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

 

Exactly. A lot of people already think the Red Line is light rail. They don't know the difference. The overhead wires probably don't help but I doubt even that plays much of a factor. They just think it's light rail which is not a big deal.

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

 

Distinction: converting the Red Line to low floor LRT and spending millions to lower platforms -- especially converting Tower City (having all passengers board on the Blue/Green side... maybe), is throwing away an asset; especially re the Airport line and especially given the over $100M spent/spending to rebuild stations making them ADA compliant..  I didn't necessarily mean that for high/low platform LRT cars like those in Pittsburgh.

Distinction: converting the Red Line to low floor LRT and spending millions to lower platforms -- especially converting Tower City (having all passengers board on the Blue/Green side... maybe), is throwing away an asset; especially re the Airport line and especially given the over $100M spent/spending to rebuild stations making them ADA compliant..  I didn't necessarily mean that for high/low platform LRT cars like those in Pittsburgh.

 

You're assuming that a dual-floor car isn't possible or desirable. I believe it is.

Exactly. A lot of people already think the Red Line is light rail. They don't know the difference. The overhead wires probably don't help but I doubt even that plays much of a factor. They just think it's light rail which is not a big deal.

 

A lot is because "light rail" has become de rigueur and sexy in the public mindset; people who don't know much about transit (especially those who write about it and don't use it: AKA PD, Cleveland tour-guide writers) think that everything not in a subway tunnel is light rail.

A lot is because "light rail" has become de rigueur and sexy in the public mindset; people who don't know much about transit (especially those who write about it and don't use it: AKA PD, Cleveland tour-guide writers) think that everything not in a subway tunnel is light rail.

 

And what does that hurt to call a heavy-rail line a light-rail line?

Distinction: converting the Red Line to low floor LRT and spending millions to lower platforms -- especially converting Tower City (having all passengers board on the Blue/Green side... maybe), is throwing away an asset; especially re the Airport line and especially given the over $100M spent/spending to rebuild stations making them ADA compliant..  I didn't necessarily mean that for high/low platform LRT cars like those in Pittsburgh.

 

You're assuming that a dual-floor car isn't possible or desirable. I believe it is.

 

Au contraire, I believe dual floor car is possible; Pittsburgh is using it (as is SF's Muni Metro, I believe, in the Market St. subway)-- it wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I could live with, and support it.  I also understand the financial flexibility it is to have one type of car to move to different parts of the system based on ridership.  Low platform conversion: I'm totally against and think foolish.

And what does that hurt to call a heavy-rail line a light-rail line?

 

I don't care what people call it; so long as they don't mess with it... It does however indicate a general regional lack of sophistication and/or interest which, in the end, handicaps the overall cause of transit and urbanization imho.

^To me it's parallel to the 3-C train debacle of a few years ago.  Kasich and the opponents, mainly Republican, seized on the term "high speed rail" and used it to attack building a train that overall traveled at (what?) 37MPH.  Had people been educated to the fact an upgrading of rail needed to be undertaken before HSR could be implemented and that overall end-to-end speeds, which were no doubt exaggerated by opponents, didn't reflect regional speeds where conventional trains at 110 MPH could move people faster, then maybe we could have built this logical system to create, and attract, thousands (probably tens of thousands) of jobs... But when people don't know basic facts and even use proper terminology, they will be susceptible to misinformation.  The 3-C affair was a textbook example. 

^To me it's parallel to the 3-C train debacle of a few years ago.  Kasich and the opponents, mainly Republican, seized on the term "high speed rail" and used it to attack building a train that overall traveled at (what?) 37MPH.  Had people been educated to the fact an upgrading of rail needed to be undertaken before HSR could be implemented and that overall end-to-end speeds, which were no doubt exaggerated by opponents, didn't reflect regional speeds where conventional trains at 110 MPH could move people faster, then maybe we could have built this logical system to create, and attract, thousands (probably tens of thousands) of jobs... But when people don't know basic facts and even use proper terminology, they will be susceptible to misinformation.  The 3-C affair was a textbook example. 

 

Agreed. So what negative connotation does "light-rail" have which "heavy rail" does not?

 

BTW, the only people who care about the distinction between light and heavy rail are rail geeks like us. That doesn't make us sophisticated. It just makes us annoying.

^True dat!

Agreed. So what negative connotation does "light-rail" have which "heavy rail" does not?

 

BTW, the only people who care about the distinction between light and heavy rail are rail geeks like us. That doesn't make us sophisticated. It just makes us annoying.

 

Again, whether one refers to the Red Line as light rail or heavy rail is irrelevant so long as they don’t mess with it… And as for being annoying… I’ll opt for being annoying if it can thwart those with regressive urban agendas, of which there are many in Cleveland and Ohio -- or is it Ohiotucky?  Ohiossippi?

