BTW, if you want to add a streetcar, the lesson Cincinnati city officials learned (below) is that the best way to sustain a streetcar project isn't to get the city to pay the operating costs but to have the online property owners sustain them.

 

Cincinnati Vice Mayor David Mann:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/03/26/portland-cincinnati-streetcar-david-mann/6930051/

 

Cincinnati Councilwoman Amy Murray:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/03/26/murray-portland-streetcar-depends-citizens/6931271/

^Those pieces just talk about assessments as a way to help pay for construction costs, no? I think almost all of the Portland Streetcar's operating budget comes from the discretionary city transportation dollars and TriMet (and a little bit from ticket sales/sponsorship). I don't think there's anything wrong with that model, but it seems to be exactly what the Cincinnati opponents were worried about before the outside cash commitments for operations.

^A note to Biker and KJP (without recopying everything), with the 1/3 cost covered by FTA, Baltimore is going the P3 (public-private-partnership) route.  Yes, we don't have the political apparatus in place to increase statewide financing for transit a la Maryland at the moment, but a key date is coming up early this November... If you really care about transit, cities and smart development, FitzGerald in, Kasich out... I know that's not the magic/automatic formula, but it's a step in the right direction.  Then we've got to work on the legislature... Strickland, a Dem, alone had us on the brink of 3-C Amtrak trains... Yes, sadly it failed, but we were closer to 3Cs, and a realistic possibility of high-speed upgrade than ever before, until we collectively let our guards down and Train-Killer John (as in Kasich), got in...

 

... no magic bullet to be sure, but you've got to start somewhere.

 

Biker, how would the streetcar on Lorain work with the proposed bike lanes? Or could a streetcar still run down Lorain if the bike lanes are built?

^Those pieces just talk about assessments as a way to help pay for construction costs, no? I think almost all of the Portland Streetcar's operating budget comes from the discretionary city transportation dollars and TriMet (and a little bit from ticket sales/sponsorship). I don't think there's anything wrong with that model, but it seems to be exactly what the Cincinnati opponents were worried about before the outside cash commitments for operations.

 

Portland uses some TIF dollars to pay for operational expenses, which BTW are ~12 million per year, with ridership near 6 million.

 

 

Questions I have are:

 

why doesn't the city have a Department of Transportation?  having so many divisions working on transportation project Stifles innovation and add needless complexity to transportation projects.

^A note to Biker and KJP (without recopying everything), with the 1/3 cost covered by FTA, Baltimore is going the P3 (public-private-partnership) route.  Yes, we don't have the political apparatus in place to increase statewide financing for transit a la Maryland at the moment, but a key date is coming up early this November... If you really care about transit, cities and smart development, FitzGerald in, Kasich out... I know that's not the magic/automatic formula, but it's a step in the right direction.  Then we've got to work on the legislature... Strickland, a Dem, alone had us on the brink of 3-C Amtrak trains... Yes, sadly it failed, but we were closer to 3Cs, and a realistic possibility of high-speed upgrade than ever before, until we collectively let our guards down and Train-Killer John (as in Kasich), got in...

 

... no magic bullet to be sure, but you've got to start somewhere.

 

 

Sadly, John Kasich is the least of Ohio's problems at the State House.

^Indeed, but the journey of 1,000 miles begins with 1 step.  There are other avenues to work, as well, but the Top Dog sets the agenda.

So if a streetcar is restored across the lower deck of the Detroit-Superior bridge, one cool feature could be restoring a station at the east end of the bridge. This would not only serve the west end of the Warehouse District but also provide a convenient, under-one-roof transfer point to the Waterfront Line. How convenient? Consider.....

 

^ This is your third (?) not so subtle hint about a possible streetcar down Detroit. You must be busting at the seams with secrets.

Nah, I just want to see the lower deck restored to its intended purpose. :)

Nah, I just want to see the lower deck restored to its intended purpose. :)

 

From 30,000 feet up, I can see the potential for the conversion of the waterfront line into a standalone route, with a streetcar used as the primary connection from the Riverfront to the lakefront.

 

With its southern terminus on the Scranton peninsula, which would be a  half mile extension of the waterfront line south. 

 

this route would/could replace blue and green line trains from tower city. the route would have 1 train and run at 15-18 minute headways all day.

 

cost would be ~1.3 million per year.

 

Another option would be to move the waterfront line out of the trench and crate a  1 mile 2 way streetcar extension following west 3rd to Erie side Dr.  with a terminus east of East 9th st near Burke Lakefront Airport. this would connect directly to the 1200 new apartments on Erieside, and provide ample value capture opportunities for the route.

 

THE ISSUE IS HOW TO CONNECT to Tower City. from an operational perspective the Southern extension make it almost impossible to connect to Tower city in a smart way.  an option is to  remove connectivity to Tower city and build a transfer station on the viaduct for Rapid transit and a walkway from a Huron streetcar station to a station in the flats. either way creating a WYE in the flats for a Scranton peninsula route would be expensive to operate.

 

I don't know, it would be difficult to support this route without direct connectivity to other transit routes (that includes buses).

 

 

Nah, I just want to see the lower deck restored to its intended purpose. :)

 

From 30,000 feet up, I can see the potential for the conversion of the waterfront line into a standalone route, with a streetcar used as the primary connection from the Riverfront to the lakefront.

 

With its southern terminus on the Scranton peninsula, which would be a  half mile extension of the waterfront line south. 

 

this route would/could replace blue and green line trains from tower city. the route would have 1 train and run at 15-18 minute headways all day.

 

cost would be ~1.3 million per year.

 

Another option would be to move the waterfront line out of the trench and crate a  1 mile 2 way streetcar extension following west 3rd to Erie side Dr.  with a terminus east of East 9th st near Burke Lakefront Airport. this would connect directly to the 1200 new apartments on Erieside, and provide ample value capture opportunities for the route.

 

THE ISSUE IS HOW TO CONNECT to Tower City. from an operational perspective the Southern extension make it almost impossible to connect to Tower city in a smart way.  an option is to  remove connectivity to Tower city and build a transfer station on the viaduct for Rapid transit and a walkway from a Huron streetcar station to a station in the flats. either way creating a WYE in the flats for a Scranton peninsula route would be expensive to operate.

