Biker 16...it looks like you are calling for a further extension of the RTA Green Line via George Zeiger Dr and Cedar Rd to SOM Center Rd/Mayfield Rd?

 

I actually suggested running an express line up and down 91 (SOM Center) from county line to county line awhile back.  It could link to both Summit and Lake's systems.

 

Beachwood Place might not be too keen on the Green Line extension idea though.  They couldn't go Beavercreek, but could get passively obstructionist.

^Amen KJP... It amazes me when Americans, Clevelanders in particular (and E. Roc in particular, particular), choose to live in sprawling, low density areas they've collectively created far away from prime areas of employment, entertainment and commerce, and then, turn around, and gripe about how inconvenient and slow mass transit is.  Once again, ... amazing!

 

LOL.....my area would qualify as medium density, probably.  I live an easy walk from Northfield Plaza where the Akron RTA stops.  It's easily more walkable than my grandparents' old place on E. 65th. 

 

Nor am I really complaining....I am saying that if you want to make transit use more widespread among the middle class, these are points you are going to have to address.  They're not going to change to accommodate you, any time soon.

 

I'm not the only one here saying the single (downtown) hub model isn't conducive to the area in this day and age.  Some of the committed urbanists/transit advocates are agreeing.

 

Biker16, doesn't this plan ignore the inherent fallibility of suburban retail?  The east side is littered with dead/dying malls and we continue to expand while the population remains the same.  Rail is permanent and costly...suburban retail is cheap and mobile.  What are these stops going to look like in 50 years?

 

Yes, I agree; the massive mall/suburban retail that emerged in the 60s and 70s was freeway driven and a belief, expressed by (imho misguided) transportation officials like Albert S. Porter, that the old big city downtowns like Cleveland’s were  "dying"; that mass transit, esp. rail, was “old fashion” and limiting,  and that people wanted to be “free” to drive their own cars, park for free and shop nearer to where they lived.  The problem, of course, is that the sanitized/sterile mall environment got old within a decade of the mall craze, so that by the 90s, big city CBD's (like downtown Cleveland) were rediscovered (and in Cleveland’s case, repurposed … as both a living place as well as a CBD) became the rage among young professionals because of CBDs' character, authenticity and convenience of NOT having to utilize an automobile -- that people could either arrive their conveniently by transit ... or walk from their CBD apartments ... which, btw, more often than not was also within walking distance from their home... … but in keeping with the desire of some to still have shopping nearby and not “all the way downtown” … Legacy Village and, esp. Crocker Parker, were imitations of small-town Main Streets that exist in many old-line suburbs (see Shaker Square -- yes, in Cleveland, but suburban in character; the numerous Main Streets in Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, Chagrin Falls, etc...)..

 

The  problem is that all malls, esp. the hoity-toity ones like Beachwood Place, aren't going away anytime soon and, in fact, still hold a great deal of cache largely because of their upscale stores and clientele.  And, as noted above, malls like BP have attracted fairly dense and upscale residential areas around them -- esp BP!  mass transit, unfortunately, is forced to adapt as best it can to places like BP so a Green Line extension to BP isn't a crazy idea, even though the whole concept of a BM to begin with is repugnant to most urbanites.  ... and if you think we've got issues with BP, check out Philadelphia's monster mall: King of Prussia, which could probably consume about 5 or 6 BPs!!  -- it's a gigantic, upscale mall (with Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom, to name a few) that currently has zero connections to SEPTA's massive rail network --  I believe Philadelphia planners have settled on building a branch off the old Route 100/Norristown interurban, 3rd rail train route which originates out of SEPTA's 69th street Market St. el terminal.

 

Biker16, doesn't this plan ignore the inherent fallibility of suburban retail?  The east side is littered with dead/dying malls and we continue to expand while the population remains the same.  Rail is permanent and costly...suburban retail is cheap and mobile.  What are these stops going to look like in 50 years?

 

"Rail" isn't one mode. There are many different ways of building rail, all with very different extent of infrastructure and therefore costs with street-running being the least expensive. And most of this route to Beachwood Place would be via street-running. A two-mile Green Line extension to Beachwood Place should not cost much more than $100 million and would nick the edge of the office district north of Chagrin along the way.

 

Many worry about the cost of rail without considering the value of rail. One of its values IS its fixed guideway. That fixed guideway provides confidence to developers that what they are building will continue to be served by transit, so they tend to build larger and denser around rail transit, if local jurisdictions are willing to embrace it. Bus transit and automobile oriented travel doesn't provide that same level of confidence to developers, and retail in those areas tends to be of less permanence.

 

BTW, many of the dead or dying malls are in areas without high-density housing in close proximity. Look at the land uses immediately surrounding Euclid Square Mall and Randall Park Mall. Westgate and Parmatown have some decent residential densities nearby (including mid-rise apartments) and thus were/are being updated and redeveloped with newer retail concepts even 50 years after the original malls were built. Beachwood Place plus the nearby Legacy Village have a nice mix of uses and some densities.

Biker16, doesn't this plan ignore the inherent fallibility of suburban retail?  The east side is littered with dead/dying malls and we continue to expand while the population remains the same.  Rail is permanent and costly...suburban retail is cheap and mobile.  What are these stops going to look like in 50 years?

 

"Rail" isn't one mode. There are many different ways of building rail, all with very different extent of infrastructure and therefore costs with street-running being the least expensive. And most of this route to Beachwood Place would be via street-running. A two-mile Green Line extension to Beachwood Place should not cost much more than $100 million and would nick the edge of the office district north of Chagrin along the way.

 

Many worry about the cost of rail without considering the value of rail. One of its values IS its fixed guideway. That fixed guideway provides confidence to developers that what they are building will continue to be served by transit, so they tend to build larger and denser around rail transit, if local jurisdictions are willing to embrace it. Bus transit and automobile oriented travel doesn't provide that same level of confidence to developers, and retail in those areas tends to be of less permanence.

 

BTW, many of the dead or dying malls are in areas without high-density housing in close proximity. Look at the land uses immediately surrounding Euclid Square Mall and Randall Park Mall. Westgate and Parmatown have some decent residential densities nearby (including mid-rise apartments) and thus were/are being updated and redeveloped with newer retail concepts even 50 years after the original malls were built. Beachwood Place plus the nearby Legacy Village have a nice mix of uses and some densities.

 

Randall Mall has apartments nearby.  As does Southgate, built earlier in close proximity to both residential and commercial.  Both had good transit service, albeit bus based.  Keyword:  had.  RTA shut down the local, non radial lines that served them.

 

On the other hand, Great Northern Mall and South Park Mall are configured in a similar manner to RPM.  Both seem to be doing reasonably well.  Great Lakes Mall is a sort of mix between Parmatown and SPM. 