 

Btw, the issue of running Light Rail on the Red Line may be a nonstarter for another reason: crash worthiness.  The very busy NS tracks between W. 117 and the Airport are extremely close to the Red Line, and even though RTA uses “heavy rail” vehicles, the windows and I believe the sides of the cars shudder slightly when an air pocket is created by passing Red Line cars.  (the Blue/Green LRT route is set farther away from active freight tracks, so it’s slightly safer).  I don’t even want to think about the consequences of an NS derailment in the path of a Red Line vehicle.  If anything, RTA should probably consider utilizing full-size commuter rail cars which are crash worthy.  In addition, if RTA somehow magically did opt to extend the Red Line in the future – over the West Corridor through Lakewood and Westlake, or east into Lake county – they’d have the cars to simply run over the existing NS tracks.  Yeah, yeah, I know the costs will probably make electrified expansion prohibitive, but… Crash worthiness is an issue, and is why Denver’s FasTracks has the odd commuter rail north, LRT south system.

 

Again, whether one refers to the Red Line as light rail or heavy rail is irrelevant so long as they don’t mess with it… And as for being annoying… I’ll opt for being annoying if it can thwart those with regressive urban agendas, of which there are many in Cleveland and Ohio -- or is it Ohiotucky?  Ohiossippi?

 

Btw, the issue of running Light Rail on the Red Line may be a nonstarter for another reason: crash worthiness.  The very busy NS tracks between W. 117 and the Airport are extremely close to the Red Line, and even though RTA uses “heavy rail” vehicles, the windows and I believe the sides of the cars shudder slightly when an air pocket is created by passing Red Line cars.  (the Blue/Green LRT route is set farther away from active freight tracks, so it’s slightly safer).  I don’t even want to think about the consequences of an NS derailment in the path of a Red Line vehicle.  If anything, RTA should probably consider utilizing full-size commuter rail cars which are crash worthy.  In addition, if RTA somehow magically did opt to extend the Red Line in the future – over the West Corridor through Lakewood and Westlake, or east into Lake county – they’d have the cars to simply run over the existing NS tracks.  Yeah, yeah, I know the costs will probably make electrified expansion prohibitive, but… Crash worthiness is an issue, and is why Denver’s FasTracks has the odd commuter rail north, LRT south system.

 

 

It's a non-issue. The FRA rules regarding interoperability will change in 2015, allowing lighter-weight passenger rail cars on freight tracks.

^^

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

 

How is Al porter relevant to this discussion? 

 

"I’ve never had allusions of serious Red Line expansion beyond its current route."

 

Since you have given up, why don't you stand aside and allow us to make our rail system better.

 

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

 

This isn't an issue:

 

Light rail can go to airports and the many cities do just that.

 

Little known fact that the majority of riders to airports are not travelers but workers

 

There is no disadvantage to using low floor light rail tech with level boarding vs high level platforms/trains

 

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

 

 

Most of these new stations have platforms like above.  platforms are not the same as stations, you can replace one without replacing the other.

 

You can cost effectively replace the platforms at potentially less cost than premium of a bilevel fleet.

 

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

 

 

Name another heavy rail system that uses overhead line, and shares track with a light rail line?

 

These factors make the conversion to light rail a no brainer.  In reality the redline is more like a sup'd up light rail system that a true heavy rail system.

 

Our system is unique because it began as a light rail system and was adapted to handle heavy rail, not the other way around.

 

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

 

I wish you weren't so fearful of change. It is time to move on and grow this system.

How hard would it be to simply raise the tracks rather than lower the platform?  To minimize grade, you'd have to start far back, certainly, but even if you had to put in some concrete supports, doing so probably wouldn't interfere with train operations, then you just fill in with lots of ballast and replace the rails.  Granted, that's an oversimplification, but seems like it might be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding platforms.

 

Is the rail spacing the same on both red line and green/blue lines?

 

Other than simplifying maintenance by having a common vehicle throughout the rail system, what advantages of heavy rail would we be giving up?

How hard would it be to simply raise the tracks rather than lower the platform?  To minimize grade, you'd have to start far back, certainly, but even if you had to put in some concrete supports, doing so probably wouldn't interfere with train operations, then you just fill in with lots of ballast and replace the rails.  Granted, that's an oversimplification, but seems like it might be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding platforms.

 

You are right on the money, and yes it is being considered by a few folks at GCRTA and their regular engineering consulting partners.

 

Is the rail spacing the same on both red line and green/blue lines?

 

They are all standard gauge, as is the mainline railroad system in the USA -- 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

 

Other than simplifying maintenance by having a common vehicle throughout the rail system, what advantages of heavy rail would we be giving up?

 

I'm racking my brain but its inherent advantages don't apply to Cleveland, such as being able to operate in multiple-car (four or more) configurations and thus carry much larger passenger counts. Its speed has more to do with the extent and design of right of way which. If a mostly grade-separated right of way with many straightaways and gentle curves were provided for a light-rail car, the light-rail vehicle can operate just as fast as a heavy-rail train can.

How hard would it be to simply raise the tracks rather than lower the platform?  To minimize grade, you'd have to start far back, certainly, but even if you had to put in some concrete supports, doing so probably wouldn't interfere with train operations, then you just fill in with lots of ballast and replace the rails.  Granted, that's an oversimplification, but seems like it might be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding platforms.

 

You are right on the money, and yes it is being considered by a few folks at GCRTA and their regular engineering consulting partners.

Any guesstimates on price for doing that per station? Are the vehicle widths the same between for RTAs heavy and light rail?