 

I don't know, it would be difficult to support this route without direct connectivity to other transit routes (that includes buses).

 

 

Ok, I've read your post 5 times and while it may be the head cold causing most of the confusion, I can't picture what you're talking about.

Nah, I just want to see the lower deck restored to its intended purpose. :)

 

From 30,000 feet up, I can see the potential for the conversion of the waterfront line into a standalone route, with a streetcar used as the primary connection from the Riverfront to the lakefront.

 

With its southern terminus on the Scranton peninsula, which would be a  half mile extension of the waterfront line south. 

 

this route would/could replace blue and green line trains from tower city. the route would have 1 train and run at 15-18 minute headways all day.

 

cost would be ~1.3 million per year.

 

Another option would be to move the waterfront line out of the trench and crate a  1 mile 2 way streetcar extension following west 3rd to Erie side Dr.  with a terminus east of East 9th st near Burke Lakefront Airport. this would connect directly to the 1200 new apartments on Erieside, and provide ample value capture opportunities for the route.

 

THE ISSUE IS HOW TO CONNECT to Tower City. from an operational perspective the Southern extension make it almost impossible to connect to Tower city in a smart way.  an option is to  remove connectivity to Tower city and build a transfer station on the viaduct for Rapid transit and a walkway from a Huron streetcar station to a station in the flats. either way creating a WYE in the flats for a Scranton peninsula route would be expensive to operate.

 

I don't know, it would be difficult to support this route without direct connectivity to other transit routes (that includes buses).

 

 

Ok, I've read your post 5 times and while it may be the head cold causing most of the confusion, I can't picture what you're talking about.

 

I can see what you saying. 

 

Not at a PC right now will post some maps later.

 

The typography is very interesting down there.

 

Scranton peninsula development

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4043.0.html

 

 

Something like this (Yellow Line), ultimately using the unused Big Four RR bridge next to Carter Road bridge, then following the Erie RR ROW (now Flats Industrial RR) to give Scranton Peninsula development AND Tremont a route into downtown, with transfer stations added to the Red Line viaduct and the Detroit/West 25th Streetcar.....

 

Something like this (Yellow Line), ultimately using the unused Big Four RR bridge next to Carter Road bridge, then following the Erie RR ROW (now Flats Industrial RR) to give Scranton Peninsula development AND Tremont a route into downtown, with transfer stations added to the Red Line viaduct and the Detroit/West 25th Streetcar.....

 

 

Yep that's Close to what I'm talking about.

 

I think people would travel to Ohio city more than to downtown creating a route through Tremont and back to market square would be a unique opportunity, creating a one seat ride from the lakefront thru the flats, thru Tremont, and ending at market square, or crazy enough continuing to downtown via the DS bridge.

 

The ugly truth about the waterfront line is that it really doesn't go downtown it goes around downtown.

 

KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

 

 

KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

 

 

Yes, if it is shown to produce enough new ridership vs. keeping the existing route to justify the cost.

KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

 

 

Yes, if it is shown to produce enough new ridership vs. keeping the existing route to justify the cost.

 

That will not be difficult. how many people use the route between mini-lot and FEB anyway?

 

 

If ridership is projected to go from, say 100 (guessing) a day currently to 2000 a day, that still isn't enough to justify it. If there is going to be development north of the stadium regardless, what impact will that have on ridership even if the line isn't moved? So if we do from 100 a day now with no development to 500-1000 with development and nothing spent to change the route, that's far more cost-effective than spending tens of millions to relocate the Waterfront Line for a small net gain. Dont get me wrong, I think routing the Waterfront Line north of the stadium is a much wiser alignment and should be done -- in 1994. The football stadium also should have been built just of Inner Belt too. Both were chosen to be built where they were only because they could be done more quickly. The lingering price of expedience....

Thanks for the map, makes more sense that way.

KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

 

In my current opinion (I'll change my mind in 5 minutes), if you're going to move the waterfront line from the trench and make it a streetcar, I'd rather see it moved up to Lakeside so it goes through downtown. Then you could have it turn back southward at either 13th or 17th and loop around to Huron and enter Tower City through the tunnel.

Biker, how would the streetcar on Lorain work with the proposed bike lanes? Or could a streetcar still run down Lorain if the bike lanes are built?

 

 

They would operate the same way buses would operate. That plan hasn't been finalized yet.

 

there isn't enough space for dedicated lanes on Lorain before Denison without long the cycle track.

If ridership is projected to go from, say 100 (guessing) a day currently to 2000 a day, that still isn't enough to justify it.

 

You sound like Joe Calabrese, "I am not chasing ridership" as an excuse for doing nothing.

 

Transit First if a development isn't transit first it will become Car first.

 

The Reasoning behind relocating the line is to provide a Transit first option for the users of the Lakefront and future developments on the lakefront, including the any potential development on Burke airport. I'd keep the west 3rd street station open for events where congestion would affect service or multi car trains would be required, (Browns games)

 

 

Scranton peninsula:

The idea to make a 1/2 mile extension to the Scranton peninsula and to lakefront is to help build true TOD development in both locations, this is back to the Future you build the transit line first and develop a neighborhood around it. 

 

Thanks for the map, makes more sense that way.

KJP I think you have to consider moving the water front line out of the trench and closer to the lake.

 

In my current opinion (I'll change my mind in 5 minutes), if you're going to move the waterfront line from the trench and make it a streetcar, I'd rather see it moved up to Lakeside so it goes through downtown. Then you could have it turn back southward at either 13th or 17th and loop around to Huron and enter Tower City through the tunnel.

 

http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/downtown-loop/

 

 

 

You sound like Joe Calabrese, "I am not chasing ridership" as an excuse for doing nothing.

 

 

And you sound like you want to build a rail line first, then find a way to justify it.

You sound like Joe Calabrese, "I am not chasing ridership" as an excuse for doing nothing.

 

 

And you sound like you want to build a rail line first, then find a way to justify it.

 

Isn't that the story of the Waterfront line?  they are still trying to find ways to justify it.