 

RPM is deceased, ESM is the same if I’m not mistaken.  Southgate is diminished but still alive, as is Mapletown, Garfield Mall, Turney Dunham Plaza, etc.  The difference:  the malls have indoor space which is not under the control of the merchants and is conducive to loitering.  Combine that with proximity to teens who targeted shoppers may find intimidating, and it’s not a recipe for success.

 

I observed a couple years ago that Beachwood Place had absolutely nothing of interest to males who are not wealthy.  In retrospect, that may have been intentional, to minimize loitering.

 

Along those lines, I absolutely cannot see Beachwood Place supporting an extension of the Green Line that terminates on their property.  They gain few potential customers, and significant potential trouble.

 

You might get them to sign on if the line continues to Chagrin Highlands (Eaton, Ahuja, hotels, etc).

I observed a couple years ago that Beachwood Place had absolutely nothing of interest to males who are not wealthy.  In retrospect, that may have been intentional, to minimize loitering.  Combine that with proximity to teens who targeted shoppers may find intimidating, and it’s not a recipe for success.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.420.html#ixzz2e8nhGnvO

 

Along those lines, I absolutely cannot see Beachwood Place supporting an extension of the Green Line that terminates on their property.  They gain few potential customers, and significant potential trouble.

[/color]

 

I hate the racial implication, but it's real.  There's a feeling that rail transit will bring young, intimidating African Americans, esp. males, who the upper Middle Class-to-wealthy shoppers, primarily white but, ironically also black (Beachwood, the suburb, is heavily populated with both Jewish and African American professionals) fear.  This isn't just a Cleveland thing, or even just a mall thing, but an American thing -- Atlanta can't get its well thought of MARTA rail system expanded, primarily, because many of the conservative white suburban counties don't want MARTA for fear Atlanta blacks will use it to come out there and, otherwise, harm their property or their persons... Silly, but real... In DC, Georgetown residents (in)famously opted out of Metro rail for this reason although black residents drive, bus and cab there anyway... meanwhile wealthy (and overwhelmingly white) Montgomery county (recently rated as one of THE nation’s wealthiest) hosts miles and miles of (Red Line) Metrorail ... Falls Church, Fairfax County, Alexandria also do and, soon, so will the high-end Tysons's Corner mall area (think: Beachwood Place on steroids) ... and none of these areas are, or will be, overrun with minorities or crime...

 

...again, just plain silly .... but REAL in too many minds.  So I would agree with your assessment, E Roc… regrettably. 

 

How many residential units are within 2,000 feet of each mall property, or better still the mall's ring road (if there is one)? That's the key. And if there's sufficient local opposition to a rail extension to an area with high transit propensity (like Beachwood Mall--as shown on the map I provided), then it doesn't get done. It doesn't mean we build a $100 million extension just to travel to another parking lot.

 

Use the map above. Link up the areas with high transit propensity. If your preferred destinations don't show up well on the above map, forget about them ever getting substantially enhanced transit. It would be a huge waste of tax dollars. I'm sure that's something we can both agree is worth avoiding.

I observed a couple years ago that Beachwood Place had absolutely nothing of interest to males who are not wealthy.  In retrospect, that may have been intentional, to minimize loitering.  Combine that with proximity to teens who targeted shoppers may find intimidating, and it’s not a recipe for success.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.420.html#ixzz2e8nhGnvO

 

Along those lines, I absolutely cannot see Beachwood Place supporting an extension of the Green Line that terminates on their property.  They gain few potential customers, and significant potential trouble.

[/color]

 

I hate the racial implication, but it's real.  There's a feeling that rail transit will bring young, intimidating African Americans, esp. males, who the upper Middle Class-to-wealthy shoppers, primarily white but, ironically also black (Beachwood, the suburb, is heavily populated with both Jewish and African American professionals) fear.  This isn't just a Cleveland thing, or even just a mall thing, but an American thing -- Atlanta can't get its well thought of MARTA rail system expanded, primarily, because many of the conservative white suburban counties don't want MARTA for fear Atlanta blacks will use it to come out there and, otherwise, harm their property or their persons... Silly, but real... In DC, Georgetown residents (in)famously opted out of Metro rail for this reason although black residents drive, bus and cab there anyway... meanwhile wealthy (and overwhelmingly white) Montgomery county (recently rated as one of THE nation’s wealthiest) hosts miles and miles of (Red Line) Metrorail ... Falls Church, Fairfax County, Alexandria also do and, soon, so will the high-end Tysons's Corner mall area (think: Beachwood Place on steroids) ... and none of these areas are, or will be, overrun with minorities or crime...

 

...again, just plain silly .... but REAL in too many minds.  So I would agree with your assessment, E Roc… regrettably. 

 

 

It's not a racial implication at all.  Strictly cultural.  As you point out yourself, more affluent black shoppers would share the fears of their white counterparts.  I don't know if you're familiar with the term "cooties".  It means young black men who act according to the "ghetto" stereotype, and it's an expression pretty much limited to middle class blacks.

 

If I'm not mistaken Beachwood Place has already had one near riot recently.  It may not be an entirely fair assumption, but there's more than paranoia behind it.

As a transit geek, I'd love to see a Beachwood Place rail extension built, but it is way down on my pecking order for the very reasons you cite.  The Red Line extension northeast, a Blue Line extension to Harvard Park or the West Shore commuter rail appear far more useful/viable than a BP extension... And, as noted above, the current Green Line terminal is close enough for BP residents to use going downtown or for some mall area shoppers and workers (who use the No. 94 bus to get there).

I observed a couple years ago that Beachwood Place had absolutely nothing of interest to males who are not wealthy.  In retrospect, that may have been intentional, to minimize loitering.  Combine that with proximity to teens who targeted shoppers may find intimidating, and it’s not a recipe for success.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.420.html#ixzz2e8nhGnvO

 

Along those lines, I absolutely cannot see Beachwood Place supporting an extension of the Green Line that terminates on their property.  They gain few potential customers, and significant potential trouble.

[/color]

 

I hate the racial implication, but it's real.  There's a feeling that rail transit will bring young, intimidating African Americans, esp. males, who the upper Middle Class-to-wealthy shoppers, primarily white but, ironically also black (Beachwood, the suburb, is heavily populated with both Jewish and African American professionals) fear.  This isn't just a Cleveland thing, or even just a mall thing, but an American thing -- Atlanta can't get its well thought of MARTA rail system expanded, primarily, because many of the conservative white suburban counties don't want MARTA for fear Atlanta blacks will use it to come out there and, otherwise, harm their property or their persons... Silly, but real... In DC, Georgetown residents (in)famously opted out of Metro rail for this reason although black residents drive, bus and cab there anyway... meanwhile wealthy (and overwhelmingly white) Montgomery county (recently rated as one of THE nation’s wealthiest) hosts miles and miles of (Red Line) Metrorail ... Falls Church, Fairfax County, Alexandria also do and, soon, so will the high-end Tysons's Corner mall area (think: Beachwood Place on steroids) ... and none of these areas are, or will be, overrun with minorities or crime...

