^Eaton could have had direct rail access in the Flats....  :wink:

Attached are revisions to RTA's current Transit Map.

-'Completion' of downtown loop

-New BRT lines/expansion

-Red Line expansion to Euclid

-Green/Blue Lines expanded east

-Blue line expansion to Cedar-University Redline stop via Fairmount/Cedar

 

Interesting and not bad ... if all those additions were built, I'd love it...

 

... a couple things though

 

- The Blue line through Shaker Square to Univesity Circle.

    a. I believe this line should grade-separate after Fairhill into Univesity Circle.  I do get why you'd have it divert to Cedar-Fairmount; 

    b. I think many would agitate that the Blue Line continue on to a terminal within the Cleve Clinic complex (somewhere near E. 93rd & Euclid.

 

- I've never been a fan of completing the WFL loop because I just don't believe there's a large enough market to justify a slow, surface line along E. 17 or E. 18, ... BUT at least your route seems that it would submerge somewhere under Huron Road to connect with the Van Sweringen-built, still existing turnout from the extant Ontario-Huron (Red-Blue-Green) tunnels into Tower City. 

 

--- Going back to your Blue Line Extension to U. Circle (which I would extend from there to CC), I'd extend it even further westbound along Euclid replacing the HL (and utilizing only 1/2 to 2/3rs of their existing stations, then heading into the Huron Subway into TC (perhaps connecting with the WFL loop, if need be, at CSU) ... These LRTs could use the still existing Shaker platforms from yesteryear, then extend westbound via the Detroit-Superior subway surfacing after W. 25 out Detroit to Gordon Square, Battery Park and, perhaps, Edgewater and/or even the Lakewood Gold Coast. 

 

- I'm not wild about your round-about Green Line route to Beachwood Place.  To me, it would be better to complete the old extension planned to I-271, then a 90-degree turn North in 271's median with stops near Beachwood Place/Legacy then terminating (in the median) between Golden Gate and East Gate shopping/residential areas (with perhaps and infill stop serving the sprawling Progressive Insurance and UC Seidman Cancer Center campuses). 

 

The rest of your fantasy extensions -- including the Red Line Euclid Square and (long ago NIMBY'd) Berea extensions -- are all cool.

/\

- The Main reasoning behind the Blueline route is because of the higher density in that part of Cle Heights.

- Definitely agree with you on an extension to CC center at 93rd, and an eventual extension down Euclid with a connection into new Downtown Loop.

 

- I choose that route for the Greenline because it could create more ridership with a connection to John Carroll, University Square, Legacy and then Beachwood.

- At Cedar, extension to Mayfield/Goldengate and Progressive via 271 would also be ideal.

 

- The 'completion' of the loop could greatly increase land values and the expansion of Downtown to the east. Without the loop the WFL will continue to have low ridership excluding 10 or so days a year. FEB should help though.

- A new inter modal station at E9th (North Coast Transit Center) would be much more useful when connected to a full loop. It would also be a good terminus for a possible commuter trains to Akron/Kent/Canton, Lakewood/Lorain, and Euclid/Mentor/Painesville. 

- Also trains that just run around the loop could be free, boosting/encouraging ridership.

 

 

Is this downtown loop actually going to happen? And when?

^no, never

These are all pipe dreams at best.

^That is the point of this thread, exploring the possible, not the probable

^ And considering the Red Line extension to the east is under serious study right now, I wouldn't exactly call that a 'pipe dream.'

Attached are revisions to RTA's current Transit Map.

-'Completion' of downtown loop

-New BRT lines/expansion

-Red Line expansion to Euclid

-Green/Blue Lines expanded east

-Blue line expansion to Cedar-University Redline stop via Fairmount/Cedar

 

Love the Blue Line rerouting, I would have loved it more when I was going to Case. Both Shaker lines don't need to go downtown.

 

Red Line is good too.

 

I would not expect Legacy or Beachwood Place to welcome the Green Line, to put it mildly.  University Square might, and probably should.

 

Make you hubs "pay to enter, free transfer" points, and include some bus routes in the mix.

 

BRT is a bus, and perceived as such.  It's not a train.  Don't bother with it outside Cleveland and the innerest suburbs. 