 

The question is will the 2000 or so residents and millions of visitors be more likely to use the reroute than the current Route? as the Geis brothers build out thier office campus and the 1200 units of residential housing begin to bloom how many of those trips won't be captured because of the waterfront line is in the trench and has poor access to the lakefront?  this isn't about finding ways to justify a 1 mile ($20-30 million route) but how to make sure we are not adding 2000 more parking spaces to the lakefront.

 

Any hoo

Routes

 

1/8 mile buffer current route

 

1/8 mile buffer Waterfront streetcar.

 

 

Scranton

zoom to connection with existing waterfront Line.

 

 

Route plus 1/8 mile buffer around stops only .56 mile extension Plus 2 walk up stops.

 

 

CRUDE drawing of potential street grid, roads in blue, Freight rail in Black, streetcar route in White.

In portland thye have done really short extension in response to new development in the city, it was made easier because the increased property value could be Assessed by the city and used to fund the extension, the philosophy was to build a transit first culture, to do that they needed to be responsive to where development was happening in the city, not to simply wait for it to happen.

 

here is link to how these segment were funded.

 

 

Capital.operations.funding 1/28/2014

PORTLAND STREETCAR

CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING

 

Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital to Portland State University (2.4 miles of double track)

 

Service Began on July 20, 2001

 

Capital Budget - $56.9 Million

 

Sources: City Parking Bonds $28.6 million

Local Improvement District 9.6

Tax Increment (South Park Blocks URA) 7.5

Federal Transportation Funds 5.0

(reallocated with TriMet for local funds)

City Parking Fund 2.0

City General Fund 1.8

City Transportation Fund 1.7

U.S. HUD Grant 0.5

Misc. 0.2

 

 

Portland State University to RiverPlace (0.6 miles of double track)

 

Service Began on March 11, 2005

 

Capital Budget - $16.0 Million

 

Sources: Tax Increment (North Macadam URA) $ 8.4 million

Transportation Land Sale 3.1

Local Improvement District 3.0

U.S. HUD Grant 0.8

Transportation Fund 0.6

Misc. 0.1

 

 

RiverPlace to SW Gibbs Street (0.6 miles of single track)

 

Service Began on October 20, 2006

 

Capital Budget - $15.8 million

 

Sources: Regional Transportation Funds $ 10.0

Tax Increment (North Macadam URA) 3.8

Local Improvement District 2.0

 

 

SW Moody & Gibbs to SW Lowell (0.4 miles of double track)

 

Service Began on August 17, 2007

 

Capital Budget - $14.45 million

 

Sources: Local Improvement District $ 4.80 million

Transportation Systems Development Charts 2.50

Connect Oregon 2.10

Tax Increment Funds 1.80

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 0.65

Gibbs Extension Savings 0.66

Tram Transfer 0.15

Misc. 1.79

 

Loop Extension (Pearl District to OMSI) (3.35 miles of double track)

 

Service Begins on September 22, 2012

 

Capital Budget - $148.27 million

 

Sources: Federal Transit Administration $ 75.00 million

State Funds for Vehicles 20.00

Local Improvement District 15.50

Portland Development Commission 27.68

Regional Funds 3.62

SDC/Other City Funds 6.11

Stimulus Funds 0.36

 

 

Operations Budget for 7.35 mile alignment: $9.7 million / Fiscal Year 2014

 

Sources: TriMet $ 4.1 million

City of Portland, Office of Transportation 4.4

Portland Streetcar, Inc. 1.2

Yep. So let that be a lesson to ya. It's what happens when a mayor plays simcity.

I'm not a mayor, but I am a urban planner.  :?

Isn't that the story of the Waterfront line?  they are still trying to find ways to justify it.

 

The question is will the 2000 or so residents and millions of visitors be more likely to use the reroute than the current Route? as the Geis brothers build out thier office campus and the 1200 units of residential housing begin to bloom how many of those trips won't be captured because of the waterfront line is in the trench and has poor access to the lakefront?  this isn't about finding ways to justify a 1 mile ($20-30 million route) but how to make sure we are not adding 2000 more parking spaces to the lakefront.

 

Hunter Morrison, former Cleveland Planning Director, one of the most respected in the nation, once asked, "What's the matter with Cleveland?"  He was responding to the question why after a decade (at the time) there had been no TOD along the Waterfront Line.  Finally, with FEB, it is happening and (sorry Biker) people will be riding the trains more so you won't need to engage in your favorite fantasy: how to tear up Cleveland's Rapid system and replace it with your beloved slow moving, street clogging trolleys.  The fact the WFL is "in a trench" has nothing to do with its poor patronage.  If “the Trench” was so awful and people adverse, how come thousands ride WFL trains for big events in the Flats and along the Lake like, say, Browns Games, July 4th fireworks, the Tall Ships festival, etc… The WFL was designed, since the 80s, to traverse what (we thought anyway) was some of Cleveland's hottest RE right along the river and lakefront. 

 

The Waterfront line would have much better ridership:

 

IF we hadn't been so foolish to block Lake front development with an ugly, open air, single-use steel/concrete bowl that is used less than 15 times per year.  All that Gies office and other high density RE planned to the side and north of the dreaded bowl would be right up on "the trench" and available/usable by thousands daily.  As it stands, a lot of people will ride the WFL to/from the burbs and other parts of Cleveland to reach the development once its built as is... no need to tear up the Rapid and convert it into slow moving, ineffective Trams to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

IF we had built the mid-rise, high-density Davenport Bluffs apartment/condo/retail development that would have sat directly over and adjacent to the WFL terminal at the Muny Lot (South Harbor) --- even if after that plan failed, we would have developed some similar plan for the area – if Zaremba had built his failed/failing Avenue District just a few blocks north on this land, both it and the WFL would have been successful.

 

IF we had really developed a logical plan for TOD development of the Flats rather than the fly-by-night national chains and cheap bars in the rundown warehouses that quickly packed up and left at the first sign of trouble leaving a ghost town along the rails… again, until now with FEB which is finally coming into fruition…  and even with it, there’s still no plan or movement toward adaptive reuse of Old River Rd south of FEB into apartments and shops that could extend development…

 

IF we had mustered our collective balls to, once and for all: Close Burke, remove the people-unfriendly Shoreway with its elevated viaduct and concrete cut, relocate the Port Authority and the Naval base to free up land for land for more high density, retail/residential development so that we would have like, you know, a NORMAL waterfront, lakefront….

