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.

 

Nice idea. In addition, I'd propose linking it with the Healthline and running the Blue down Euclid into downtown -- of course converting the Healthline to light rail in the process.

I've always been a big fan of a Fairmount extension.  It serves a stable population, solid urban center(Cedar Fairmount) and like you said could include a Coventry branch. This could further support development in Cedar Fairmount and lower Little Italy.  Additionally it reaches the areas that are primarily commuting to University Circle, which the other route option ignores.

 

 

What is your estimated cost for the Cedar Fairmount route?

Nice idea. In addition, I'd propose linking it with the Healthline and running the Blue down Euclid into downtown -- of course converting the Healthline to light rail in the process.

 

Another great part about this is that it would actually REDUCE operating expenses and probably increase revenue. The Blue Line takes 15 minutes to get from Shaker Square to Tower City, then another 8 minutes to the end of the Waterfront Line. My estimate is that the Blue Line rerouted to UC would need 13-15 minutes to get from Shaker Square to UC, depending on the routing, number of stops, etc. So it saves the Blue Line's cost from the Waterfront Line -- although all Green Line trains could operate through to the Waterfront Line including every other rush-hour train that now terminates at Tower City. But off-peak service would be reduced.

 

Maybe at some point the Blue Line could be extended west along Euclid Avenue to downtown, but I'm focusing on UC right now. Perhaps a future option could extend the Blue Line west to East 55th, then northwest along the Norfolk Southern mainline to the lakefront via Asiatown.

 

 

What is your estimated cost for the Cedar Fairmount route?

 

Considering it could use public rights of way for almost all of its routing, about $120 million.

 

 

What is your estimated cost for the Cedar Fairmount route?

 

Considering it could use public rights of way for almost all of its routing, about $120 million.

 

Sign me up!

 

Seriously though where do you go from here? How do you push this to RTA.  It should really be considered, and more so than the city of Euclid expansion.

Could you save half a mile by having the green line turn north on Coventry then follow the same route instead of having the blue line turn at Moreland? Or are you thinking a relocated SS station could allow transfers? Never mind.

Seriously though where do you go from here? How do you push this to RTA.  It should really be considered, and more so than the city of Euclid expansion.

Why does everyone want to hate on the Euclid expansion? It's not like they're going to actually build rail that way and the study will show how crappy the connections are in that corridor.

We'd have to get the powerbrokers in University Circle interested and at least get the residents and leaders in Shaker Square, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights to, at worst, not oppose it.

 

BTW, RTA's Blue Line extension study proposed creating a University Circle Express bus service from Randall Park and from Chagrin Highlands to Warrensville Station and then paralleling the Blue Line to Shaker Square, then continuing down the hill to University Circle. So you'd have to get some powerful people on your side who would then need to convince RTA that they should take a different approach. They way that could be done is to reopen the Blue Line extension study.

 

Why do that? Because RTA's Blue Line extension study never looked at routing light rail from Shaker Square to UC. It looked only at extending the Blue Line east or south of its Warrensville terminus. So one could argue that RTA's alternative analysis was incomplete because it never compared a light-rail link between UC and Shaker Heights even though RTA came to the conclusion that a bus linking these two areas was the best investment. How did RTA come to that conclusion when no parallel comparison was made?

Wouldn't the transfers from Blue to Green, Green to Blue,  Blue to Red, and Red to Blue all count as an additional rider, massively boosting RTA's ridership figures? They'd love that.

This Blue line rerouting seems like a baller idea.  In the Cedar-Fairmount option, are you routing down Adelbert when you get near the bottom of the Hill?  I see you extend the line down Euclid a ways in both cases.  What is the thinking there, how/why are you laying track along the HealthLine and duplicating that service?

 

 

For whatever it's worth - I just saw this pop up on my Facebook http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org

Good to see some general interest

We'd have to get the powerbrokers in University Circle interested and at least get the residents and leaders in Shaker Square, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights to, at worst, not oppose it.

