1 hour 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.

 

 

From my old house in Maple Heights to the Swagelok plant in Solon is a 13 minute drive and a minimum 1 hour 4 minute bus ride.   So there is probably some potential, not so much for taking suburbanites downtown as taking workers to manufacturing centers.

59 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

From my old house in Maple Heights to the Swagelok plant in Solon is a 13 minute drive and a minimum 1 hour 4 minute bus ride.   So there is probably some potential, not so much for taking suburbanites downtown as taking workers to manufacturing centers.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers and residents are all spread out.  How many people in Maple Heights would ride a bus that goes by the Swagelok plant  -- probably not enough to fill the bus, so how many stops would the bus have to make before stopping at Swagelok?  Or would the bus also have to make multiple stops at different manufacturers to fill the bus?  Now that we've added lots of stops to pick up passengers and drop off passengers, how long is that ride?  Long enough that people would prefer to drive most likely.  In the current development pattern, I don't foresee buses ever becoming competitive with personal cars.

 

It will likely take decades, but if we want efficient transit from homes to manufacturing centers, we need to concentrate those manufacturers so that one or a few transit stops are all that are needed to reach a bunch of employers, and similarly we need to have denser population centers to support the other end of the transit line.  That doesn't mean that we all need to live in a mini-downtown, but such mini-downtowns need to be spaced along transit lines so that there is a base of ridership.

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

Unfortunately, the manufacturers and residents are all spread out.  How many people in Maple Heights would ride a bus that goes by the Swagelok plant  -- probably not enough to fill the bus, so how many stops would the bus have to make before stopping at Swagelok?  Or would the bus also have to make multiple stops at different manufacturers to fill the bus?  Now that we've added lots of stops to pick up passengers and drop off passengers, how long is that ride?  Long enough that people would prefer to drive most likely.  In the current development pattern, I don't foresee buses ever becoming competitive with personal cars.

 

It will likely take decades, but if we want efficient transit from homes to manufacturing centers, we need to concentrate those manufacturers so that one or a few transit stops are all that are needed to reach a bunch of employers, and similarly we need to have denser population centers to support the other end of the transit line.  That doesn't mean that we all need to live in a mini-downtown, but such mini-downtowns need to be spaced along transit lines so that there is a base of ridership.

We got caught by moving to a new page, but this was discussing using the Omnitrax rail for new lines going to Solon and Bedford/Glenwillow.

 

But I don't think the jobs, especially manufacturing, are that spread out where they couldn't be accessed by better rail transit with shorter last mile connections.  Many just set up shop along existing rail lines. 

 

Those lines being discussed connect downtown and neighborhoods with a lot of jobs.  The Lake County line is probably within a mile or so of 60k-65k of Lake County's 85k jobs.  Then on the west side it's similar.

 

I quickly mapped out employment density and rail lines that have been discussed on here in paint. Sorry everyone will have to zoom in a lot because it was hard to draw the routes small enough where they weren't completely covering up some sections.  I think these would be very interesting, because most commuter lines just focus on getting people into the city center, but I could see these being about 50/50 getting people to Downtown/UC and to jobs in the suburbs.

 

Bright Green- existing rapid lines

Dark Green- Healthline and W25 BRT

Light Blue- Potential new rapid lines or extensions

Red- Potential Commuter routes

Pink- Rail briefly mentioned in one of those NOACA studies, that isn't likely being taken seriously, using the express lanes on 90 and going from Willoughby to the Airport.

 

 

https://www.rclco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USA-Employment-Map-2017_Layers_v3.html

Here is another map of employment density as well with a few sectors called out.  It's pretty easy to figure out where everything is once you zoom in on Cleveland, but you can look at different sectors using this map as a reference too.

 

Those 3 rapid lines would replace most of 19A/B, 25A/B, 55/CSU BRT, and large portions of 90 and 41. Then those busses can be used to improve bus service elsewhere, and create new shorter bus routes focused on getting people to/from the rapid lines in those areas. 

Edited December 10, 2024Dec 10 by PlanCleveland

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1fm68GhomlCQep_rVHwBsh5Kj-mh0OZw&usp=sharing

 

Alrighttttt I did most of this last week during the discussion on the RTA thread, but here is a map with a general overview of some expansion ideas.  Rail, Streetcars, BRT/new bus, and further expansions within Cuyahoga and outside of the county are all on different layers  There is a layer with starred key potential TOD sites as well that would be 250+ unit mixed use areas or larger office/employer opportunities. And then potential funding at the bottom of this post. I'm including CVSR on these maps as well.  I do have some population numbers along lines, more info on key employers, and other developments everything will hit, but that can come later.  I also just put a little line by the zoo for a gondola from W25 to the zoo and potential rail stop that could be a fun ridership generator and get people who are just driving to the zoo to go to some Old Brooklyn businesses.  I'm not ignoring Euclid/Collinwood areas, but I think going with a BRT route that I couldn't decide on to connect to rail stops and UC is the clear way to go.  Maybe the Healthline East routing can do that with Healthline West being the rail.  Maybe some ideas for @Geowizical's next projects...

