^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…

 

One of the biggest problems with the Red Line stations between Downtown and University Circle is that they are in Norfolk Southern's trench (it's really Nickel Plate RR's since they dug it in 1915!). So waiting for a Red Line train in the trench doesn't do much for one's sense of security. But I noticed an interesting thing when checking the land elevations in that area. Woodland and Buckeye are elevated 10 feet above the surrounding land while the tracks in the railroad trench are only 10 feet below the surrounding land here. So if there was a narrow access drive descending from Buckeye and from Woodland to run alongside the GCRTA tracks past the station, it would provide that visibility. GCRTA buses could be routed on this access drive to provide easy connections. Also by having the access drive descend to near track level next to the station, the cost of providing and maintaining pedestrian access to the station is lessened. I assumed a "Brookpark-like" pedestrian walk-across of the eastbound track to the station platform at both ends -- no elevators and only one stairwell. Lastly, the access drive would also reduce the cost for developers to build here as they wouldn't need to construct their own access road. My hope is that GCRTA or ODOT would acquire all the developable land is this area and then deed it to the local CDC for it to market to potential end users with an RFP that stipulates the sale be contingent on a transit-supportive development site plan.

 

So, in short, the reason for the access drive is to:

+ Provide track-level visibility of passengers waiting for their trains;

+ Reduce costs to provide and maintain access to the station platform;

+ Provide supportive infrastructure for station-area development.

 

I am wide open to alternative suggestions on how a low-cost, secure, development-minded station could be designed here that also allows for the future inclusion of connecting buses.

to KJP, Thanks! I did not know those routes were proposed BRT routes. Id hope that RTA leadership realizes the potential in this corridor is greater and should at least look at a rail option. Maybe if the cities involved pushed for rail it could influence RTA. I feel like this rail line would help improve property values along Cedar and help these cities push for more commercial development as well. If I were them Id be interested.

 

 

^^1)DM4, like your proposal; love your graphics.  2)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.  3)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).  4)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.

 

1) Thanks!

2) Honestly, I was just having fun with that. Making the track was a bit challenging. Also that layout allows for bike lanes, which are probably not worth it on Cedar. Here is a better layout IMO where the tracks run along the curbs. This allows for a center turning lane which is more crucial for Cedar than bike lanes in my opinion.

 

 

Edit: Just decided to swap the older streetcar out for a modern streetcar. Added a new, more detailed track and paved the rest of the street with asphalt. Added yellow safety line on station platform.

 

 

3) Its about 7 miles I believe. All of those reasons you listed are the reason I believe there should be rail! :lol:

4) Although it does serve a major employment center in University Circle, and connects to the Red Line to Downtown, I think that traffic is not necessarily the largest traffic generator for this route. Unlike most routes where getting to work is the primary purpose, this route offers so much more. Connecting to many destinations rather than 1 or 2 provides ridership for this rail at all times of the day, for many different purposes. Right now someone living in Cedar Fairmount will most likely drive if they want to go to Whole Foods or Target, or if they want to go shopping at the Beachwood Mall. With a line like this, I believe you would be able to get a lot of people to take rail instead, lowering car traffic on Cedar. Serving Case students is also huge IMO, especially since they have such a large international population, because I think they would love being able to take a train to all the destinations along the route. A lot of retail options. I feel like this route would do great with TOD as well.

 

To your last point, I think the route would have decent times since between the major destinations there are few lights. Perhaps a priority lighting could be given for smaller intersections. For larger intersections the streetcar could trigger the light to turn Red when a few block away. That way when the streetcar arrives at the intersection's station, it can let passengers get on and off and trigger the green light. Im not a traffic engineer though so a more official study would have to be done but I think it could be possible.

@DM4 I love the proposal! I think for it to be successful it would have to be combined with KJP's option 5 from above. In order to gain some connection to the blue/green lines before you get downtown. Thanks!

 

4) Although it does serve a major employment center in University Circle, and connects to the Red Line to Downtown, I think that traffic is not necessarily the largest traffic generator for this route. Unlike most routes where getting to work is the primary purpose, this route offers so much more. Connecting to many destinations rather than 1 or 2 provides ridership for this rail at all times of the day, for many different purposes. Right now someone living in Cedar Fairmount will most likely drive if they want to go to Whole Foods or Target, or if they want to go shopping at the Beachwood Mall. With a line like this, I believe you would be able to get a lot of people to take rail instead, lowering car traffic on Cedar. Serving Case students is also huge IMO, especially since they have such a large international population, because I think they would love being able to take a train to all the destinations along the route. A lot of retail options. I feel like this route would do great with TOD as well.

 

A couple things here touch on stuff we've talked about before, so as the Resident Skeptic I'll chime in.

 

-I don't think most area residents who have options are all that interested in going to the store(s), particularly the grocery store, on RTA.  If you want to encourage ridership, start by encourage them to use it for commuting, which is far and away the most prevalent reason people take it now.  If this catches on in certain areas, the rest may follow.

 

-I doubt Beachwood Place is interested in better transit connectivity, because it's targetted patrons are very uninterested in it happening.  Some of their reasons are unfair stereotypes, or exaggerated.  That doesn't make the opposition any less real or even any weaker.

I agree that most people use transit for commuting. So how many people work at Beachwood Place? And do those retail incomes allow them to afford owning and maintaining cars? Also, how many people live in the condos and high-rise apartment buildings surrounding Beachwood Place? What are their incomes and ages? How might the presence of a rapid transit line to University Circle and downtown change the marketability of this area?

For an urban area, subways are the best method of transit by far but that comes at a price. What is the cost for modern elevated rail like these? Streetcars experience many of the same speed/traffic problems as busses. Cheap heavy/light rail follows freight ROWs which is disconnected from residential and commercial districts in the city. Is modern elevated rail the best option or is it just as costly as subways?