How hard would it be to simply raise the tracks rather than lower the platform?  To minimize grade, you'd have to start far back, certainly, but even if you had to put in some concrete supports, doing so probably wouldn't interfere with train operations, then you just fill in with lots of ballast and replace the rails.  Granted, that's an oversimplification, but seems like it might be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding platforms.

 

You are right on the money, and yes it is being considered by a few folks at GCRTA and their regular engineering consulting partners.

 

Is the rail spacing the same on both red line and green/blue lines?

 

They are all standard gauge, as is the mainline railroad system in the USA -- 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

 

Other than simplifying maintenance by having a common vehicle throughout the rail system, what advantages of heavy rail would we be giving up?

 

I'm racking my brain but its inherent advantages don't apply to Cleveland, such as being able to operate in multiple-car (four or more) configurations and thus carry much larger passenger counts. Its speed has more to do with the extent and design of right of way which. If a mostly grade-separated right of way with many straightaways and gentle curves were provided for a light-rail car, the light-rail vehicle can operate just as fast as a heavy-rail train can.

 

 

This is picture from below the platform at the west 117th St station.  In this case the platform is also a bridge.  I would not rebuild the platform i'd use the retained fill technique to move the tracks up to the proper platform height.

 

For platforms like trinkets I think platform reconstruction could be more cost effective that raising the tracks. It is less labor intensive to knock down the old platform and pour a platform 14in above the top of the rail.

 

Either way the costs of maintaining  a low and high fleet is higher than the costs of a low floor fleet. 

 

A good guide to the potential of modern LRT system

 

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project

 

High Capacity

The projected ridership of the Crosstown is 5,400 passengers per hour in the peak direction by 2031. The capacity of an LRT is 15,000 passengers per hour, per direction. LRT cars can be removed or added easily, thus providing the flexibility to accommodate ridership demands.

 

 

How hard would it be to simply raise the tracks rather than lower the platform?  To minimize grade, you'd have to start far back, certainly, but even if you had to put in some concrete supports, doing so probably wouldn't interfere with train operations, then you just fill in with lots of ballast and replace the rails.  Granted, that's an oversimplification, but seems like it might be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding platforms.

 

You are right on the money, and yes it is being considered by a few folks at GCRTA and their regular engineering consulting partners.

Any guesstimates on price for doing that per station? Are the vehicle widths the same between for RTAs heavy and light rail?

 

No estimates. It's just an idea that was recently kicked around. The Tokyu heavy-rail cars are about 10-feet, 4-inches. The Breda light-rail cars are 9.3 feet wide (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_155.pdf).

 

How is Al porter relevant to this discussion? 

 

Ever hear of the philosopher George Santayana, biker16?  He once said,"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If you're incapable of recognizing that the same themes that led to the demise of transit expansion in the past, keep repeating themselves in this town over and over and over again, I really can't help you.  Some of these themes include: petty within-region "us against them" squabbles, race/class divisions, a pro-auto agenda, a cheap penny ante approach towards transit (which was often fueled by the aforementioned race/class, city/suburb divisions), poor planning and the inability, as  one local scribe put it, "To see past yesterday," etc., etc.

 

Name another heavy rail system that uses overhead line, and shares track with a light rail line?

These factors make the conversion to light rail a no brainer. 

 

I guess that depends on whose brain you're using.

 

In reality the redline is more like a sup'd up light rail system that a true heavy rail system.

 

What really defines "light rail" biker?  Both St. Louis and LA use what's purported to be light rail, but fully operate from high platforms ... like the Red Line.  Are they really heavy rail?  Are they really light rail but their high platforms make their systems less desirable because of it? 

 

Our system is unique because it began as a light rail system and was adapted to handle heavy rail, not the other way around.

 

Shucks, Biker, there goes that history thing again... Fact is, the Vans planned the Shaker system as what some, mainly Europeans, call a "pre metro", meaning eventually, the Shaker lines were designed to have raised platforms to correspond to a planned county-wide high platform system: one the Van Sweringens started (with the East Cleveland portion of today's Red Line) but never got to complete because the Depression wrecked their empire and led to their premature deaths in the mid-30s.  You might want to check out "Invisiible Giants: The Empires of Cleveland's Van Sweringen Brothers," by Herbert H. Harwood, Jr, a historian whose dad worked with the Vans.

 

I wish you weren't so fearful of change. It is time to move on and grow this system.

 

Change for change sake isn't growth, biker... And btw, please explain how these moves will result in "growth?"  How, in this town when it has been reported elsewhere in this website that RTA's proposal to extend the Red Line to the NE is really just a stalking horse (or Trojan Horse) just to expand RTA's beloved BRT... How, biker, when it's even been reported on UO that RTA is quietly doubting the LRT/Blue Line expansion across Warrensville & Chagrin, ... a whopping .3 miles! ... If collectively, we're incapable of expanding light rail .3 miles, what makes you think your downgrading the Red Line just to make it "uniform" so you can see your pretty little trams all over the place, will lead to ... "growth?"