 

… As I (and others like the respected Morrison) have said umpteen times, Biker, the fault is not with the WFL… It was built with the intent of capitalizing on an up trending part of the city … it’s waterfront…  Maybe Biker if you, and others (Calabrese, the Sky Tram folks and others), focused more on building the type of development suitable for a high capacity infrastructure asset like Rapid Transit that already exists – you know, like NORMAL cities do -- rather than trying to develop some new cockamamie, fancy-shmancy (usually rubber tired in Calabrese’s case)  transit mode, we’d be better off….

 

… but alas, the logical approach is usually/often lost on Clevelanders.  Chasing our tail is the oft favored modus operandi. 

 

I'm not a mayor, but I am a urban planner.  :?

 

That's one part of the puzzle. Get in a room with a business person, a politician, a financial expert, an engineer and a strategist who have experience in delivering projects and then design a rail line. If you don't want some of those people messing up your design, then an urban planner devolves into nothing more than an artist who draws perfect and pretty images that are unlikely to be built. Its great to have the courage of your convictions, but you also should have the courage to compromise any of your ideals in order to achieve some of them. Most of the ideas I put out don't get latched onto, some do but it happens years later and when they do they go in one end of a process involving dozens of people representing many of the facets of life I mentioned at the start of this message and they come out the other looking quite different. But that's OK. I got some of what I wanted.

 

An example was the Pennsylvanian extension. It was the first project I ever took under my wing while I was in college in the late 80s. I envisioned it as extending the route of the Amtrak service linking NYC-Pittsburgh west to Youngstown and Cleveland. As the process moved forward and was shaped by various inputs (local officials, federal officials, railroad officials, etc), several issues emerged that we would have to work around. There would be no financial support from Ohio for capital or operating money. So no funding would be available to open the more populous route through Youngstown and that an intact, high-quality route was available through Alliance. We finally got the train extended west to Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago. The Chicago endpoint was required because we would use package express revenues to pay the operating subsidies. And the train ran through Alliance. I had gotten more than $10,000 in donations from Youngstown-area interests to advocate for that route. I got beaten up pretty badly for that in the media and by two city councils -- all before the age of 25! But we got the train extended, and it ran for five years until Amtrak got out of the express business. I was very angry that  Amtrak cut "my train" but we had a nice little run there for a while. But you put aside the emotion, take stock of everything, and apply the lessons for the next opportunity that either you create or that falls into your lap. No matter how the opportunity comes to you, it will never emerge from the process the way you expect it will.

Isn't that the story of the Waterfront line?  they are still trying to find ways to justify it.

 

The question is will the 2000 or so residents and millions of visitors be more likely to use the reroute than the current Route? as the Geis brothers build out thier office campus and the 1200 units of residential housing begin to bloom how many of those trips won't be captured because of the waterfront line is in the trench and has poor access to the lakefront?  this isn't about finding ways to justify a 1 mile ($20-30 million route) but how to make sure we are not adding 2000 more parking spaces to the lakefront.

 

… As I (and others like the respected Morrison) have said umpteen times, Biker, the fault is not with the WFL… It was built with the intent of capitalizing on an up trending part of the city … it’s waterfront…  Maybe Biker if you, and others (Calabrese, the Sky Tram folks and others), focused more on building the type of development suitable for a high capacity infrastructure asset like Rapid Transit that already exists – you know, like NORMAL cities do -- rather than trying to develop some new cockamamie, fancy-shmancy (usually rubber tired in Calabrese’s case)  transit mode, we’d be better off….

 

… but alas, the logical approach is usually/often lost on Clevelanders.  Chasing our tail is the oft favored modus operandi.

 

when you put a transit line in the middle of a trench that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to put the develop near the Transit line.

 

I consider the Waterfront line in the flats as perfect example of how to develop a TOD station, it has multiple way to access the station. It fits with the natural walkablity of the neighborhood much like the green and Blue lines east of Shaker Square, the waterfront line on the lakefront has the same issues as the Red line does, it interacts poorly with the surrounding community. This matters because People using the those station in downtown are on foot, and placing your activity centers 3-5 minute unpleasant walk away from each station.

 

other than that we all have OPINIONS of these things and some of us will never agree on these things, I will leave it at that.

 

beign obsessed with "rapid transit" over short distances is silly and misguided, the goal ought to be Mode shift, not speed or finishing what was unfinished decades ago. I can waste 20 minutes of my life drawing maps showing the access issues with the lakefront segment of the waterfront line but I don't think it would persuasive enough for you.

 

 

I'm not a mayor, but I am a urban planner.  :?

 

That's one part of the puzzle. Get in a room with a business person, a politician, a financial expert, an engineer and a strategist who have experience in delivering projects and then design a rail line. If you don't want some of those people messing up your design, then an urban planner devolves into nothing more than an artist who draws perfect and pretty images that are unlikely to be built. Its great to have the courage of your convictions, but you also should have the courage to compromise any of your ideals in order to achieve some of them. Most of the ideas I put out don't get latched onto, some do but it happens years later and when they do they go in one end of a process involving dozens of people representing many of the facets of life I mentioned at the start of this message and they come out the other looking quite different. But that's OK. I got some of what I wanted.

 

An example was the Pennsylvanian extension. It was the first project I ever took under my wing while I was in college in the late 80s. I envisioned it as extending the route of the Amtrak service linking NYC-Pittsburgh west to Youngstown and Cleveland. As the process moved forward and was shaped by various inputs (local officials, federal officials, railroad officials, etc), several issues emerged that we would have to work around. There would be no financial support from Ohio for capital or operating money. So no funding would be available to open the more populous route through Youngstown and that an intact, high-quality route was available through Alliance. We finally got the train extended west to Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago. The Chicago endpoint was required because we would use package express revenues to pay the operating subsidies. And the train ran through Alliance. I had gotten more than $10,000 in donations from Youngstown-area interests to advocate for that route. I got beaten up pretty badly for that in the media and by two city councils -- all before the age of 25! But we got the train extended, and it ran for five years until Amtrak got out of the express business. I was very angry that  Amtrak cut "my train" but we had a nice little run there for a while. But you put aside the emotion, take stock of everything, and apply the lessons for the next opportunity that either you create or that falls into your lap. No matter how the opportunity comes to you, it will never emerge from the process the way you expect it will.

