations on the inner sections more likely? And TOD to follow? For example new stations between Ohio City and Cudell and/or a station between  E79  and E105 or at Irishtown bend (If possible from an engineering POW) to drive development.  And maybe a new station at Progressive field to encourage Public transport use to games. But also maybe look into what can be done to make some buslines more BRT-like?

On 9/27/2024 at 11:26 AM, urb-a-saurus said:

I am trying to understand this proposal.  Are you saying, run the NS freight trains, east of Superior RTS, up the CSX (New York Central) short line to Collinwood and along I-90/SR-2 out to somewhere in Lake County, where they would connect back to the NS line?  The rapid transit would then use the current NS line that runs north of Euclid Avenue, or is it something else?  There are a number of at grade crossings in South Collinwood, Euclid and Wickliffe.

 

The 2014 plan for a Red Line extension to Euclid assumed grade crossings for the Red Line where they already exist for the NS line. The Red Line would have also crossed over the NS tracks on a bridge, between Shaw and Coit avenues. This would have been a major expense -- one of major capital costs that could be saved by doing this instead....

 

Acquire 10.5 miles of right of way for NS bypass of Red Line extension

Acquire abandoned CSX engine terminal at Collinwood Yard

Construct new NS Bulkmatic bulk freight terminal on former engine terminal

Construct 3.3 miles of double-track freight railroad on existing roadbed

Construct 6.7 miles of single-track freight railroad on new roadbed

Rebuild seven existing double-track railroad bridges

Rebuild one existing single-track railroad bridge and add a second span

Construct eight single-track bridge spans next to existing railroad overpasses of seven streets and one stream

Construct 3 miles of new rail transit mainline track on existing railroad roadbed

Construct 0.45 miles of new rail transit mainline track on newly graded roadbed

Construct at-grade railroad turnout on rail transit line protected by ATS

Construct new freight rail turnouts for Lincoln Electric from CSX and NS bypass

Construct universal crossovers at three locations (about 2.5-3 miles apart)

Construct eight new rail transit stations along the 8.5-mile Red Line extension

Construct 8.5 miles of overhead electrification for Red Line extension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only GCRTA would listen to @KJP!

They might have already considered it and rejected it 10 years ago. My guess is that they shied away from it because they are terrified of asking NS or CSX to change anything in their operations. Like, once I suggested building a wye track so that Blue/Green trains could make a right turn at the Red Line near East 70th. The second track for returning trains going from the Red Line to the Green/Blue lines could even use an existing flyover of an old industrial track with modifications that included moving one of the NS main tracks away from the Red Line so the Red-to-Blue/Green connecting track could take its place next to the Red Line. But GCRTA Asst. GM Mike Schipper said to me "Ask NS to move a track? No."

 

 

Maybe they're right. Or maybe they didn't offer them enough. Orlando got CSX to give up its ROW through town for the SunRail commuter rail route by offering to build them a new intermodal terminal on another line west of Orlando. CSX said "cool." Maybe RTA buys CSX's 20-acre abandoned engine terminal, south of their railroad west of East 152nd Street, for an electric bus charging station. Then GCRTA's "changes their mind" and offers it to NS for a new, larger bulk transfer terminal to replace the 10-acre one on their current line, just off Chardon Road north of Euclid Ave.

 

 

But there is a new ongoing study for expanding the red line in the general northeastern direction, isn't there? Btw, with the new rolling stock wouldn't that maybe open up for a Stadtbahn type solution?  (Ie tram/LRT in the outskirts of a city but metrolike with gradeseparation and higher frequencies due to converging lines). More options should be available, like maybe one branch going up Euclid avenue and other branch/branches going elsewhere (lakefront maybe)?

18 hours ago, KJP said:

They might have already considered it and rejected it 10 years ago. My guess is that they shied away from it because they are terrified of asking NS or CSX change anything in their operations. Like, once I suggested building a wye track so that Blue/Green trains could make a right turn at the Red Line near East 70th. The second track for returning trains going from the Red Line to the Green/Blue lines could even use an existing flyover of an old industrial track with modifications that included moving one of the NS main tracks away from the Red Line so the Red-to-Blue/Green connecting track could take its place next to the Red Line. But GCRTA Asst. GM Mike Schipper said to me "Ask NS to move a track? No."

 

 

Maybe they're right. Or maybe they didn't offer them enough. Orlando got CSX to give up its ROW through town for the SunRail commuter rail route by offering to build them a new intermodal terminal on another line west of Orlando. CSX said "cool." Maybe RTA buys CSX's 20-acre abandoned engine terminal, south of their railroad west of East 152nd Street, for an electric bus charging station. Then GCRTA's "changes their mind" and offers it to NS for a new, larger bulk transfer terminal to replace the 10-acre one on their current line, just off Chardon Road north of Euclid Ave.

 

 

 

NS may have a need for some PR points in light of recent events.

4 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

But there is a new ongoing study for expanding the red line in the general northeastern direction, isn't there? Btw, with the new rolling stock wouldn't that maybe open up for a Stadtbahn type solution?  (Ie tram/LRT in the outskirts of a city but metrolike with gradeseparation and higher frequencies due to converging lines). More options should be available, like maybe one branch going up Euclid avenue and other branch/branches going elsewhere (lakefront maybe)?

