I understand why you want to move the WFL; that part of your plan I could agree with (but I would work on that zig-zaggy route you propose and have fewer stops – obviously it would have to mesh with however the development north of the stadium shakes out).  But as KJP notes, it just may not be feasible cost-wise at this time.  I’m also aware of the barrier effect.  That’s why there’s the proposal for the pedestrian bridge over the Shoreway and RR tracks… It could be an opportunity for the WFL to better connect with the lakefront development, both current and in the future.  I think, though, rather than moving the WFL tracks, I’d get rid of the Shoreway first.  The move to downgrade the West Side portion into a slower-moving, street-level boulevard is a step in the right direction.  If that happens, that long ugly light blue viaduct over the river, Flats and the WHD would disappear along with that short open cut at E. 9th Street.  Then the East Side Shoreway would be downgraded to a boulevard from the Innerbelt  (Dead Man’s) curve to E. 9th Street.  That’s what I would do.

 

The other barrier of course is the Stadium itself.  If I had my druthers, it would never have been put back there after the Browns moved in 1995.  Strongsville, the industrial Flats, even Randall Mall would have been preferable… Unfortunately, it’s not going to be moved (or even domed) anytime soon, so what the hell.

 

video of 4 generation of Toronto Streetcar.

 

the last one is my favorite.

 

I like the first one -- it was likely a former Cleveland streetcar. :) The last one is one long serpent!

GCRTA is considering closing and/or possibly relocating the East 34th and East 79th stations (Only E79th Red Line station would be closed/moved). See the Opportunity Corridor thread for where I'd move the East 79th station (it's the same place GCRTA, city, NOACA, FTA et all OK'd moving it to, per the Dual Hub Transitional Analysis).

 

Similarly, the same study recommended moving the East 34th station to the vicinity of East 14th/22nd area. Back then, there was no street grid in that area for supporting station-area development to make that site much more attractive than East 34th. Now, one is emerging -- thanks to the Inner Belt project, of all things! It could be even better if the USPS carrier unit and postal inspector were moved south/east of the current location -- opposite the intersection of East 22nd and Orange Avenue. If East 22nd street were extended south to Broadway and another east-west narrow street were added parallel to and south of Orange Avenue, there would now be a street grid to support a very dense new development with all sorts of uses in that area. And the way the highway ramps are being relocated, there would be little truck activity here. All of it would be focused southeast to ramps at East 30th and northwest to the Ontario/Carnegie area. Very little would remain on Orange Avenue past this site. Oh, and by the way, this would also support an extension of the Waterfront Line/downtown loop using existing bridge structures to create flyovers of the existing RTA main Line so half of the diverging moves could be done without forcing opposing rapid transit trains to sit and wait. But that's not essential to making this concept work. Anyhow, here's my concept.......

 

Not moving the station to Adelbert was a huge mistake in my opinion.

Not moving the station to Adelbert was a huge mistake in my opinion.

I disagree.  The station is in a great location to be useful for John Hay and Cleveland School of the Arts to the west as well as CWRU South Campus to the east, as well as being part of a busy bus stop.  This is why it's already one of the busier stations.

GCRTA is considering closing and/or possibly relocating the East 34th and East 79th stations (Only E79th Red Line station would be closed/moved). See the Opportunity Corridor thread for where I'd move the East 79th station (it's the same place GCRTA, city, NOACA, FTA et all OK'd moving it to, per the Dual Hub Transitional Analysis).

 

Similarly, the same study recommended moving the East 34th station to the vicinity of East 14th/22nd area. Back then, there was no street grid in that area for supporting station-area development to make that site much more attractive than East 34th. Now, one is emerging -- thanks to the Inner Belt project, of all things! It could be even better if the USPS carrier unit and postal inspector were moved south/east of the current location -- opposite the intersection of East 22nd and Orange Avenue. If East 22nd street were extended south to Broadway and another east-west narrow street were added parallel to and south of Orange Avenue, there would now be a street grid to support a very dense new development with all sorts of uses in that area. And the way the highway ramps are being relocated, there would be little truck activity here. All of it would be focused southeast to ramps at East 30th and northwest to the Ontario/Carnegie area. Very little would remain on Orange Avenue past this site. Oh, and by the way, this would also support an extension of the Waterfront Line/downtown loop using existing bridge structures to create flyovers of the existing RTA main Line so half of the diverging moves could be done without forcing opposing rapid transit trains to sit and wait. But that's not essential to making this concept work. Anyhow, here's my concept.......

 

 

Infill stations, hmm.....

 

I did Quick excersize to answer a Question I had.

 

could infill stations gnerate ridership and increase access to the system?

 

I added 7 new stations. based on on the ground access issues to nearby stations.

 

Puritas and West 160th st

West 85th st

west 41st st

Flats east bank/ Carter Rd (on the viaduct)

Carnegie and Ontario

East 30th St and Broadway

Kinsman Ave

Buckeye and Woodland.

 

Closing of 2 stations

East 34th (replaced by East 30th)

East 79th (replaced by Kinsman and Buckeye.)