 

 

Here is RTA's priority corridor study this aligns well with too.

 

 

Here are a few other maps to build off of this...

 

Rail within a 5 Mile radius of Public Square

 

Rail lines over current RTA 30 minutes or better during AM/PM rush hour.  Sorry for the purple on the blue/red, but other colors had a tendency to disappear even more than the purple does, and black covered up existing routes too much.

 

 

 

Initial build rail buildout, and then a 2nd future expansion routes over an employment density map.

 

 

 

Funding based on 30 year .5%, .375%, and .25% sales tax increase ballot issues specifically to fund new expansion/capital projects starting in 2028ish, if the state allows us to go above 8% of course.  Everything in green would be conditional on getting some funding from state/federal sources, which who knows how that will go over the next 5-10 years.  So everything that is not highlighted could potentially be covered by the sales tax, with a 10-20%ish buffer for cost overruns and to help as new rail OPEX costs start coming.  Obviously not everything is correct or will be a fixed number, but more of an overall estimate.  Like $75M per mile for rail/streetcars is factoring in that the Healthline will be cheaper because the stops and ROW are already there.  Then all of the overlapping routing and economies of scale from building all of this out continually.  Some routes even come for "free" by using the buildouts of other lines, outside of  purchasing the streetcars.  The bridges section may be way off as well, but I know nothing about bridge construction and just made a general educated guess for all of them combined based on what I could find.  I also have the Lakewood line broken out in a few different parts, as elevating the line to avoid 30+ street crossings would improve speed and then a Miami style underline park could be built making access to stops easier for residents.

Rail along the lakeshore east of downtown to Collinwood looks to be a missing piece, especially when an underutilized rail right of way is there along with a potential for significant redevelopment. Imagine if a public entity got a hold of the rail right of way and major properties along it, then offered them up in totality in an RFP to transportation/real estate consortia. 

54 minutes ago, KJP said:

Rail along the lakeshore east of downtown to Collinwood looks to be a missing piece, especially when an underutilized rail right of way is there along with a potential for significant redevelopment. Imagine if a public entity got a hold of the rail right of way and major properties along it, then offered them up in totality in an RFP to transportation/real estate consortia. 

Ya I definitely think that should be in the next phase.  Right now its just SO empty there I'd rather prioritize places where people actually live/work/go already for the money.  And I imagine the Bedford/Solon lines would have enough development sites to keep everyone busy for a decade.  

 

What better way to attract that modular home builder than to have 10-15 years of busy lined up for them before they even open? Fill a bunch of the Landbank sites in E55/Slavic Village and W93-W116/Harvard areas with affordable modular apartment buildings like the links below. People there could have rail taking them to 4 different job hubs in the area while also providing connections to a lot of existing residents and parks.  Even National Park access via the Bedford Reservation.  It could absolutely transform that area from largely a deadzone to a short walk and train ride to 100k+ job opportunities.

 

 

https://www.multifamilydive.com/news/3-modular-apartment-projects-lauded-for-their-design/647730/

 

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/mmc-news/modular-apartments/78784/

Water taxi discussion redirect from Scranton Peninsula

1 hour ago, Geowizical said:

Water taxi discussion redirect from Scranton Peninsula

 

How far up river should it go? I'm thinking Collision Bend is the max for now. The Scranton Spoon Pier offers a layover point out of the way of the big ships, but it doesn't offer a destination that's much farther than a stop at GLBC's future riverfront. Perhaps someday going as far upriver as West 3rd would be worth doing if the soccer stadium gets built and/or J Roc's Tremont riverfront development happens.

I mentioned this in the Scranton thread, but I'll repeat it here, if the Jefferson Link discussed in the Vision for the Valley ever gets built, I think it's a logical southern most point. 

 

If Tremont can develop up to the river at any point, I think that would merit a stop. Depending on how development unfolds I could easily be convinced that there's little benefit to going past W3rd and that it's the better terminus, but I do think that eventually there should be a Tremont stop of some kind. 

 

At present, I agree there's no point going beyond Collision Bend. Until Bedrock gets started, it's hard to justify even that far, but it looks like that project has momentum, and I think at least phase 1 will cross the finish line. 

I looked back into the early days of this thread and realized that I never posted my idea from the 2000s to reroute the Red-Blue-Green Lines down the median of the Opportunity Corridor (then-called the University Circle Access Boulevard). I proposed it a decade before the OC was built. It's the idea that  ODOT like but then GCRTA GM Joe Calabrese didn't like. Why? Because he didn't think he could get funding for it. He also put off replacing the rail system's rail cars because he didn't think he could get those funded either until I got local media to shame him into it. 