 

Biker, just a few miles from the Blue Line terminus in the late 1970s, the newly minted RTA was incapable of extending the Green line a measly 1.5 miles over a pre-made path the Vans built -- equipped with ROW, road overpasses and even some trolley support poles for .5 miles into Beachwood... A former Cleveland planning director, Norm Krumholz, shouted the expansion down saying it was extravagant and would serve rich "fat cats" at the expense of the poor, so RTA quietly punked out -- NOTE: Krumholz, who thankfully is still living and even still teaching at CSU, is not a bad guy; a political lefty who I'm generally politically in simpatico with; he just got it dead wrong on the Green Line thing; he's a rare anti-rail lefty -- oh well ... Oops, sorry biker, there I go with that history stuff again.  I forgot, in your world, history is totally irrelevant.... forget I even mentioned it... 

 

 

Biker, just a few miles from the Blue Line terminus in the late 1970s, the newly minted RTA was incapable of extending the Green line a measly 1.5 miles over a pre-made path the Vans built -- equipped with ROW, road overpasses and even some trolley support poles for .5 miles into Beachwood... A former Cleveland planning director, Norm Krumholz, shouted the expansion down saying it was extravagant and would serve rich "fat cats" at the expense of the poor, so RTA quietly punked out -- NOTE: Krumholz, who thankfully is still living and even still teaching at CSU, is not a bad guy; a political lefty who I'm generally politically in simpatico with; he just got it dead wrong on the Green Line thing; he's a rare anti-rail lefty -- oh well ... Oops, sorry biker, there I go with that history stuff again.  I forgot, in your world, history is totally irrelevant.... forget I even mentioned it... 

 

Ah, the (first, I hope) something I learned today....before 7am.  Thank you.

 

I recall Krumholz, what a disaster he was, and how Voinovich improved things just by sending him packing.  I didn't know he had done this, but it's completely unsurprising.  Something like this early in an agency's lifespan can set its entire tone (example, Clinton's ATF director being the first head of the TSA).  He vetoed this idea because to him, RTA was meant to be a social program not a transportation resource.

 

As a pro-train righty, I'd differ that lefties are rarely anti-train.  Trains stop less and travel further by their very nature, making them better suited for sprawled areas.  I can see how many lefties would prefer buses.

 

PS:  This post didn't trigger my new tag line, the Palin-Romney Russia flap did.  I Facebooked it the other night.

 

How is Al porter relevant to this discussion? 

 

Ever hear of the philosopher George Santayana, biker16?  He once said,"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If you're incapable of recognizing that the same themes that led to the demise of transit expansion in the past, keep repeating themselves in this town over and over and over again, I really can't help you.  Some of these themes include: petty within-region "us against them" squabbles, race/class divisions, a pro-auto agenda, a cheap penny ante approach towards transit (which was often fueled by the aforementioned race/class, city/suburb divisions), poor planning and the inability, as  one local scribe put it, "To see past yesterday," etc., etc.

 

A phrase i think is more apt is

 

" is that generals always prepare to fight the last war rather than the next one."

 

 

Name another heavy rail system that uses overhead line, and shares track with a light rail line?

These factors make the conversion to light rail a no brainer. 

 

I guess that depends on whose brain you're using.

 

Or how far in the past you are living.

 

In reality the redline is more like a sup'd up light rail system that a true heavy rail system.

 

What really defines "light rail" biker?  Both St. Louis and LA use what's purported to be light rail, but fully operate from high platforms ... like the Red Line.  Are they really heavy rail?  Are they really light rail but their high platforms make their systems less desirable because of it? 

 

those system were built before Low platform technology was developed, new systems in Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Toronto all use low platform for their light rail systems.

 

Our system is unique because it began as a light rail system and was adapted to handle heavy rail, not the other way around.

 

Shucks, Biker, there goes that history thing again... Fact is, the Vans planned the Shaker system as what some, mainly Europeans, call a "pre metro", meaning eventually, the Shaker lines were designed to have raised platforms to correspond to a planned county-wide high platform system: one the Van Sweringens started (with the East Cleveland portion of today's Red Line) but never got to complete because the Depression wrecked their empire and led to their premature deaths in the mid-30s.  You might want to check out "Invisiible Giants: The Empires of Cleveland's Van Sweringen Brothers," by Herbert H. Harwood, Jr, a historian whose dad worked with the Vans.

 

Again the technology has changed, allowing for a low Floor vehicles something they simply did not have back then.

 

I wish you weren't so fearful of change. It is time to move on and grow this system.

 

Change for change sake isn't growth, biker... And btw, please explain how these moves will result in "growth?"  How, in this town when it has been reported elsewhere in this website that RTA's proposal to extend the Red Line to the NE is really just a stalking horse (or Trojan Horse) just to expand RTA's beloved BRT... How, biker, when it's even been reported on UO that RTA is quietly doubting the LRT/Blue Line expansion across Warrensville & Chagrin, ... a whopping .3 miles! ... If collectively, we're incapable of expanding light rail .3 miles, what makes you think your downgrading the Red Line just to make it "uniform" so you can see your pretty little trams all over the place, will lead to ... "growth?"