 

Is that study going on anywhere but here and similar places, though?

8 hours ago, Smaug_Puck said:

But there is a new ongoing study for expanding the red line in the general northeastern direction, isn't there? Btw, with the new rolling stock wouldn't that maybe open up for a Stadtbahn type solution?  (Ie tram/LRT in the outskirts of a city but metrolike with gradeseparation and higher frequencies due to converging lines). More options should be available, like maybe one branch going up Euclid avenue and other branch/branches going elsewhere (lakefront maybe)?

 

The Red Line extension study was done in 2014-15. It has exceeded its shelf life and would have to be done again if there was renewed interest in doing anything here.

 

Unfortunately, in North America, you cannot operate light transit vehicles in mixed traffic with heavy freight trains. In America we design our trains and their contents to survive collisions. In Europe they designed their rail systems to avoid them. Here, our freight trains are much bigger and heavier; an RTA train would be obliterated by a freight train if they collided. So they have to separate operations. Most times this means separate tracks, but it can also mean at different times, called a temporal separation. In the middle of the night, a freight locomotive can come down a designated portion of the Red Line to a certain point and deliver or pick up freight cars at a shipper or two and get out before the RTA service begins again in the morning.

So here's the RTA Red Line to Wickliffe graphics. Circles are approximate station locations (about 0.7 of a mile to 1 mile apart) and X for rough locations for universal (aka bidirectional) crossover tracks. I'm posting these separate from the previously posted NS Lake Erie District track reroute graphics (although the NS reroute is visible in the last few of the Red Line image). 

 

Here they are from west to east, starting at Windermere station in East Cleveland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@E Rocc and @KJP , my bad I was looking at this page  https://www.clevelandohio.gov/city-hall/boards-commissions/planning/projects/rta-redlinehealthline-extension-study, It's undated so I made the wrong assumption that it was a different study than the one you are referring to, but it is the same. Anyway, there are some european systems that run trams on heavy rail (for example Karlsruhe and the Tyne and wear metro), but I was thinking if you can't extend along the NS heavy rail instead run the extension on past Windemere on Euclid avenue with a branch off to the Lakeshore (I think called alternative E in the study). Such a thing if each branch was run at least 15 minute headway where they converge the resulting 7.5 minute headway could probably drive TOD. Something like the Pittsburgh system. (Which come to think of it, fits the description of a Stadtbahn system).

 

And something completely different, this video was released a few days ago:   How Cleveland Rejected the Subway

I've been playing around with making a transit map in Google for the last few months like @KJP has posted before. This is a little slice of it.

 

Here are 2 streetcar routes myself and others have tossed around on here before.  Both are right at about 8 miles long, connecting a lot of people, places, and potential development sites.  I keep swapping which route would go through Tremont, but it would make one out to the Gold Coast a little over 9 miles to and the E55 route a little under 7.  Having them even feels better at the moment, maybe I switch them back tomorrow.  Also considered going down Lake Rd to Clifton instead of Cudell to get a little closer to an Edgewater stop, but hitting what could/should be a rail hub wins easily for me.

 

Gold Coast to Old Brooklyn- About 49k within .3 miles of the line with 2020 census numbers, so around 8,500/sq mi.  That is probably a little higher now with new buildings all over Ohio City.  All of W25th along Clark Fulton and large portions of Detroit could add thousands more to that number.  Goes through 2 red line/potential Lakewood line stops, and a ton of amenities. Connects all of the Gold Coast and Clifton area population with the 

 

E55 to Old Brooklyn- About 30k within .3 miles of the line with 2020 census numbers, so 5500/sq mi.  That is probably higher now with new buildings all over Ohio City and Downtown.  Same growth potential in Clark Fulton as above, but even more along Superior, Payne, St Clair, and all the way through Asiatown.  Superior could become the best street in Ohio with the Midway, better pedestrian infrastructure, and this streetcar.

 

Both would be useful all hours of the day for residents, workers, and tourists.  Both would immediately be very useful, and provide a huge boost in development along these coridors.  The biggest thing is that it would connect communities that are close, but don't really have many people going between them right now.  Different sections of Downtown don't really feel easily connected.  Gordon Square/Detroit Shoreway, Hingetown, Ohio City, Tremont, and Clark Fulton/Old BK are all close, but have big enough gaps currently where they don't feel connected. Not many are going to more than 1 of them in a single trip or day, and they're just far enough apart that most residents aren't going between them often either.  

 

I feel like Ken’s article suggesting the Clinic invest in expanding the Rapid should be cross posted here:

 

 

^ What are the ridership numbers for the green line East of Shaker Square? They can't be high, there are basically no ridership generators, low density etc. Outside of history and tradition, I don't see compelling reasons to continue running either blue or green trains down this segment of track. If we have to be economical, I think the smart decision is to double down on the the blue line East of Shaker square. Run all the trains down the line with relatively high density, and quality ridership generators, such as Van Aken. 

 

If we are proposing rerouting the trains anyway, such as above, I can't see a good reason not to connect both downtown and UC direct to Van Aken. Sending either line down the current green line right of way seems like a waste, and potentially sabotaging the potential of one line or the other, particularly if we will only have enough cars to run each line on 30 minute headways. 