 

So this idea morphed over time. This is was my first idea -- to build the boulevard and move the Red Line to where the NS line is and move the NS line to where the Red Line is. The primary goal was to put the Red Line closer to the action in University Circle and use the new roadway to help make it happen. It would also help make a faster, better routing and connection between NS lines for the lakefront freight bypass. And it would put the transfer point between Blue/Green line trains with Red Line trains closer to UC.

 

Then this was the idea that I brought to GCRTA and ODOT (back when NEOtrans was a consultancy of the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers -- OARP is the parent company of All Aboard Ohio).....

 

https://neo-trans.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OpportunityCorridorRapidREV.pdf

Is there any way we could get the leadership of GCRTA to join an UrbanOhio meetup to present and discuss some of these ideas?!?

24 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Is there any way we could get the leadership of GCRTA to join an UrbanOhio meetup to present and discuss some of these ideas?!?

 

Right?! I would happily put together the most thorough powerpoint presentation and renderings imaginable lmao

2 hours ago, KJP said:

GCRTA GM Joe Calabrese didn't like. Why? Because he didn't think he could get funding for it. He also put off replacing the rail system's rail cars because he didn't think he could get those funded either until I got local media to shame him into it. 

It's amazing people like this have been allowed to hold back or hurt the region for decades out of some mix of laziness, apathy, and whatever else. Although current RTA leadership hasn't shown they care much more. 

Edited April 2Apr 2 by PlanCleveland
Typo

32 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Is there any way we could get the leadership of GCRTA to join an UrbanOhio meetup to present and discuss some of these ideas?!?

 

7 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

 

Right?! I would happily put together the most thorough powerpoint presentation and renderings imaginable lmao

We can certainly do this as an AAO meeting, which all are welcome to attend. 

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

2 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Awesome.  Really appreciate the work that went into this.  I'm on board except I prefer KJP's suggestion to run the Green Line to the airport, with the blue line taking on the waterfront line connection.

9 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Awesome.  Really appreciate the work that went into this.  I'm on board except I prefer KJP's suggestion to run the Green Line to the airport, with the blue line taking on the waterfront line connection.

 

Just to clarify, it's not my suggestion. GCRTA has suggested this. Gotta give 'em some credit at least some of the time...

45 minutes ago, Foraker said:

3 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Expand  

Awesome.  Really appreciate the work that went into this.  I'm on board except I prefer KJP's suggestion to run the Green Line to the airport, with the blue line taking on the waterfront line connection.

I'll take either Shaker Line so long as the East Side Red Line is balanced out with a new 4th line. Green to the west would be a good way to get higher ridership on the line. 

 

Map of switched Blue and Green Line terminus:

6 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

 

This is definitely my favorite configuration I've seen, and it wouldn't require any additional physical construction. 

 

As someone who used to ride the red line from the West Side to University Circle frequently, I don't think the reduction in frequency would be an issue at all. There are honestly so many routes from Public Square to UC (HealthLine, 9, 11, plus your "Orange Line") that the transfer is basically instant.

 

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

I'm on board except I prefer KJP's suggestion to run the Green Line to the airport, with the blue line taking on the waterfront line connection.

 

I actually think I prefer the Blue Line being routed to the West Side/Airport—the connections from the Van Aken district (41/41F, 14/14A) are much more frequent and useful than at the Green Line terminus, not to mention that they will be building a heated indoor waiting area.

 

This would allow, for example, a trip from the Airport to Pinecrest in less than 1.5 hours (with current speeds) and only one transfer.

 

On the other hand, the Green Line terminus, in its current state, is most useful as a massive Park and Ride for downtown events and games. While the Browns' new stadium plans could affect this, it does make sense for a park and ride to be accessible to events in Public Square, The Flats, and the Waterfront. As examples of non-sports events, both Pride and the Eclipse event had Green Line trains packed so full that it would've been impossible to transfer at Tower City even if people wanted to—and I believe RTA was running extra trains.

 

However, bus transfers at Green Rd are much less frequent and the waiting area is just an open bus shelter, so it isn't exactly the optimal rail transfer for westbound passengers.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by sonisharri

22 minutes ago, sonisharri said:

I actually think I prefer the Blue Line being routed to the West Side/Airport—the connections from the Van Aken district (41/41F, 14/14A) are much more frequent and useful than at the Green Line terminus, not to mention that they will be building a heating indoor waiting area.

I agree, both the two splits, west of Tower City, and East of Shaker Square, have an undisputably better routing, and a clearly worse one. I'd argue it's better to connect the two better routing together to reduce transfers. That would mean running the blue line to the airport. Though, as I've said before, I'd advocate for running both the blue and green line to the airport and treating the waterfront line more as a standalone service. 

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I agree, both the two splits, west of Tower City, and East of Shaker Square, have an undisputably better routing, and a clearly worse one. I'd argue it's better to connect the two better routing together to reduce transfers. That would mean running the blue line to the airport. Though, as I've said before, I'd advocate for running both the blue and green line to the airport and treating the waterfront line more as a standalone service. 