 

...again, just plain silly .... but REAL in too many minds.  So I would agree with your assessment, E Roc… regrettably. 

 

 

It's not a racial implication at all.  Strictly cultural.  As you point out yourself, more affluent black shoppers would share the fears of their white counterparts.  I don't know if you're familiar with the term "cooties".  It means young black men who act according to the "ghetto" stereotype, and it's an expression pretty much limited to middle class blacks.

 

If I'm not mistaken Beachwood Place has already had one near riot recently.  It may not be an entirely fair assumption, but there's more than paranoia behind it.

 

... just for the record, E Roc, in NO WAY am I accusing you of being racist.  You just touched upon a mindset that's out there, and unfortunately, held by a number of people in spite of the facts I cited (... in metro DC, Metrorail actually boosts property values, not lowers them).  I see your post as being more analytical and not any kind of bigoted spew.

Biker16, doesn't this plan ignore the inherent fallibility of suburban retail?  The east side is littered with dead/dying malls and we continue to expand while the population remains the same.  Rail is permanent and costly...suburban retail is cheap and mobile.  What are these stops going to look like in 50 years?

 

It doesn't, anymore than the failure of downtown retail over the last 60 years. Knowing what we know today why did we place the redline where it is today? You can never predict the future.

 

The anchor is I 271, it isn't gong any where and you can only build this type of density of retail and residential around interstates, Parmatown and severance were planned and built before the importance of the interstates was understood.

 

Look, f you expect to only connect rail to areas that re guaranteed to last 50 years or more you should give up on rail expansion.  You cannot expect traits growth without going where the people are, the issue today is that we stopped expanding the system to where the people were going.

Biker 16...it looks like you are calling for a further extension of the RTA Green Line via George Zeiger Dr and Cedar Rd to SOM Center Rd/Mayfield Rd?

 

I actually suggested running an express line up and down 91 (SOM Center) from county line to county line awhile back.  It could link to both Summit and Lake's systems.

 

Where would these riders come from? Where would they go?

As a transit geek, I'd love to see a Beachwood Place rail extension built, but it is way down on my pecking order for the very reasons you cite.  The Red Line extension northeast, a Blue Line extension to Harvard Park or the West Shore commuter rail appear far more useful/viable than a BP extension... And, as noted above, the current Green Line terminal is close enough for BP residents to use going downtown or for some mall area shoppers and workers (who use the No. 94 bus to get there).

 

I understand your concerns, why do we think about transit as only being for commuters? How about the other trips that people take day in and day out?  We have to begins to think about linking walkable dense neighborhoods. To areas that these people want or need to go.  That may mean linking shaker square and UC to Beachwood place and legacy village. Providing more options to be car free or car lite.

 

To me the natural connection between east gate with it's midrange Shops (target, walmart, and Marcs) and over 1000 residential units to the Beachwood place high end shopping area with over 1000 residential units, and connecting those areas to 10s of thousands of residential units between shaker square and Beachwood place is a good trip generator above simple commuter service.

 

High quality Service out to these traditional retailers, helps address the issue of lack of access to shopping for downtown residents for whom it is very difficult to live without access to car.

 

That is the benefit.

 

But this makes o sense unless the benefit justifies the cost, so how do you reduce the cost of rail?

 

You use mixed-traffic tram technology to cut the cost of rail by up to 70%.

 

This requires replacing the entire light rail fleet with a modern low floor tram.  They could run in sets or single, they would be cheaper to maintain, and to extend than the current light rail system. And within the current grade separated ROW they can run at speeds up to 50mph, only 5 mph slower than current fleet.

 

The result is you can extend the green line to Beachwood place for less than $75 million.

 

That would make this extension very cost effective.

 

A future extension to east gate would be more expensive but have dedicated high speed ROW parallel to I271 making travel times between cedar and Mayfield roads roughly 7-10 min time competitive with driving.

 

We need to be more creative, ideas that provide high quality transit at low cost need to be explored.

 

Beware of the false choice.

As a transit geek, I'd love to see a Beachwood Place rail extension built, but it is way down on my pecking order for the very reasons you cite.  The Red Line extension northeast, a Blue Line extension to Harvard Park or the West Shore commuter rail appear far more useful/viable than a BP extension... And, as noted above, the current Green Line terminal is close enough for BP residents to use going downtown or for some mall area shoppers and workers (who use the No. 94 bus to get there).

 

If you extend the Red Line along the NS mainline to Euclid, the areas within a few thousand feet of the ROW are dead zones. The industries and residential areas are either gone or spread too far apart to generate any meaningful ridership. RTA would have to extend into Lake County to find areas with any transit propensity along the NS corridor (see below) and GCRTA isn't going to extend a rail line into Lake County. RTA execs specifically forbade the Red Line/HealthLine extension study team from holding any public hearings in Lake County because it's out of their jurisdiction and Laketran has a levy renewal on the November ballot to support EXISTING services only. They don't even want the appearance that the levy will be for expanded service into Cleveland. Now if this was a NOACA study, the geographic scope of this study might be a different story!

 

 

The only way you'd get GCRTA to consider a rail extension along the NS ROW to Euclid is if it was done with the recognition that it's only a first phase which would have to depend on collector traffic from an expanded Euclid Park & Ride for the team being. But this is a weak riderhsip source. A Red Line extension would be used for maybe only four hours a day, like the Green Line is. That's why I think if any rail recommendation comes out of the current study, it will be a DMU operating on the existing NS tracks from UC to Euclid P&R during rush hours only.

 

And the Blue Line extension study to the southeast is not worth doing without a link to UC. The study that was done for the Blue Line extension showed the bulk of the Cleveland-bound ridership in this area of the county was heading for UC, not downtown. And the UC commuting traffic was growing while downtown is not. That's why I would extend a Blue Line as a single-track DMU to North Randall and than turn east on the old Erie RR to Solon -- only after the long-proposed Shaker rail connector (or a streetcar via Coventry, Fairmount and Cedar) to University Circle is built.

 

EDIT: so if we play "Connect The Transit Propensity Dots" we get a rail/BRT transit system map that looks something like this (note that I've deleted the Green Line east of Warrensville).....

 

 

I lived in DC for many years, so the Georgetown analogy is interesting to me. Not from the prejudice perspective (since it's pretty clear that there was never really any serious thought given to putting a station there during Metro planning, so no need for opposition). But more from a connectivity perspective and what the lack of a Metro stop there has meant.