 

Consider a Red Line style heavy rail from downtown to the Independence area with minimal stops.

 

Nice work overall.

On gamedays and events, maybe find a way to sync Red Line trains entering Tower City, and transfers to the waterfront. I don't know what you've got in terms of space to do such a thing, but if an Airport - TowerCity red line train, could have the doors open directly into a blue/green train destined for the water front, as opposed to walking through a crowd, swiping out, finding the blue loading zone, swiping in, waiting, boarding...

 

Or, to build your extension from Airport to Berea and beyond. Could you have the airport station have a waiting BRT/bus waiting for the train, so that you could either get off at the airport to catch a flight, or board the RedBus, that will serve Berea and beyond. And sync the timelines of such things, and maybe brand it as a RedBus?

 

Also, I wonder if more Cleveland Clinic staff would take the Red Line, if there was a bus synced at the (Cedar/University) station, that you could exit the train, and then be on the bus that drops you off at 3 CC entrances. I don't see how you could build a station that directly served CC. Unless you built a subway that curved under the campus.

 

I think its important to consider the connectivity of routes and pedestrian time. Its great that there is a walkway gateway connecting TC to the Q, its kind of a lengthy walk, would airport style moving walkways help there? Also, for serving other downtown destinations, someone I've talked to said transit is okay, but it doesn't serve where people are actually going. To walk from TC to the Browns stadium or Rock & Roll, or the air show is crazy. Do the waterfront stations serve those locations appropriately? What if, instead of waterfront being green/blue, as the graphic showed, its a loop. So, to put the waterfront on a continuous (automated vehicle?) that just made an infinite loop purple line / white line. And optimize transfering on/off that loop to/from Red/Green/Blue. Set a goal of 60 seconds from getting off Red, to getting on Purple loop.

 

I've mentioned it before. But I'd like to have Rocky River and Lakewood have rail stations. (Don't ask me for cost/benefit analysis, but Lakewood has the density for this). Maybe have a West-direct bus that connected from a red-line station, and then express hit west towns. (I haven't used CSU 55 yet).

 

Also, digital signs at rail stations that had minutes till next train would be pleasant to see.

A possibly easier solution than trying to sync separate rail systems would be just increase frequency so nobody is waiting more than 8-10 minutes before transferring.

 

I agree completely about a separate walkway between the rapid lines in Tower City. I'd think people would use them more often if it wasn't considered a transfer to board the Waterfront line coming from the airport.

Attached are revisions to RTA's current Transit Map.

-'Completion' of downtown loop

-New BRT lines/expansion

-Red Line expansion to Euclid

-Green/Blue Lines expanded east

-Blue line expansion to Cedar-University Redline stop via Fairmount/Cedar

 

Great stuff! My only suggested addition is an I-480/I-271 BRT to link all the radial transit routes. This would be the Emerald Necklace of transit routes and foster some fast connectivity among transit routes to address Greater Cleveland's biggest problem which is accessing more than 25% of the region's jobs in less than a 90-minute transit trip. We also need to clean up polluted old industrial sites near transit routes in the city to return them to productive use.

^ And considering the Red Line extension to the east is under serious study right now, I wouldn't exactly call that a 'pipe dream.'

 

Is RTA really serious about this?  We've heard mixed signals between, RTA is trying to find .$5B (or something) to finance the local share to, this is merely a ruse to expand BRT.  I fear the latter but was at least heartened to hear there was at least some momentum behind the former... Any updates?

The only thing I've heard lately is that there is some interest in a rail extension that GCRTA can afford, such as to an industrial redevelopment zone in the Noble Road area, then fed by enhanced bus service east of there.

 

However, the planning work has ground to a halt while NOACA updates its work trip model and data. That data is to be used to refine the projected ridership for the bus and rail options of the Red Line extension study.

The only thing I've heard lately is that there is some interest in a rail extension that GCRTA can afford, such as to an industrial redevelopment zone in the Noble Road area, then fed by enhanced bus service east of there.

 

However, the planning work has ground to a halt while NOACA updates its work trip model and data. That data is to be used to refine the projected ridership for the bus and rail options of the Red Line extension study.

 

Thanks.