 

 

 

Or a people mover like in Detroit

 

For an urban area, subways are the best method of transit by far but that comes at a price. What is the cost for modern elevated rail like these? Streetcars experience many of the same speed/traffic problems as busses. Cheap heavy/light rail follows freight ROWs which is disconnected from residential and commercial districts in the city. Is modern elevated rail the best option or is it just as costly as subways?

 

Are you referring to Cleveland or trains in general? 

Quality transit is what is needed here to compel riders.  E Roc is correct in that most people use transit in Cleveland – and indeed most cities – to commute.  Quality though comes at a cost, and too often here in Cleveland we’re just too gun shy to pull the trigger on what WE KNOW is the best transit option, so we settle for cheap(er) and pretend it’s just as good.  Exhibit A: the Health Line vs. the Dual Hub (mostly) subway that should have been built.  The Heights area, the one DM4 focused on in his (or her) thoughtful pictorial-narrative, is a great area to study (which has been upteen times in the past) due to its size, density of population and super strong nodes that would be ideal for high-density mass transit, to wit: Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount, Severance Center, University/Cedar Center and Beachwood Place… to name a few…

 

I also tend to agree with E Roc on a level (geez, this is scary) that you aren’t going to get people out of their cars for a slow-moving street trolley, no matter how cute and sexy it is (sorry Biker16).  The distances are simply not long enough nor arduous enough for people to opt for streetcars alone…You need SPEED … as in RAPID transit.  … and that means significant grade separation … and that means EXPENSE. … there’s simply no way around it…. The 1960s Coventry/Heights line via Severance to Warrensvile Ctr Road – and probably all the way out to Golden Gate shopping center and I-271 should have been built… it would have had a transformative effect on the entire Heights area…. But alas, as usual and like Dual Hub, it was deemed too expensive…. And so we have cars, traffic … and sprwal. 

 

We can put our collective heads in the sand (as we always seem to do on issues of Rapid transit) and act like it either can’t happen.  We can lie to ourselves and say it isn’t happening elsewhere and other cities aren’t building subways (… just ignore new subways and subway segments in cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, LA, San Francisco – with miles of super-expensive BART tunneling down the peninsula to SF Int. Airport and beyond…. We have the opportunity to do something right in University Circle, which is probably our fastest growing population, largest employment center (beyond downtown) and densely trafficked neighborhood… It has very good traffic to it with the Red Line and (to a lesser degree the HL), but expansion of rail transit could happen.  RTA is studying expansion of the Red Line or some form of rail to the North East which could tap into growing Lake County – with tons of people working or visiting University Circle, or downtown  or Ohio City … or the airport… so once again we’re at the Do the Right Thing vs. do the Cheap Thing crossroads when it comes to transit…

 

… DM4s Cedar Rd-Heights-Beachwood Place proposal looks nice and is compelling… ultimately, I just don’t think it’s enough, in Cleveland, to get significant numbers of people out of their cars to make it worthwhile.  It needs to be faster … transit.

 

Quality transit is what is needed here to compel riders.  Quality though comes at a cost, and too often here in Cleveland we’re just too gun shy to pull the trigger on what WE KNOW is the best transit option, so we settle for cheap(er) and pretend it’s just as good. 

 

You aren’t going to get people out of their cars for a slow-moving street trolley. You need SPEED … as in RAPID transit.  … and that means significant grade separation … and that means EXPENSE.

 

… DM4s Cedar Rd-Heights-Beachwood Place proposal looks nice and is compelling… ultimately, I just don’t think it’s enough, in Cleveland, to get significant numbers of people out of their cars to make it worthwhile.  It needs to be faster … transit.

 

I actually agree 100% After making that for fun, I started thinking the same thing you just said. True rapid transit is needed, and I do not think streetcars will cut it. That was the purpose of my post above. Perhaps a Skytrain/Peoplemover system could provide us this system at a lower cost than a full blown subway.

^Yep, I get you.  I should have referred to your 2nd post because I saw where you were going.  I wasn't really directing my comments to you, per se, but just following the general conversation idea... Btw, DM4 I don't know if you've ever been to L.A.  Their LRT routes generally are well designed for a moderate density, sprawling city like L.A., mixing more reasonable cost rail with the speed necessary to make it effective.  There are mixes of street rail, elevated, RR and freeway ROW and subways -- with all routes grade-separated in the center of town.  That model is also applied in Seattle which seems like it could be a winner for Cleveland... of course, we already have the Blue-Green lines which predated that model ... we just need to expand it. 

^ I have not. I looked at Google maps and see what you said. Which option do you think would be best for Cedar? I haven't been on the green line past shaker square in awhile, and I can't remember, but what is the travel like further east? Does it stop at red lights? Doesn't the speed of the trip drop down significantly east of shaker square since it essentially turns into a streetcar?

Quality transit is what is needed here to compel riders.  E Roc is correct in that most people use transit in Cleveland – and indeed most cities – to commute.  Quality though comes at a cost, and too often here in Cleveland we’re just too gun shy to pull the trigger on what WE KNOW is the best transit option, so we settle for cheap(er) and pretend it’s just as good.  Exhibit A: the Health Line vs. the Dual Hub (mostly) subway that should have been built.  The Heights area, the one DM4 focused on in his (or her) thoughtful pictorial-narrative, is a great area to study (which has been upteen times in the past) due to its size, density of population and super strong nodes that would be ideal for high-density mass transit, to wit: Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount, Severance Center, University/Cedar Center and Beachwood Place… to name a few…

 

I also tend to agree with E Roc on a level (geez, this is scary) that you aren’t going to get people out of their cars for a slow-moving street trolley, no matter how cute and sexy it is (sorry Biker16).  The distances are simply not long enough nor arduous enough for people to opt for streetcars alone…You need SPEED … as in RAPID transit.  … and that means significant grade separation … and that means EXPENSE. … there’s simply no way around it…. The 1960s Coventry/Heights line via Severance to Warrensvile Ctr Road – and probably all the way out to Golden Gate shopping center and I-271 should have been built… it would have had a transformative effect on the entire Heights area…. But alas, as usual and like Dual Hub, it was deemed too expensive…. And so we have cars, traffic … and sprwal. 