 

While this does feel somewhat intuitive, the post mentioned that adding more lines comes with increasing logistical complications. Additionally, running 3x as many trains on the west side's Red Line alignment vs. the east side's seems a little extreme, especially as University Circle is rapidly adding new jobs and beginning to spill over into EC. I think running 2 times as many trains on the western alignment would be a sufficient increase in frequency.

Per my last comment, I think there is some logic in leaving the Green Rd park and ride directly accessible to the waterfront.

On 4/11/2025 at 11:19 AM, NorthShore647 said:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Excellent thought process here. Quality connections with a re-worked Tower City station would make this very useful without adding any new (substantial) infrastructure. In general, there are some headaches with the dual-platform system; however, it's good to keep in mind that the low doors and high doors can operate independently. For any low-volume, high-platform loading, you wouldn't really HAVE to operate the step doors (front/back) - you could have all passengers board from the middle two doors, which are only for high platforms. So one train could serve both low and high platform without requiring the operator to spend time closing the manual step cover at the front and back doors. (Note - I'm not positive on this, and there is the potential for rider confusion, but it seems like it would work.)

 

13 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Excellent thought process here. Quality connections with a re-worked Tower City station would make this very useful without adding any new (substantial) infrastructure. In general, there are some headaches with the dual-platform system; however, it's good to keep in mind that the low doors and high doors can operate independently. For any low-volume, high-platform loading, you wouldn't really HAVE to operate the step doors (front/back) - you could have all passengers board from the middle two doors, which are only for high platforms. So one train could serve both low and high platform without requiring the operator to spend time closing the manual step cover at the front and back doors. (Note - I'm not positive on this, and there is the potential for rider confusion, but it seems like it would work.)

 

Regarding the low/high doors and platforms - All high platforms are center island stations. All low platforms are side boarding stations (except for the 3 shared stations in the trunk and the terminal Warrenville-Van Aken Station). 

 

If platform alterations/extenders are added to the 3 stations in the trunk (Tower City, East 34th, East 55th) then any potential route configuration would have high platforms on the center (left) and low platforms on the side (right). The only stations where this potentially wouldn't be the case are the terminal stations where trains switch tracks/directions. A train could keep the high left/low right consistent by regularly switching tracks at the turnout after departures on a return run from all terminal stations (except for Warrensville-Van Aken where they would make the switch before arrival as it would be the only remaining low level center platform in the system). These changes aren't necessary for the use of dual platform height trains on this system, but are relatively small changes relative to their positive impact. 

 

Step covers would then only need to be switched at the end of a run when the operator changes cabs and the train remains at the platform for a few minutes, simplifying operations for drivers and riders. 

 

In general, these changes may be confusing to a lot of riders. The consistency of all low platform stations being on the right side, and all high platform stations being on the left side could really improve the user experience of the new configuration. Prerecorded announcements and the new interior messaging signs could help direct passengers to the correct doors. New signage, wayfinding and its inclusion on a redesigned system map should also be used to inform riders about the system changes. 

 

TL;DR - Small changes to infrastructure/system operations would allow for platforms to consistently be High Platform Left Side, Low Platform Right Side. Step covers would only need to be switched at the terminal stations. 

 

52 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

Regarding the low/high doors and platforms - All high platforms are center island stations. All low platforms are side boarding stations (except for the 3 shared stations in the trunk and the terminal Warrenville-Van Aken Station). 

 

If platform alterations/extenders are added to the 3 stations in the trunk (Tower City, East 34th, East 55th) then any potential route configuration would have high platforms on the center (left) and low platforms on the side (right). The only stations where this potentially wouldn't be the case are the terminal stations where trains switch tracks/directions. A train could keep the high left/low right consistent by regularly switching tracks at the turnout after departures on a return run from all terminal stations (except for Warrensville-Van Aken where they would make the switch before arrival as it would be the only remaining low level center platform in the system). These changes aren't necessary for the use of dual platform height trains on this system, but are relatively small changes relative to their positive impact. 

 

Step covers would then only need to be switched at the end of a run when the operator changes cabs and the train remains at the platform for a few minutes, simplifying operations for drivers and riders. 

 

In general, these changes may be confusing to a lot of riders. The consistency of all low platform stations being on the right side, and all high platform stations being on the left side could really improve the user experience of the new configuration. Prerecorded announcements and the new interior messaging signs could help direct passengers to the correct doors. New signage, wayfinding and its inclusion on a redesigned system map should also be used to inform riders about the system changes. 

 

TL;DR - Small changes to infrastructure/system operations would allow for platforms to consistently be High Platform Left Side, Low Platform Right Side. Step covers would only need to be switched at the terminal stations. 