Attached are revisions to RTA's current Transit Map.

-'Completion' of downtown loop

-New BRT lines/expansion

-Red Line expansion to Euclid

-Green/Blue Lines expanded east

-Blue line expansion to Cedar-University Redline stop via Fairmount/Cedar

 

Great stuff! My only suggested addition is an I-480/I-271 BRT to link all the radial transit routes. This would be the Emerald Necklace of transit routes and foster some fast connectivity among transit routes to address Greater Cleveland's biggest problem which is accessing more than 25% of the region's jobs in less than a 90-minute transit trip. We also need to clean up polluted old industrial sites near transit routes in the city to return them to productive use.

 

I'm perhaps the biggest BRT skeptic here, but that's a good idea, especially if you stayed on the freeways as much as possible.  Would you advocate going back and forth between Westlake and Highland Heights, or go up Stearns-Crocker to 90 and back across?

I'd probably have buses exit I-480 at Clague then go Brookpark to Lorain to Porter to Crocker to Crocker Park. But I wouldn't do dedicated bus lanes off-highway except maybe on the east side by going up Richmond instead of I-271 to Cedar, then to Lander, then rejoin I-271 briefly to Mayfield. Could stay on Cedar to Gates Mills and then to SOM. There's some trade-offs here with access vs. speed when deciding whether to stay with arterials vs. highways.

 

EDIT: Of course, there could be rapid-transit-style stations as part of pull-off areas along highways (either in the median or beyond the outer berms).

I'd probably have buses exit I-480 at Clague then go Brookpark to Lorain to Porter to Crocker to Crocker Park. But I wouldn't do dedicated bus lanes off-highway except maybe on the east side by going up Richmond instead of I-271 to Cedar, then to Lander, then rejoin I-271 briefly to Mayfield. Could stay on Cedar to Gates Mills and then to SOM. There's some trade-offs here with access vs. speed when deciding whether to stay with arterials vs. highways.

 

EDIT: Of course, there could be rapid-transit-style stations as part of pull-off areas along highways (either in the median or beyond the outer berms).

 

I was thinking that too, if you look at 480 and Ridge it is almost tailor made for that.

 

As far as access goes, you could do what I've advocated with Red Line stations, every one is a mini-hub.

 

 

Here's how RTA could add capacity to the HealthLine... Upgrade it to a fixed-guideway rubber-tired tram ala the Mestre tram. Mestre is the first town on the Italian mainline when you cross the causeway from Venice....

 

^Not to mention this rubber-tired tram would immediately attract more high-density (true) TOD development to the Euclid corridor as people would perceive the tram as a more permanent, rail-like system as opposed to merely the fancy bus that the HL currently is.  Study after study has shown that people are much more willing to locate near and travel by rail transit than buses.

KJP/Clvlndr regarding the video above. Is there a BRT that has the capacity of the one above but uses no guide track or wire above. If the tram above was diesel-hybrid and had some steering capabilities could that not be dropped right onto the HealthLine without any major infrastructure needed. That's what is needed. I have seen some concepts online but I don't see them being used anywhere at this point.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6634/

http://www.gizmag.com/autotram-extra-grand-worlds-largest-bus/24053/

No way to steer or otherwise control a vehicle that long without a fixed guideway. It's why rail vehicles are higher capacity than buses.

Ok, I want one!  How much?

No way to steer or otherwise control a vehicle that long without a fixed guideway. It's way rail vehicles are higher capacity than buses.

 

Yes that makes sense. Of course now I see something called bi-articulates buses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-articulated_bus

 

http://www.novabus.com/october-2012/volvo-sells-120-bi-articulated-chassis-for-bogotas-brt-system.html

 

 

Ok, I want one!  How much?

 

I've seen conflicting reports on the cost of building this system, called Translohr. Here is some information about it:

http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/translohr-tramway-on-tyres/

http://www.newtl.com/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translohr

I know it would be a little more complicated than this...but it really seems like all you'd have to do is sawcut a slot along the current healthline route, then insert the metal guide trench. Can't be that much more to it.

 

A cost estimate however, I have no idea.