 

In a lot of ways Georgetown is like many of the east side "inner ring" suburbs of Cleveland - Shaker, Cleveland Hts., Univ. Hts. Both areas are generally nice places, but generally a pain in the neck to travel into and out of. So much so that in the time I was in DC, I can count on one hand the number of times I was in Georgetown. Frankly my attitude was, "If I can't take the train there, it's not worth going to." (And of course, driving in DC is basically a non-starter.) And obviously, I would never have considered moving there.

 

Georgetown is still doing fine despite the lack of Metro connectivity, but I'd submit that's due more to DC's overall health and to the ongoing presence of the University. Having lived there, the lack of train access into Georgetown has been an ongoing point of discussion for years. Note that there is a very nice circulator bus with service every 10 minutes that covers Georgetown. Doesn't matter. Folks want a train. (Trains and buses are apparently not the same. Hmm.) From what I understand, DC is now finally looking at putting some sort of light rail/trolley line from Georgetown into downtown DC. Still a Metro station would be better.

 

The key here is that Georgetown is both a neighborhood and a significant destination and both it and the region would benefit greatly if a Metro station was there.

 

Now apply this to the east side of Cleveland. Again most of the suburbs there are doing OK, if perhaps on a downward slide. And similar to Georgetown the overall feeling in the Cleveland area is that there isn't great connectivity to these areas. People talk all the time about how hard (read "slow") it is to get into and out of Cleveland Hts, University Hts and Shaker. It's undeniable that many folks never consider moving there because it is "too hard" to get anywhere. This cannot be great for the health of those neighborhoods.

 

The weird part of this is that, unlike Georgetown, there is already rail transit through much of the East Side that should be providing much better connectivity. But unfortunately the Shaker Rapid really doesn't go anywhere or have any destinations (except Shaker Square and Van Aken Plaza) along its route. It's designed to only be really useful if you want to go downtown in the morning for work and then back home in the evening.

 

So add more destinations to these lines and I believe that those destinations, the neighborhoods along the lines, and the entire RTA rail system will benefit. I'm sure that population density along the lines is important, but so is having the lines go places that people actually want to go. Right now Cleveland's rail lines don't have a lot of destinations on them. And in the few cases where they kind of go to important destinations (for example, University Circle, even Downtown) the stations are placed poorly. So there's no particular reason for folks not living along the train lines to use them except perhaps to get downtown or maybe the airport.

 

So to rectify this, the Green line should be extended to Beachwood HS/Rec Center/Library, Beachwood Place/Legacyland, a new Park and Ride at 271, the office parks at Lander, the big apartment blocks south of Mayfield Rd., and then finally Hillcrest/Eastgate.

 

The Blue line should be extended out Chagrin through Woodmere. (I know that GCRTA has recently studied this and found low benefit to cost, but I don't think studies like this correctly take into account how land use and behavior actually change when there is convenient and regular rail transit available. Disabuse me of this opinion if you know differently.)

 

If these extensions happened, folks living in Shaker could take a train out to Eton or Beachwood instead of always hopping in the car. People downtown could get to some of this high end shopping. Will everyone do this? No of course not. But there's at least some other reason than commuting to ride the train. And psychologically it makes Shaker, for example, feel like a much more connected place to live.

 

Of course, we'd also need to address the appalling frequency of service during much of the day/weekend. And going west, there needs to be some way of connecting the Shaker Lines directly into University Circle (other than transferring to buses which, as we saw above, are apparently not the same as trains). Different topics.

 

I lived in DC for many years, so the Georgetown analogy is interesting to me. Not from the prejudice perspective (since it's pretty clear that there was never really any serious thought given to putting a station there during Metro planning, so no need for opposition). But more from a connectivity perspective and what the lack of a Metro stop there has meant.

 

In a lot of ways Georgetown is like many of the east side "inner ring" suburbs of Cleveland - Shaker, Cleveland Hts., Univ. Hts. Both areas are generally nice places, but generally a pain in the neck to travel into and out of. So much so that in the time I was in DC, I can count on one hand the number of times I was in Georgetown. Frankly my attitude was, "If I can't take the train there, it's not worth going to." (And of course, driving in DC is basically a non-starter.) And obviously, I would never have considered moving there.

 

Georgetown is still doing fine despite the lack of Metro connectivity, but I'd submit that's due more to DC's overall health and to the ongoing presence of the University. Having lived there, the lack of train access into Georgetown has been an ongoing point of discussion for years. Note that there is a very nice circulator bus with service every 10 minutes that covers Georgetown. Doesn't matter. Folks want a train. (Trains and buses are apparently not the same. Hmm.) From what I understand, DC is now finally looking at putting some sort of light rail/trolley line from Georgetown into downtown DC. Still a Metro station would be better.

 

The key here is that Georgetown is both a neighborhood and a significant destination and both it and the region would benefit greatly if a Metro station was there.

 

Now apply this to the east side of Cleveland. Again most of the suburbs there are doing OK, if perhaps on a downward slide. And similar to Georgetown the overall feeling in the Cleveland area is that there isn't great connectivity to these areas. People talk all the time about how hard (read "slow") it is to get into and out of Cleveland Hts, University Hts and Shaker. It's undeniable that many folks never consider moving there because it is "too hard" to get anywhere. This cannot be great for the health of those neighborhoods.

 

The weird part of this is that, unlike Georgetown, there is already rail transit through much of the East Side that should be providing much better connectivity. But unfortunately the Shaker Rapid really doesn't go anywhere or have any destinations (except Shaker Square and Van Aken Plaza) along its route. It's designed to only be really useful if you want to go downtown in the morning for work and then back home in the evening.

 

So add more destinations to these lines and I believe that those destinations, the neighborhoods along the lines, and the entire RTA rail system will benefit. I'm sure that population density along the lines is important, but so is having the lines go places that people actually want to go. Right now Cleveland's rail lines don't have a lot of destinations on them. And in the few cases where they kind of go to important destinations (for example, University Circle, even Downtown) the stations are placed poorly. So there's no particular reason for folks not living along the train lines to use them except perhaps to get downtown or maybe the airport.

 

So to rectify this, the Green line should be extended to Beachwood HS/Rec Center/Library, Beachwood Place/Legacyland, a new Park and Ride at 271, the office parks at Lander, the big apartment blocks south of Mayfield Rd., and then finally Hillcrest/Eastgate.

 

The Blue line should be extended out Chagrin through Woodmere. (I know that GCRTA has recently studied this and found low benefit to cost, but I don't think studies like this correctly take into account how land use and behavior actually change when there is convenient and regular rail transit available. Disabuse me of this opinion if you know differently.)

 

If these extensions happened, folks living in Shaker could take a train out to Eton or Beachwood instead of always hopping in the car. People downtown could get to some of this high end shopping. Will everyone do this? No of course not. But there's at least some other reason than commuting to ride the train. And psychologically it makes Shaker, for example, feel like a much more connected place to live.