 

We can put our collective heads in the sand (as we always seem to do on issues of Rapid transit) and act like it either can’t happen.  We can lie to ourselves and say it isn’t happening elsewhere and other cities aren’t building subways (… just ignore new subways and subway segments in cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, LA, San Francisco – with miles of super-expensive BART tunneling down the peninsula to SF Int. Airport and beyond…. We have the opportunity to do something right in University Circle, which is probably our fastest growing population, largest employment center (beyond downtown) and densely trafficked neighborhood… It has very good traffic to it with the Red Line and (to a lesser degree the HL), but expansion of rail transit could happen.  RTA is studying expansion of the Red Line or some form of rail to the North East which could tap into growing Lake County – with tons of people working or visiting University Circle, or downtown  or Ohio City … or the airport… so once again we’re at the Do the Right Thing vs. do the Cheap Thing crossroads when it comes to transit…

 

… DM4s Cedar Rd-Heights-Beachwood Place proposal looks nice and is compelling… ultimately, I just don’t think it’s enough, in Cleveland, to get significant numbers of people out of their cars to make it worthwhile.  It needs to be faster … transit.

 

 

Exactly. 

 

People sometimes forget the significant time tradeoff involved with using transit.  When I was working in Brooklyn, I took it a couple times dropping my car off at my mechanic's in Bedford.  It was a one transfer trip bouncing off downtown that took about two hours.  This was a 20 - 25 minute drive. 

 

It seems to me like except for the flyer routes, there's political opposition to the idea of buses passing through neighborhoods but not stopping in them.  Likewise trains.  This is probably a legacy of the old suburban systems doing precisely that.

 

It should be noted that stops cost speed. 

Different modes of transportation work best in different settings. Streetcars can be faster and more efficient than buses in dense, urban neighborhoods, such as Ohio City, Tremont, Downtown, University Circle, Coventry, etc.

 

And there are hybrids. For example, the Shaker Rapid transit was a streetcar that was built in an exclusive rights of way. Today, the light-rail cars operating on the Blue/Green lines are physically able to operate as streetcars in the streets, including having the ability to turn at intersections to serve a dense cluster of stops in dense neighborhoods with multiple traffic origins/destinations as do the Pittsburgh light-rail lines on Broadway between Beechview and Dormont, or on Warrington-Arlington over Mount Washington. Streetcars typically exist on short 2- to 5-mile hyper-local rail transit lines and operate best as pedestrian accelerators, but others operate only as short sections of streetcar on otherwise rapid transit routes where they can create pedestrian intensities and develop or sustain densities in major commercial, residential or mixed nodes.

 

Neither option is necessarily "bad." But their appropriateness in different applications, settings and intended goals do vary. With what? Well.....

 

What are the community's needs, values, goals today and in the coming decades? Absent a detailed public involvement process, what is the data/research you base your ideas and beliefs on? And how do these proposed ideas align with available and potential financial resources for capital and operating funds over the next 30 years (the timeline the feds use to determine the value and costs of a public investment)? Are the sources of funding likely to increase or decrease in the coming decades? BTW, the feds also won't allow you to sacrifice local bus services to sustain new rail services unless you can demonstrate you are upgrading transit services overall.

 

In short, if you can't sustain it over the long term, you can't build it!

In short, if you can't sustain it over the long term, you can't build it!

 

If only that were true for all of our infrastructure investments! 

^ I have not. I looked at Google maps and see what you said. Which option do you think would be best for Cedar? I haven't been on the green line past shaker square in awhile, and I can't remember, but what is the travel like further east? Does it stop at red lights? Doesn't the speed of the trip drop down significantly east of shaker square since it essentially turns into a streetcar?

 

It's tricky DM4 because, as you noted, the really effective options imho would require significant grade separation, which will cost considerable money in a heavy built-up area like Cleveland Heights with few ROW options.  The Euclid Heights/Coventry leg provided an opportunity per the old streetcar/interurban route alongside Cedar up the Hill and, then, in EH’s median.  But then once you reach the Coventry intersection you’d almost have to drop down into a tunnel because of the car/foot density and tight configuration of the Coventry Rd. intersection.  This is (very) roughly similar to Pasadena where LA Metro’s Gold Line drops into a tunnel under the dense Old Town Pasadena restaurant, retail residential area – remember Coventry also is a very heavy apartment district by Greater Cleveland standards.  From there, the line could either follow a tunnel/open cut combo route to Coventry and out the Mayfield corridor, or loop back to the Cedar/Beachwood corridor via Washington Blvd.  To follow the LA model, we could run a combo of open-cut, aerial, (briefly) in street and behind-the-property-line surface gate-protected ROW.  Unfortunately the Heights, with the exception of the current Blue-Green routes, has no RR or other ROW which trains could “borrow”. 

 

Different modes of transportation work best in different settings. Streetcars can be faster and more efficient than buses in dense, urban neighborhoods, such as Ohio City, Tremont, Downtown, University Circle, Coventry, etc.

 

And there are hybrids. For example, the Shaker Rapid transit was a streetcar that was built in an exclusive rights of way. Today, the light-rail cars operating on the Blue/Green lines are physically able to operate as streetcars in the streets, including having the ability to turn at intersections to serve a dense cluster of stops in dense neighborhoods with multiple traffic origins/destinations as do the Pittsburgh light-rail lines on Broadway between Beechview and Dormont, or on Warrington-Arlington over Mount Washington. Streetcars typically exist on short 2- to 5-mile hyper-local rail transit lines and operate best as pedestrian accelerators, but others operate only as short sections of streetcar on otherwise rapid transit routes where they can create pedestrian intensities and develop or sustain densities in major commercial, residential or mixed nodes.

 

Neither option is necessarily "bad." But their appropriateness in different applications, settings and intended goals do vary. With what? Well.....