Unless it was powered by electricity -- perhaps by windpower. It could be a joint effort by GCRTA, LEEDCo, Cleveland Clinic, UHHS, CWRU and others in which the overhead electric supply for the HealthLine and perhaps the Waterfront Line and Red Line double as transmission lines to UC-area electric users, that way overhead wires are provided and maintained at no expense to GCRTA.

:clap:

:clap:

Now that makes sense!

:wtf:

:wtf:

 

How would this work with our ice, and snow?

 

:wtf:

:wtf:

 

How would this work with our ice, and snow?

 

 

Probably would work best on 24-hour lines like the HealthLine where ice and snow wouldn't get the chance to accumulate. But there would have to be a vehicle/system devised to occasionally clear ice/snow during heavier storms.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to treat the roadway the exact same way we do today. The only difference MAY be if there are overhead wires limiting the truck bed height.

While I like the Venice tram and consider it a definite upgrade to the HL BRT, if we're going to spend that kind of cash to upgrade it, we might as well convert it into a standard LRV system so that it would be compatible with the Rapid just in case, down the road, RTA decided to connect/interface the 2 systems.

While I like the Venice tram and consider it a definite upgrade to the HL BRT, if we're going to spend that kind of cash to upgrade it, we might as well convert it into a standard LRV system so that it would be compatible with the Rapid just in case, down the road, RTA decided to connect/interface the 2 systems.

 

Agreed. I'm still holding out hope the Dual Hub plan will come to fruition at some point in my lifetime.

Actually from the Wikipedia article KJP posted it looks like the Tramway may be more expensive in terms of both capital and operations than LRT, for a less comfortable ride.  The main advantage seems to be in that it can climb a steeper grade, which could matter if we wanted to send it up into the Heights or down into the Flats.  But on the current Healthline that's unnecessary.

:wtf:

:wtf:

Wouldn't this system eliminate the two wire and two trolleybus poles cluttering up the street? Single pantagraph looks better than trolley poles. Seems like it is easier to make one trench. Like you said, the guidance is the key.

It might be slightly less expensive but it's lack of comfortable ride and lack of interoperability with other transit rights of way might limit one-seat rides, economies of scale and cost effectiveness.

:wtf:

I saw some videos of Essen Germany running both Duel-mode Trolleybuses and light rail together in the tunnel. I think they got rid of the Trolleybuses in the tunnel now. Could you do the same as to run the new guided tram thing and light rail in the future? I could see these running on the Detroit-Superior bridge?

Sometimes looking to the future requires looking to the past first...

 

#TBT to 1975 when Cuyahoga County residents voted overwhelmingly to support #transit and fund @GCRTA. https://t.co/MHyPcGurp0

Would you support this?

 

Would you want a multi-county regional bus and rail system for NE Ohio?

 

A good rounded figure for what this could incur per year in capital and operating costs is $100 million per year.

 

Since most people use transit to commute to work, what if each worker in each of the 12 counties of NE Ohio paid an income tax to support this truly regional system?

 

There are 1.8 million employed persons in the 12 counties of NE Ohio. That works out to an average of  $1.06 per worker per week.

 

Is $1 per week in income tax for a NE Ohio regional bus and rail system worth considering?

 

The details....

 

EMPLOYED WORKFORCE BY NE OHIO COUNTY 2013

Cuyahoga - 590,000

Summit  - 265,000

Stark    - 170,000

Lorain  - 145,000

Lake    - 120,000

Mahoning - 102,000

Trumbull -  92,000

Medina  -  90,000

Portage  -  85,000

Wayne    -  53,000

Geauga  -  50,000

Ashtabula-  43,000

 

TOTAL    1,805,000 employed persons in these counties

 

Goal: raise $100 million per year for capital and operations of a multicounty transit system

 

Employee Impact = $55.4 per employee per year or $1.06 per employee per week. Average weekly wage/salary/benefit per employee in this region in 2013 was $300 (per Ohio Job & Family Services).

 

Here’s my daydream idea for expanding Cleveland’s Rapid: extend the Waterfront Line down the Pennsylvania Railroad line that bisects Midtown going southeast and connect back to the existing light rail west of Buckeye-Woodhill Station. 