 

Excellent points! Have you considered mocking up a timetable? That could answer or reveal potential operational challenges

1 minute ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

49 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

 

Regarding the low/high doors and platforms - All high platforms are center island stations. All low platforms are side boarding stations (except for the 3 shared stations in the trunk and the terminal Warrenville-Van Aken Station). 

 

If platform alterations/extenders are added to the 3 stations in the trunk (Tower City, East 34th, East 55th) then any potential route configuration would have high platforms on the center (left) and low platforms on the side (right). The only stations where this potentially wouldn't be the case are the terminal stations where trains switch tracks/directions. A train could keep the high left/low right consistent by regularly switching tracks at the turnout after departures on a return run from all terminal stations (except for Warrensville-Van Aken where they would make the switch before arrival as it would be the only remaining low level center platform in the system). These changes aren't necessary for the use of dual platform height trains on this system, but are relatively small changes relative to their positive impact. 

 

Step covers would then only need to be switched at the end of a run when the operator changes cabs and the train remains at the platform for a few minutes, simplifying operations for drivers and riders. 

 

In general, these changes may be confusing to a lot of riders. The consistency of all low platform stations being on the right side, and all high platform stations being on the left side could really improve the user experience of the new configuration. Prerecorded announcements and the new interior messaging signs could help direct passengers to the correct doors. New signage, wayfinding and its inclusion on a redesigned system map should also be used to inform riders about the system changes. 

 

TL;DR - Small changes to infrastructure/system operations would allow for platforms to consistently be High Platform Left Side, Low Platform Right Side. Step covers would only need to be switched at the terminal stations. 

 

Expand  

Excellent points! Have you considered locking up a timetable? That could answer or reveal potential operational challenges

 

Ideally my preferred system configuration would have each line running at 20 minute frequencies, creating 5 minute frequencies in the trunk, 10 minute on the branches and 20 minute east of Shaker Square (I have Blue to Airport, but could be switched with Green).  

 

There is a lot to like about this network with those frequencies, however it does have a few notable shortcomings.  Dual interlining each of the four main branches will by necessity create a slightly unbalanced schedule on 2 of the 4 branches. Here is an example of the configuration with 20 minute frequency per line:

 

Ideally for service from Tower City you schedule departures to be evenly spaced, alternating between their individual branch lines. Eastbound service would then have a departure every 5 minutes alternating between Shaker Square and Windermere service. Westbound service would also have departures every 5 minutes alternating between Airport and Muni Lot Service. Here is a rough mockup of what a real time departure board at Tower City period could look like under this service pattern:

 

Evenly spaced, alternating branch departures like this from Tower City would then provide evenly spaced service every 10 minutes on the branch lines traveling away from Tower City. To get this service pattern though, you would have unbalanced service on the branch lines as they travel towards Tower City. 6 trains would still arrive per hour, but they would alternate between coming every 5 and 15 minutes. A station like Ohio City would have a train leaving for the Airport in 10, 20, 30 40... minutes, and a Tower City train leaving in 5, 20, 25, 40... minutes. This unbalanced system is not ideal, but still provides service on the 4 main branches with 6 trains per hour (per direction) with at most a 15 minute wait between Tower City bound trains. Its a tradeoff, but in my opinion worth the evenly spaced departures from Tower City. It is also worth noting that this service pattern is acceptable with each line at 20 minute frequencies, but becomes less desirable to implement at 30 minute frequencies per line at the unbalanced schedule would then create spacing between trains of around 7 or 22 minutes on some branches. 

 

I am not currently looking as in doeth as full timetables, but End to End travel times per line would be (in minutes):

• Red = 48
• Green = 40
• Blue = 60
• Orange = 30

TL;DR - Interlining 4 lines on 4 branches with evenly spaced departures from Tower City creates unbalanced train spacing (5, 10, 25, 30...) on branches traveling towards Tower City. 

Disclaimer - This was all just sketched out on the back of a paper, so there may be inconsistencies in my logic. 

 

Regarding the departure board mockup pictured above, I slightly modeled it after the new real time departure boards currently being used by Sound Transit's Link light rail. 

Image credit to reddit Reddit user SounderBruce in his post here

 

A more traditional Dot Marix display departure board would be fine at most platforms in the system, but nicer screens like those used in Seattle would be great to have at Tower City. These should be on the platforms, but also in the building or at street level in Public Square. These signs (along with improved wayfinding around the building) could really improve the user experience and serve as a good reminder to people passing by that there is fast, frequent rail service from Tower City. 

I do love the idea of a train heading in each direction from Tower City every 5 minutes.  Here is another fun potential idea I had.  I'm only showing start/TC/terminus so it's easier to view, including the necessary  layovers and rail car counts.  It would require some construction at Tower City to make it work though, which is a downside.