 

Regardless of any other changes, I think it would be better for the region as a whole to run the blue line at 15 minute headways than to maintain the green line as it is. Probably a hot take, but that's how it seems to me at the moment.

I don't know ridership numbers exactly, but the Green Line does have a couple stops with large parking lots, so it does seem to attract more park and ride than the Blue Line.  There are also multiple bus lines that stop at either line.  Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough TOD to really move the needle much on either line east of Shaker Square.  Van Aken definitely has changed that somewhat, but I don't think as much as you'd think.  Even the new high rise will likely be almost entirely people who park their cars in the garage and rarely if ever take the rapid anywhere.

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by jam40jeff

The ridership is higher on the Blue Line than the Green Line. Both lines have seen catastrophic ridership declines since the pandemic and neither was strong before the pandemic. The National Transit Database says the two LRT lines (both Blue and Green) combined for a total of 662,113 unlinked trips (individual rides) last year. That's an average of about 900 rides per day per line. Truly awful. Incredibly, that's an increase from 2021 when it carried 465,123 unlinked trips.

 

Gone are the days from the 1990s and before when commuters overflowed the Green Road and West Green station parking lots and parked on sidestreets at most stations (Here are two views from 1994). I have data from the 2000s that shows the Red Line carried between 7 million and 8 million rides per year (7,639,000 in 2008). We used to lament that the Red Line so few riders, ranking it dead last among 15 heavy rail systems in the nation. Last year, it carried 3,472,342 rides -- twice as much as the next-most-used transit line in Cleveland -- the HealthLine BRT which carried 1,714,067 unlinked trips. The Blue/Green lines in the 2000s carried just over 3 million unlinked trips (3,262,000 in 2008). That was enough to rank it 20th among 29 LRT systems nationwide and third or fourth among Cleveland transit lines. When the 3 and 26 ran as a combined crosstown 326 route, it routinely carried more than 3 million riders per year (3,442,131 in 2004).

 

BTW, these were top-10 GCRTA bus routes in 2004 in terms of ridership (unlinked trips) with 2008 rail ridership added:

 

66 HRT -- 7,639,000

1 -- 326 --3,442,131

67 LRT -- 3,262,000
2 -- 6 -- 2,941,560
3 -- 22 -- 2,041,450 
4 --1 -- 2,005,840 
5 -- 15/15A -- 1,958,665 
6 -- 14 -- 1,888,796 
7 -- 10 -- 1,866,657 
8 -- 20All -- 1,351,598 
9 -- 2 -- 1,228,787 
10 -- 40 -- 1,210,848

 

All that being said, no one is going to be abandoning the Blue/Green lines. GCRTA has invested a lot of federal money in them that would have to be reimbursed if any rail line is abandoned. How much money?

 

It was just awarded $16 million for stations: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/05/28/all-gcrta-blue-line-stations-in-shaker-heights-to-be-rebuilt/

$8 million for a new East 79th LRT station: https://neo-trans.blog/2024/02/25/gcrtas-new-east-79th-rail-station-is-an-opportunity/

$50 million for the Blue/Green trunk (SS-E55th): https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/01/208m-shaker-rapid-rebuild-down-the-line/

They also spent millions of federal dollars in getting the Waterfront Line extension of the Blue/Green lines back up and running.

 

On the Green Line, some federal dollars have been invested in new roadway crossings, the Warrensville-Shaker station, and some state of good repair stuff. But I don't think this was more than a few million dollars in the past 10-15 years. So yes, they could abandon this if they wanted. But...

 

The big GCRTA expense is the new railcars. And they're ordering 18 cars for the Blue and Green lines. Right now, the most LRVs that GCRTA can muster is nine trains during peak hours to operate each branch on 30-minute intervals. When they get the new trains, they'll be able to run 12 trains during peak hours to increase frequency (and reliability) to trains on the branches every 20 minutes (or every 10 minutes west of Shaker Square).

 

And the hope is to be able to do some new routing stuff with the new trains like running a Shaker Line through Tower City to the Airport and maybe every other Red Line east train through to the Waterfront.

 

Green Road, 1994

 

Warrensville, 1994

 

South Park, 1994

 

Courtland, 1994

 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

Gone are the days from the 1990s and before when commuters overflowed the Green Road and West Green station parking lots and parked on sidestreets at most stations (Here are two views from 1994).

Maybe when the new trains arrive we could gate off one of those Green Road lots, similar to the Amtrak lot, and have it available for free or cheap multi-day parking with a Green line trip to the airport? I could see a decent number of people on the Eastside using that. It could save you $75-120 on a 5 day trip. 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by PlanCleveland
Typo. Trains not trails

11 hours ago, Ethan said:

^ What are the ridership numbers for the green line East of Shaker Square? They can't be high, there are basically no ridership generators, low density etc. Outside of history and tradition, I don't see compelling reasons to continue running either blue or green trains down this segment of track. If we have to be economical, I think the smart decision is to double down on the the blue line East of Shaker square. Run all the trains down the line with relatively high density, and quality ridership generators, such as Van Aken. 