 

 

This plan would obviously cost a lot of money at a time when there’s little political support for paying for transit in Ohio.  But if this forum is a place to spitball theoretical ideas, this one appears to be feasible, and in one way it’s cost-efficient in that it utilizes an existing right-of-way.  The underlying premise of this plan is that the old Pennsylvania Railroad line (currently controlled by Norfolk Southern to my knowledge) has space for four tracks but only uses the inner two.  If my understanding of this is incorrect then the whole plan becomes a lot less feasible, but it looks like there is a right-of-way for two rail tracks that runs through the east side of town.  For example, the rail bridge over Euclid and E. 55th seems to clearly show freight traffic on the inner two lanes with abandoned space for tracks on either side:

 

 

This provides an opportunity for rapid transit tracks to be put in these unused parts.  Having such right-of-way available in the middle of a city is a rare opportunity.  The benefits of this plan over other possible expansions are:

- The right-of-way is largely in place.  This can be hard to come by in built up areas and more expensive to acquire, particularly when eminent domain is so out of fashion.  This should be cheaper than some ideas to loop the Waterfront Line into downtown. 

- This plan provides a greater purpose for the Waterfront Line.  That line currently suffers from very low ridership because it doesn’t really go anywhere.  Which gets to a related point…

- This plan increases the value of the existing network.  Instead of simply adding an extension farther out to plug into the system, this plan adds new stops while making existing stops more useful.  This plan makes the system more of a network.  Currently the rail system is a hub-and-spoke system that is largely one-dimensional: it takes you downtown then back out.  (Yes, I know this is a simplification, but for most riders it’s true). 

- This plan accesses areas that are already urban in density and mixed-usage, namely Asiatown.  Creating a transit link to Asiatown would be a big boost to the restaurants and residences in area.  Midtown is also benefited. 

- This plan provides an alternative access route to downtown from the east side.  Currently if maintenance work shuts down part of the line heading downtown it completely cuts off access by train and riders have to switch to buses.  This creates a useful redundancy that riders could use if a maintenance problem arises.  It also provides an alternate route that could be faster for some riders, depending on their destination. 

 

This plan for a New Blue Line calls for new stations at: Superior in Asiatown, Euclid & E. 55th in Midtown, Central & E. 67th, and a new station at E.79th that can connect to the existing Red Line Station there.  The exact placement of stations could differ but these seem to be well-spaced.  Station platforms can be built on the outside of the tracks.  I think using the Blue Line name for this route into the city is the most clear and simple naming convention.  If Blue Line riders want to go downtown via this route they can stay on the line; if they want to take the existing route they can transfer to the Green Line.  The name Waterfront Line would be eliminated.

 

Here are the challenges and major costs I see for this plan:

- Constructing a flyover at the end of the Waterfront Line.  To connect the existing Waterfront tracks to the right-of-way, a bridge would have to be constructed to take them over existing tracks.  My doodle of how this would work is below (view is from the north to the south, with bright colors used for clarity’s sake; the existing end-of-the line South Harbor Station is on the right edge of the picture).

- Connecting the south end of this extension back into the existing light rail.  This would require a similar flyover.

- Installing the tracks and catenary in a tight space. 

 

 

But these things are fairly conventional engineering tasks that can be done.  As with anything, the big issue is money.  But if this were something the community chose to do, it would be a great improvement to the transit system. 

 

A downtown rail loop is a good idea. Using existing tracks would be economical, but I feel that is a bit too far outside of the downtown core to attract much ridership. I would try to make something like Playhouse Square more transit accessible. From Tower City, its almost a mile of walking, a bit further than most will tolerate. I would venture to say that many people have an appetite for using transit in Cleveland, but reasons against pop up such as: I live too far from a station, where I need to go is too far from tower city, connections/schedule, flexibility/speed of driving, safety concerns.

 

My pivot of your downtown loop would be to run a track inside/along/over/under/on I-90. The waterfront line is a good start (I'm happy it got accomplished), but make it a continuous / automated / 24-7 loop. This adds about 1.8 miles of new track. At some online-source estimate of $86M/mile of LRT, then this would be $154M. The two stations I've guestimated to add would be I-90/E14th and I-90/Chester. This would make Playhouse Square within a 10 minute walk. If the downtown/waterfront/90 loop could operate like a Copenhagen Metro-style of being automated, continuous operation, small headways, bi-directional (clockwise and a counter-clockwise) I think you've got a usable product. I-90 is a still a bit torn up, so make sure they leave some space to fit this in.