 

Of course, we'd also need to address the appalling frequency of service during much of the day/weekend. And going west, there needs to be some way of connecting the Shaker Lines directly into University Circle (other than transferring to buses which, as we saw above, are apparently not the same as trains). Different topics.

 

Interesting thoughts... I read somewhere where planners were looking into building a separate Metro subway leg through Georgetown (I seriously doubt residents would object as they did back in 1969).  Not sure that it will happen, but I do know there was some concern regarding the current in-city/downtown rail system's capacity to handle the increased traffic of the Gray Line which is soon to open out to Dulles Int. Airport... currently 2 of the 3 CBD subway tunnels carry 2 Metro routes -- the exception being the busy Red Line which is not viable for Gray Line service as the Red Line does not go into Virginia.  Metro is amazing.  DC-ites can’t get enough of it.

One Red Line extension that would make sense is an approx. .7 mile extension from West Blvd along the NS corridor to W. 117.  It could be built relatively cheaply.  The ROW is there and it would be totally at surface level.  There could be a surface junction from the current Red Line just west of West. Blvd, then making 1 interim stop at W. 110 street.  Because of our system’s utilization of overhead wires, trains could have grade crossings along the streets between W. 110 and W. 117 without electrocution concern for pedestrians in the area (with some crossings possibly eliminated by street barricades). 

 

I can’t think of a Rapid extension that would deliver so much bang for the buck: it is both short and cheap, relatively speaking, and would serve a very densly populated area.  The W. 117 terminus would be within walking distance of the Gold Coast highrises as well as a number of brownstone walkups and rowhomes along Detroit and Clifton.  The lively Edgewater entertainment areas along Clifton and Detroit would also be connected.  In addition, when/if the West Shore commuter rail route is built, a transfer station could be built at the W. 117 Red Line terminus.  At some point, in any case, a railroad overpass needs to be built at W. 117 in order for that area to reach its full potential, and there’s plenty of room for TOD development – it would not be unlike the giant Mayfield rail overpass (though less intrusive) where RTA is relocating the Little Italy-UC station.

 

I’m surprised KJP isn’t all over this one since it would put the Rapid within walking distance of his apartment!!

Excellent thoughts, Litening. I couldn't agree with you more!

 

I’m surprised KJP isn’t all over this one since it would put the Rapid within walking distance of his apartment!!

 

If you saw my checkbook balance, you would quickly recognize that I'm not in the advocacy business for my own personal benefit. :)

^I'm kidding, of course, and I know the last thing you'd want to come off as is selfish... So that's why me, who lives on the other side of town, threw it out there...

 

Nevertheless, using the FTA formula you spoke of for rating rail projects, this one would seem a winner: it is both cheap and has potentially high ridership because of the 2 station stops I propose-- both within walking distance of a lot of multiple-unit residential buildings.  Hell, wood pole catenary (a la Indiana's South Shore interurban) and simple 1-level, ramp, walk across the tracks stations (a la Chicago's Brown Line/ground level L) could be used. 

What does "rail" cost? Well, there are many different kinds of rail. Sometimes GCRTA's top brass give a single, inflated figure like $100 million per mile. To assign such an oversimplified cost to "rail" is like giving a single dollar figure to the question: how much does a car cost or a road cost? Well, what kind?? And GCRTA is picking the rail equivalent of a Land Rover to demonstrate the only cost of rail. Why?? The fact is, there is a very low-cost form of rail called the self-propelled rail car or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)...

 

USA's 21st Century Interurbans

 

Here are some recent start-ups of Diesel Multiple-Unit (DMU) train services, including the date (year) they started operations, endpoints, length of route, start-up capital cost and cost per mile:

 

New Jersey Transit “RiverLINE” (2004) Trenton-Camden – 34 miles – $1.1 billion – $32.3 million per mile;

North County (California) Transit District “Sprinter” (2008) Oceanside-Escondido – 22 miles – $351.5 million – $16.1 million per mile;

Denton County (Texas) Transportation Authority “A-Train” (2011) Trinity Mills-Denton – 21 miles – $325 million – $15.5 million per mile.

TriMet (Portland, OR) “Westside Express Service” (2009) Beaverton-Wilsonville – 15 miles – $161 million – $10.7 million per mile;

Austin (Texas) Capital “MetroRail” (2010) Austin-Leander – 32 miles – $105 million – $3.3 million per mile;

I understand that RTA has 0 interest in expanding or putting down more rail anywhere in the city, at least right now.  This is kind of a "noob" question, but do any of you ever see it happening sometime in the relatively near future, though? Has there ever been a serious proposal to put any new light rail lines down somewhere? I kind of wish they put rail or street cars down euclid instead of the healthline, I had heard that was the original plan. I imagine we'd actually need to be growing in population to justify it, but Downtown is growing at least. I wonder if they did build a new one if they'd center it at tower city like all the others.

ts60, welcome to the forum! Yes, in fact rail expansions have been planned extensively, but mostly under GCRTA's prior general manager Ronald Tober, native Clevelander who left to build rail in Charlotte.

 

The list of proposed rail projects is too extensive to get into right now, but you will find many of those plans posted here....

 

http://allaboardohio.org/transportation-planning-library/localregional-transit-planning-documents/

What does "rail" cost? Well, there are many different kinds of rail. Sometimes GCRTA's top brass give a single, inflated figure like $100 million per mile. To assign such an oversimplified cost to "rail" is like giving a single dollar figure to the question: how much does a car cost or a road cost? Well, what kind?? And GCRTA is picking the rail equivalent of a Land Rover to demonstrate the only cost of rail. Why?? The fact is, there is a very low-cost form of rail called the self-propelled rail car or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)...

 

Question for KJP or others  - Any talk I've seen of rail expansion for RTA has focused on extension of existing lines vs building new lines.  Could this be the reason for RTA to have one standard cost per mile quote?  Is it more expensive to extend our existing rail infrastructure, which is old compared to newer systems?  I am just not knowledgeable about this and wonder if this contributes to high costs here.  My assumption is that the systems KJP stated "there is a very low-cost form of rail called the self-propelled rail car or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)..." are newer and maybe not compatible with our heavy or light rail systems?  Even if that's true I recognize it doesn't mean RTA couldn't build new lines to new areas with these technologies.  I'm really just searching for clarification.  Thanks.

Question for KJP or others  - Any talk I've seen of rail expansion for RTA has focused on extension of existing lines vs building new lines.  Could this be the reason for RTA to have one standard cost per mile quote?  Is it more expensive to extend our existing rail infrastructure, which is old compared to newer systems?  I am just not knowledgeable about this and wonder if this contributes to high costs here.  My assumption is that the systems KJP stated "there is a very low-cost form of rail called the self-propelled rail car or Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)..." are newer and maybe not compatible with our heavy or light rail systems?  Even if that's true I recognize it doesn't mean RTA couldn't build new lines to new areas with these technologies.  I'm really just searching for clarification.  Thanks.