 

What are the community's needs, values, goals today and in the coming decades? Absent a detailed public involvement process, what is the data/research you base your ideas and beliefs on? And how do these proposed ideas align with available and potential financial resources for capital and operating funds over the next 30 years (the timeline the feds use to determine the value and costs of a public investment)? Are the sources of funding likely to increase or decrease in the coming decades? BTW, the feds also won't allow you to sacrifice local bus services to sustain new rail services unless you can demonstrate you are upgrading transit services overall.

 

In short, if you can't sustain it over the long term, you can't build it!

 

It gets back to the idea of a mission statement backed by measurable objectives and timetables.  These have to be politically driven, indeed their very existence demanded by same (eventually by the voters).  While it’s certainly true that “it always sounds easy to those who don’t have to actually make it happen”, the converse, that internally generated objectives will tend to be vague, amorphous, and conservative (in the non-political sense) is also true.  Separated from the realities of a changing market, transit executives and planners, just like any other managers in similar circumstances, can become much like generals fighting the last war.

 

 

^ I have not. I looked at Google maps and see what you said. Which option do you think would be best for Cedar? I haven't been on the green line past shaker square in awhile, and I can't remember, but what is the travel like further east? Does it stop at red lights? Doesn't the speed of the trip drop down significantly east of shaker square since it essentially turns into a streetcar?

 

It's tricky DM4 because, as you noted, the really effective options imho would require significant grade separation, which will cost considerable money in a heavy built-up area like Cleveland Heights with few ROW options.  The Euclid Heights/Coventry leg provided an opportunity per the old streetcar/interurban route alongside Cedar up the Hill and, then, in EH’s median.  But then once you reach the Coventry intersection you’d almost have to drop down into a tunnel because of the car/foot density and tight configuration of the Coventry Rd. intersection.  This is (very) roughly similar to Pasadena where LA Metro’s Gold Line drops into a tunnel under the dense Old Town Pasadena restaurant, retail residential area – remember Coventry also is a very heavy apartment district by Greater Cleveland standards.  From there, the line could either follow a tunnel/open cut combo route to Coventry and out the Mayfield corridor, or loop back to the Cedar/Beachwood corridor via Washington Blvd.  To follow the LA model, we could run a combo of open-cut, aerial, (briefly) in street and behind-the-property-line surface gate-protected ROW.  Unfortunately the Heights, with the exception of the current Blue-Green routes, has no RR or other ROW which trains could “borrow”.

 

Since the Heights are already built up, I think a system like Toronto's LINK would work well.

 

The supports are small enough that they would be able to fit in the middle lane. Two lanes of traffic in each direction would be able to be maintained since the rail is elevated.

 

 

 

^That could indeed work in the Heights.  If the line were compatible with, and thus could share tracks with, the Red Line into downtown, all the better.

^That could indeed work in the Heights.  If the line were compatible with, and thus could share tracks with, the Red Line into downtown, all the better.

 

Or really be ambitious and run it down Euclid Avenue.

In short, if you can't sustain it over the long term, you can't build it!

 

If only that were true for all of our infrastructure investments! 

 

I was thinking about making a side comment along those lines, but I didn't want to take this conversation in that direction.

 

The point for this discussion is, while ODOT has no qualms about spending money for new lane-miles it can't afford to maintain, GCRTA is hostile to adding new service hours it can't afford to maintain. ODOT figures it will build it and someone will come forward someday to pay for it and more new things, such as taking the Highway Patrol's budget off the gas tax and onto general taxpayers, raiding the Commercial Activity Tax on gas stations, mortgaging the Ohio Turnpike, and now putting a $1.9 billion bond issue before voters.

 

GCRTA actually tries to live within its means, but that also doesn't force the county's politicians and electorate ways to pay for major-new expansion projects.

^ I have not. I looked at Google maps and see what you said. Which option do you think would be best for Cedar? I haven't been on the green line past shaker square in awhile, and I can't remember, but what is the travel like further east? Does it stop at red lights? Doesn't the speed of the trip drop down significantly east of shaker square since it essentially turns into a streetcar?

 

Btw DM4, if you Google maps satellite or street view LA Metro's Gold Line at the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park station, you'll notice they've built a multi-building complex of (seemingly) upscale apartments/condos directly across the street from an auto shop and a junk yard; graphic evidence that while some folks gripe that RTA’s Red Line’s RR ROW location near some industrial sites is a reason TOD can’t be developed, other cities refuse to make excuses and move forward to make TOD happen.

 

Redirected from the HealthLine thread....

 

Have they studied rail through Lakewood, you know, the most dense neighborhood in their service area? Seems like it would be the first place I'd study.

 

There was the NEOrail study in the late 1990s which was spearheaded by GCRTA under then-GM Ron Tober, but administered by NOACA since the routes studied extended beyond the state-imposed county-based system that RTA was and is.

 

Later, in 2010, RTA made a small financial contribution to an alternatives analysis of West Shore Corridor transportation improvements led by Lorain County. However the county-led initiative ran out of money before a full, FTA-compliant alternative analysis could be completed.

^Some time ago, you had a workable LRT proposal extending from West Blvd along the NS, but bending south before the Lorain County border to Crocker Park.  The core of such transit would connect the Edgewater, the Gold Coast and downtown Lakewood... downtown Rocky River would be a bonus.

^Some time ago, you had a workable LRT proposal extending from West Blvd along the NS, but bending south before the Lorain County border to Crocker Park.  The core of such transit would connect the Edgewater, the Gold Coast and downtown Lakewood... downtown Rocky River would be a bonus.

 

Actually, that was biker16 who proposed the dogleg to Crocker Park.

^Ah, then biker's da man on this issue.

A line through that corridor in Lakewood seems to offer the most plausible high ridership rail opportunity by far, IMHO. Would take a lot of political will for street closings to lower development costs, and the existing freight service is probably a big barrier.