 

If we are proposing rerouting the trains anyway, such as above, I can't see a good reason not to connect both downtown and UC direct to Van Aken. Sending either line down the current green line right of way seems like a waste, and potentially sabotaging the potential of one line or the other, particularly if we will only have enough cars to run each line on 30 minute headways.

 

I'd like to hope there are ways to create ridership generators instead of shutting down lines... Maybe expand on the Gateway North development with significant TOD and a little retail. Connect JCU to UC (it sounds like they have a nursing program—this would improve access to CC/UH) and build more housing for Clinic commuters.

 

This way, you balance out Green/Blue line ridership (the lines could be easily reconfigured later). There seem to be a decent number of apartments nearby already, and developing at the current end of the line is (potentially?) controversial due to the existing park.

 

Obviously all very expensive, and I'm sure there are reasons that make this difficult-to-impossible anytime soon. But thinking long-term it seems reasonable to leave options open for significant TOD within commuting distance to UC. If it costs $100M to expand Clinic parking for expected needs, what's it going to to cost in 5 years when they run out again? 10 years?

 

At some point more money will be spent building parking garages than it would cost to just extend light rail and encourage TOD. And by then we'll actually want it because traffic will be twice as bad.

 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by sonisharri

Cool idea! I like it!

 

BTW, I belatedly added the 1994 views of the parking at four Green Line stations to my post above.

 

I usually took the Green Line to Dyke College downtown in 1991-92. When I had classes starting at 7:30 or especially at 8:20 am, I usually had to park way down at the end of the parking lot at West Green and sometimes on the grass. If my first class was at mid-morning, I might have better luck finding a parking spot at one of the station lots along the Blue Line, like at Farnsleigh or Lynnfield. But that wasn't guaranteed either.

This was my idea a few years ago, but I added the International Soccer Training Center, just four short blocks north of an extended Green Line at Cedar.

The cool thing about diverting the green line north to Warrensville Circle and JCU is that Shaker could then tie-in/extend the Beachwood City Park-West from Green Rd to Richmond Rd all the way to the station at Warrensville! And the county is finishing up reconstructing that entire Warrensville Rd bridge over the tracks at Shaker at the moment. A new station there connecting to the bridge could also be cool.

In terms of how other transit could tie in, here's a rough idea with some major destinations outlined 

If you're going to divert one of the blue/green lines from shaker square, why not divert the weakest line? From the perspective of Shaker Square, that's the eastward green line, both westward lines go downtown, and the Eastward blue line goes down Van Aken which has decent to good density throughout. The easiest way to do that would be below, there are more optimal routings, this one just seems the most manageable. Long term this would create a nice east side loop, which seems more useful to me than extending transit further and further into more and more car dependent suburbs. this alignment would also immediately create a direct, if circuitous connection between downtown and Cleveland Clinic.  

 

The reason was that trip data from a decade ago showed more people living near the Blue Line were traveling to the University Circle area and more people living near the Green Line were traveling to downtown. That may have changed since, so it's always worth rechecking this data if the opportunity arises again.

41 minutes ago, sonisharri said:

In terms of how other transit could tie in, here's a rough idea with some major destinations outlined

With those spaced "major destinations" along Cedar, this route looks ripe for BRT -- Cleveland Heights, University Heights, South Euclid, Beachwood -- get together and petition RTA and join together for startup funding!

I'm on vacation now so here are some phone screen shots. 

 

Green line extension up Belvoir to Cedar, then over to Hillcrest/Eastgate to Downtown Waterfront Loop going one direction

 

Blue line extension to Tri-C/Ahuja to Downtown Waterfront Loop going the other direction. 

 

The purple lines are essentially one big loop, but 2 routes with....

--one going from UC to North Randall on the north via Euclid Heights Blvd, Coventry, Cedar Lee,University Heights, before going South. 

--the other doing the same UC to North Randall trip but south on Cedar Fairmont to Shaker Square where it joins the blue line. This would make the blue line routes hopefully a 10 minute frequency from Shaker Square to Harvard, with 20 minute frequency to either Downtown or UC. 

 

This set up would allow for an easy new route from UC to Hillcrest/Eastgate, UC to Tri-C/Ahuja or Hillcrest to North Randall/Tri-C if the demand was there. So many potential hospital connections. 

 

Route to UC would take the new UC loop one direction every 10 minutes with both of the purple routes being 20 minute frequency, and then the healthline takes the opposite loop direction with 10 minute frequency. 

 

This is just the "phase 1 light rail" of map map, so the healthline rail is only using where it has it's own lane already. Healthline 2 could take this same loop and follow Euclid to the County line, or maybe go up E152 to Waterloo. 

 

Healthline would also follow the Downtown circulator streetcar rails(light purple lines downtown) in one direction, with a dedicated Downtown circulator going in the other direction every 10 minutes. Any nurse or doctor working in UC, Hillcrest, Ahuja, or Metro and living Downtown or in UC could be from their apartment/condo to their hospital building by walking less than 5 minutes outside. We could even have Gold Coast or Old Brooklyn to UC/Van Aken when you add in the other routes I posted before. 