 

BTW, RTA's Blue Line extension study proposed creating a University Circle Express bus service from Randall Park and from Chagrin Highlands to Warrensville Station and then paralleling the Blue Line to Shaker Square, then continuing down the hill to University Circle. So you'd have to get some powerful people on your side who would then need to convince RTA that they should take a different approach. They way that could be done is to reopen the Blue Line extension study.

 

Why do that? Because RTA's Blue Line extension study never looked at routing light rail from Shaker Square to UC. It looked only at extending the Blue Line east or south of its Warrensville terminus. So one could argue that RTA's alternative analysis was incomplete because it never compared a light-rail link between UC and Shaker Heights even though RTA came to the conclusion that a bus linking these two areas was the best investment. How did RTA come to that conclusion when no parallel comparison was made?

 

Crap, I would have loved this back in my college days.  Maple Heights Transit ran a bus from almost my front yard (literally...seven houses away) to RPM and then the Van Aken station, but you had to bounce off 55th to get to UC on the Red Line.

Wouldn't the transfers from Blue to Green, Green to Blue,  Blue to Red, and Red to Blue all count as an additional rider, massively boosting RTA's ridership figures? They'd love that.

 

Yes, that's an unlinked trip -- the nationally recognized measurement of one rider.

 

This Blue line rerouting seems like a baller idea.  In the Cedar-Fairmount option, are you routing down Adelbert when you get near the bottom of the Hill?  I see you extend the line down Euclid a ways in both cases.  What is the thinking there, how/why are you laying track along the HealthLine and duplicating that service?

 

 

Baller is good, right? If so, thanks! I view it as repairing what ails the light-rail system, which underperforms by carrying only 11,000 riders per day. The reason is that University Circle, not downtown, is the greatest ridership draw from that part of the metro area -- yet BOTH light-rail lines go downtown. The light-rail system also needs stronger ridership anchors on the east end, but that's what the Van Aken District at Warrensville would do there http://shakeronline.com/departments/planning/van-aken. An extension of the Blue Line to I-480 or I-271 would also do that someday, as would extending the Green Line to Beachwood Place as a streetcar on Richmond but that's never been planned. The Green Line gets used only about four hours each weekday. I am very worried about its future. At least the Waterfront Line has more ridership generators coming to it.

 

Actually, I would route the Blue Line down Adelbert under EITHER routing option. Data shows that more people commute to UHHS and CWRU from the Heights than they do to Cleveland Clinic. So I'd want the rail line to penetrate the campuses of both a little bit. I didn't want to go all the way over to Cornell because now I suspect I'm adding more capital and operating costs without a corresponding increase in ridership. Also, to head over to Cleveland Clinic, it increases the commute times there and thus likely decreases its ridership.

 

I'd use the median of Euclid (which gets wider west of Adelbert) including the RTA median as it already exists and has stations along it. So that reduces the cost of adding light-rail/streetcar there. Perhaps instead a transfer could be made between the Blue Line and the HealthLine at Adelbert/Cornell, but it's only another 3,000-4,000 feet to the "main entrance" to the Clinic at East 93rd. That short, extra distance of a one-seat ride can make a big difference in ridership.

 

For whatever it's worth - I just saw this pop up on my Facebook http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org

Good to see some general interest

 

Yeah, well that guy is a copycat and a cheater. :)

You know.....if you look at the map, you could run the Blue/Green track to the Red Line 79th station, which in its current state is underused and probably should be closed.  You could expand that station, and make it the terminus of the Shaker Lines, with a seamless transfer between those two and the Red Line downtown.  Then you can run them more frequently and perhaps expand service.  The OC is going in close by and there's a chance for some synergy there too.

Baller is very good.  So the Blue Line cars can make use of the existing stations on the Healthline?  I did not expect that.  To me it makes all the sense in the world, since as you point out the lines underperform and/because they both end up in the same place.  With Shaker Square as an obvious transfer point this makes it easy for everyone served by the Green and Blue lines to use rail to get to both University Circle AND the Clinic, instead of downtown only.  That, I think, is huge.  Rush hour Green Line riders I believe would have a 5 minute wait to transfer to the Blue to get to the UC area, and Blue Line riders wishing to go downtown would make the opposite transfer.  Not a terrible price to pay for an entirely new and key destination to be available.