A line through that corridor in Lakewood seems to offer the most plausible high ridership rail opportunity by far, IMHO. Would take a lot of political will for street closings to lower development costs, and the existing freight service is probably a big barrier.

 

Not for much longer. There are only one or two trains per day left on this line -- I live 10 houses from the track and five floors up so I can see the trains from where I type this. Few of the trains from the Avon Lake Ford plant go west through Lakewood anymore. Most seem to be dropping south to the mainline through Berea except when rail traffic congestion forces NS run the trains directly west. The only other trains on this line are the coal trains to/from CEI Avon Lake. That plant is due to be augmented with nat-gas (http://www.cleveland.com/avon-lake/index.ssf/2013/06/nrg_energys_avon_lake_plant_co.html), but is not a full conversion. But this will likely reduce the coal shipments, perhaps enough that NS does not need to keep the rail line through Lakewood.

 

And closure of the crossings through Lakewood is not necessary. In fact, Springfield, Ohio kept a similar number of crossings per mile in its Quiet Zone improvements which can be funded by ODOT's railroad crossing program.

^That's right, you've posted about the decline in freight traffic.  I know each project needs to be assessed on its own merits, but every time we discuss rail extensions with speculative future TOD, all I can think about is how much better it would be devote resources to adding frequent rail service to this corridor to pick up the existing high density residential base, with limited new park and ride.  Could be DMU, but one-stop service to Tower City would be awesome (I can't recall if bringing diesel vehicles into TC is feasible).

I think some kind of fully electrified service interfacing with the Red Line with compatible, smokeless equipment into TC is the most feasible at least to downtown Lakewood.  Density here and in Edgewater and the Gold Coast merit this level of service.  Beyond here, DMU may be feasible as, moving westward, the density thins although a growing population base extends out I-90 west into Lorain county; esp the shore communities.

Some of the new clean-fuel technologies allow a DMU to operate almost as cleanly as electric. One could definitely run over the Red Line tracks into Tower City and the existing NS tracks with some signal modifications and added passing sidings to offer good frequencies.

^That would be cool if they could provide DMU's could provide the same frequencies.  But I'm talking about a short branch (with DMU's possibly operating beyond downtown Lakewood -- perhaps with an inter-modal transit station/terminal there)... I just can't see why we couldn't get an FTA OK to propose a 3, 3.5 extension of electrified Red Line track to service the 2nd densest city between Philadelphia and Chicago (nearly 10,000/sq. mi -- even higher at the Gold Coast and downtown Lakewood).  This route could be done relatively cheaply -- entirely at surface -- although I think RTA should push for a W. 117 overpass, which would better facilitate traffic and potential TOD.  And if NS has such light traffic which is even declining from the current levels, the Red Line cars could share track by day -- with NS servicing customers by night, which is how several newer LRT services operate.

The FTA would have to consider it an upgrade over existing local bus service, not trading one transit type of vehicle and the same number of departures for the other. GCRTA cannot cut local bus service to pay the operating costs of rail or FTA will nix it. What public purpose and need are we serving by extending the rail line? As much as I would like to do this, we cannot expand rail service just because we and others may prefer rail over bus. Will it relieve traffic congestion on parallel roads? Doubtful, since there isn't much traffic congestion at least compared to other cities that are competing for the same federal transit dollars. Are their overcrowded conditions on existing bus lines? Sometimes, especially, the 55 during rush hours. But I would think FTA will wait to see how Enhance Clifton will address those problems before investing in another parallel transit corridor. Do we think it will enhance job growth? Probably, but it would have to be a decent increase in jobs to make the capital investment in rail worthwhile.

 

How much could it cost? My guess is probably about $100 million to extend an electrified, double-track Red Line 2.8 miles west from the West 92nd flyover to Downtown Lakewood. Perhaps $170 million to extend it 4.8 miles to downtown Rocky River. Maybe $260 million to extend it 8 miles to the Westlake Park-n-ride. And possibly $530 million to extend it 12 miles to Crocker Park. I used $30 million per mile for the sections for new second track, electrification, ATS signaling, stations, crossings, etc. along the existing right of way. I estimated $150 million for the 1.25 miles of new right of way from the NS tracks to Crocker Park. I assumed a $20 million purchase of the NS right of way east of Avon Lake to Cloggsville. I had a $10 million placeholder for the Rocky River bridge. And I had a $10 million placeholder for the West 92nd flyover -- and that's with a ready-made flying junction already in place....

 

Looking west at West 92nd flyover:

 

Looking south and close up at the flyover:

 

A DMU would be MUCH, MUCH less expensive -- maybe $50 million to run it to the Westlake Park-n-Ride with an annual operating cost of $5 million to $15 million per year. But again it would have to address some clear public benefit goals or address some deficiencies with the existing transportation system that cannot be address more cheaply for the FTA to fund it.

^Interesting points and nice presentation ... The flyover is nice grade separation gift... No question that any regional-type extension past downtown Lakewood or, perhaps Rocky River would absolutely necessitate DMU -- or even traditional diesel push-pull full-size commuter equipment (which would be more desirable for a really long corridor to say Vermillion or Sandusky/Cedar Point ... We definitely need regional rail. I'm content, at the moment to connect rail to close in dense areas that are reachable/connectable to our existing system…  Maybe I'm sporting rose-colored glasses, but I see potentially explosive TOD growth – between W.100 and W.110, at W. 117 and even in downtown Lakewood which, obviously, is already a dense, walkable business district.

 

Don’t know much about the parallel buses in the corridor other than that they appear heavily used on both Clifton and Detroit. Obviously with this Enhance Clifton project – which I see as another half-ass, BRT-lite farce – RTA has once again made a tires-over-rail solution to yet another dense, busy corridor … with Euclid, Dual-Hub on the East Side being the other.   