 

This would obviously be a huge project, with about 43 miles of new rail going into the ground with these Eastside routes and the 2 Gold Coast and Old Brooklyn routes I posted before. When you add those 43 miles to our existing 31 miles of existing unique rail miles already in the ground we'd have just under 74 miles. But with the flexibility and connectivity of these lines brought by using trains that can work on any of them, that would enable 200+ miles of useful rail lines. 

 

Then throw in a new rapid line out through Lakewood/Rocky River on the NS rail and Solon/Bedford on the Omnitrax rail to unlock even more miles. We could have 250-300 miles or rail routes with only about 100 miles of rail. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by PlanCleveland

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

If you're going to divert one of the blue/green lines from shaker square, why not divert the weakest line? From the perspective of Shaker Square, that's the eastward green line, both westward lines go downtown, and the Eastward blue line goes down Van Aken which has decent to good density throughout. The easiest way to do that would be below, there are more optimal routings, this one just seems the most manageable. Long term this would create a nice east side loop, which seems more useful to me than extending transit further and further into more and more car dependent suburbs. this alignment would also immediately create a direct, if circuitous connection between downtown and Cleveland Clinic.  

 

 

Actually, my JCU routing would move the end of the line 1 mile closer to the city (measured from Public Sq) by making a 90 degree turn northward rather than continuing into the suburbs. Assuming that's what you're referring to.

 

I like your idea of routing via Fairmount—which would pay homage to historic streetcar routes, my only concern is that it's mostly large single family "houses" (except at Cedar where the 11 runs), whereas an MLK route passes mostly multi family.

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by sonisharri

16 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said:

I'm on vacation now so here are some phone screen shots. 

 

Green line extension up Belvoir to Cedar, then over to Hillcrest/Eastgate to Downtown Waterfront Loop going one direction

 

Blue line extension to Tri-C/Ahuja to Downtown Waterfront Loop going the other direction. 

 

The purple lines are essentially one big loop, but 2 routes with....

--one going from UC to North Randall on the north via Euclid Heights Blvd, Coventry, Cedar Lee,University Heights, before going South. 

--the other doing the same UC to North Randall trip but south on Cedar Fairmont to Shaker Square where it joins the blue line. This would make the blue line routes hopefully a 10 minute frequency from Shaker Square to Harvard, with 20 minute frequency to either Downtown or UC. 

 

This set up would allow for an easy new route from UC to Hillcrest/Eastgate, UC to Tri-C/Ahuja or Hillcrest to North Randall/Tri-C if the demand was there. So many potential hospital connections. 

 

Route to UC would take the new UC loop one direction every 10 minutes with both of the purple routes being 20 minute frequency, and then the healthline takes the opposite loop direction with 10 minute frequency. 

 

This is just the "phase 1 light rail" of map map, so the healthline rail is only using where it has it's own lane already. Healthline 2 could take this same loop and follow Euclid to the County line, or maybe go up E152 to Waterloo. 

 

Healthline would also follow the Downtown circulator streetcar rails(light purple lines downtown) in one direction, with a dedicated Downtown circulator going in the other direction every 10 minutes. Any nurse or doctor working in UC, Hillcrest, Ahuja, or Metro and living Downtown or in UC could be from their apartment/condo to their hospital building by walking less than 5 minutes outside. We could even have Gold Coast or Old Brooklyn to UC/Van Aken when you add in the other routes I posted before. 

 

This would obviously be a huge project, with about 43 miles of new rail going into the ground with these Eastside routes and the 2 Gold Coast and Old Brooklyn routes I posted before. When you add those 43 miles to our existing 31 miles of existing unique rail miles already in the ground we'd have just under 74 miles. But with the flexibility and connectivity of these lines brought by using trains that can work on any of them, that would enable 200+ miles of useful rail lines. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always thought a no-brainer was as to extend the redline east from underused Scooby-do ghost town Windermere station using the Norfolk Southern tracks (or whoever runs them today) out thru Euclid to Lake County as far as Mentor-Painesville. It was studied 10 or 15 years ago. Why not blow the cobwebs off that study and run with it to start - along with the sensible reroute of one of the Shaker routes into Center UC Meds/Eds that offers a transfer station to redline East (lake county) and west (airport and Jimmyworld planned sea of parking spaces).

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2013/09/rta_looks_northeastward_for_po.html

 

50 minutes ago, sonisharri said:

 

I like your idea of routing via Fairmount—which would pay homage to historic streetcar routes, my only concern is that it's mostly large single family "houses" (except at Cedar where the 11 runs), whereas an MLK route passes mostly multi family.

Agreed, now apply this thinking to the current green line, as it exists today, and you will see why I think it should be rerouted. There's no density anywhere along this route, and if it wasn't already there, no one would advocate putting a train there. 

 

Fairmount isn't a good routing, but it has one thing going for it feasibility, the median can be used to route the trains. That's the reasoning. It would be a dead section of the routing with few to no stops, but that's the case, and to a larger degree, with the current routing and every single proposed extension I've ever seen for it. 

 

Edit:

As an aside, I mostly like your green line rerouting, it seems relatively simple, and feasible, and a significant improvement. It's one of the better green line extensions/reroutes I've seen. Getting to the University is a good idea, and seems attainable. 