 

I also wanted to find out what would happen if the West Park and Triskett stations were relocated to the roads and not in the center of a parking lot. moving the west park station 700 feet to front Lorain and the Tristkett station 900 feet to front Triskett.

 

I also included before and after with the eastern Redline extension.

 

4 data points for Job/workers access

half mile

1 mile

2 miles

live <2 miles  & work <.5 mile

 

 

Infill stations would increase access to jobs withing a 10 min walk by 10% and workers by 22%.

 

compared to the east extensions 6% and 21%

 

If RTA could add infill stations and extend the Redline east you would see an 18% increase increase in access to jobs and 45% increase in access to workers.

 

 

 

^I agree with most of these, esp new stations at: Buckeye-Woodland, E. 30th (assuming that both E. 79th Red and E. 34 Red/Blue/Green will close due to ADA concerns)...

 

I also agree that the W. 41 (or W. 44) and W. 85 infill stations should be built.  I also like the idea of a new Lakeview Station in E. Cleveland to help revive some of the decay there.

I completely agree on W 41 or 44.  There really needs to be a station there.

Adding stops slows down the system as a whole and makes it less attractive.  Plus stations are expensive because of the way the Red Line is configured.

 

The best use of an asset like this is a few stops, with each being a hub of sorts. 

 

Adding stops slows down the system as a whole and makes it less attractive.  Plus stations are expensive because of the way the Red Line is configured.

 

The best use of an asset like this is a few stops, with each being a hub of sorts. 

 

 

I disagree.  Cleveland's Rapid has one of the fewest stops-per-mile of any rapid transit system a little more than 1 stop each mile.  Even though Cleveland has moderate to lower density compared to some other major cities, there are still a number of neighborhoods that are passed by, by the Rapid-- more the Red Line than the older Blue and Green lines (including the Waterfront line) which have stations more convenient to the neighborhoods the lines traverse.  The Red Line zooms by a number of neighborhoods that are developing or are ripe for TOD, like Buckeye-Woodland, W. 41-44 and W.  85.  The move to relocate E. 120 to Little Italy is an example of moving a station to where people and retail are.  Any rapid transit system that runs along a RR ROW, esp the kind of windy-twisty route the Red Line follows, is bound to hit the edges of built up neighborhoods, or miss them entirely.  But there are a number of points along the Red Line, namely those mentioned above, that are accessible to people and development...

 

... and the good news is, E.Rocc, is that the Red Line would lose very little speed as a result adding these few station-stops (maybe 1 or 1.5 extra minutes), given the speed boarding/un-boarding the POP fare collection system. 

Adding stops slows down the system as a whole and makes it less attractive.  Plus stations are expensive because of the way the Red Line is configured.

 

The best use of an asset like this is a few stops, with each being a hub of sorts. 

 

 

NO.

Cleveland Airport, Tower City, North Coast, Shaker Square, Little Italy.  DONE.  Close the rest of the system.  :roll:

Adding stops slows down the system as a whole and makes it less attractive.  Plus stations are expensive because of the way the Red Line is configured.

 

The best use of an asset like this is a few stops, with each being a hub of sorts. 

 

 

I disagree.  Cleveland's Rapid has one of the fewest stops-per-mile of any rapid transit system a little more than 1 stop each mile.  Even though Cleveland has moderate to lower density compared to some other major cities, there are still a number of neighborhoods that are passed by, by the Rapid-- more the Red Line than the older Blue and Green lines (including the Waterfront line) which have stations more convenient to the neighborhoods the lines traverse.  The Red Line zooms by a number of neighborhoods that are developing or are ripe for TOD, like Buckeye-Woodland, W. 41-44 and W.  85.  The move to relocate E. 120 to Little Italy is an example of moving a station to where people and retail are.  Any rapid transit system that runs along a RR ROW, esp the kind of windy-twisty route the Red Line follows, is bound to hit the edges of built up neighborhoods, or miss them entirely.  But there are a number of points along the Red Line, namely those mentioned above, that are accessible to people and development...

 

... and the good news is, E.Rocc, is that the Red Line would lose very little speed as a result adding these few station-stops (maybe 1 or 1.5 extra minutes), given the speed boarding/un-boarding the POP fare collection system. 

 

Based on stations 6,000 feet apart, acceleration/deceleration  of 3.2fps/s (3.5km/hr/sec) and a top speed of 73.3 fps (50mph), you add about 23 seconds to the time between stations by making a complete stop in between, an increase of about 20%.  Add the time actually stopped, and it’s fair to talk  about an addition of approximately 2 minutes of travel time, per new stop.  I’m skeptical of the overall  impact of POP on stopped time.  We’re still talking about people getting off or arriving at the very last second, taking their time.

 

Four new stations between TC and the airport (now 26 min) and three between TC and UC (now 14 min).  You’re effectively slowing down the Red Line 33% in order to make it mimic light rail.