 

The FTA would have to consider it an upgrade over existing local bus service, not trading one transit type of vehicle and the same number of departures for the other. GCRTA cannot cut local bus service to pay the operating costs of rail or FTA will nix it. What public purpose and need are we serving by extending the rail line? As much as I would like to do this, we cannot expand rail service just because we and others may prefer rail over bus. Will it relieve traffic congestion on parallel roads? Doubtful, since there isn't much traffic congestion at least compared to other cities that are competing for the same federal transit dollars. Are their overcrowded conditions on existing bus lines? Sometimes, especially, the 55 during rush hours. But I would think FTA will wait to see how Enhance Clifton will address those problems before investing in another parallel transit corridor. Do we think it will enhance job growth? Probably, but it would have to be a decent increase in jobs to make the capital investment in rail worthwhile.

 

How much could it cost? My guess is probably about $100 million to extend an electrified, double-track Red Line 2.8 miles west from the West 92nd flyover to Downtown Lakewood. Perhaps $170 million to extend it 4.8 miles to downtown Rocky River. Maybe $260 million to extend it 8 miles to the Westlake Park-n-ride. And possibly $530 million to extend it 12 miles to Crocker Park. I used $30 million per mile for the sections for new second track, electrification, ATS signaling, stations, crossings, etc. along the existing right of way. I estimated $150 million for the 1.25 miles of new right of way from the NS tracks to Crocker Park. I assumed a $20 million purchase of the NS right of way east of Avon Lake to Cloggsville. I had a $10 million placeholder for the Rocky River bridge. And I had a $10 million placeholder for the West 92nd flyover -- and that's with a ready-made flying junction already in place....

 

Looking west at West 92nd flyover:

 

Looking south and close up at the flyover:

 

A DMU would be MUCH, MUCH less expensive -- maybe $50 million to run it to the Westlake Park-n-Ride with an annual operating cost of $5 million to $15 million per year. But again it would have to address some clear public benefit goals or address some deficiencies with the existing transportation system that cannot be address more cheaply for the FTA to fund it.

 

It needs to be 100% electrified light rail.

 

The need for high frequency all day service mandates low cost to operate electrified light rail.

 

We need to be more aware of the issue of trading low cost capital costs, for high cost operating costs.

 

The difference between the red line extension to lake county and an extension to Westlake and my proposed terminus at Croker park is a ROW that is better located to attract riders, and that would flourish with high frequency high quality transit.

 

Don't sell ourselves short the west shore is a good market for high Quality transit

traditional diesel push-pull full-size commuter equipment

 

There is no segment in the state of Ohio where Modern EMU/DMUs will not be more cost effective to operate.

 

 

 

^Biker, I generally agree with your post... A Lakewood extension would best operate as 100% electrified given the density of the route, be availability of the ROW and the W. 92 street flyover/grade separation.  Where I have question (and ask for your justification) is this statement:

 

There is no segment in the state of Ohio where Modern EMU/DMUs will not be more cost effective to operate.

That large vacant spot in the middle, if I am not mistaken we have discussed it around here as the "Trinity Site".  Does it fit into your plan in any special way?

What does this flyover actually fly over?  I don't see a bridge section.

That large vacant spot in the middle, if I am not mistaken we have discussed it around here as the "Trinity Site".  Does it fit into your plan in any special way?

 

From what I understand, the Trinity site was cleaned up only to a point where it allows a commercial development there (which I believe could include retail) but not mixed use with a residential component. The site may look large, but if you're maneuvering trucks around the property, it really isn't all that big. The site might make for a nice streetcar barn and light maintenance facility.

 

 

What does this flyover actually fly over?  I don't see a bridge section.

 

It used to flyover an industrial access track from the parallel railroad line. The underpass has been sealed by a white covering, visible in the second photo I posted earlier. Fortunately, the former access track was angled in way that could benefit a grade-separated junction of the Red Line and whatever goes toward Lakewood (Yellow Line?).....

 

^Biker, I generally agree with your post... A Lakewood extension would best operate as 100% electrified given the density of the route, be availability of the ROW and the W. 92 street flyover/grade separation.  Where I have question (and ask for your justification) is this statement:

 

There is no segment in the state of Ohio where Modern EMU/DMUs will not be more cost effective to operate.

 

Technology has made locomotive hauled passenger rail obsolete for all but a few long distance >500mile and low frequency routes.

 

The reason that locomotive hauled train have remained in use for so long in the US is FRA regulations and to large extent cultural bias against them.  IF PB had have speced DMUS for NEOrail in the late 90s you would have seen a reduction in operating costs. look at LIRR, and metro north, they have been using EMU/DMUS for a while now. Caltrain updates their fleet to increase speeds and frequency they are ditching push/pulls for EMUs. gotransit is doing the same as they try to upgrade their commuter rail system to a higher frequency "rapid" system.

 

There isn't any city pair in Ohio in the Ohio hub system that would require even medium length trains. Most would benefit more from greater frequency of service than longer trains.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_unit

 

 

FYI

 

FTA allows exsuiting systems to apply for new Starts grants.

 

http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/chicago-first-city-apply-fta-capacity-boosting-transit-grants

 

Chicago Becomes First City to Apply for FTA’s Capacity-Boosting Transit Grants

Chicago | 11/20/2013 9:20am | 0

STEPHEN J. SMITH | NEXT CITY

 

Credit: Ben Schumin on Wikipedia

If cities want to build flashy new transit projects, like streetcars or subways, they can apply for a piece of the Federal Transit Administration’s $1.9 billion New Starts grant funding. But if they want to upgrade existing lines, they have to pay out of their own pockets — at least, until now.

 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 for short, was signed into law in July 2012 and created a new category under the New Starts program, which funds both rail and bus rapid transit lines, called “core capacity.” This refers to projects that significantly boost capacity on existing transit lines without substantial new infrastructure.

 

Specifically, eligible projects must boost capacity by at least 10 percent for lines that are either already at capacity or will be within five years. The money cannot go toward “state of good repair elements” that seek simply to maintain existing infrastructure.