 

Is there a rationale behind making the UC-Clinic routing the Blue line as opposed to the Green line or was that just kind of random?  Perhaps as the Blue line is scheduled to be extended in one way a bit, makes more sense to have that one be the route that changes on the other end?

 

Connecting the light rail to UC makes so much sense.  It brings UC and the Clinic into a whole new sphere of transit influence, and it de-isolates the Blue and Green lines from everything that's happening in UC and everything that ought to be happening along the HealthLine.

You know.....if you look at the map, you could run the Blue/Green track to the Red Line 79th station, which in its current state is underused and probably should be closed.  You could expand that station, and make it the terminus of the Shaker Lines, with a seamless transfer between those two and the Red Line downtown.  Then you can run them more frequently and perhaps expand service.  The OC is going in close by and there's a chance for some synergy there too.

 

The downside there is no public right of way to use. It means acquiring a lot of dirty, vacant, former industrial land that has to be cleaned. And there's and a lot of earthmoving needed to build a right of way here since the Blue/Green line is elevated here and the Red Line is on a below-grade alignment. That's a lot of investment that doesn't get you any new ridership and doesn't save much in operating cost.

 

I also once proposed a "right turn" between the Blue/Green line and the Red Line at the junction of those lines at the end of Grand Avenue west of East 71st. The cool part of this is the Red Line is briefly elevated here where an old industrial siding went under the Red Line. So a grade-separated junction with the Red Line could be had. It would require some property acquisition, but all of it would be current/former residential. However, a former GCRTA planner warned me GCRTA probably wouldn't support it.

You know.....if you look at the map, you could run the Blue/Green track to the Red Line 79th station, which in its current state is underused and probably should be closed.  You could expand that station, and make it the terminus of the Shaker Lines, with a seamless transfer between those two and the Red Line downtown.  Then you can run them more frequently and perhaps expand service.  The OC is going in close by and there's a chance for some synergy there too.

 

The downside there is no public right of way to use. It means acquiring a lot of dirty, vacant, former industrial land that has to be cleaned. And there's and a lot of earthmoving needed to build a right of way here since the Blue/Green line is elevated here and the Red Line is on a below-grade alignment. That's a lot of investment that doesn't get you any new ridership and doesn't save much in operating cost.

 

I also once proposed a "right turn" between the Blue/Green line and the Red Line at the junction of those lines at the end of Grand Avenue west of East 71st. The cool part of this is the Red Line is briefly elevated here where an old industrial siding went under the Red Line. So a grade-separated junction with the Red Line could be had. It would require some property acquisition, but all of it would be current/former residential. However, a former GCRTA planner warned me GCRTA probably wouldn't support it.

 

Ah, that old enemy "topography".  The first part is basically what the OC is doing.

 

Be tough to get funding though.  Especially with Cimperman being anti-rail to begin with, and looking at something that might deemphasize the importance of downtown.

Cimperman is anti-rail? Better be sure to tell him that.

Cimperman is anti-rail? Better be sure to tell him that.

That seems to be the consensus here.

^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.

 

I've always suspected that you might increase transit usage if you gave people more space.  Certainly you'd have to make up the costs in higher fares.  But I suspect there'd be a niche.  Maybe more than just a niche.

Cimperman is anti-rail? Better be sure to tell him that.

That seems to be the consensus here.

 

Might you mean Calabrese?

It looks like Cincinnati is going to be having a firesale on streetcars and rails soon. Can we trade them the HL busses? :-D

Redirected from the Denver light-rail thread......

 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

I think that used to be more true when there were abandoned industries along the rail lines. Now many of those are gone and some are being cleaned up. The good part about them is that many are large properties, so a developer can buy one large lot and do a lot with it, rather than have to buy numerous smaller properties.