 

I would name it the Plum Line (purple in color), since Cleveland's a Plum. I would break it off of Green/Blue lines, they can terminate at CUT, and then everyone transfers in Tower City.

I like the idea of a rail transit line along the former PRR because I think it would help redevelop the old warehouse area along it and better connect Asiatown with UC/CWRU and with downtown Cleveland.

 

However.... When most of the Rapid system was built, there were no regulations concerning a lateral separation between transit tracks and freight tracks. There are now. Today, the design standard is a 30 foot separation which I believe is measured from the centerline from a transit track to the centerline of the nearest freight track. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_155.pdf

 

Since much of the former four-track PRR is elevated, the cost of widening the right of way would be obviously be very expensive. But there may be another way...

 

Much of NS's freight train traffic can be rerouted off the lakefront tracks to the NS tracks and rights of way south of downtown on a "lakefront bypass" which I studied as a consultant 13 years ago for the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition and EcoCity Cleveland (now Green City Blue Lake Institute):

http://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/railbypassstudy.pdf

Discussed here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=10544.10

 

By detouring freight off the lakefront, you can open up a route to become almost freight-free for regional commuter trains from Lorain through Lakewood to Cleveland's lakefront to links with the HealthLine, Red Line and Blue/Green lines, before turning east on the former Erie RR mainline toward Solon and Mantua. About 15 years ago, NOACA estimated the cost of this commuter rail service to be $300 million ($413 million today). Add the Lakefront Bypass, which I estimated at $150 million in 2003 ($193 million today), and you can run rapid transit-like train service frequencies (like every 15 minutes during rush hours and 30 minutes off peak) on the core route from Westlake to Solon and less frequent (or even rush hours-only) train service between Lorain and Mantua.

 

Even if the commuter service isn't sought, building the lakefront bypass means you could eliminate one of the two railroad tracks on the former PRR from the lakefront to near Union Avenue, thereby opening up three track spaces on the elevated right-of-way. Two of those can be used for light-rail transit and the third track space can be left unused as the buffer from the remaining active railroad track that's shifted to the outer track space along the right of way.

I would name it the Plum Line (purple in color), since Cleveland's a Plum.

 

Nooooooo....one of the worst civic slogans ever.

 

I would break it off of Green/Blue lines, they can terminate at CUT, and then everyone transfers in Tower City.

 

That's part of the problem with the current system, too many transfers at a point on the periphery of the metro areas.  It seems to be a popular idea in this group to do the opposite, split one of the lines off around 116th or so and go to University Circle and the Clinic.  Both Shaker lines don't need to go downtown anymore.

Sometimes looking to the future requires looking to the past first...

 

#TBT to 1975 when Cuyahoga County residents voted overwhelmingly to support #transit and fund @GCRTA. https://t.co/MHyPcGurp0

 

The day Cuyahoga County mass transit set off on the path from being a general resource to a social program.

Here’s my daydream idea for expanding Cleveland’s Rapid: extend the Waterfront Line down the Pennsylvania Railroad line that bisects Midtown going southeast and connect back to the existing light rail west of Buckeye-Woodhill Station. 

 

 

This plan would obviously cost a lot of money at a time when there’s little political support for paying for transit in Ohio.  But if this forum is a place to spitball theoretical ideas, this one appears to be feasible, and in one way it’s cost-efficient in that it utilizes an existing right-of-way.  The underlying premise of this plan is that the old Pennsylvania Railroad line (currently controlled by Norfolk Southern to my knowledge) has space for four tracks but only uses the inner two.  If my understanding of this is incorrect then the whole plan becomes a lot less feasible, but it looks like there is a right-of-way for two rail tracks that runs through the east side of town.  For example, the rail bridge over Euclid and E. 55th seems to clearly show freight traffic on the inner two lanes with abandoned space for tracks on either side:

 

 

This provides an opportunity for rapid transit tracks to be put in these unused parts.  Having such right-of-way available in the middle of a city is a rare opportunity.  The benefits of this plan over other possible expansions are:

- The right-of-way is largely in place.  This can be hard to come by in built up areas and more expensive to acquire, particularly when eminent domain is so out of fashion.  This should be cheaper than some ideas to loop the Waterfront Line into downtown. 