 

The core capacity grants had been delayed a few years since the bill’s passage while the FTA worked out rules for the program. But according to Sen. Dick Durban (D-Ill.), the FTA has granted approval to the Chicago Transit Authority to apply for core capacity funding for its $2-4 billion project to rehabilitate the Red and Purple Line viaduct north of the Loop, from the Belmont station up through Evanston.

 

The Question is how can GCRTA use this to Convert upgrade the Redline and the entire system to Light Rail?

 

 

one nugget that may be relevent to us is Reliabilty.

“That doesn’t guarantee funding under the ‘new starts’ grant program,” the Chicago Tribune reports, “but the transit administration allowed the CTA to apply because the Red-Purple Modernization project will add much-needed capacity and deliver more reliable service to the most heavily traveled CTA rail line.” The project is the first that the FTA has approved under the core capacity criteria.

 

As this network ages it has become less reliable, making a case for the need to improve not only to replace and upgrade the  Overhead line, replace the fleet and allow for future more cost effective rail expansion.  with political pressure it ought not be too difficult to secure funding if the proper improvements are requested.

^I don't see converting the Red Line to low-floor LRT as an upgrade.  IMHO it is, in fact, a downgrade ... It's not comparable to the CTA situation, which is rehabbing 114 year-old elevated train viaducts.  I wish we could put our transit minds to more meaningful RTA rail expansion rather than spinning our wheels and moving sideways... I wish we were as focused as ODOT and the highway lobby, which is full steam ahead with boondoggles like the Opportunity Corridor.

^I don't see converting the Red Line to low-floor LRT as an upgrade.  IMHO it is, in fact, a downgrade ... It's not comparable to the CTA situation, which is rehabbing 114 year-old elevated train viaducts.  I wish we could put our transit minds to more meaningful RTA rail expansion rather than spinning our wheels and moving sideways... I wish we were as focused as ODOT and the highway lobby, which is full steam ahead with boondoggles like the Opportunity Corridor.

 

Then what is your Way forward?

 

Develop a single bi-level LRT vehicle?

Continued use of Mixed heavy and light rail fleet?

Use Low frequency Diesel locomotives to expand the system?

would you use the money to convert 31 Low platform stations to high platform, instead of converting 15 high platform stations to to low platform?

 

If the federal government gives Cleveland $500 million to upgrade the entire system to modern light rail, would you oppose it because its light rail?

 

would you oppose a federal grant that allows GCRTA to operate the rail system at lower cost and provides opportunities for High Frequency Rail expansion, simply because it's light Rail?

 

I don't get it, When will you realize that the system that was envisioned 60 years ago no longer meets the need of the community today, and in order to get more people on the Rail system you have to change the Rail system.

 

^I don't see converting the Red Line to low-floor LRT as an upgrade.  IMHO it is, in fact, a downgrade ... It's not comparable to the CTA situation, which is rehabbing 114 year-old elevated train viaducts.  I wish we could put our transit minds to more meaningful RTA rail expansion rather than spinning our wheels and moving sideways... I wish we were as focused as ODOT and the highway lobby, which is full steam ahead with boondoggles like the Opportunity Corridor.

 

Why are we comparing Cleveland RTA to CTA? This is a small, low-capacity rail system which, despite its short trains still has lots of excess capacity. It is vastly overbuilt for the third-tier city and the transit system which exists today. Having a heavy-rail system doesn't give us big-city cred or compensate for other urban shortcomings. What it does is create a high-cost rail system which is too expensive to extend. Sometimes we look for ways to extend the rail system for the sake of having a bigger rail system so that we have cool stuff to enjoy. The FTA will never fund that vision and I don't see the region's stakeholders ever getting behind that.

 

However, if we approach it from the other direction, then you can get buy-in. We should decide how we want our city to be physically designed and populated in terms of businesses and educated citizenry, establish political jurisdictions to oversee and facilitate them, and then plan the infrastructure and circulation systems to ensure efficient commerce. What type of rail systems (class 1 and short-line freight, intercity, regional passenger, urban transit [heavy, light, steercar], etc) should be part of this picture and where? All of this is actually the intent of the North East Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium. The only reason why the type of rail equipment should even enter this broad conversation is that an interoperable rail car could travel on existing RTA rail and existing under-utilized freight corridors to cost-effectively expand the reach of the rail system to link multi-use employment/residential/retail nodes clustered around rail stops. And within those nodes you choose between bus or streetcar in terms of the density of land use and ridership sought and anticipated.

 

That's all I got.

^I don't see converting the Red Line to low-floor LRT as an upgrade.  IMHO it is, in fact, a downgrade ... It's not comparable to the CTA situation, which is rehabbing 114 year-old elevated train viaducts.  I wish we could put our transit minds to more meaningful RTA rail expansion rather than spinning our wheels and moving sideways... I wish we were as focused as ODOT and the highway lobby, which is full steam ahead with boondoggles like the Opportunity Corridor.

 

Why are we comparing Cleveland RTA to CTA? This is a small, low-capacity rail system which, despite its short trains still has lots of excess capacity. It is vastly overbuilt for the third-tier city and the transit system which exists today. Having a heavy-rail system doesn't give us big-city cred or compensate for other urban shortcomings. What it does is create a high-cost rail system which is too expensive to extend. Sometimes we look for ways to extend the rail system for the sake of having a bigger rail system so that we have cool stuff to enjoy. The FTA will never fund that vision and I don't see the region's stakeholders ever getting behind that.

 

However, if we approach it from the other direction, then you can get buy-in. We should decide how we want our city to be physically designed and populated in terms of businesses and educated citizenry, establish political jurisdictions to oversee and facilitate them, and then plan the infrastructure and circulation systems to ensure efficient commerce. What type of rail systems (class 1 and short-line freight, intercity, regional passenger, urban transit [heavy, light, steercar], etc) should be part of this picture and where? All of this is actually the intent of the North East Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium. The only reason why the type of rail equipment should even enter this broad conversation is that an interoperable rail car could travel on existing RTA rail and existing under-utilized freight corridors to cost-effectively expand the reach of the rail system to link multi-use employment/residential/retail nodes clustered around rail stops. And within those nodes you choose between bus or streetcar in terms of the density of land use and ridership sought and anticipated.