 

Biker, just a few miles from the Blue Line terminus in the late 1970s, the newly minted RTA was incapable of extending the Green line a measly 1.5 miles over a pre-made path the Vans built -- equipped with ROW, road overpasses and even some trolley support poles for .5 miles into Beachwood... A former Cleveland planning director, Norm Krumholz, shouted the expansion down saying it was extravagant and would serve rich "fat cats" at the expense of the poor, so RTA quietly punked out -- NOTE: Krumholz, who thankfully is still living and even still teaching at CSU, is not a bad guy; a political lefty who I'm generally politically in simpatico with; he just got it dead wrong on the Green Line thing; he's a rare anti-rail lefty -- oh well ... Oops, sorry biker, there I go with that history stuff again.  I forgot, in your world, history is totally irrelevant.... forget I even mentioned it... 

 

You are fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought.

 

You have yet to demonstrate that your passion for high platforms is little more than vanity.

 

 

Guys, dial it down. Avoid the personal attacks. Thanks.

I think this is some interesting info.

 

 

$1 dollar in 1990 equals $1.76

 

notice how the cost of running trains has fallen over time.

 

the cost of maintaining the Trains and the ROw have grown at much faster rate on the redline than on the LRT system. this may be due to the fact that the LRT system was rebuilt in the 1980s while the HRT system wasn't, Maybe?

 

the history of these things isn't my strong suit an more knowledgeable on this please chime in.

^interesting.  Are these numbers from RTA? FTA? ... I'd be curious to know.

NTD database.

 

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/

Aggressive Green Line extension options.

 

current route Travel time 28mins

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 74,565 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 72,307 97.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 2,258 3.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 12,866 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 10,608 82.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 2,258 17.6%

 

1 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 119,605 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 111,343 93.1%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 8,262 6.9%

 

Living in the Selection Area 31,745 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 23,483 74.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 8,262 26.0%

 

Airport to Beachwood Place

Travel time 69 mins

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 110,201 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 101,986 92.5%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 8,215 7.5%

 

Living in the Selection Area 39,916 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 31,701 79.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 8,215 20.6%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 180,100 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 153,139 85.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 26,961 15.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 84,231 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 57,270 68.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 26,961 32.0%

 

Tower city to Beachwood Place Travel time 44mins

 

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 80,378 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 77,689 96.7%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 2,689 3.3%

 

Living in the Selection Area 15,858 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 13,169 83.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 2,689 17.0%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 133,499 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 123,539 92.5%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 9,960 7.5%

 

Living in the Selection Area 36,511 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 26,551 72.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 9,960 27.3%

 

 

Tower city to East Gate Travel time 50mins

 

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 94,592 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 90,771 96.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 3,821 4.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 21,398 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 17,577 82.1%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 3,821 17.9%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 150,556 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 137,547 91.4%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 13,009 8.6%

 

Living in the Selection Area 46,355 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 33,346 71.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 13,009 28.1%

 

Tower city to Eastlake via I-271 Travel time 76 mins (better option would be Red line extension)

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 117,197 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 110,682 94.4%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 6,515 5.6%

 

Living in the Selection Area 30,646 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 24,131 78.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 6,515 21.3%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 181,524 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 161,271 88.8%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 20,253 11.2%

 

Living in the Selection Area 66,398 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 46,145 69.5%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 20,253 30.5%

 

Airport to Eastlake Travel time 101 mins (better option would be Red line extension)

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 151,979 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 139,242 91.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 12,737 8.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 54,668 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 41,931 76.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 12,737 23.3%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 228,279 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 189,910 83.2%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 38,369 16.8%

 

Living in the Selection Area 114,118 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 75,749 66.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 38,369 33.6%

 

Paired Analysis

wokrers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

43,521 workers.

 

 

West shore Light Rail.

 

 

 

Windermere station to Westlake/Crocker park,

 

When American greetings moves to Crocker park they will add 1,800 jobs to that area, alot those worker currently live around this route in Lakewood, Detroit Shoreway, Rocky river Ohio city and Downtown

 

1/2 mile

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 101,529 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 95,669 94.2%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 5,860 5.8%

 

Living in the Selection Area 29,532 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 23,672 80.2%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 5,860 19.8%

 

1 mile from Stop

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011  Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 208,915 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 178,324 85.4%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 30,591 14.6%

 

Living in the Selection Area 82,499 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 51,908 62.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 30,591 37.1%

 

Paired Analysis

wokrers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

31,454 workers.

 

 

Blue line Options

 

Total system

 

harvard and Northfield extension with route to university circle.

 

1/2 mile from route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 64,807 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 60,163 92.8%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 4,644 7.2%

 

Living in the Selection Area 21,034 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 16,390 77.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 4,644 22.1%

 

1 mile from Route

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 96,042 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 85,150 88.7%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 10,892 11.3%

 

Living in the Selection Area 41,573 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 30,681 73.8%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 10,892 26.2%

 

Paired Analysis

wokrers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

14,177 Workers

Blue line to UC and Greenline to East Gate, before and after

 

Current system

 

Paired Analysis

wokrers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

Before 12,127 workers

 

After

 

Paired Analysis

wokrers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

After 38,072 workers

 

 

These expansion would increase the number of workers within a 2 seat ride to their job by 25,945 workers, An increase of 213% over the current system. with the potential to double or triple Blue and green line ridership.