 

I understand what you saying, I always have, i simply cannot give up on a good idea, especially one being explored on a INTERNET  FORUM. What happened in the 1980s doesn't exactly translate into Advocacy in 2014, times have changed, I think for the better.

 

The past is still a guide, when you are competing with cars, you have to make transit as convenient as possible to use. developing 1,200 apartments on the lakefront combined with the existing attractions is a good reason to consider moving the waterfront line northward to increase ridership.

 

Things don't change as much as you apparently think they do. The fundamentals of advocacy haven't changed (ie: the best way to communicate your idea is to listen to your audience). The technologies change (which is also a constant) as do the audiences. And sometimes you have to change your idea if its a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Trying to change the hole or waiting for the hole to change should never be a goal or expectation.

 

If the analysis shows the occupants of new lakefront housing don't contribute enough ridership to win you enough funding to move the rail line, then it's time to move on to the next idea.

Things don't change as much as you apparently think they do. The fundamentals of advocacy haven't changed (ie: the best way to communicate your idea is to listen to your audience). The technologies change (which is also a constant) as do the audiences. And sometimes you have to change your idea if its a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Trying to change the hole or waiting for the hole to change should never be a goal or expectation.

 

If the analysis shows the occupants of new lakefront housing don't contribute enough ridership to win you enough funding to move the rail line, then it's time to move on to the next idea.

 

if the analysis shows the benefits of moving the waterfront line to the waterfront it should be done. But these questions will never be answered if you are too afraid to ask.

when you put a transit line in the middle of a trench that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to put the develop near the Transit line.

 

I consider the Waterfront line in the flats as perfect example of how to develop a TOD station, it has multiple way to access the station. It fits with the natural walkablity of the neighborhood much like the green and Blue lines east of Shaker Square, the waterfront line on the lakefront has the same issues as the Red line does, it interacts poorly with the surrounding community. This matters because People using the those station in downtown are on foot, and placing your activity centers 3-5 minute unpleasant walk away from each station.

 

other than that we all have OPINIONS of these things and some of us will never agree on these things, I will leave it at that.

 

beign obsessed with "rapid transit" over short distances is silly and misguided, the goal ought to be Mode shift, not speed or finishing what was unfinished decades ago. I can waste 20 minutes of my life drawing maps showing the access issues with the lakefront segment of the waterfront line but I don't think it would persuasive enough for you.

Your statements totally miss/ignore my point: why are you putting the cart before the horse?  Why would you spend gazillions to relocate the WFL anywhere when the city has either failed or has been very slow to embrace TOD that would boost WFL ridership?  Why are you relocating the WFL to north of the stadium for development that’s been proposed, but hasn’t even been built yet?  Of course it may make more sense to have built the WFL north of the stadium.  Better would have been not to have rebuilt the stadium at all at W. 3rd. 

 

I’ll throw the question back to you: why are you obsessed in downsizing and throwing away a Rapid transit system already built in exchange for slow moving, traffic-clogging trams just because they’re cute?  Did New York do that?  Did Philadelphia do that?  Did Boston?  Atlanta?  St. Louis?  …. Didn’t Pittsburgh just bury their trams in subway tunnels 30 years ago?

 

Yeah I know, biker.  History doesn’t matter.  What other cities do doesn’t matter either.  You’re in your own separate world… 

 

if the analysis shows the benefits of moving the waterfront line to the waterfront it should be done. But these questions will never be answered if you are too afraid to ask.

 

Ask away. I just think this is a very very low priority among the many transit needs of this region. Now if the developers of the lakefront say "You know, our development would be more attractive if we spent $50 million to move the Waterfront Line a few hundred feet to our front door" then the priority is elevated. But I just don't see developers saying that. I suspect they'd prefer to spend perhaps $1 million to build a covered walkway to the nearby enclosed overhead walkway to the Lakefront Multimodal Station.

 

I’ll throw the question back to you: why are you obsessed in downsizing and throwing away a Rapid transit system already built in exchange for slow moving, traffic-clogging trams just because they’re cute?  Did New York do that?  Did Philadelphia do that?  Did Boston?  Atlanta?  St. Louis?  …. Didn’t Pittsburgh just bury their trams in subway tunnels 30 years ago?

 

I would argue that the presence of streetcars created the density necessary to go to the next level which is to build a subway. I want streetcars because it will restore density in Cleveland that creates the political constituencies and ridership market for those higher-level transit services.

IF we had mustered our collective balls to, once and for all: Close Burke, remove the people-unfriendly Shoreway with its elevated viaduct and concrete cut, relocate the Port Authority and the Naval base to free up land for land for more high density, retail/residential development so that we would have like, you know, a NORMAL waterfront, lakefront….

 

… As I (and others like the respected Morrison) have said umpteen times, Biker, the fault is not with the WFL… It was built with the intent of capitalizing on an up trending part of the city … it’s waterfront…  Maybe Biker if you, and others (Calabrese, the Sky Tram folks and others), focused more on building the type of development suitable for a high capacity infrastructure asset like Rapid Transit that already exists – you know, like NORMAL cities do -- rather than trying to develop some new cockamamie, fancy-shmancy (usually rubber tired in Calabrese’s case)  transit mode, we’d be better off….

 

… but alas, the logical approach is usually/often lost on Clevelanders.  Chasing our tail is the oft favored modus operandi. 

 

 

Damn, I thought you were going to close that last line with "favored transportation mode".  :)

 

I'm not one who thinks Burke is necessarily the best use of that space, but right now it's an island of sorts with neighbors that won't really boost growth of any redevelopment.  If you want to be ballsy with the waterfront, shut down Lakeview Terrace and gentrify the hell out of that area.  Doing this in a considerate way would take a few years at least and it can't be done piecemeal.  But when it succeeds....and it will.....you will have a great argument for moving further in that direction.

^forgive my ignorance, but where is Lakeview Terrace?

^forgive my ignorance, but where is Lakeview Terrace?

 

The public housing project at Irishtown Bend, just north of Rt. 2

^forgive my ignorance, but where is Lakeview Terrace?