 

Several of the green line extensions favor going down Cedar, down Cedar is a good routing, either for BRT or a green line extension, but it isn't feasible, and if it's done as a green line extension, you end up missing many (most?) of the best stops along Cedar. 

 

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

With those spaced "major destinations" along Cedar, this route looks ripe for BRT -- Cleveland Heights, University Heights, South Euclid, Beachwood -- get together and petition RTA and join together for startup funding!

The real problem with going down Cedar though is the opposite problem of Fairmount, it's likely infeasible. It isn't overbuilt by much, if at all. Getting rid of two of the lanes for either BRT or light rail will be a nonstarter. It has good urban form West of Taylor, but East of Taylor it starts to feel suburban pretty fast.

 

I just don't think it's worth extending rail into areas without good urban form, at least relative to other rail projects we could propose. BRT is a bit more of a reasonable ask, but there's no way the locals would favor losing traffic lanes to BRT. 

 

--

 

I'm very much in a feasible not sexy headspace right now, and rerouting the Eastern leg of the Green line seems to fit that bill, either by just sending those trains down the blue line, thus doubling frequency on the more successful leg, or by rerouting the green line with the most feasible routing towards UC/CC. 

 

Now in an ideal world we'd be able to put the blue line on 5-10 minute frequencies without touching the green line, and we could serve Cleveland Clinic with a subway under Euclid. But we don't live in that world.

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by Ethan
Added comment on Sonnisharis proposal

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

The real problem with going down Cedar though is the opposite problem of Fairmount, it's likely infeasible. It isn't overbuilt by much, if at all. Getting rid of two of the lanes for either BRT or light rail will be a nonstarter. It has good urban form West of Taylor, but East of Taylor it starts to feel suburban pretty fast.

 

I just don't think it's worth extending rail into areas without good urban form, at least relative to other rail projects we could propose. BRT is a bit more of a reasonable ask, but there's no way the locals would favor losing traffic lanes to BRT.

I don't doubt that there would be a lot of NIMBYS today, but I still think we need to start advocating for BRT on Cedar.  "No way" to even think about it is defeatist and means it definitely would never happen -- but it's a good idea that deserves to be promoted even if implementation (and convincing sufficient YIMBYs) is still decades away.

 

"The locals" in Cleveland Heights may have a completely different mindset around cars than the locals in Beachwood, but I don't think CH by itself would ever convince RTA to fund a BRT line that ends at Taylor -- if Beachwood Mall would add some housing and park space it might thrive and become a destination again.

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

Agreed, now apply this thinking to the current green line, as it exists today, and you will see why I think it should be rerouted. There's no density anywhere along this route, and if it wasn't already there, no one would advocate putting a train there. 

 

Fairmount isn't a good routing, but it has one thing going for it feasibility, the median can be used to route the trains. That's the reasoning. It would be a dead section of the routing with few to no stops, but that's the case, and to a larger degree, with the current routing and every single proposed extension I've ever seen for it. 

 

Edit:

As an aside, I mostly like your green line rerouting, it seems relatively simple, and feasible, and a significant improvement. It's one of the better green line extensions/reroutes I've seen. Getting to the University is a good idea, and seems attainable. 

 

Several of the green line extensions favor going down Cedar, down Cedar is a good routing, either for BRT or a green line extension, but it isn't feasible, and if it's done as a green line extension, you end up missing many (most?) of the best stops along Cedar. 

 

The real problem with going down Cedar though is the opposite problem of Fairmount, it's likely infeasible. It isn't overbuilt by much, if at all. Getting rid of two of the lanes for either BRT or light rail will be a nonstarter. It has good urban form West of Taylor, but East of Taylor it starts to feel suburban pretty fast.

 

I just don't think it's worth extending rail into areas without good urban form, at least relative to other rail projects we could propose. BRT is a bit more of a reasonable ask, but there's no way the locals would favor losing traffic lanes to BRT. 

 

--

 

I'm very much in a feasible not sexy headspace right now, and rerouting the Eastern leg of the Green line seems to fit that bill, either by just sending those trains down the blue line, thus doubling frequency on the more successful leg, or by rerouting the green line with the most feasible routing towards UC/CC. 

 

Now in an ideal world we'd be able to put the blue line on 5-10 minute frequencies without touching the green line, and we could serve Cleveland Clinic with a subway under Euclid. But we don't live in that world.

 

I appreciate that you're factoring in feasibility. To me, the difference between density on Fairmount and a Shaker Blvd/JCU extension is that the latter could open up new opportunities for TOD at the far end. I'll compare the Green Line (Riverside branch) in Boston: it passes through a lengthy stretch with nothing but single family homes and golf courses, but connects Newton Centre and major TOD has been proposed to anchor its terminus. Here's my drawing with a couple more possible TOD sites, as well as existing urban development. This is without clearing any SFHs for apartments, which has already been possible with Gateway North.

 

 

I think added utility could be considered part of the feasibility equation as well as costs and space. The more new people that can benefit from a project, the more who will get behind it. Your proposed Green Line, as I understand, would run from the Clinic to Downtown, a route already served by the Healthline. The Red Line provides service from E 34th, E 55th, and E 79th to the Healthline/UC, forming what is already in some sense a circuitous connection. Therefore the major new destinations served by rapid transit to UC would be Shaker Square and Cedar-Fairmount, which is a fairly localized group. The nice thing about a UC + JCU extension is I think it could garner support in University Heights, Shaker Square, and among all of the existing Green Line riders (however few there may be) who would have access to new destinations. This also might be a relatively vocal set of people.