 

 

So with this idea, every stop on the system, excluding the Blue/Green spurs, would have 10 minute frequencies in each direction.  But what makes it even better is that the same direction Red/Green trains arrive to Tower City at the same time, and Blue/Orange trains at the same time 10 minutes.  They would arrive across the platform from each other to allow for easy cross-platform transfers.  This quick transfer essentially creates 1 seat, or 15 step transfer, directional ride frequencies of 10 minutes for any ride across the entire system circled below. The blue/green lines beyond Shaker Square which would remain 20 minute. So your longest possible transfer time at Tower City is 8 minutes, outside of a possible 18 minute transfer from a WB red to EB Blue or WB Orange to EB Green if you need to get out to the spurs. 

 

A few examples below in case I'm wording this poorly.  Each example below is possible every 10 minutes

 

-If you board at Shaker Square and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Blue or Green line train, even though only the Blue line goes to the airport.

 

-If you board at Little Italy and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Red or Orange line train, even though only the Red line goes to the airport. 

 

-If you board at the airport, you can get to UC or Shaker Square at a 10 minute frequency on a Red or Blue train.

 

-Shaker Square or UC to the Lakefront on either WB train.

 

 

I think the potential for the frequencies across the system would be a huge boost for ridership.  It would also make development at existing park&rides and other TOD extremely attractive, and make car-free or car-light living a reasonable option for more people.  As would your current timetable suggestion, but I think an easy 10 minute schedule across the board may get more people than 5 minutes at Tower City.

Edited April 19Apr 19 by PlanCleveland

9 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

I do love the idea of a train heading in each direction from Tower City every 5 minutes.  Here is another fun potential idea I had.  I'm only showing start/TC/terminus so it's easier to view, including the necessary  layovers and rail car counts.  It would require some construction at Tower City to make it work though, which is a downside.

 

 

So with this idea, every stop on the system, excluding the Blue/Green spurs, would have 10 minute frequencies in each direction.  But what makes it even better is that the same direction Red/Green trains arrive to Tower City at the same time, and Blue/Orange trains at the same time 10 minutes.  They would arrive across the platform from each other to allow for easy cross-platform transfers.  This quick transfer essentially creates 1 seat, or 15 step transfer, directional ride frequencies of 10 minutes for any ride across the entire system circled below. The blue/green lines beyond Shaker Square which would remain 20 minute. So your longest possible transfer time at Tower City is 8 minutes, outside of a possible 18 minute transfer from a WB red to EB Blue or WB Orange to EB Green if you need to get out to the spurs. 

 

A few examples below in case I'm wording this poorly.  Each example below is possible every 10 minutes

 

-If you board at Shaker Square and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Blue or Green line train, even though only the Blue line goes to the airport.

 

-If you board at Little Italy and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Red or Orange line train, even though only the Red line goes to the airport. 

 

-If you board at the airport, you can get to UC or Shaker Square at a 10 minute frequency on a Red or Blue train.

 

-Shaker Square or UC to the Lakefront on either WB train.

 

 

I think the potential for the frequencies across the system would be a huge boost for ridership.  It would also make development at existing park&rides and other TOD extremely attractive, and make car-free or car-light living a reasonable option for more people.  As would your current timetable suggestion, but I think an easy 10 minute schedule across the board may get more people than 5 minutes at Tower City.

What’s your plan for Tower City to make this work? Are you making the center tracks through running and redoing the station entirely?

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

What’s your plan for Tower City to make this work? Are you making the center tracks through running and redoing the station entirely?

Ya that's where it gets complicated, and why ultimately the other timetable would likely work better. 

 

 

But I took this layout from a KJP article. What I imagined was tracks 6 and 7 be the westbound RTA platform, then duplicate the GCRTA platform setup where he has the North Platform be the eastbound RTA platform. Building a second RTA dedicated platform would also not disrupt the current rail service while being built. 

Edited April 19Apr 19 by PlanCleveland

I updated that graphic so that the RTA would have three tracks in case of track/platform repairs/construction/etc on one of them....

On 4/18/2025 at 1:39 PM, NorthShore647 said:

Regarding the departure board mockup pictured above, I slightly modeled it after the new real time departure boards currently being used by Sound Transit's Link light rail. 

Image credit to reddit Reddit user SounderBruce in his post here

 

A more traditional Dot Marix display departure board would be fine at most platforms in the system, but nicer screens like those used in Seattle would be great to have at Tower City. These should be on the platforms, but also in the building or at street level in Public Square. These signs (along with improved wayfinding around the building) could really improve the user experience and serve as a good reminder to people passing by that there is fast, frequent rail service from Tower City. 

Alrightttttt I created time tables for this layout.  I feel like in 3 or 4 years, RTA is going to pay some consultant $650k to put together what we are doing right now.

 

Here is how the trains would move/switch routes, and how departures would go at the 2 shared terminal stations, and EB/WB Terminal Tower.  Also, I am so sorry to any one on here who is color blind.