 

The public housing project at Irishtown Bend, just north of Rt. 2

Oh thanks.

when you put a transit line in the middle of a trench that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to put the develop near the Transit line.

 

I consider the Waterfront line in the flats as perfect example of how to develop a TOD station, it has multiple way to access the station. It fits with the natural walkablity of the neighborhood much like the green and Blue lines east of Shaker Square, the waterfront line on the lakefront has the same issues as the Red line does, it interacts poorly with the surrounding community. This matters because People using the those station in downtown are on foot, and placing your activity centers 3-5 minute unpleasant walk away from each station.

 

other than that we all have OPINIONS of these things and some of us will never agree on these things, I will leave it at that.

 

beign obsessed with "rapid transit" over short distances is silly and misguided, the goal ought to be Mode shift, not speed or finishing what was unfinished decades ago. I can waste 20 minutes of my life drawing maps showing the access issues with the lakefront segment of the waterfront line but I don't think it would persuasive enough for you.

Your statements totally miss/ignore my point: why are you putting the cart before the horse?  Why would you spend gazillions to relocate the WFL anywhere when the city has either failed or has been very slow to embrace TOD that would boost WFL ridership?  Why are you relocating the WFL to north of the stadium for development that’s been proposed, but hasn’t even been built yet?  Of course it may make more sense to have built the WFL north of the stadium.  Better would have been not to have rebuilt the stadium at all at W. 3rd. 

 

It isn't putting the cart before the horse.  you can't compare the potential for Development around two trenches with the potential for development around the harbor.

 

Even if the stadium wasn't there you would  still have connectivity issues to the WFL.

 

I’ll throw the question back to you: why are you obsessed in downsizing and throwing away a Rapid transit system already built in exchange for slow moving, traffic-clogging trams just because they’re cute?  Did New York do that?  Did Philadelphia do that?  Did Boston?  Atlanta?  St. Louis?  …. Didn’t Pittsburgh just bury their trams in subway tunnels 30 years ago?

 

Alot of the Cities you mentioned still use Mixed traffic streetcars or are planning to build them in the near future. Except NYC have mixed traffic segments and they evolved from streetcars into the systems that are today.

 

Traffic clogging?

You sound like Rob Ford, burying the streetcar lines was due to extreme congestion on the surface, and made far worse by the Automobile. Congestion is not an issue in Cleveland today, therefore the forces that create the need  for tunnels don't exist right now. If it becomes an issue you can make dedicated lanes for the streetcar. to keep the car from getting in the way.

 

 

Boston

 

Atlanta

 

Pittsburgh

 

St Louis

 

philidelphia

 

 

Yeah I know, biker.  History doesn’t matter.  What other cities do doesn’t matter either.  You’re in your own separate world… 

 

It is disappointing that you feel so threatened by someone posting on a internet forum, and that you cannot see the forest through the trees. the goal of transit is mobility and placing a transit line in a difficult isolated location is a drain on the system, if RTA doesn't have to pay a dime to move the line and the property owners are will to pay for its operation why would you be against it?

OK, OK Biker, to a degree ... ya got me... But consider the fact that I'm in agreement with some, actually, extensive use of street level trams -- but with private ROW such as revisiting Dual Hub (but dropping into the Huron subway – the TC connection already built, as KJP notes).  Each of the LRV branches you note are all subsidiary routes… Even with the Pittsburgh example you cite you’ll note that PAT rebuilt a parallel line (Overbrook) with extensive grade separation and is exclusively in private ROW – like the Blue/Green lines – at street level, trains CROSS the streets, they don’t run in them. 

 

But in all of the examples you cite, the trains drop into subways as the approach the CBD.  Also note, while I recognize the great historical significance of Boston’s 1st subway in America (1897), it’s now a mess  -- the Green Line(s) is/are way out of date – too many routes converging on a single pair of CBD subway tracks through Boston’s most populous residential corridor – horrible delays and slow moving trains… Long range, MBTA planners have proposed either replacing the Green Line(s) entirely or, at least, running a parallel, faster route, like extending the Blue Line through the current tunnel and having the current Green Lines terminate at a connecting transfer station.

 

Again, though, I maintain my point: you just don’t spend the cash to rebuild and slow down a system like the WFL (for all its flaws which I recognize) unless it’s seriously cost effective (like converting the HL to LRT already is!).  Again, also, let’s see how well (or not well) WFL runs once FEB and the new stadium development is fully built out.

 

 

But in all of the examples you cite, the trains drop into subways as the approach the CBD.  Also note, while I recognize the great historical significance of Boston’s 1st subway in America (1897), it’s now a mess  -- the Green Line(s) is/are way out of date – too many routes converging on a single pair of CBD subway tracks through Boston’s most populous residential corridor – horrible delays and slow moving trains… Long range, MBTA planners have proposed either replacing the Green Line(s) entirely or, at least, running a parallel, faster route, like extending the Blue Line through the current tunnel and having the current Green Lines terminate at a connecting transfer station.

 

those tunnels were built for a reason, to avoid delays related to surface traffic congestion. Downtown Cleveland for better or worse has very little congestion and plenty of excess road space. the combination of low traffic volumes and excess road capacity makes Surface transit a better option for Cleveland. you don't spend money to avoid a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Again, though, I maintain my point: you just don’t spend the cash to rebuild and slow down a system like the WFL (for all its flaws which I recognize) unless it’s seriously cost effective (like converting the HL to LRT already is!).  Again, also, let’s see how well (or not well) WFL runs once FEB and the new stadium development is fully built out.

 

Speed is relative, substituting a 5 minute walk for additional 5 minutes on a train is a compromise most people are willing to make.

to a less continous idea, I hope.

 

The Scranton Road WFL extension.

 

 

I see two logical destinations for people who would live or work on a Developed Scranton peninsula, Downtown and Ohio City/Market district. This extension would connect the lakefront to the Ohio City. 

 

I strongly believe that a Bike/pedestrian bridge from the peninsula directly into Tower city is a must for developing this land.

 

thins bridge would reduce a 15-20 minute walk to Public Square into a far more reasonable 5-7 min walk.

 

I'd estimated costs for this 1.1 mile extension

10-20 million to refurbish the Rail bridge over the River.