 

I wish I could put my finger on the reasoning. But it's not because of the cost of extending existing rail. For example, GCRTA does want to extend the Blue Line 0.3 miles to a new Warrensville intermodal station to the southeast side of the Warresnville-Chagrin intersection, including a major new station for $25 million and an at-grade rail crossing diagonally through the intersection. All those costs per mile of track dramatically bump up the cost of this very short extension. Yet even if you pro-rate that unnaturally high cost per mile of rail corridor, that works out to $83.33 million per mile -- still far less than the $100 million often quoted by GCRTA.

 

In fact, extending existing rail systems tends to cost less than all-new systems because for all-new systems you have to buy new railcars at $3 million each as well as build a new storage yard, maintenance and heavy overhaul facilities for them.

 

Fortunately, DMU equipment is not compatible with GCRTA's rail system. The reason why it's fortunate is because DMU equipment is compatible with existing rail corridors throughout Northeast Ohio. That dramatically lowers the startup costs where the existing rail infrastructure is underutilized. There are several of these underutilized rail corridors that are already in excellent condition:

> University Circle to the northeast parallel to Euclid Avenue;

> West Boulevard to Vermilion parallel to US 6;

> Downtown Cleveland to Medina roughly parallel to US 42;

> Downtown Cleveland to Akron via Cuyahoga Valley National Park;

> Downtown Cleveland to Aurora parallel to Ohio 43; and

> Downtown Cleveland to Kent roughly parallel to Ohio 14

 

(OK, those last two rail corridors aren't exactly in "excellent" condition but their freight users would probably welcome the track improvements!).

 

However, please note I am only listing the underutilized rail corridors. That doesn't necessarily make them good commuter/transit corridors. But those are opportunities to add lower-cost rail service should future planning demonstrate a viable purpose and need. Based on the experiences of others I cited above, the start-up costs range from $3 million to $33 million per mile for all-new DMU rail transit services. None of those cities/services I cited above had a previously operational DMU service to build off of to reduce their start-up costs.

 

I hope this helps.

Thanks.  That's very insightful.

 

ts60, welcome to the forum! Yes, in fact rail expansions have been planned extensively, but mostly under GCRTA's prior general manager Ronald Tober, native Clevelander who left to build rail in Charlotte.

 

The list of proposed rail projects is too extensive to get into right now, but you will find many of those plans posted here....

 

http://allaboardohio.org/transportation-planning-library/localregional-transit-planning-documents/

 

Oh my. Is GCRTAs general manager attitude towards rail a reflection of the mayors?

Here is a plan I would like to see happen that would reroute the Red Line onto Euclid Avenue, eliminating the Healthline by combining it with the Red Line.

 

System Overview - This map shows the rerouted Red Line. The red line on the map represents the subway portions of the route, the blue lines represent ramps from Subway to Streetcar and visa-versa, and the green line represents streetcar sections of the route. The Red Circles represent subway stations. The Streetcar section will use existing Healthline Stations with the possibility of removal of some stations.

 

 

Downtown Close-Up

 

University Circle Close-Up

 

Rerouting the Red line could boost ridership tremendously by taking riders right to their destinations, as well as connecting the route to residential areas. It provides additional/better located stations to Downtown and frees up the street in Downtown Cleveland and University Circle to vehicular traffic. Removes the need for transfers and provides a faster trip from Downtown to University Circle. Having a streetcar section of the route lowers the pricetag and makes the route more realistic.

 

Imagine hopping on in Ohio City and being able to take the rapid directly to East 4th, East 9th, Playhouse Square, Cleveland State, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, University Hospitals, and Uptown. All major residential, entertainment, educational, and/or employment centers underserved by the current layout of the system.

 

Edit: The map does not show this, but the line connected to the west side red line. Also, the line would continue east to Windermere either by streetcar on Euclid or it would ramp up to the existing tracks.

Here is a plan I would like to see happen that would reroute the Red Line onto Euclid Avenue, eliminating the Healthline by combining it with the Red Line.

 

Not a bad idea on its face before the BRT was built.

 

Almost the very definintion of politically unfeasible now that all that money's been spent.

^Well, 50 years from now when the road, sidewalks and all the platforms need completely rebuilt it might be possible, but it's unlikely it'll happen in most of our lifetimes unless something quite dramatic happens to transit funding.

Here is a plan I would like to see happen that would reroute the Red Line onto Euclid Avenue, eliminating the Healthline by combining it with the Red Line.

 

Not a bad idea on its face before the BRT was built.

 

Almost the very definition of politically unfeasible now that all that money's been spent.

 

It would take awhile, but 15 years from now I don't think it would be impossible to remove the BRT. Most of the BRT money went towards the streets infrastructure. Only something like $50 million went towards the BRT aspect. Additionally it wouldn't be a complete waste since 3.3 miles of it would still be used, just replaced with a streetcar. Transit supporters would love it since you get a much improved system. Drivers who don't usually support transit are more likely to support subways. RTA can say the huge success of the Healthline, and the increase in Red Line ridership requires this to be be built. Additionally downtown's success requires Euclid be restored to 4 lanes with left turns. Drivers would love that.

Here is a plan I would like to see happen that would reroute the Red Line onto Euclid Avenue, eliminating the Healthline by combining it with the Red Line.

 

System Overview - This map shows the rerouted Red Line. The red line on the map represents the subway portions of the route, the blue lines represent ramps from Subway to Streetcar and visa-versa, and the green line represents streetcar sections of the route. The Red Circles represent subway stations. The Streetcar section will use existing Healthline Stations with the possibility of removal of some stations.

 

That was the original Dual Hub plan which later was morphed into the HealthLine. Here are some graphics from that plan over the decades......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-)

Nice pics in one place.

This assumes use of streetcar-scale electrification and existing NS tracks (with modifications noted below), including single-track operation from just west of West Boulevard station in Cleveland west to Elmwood Avenue in Rocky River.