 

IMO we’re better off reducing stations, if anything, and making each station a mini hub for its region.  Reduce the number of bus lines going all the way downtown in favor of increased intra-neighborhood service.  If you’re crossing town, use the Red Line.  Development doesn’t happen radially around here, it happens in clusters.  Something like this serves and might even help trigger your TOD.

Since most transit transit trips begin/end as pedestrian trips, the most successful stations have significant walk-in trade from/to surrounding buildings -- not from park-n-rides, or even from transfers from connecting bus routes. I agree that too many stations slows down a transit route, but you have to balance that with the restoration of the urban fabric, which can and should be focused on stations with good planning. Yes, it's great to have suburban commuters driving to outer stations, parking and riding to UC, downtown or the airport. But that's not the dominant source of traffic on high-ridership (50,000+) rail lines.

 

A high-ridership rail line/system is an integral part of a rider's lifestyle. They use it for work, school (their own or their kids'), shopping, socializing etc. This is especially beneficial for low-income persons as low-income households often have transportation costs as their largest expense in their household budget), and we restrain ridership because each rider is only making two trips per day on the rail line -- one to work and one to home.

 

And that low-income person isn't the inner-city minority that we've come to stereotype in these situations. Instead it may be a retired Baby Boomer trying to downsize to make their 401k last longer. Or it may be a Millennial trying to get started in the world. These are the two largest population groups in American history who are being forced to absorb higher costs of living because we're not giving them enough car-free or car-light lifestyle choices either because of lack of credit/capital, lack of awareness or just plain fear of trying something new/different. So let's put some jobs, housing, services and amenities around rail stations, including at new or relocated stations to sites where economic development is easier to accomplish because it can be gained with less site preparation or because it's next to emerging activity clusters.

 

That being said, don't expect GCRTA to add or move stations without a neighborhood-level development plan or even an active development project with funding commitments in place for ridership-producing development(s) at the potential new station locations. GCRTA isn't going to spend $10 million+ to move or add a station to a new site (even if is a nice, level site with surrounding infrastructure) without at least a transit-supportive development masterplan in place for that site. That's why GCRTA is reviewing its options for closing/moving E34 and E79.

Since most transit transit trips begin/end as pedestrian trips, the most successful stations have significant walk-in trade from/to surrounding buildings -- not from park-n-rides, or even from transfers from connecting bus routes. I agree that too many stations slows down a transit route, but you have to balance that with the restoration of the urban fabric, which can and should be focused on stations with good planning. Yes, it's great to have suburban commuters driving to outer stations, parking and riding to UC, downtown or the airport. But that's not the dominant source of traffic on high-ridership (50,000+) rail lines.

 

A high-ridership rail line/system is an integral part of a rider's lifestyle. They use it for work, school (their own or their kids'), shopping, socializing etc. This is especially beneficial for low-income persons as low-income households often have transportation costs as their largest expense in their household budget), and we restrain ridership because each rider is only making two trips per day on the rail line -- one to work and one to home.

 

And that low-income person isn't the inner-city minority that we've come to stereotype in these situations. Instead it may be a retired Baby Boomer trying to downsize to make their 401k last longer. Or it may be a Millennial trying to get started in the world. These are the two largest population groups in American history who are being forced to absorb higher costs of living because we're not giving them enough car-free or car-light lifestyle choices either because of lack of credit/capital, lack of awareness or just plain fear of trying something new/different. So let's put some jobs, housing, services and amenities around rail stations, including at new or relocated stations to sites where economic development is easier to accomplish because it can be gained with less site preparation or because it's next to emerging activity clusters.

 

That being said, don't expect GCRTA to add or move stations without a neighborhood-level development plan or even an active development project with funding commitments in place for ridership-producing development(s) at the potential new station locations. GCRTA isn't going to spend $10 million+ to move or add a station to a new site (even if is a nice, level site with surrounding infrastructure) without at least a transit-supportive development masterplan in place for that site. That's why GCRTA is reviewing its options for closing/moving E34 and E79.

 

The thing is, we’re talking about the Red Line here.  It’s fast and it’s loud and therefore the actual platforms are well separated from the street.  It’s not really designed to be integral with the streetscape, and we’ve already invested a bunch of money in it.   

 

What it is suitable for is as a series of minihubs.  Having several bus routes terminate at this hub instead of going downtown allows for a higher frequency of bus service in the area.  It’s also conceivable (but if I am not mistaken, not done) for the bus to enter the fare restricted area, allowing for seamless transfer. (yes I am aware that RTA no longer does transfers, but that’s dumb).  Consider it a sort of intermodal for people.

 

There already seems to be some movement this way.  I have noted that the #9 route only goes downtown a couple times a day, more normally terminating at the UC Red Line station.  IMO, this is the way to go.

 

As for the integral part of one’s lifestyle, that’s not going to happen anytime soon for most people with options, especially parents.  It’s better to focus on the commuters, that’s where new riders start.  That said, the multi-hub model should make travel within a neighborhood much easier.