 

 

 

 

 

The best way to organize this would be to have Red/Orange trains switch routing at Windermere, and Red/Blue trains switch routing at the Airport.

 

You could also have Orange/Green switch at South Harbor, but I kept it this way for more consistent layover times.  Both trains will be showing up within 3 minutes of each other to keep the Tower City time schedule on track which is a little weird.  If they were to switch routes, the arriving Green Line would have a 5 minute layover before starting the Orange route, and the arriving Orange Line would have a 13 minute layover before starting the Green routing.  Maybe ask the drivers what they would prefer, 2 medium breaks or 1 short 1 long at this stop.  Or maybe Green line drivers would be sad that they don't get to be constantly switching routes like the others, as this set up would have drivers cover all routes on their shift.

Edited April 21Apr 21 by PlanCleveland

Morning UO! The next Methodicle project is in the works and I'd love your help! Moving forward I'm switching to surveys for collecting ideas and data for projects. Hopefully it'll be a better form of engagement than long-form requests. The first survey Rapid2075 is open now - RTA has been around for 50 years now and this survey asks what you want to see improved over the next 50. I'm very excited to share this transit project with y'all soon. 

 

For now, if you have ever ridden RTA, live in or been to Cleveland, or haven't yet and want to in the future, feedback is greatly appreciated. The survey is independent, 100% anonymous and it takes just 5 minutes or less to complete. Feel free to share with friends and family! The more data the better. Look for shareable socials sometime the end of this week or beginning of next.

 

Cheers 🚄

 

🔗 https://forms.gle/ijTv3FNm9YNh8Aia9

1 hour ago, Geowizical said:

Morning UO! The next Methodicle project is in the works and I'd love your help! Moving forward I'm switching to surveys for collecting ideas and data for projects. Hopefully it'll be a better form of engagement than long-form requests. The first survey Rapid2075 is open now - RTA has been around for 50 years now and this survey asks what you want to see improved over the next 50. I'm very excited to share this transit project with y'all soon. 

 

For now, if you have ever ridden RTA, live in or been to Cleveland, or haven't yet and want to in the future, feedback is greatly appreciated. The survey is independent, 100% anonymous and it takes just 5 minutes or less to complete. Feel free to share with friends and family! The more data the better. Look for shareable socials sometime the end of this week or beginning of next.

 

Cheers 🚄

 

🔗 https://forms.gle/ijTv3FNm9YNh8Aia9

This should have an "other option". I clicked yes but it's only for sporting and entertainment events that have heavy traffic and high parking prices, I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. 

On 4/22/2025 at 9:01 AM, MyPhoneDead said:

This should have an "other option". I clicked yes but it's only for sporting and entertainment events that have heavy traffic and high parking prices, I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. 

 

Another option was added, which is good because I was too young to recommend it to anyone after the first time I rode it (back before there was an RTA).

 

Nice graphic. Should be able to get 50 years use out of it since It may be 2075 before we see another new rail car order. 😜

On 4/11/2025 at 11:19 AM, NorthShore647 said:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

On 4/18/2025 at 10:47 PM, PlanCleveland said:

I do love the idea of a train heading in each direction from Tower City every 5 minutes.  Here is another fun potential idea I had.  I'm only showing start/TC/terminus so it's easier to view, including the necessary  layovers and rail car counts.  It would require some construction at Tower City to make it work though, which is a downside.

 

 

So with this idea, every stop on the system, excluding the Blue/Green spurs, would have 10 minute frequencies in each direction.  But what makes it even better is that the same direction Red/Green trains arrive to Tower City at the same time, and Blue/Orange trains at the same time 10 minutes.  They would arrive across the platform from each other to allow for easy cross-platform transfers.  This quick transfer essentially creates 1 seat, or 15 step transfer, directional ride frequencies of 10 minutes for any ride across the entire system circled below. The blue/green lines beyond Shaker Square which would remain 20 minute. So your longest possible transfer time at Tower City is 8 minutes, outside of a possible 18 minute transfer from a WB red to EB Blue or WB Orange to EB Green if you need to get out to the spurs. 

 

A few examples below in case I'm wording this poorly.  Each example below is possible every 10 minutes

 

-If you board at Shaker Square and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Blue or Green line train, even though only the Blue line goes to the airport.

 

-If you board at Little Italy and need to get to the airport, now there will be no time difference between whether you board a Red or Orange line train, even though only the Red line goes to the airport. 

 

-If you board at the airport, you can get to UC or Shaker Square at a 10 minute frequency on a Red or Blue train.

 

-Shaker Square or UC to the Lakefront on either WB train.

 

 

I think the potential for the frequencies across the system would be a huge boost for ridership.  It would also make development at existing park&rides and other TOD extremely attractive, and make car-free or car-light living a reasonable option for more people.  As would your current timetable suggestion, but I think an easy 10 minute schedule across the board may get more people than 5 minutes at Tower City.