 

One example is the Trinity site on Detroit Avenue, just east of the West Boulevard station. This industrial site is a poster child for what has ailed Cleveland generally and the Red Line in particular.....

 

http://www.cleveland-oh.gov/clnd_images/economicdevelopment/trinity.pdf

 

Now the site has been cleared and cleaned. The bad news is that it is being marketed as an industrial property. I know Cleveland wants the industrial taxbase, but I just don't see this is as the highest and best use so close to a Rapid station and not ideally accessible to major rail corridors/highways. This article notes the limitations of the Trinity site as an industrial site. Hopefully the city is willing to be flexible with it....

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130818/SUB1/308189982

 

 

^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the City rumored to be considering the Trinity site for its relocated kennel?  That would be another gross underutilization of that land, IMO

^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the City rumored to be considering the Trinity site for its relocated kennel?  That would be another gross underutilization of that land, IMO

 

I dunno. Hope not!

Redirected from the Denver light-rail thread......

 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

I think that used to be more true when there were abandoned industries along the rail lines. Now many of those are gone and some are being cleaned up. The good part about them is that many are large properties, so a developer can buy one large lot and do a lot with it, rather than have to buy numerous smaller properties.

 

One example is the Trinity site on Detroit Avenue, just east of the West Boulevard station. This industrial site is a poster child for what has ailed Cleveland generally and the Red Line in particular.....

 

http://www.cleveland-oh.gov/clnd_images/economicdevelopment/trinity.pdf

 

Now the site has been cleared and cleaned. The bad news is that it is being marketed as an industrial property. I know Cleveland wants the industrial taxbase, but I just don't see this is as the highest and best use so close to a Rapid station and not ideally accessible to major rail corridors/highways. This article notes the limitations of the Trinity site as an industrial site. Hopefully the city is willing to be flexible with it....

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130818/SUB1/308189982

 

If I'm not mistaken, the cleanup standards are stricter for residential than they are for commercial/industrial uses. 

 

In any case, the city wants tax producers a lot more than it wants tax consumers.

 

I used to work almost directly across the street from the Midland site.  It's been cleared (of buildings) since at least 2005.

 

As an aside, remember the "Cocktails" incident?  The Trinity site is right across the street. 

True about the cleanup for residential. I'm not sure to what extent this site has been cleaned.

 

A residential site can be a net fiscal loss for a city but that is less so if it is an apartment building where services like trash pickup and, if the building is big enough, basic security are contracted out. Even a retail site can be a fiscal drain on a city if there's more police activity as well as extra pavement onsite to burden the sewer system. But if it's a mixed use site, then it will offer residential and commercial, just not light industrial. Fact is, the Trinity site is relatively small, near some high-density residential and not as accessible to highways for a small industry.

 

No, I don't remember the Cocktails incident. Are you referring to the Trinity site? I remember it was a chop shop for car thieves and later was at or next to a club called the Cage that had a rough reputation.

True about the cleanup for residential. I'm not sure to what extent this site has been cleaned.

 

A residential site can be a net fiscal loss for a city but that is less so if it is an apartment building where services like trash pickup and, if the building is big enough, basic security are contracted out. Even a retail site can be a fiscal drain on a city if there's more police activity as well as extra pavement onsite to burden the sewer system. But if it's a mixed use site, then it will offer residential and commercial, just not light industrial. Fact is, the Trinity site is relatively small, near some high-density residential and not as accessible to highways for a small industry.

 

No, I don't remember the Cocktails incident. Are you referring to the Trinity site? I remember it was a chop shop for car thieves and later was at or next to a club called the Cage that had a rough reputation.

 

It was a few weeks back, where some neighborhood thugs (most likely, and unconfirmable because they were juveniles) were harassing a gay bar and beat up one of the patrons who was walking to the door.  It's literally right across Detroit from the Trinity site. 

 

It does say something about what is up in that neighborhood. 

My goal for developing along the Red Line (and perhaps near the East 79th Blue/Green station too) got a boost recently, but was just reported today......