 

Honestly, with the way Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway are recovering and repopulating, I think a station in the West 40s moving the Campus station to the 20s would be beneficial.  In addition, I think Drexmore should be closed.

As for the integral part of one’s lifestyle, that’s not going to happen anytime soon for most people with options, especially parents.  It’s better to focus on the commuters, that’s where new riders start.  That said, the multi-hub model should make travel within a neighborhood much easier.[/color]

 

 

I don't need "most people." I just need a mix of about 1,000 Baby Boomers, Millennials and others who will live or work within 1,000 feet of each station on average and use that station each day. And I need another 1,500 on average per station to connect via bus, bike or park-n-ride car. Combine those averages with 20 Red Line stations (adding just two more stations) and you've got a Red Line that's nearly doubled in ridership from 26,500 per day to 50,000. Goal attained.

Adding stops slows down the system as a whole and makes it less attractive.  Plus stations are expensive because of the way the Red Line is configured.

 

The best use of an asset like this is a few stops, with each being a hub of sorts. 

 

 

I disagree.  Cleveland's Rapid has one of the fewest stops-per-mile of any rapid transit system a little more than 1 stop each mile.  Even though Cleveland has moderate to lower density compared to some other major cities, there are still a number of neighborhoods that are passed by, by the Rapid-- more the Red Line than the older Blue and Green lines (including the Waterfront line) which have stations more convenient to the neighborhoods the lines traverse.  The Red Line zooms by a number of neighborhoods that are developing or are ripe for TOD, like Buckeye-Woodland, W. 41-44 and W.  85.  The move to relocate E. 120 to Little Italy is an example of moving a station to where people and retail are.  Any rapid transit system that runs along a RR ROW, esp the kind of windy-twisty route the Red Line follows, is bound to hit the edges of built up neighborhoods, or miss them entirely.  But there are a number of points along the Red Line, namely those mentioned above, that are accessible to people and development...

 

... and the good news is, E.Rocc, is that the Red Line would lose very little speed as a result adding these few station-stops (maybe 1 or 1.5 extra minutes), given the speed boarding/un-boarding the POP fare collection system. 

 

Based on stations 6,000 feet apart, acceleration/deceleration  of 3.2fps/s (3.5km/hr/sec) and a top speed of 73.3 fps (50mph), you add about 23 seconds to the time between stations by making a complete stop in between, an increase of about 20%.  Add the time actually stopped, and it’s fair to talk  about an addition of approximately 2 minutes of travel time, per new stop.  I’m skeptical of the overall  impact of POP on stopped time.  We’re still talking about people getting off or arriving at the very last second, taking their time.

 

Four new stations between TC and the airport (now 26 min) and three between TC and UC (now 14 min).  You’re effectively slowing down the Red Line 33% in order to make it mimic light rail.

 

IMO we’re better off reducing stations, if anything, and making each station a mini hub for its region.  Reduce the number of bus lines going all the way downtown in favor of increased intra-neighborhood service.  If you’re crossing town, use the Red Line.  Development doesn’t happen radially around here, it happens in clusters.  Something like this serves and might even help trigger your TOD.

 

I Like your analysis.

 

Question:  why is the redline slower than it was 20 years ago? same trains, same stations, same rail, but up to 8 minute slower than it was 20 years ago.

 

You have to define the type of system the Redline is:

 

is it commuter rail?

Regional rapid Transit?

city of Cleveland's Rapid transit system?

 

My view is, adding 4 minutes of travel time between the airport and downtown wont make much of a difference for those people riding in from brookpark, but will increase ridership and spur TOD around these infill stations, which would primarily be Walk-up station not massive park and rides like Brookpark, Triskett and Puritas.

 

the Travel time on the Green line in the Twin cites is 40 minutes to travel ~10 miles, yet is expected to Yield 40,000 riders per day. it slow but has great connectivity to its users and where they want to go. this is more mportant than speed.

I have been thinking about this image

 

 

It was released with the Ohio Hub project and summarized the common corridors between the Ohio hub and the Defunct NEOrail proposal from 12 years ago.

 

When NEOrail was being developed it never took into account the OHIO hub plan, High speed Rail, it was state of the art study of tech available in the mid 1990s.

 

view all the Documents on NEO Rail

 

here

 

Ohio Hub

 

HERE

 

Fast forward to toady, and developments in technolgy and the push for Higher and high speed Rail in the US.

 

I looked at 4 examples of where We are going with rail in the North america

 

California

California's development of 220MPH HSR which include the electrification of Caltrain in the Bay area and Metrolink in LA. the reduce costs of getting HSR service into those metropolitan areas by 10s of billions of dollars. this work on the "bookends" will increase frequency and speed and move both services to Rapid transit standards.

 

New York State

Empire corridor study is the most recent example of mordern thinking on HSR, The use of Class 7 standards for up to 125mph train travel and an average speed of 101MPH over the express corridors from buffalo to Albany, while relying on Existing regional rail from Albany to NYC.

 

Toronto

GO transit electrification of it commuter Rail network, to increase capacity and frequency of that network, making it possible to move their commuter rial network to a Rapid transit network.