 

^Interesting; very detailed.  I agree with the Green Line expansion to I-271 then north in the median.  However, I'd probably terminate it at Mayfield at the Golden Gate development.  As you noted, extending all the way to the Lakefront probably isn't practical and that Red Line expansion is preferrable to the far NE corner of the County... (btw, your 28 minute travel time from TC to Green Road is somewhat conservative.  Occasionally some rush hour trains may be that slow, but most can beat that time.  Off peak trains can make the run in 24 mins or less, and that even includes the Shaker Square bottleneck created by the recently updated traffic control system there)

 

... Extending the Blue Line south and SE is still a good idea.  As I've noted, though, I think extending the Blue line NW from Shaker Square (or E. 116) is problematic because of the difficult terrain -- off the Portage Escarpment down into UC, and your proposed lack of grade separation, which will lower the speed of the trains through the often heavy traffic to the extent that all but the transit dependent will use the service imho...

^btw, I think the Green Line extension ship has sailed.  Beachwood pretty much put the kibosh on that one with its city park infill.  Richmond Road once had a bridge over the ROW, similar to those at Green and Warrensville, but Beachwood filled it in with an earthen embankment rather than deal with the expense of a new bridge and concomitant bridge repair costs.  And now the Maltz Museum dominates the space, where as offices had once been eyed for that location at one time, so Green Line expansion probably isn't practical anymore... too bad.

^^As far as moving the blue line into UC, I'm waiting to see what happens when RTA runs express busses from Randall Park & Highland hills. It should give us a better idea what to expect ridership wise than modeling can do.

 

^On Green Line extension, anything is possible, but short term I'll agree. There'd have to be significant demand from the community and RTA to get an extension and I don't think either exists right now. Someday I think it's probably inevitable that it'll come up again, but it might not be for decades.

^Interesting; very detailed.  I agree with the Green Line expansion to I-271 then north in the median.  However, I'd probably terminate it at Mayfield at the Golden Gate development.  As you noted, extending all the way to the Lakefront probably isn't practical and that Red Line expansion is preferrable to the far NE corner of the County... (btw, your 28 minute travel time from TC to Green Road is somewhat conservative.  Occasionally some rush hour trains may be that slow, but most can beat that time.  Off peak trains can make the run in 24 mins or less, and that even includes the Shaker Square bottleneck created by the recently updated traffic control system there)

 

I-271 north

 

Think about this I live on the West side i often have to travel to Beach wood place, I have TWO option one from the north or one from the south, the concept is the same with transit, by having a northern option and a southern to access I-271 and the 40-50,000 jobs around that corridor, I make it easier to service because My Peak flow of Ridership is in 2 directions not one.

this allows me to maintain more constant service all-day and not have a huge dropoff from peak to off peak. The thing you have to keep in mind is that the by going to eastlake to connect the north eastern suburbs (Euclid, all of lake county) to the, and to the I-271 corridor.

 

Plus if I am going to progressive on Wilson mills Rd. from downtown it makes more sense to take the Red line extension to Route 91 and transfer to the Green line than to take the Green line from Downtown for a single seat ride.

 

I271 south

 

the problem with that median between Richmond and Green Rd is the park. that park is a NEPA nightmare and will require massive Mitigation of impact, (i.e. expensive track work,) your option are A) spend alot of money to go Fast or B) spend far less money to go Slow. There are options like Dedicated lanes, and even widening of Shaker Blvd to allow for separation, I don't believe even in mixed traffic this route will be too slow, both shaker and Richmond are fast roads with few cross streets, Stops spacing and signal preemption will be the keys to speed.  The segments parallel to I-271 will be very fast, fully grade separated.

 

... Extending the Blue Line south and SE is still a good idea.  As I've noted, though, I think extending the Blue line NW from Shaker Square (or E. 116) is problematic because of the difficult terrain -- off the Portage Escarpment down into UC, and your proposed lack of grade separation, which will lower the speed of the trains through the often heavy traffic to the extent that all but the transit dependent will use the service imho...

 

UC

 

speed over short distances is less important the distance from UC to SS is 2.5 miles via moreland-chagrin-fairmount-Cedar build for speed would move the route to the west, and away from pedestrian oriented areas surrounding UC and into very autocentric corridors. 

 

The average speed though that cooridor would be ~15mph, for a 10 minute travel time.

 

If you could double that speed you would only gain 5 mins in travel time 5 mins isn't worth bypassing more transit supportive areas.

 

this brings me to the rolling stock required to make this happen.

 

Requirements

Top speed on 50mph

2.65m wide.(standard Light rail/ wide streetcar)

100% low Floor

8% maximum gradient

18m Minimum Curve Radius.

Capable of mixed traffic operation

Capable of operating in sets of 3-4 vehicles.

Operate level or near level boarding 10in-14in platforms.

lengths of 60Ft (3 segment) Circulator, 90ft (5 segment) medium volume 120ft(7 segment) high capacity.

 

and yes this vehicle exists today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great data! Just for gits and shiggles, how about plotting a Green Line routed like this:

 

^^As far as moving the blue line into UC, I'm waiting to see what happens when RTA runs express busses from Randall Park & Highland hills. It should give us a better idea what to expect ridership wise than modeling can do.