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2013/12/epa-criticizes-opportunity-corridor-for-glossing-over-impact

 

The US EPA urges ODOT, Cleveland and GCRTA to work together to develop TOD around Red Line stations between East 55th and University Circle as part of the Opportunity Corridor. I hope the US EPA offers some site cleanup funding to make that "suggestion" more viable.

My goal for developing along the Red Line (and perhaps near the East 79th Blue/Green station too) got a boost recently, but was just reported today......

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2013/12/epa-criticizes-opportunity-corridor-for-glossing-over-impact

 

The US EPA urges ODOT, Cleveland and GCRTA to work together to develop TOD around Red Line stations between East 55th and University Circle as part of the Opportunity Corridor. I hope the US EPA offers some site cleanup funding to make that "suggestion" more viable.

 

As I said in that thread. some of the sociological rather than scientific language in that letter makes it seem that this is political grandstanding, perhaps motivated by the outside-the-system cleanup the OC is supposed to perform.

 

I still think the best thing to do would be route the Shaker Rapid tracks north just west of the bridge by 92nd street and merge up with the Red Line at or near the existing 79th St Red Line station.  It looks like there's just some blighted industrial property in that stretch.  It's also where Norfolk Southern(?) bridges over the Red Line, for what that's worth.

 

Is it necessary that all three lines go all the way downtown?

Is it necessary that all three lines go all the way downtown?

 

No, which is why I believe the Blue Line should become a University Circle-Warrensville route.

Is it necessary that all three lines go all the way downtown?

 

No, which is why I believe the Blue Line should become a University Circle-Warrensville route.

 

Oh hell yeah, I would have loved this back in the day.  Would it split from the Green out of Shaker Square?

Is it necessary that all three lines go all the way downtown?[/color]

Absolutely necessary? No, but you lose a percentage of riders for each transfer you add to their route, unless the frequency is high enough that it's not a big deal when you miss your transfer. Are the green and red lines frequent enough to make up for the Blue (or Green) line not going downtown? I don't know.

Here's some different ways and routes of reorienting the rail lines on the east side to more closely reflect current travel patterns. The goal is to limit the addition of service hours or even reduce it while expanding coverage....

 

1. Windermere or Little Italy-MLK-Warrensville (keep Red Line as-is)

 

2. Windermere-MLK-Warrensville with Red Line rerouted via MLK

 

3. Windermere-MLK-Warrensville, no Red Line east of Tower City (3b. could keep Red Line as-is)

 

4. Windermere-North Moreland-Warrensville, no Red Line east of Tower City (4b. could keep Red Line as-is)

 

5. Cleveland Clinic-Cedar Hill-Warrensville, keep Red Line as-is

^These changes do make sense... One problem is that, between CC and U. Hosp., they are rather spread out (esp the Clinic) so that a Blue line extension to Univ. Circle could be problematic.  Throw in the extremely hilly typography, and you've got even more expense -- especially for a city that couldn't even extend the Green Line 1.5 miles to I-271 on a ready-made Van Sweringen ROW...  For me, as a Green Line user, I'll be very content to zip down to the refurbished E. 55th and zip NE the new Little Italy-U.C. station that will be much more centrally located to activities.  As I see it, train riders in places like NY and Chicago have to often make such backtrack-type transfers ... consider, in Chicago, a Logan Square resident commuting to the Belmont/Lincoln Park area, or to Rogers Park... same kind of issue.

I vote for #1 and making the waterfront line loop around downtown near CSU and CCC.

While we celebrate a relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, we forget that another station was proposed to be relocated by the same mid-1990s masterplan. The Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan that gave us the HealthLine also recommended relocating the East 79th Red Line station to East 89th at Buckeye/Woodland.

 

Now that the USEPA is recommending more transit investments and transit-supportive land use, it's time for ODOT to:

 

1) fund this long ignored recommendation for building the East 89th station at Buckeye/Woodland;

2) work jointly with the city, GCRTA and the local CDCs on TOD planning and incentives at Red, Blue/Green line stations in the Opportunity Corridor; and

3) lengthen East 105/Quincy station's 1-car-long platform and adding a second entrance at East 105th.