 

Chicago

Crossrail Chicago and south of the lake passenger rial corridor represent new thinking for building HSR and HrSR rail it seeks to establish passenger rial only corridors in urban areas that can avoid traditional obsticals to reducing travel time on passenger rail routes in urban areas, primarily Freight rail congestion, and and speed restrictions on freight traffic ( coal trains for example AFAIK have speed restrictions of 35MPH) by moving all passenger rail traffic to dedicated ROW with the option for future electrification, makes it easier to build out HSR and HrSR.

 

all of these examples have a similar theme:

[*]Dedicated Passenger Rail ROW

[*]Electrification

[*]Shared ROW used for both HrSR, HSR Regional, Commuter services.

 

what does this mean?

 

Looking forward to potential HSR, HrSR and regional systems for Northeast Ohio how can we shape the routes of those services to Maximize the benefits for this region.

 

Look at the

NEO Rail combined Cost and ridership

in 2001 dollars $2.537 billion (3.323b in today's dollars) for complete Tier 3 system build out.

ridership estimates of 8,167,100 per day.

 

Ohio Hub

Capital costs for 110mph system

$4.762 in 2007 dollars between 400-600 million of Ohio hub cost were to be spent in NEO.

ridership

9.34 million per year in 2025

 

NEO Station Annual Ridership

CBD 1,155,742

Airport 160,169

SE station 65,575

NE station 154,435

Elyria 219,573

 

Total NEO regional ridership 1,755,494

 

Midwest 220Mph HSR Rail Network to Chicago

Borchure here

travel time 2:15 to Union Station in Chicago

Annual Ridership to Cleveland.

4-6 million

estiomated cost of 2-3 billion to build HSR coordor from Chicago in NEO.

 

 

Total ridership for all systems commuter, Regional, and HSR

15-17 million riders per year.

 

Estimated Costs in NEO

NEO rail 3.32 billion

Ohio HUB (110MPH) 400-600million

HSR 150MPH 2-3 billion

 

Total costs 5.72-6.92 billion

 

 

The Ohio Hub plan noted the difficulties of having only 4 track station to handle Ohio hub Services and NEOrail services which would likely forces a minimum 6-8 track station for blended Services in Downtown Cleveland.

 

Whats missing?

What NEO rail missed.

NEOrail never considered the Ohio hub plan.

NEOrail never considered the growth of university Circle, independence, and other areas and the decline of Downtown Cleveland.

NEOrail never considered the increases in fuel prices and the trend toward transit and away from driving.

 

 

What I am proposing?

 

Is a Northeast Ohio Regional Express Rail network, or NEO-RER

 

It would develop a Class-7 electrified 125MPH core urban railway , that would carry commuter, regional and High speed passenger rail traffic through north East Ohio, with a Local class 4-5 railway to access local commuter markets where ROW isn't shared with regional or HSR traffic.

 

this would results in 156 miles of commuter Rail routes.

with a combined total of 200 miles of dedicated passenger ROW from Lake county to Lorain county, and as far south as Canton.

 

with primary stations in Downtown Cleveland, University circle, and Ohio City.

 

more to come.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^Such a network for NEO would be sweet, absolutely... I'm really excited about California's HSR project, which is pushing forward despite conservative whiners -- and remember, a large chunk of their $$ is from the rejected projects in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida (rejected by their GOP guvs).  I think once California gets theirs done, other states will follow through.  At the very least, the prospects for the Midwestern Hub with conventional trains look good.

As for the integral part of one’s lifestyle, that’s not going to happen anytime soon for most people with options, especially parents.  It’s better to focus on the commuters, that’s where new riders start.  That said, the multi-hub model should make travel within a neighborhood much easier.[/color]

 

 

I don't need "most people." I just need a mix of about 1,000 Baby Boomers, Millennials and others who will live or work within 1,000 feet of each station on average and use that station each day. And I need another 1,500 on average per station to connect via bus, bike or park-n-ride car. Combine those averages with 20 Red Line stations (adding just two more stations) and you've got a Red Line that's nearly doubled in ridership from 26,500 per day to 50,000. Goal attained.

 

Sounds easier than it is! Plus 50,000 a day is still quite low for the entire line. 50,000 isn't unheard of for a single station! How do we get that?!

Sounds easier than it is! Plus 50,000 a day is still quite low for the entire line. 50,000 isn't unheard of for a single station! How do we get that?!

 

Depends on your context.  50,000 riders for a 19-mile medium, low density city like Cleveland's is pretty good.  And throw in our Rust Belt/rough economy, and it's very respectable. .. Baltimore's Metro is a 15-mile HRT including a substantial downtown, close-in subway, and draws 51,000/day.

 

Sounds easier than it is! Plus 50,000 a day is still quite low for the entire line. 50,000 isn't unheard of for a single station! How do we get that?!

 

Just keep doing what we're doing. At the rate that development is occurring at/near rail stations, including on the Blue/Green lines, we'll get there in a decade or so.