 

^On Green Line extension, anything is possible, but short term I'll agree. There'd have to be significant demand from the community and RTA to get an extension and I don't think either exists right now. Someday I think it's probably inevitable that it'll come up again, but it might not be for decades.

 

have faith, building successful streetcar line in Cleveland that will demonstrate transit isn't just for poor people will change how people think of rail in Cleveland.

 

the costs for going from SS to UC will be less than 250 million dollars, 2/3 the cost of the opportunity corridor. Green to Beachwood place, < 190 million.

 

It can happen we need people to believe it can.

Great data! Just for gits and shiggles, how about plotting a Green Line routed like this:

 

 

Ken you know i hate Wyes, :) what do you do with the green road station now that you have bypassed it?

 

you know this may sound strange but i think that is slow  :evil:and too indirect to it's ultimate destination is the density surrounding Beachwood place and the jobs on I-271.

 

I love you anyway.

 

 

 

Eliminate the existing section east of Warrensville. So could you please generate the data? It doesn't show where John Carroll's enrollment comes from, does it? Of course it could shift as the result of this, to the apartments at Shaker Square and to the Legacy Village/Beachwood Place area.

Eliminate the existing section east of Warrensville. So could you please generate the data? It doesn't show where John Carroll's enrollment comes from, does it? Of course it could shift as the result of this, to the apartments at Shaker Square and to the Legacy Village/Beachwood Place area.

 

only for this segment. Ken's route

1/2 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 10,127 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 9,754 96.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 373 3.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 7,007 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 6,634 94.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 373 5.3%

 

1 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 15,042 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 13,941 92.7%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 1,101 7.3%

 

Living in the Selection Area 16,213 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 15,112 93.2%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 1,101 6.8%

 

My preferred route shaker to Richmond

1/2 mile buffer

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 7,033 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 6,862 97.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 171 2.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 4,896 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 4,725 96.5%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 171 3.5%

 

 

 

1 mile buffer

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 19,695 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 18,704 95.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 991 5.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 12,290 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 11,299 91.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 991 8.1%

 

Your route  better than mine.

 

but a route on Warrensville and Cedar would perform even better.

 

1/2 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 10,226 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 9,834 96.2%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 392 3.8%

 

Living in the Selection Area 7,726 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 7,334 94.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 392 5.1%

 

1 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 14,621 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 13,390 91.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 1,231 8.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 18,627 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 17,396 93.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 1,231 6.6%

 

I still like my route better. the question is the balance between Access which is what this data tries to express vs will people use it.  That becomes alot more subjective.

 

Thanks for running the numbers. My route option has a nice foundation without even counting the unknown data from turning John Carroll into an urban residential school with the rail line being the "hallway" from apartment to classroom.

Thanks for running the numbers. My route option has a nice foundation without even counting the unknown data from turning John Carroll into an urban residential school with the rail line being the "hallway" from apartment to classroom.

 

 

I thought JCU was primarily a on campus school not an off campus school like CSU, and being such a small School in a suburban setting isn't the best generator of ridership.

 

I have a small problem with installing a"streetcar" down a narrow suburban low density residential street, I'd prefer DM4's cedar Streetcar over this alignment.

Thanks for running the numbers. My route option has a nice foundation without even counting the unknown data from turning John Carroll into an urban residential school with the rail line being the "hallway" from apartment to classroom.

 

 

I thought JCU was primarily a on campus school not an off campus school like CSU, and being such a small School in a suburban setting isn't the best generator of ridership.

 

I have a small problem with installing a"streetcar" down a narrow suburban low density residential street, I'd prefer DM4's cedar Streetcar over this alignment.

Agreed, JCU is a residential school with a majority of the students from the suburbs with cars.  Plus, when I was there we walked down Belvoir to get on the rapid, not much farther than Green and a helluva lot cheaper than building a new line.

What are JCU's plans for the future?

 

Imagine if they expanded their campus south to the Green Line like KSU is expanding its campus west to downtown Kent along the new Esplanade. How cool would that be?

What are JCU's plans for the future?

 

Imagine if they expanded their campus south to the Green Line like KSU is expanding its campus west to downtown Kent along the new Esplanade. How cool would that be?

Would be nice, but comparing a state school to a private school, as far as expansion goes, is like apples to oranges.

You're also talking about some of the most expensive residential property in Ohio and changing zoning in said neighborhood, so I'd agree the chances are close to zero. It is too bad, though, that the Vans didn't reserve more land for institutions or commercial development along the Green Line route.

"Always with you it cannot be done." -- Yoda.

You're also talking about some of the most expensive residential property in Ohio and changing zoning in said neighborhood, so I'd agree the chances are close to zero. It is too bad, though, that the Vans didn't reserve more land for institutions or commercial development along the Green Line route.

 

The vans Completely Dropped the ball when it came to building walkable Retail within their mammoth TOD called Shaker Heights. 

 

the issue that one can live a 5 minute walk from Rail transit yet cannot get to a grocery store without a car.