Hey @NorthShore647 @PlanCleveland - would one or both of you be interested in presenting these "existing infrastructure / new routes" Rapid proposals at a future AAO northeast chapter meeting? We could use this as a Zoom meeting topic or a session at a public library. I'm looking for a June chapter meeting topic - this would be ideal.

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hey @NorthShore647 @PlanCleveland - would one or both of you be interested in presenting these "existing infrastructure / new routes" Rapid proposals at a future AAO northeast chapter meeting? We could use this as a Zoom meeting topic or a session at a public library. I'm looking for a June chapter meeting topic - this would be ideal.

I would love to.

Copied from Cleveland Transit History -- would love to bring this idea back into discussion, particularly if Haslam moves forward with development in Brook Park.

12 hours ago, KJP said:

One recommendation that came out of GCRTA's SW Corridor Alternatives Analysis was a follow-on study that proposed taking the Red Line out of the airport tunnel and putting it on an elevated alignment on the north side of the current parking garage where a large retail-hotel-rail station complex would be built. For some reason, I recall this new structure was to be nine stories tall and built so the Red Line could be more easily extended to the south someday.

But wait, there’s more! The airport rail tunnel wouldn't be abandoned. Instead, it would be used by a new rail shuttle linking the airport to the car rental facility to rid the airport roadways of all the shuttle buses. The rail shuttle would share the Brookpark Rapid station with the Red Line and, after it went under I-480, it would make a sharp turn to the west, go over I-71 and head into the car rental facility that was built with a grassy strip for the rail shuttle route.

On 10/2/2024 at 12:27 PM, KJP said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just now seeing this and we have discussed it many times before, but as a resident of Wickliffe, I'd use this. In fact, I'd probably stop driving downtown for the vast majority of my trips. Ditto Ohio City or the airport. The way things are currently configured, I have little choice but to drive. Even Laketran is useless, since it does not operate to downtown throughout the day.

Really, the Red Line should be extended at both ends, at least to Willoughby and Berea.

On 5/2/2025 at 10:58 AM, Foraker said:

Copied from Cleveland Transit History -- would love to bring this idea back into discussion, particularly if Haslam moves forward with development in Brook Park.

On 5/1/2025 at 10:00 PM, KJP said:

One recommendation that came out of GCRTA's SW Corridor Alternatives Analysis was a follow-on study that proposed taking the Red Line out of the airport tunnel and putting it on an elevated alignment on the north side of the current parking garage where a large retail-hotel-rail station complex would be built. For some reason, I recall this new structure was to be nine stories tall and built so the Red Line could be more easily extended to the south someday.

But wait, there’s more! The airport rail tunnel wouldn't be abandoned. Instead, it would be used by a new rail shuttle linking the airport to the car rental facility to rid the airport roadways of all the shuttle buses. The rail shuttle would share the Brookpark Rapid station with the Red Line and, after it went under I-480, it would make a sharp turn to the west, go over I-71 and head into the car rental facility that was built with a grassy strip for the rail shuttle route.

With the news about the airport plans to move the RTA Station as part of their upgrades, I think it makes even more sense to revisit this. It just makes so much sense to have some combination of an Airport RTA stop, a Stadium RTA stop (either connected by walkway to the airport one or after the rail passes back to the other side of the freeway), and an Amtrak stop. As @Boomerang_Brian showed in the Hopkins thread:

The stadium at this site makes at least some sense if it's easily accessible by the Red Line and Amtrak (assuming 3C+D routes that allow fans statewide to ride up for games/concerts).

Extending to Berea also makes more sense than ever with denser multi-use developments planned for either side of the tracks with the North End (former Williams Ford) development and the Haslams' District 46. Plus the Brown's headquarters is right there and employees could just ride the train for one stop to get between there and the stadium.

On 4/27/2025 at 7:47 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hey @NorthShore647 @PlanCleveland - would one or both of you be interested in presenting these "existing infrastructure / new routes" Rapid proposals at a future AAO northeast chapter meeting? We could use this as a Zoom meeting topic or a session at a public library. I'm looking for a June chapter meeting topic - this would be ideal.

Hey @NorthShore64 - what do you think? Can we set this up as a presentation?

@NorthShore64 Some questions:

1. In your plan, there are no new infrastructure in the form of new track, but what about station infrastructure? I can imagine if for example the waterfront line terminus had stairs/ramps/elevators to a footbridge connectiing it better to both the airport and downtwon how patronage on the waterfront line might increase. Likewise on both the western and eastern parts of the system infill stations might be more viable with denser service and TOD. For example 2 new stations between West Bouleward and Ohio city, a station at the basketball and baseball stadiums and between East 79 and east 105?

2. As the system have been expanded in steps and thus trains can reverse at platform at some stations, would it be possible, if money is an issue that during regular offpeak times some of the services reverses at not the terminuses, for example the Orange line could be between Tower city center and Little italy at off peak?