GCRTA is considering closing and/or possibly relocating the East 34th and East 79th stations (Only E79th Red Line station would be closed/moved). See the Opportunity Corridor thread for where I'd move the East 79th station (it's the same place GCRTA, city, NOACA, FTA et all OK'd moving it to, per the Dual Hub Transitional Analysis).

 

Similarly, the same study recommended moving the East 34th station to the vicinity of East 14th/22nd area. Back then, there was no street grid in that area for supporting station-area development to make that site much more attractive than East 34th. Now, one is emerging -- thanks to the Inner Belt project, of all things! It could be even better if the USPS carrier unit and postal inspector were moved south/east of the current location -- opposite the intersection of East 22nd and Orange Avenue. If East 22nd street were extended south to Broadway and another east-west narrow street were added parallel to and south of Orange Avenue, there would now be a street grid to support a very dense new development with all sorts of uses in that area. And the way the highway ramps are being relocated, there would be little truck activity here. All of it would be focused southeast to ramps at East 30th and northwest to the Ontario/Carnegie area. Very little would remain on Orange Avenue past this site. Oh, and by the way, this would also support an extension of the Waterfront Line/downtown loop using existing bridge structures to create flyovers of the existing RTA main Line so half of the diverging moves could be done without forcing opposing rapid transit trains to sit and wait. But that's not essential to making this concept work. Anyhow, here's my concept.......

 

 

More regarding the above concept, this time detailing how the track alignment of a downtown loop wye can take advantage of existing grading and bridge abutments where possible to save millions of dollars in construction costs.....

 

WYE WYE WYE?

 

I see the west leg of the wye I proposed as being used by the Orange Line which does nothing but loop around downtown and by rush-hour Red Line trains, assuming the Euclid extension isn't built.

 

I see the east leg of the wye being used by the Green Line in one direction (clockwise around the loop?) and by the Blue Line in the other direction (counter-clockwise around the loop?), that is until the Blue Line is rerouted someday to terminate in University Circle. :)

 

Of course, other routing scenarios are always possible -- and made more flexible by having a single type of rail car for use on all rail lines and at high- or low-level platforms.

the Paris RER was developed from Traditional commuter rail services into Paris, and offered a way to provide better service into Paris from it's suburbs, and helped reduce congestion on the Paris metro.

 

Paris RER lines

Line name Opened Last

extension Stations

served Length Average

Interstation Journeys made

(per annum)

(A) Line A 1977 1994 46 108.5 km / 67.5 miles 2,411 m 272,800,000

(B) Line B 1977 1981 47 80.0 km / 49.8 miles 1,739 m 165,100,000

© Line C 1979 2000 84 185.6 km / 115.5 miles 2,184 m 140,000,000

(D) Line D 1987 1995 59 190.0 km / 118.1 miles 2,807 m 145,000,000

(E) Line E 1999 2003 21 52.3 km / 32.5 miles 2,615 m 60,000,000

 

The RER contains 257 stations, 33 of which are within the city of Paris, and runs over 587 km (365 mi) of track, including 76.5 km (47.5 mi) underground. Each line passes through the city almost exclusively underground and on dedicated tracks.

 

System map

 

The network would include 4 routes.

Kent to Akron

Canton to University Circle

Elyria to Solon

Medina to Painsville.

 

This would include 100 miles of electrified passenger only Class 7 Rail rated up to 125mph interlined with Regional and High speed  Rail service , and 45 miles of non-electrified rail.

 

couple of notes

 

Creating high-speed corridor along I-480 from Elyria to north Randall allows for service to independence and the innerring suburbs along I480, promote transit use along the corridor.

Using a high-speed ROW in the median of I-71  provides better access to workers and jobs than a route within exsiting Rail ROW.

electrification allows for trains to operate on steeper grades up to 3%

Only by using CUT ROW you can have the Frequencies needed to provide Rapid transit, trains crossing the river and grater than 40 TPH at the current Lakefront station Will negatively affect Access to the river.

 

 

Within 3 miles of Station Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 956,769 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 446,141 46.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 510,628 53.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 752,350 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 241,722 32.1%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 510,628 67.9%

 

This would be come the regional Rapid transit network, with local bus services feeding into this rapid network.

 

 

Canton to University Circle

 

Electrified Service would end in Hudson and revert to DMU service from Hudson south to Canton using the existing Rail ROW.

Cleveland

 

Service would run paralell to GCRTA trainsit service, and use a double track ROW built upon the original Cleveland Union terminal ROW to university circle With a flyover built between East 105th st and cedar to move ROW over the existing NS line and closer the GCRTA transit service.

 

Akron

 

because of the location of the existing ROW, Trains Would travel from canton to Akron stop and reverse northward to Cleveland.

 

Canton

 

Trains would connect downtown akron and Canton to Akron canton Airport.