 

Below is the Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan....

 

And then there's this idea......

 

The good news is that a regional development blueprint with lots of stakeholder buy-in has been approved for Northeast Ohio, by a governing board comprised of public and private officials. The blueprint vision includes significant rail elements for freight, passengers and namely commuter rail, introductory and connecting bus transportation, and transit-oriented development. The complete documentation and background information about this effort is at: http://vibrantneo.org/tool/visionrelease/

 

Among the recommendations.....

 

Enhance and coordinate the region’s rail and bus services

 

Initiative 5.1: Invest in a regional network of bi-directional public transit connections between Northeast Ohio’s major job centers.

Initiative 5.2: Create a network of high-frequency express and local transit routes connecting the region’s job centers. Prioritize infill development in the corridors served by these routes. In the short and medium terms, upgrade high-performing existing bus routes and create new bus routes in designated corridors. In the long term, upgrade the highest-demand routes into commuter rail service.

Initiative 5.3: Coordinate the region’s transit systems for joint marketing, information technology, and fare media, including information regarding private transit resources such as university/health system shuttles, private bus services, airport transportation, etc.

Initiative 5.4: Evaluate the condition of all existing rail trackage and rail crossings to determine what investments would be necessary to bring substandard infrastructure up to standard for freight and passenger service.

 

See more at: http://vibrantneo.org/tool/visionrelease/#sthash.rhOxJfZP.dpuf

 

While we celebrate a relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, we forget that another station was proposed to be relocated by the same mid-1990s masterplan. The Transportation System Management alternative of the Dual Hub plan that gave us the HealthLine also recommended relocating the East 79th Red Line station to East 89th at Buckeye/Woodland.

 

 

Didn't this plan also call for the elimination of the 105th street station?  (serious question)

 

Didn't this plan also call for the elimination of the 105th street station?  (serious question)

 

No. The plan is shown a few posts back in the map graphic displaying the area between downtown and UC.

So that plan was to move the Cedar Station to Adelbert?

 

Adelbert would make much more sense for pedestrian traffic and commuter traffic.

 

From what I understand, Cedar is the better location for bus connections.

 

Any idea why RTA didnt go with the suggested relocated and instead currently working on a new station for Cedar?

So that plan was to move the Cedar Station to Adelbert?

 

Adelbert would make much more sense for pedestrian traffic and commuter traffic.

 

From what I understand, Cedar is the better location for bus connections.

 

Any idea why RTA didnt go with the suggested relocated and instead currently working on a new station for Cedar?

 

 

The cost of building a station where none had existed before (requires all sorts of new infrastructure, including spreading the tracks and overhead wires to insert a new "island" platform) wasn't justified by the projected additional ridership. The daily boardings were projected in 1995 to increase from 460 to only 533.

 

While a new station will be built at Little Italy, there is infrastructure below the tracks for a station on east-west (designed to be a street-free route into Cleveland for electric interurban railways) that was started in the late 1920s but never completed. It includes a concrete station "vault" off Mayfield that has been maintained to support the Red Line tracks overhead.

 

Also, daily boardings at the old Euclid-East 120th station were 193 in 1995, vs. 536 projected at the new Little Italy station. That could be much higher today considering all of the development at UHHS, CWRU, Little Italy and most of all, Uptown that has taken place since 1995. I have many memories of that area in 1995, and it was a sleepy community that was just starting to wake up.

 

EDIT: if the East 34th station is relocated to the East 14th/22nd/new Commercial Road area, planners in 1995 forecast it would attract 704 daily boardings vs. 349 at East 34th. The USPS has seen declining employment, but Tri-C and St. Vincent Charity Hospital seem stable to me. And now that the NS intermodal yard moved out and a development-supportive streetgrid is being built in its place, this may be a good time to revisit that station relocation.

^ Thanks!

 

Do you have any idea what ridership is like today at these stations?

 

Edit: Do you have a rending of the street plan they are building over there? I cant really figure it out from googlemaps.