20-35 million for the extension, variables would be the utilities beneath the route and preparation of the ROW.

 

30-55 million.

 

There opportunity to capture the of the increases in land value for both the pedestrian bridge and the WFL extension. which would have a combined 35-60 million dollars, setting aside 2-4 million per year in TIF/TID revenue to pay off bonds and operate both systems.

 

 

^Isn't Columbus a bit steep for a streetcar?

those tunnels were built for a reason, to avoid delays related to surface traffic congestion. Downtown Cleveland for better or worse has very little congestion and plenty of excess road space. the combination of low traffic volumes and excess road capacity makes Surface transit a better option for Cleveland. you don't spend money to avoid a problem that doesn't exist.

 

My problem with your analysis is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of downtown nor does it account for its rapidly evolving nature.  Downtown Cleveland may not be congested on a Sunday afternoon with no sporting events in town, but it becomes very congested on weekend nights, esp when there's a game (sometimes multiple games), concerts around Gateway and, of course, the continuing popularity and growing crowds in/around the casino on Public Sq.  It’s an absolute joy to sit at an outdoor café table on a warm summer Friday/Sat night in/around E. 4th after an even average Indians  crowd, and watch cars and buses inch up Prospect as if it were a mass parking lot (knowing my car is either home or at a Rapid Stop)  And as we know, this is on top of a number of major residential/hotel/retail projects that are currently being built: FEB (which is only 1/3 finished), the multiple developments around E. 9th and the largest hotel in all NEO (not to mention the return/upgrade with Westin coming online on St. Clair).  And if we’re successful in redesigning Public Square cutting off through traffic on both Ontario and Superior (which I hope happens) through the very core of the City, auto and bus congestion will likely double (or more) than what it is now… Point being: Downtown is one of the fastest growing Cleveland neighborhoods, if not THE fastest.  So to assume it's static traffic-wise is a big mistake.

 

^btw I erred above.  Atlanta IS the lone example you give above of a streetcar that has no current or planned tunnel or grade separation aspect.  However, this is why your earlier plan of separate streetcars is better -- mixing rapid transit and streetcars is not effective imho.  They're vehicles are of different sizes (trams are/should be smaller than Rapid trains) and designed for different types of travel: the Rapid for the outer city and generally close-in suburbs while trams should be for downtown and downtown-edge residents and riders.  The 2 don't mix which is why places like Atlanta, D.C., and Seattle (to name a few) have developed them separately.

^Isn't Columbus a bit steep for a streetcar?

 

Not at all.

 

they can climb up to 9% grades.

 

those tunnels were built for a reason, to avoid delays related to surface traffic congestion. Downtown Cleveland for better or worse has very little congestion and plenty of excess road space. the combination of low traffic volumes and excess road capacity makes Surface transit a better option for Cleveland. you don't spend money to avoid a problem that doesn't exist.

 

My problem with your analysis is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of downtown nor does it account for its rapidly evolving nature.  Downtown Cleveland may not be congested on a Sunday afternoon with no sporting events in town, but it becomes very congested on weekend nights, esp when there's a game (sometimes multiple games), concerts around Gateway and, of course, the continuing popularity and growing crowds in/around the casino on Public Sq.  It’s an absolute joy to sit at an outdoor café table on a warm summer Friday/Sat night in/around E. 4th after an even average Indians  crowd, and watch cars and buses inch up Prospect as if it were a mass parking lot (knowing my car is either home or at a Rapid Stop)  And as we know, this is on top of a number of major residential/hotel/retail projects that are currently being built: FEB (which is only 1/3 finished), the multiple developments around E. 9th and the largest hotel in all NEO (not to mention the return/upgrade with Westin coming online on St. Clair).  And if we’re successful in redesigning Public Square cutting off through traffic on both Ontario and Superior (which I hope happens) through the very core of the City, auto and bus congestion will likely double (or more) than what it is now… Point being: Downtown is one of the fastest growing Cleveland neighborhoods, if not THE fastest.  So to assume it's static traffic-wise is a big mistake.

 

there is this idea that rail line don't move, but they often do move, usually for the reasons You listed. understand the issues you listed happen all the time, and all transit is subject to those delays.  the lakefront is an exception because of the concentration of events down there, but think about how often those roads are empty?

 

think about the travel generators from a residential development? what times of day will they happen? unlike A commercial district with heavy peak demand and marginal off peak demand, there simply isn't the same type of demand. there is more than enough room to add dedicated lanes for transit  on this route.

 

Prospect can be nightmare, but for very different reasons, it is chaotic and most of the congestion is due to congestion on Ontario and East 9th st. the volume of buses on the prospect create alot of delays As well, A road diet would help move traffic more smoothly on prospect.

 

^btw I erred above.  Atlanta IS the lone example you give above of a streetcar that has no current or planned tunnel or grade separation aspect.  However, this is why your earlier plan of separate streetcars is better -- mixing rapid transit and streetcars is not effective imho.  They're vehicles are of different sizes (trams are/should be smaller than Rapid trains) and designed for different types of travel: the Rapid for the outer city and generally close-in suburbs while trams should be for downtown and downtown-edge residents and riders.  The 2 don't mix which is why places like Atlanta, D.C., and Seattle (to name a few) have developed them separately.

 

From a vehicle perspective There isn't a difference between a Low floor LRT and a streetcar/ Tram. if you look at atlanta's Streetcars they are shortend versions of the same Seimens S70s that dallas and portland use for the light rial systems.

 

The model I'm following isn't the US model but the European model of Tram technology.

 

In Europe it isn't uncommon to find tram routes that operate in mixed Traffic in dense city centers, tunnels, beneath some areas of the city for speed, and in medians or Dedicated lanes in low density suburban areas. all with the same vehicle.

 

So imagine a 240 passenger (7 module 125ft)  vehicles operating in two vehicle Trains for high capacity rapid regional service, to a shorter 5 module 180 passenger (5 module 90ft) vehicle for less dense routes where the demand is lower, and (120 passenger) 3 module 63ft vehicles operating as a circulator connecting neighborhoods together. 

 

The fleet could share maintenance Facilities, and all running gear would be the same, and depending on use they could have up to 4 powered trucks, for better acceleration.