 

Travel times

                  distance travel time

Akron to Hudson 14.1 miles 24.1mins

Canton to Akron 24 miles 40mins

canton to Hudson 38.1 miles 66.1 mins

Canton to UC         73 miles 107.6 mins

 

initial peak frequency of every 30 mins with a maximum frequency of 15 minutes

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 637,193 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 407,690 64.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 229,503 36.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 395,355 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 165,852 42.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 229,503 58.0%

 

Kent to Akron

 

there is more Travel between Kent and Akron and than Kent to Cleveland. access to Cleveland is provided via cross platform transfer.

 

Travel time estimated at 22 minutes.

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 118,577 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 83,352 70.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 35,225 29.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 96,629 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 61,404 63.5%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 35,225 36.5%

 

frequency of ~1 hour for one Train needed for service.

 

Elyria to Solon

 

 

Fully electrified from Elyria to North Randall maximum speeds of 125mph DMU operation from North Randall to Solon.

 

This is backbone of the network, providing fast east-west travel through the region.

 

Service to Downtown Cleveland would require a transfer to another train. 

 

Anticipated frequencies of 15 mins all day, designed to be a Rapid Type service.

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 285,821 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 199,716 69.9%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 86,105 30.1%

 

Living in the Selection Area 242,181 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 156,076 64.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 86,105 35.6%

 

Travel times.

Elyria to airport 15.6

Solon to airport 22.98

Elyria to Solon 38.58

 

Medina to Painsville

 

saves costs and increase system efficiency by running as one long route instead of 2 shorter routes.

interlined with other RER route through ~30% of the route would follow a potential coumbus the Buffalo route proposed in the Ohio Hub plan.

 

Cleveland

 

route parallels I-71 and I-480, a newly constructed SR176 viaduct would lead to a ~1 mile bored tunnel beneath Ohio City and would also contain a Station to Service Metro health medical center and  Steelyard commons.

 

Trains would exist the tunnel 1/4 mile south of the CUT viaduct and Rail tracks would be installed on the south side of the Viaduct and into a new Cleveland Union terminal.

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 497,716 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 279,122 56.1%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 218,594 43.9%

 

Living in the Selection Area 389,063 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 170,469 43.8%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 218,594 56.2%

 

Travel times

Medina to Airport 19.6

Airport to Downtown 21.9

downtown to UC 9.6

UC to Painsville 25

Medina to downtown 41.5

Airport to UC 25.1

Painsville to Airport 50.2

Painsville to Medina 69.8

 

 

 

Westshore LRT

 

Here is my dream/utopian/most-likely-won't-ever-happen RTA transit line for the west side suburbs, traveling from the Westlake Park'n'Ride to Tower City.  I know other ideas use a similar path, but they tend to stay on the Norfolk Southern right-of-way all the way to downtown (or at least joining with the Red Line at West Boulevard).  My idea would utilize Clifton Boulevard, Shoreway Boulevard (if they ever get that done  :-D) and the Detroit-Superior Bridge's lower deck. Though I have a feeling other people have thought of this route as well.

 

Anyway, here is the basic path from west to east:

 

1.) Start at the Westlake Park'n'Ride and head down the NS ROW.

2.) At downtown Rocky River, the line crosses to Lake Road and continues over the bridge into Lakewood, where Lake Road becomes Clifton Boulevard. The line from here to Shoreway Boulevard will be in a side-running configuration (like the old Clifton streetcars) and the stations from here to the Cleveland border follow the existing 55F/Gold Line stops.

3.) Switch to Shoreway Boulevard and continue along until around West 38th or so, where the line will cross over to Detroit Avenue.

4.) After a final surface station at or near West 25th, the line will dig in and enter the Detroit-Superior Bridge's subway deck.

5.) Cross over to the existing RTA tracks and make a final stop at Tower City.

 

I think by routing it along the Shoreway it would end up being a complement-- or even a full-on westward extension-- to the Waterfront Line. Residential projects near Battery Park and other areas could boost ridership. It also might help relieve congestion at Edgewater Park, which has been filling almost beyond capacity with their weekly "Edgewater Live!" and other events.

 

Some maps:

 

What do you think? Good? Plausible? Completely harebrained?  :-D

^  Would be wonderful.

The only change I would make would be for it to stay on the surface across the bridge and continue at street level to East 9th, over to Euclid and back towards public square. Take workers closer to their jobs. It would also save on costs while increasing ridership.

^^Nice work Equillibrius.  I agree with most aspects of your plan esp the Det-Superior bridge subway/Tower City aspect that would not only provide a fast, traffic free entrance to downtown, it could free up Public Square from buses, since many could terminate at West Side stops allowing transferring passengers a quick ride into Tower City (preferably into the old, unused Shaker Rapid station.