I'll look into the ridership data, unless Jerry or JeTDog can supply it first.

 

Here is the street grid ODOT is building at the confluence of Ontario, East 9th, Commercial, Orange, Broadway and East 14th (I also posted this in the Cleveland TOD thread)....

 

^ Thanks

 

Although it a little hard to tell by looking back and forth between the image and googlemaps, it look like they are removing a lot of crazy connections and overkill of lanes.

And not all of that is getting built as proposed in that graphic (which dates from 2007). Fortunately, the streetgrid is getting built. If East 22nd could be extended through to Broadway (taking out the USPS carrier/delivery building), I'd put a station next to Broadway, between 22nd and 14th. Otherwise, depending on what kind of development might be considered for the land west of new Commercial Road, I'd put it there -- preferably below a nice big building built over over the tracks!

Two station-area details......

 

Add to the station-area development concept for Buckeye-Woodland posted previously is this station detail:

 

 

 

And this one too.....

 

Discussions in another thread reminded me of a project I started a few months ago.

 

I was originally looking at doing a study for a streetcar along Cedar Road, connecting the Cleveland Clinic to the Beachwood Mall.

 

I ended up going with another project, looking at TOD in University Circle instead, but did make a few things I thought id share.

 

At the end of route, the train would enter into the Beachwood Mall as part of the expansion.

 

 

 

 

 

Cedar Road is also a Priority Transit Corridor for RTA so maybe something like this would actually be possible.

 

Nice job with the graphics!

 

GCRTA's vision with the Priority Transit Corridor concept is to implement BRT lite routes all over the metro area, such as Enhance Clifton or a Complete Street on Lorain Avenue. If you espouse the same principles as the current GCRTA leadership, then you design your transit improvements to fit the funding GCRTA has available to it. But if you're in a growing city, you espouse the principles like a WMATA in DC or the RTD in Denver by designing a transit system to create a city you envision, then seek the funding for it.

^to KJP.  I like the idea of relocating the E. 79 station to Buckeye-Woodland-E. 89.  Of course, this location would be even more attractive if RTA restarted bus service along Woodland (the old #12) to feed the new station from the east while, perhaps, rerouting a N-S route along E. 89th… What I don’t like/understand, is the roadway between Buckeye and Woodland adjacent to the station.  I know (absurdly) that the OC is driving this project (with EPA cleanup, I guess), but your other graphic on the TOD board showed desired TOD here, which would seem logical given this station’s focal-point nature.  The added roadway seems more suburban, Kiss-n-Ride in nature which doesn’t comport with this lesser car-owning neighborhood…

 

^^DM4, like your proposal; love your graphics.  But I’m a bit confused as to the location and motivation for the bucket/1-track, 2-platform track in the middle of the street.  The other thing: I’m not so sure that a street-running car line would be worth the kind of expense involved here.  Cedar up Cedar Glen through to Beachwood Place, is one of the longest, densest (traffic, retail and residential-wise) street in Greater Cleveland.  It’s an up-the-gut thoroughfare that literally splits the Heights into North and South… It is also, for the most part, quite narrow for a major street, except in key areas, like Cedar-Fairmount (a classic old CH mixed-use, ped-friendly neighborhood echoing peers Coventry and Cedar-Lee).  For these reasons, I’m not sure this line would be enough to wrest significant Univ-Circle and/or Downtown commuters from their cars UNLESS you tied in the tracks to the Red Line at Cedar-Glen for an quick, traffic-free sprint to Tower City, (and perhaps Ohio City and the Airport).  The very thing that makes Cedar attractive as an urban street – lots of high-density, quality retail/residential districts with heavy traffic calming elements (namely lots of traffic lights at the clusters) could frustrate streetcar riders looking for a superior means (namely fast) of commuting…

 

… but it’s not a bad idea.  It’s just that, even after 100 years of service, the Vans Shaker Rapid lines still endure and keep Shaker Heights attractive/competitive because the Rapid lives still lives up to its name as being competitive with (and actually faster than daytime) driving into downtown.