- This plan provides a greater purpose for the Waterfront Line.  That line currently suffers from very low ridership because it doesn’t really go anywhere.  Which gets to a related point…

- This plan increases the value of the existing network.  Instead of simply adding an extension farther out to plug into the system, this plan adds new stops while making existing stops more useful.  This plan makes the system more of a network.  Currently the rail system is a hub-and-spoke system that is largely one-dimensional: it takes you downtown then back out.  (Yes, I know this is a simplification, but for most riders it’s true). 

- This plan accesses areas that are already urban in density and mixed-usage, namely Asiatown.  Creating a transit link to Asiatown would be a big boost to the restaurants and residences in area.  Midtown is also benefited. 

- This plan provides an alternative access route to downtown from the east side.  Currently if maintenance work shuts down part of the line heading downtown it completely cuts off access by train and riders have to switch to buses.  This creates a useful redundancy that riders could use if a maintenance problem arises.  It also provides an alternate route that could be faster for some riders, depending on their destination. 

 

This plan for a New Blue Line calls for new stations at: Superior in Asiatown, Euclid & E. 55th in Midtown, Central & E. 67th, and a new station at E.79th that can connect to the existing Red Line Station there.  The exact placement of stations could differ but these seem to be well-spaced.  Station platforms can be built on the outside of the tracks.  I think using the Blue Line name for this route into the city is the most clear and simple naming convention.  If Blue Line riders want to go downtown via this route they can stay on the line; if they want to take the existing route they can transfer to the Green Line.  The name Waterfront Line would be eliminated.

 

Here are the challenges and major costs I see for this plan:

- Constructing a flyover at the end of the Waterfront Line.  To connect the existing Waterfront tracks to the right-of-way, a bridge would have to be constructed to take them over existing tracks.  My doodle of how this would work is below (view is from the north to the south, with bright colors used for clarity’s sake; the existing end-of-the line South Harbor Station is on the right edge of the picture).

- Connecting the south end of this extension back into the existing light rail.  This would require a similar flyover.

- Installing the tracks and catenary in a tight space. 

 

 

But these things are fairly conventional engineering tasks that can be done.  As with anything, the big issue is money.  But if this were something the community chose to do, it would be a great improvement to the transit system. 

 

 

This is actually not a horrible idea; I've thought about this general configuration, too.  But rather than having the Pennsylvania RR LRT tracks joining the existing Blue/Green ones heading east, I would continue the LRT southeast along the old Pennsylvania RR ROW to Rockside Rd and the Auto Mile at the Bedford border.

French City to Scrap Novel Trolleybus for LRT System #NewStarts

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/brooklyn-queens-streetcar-iran-metro-caen-lrt

^Probably for the better.  As you've noted, LRT has much higher capacity that ETBs.  This TVR system, while novel seems kinda weird.  Even though it would simply overhead power collection with a single wire, the old 2-wire system allows buses to stretch and lower their trolley poles, allowing the buses to shift 1 lane to either side.  Comes in handy when there are illegally parked cars, like in Philly, with it's often narrow streets; and where traditional ETBs exist.

This article captures a lot of my complaints about streetcars.  It's often faster to walk here in New Orleans than take streetcar.  I would kill for BRT, but I would just be happy with a bus

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/23/467813006/revived-streetcars-may-be-on-track-for-disappointment?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

^ Is there more detail in the audio? The written article was heavy on the rhetoric, light on the statistics. The article talks about the disadvantages of streetcars and how many of them across the country have been a disappointment. But where are the ridership numbers? The consultant says the Portland streetcars have in some ways not lived up to the hype. Okay, in what way?

New Orleans streetcars carry an average of 23,000 riders per weekday -- nearly twice as many riders as GCRTA's Shaker/Waterfront lines that have dedicated rights of way and faster speeds. New Orleans has 22 route-miles compared to the Shaker/Waterfront LRT's 15 route-miles. Supportive land use is often more important than speed.