We could learn from Leeds

 

 

On 11/18/2024 at 11:37 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I feel like Ken’s article suggesting the Clinic invest in expanding the Rapid should be cross posted here:

 

 

For those who have been following this conversation on Cleveland Rapid reroutes / extensions, I invite you to attend this Wednesday's Zoom-only AAO Northeast chapter meeting. I will go into a bit more detail on my version of this proposal. Details in the AAO thread:

 

 

Here's what may be a cheaper way to extend the Blue Line to the Clinic and still be a high-impact, connected light-rail link. This is a 2.7-mile routing, a 0.8-mile portion of which is shared with the Red Line (using an existing flyover next to the Fairmount Reservoir) and operates through a redesigned Woodhill Homes including a station, offering a 4.4 percent gradient.

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Here's what may be a cheaper way to extend the Blue Line to the Clinic and still be a high-impact, connected light-rail link. This is a 2.7-mile routing, a 0.8-mile portion of which is shared with the Red Line (using an existing flyover next to the Fairmount Reservoir) and operates through a redesigned Woodhill Homes including a station, offering a 4.4 percent gradient.

 

 

Ken - this is a great concept to utilize that existing flyover. Would any buildings (houses) need to be taken out between Woodland and Quincy Ave? From the map it looks like it. One thing I like about using MLK between Shaker Blvd and Fairhill is the massive right of way - rail could go in the median, or cut and cover using one traffic direction while maintaining through traffic on the other side, or elevated track with minimal disruption.

 

Another thing I had been thinking about - if the UC to Shaker Square route included a new flyover designed near the existing Cedar station it could be utilized by a future Cedar eastbound light rail using the existing streetcar right of way on the south side of Cedar up the hill.

 

After numerous trips to Dallas over the last two years, I am no longer bothered by ridiculously high overpasses / flyovers. Dallas highways and DART are truly something else with their designs.

Tesla Cybercabs, get rid of everything else

7 minutes ago, Aquavelva said:

Tesla Cybercabs, get rid of everything else

Strong first post for a new UrbanOhio forum member right there.

Thanks…DOGE

7 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Strong first post for a new UrbanOhio forum member right there.

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Ken - this is a great concept to utilize that existing flyover. Would any buildings (houses) need to be taken out between Woodland and Quincy Ave? From the map it looks like it.

 

Two abandoned houses and a vacant bar would need to be demolished to widen East 110th as a boulevard to run the Blue Line down the middle of it.

 

I also have a variation in which the Blue Line follows Stokes halfway down the hill before crossing over Doan Brook to Fairhill/MLK, then over Fairhill/MLK and the Red Line with no track connections but a station with pedestrian walkway to the Red Line station. The Blue Line would descend to street level between Stearns/MLK before turning onto Euclid. 

 

Yet another option runs north from Shaker Square in boulevard medians and other public rights of way on North Moreland, Coventry, Fairmount and Cedar, then to Murray Hill, Adelbert and finally to Cedar. That might be the cheapest routing and also open up some new trip options, including lots of CWRU students using it to get to the top of the hill.

Although the routes currently have around the same population nearby as the blue/green lines, the Omnitrax lines out to could get a huge boost in population and help secure that modular home developer in Cleveland.  There are a lot of modular apartment buildings going up around the world, and a lot of Cleveland Land Bank land to put them on where these 2 lines would meet.  Then there is also a bunch of vacant land that isn't owned by the landbank.  Have a mix of affordable modular townhomes and multistory apartment buildings fill this area.  These lines have much better access to jobs compared to the blue/green lines, especially manufacturing. 

 

They would basically replace the 19A/B lines, and make several other bus lines more useful.  Service on the Bedford line could go out to Glenwillow as well, which is already served every 30 minutes by bus from 5 am to 7pm.  The Glenwillow line could even continue on to Twinsburg, Streetsboro, Kent, and Akron/Canton on the Wheeling rail if that could be worked out somehow.

 

Obviously the tracks will need some upgrades along with double tracking a few areas, and RTA isn't in the position to buy the tracks, but leasing and running DEMU's on the line and have their freight traffic work around that could be an option. The lines seem to be very lightly used currently. I'm guessing almost all of Omnitrax's Cleveland business comes from the port area, and they also seem to be open to green energy investments. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cleveland-area-short-line-introduces-battery-electric-locomotive/ . So maybe they would even be open electrification?

 

These would then connect back to the R/B/G lines by building a small connecting line, and rehabbing the 2 unused RTA bridges between E34 and E55 to have 4 lines going into Tower City from that point.  This connection would also allow Amtrak to get into Tower City from the Southeast.  That doesn't really help since they currently couldn't enter/exit to the West, but maybe this connection being built could get the investment on the Westside going.