 

That's all I got.

 

I will admit I may be a Zealot on this issue, but the goal is system expansion to GROW transit Usage. I want to get these trains out of their trenches and off of their embankments into those neighborhoods that would benefit from Premium Transit service.

 

I consider the upgrades required to allow this legacy system to survive Equivalent to Full blow new Starts project but a fraction of the cost.  and would have benefits for the entire region. 

^^

My purpose supporting the continuing of the Red Line in its current form has nothing to do “street cred” because, while it’s nice to be recognized nationally for an asset, which the Rapid clearly is, these benefits are intangible for a city struggling to reinvent itself and survive in the face of serious economic challenges.  Secondly, I’ve never had allusions of serious Red Line expansion beyond its current route.  That went out the window with the Dual Hub failure in the late 90s which was preceded by the Al Porter subway failure 4 decades before that and succeed by the failure to make the short Berea expansion from Hopkins in the early 2000s … in short: more than ample evidence that we don’t want rail expansion here (at least our “leaders” don’t), especially expensive heavy rail expansion.

 

I just don’t believe all the dire talk about how horrible the expense of running a heavy rail rapid system is (or looks) – the Red Line’s numbers really are comparatively small nationally, and that we therefore must downsize to make the numbers work. … to which my asset is the same: why throw away an asset?  One rather small but key aspect: we have an airport-to-downtown rail system that affords travelers an even platform and fairly roomy commute with luggage.  The Airport line is a major Cleveland asset, especially if we’re selling ourselves as a business and convention destination… Furthermore, the Red Line has been, and continues to, invest heavily (with FTA matching funds) in rail station modernization, to the point with where, with the exception of just 2 old clunker, non-elevator access stations that we must soon deal with -- E. 34 and E. 79 -- the system is completely ADA compliant: that is, mobility-impaired individuals, esp those in wheel chairs and scooters, can move seamlessly from a train-height platform into a rail car; the ultimate advantage for all people including the non-disabled. 

 

So again, with my disbelief in all that talk that RTA is financial house of cards about to collapse due to its wildly expensive heavy rail system, it is counterintuitive to downsize it into LRT just so someone’s balance sheet looks right and just so we can have the psychological gratification of a totally unified LRT train system (note: chances are, we’ll have the latter anyway once a universal LRT rail car is introduced in the future – I’m not wild about this, but at least it makes more sense than Biker16’s lower-the-platforms initiative).    Also, I don’t believe that there is this huge market of Shaker Heights area airport users that would suddenly start taking the Rapid to Hopkins simply because they would no longer have to transfer at Tower City… the Red Line “conversion” costs simply aren’t worth it.

 

2 things are happening that go against the downsize proposal that people fail to acknowledge: 1. Red Line traffic is growing at a steady, and perhaps soon-to-be exponential rate given the changes in Cleveland (more downtown residents, downtown’s revival of downtown and core areas near transit stations, including more TOD and an improving overall economy), 2. RTA has, like other systems, learned to shift costs to make the Red Line more viable.  I say “shift” costs because, on the one hand, the 2010 change to POP fare collection was a major cost-cutting initiative, while the costs to employ/deploy transit cops to stations and trains can/does make the system safer, more efficient and, ultimately, more attractive to the casual user (who is potentially a future regular).  And yes, even though you (Biker16) don’t want to acknowledge it, there are other heavy rail systems that have moderate or lighter loads that have adjusted – and as far as I know, there are not serious proposals to downsize these systems: 2 of them are NYC’s Staten Island RR/subway route (which actually caries substantially fewer passengers than the Red Line), and the Baltimore Metro which, yes I know, currently carries more than the Red Line, but the Red Line has more growth potential than does Baltimore’s which, more or less, has maxed out.  I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the Red Line creeps into comparable territory with Baltimore Metro ridership wise in the next few years. 

 

Bottom (Red) Line: don’t tear it down, make it work and, for once, approach transit in this town from an different POV than simply LET’S SAVE MONEY, cause you see where that has gotten us (hint: the Health Line).

 

 

 

 

these next couple of posts will be interesting.

 

First I am using a workforce demographic and tracking software called on the map.

 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

 

combining it with KML files in Google earth allows for pretty decent information on travel dynamics.

 

First: my guidance is Jobs within 1/2 mile of transit line and workers within 1 mile of transit line.

 

second: the composition of workers who live and work within 1/2 mile of a Transit line. More appropriate in the contex of Surface Rail than heavy rail because of stop spacing.

 

let start with the current system.

 

1/2 mile from stations.

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 97,908 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 93,735 95.7%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 4,173 4.3%

 

Living in the Selection Area 23,566 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 19,393 82.3%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 4,173 17.7%

 

 

1 mile from stations.

 

nflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 204,342 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 179,594 87.9%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 24,748 12.1%

 

Living in the Selection Area 69,439 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 44,691 64.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 24,748 35.6%

 

Why is converting the Red Line to light-rail "throwing away a national asset?" I wonder how many riders will notice anything different other than having brand-new railcars?

Blue line 1/2 mile

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 88,720 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 85,357 96.2%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 3,363 3.8%

 

Living in the Selection Area 16,535 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 13,172 79.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 3,363 20.3%

 

 

Blue Line one mile

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 122,061 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 113,325 92.8%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 8,736 7.2%

 

Living in the Selection Area 32,308 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 23,572 73.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 8,736 27.0%

 

Green Line 1/2 mile

 

inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 85,318 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 82,976 97.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 2,342 2.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 12,379 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 10,037 81.1%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 2,342 18.9%

 

 

Greenline 1 mile

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 123,767 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 115,519 93.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 8,248 6.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 30,986 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 22,738 73.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 8,248 26.6%