 

Westlake - Cleveland LRT

 

 

Assumes use of extra GCRTA Breda cars to run nonstop West Blvd-Tower City (Red Line would provide local service)

 

Electrify 11.5 miles of track ---------- $15.0M

Construct new track (0.75 miles)--- $ 1.5M

Four #30 turnouts -------------------- $ 2.0M

Expand West Boulevard Station --- $ 2.5M

West 117th Station ------------------ $ 0.5M*

Nicholson Station --------------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Lakewood Station ------ $ 0.5M

Edwards Station ---------------------- $ 0.5M

Phelps/Overlook Station ------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Rocky River station ----- $ 1.0M

Wagar station ------------------------- $ 0.5M

Clague Station ------------------------- $ 1.0M

Westlake P&R Station ---------------- $ 1.5M

                                                        ---------

SUBTOTAL ------------------------------- $27.5M

 

Design/engineering/contingencies - $ 8.3M

 

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL --- $35.8 million

 

* Minimum station assumes one 250-foot concrete platform, shelter, ADA ramp, lighting & ticket machines

 

This could require acquisition of 14.2 miles of NSRR ROW from Lorain County line to Cloggsville Connection @ $14.2 million +/-

Also, if service frequency greater than 30-minute headways is desired, a second track with greater overhead electrical infrastructure is needed in the 5.5-mile single-track section.

This assumes use of streetcar-scale electrification and existing NS tracks (with modifications noted below), including single-track operation from just west of West Boulevard station in Cleveland west to Elmwood Avenue in Rocky River.

 

Westlake - Cleveland LRT

 

 

Assumes use of extra GCRTA Breda cars to run nonstop West Blvd-Tower City (Red Line would provide local service)

 

Electrify 11.5 miles of track ---------- $15.0M

Construct new track (0.75 miles)--- $ 1.5M

Four #30 turnouts -------------------- $ 2.0M

Expand West Boulevard Station --- $ 2.5M

West 117th Station ------------------ $ 0.5M*

Nicholson Station --------------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Lakewood Station ------ $ 0.5M

Edwards Station ---------------------- $ 0.5M

Phelps/Overlook Station ------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Rocky River station ----- $ 1.0M

Wagar station ------------------------- $ 0.5M

Clague Station ------------------------- $ 1.0M

Westlake P&R Station ---------------- $ 1.5M

                                                        ---------

SUBTOTAL ------------------------------- $27.5M

 

Design/engineering/contingencies - $ 8.3M

 

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL --- $35.8 million

 

* Minimum station assumes one 250-foot concrete platform, shelter, ADA ramp, lighting & ticket machines

 

This could require acquisition of 14.2 miles of NSRR ROW from Lorain County line to Cloggsville Connection @ $14.2 million +/-

Also, if service frequency greater than 30-minute headways is desired, a second track with greater overhead electrical infrastructure is needed in the 5.5-mile single-track section.

 

you read my mind, i was just thinking about this line.  i think with the demographics and density of lakewood and rocky river that this would have a lot of riders immediately. i really believe this should be the number one priority for rta, at least in terms of rail, and maybe thats the problem, rail is not high on the list.

^I mostly agree. I'm really happy that they're at least studying a red line extension into euclid (because I'll use it), but I have low hopes that an extension will actually be built, while a route through Lakewood would generate significant ridership and have a better chance of getting federal funding. I wish they'd spent the study money on that route and just bumped up the frequency on a couple of bus routes through Euclid/East Cleveland.

To me any extension of either the Red Line or Healthline to Euclid makes no sense (coming from an eastsider). All money/effort should be looking at a Lakewood route.

Come on, GCRTA! Extend the Red Line to Lakewood (at least to W.117th)! It makes so much sense that it isn't even funny.

This assumes use of streetcar-scale electrification and existing NS tracks (with modifications noted below), including single-track operation from just west of West Boulevard station in Cleveland west to Elmwood Avenue in Rocky River.

 

Westlake - Cleveland LRT

 

 

Assumes use of extra GCRTA Breda cars to run nonstop West Blvd-Tower City (Red Line would provide local service)

 

Electrify 11.5 miles of track ---------- $15.0M

Construct new track (0.75 miles)--- $ 1.5M

Four #30 turnouts -------------------- $ 2.0M

Expand West Boulevard Station --- $ 2.5M

West 117th Station ------------------ $ 0.5M*

Nicholson Station --------------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Lakewood Station ------ $ 0.5M

Edwards Station ---------------------- $ 0.5M

Phelps/Overlook Station ------------- $ 0.5M

Downtown Rocky River station ----- $ 1.0M

Wagar station ------------------------- $ 0.5M

Clague Station ------------------------- $ 1.0M

Westlake P&R Station ---------------- $ 1.5M

                                                        ---------

SUBTOTAL ------------------------------- $27.5M

 

Design/engineering/contingencies - $ 8.3M

 

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL --- $35.8 million

 

* Minimum station assumes one 250-foot concrete platform, shelter, ADA ramp, lighting & ticket machines

 

This could require acquisition of 14.2 miles of NSRR ROW from Lorain County line to Cloggsville Connection @ $14.2 million +/-

Also, if service frequency greater than 30-minute headways is desired, a second track with greater overhead electrical infrastructure is needed in the 5.5-mile single-track section.

 

Very sensible plan... I'm also for expanding the Red Line NE from Stokes/Windermere as well.

BTW, GCRTA adds no new operating cost by extending either the Blue or Green nonstop west to the West Boulevard station, which can be reached in eight minutes from Tower City (if it runs nonstop). Eight minutes is the same travel time from Tower City to South Harbor on the Waterfront Line, which one of the LRT lines would no longer use. So the 7.6 miles of new rail transit service west of West Boulevard to the Westlake Park-n-Ride would similarly be the only new operating cost. If the existing Blue/Green segment between East 55th and Shaker Square is comparable to using the NS right of way through Lakewood, Rocky River and Westlake, then 24 mph could be the average speed for trains here including stops. Thus the trip from the Westlake P&R to West Boulevard station could be covered in 19 minutes (the entire run from Westlake P&R to Tower City would be about 27 minutes). For light-rail service, GCRTA spends $214 in operating cost per vehicle revenue hour (the average among Cleveland peer group cities is $220 per hour, according to the National Transit Database). If GCRTA operated light rail service to the Westlake P&R every 30 minutes from 4 a.m. to midnight. That means there would be 1,520 minutes of revenue service per day, or 25.33 hours of new vehicle revenue service per day. So 25.33 x $214 = $5,421.33 per day, or $1,978,785.50 in additional operating costs per year. This would replace the #246 Westlake P&R express buses which incurs 6,700 total vehicle hours per year (revenue and non-revenue). GCRTA's average cost per vehicle revenue hour for buses is $100. Thus, GCRTA could save about $670,000 by ending the #246 Westlake P&R bus route.

 

If this is anywhere near accurate, then GCRTA's net change in raw operating costs (even before revenue is counted) by replacing the #246 bus with a light-rail extension on the existing NS track to the Westlake P&R is about $1.3 million per year. Again, this does not include ANY passenger revenue.

Come on, GCRTA! Extend the Red Line to Lakewood (at least to W.117th)! It makes so much sense that it isn't even funny.