 

Also, if the Waterfront Loop was ever built, the Blue/Green trains could go one direction, and these 2 would circle Downtown the opposite way. If all were running at 20 minute frequency, the WFL Loop would have 10 minute frequency in each direction.  That could spur some huge investment into the Northeast and Southeast corners of Downtown, W17/W18 corridors, Central, Tri-C and St Vincent site, Lakefront/Muni-lot, as well as the Wolstein Center land if that becomes available over the next 10-15 years.

 

 

 

I am fascinated by the new electric buses and trams being developed and put in service these last couple of years. This is the type of transit that is perfect for a market like Cleveland.  Clean and efficient transportation, contemporary design that will attract younger riders who flock to these in other parts of the world. London just recently began service on one of their longest bus routes with the Irizar ie tram. https://irizar-emobility.com/en/vehicles/irizar-ie-tram

My idea would be to first place these on the Waterfront Line. This would require removing or paving over the tracks on the current ROW. No wires, no poles, less maintenance. But here is the crazy part about it, this Tram can leave the ROW and enter the street grid giving you a loop around the city without building any infrastructure, no tracks, no poles and no wires. After the WFL we can then use these on the Health line and the proposed 25 Connect.  Clevelands best chance to continue to move forward is to innovate and embrace new ideas and technology.

 

19 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

Although the routes currently have around the same population nearby as the blue/green lines, the Omnitrax lines out to could get a huge boost in population and help secure that modular home developer in Cleveland.  There are a lot of modular apartment buildings going up around the world, and a lot of Cleveland Land Bank land to put them on where these 2 lines would meet.  Then there is also a bunch of vacant land that isn't owned by the landbank.  Have a mix of affordable modular townhomes and multistory apartment buildings fill this area.  These lines have much better access to jobs compared to the blue/green lines, especially manufacturing. 

 

They would basically replace the 19A/B lines, and make several other bus lines more useful.  Service on the Bedford line could go out to Glenwillow as well, which is already served every 30 minutes by bus from 5 am to 7pm.  The Glenwillow line could even continue on to Twinsburg, Streetsboro, Kent, and Akron/Canton on the Wheeling rail if that could be worked out somehow.

 

Obviously the tracks will need some upgrades along with double tracking a few areas, and RTA isn't in the position to buy the tracks, but leasing and running DEMU's on the line and have their freight traffic work around that could be an option. The lines seem to be very lightly used currently. I'm guessing almost all of Omnitrax's Cleveland business comes from the port area, and they also seem to be open to green energy investments. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cleveland-area-short-line-introduces-battery-electric-locomotive/ . So maybe they would even be open electrification?

 

These would then connect back to the R/B/G lines by building a small connecting line, and rehabbing the 2 unused RTA bridges between E34 and E55 to have 4 lines going into Tower City from that point.  This connection would also allow Amtrak to get into Tower City from the Southeast.  That doesn't really help since they currently couldn't enter/exit to the West, but maybe this connection being built could get the investment on the Westside going.

 

Also, if the Waterfront Loop was ever built, the Blue/Green trains could go one direction, and these 2 would circle Downtown the opposite way. If all were running at 20 minute frequency, the WFL Loop would have 10 minute frequency in each direction.  That could spur some huge investment into the Northeast and Southeast corners of Downtown, W17/W18 corridors, Central, Tri-C and St Vincent site, Lakefront/Muni-lot, as well as the Wolstein Center land if that becomes available over the next 10-15 years.

 

 

 

 

The route out to Solon (and Aurora) when combined with the route out to Lorain was identified in the NEOrail study of 25 years ago (hard to believe it's been that long already) as the most promising commuter rail route in Greater Cleveland. With the continued decline of downtown as an employment hub (worsened by COVID), I doubt that's still the case.

 

BTW Omnitrax operations at the port are merely as a hyperlocal switching operation. It is not operationally connected to its other operations in Greater Cleveland which are to collect and distribute carload freight between shippers and Class I railroads CSX and NS. Omnitrax also has an operation linking steel mills, recycling facilities and an aggregates transload to the Class Is. Three of their four operations have no connections to each other.

45 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The route out to Solon (and Aurora) when combined with the route out to Lorain was identified in the NEOrail study of 25 years ago (hard to believe it's been that long already) as the most promising commuter rail route in Greater Cleveland. With the continued decline of downtown as an employment hub (worsened by COVID), I doubt that's still the case.

 

BTW Omnitrax operations at the port are merely as a hyperlocal switching operation. It is not operationally connected to its other operations in Greater Cleveland which are to collect and distribute carload freight between shippers and Class I railroads CSX and NS. Omnitrax also has an operation linking steel mills, recycling facilities and an aggregates transload to the Class Is. Three of their four operations have no connections to each other.

I believe I have the pdf of that study with the rankings.

 

I like reading the previous studies I can find, but they also make me sad haha. I'm sure it's worse for you. 

 

Obviously RTA doesn't really have any money to expand at the moment, but if a few agencies worked together on this, they could basically build a TOD affordable/modular neighborhood from scratch. What better way to attract a modular home company than having 5-10 years of business for them. There is so much empty land and Cleveland/Cuyahoga landbank property along these 2 routes. Would it actually generate a lot of ridership? No clue. Right now I don't think anything could beat a rapid line through Lakewood on that NS line and joins the red line to UC. But that'd be much more expensive than this.