 

It interesting because as I did This research I better understood the demand for transit, importance of Access to jobs and Access to Residents On the network., and from a Progressive transit advocate the importance of multiple destination types ( retail, Commercial, Entertainment) that is Accessible to the route.

 

I am 100% convinced that a link from Shaker Square to University Circle is a game changer for the Light Rail system, if in addition to an Extension to the I-271 corridor for a P+K.

 

Then there is Travel time and Frequency

 

Nice read here

illusions of travel time in transit promotion

 

illusions of travel time in transit promotion

 

Whenever you hear someone cite the travel time of a proposed transit line, your first reaction should always be:  "Yes, but at what frequency?"  Often, that fact is missing from these soundbites, and often, it's really important.

 

The commute times from the end of the [proposed Gold] line will be a serious problem: once the second phase is built to Montclair, downtown will be a full 75 minutes away, making daily commutes difficult to envision for many people. Even in traffic, that trip takes a total of 70 minutes by car.

Nevertheless, getting people from the San Gabriel Valley into downtown may not be the major goal of the project. Metrolink Commuter Rail can cover the distance between Montclair and Los Angeles in an hour along the San Bernardino Line, though that link is near carrying capacity.

 

 

While we appreciate Commuter Rail the frequency are usually so poor that it can preclude TOD being built around it. Why would anyone not build parking when the transit service only runs on weekdays, and at peak travel times. sometime i think we aim too low and chose the less expensive route that fail to Deliver ridership.

 

 

The vans Completely Dropped the ball when it came to building walkable Retail within their mammoth TOD called Shaker Heights. 

 

That wasn't their goal. Their goal was to build a commuter route for downtown office workers and for servants working at Shaker Heights mansions. The servants quarters were along Shaker Boulevard and the mansions were to be only on the boulevards the next blocks over. The Great Depression altered this plan, prompting the owners of mansion to sell the back of their properties along Shaker Boulevard to independent buyers seeking to build residences. It's why the more luxurious homes are along South Park, which was developed before 1929, and the "lesser" homes along Shaker Boulevard.

 

I am 100% convinced that a link from Shaker Square to University Circle is a game changer for the Light Rail system, if in addition to an Extension to the I-271 corridor for a P+K.

 

Potentially, it would be, if another point you made happens:

 

"demonstrate transit isn't just for poor people "

 

That is, pretty much, the perception right now. Moreso here than in other cities, it seems.  I believe it is also the institutional perception, and focus, of RTA, going back to Krumholz fighting projects that benefitted "fat cats".  Something like that, early in the life of an agency, can root itself deeply in the mindset of same.  The TSA is another example.

 

That sort of mindset did more to damage the city than anything else in its history, with the exception of busing and the possible exception of CERCLA.  Unintended consequences....

 

 

The vans Completely Dropped the ball when it came to building walkable Retail within their mammoth TOD called Shaker Heights. 

 

That wasn't their goal. Their goal was to build a commuter route for downtown office workers and for servants working at Shaker Heights mansions. The servants quarters were along Shaker Boulevard and the mansions were to be only on the boulevards the next blocks over. The Great Depression altered this plan, prompting the owners of mansion to sell the back of their properties along Shaker Boulevard to independent buyers seeking to build residences. It's why the more luxurious homes are along South Park, which was developed before 1929, and the "lesser" homes along Shaker Boulevard.

 

I'd hope we all have learned from their mistake.

 

I am 100% convinced that a link from Shaker Square to University Circle is a game changer for the Light Rail system, if in addition to an Extension to the I-271 corridor for a P+K.

 

Potentially, it would be, if another point you made happens:

 

"demonstrate transit isn't just for poor people "

 

That is, pretty much, the perception right now. Moreso here than in other cities, it seems.  I believe it is also the institutional perception, and focus, of RTA, going back to Krumholz fighting projects that benefitted "fat cats".  Something like that, early in the life of an agency, can root itself deeply in the mindset of same.  The TSA is another example.

 

That sort of mindset did more to damage the city than anything else in its history, with the exception of busing and the possible exception of CERCLA.  Unintended consequences....

 

 

I truly believe there will be a diverse collection of riders to UC along both the Harvard and Northfield spurs of the Blue line the issue is I believe it will be difficult to deliver reliable high frequency service (<15 min headway) without making upgrades to the Signaling on the corridor between chagrin and Shaker Square.

 

Remember I hate Wye's, because to deliver 10 min frequency on both the Harvard and Northfield  you will have to tolerate 5 minute Frequency on the trunk line between Harvard and shaker Square, possible but could lead to bunching of Trains if signaling for transit isn't used. 

 

On the other hand, 7-8 minute headways aren't horrible either. 

 

 

 

Agree with the statement above about routing though those UH residential streets.  Not in anyone's lifetime, and you miss too much opportunity going that way anyway.  Shooting straight up Warrensville towards Cedar brings all of Cedar Center North and South into play.  The languishing University Square is there as well.  None of these are particularly transit-friendly, but then again neither is Beachwood place.  John Carroll is primarily a residential school but when I went there freshmen were not allowed to have cars.  Yeah you could walk up Belvoir or Warrensville but during most of the school year that is a bitterly cold sojourn.