 

Huh?  That would be a branch, not an extension.  The Red Line already stops on W. 117th, and cuts through the southeast corner of Lakewood. 

Was thinking more about a Westlake LRT. A 30-minute service could be operated more reliability by adding a little bit more double track at both ends of the single-track section. Since the single-track section from Elmwood Road in Rocky River to the West Boulevard station is at least 5.6 miles and the train could average 24 mph including stops, a train would traverse the single-track section in 14 minutes. That single-track section could be affordably shortened by adding a 0.3-mile second track from Elmwood Road to Wagar Road (a proposed station) and by adding 0.4-mile second track from West Boulevard station to just shy of West 110th. That reduces the single-track section to 4.9 miles, so a train could traverse the single-track section in 12.25 minutes. So a westbound train should easily clear the single-track section in 15 minutes, allowing the next eastbound train to occupy the single-track section for the next 15 minutes. So if a train is delayed a few minutes, it wouldn't ruin the entire schedule.

 

Under a single-track scenario, I might want to keep a few park-n-ride buses, departing in the half-hour slots when the trains don't. The #246 P&R buses run every 12-30 minutes. Ironically, it takes some trips of the #246 28 minutes to travel from Tower City Center to the Westlake P&R. I estimate the LRT trains would cover the same distance in 27 minutes. But trips to the east end of downtown and CSU would be faster on the #246, so it might make sense to keep some of these trips -- I estimate bus six trips each way -- to protect a 15-minute headway during rush hours.

 

Otherwise, adding 5.6 miles of second main track would have to be laid from Elmwood to West Boulevard. That includes realigning the curves at Webb and Cove avenues, both in Lakewood. And it would mean 27 new crossing surfaces plus 27 new flasher/gates stands at about $100,000 each. And there would need to be signalization, interlocked crossover tracks and contingencies. That could increase the cost by about $40 million. And GCRTA may insist on rehabbing the tall and 700-foot-long Rocky River bridge, although it does support the weight of a dozen loaded coal cars at any given time. Each weighs up to 125 tons. So the bridge has to support 1,500 tons of freight train. So a full two-car light-rail train weighs about 100 tons. But this is an old bridge, and I suspect GCRTA would rather rehab the bridge when no trains are operating over it than wait until an LRT service starts and have to interrupt it.

 

DOUBLE TRACK LRT BRANCH TO WESTLAKE

Assumes use of extra GCRTA Breda cars to run nonstop West Blvd-Tower City (Red Line would provide local service)

 

Electrify 15.2 miles of track ---------- $30.0M

Construct new track (6.0 miles) ---- $12.0M

Add ATS traffic control system ------ $30.0M

Rocky River bridge paint/rehab ----- $10.0M

Rehab West 92nd duck-under ------ $ 1.0M

Add 14 #30 turnouts ----------------- $ 7.0M

Expand West Boulevard Station --- $ 2.5M

West 117th Station ------------------ $ 1.0M*

Nicholson Station --------------------- $ 1.0M

Downtown Lakewood Station ------ $ 1.0M

Edwards Station ---------------------- $ 1.0M

Phelps/Overlook Station ------------- $ 1.0M

Downtown Rocky River station ----- $ 1.5M

Wagar station ------------------------- $ 1.0M

Clague Station ------------------------- $ 1.0M

Westlake P&R Station ---------------- $ 1.5M

                                                        ---------

SUBTOTAL ------------------------------ $101.7M

 

Design/engineering/contingencies - $30.5M

 

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL --- $132.2 million

 

* Minimum station assumes two 250-foot concrete platforms, two shelters, two ADA ramps, lighting & ticket machines

 

This could require acquisition of 14.2 miles of NSRR ROW from Lorain County line to Cloggsville Connection @ $14.2 million +/-

 

###

Come on, GCRTA! Extend the Red Line to Lakewood (at least to W.117th)! It makes so much sense that it isn't even funny.

 

Huh?  That would be a branch, not an extension.  The Red Line already stops on W. 117th, and cuts through the southeast corner of Lakewood. 

 

Thanks, I wondered what I was missing when I read this suggestion (there was also a small part of my brain that said, "Sure, we can do that -- POOF! DONE!").

Thanks, I wondered what I was missing when I read this suggestion (there was also a small part of my brain that said, "Sure, we can do that -- POOF! DONE!").

 

If they were all that easy, we'd have Tokyo's rail system..... :)

 

Another fine example of American tax dollars at work!

 

Too bad we can't spend anything at home to bring out rail systems to the 21st century.

New urban workers want rail trainsit

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/11/3363057/road-worrier-backers-want-rail.html

 

The Case For Streetcars!

 

This graphic is making the rounds on the web today. Allow it to fully open and run through the entire sequence....

 

^Nice, but admittedly they'd be just as close on a bus.

 

I keep seeing similar demonstrations that also include bikes, but they always tend to pack the bikes too close together to be realisitic.

^Nice, but admittedly they'd be just as close on a bus.

 

I keep seeing similar demonstrations that also include bikes, but they always tend to pack the bikes too close together to be realisitic.

 

Perhaps Toronto's CLRVs aren't the best example since they seat only 46 people (same as the HealthLine buses).

 

However the Flexity streetcars that are replacing them will seat 70 and accommodate 181 seated and standing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Outlook_(Toronto_streetcar)

^ one thing I noticed that Toronto uses for their streetcars, as well as other cities, is that for their POP everyone boarding must enter through the front door, usually showing the driving your payment. People exiting can exit the front or back door. This did not slow down boarding at all and also cracks down on people not paying. I think the Healthline should implement this.

I just saw this interesting interview with a guy who makes simulation transportation videos.  You can change point of view, add a lane, take out a lane, add a bike lane, widen sidewalks, etc.  Simulations like this would be very helpful in any street reconstruction where you want to get a feel for how a street would "feel" in different scenarios and from different points of view (pedestrian, driver, cyclist).

 

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/11/19/sidtv-interview-with-spencer-boomhower.html#.UouqT-KKhy0

 

And here's one of the simulations you can manipulate yourself:

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3329542/Marmoset_Street/Marmoset_Street.html

 

:clap:

 

Since more people from the Heights commute to UC than to downtown, I propose these two ways to route the Blue Line to UC. The North Moreland-Fairmount-Cedar routing requires 1.2 route-miles more of new rail corridor vs the routing via MLK/Fairhill. And I suspect the MLK/Fairhill routing would be a faster trip. However linking the top of Cedar hill to CWRU, UH, and the Clinic is attractive to me, as is the potential for building a branch to Coventry and Severance. The MLK/Fairhill routing could help accelerate the St. Lukes redevelopment as well as spur redevelopment of the Benjamin Rose/Fairhill Towers site at MLK and Fairhill. At the latter site, there have been a number of real estate transfers in the past year involving these very large tracts of land.