 

roughly 2000 Trams Are being produced every year, bombardier has already thousands of 100% low floor trams all over the world. 

 

Columbus Road has a gradient of 8% from Riverbed Road to just north of Lorain, a 50 foot climb in 600 feet.

 

But I could build a transfer station between the Waterfront Line and a streetcar deck station on the lower level of the Detroit-Superior Bridge for a lot less than $30 million and serve the same markets. I'd rather send a Scranton Peninsula streetcar to a new ridership market like Tremont.

 

BTW, the cost of renovating the rail bridge next to the Carter Road bridge is way too low. It hasn't been used since 1982. There's a possibility it may need to be replaced, or at least substantially rebuilt. I've seen a similar railroad lift bridge over the Calumet River in NW Indiana that's been idle for a few years longer and is proposed to be rebuilt for $100 million. While I don't think this bridge will cost that much, consider that renovating the Columbus Road lift bridge, which has been in continuous use, is being renovated right now for $34 million.

Columbus Road has a gradient of 8% from Riverbed Road to just north of Lorain, a 50 foot climb in 600 feet.

 

8% grade is within the spec.

The gradient of the the University hill looks to be  worse than columbus.

http://www.inekon-trams.com/trio_low-floor_tram_tech_specs.html

 

But I could build a transfer station between the Waterfront Line and a streetcar deck station on the lower level of the Detroit-Superior Bridge for a lot less than $30 million and serve the same markets. I'd rather send a Scranton Peninsula streetcar to a new ridership market like Tremont.

 

3 issues i have one technical and one spacial and one operational

 

1) I'm concerned about getting into Tremont on a very narrow road on potentially unstable slope, that may or may not be cpable of sustained operations from a 60,000lbs vehicle.

 

2) Travel demand: I believe most Tremont residents gravitate towards:

1st Ohio city -Shop+play

2nd Downtown -Work+play

3rd regional rail connection with the Rapid system-Work+play+shop

 

Even though you'd have a transfer station in the flats, it wouldn't be a natural node that Ohio City is, and you'd ignore the fact that hundred of Tremonts of residents walk to the redline station right now and to make a case to replace the 81 in Tremont with a Streetcar you would have to take into account that you would be greatly inconveniencing the existing transit users without providing a benefit.

 

3) operationally the major transfer station for the bus network is downtown, with this proposed Streetcar network and Rapid restructuring you can see that ohio city could become a second downtown, and RTAs second largest transfer node, ( if it isn't already) with continued growth in retail, residential and commercial development. To route a Scranton extension through Tremont bypasses strongest node (Ohio City)  could weaken the case for TOD on Scranton.

 

I have doubts about a transfer station on the Viaduct to connect with rapid services being worth the cost.

, if you are going to bypass tower city you need a direct connection to rapid services Ohio City would be a the next logical choice since you are crossing the river Ohio city would be the best choice. 

 

BTW, the cost of renovating the rail bridge next to the Carter Road bridge is way too low. It hasn't been used since 1982. There's a possibility it may need to be replaced, or at least substantially rebuilt. I've seen a similar railroad lift bridge over the Calumet River in NW Indiana that's been idle for a few years longer and is proposed to be rebuilt for $100 million. While I don't think this bridge will cost that much, consider that renovating the Columbus Road lift bridge, which has been in continuous use, is being renovated right now for $34 million.

 

hmm. that is expensive I'd hope it wouldn't be $100 million. 

 

BTW if you used a TIF and Scranton is roughly 10-12 time the area of FEB-2 and ~5 times the size of the lakefront development you would be looking at up to 6000 residential units, and over $800 million dollars in development.

 

gain about 3-4 million per year from the TIF (City of Cleveland only).

 

if you added a SID that took $400 per $100,000 of property value, you add another 3-4 million per year.

^^Biker, also consider the fact that (hopefully) that big ugly hole in the WHD at Public Square won't be there forever -- maybe the Public Sq. redesign will light a fire under our public officials/developers.  Whatever goes in there  -- like maybe major apt/retail/hotel perhaps will be a big transit draw.  Also you've got to consider that currently E. 9th-Euclid is now an almost totally dead corner, but will leap to life next year with 2 hotels, several apartment (office adaptive reuse complexes), offices, retail and a prime supermarket, no less.  This = instant potential congestion...

 

Fact is no city with true rapid transit with a grade-separated entry into downtown "converts" this system into street trolley's.  It's bass-ackwards and never done... and I don't want Cleveland to be the first in such a negative way.

 

^^Biker, also consider the fact that (hopefully) that big ugly hole in the WHD at Public Square won't be there forever -- maybe the Public Sq. redesign will light a fire under our public officials/developers.  Whatever goes in there  -- like maybe major apt/retail/hotel perhaps will be a big transit draw.  Also you've got to consider that currently E. 9th-Euclid is now an almost totally dead corner, but will leap to life next year with 2 hotels, several apartment (office adaptive reuse complexes), offices, retail and a prime supermarket, no less.  This = instant potential congestion...

 

I agree that's why the healthline is there, it is Semi grade separated and would gain alot in a conversion to rail. no where in this conversation does the demand require a subway, right now but things change.

 

Fact is no city with true rapid transit with a grade-separated entry into downtown "converts" this system into street trolley's.  It's bass-ackwards and never done... and I don't want Cleveland to be the first in such a negative way.

 

I never said convert the Red Line into a streetcar (mixed traffic) but into a modern LRT system. I am proposing moving the WFL to the Waterfront.

 

What would convince You this isn't the end of the world? even this was paid for by developers and given to RTA to run, would you still be against it?

 

You need to Read more

 

Barrier Effect

 

The Barrier Effect (also called severance) refers to delays, discomfort and lack of access

that vehicle traffic imposes on nonmotorized modes (pedestrians and cyclists).1

Severance usually focuses on the impacts of new or wider highways, while the barrier

effect takes into account the impacts of vehicle traffic.

 

This is acute to all connection to the lakefront, the volume of vehicles creates a barrier to pedestrian travel that studies show deter some pedestrians from crossing it.

 

A Stadtbahn (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtatˌbaːn]; German for "city railway"; plural Stadtbahnen) is a tramway or light railway that includes segments built to rapid transit standards