What do you think? Good? Plausible? Completely harebrained?  :-D

 

This is similar to a plan (more of an idea, actually) shortly before Clifton was widened to take out the tree-lawn-placed streetcar tracks in the late-1940s. When an eastbound Clifton streetcar got to Edgewater Park, it turned down Lake Avenue to go under the lakefront tracks and then to Detroit Avenue before dropping into the subway at West 28th below the Detroit-Superior bridge. This was a slow trip via Lake-Detroit compared to the faster car drive on the new, 1930s rebuild of Bulkley Boulevard into the Shoreway highway, a Works Progress Administration-funded project (not a user-funded project). So the idea was to reroute the streetcar past Edgewater Park along south side of the Shoreway. Where the Shoreway and Detroit Avenue briefly parallel each other, the Clifton streetcar (along with the Detroit streetcar) would have dropped into a subway at about West 40th. So it would have extended westward by a dozen blocks the existing subway, the portal for which is in front of the Federal Knitting Mills apartments. As far as I know, the ramp is still down there -- under Al Porter's plug.

GCRTA is considering closing and/or possibly relocating the East 34th and East 79th stations (Only E79th Red Line station would be closed/moved). See the Opportunity Corridor thread for where I'd move the East 79th station (it's the same place GCRTA, city, NOACA, FTA et all OK'd moving it to, per the Dual Hub Transitional Analysis).

 

Similarly, the same study recommended moving the East 34th station to the vicinity of East 14th/22nd area. Back then, there was no street grid in that area for supporting station-area development to make that site much more attractive than East 34th. Now, one is emerging -- thanks to the Inner Belt project, of all things! It could be even better if the USPS carrier unit and postal inspector were moved south/east of the current location -- opposite the intersection of East 22nd and Orange Avenue. If East 22nd street were extended south to Broadway and another east-west narrow street were added parallel to and south of Orange Avenue, there would now be a street grid to support a very dense new development with all sorts of uses in that area. And the way the highway ramps are being relocated, there would be little truck activity here. All of it would be focused southeast to ramps at East 30th and northwest to the Ontario/Carnegie area. Very little would remain on Orange Avenue past this site. Oh, and by the way, this would also support an extension of the Waterfront Line/downtown loop using existing bridge structures to create flyovers of the existing RTA main Line so half of the diverging moves could be done without forcing opposing rapid transit trains to sit and wait. But that's not essential to making this concept work. Anyhow, here's my concept.......

 

 

More regarding the above concept, this time detailing how the track alignment of a downtown loop wye can take advantage of existing grading and bridge abutments where possible to save millions of dollars in construction costs.....

 

 

More on the above. Turns out that during the formative stages of the Inner Belt about 10-15 years ago, the St. Vincent Quadrangle CDC (predecessor to today's Campus District Inc.), tried to get the East 34th station relocated to the location I proposed above -- using ODOT funds. Needless to say, ODOT wouldn't do it.

 

How much open, mostly flat land is at/near this potential station site? A lot, enough to built a small city. And it's all publicly owned so it could be had for pennies on the dollar......

 

East 9th will be removed at Orange Avenue, so this intersection will be no more. This is looking south toward the USPS Carrier Unit, maintenance and Inspectors building.

 

USPS Carrier Unit, maintenance and Inspectors buildings. These could be moved south of the Main Post Office, on the south side of Broadway (see next picture), to clear this land as far east as East 22nd -- the traffic signals for which are in the distance. And East 22nd could then be extended through to Broadway.

 

Land on the south side of Broadway (looking east), to which the USPS's secondary buildings could be relocated to. At left is a new section of Broadway built as part of the Inner Belt project. The vacant land was part of Norfolk Southern's intermodal rail terminal which they relocated to and expanded in Maple Heights (off I-480).

 

There is so much vacant land here that you cannot even see the Inner Belt or I-77 in the distance. This is looking northwest along new Broadway toward the new intersection of East 9th extension (not yet built) which will go into new Commercial Road (which is built). The relocated rail station could be built at the left.

 

Looking north from new Broadway, between East 14th (not visible to the right) and unbuilt East 9th extension (not visible to the left). The relocated rail station would be behind me.

 

Looking north from the very short stretch of East 9th extension with a new bike path at left, built by ODOT, alongside the future path of East 9th extension. The highway bridge in the background will be removed. That bridge is for the ramp from Ontario southbound to I-77 southbound. I zoomed in a bit to see the bridge a little better. So objects in image are closer than they appear.

 

Looking south on new Commercial Road, bridging over the GCRTA Red/Blue/Green lines. Extra-wide sidewalk at right (west) is on the same side of East 9th extension (behind me) as the new bike path.

 

At the intersection of future East 9th Extension (left/north), new Commercial Road (right/south) and new Broadway (straight ahead/east). GCRTA Red/Blue/Green lines are below new bridge at right. Potential station site is at right, just beyond the new bridge.

 

Looking slightly to the left of the above picture. At left (north) is where East 9th extension will be. New Broadway, seen at right, heads east.

 

Traveling down new Commercial Road hill, I turn around and look back at the bridge over the GCRTA Red/Blue/Green lines. I note the clean-n-green, build-to-suit landscape which simply is not available at East 34th.

 

This is what the hillside looks like above the same location on new Commercial Road hill.

 

Traveling a little farther down the new Commercial Road hill, again I turn around and look back at more of the clean-n-green landscape.

 

Looking down new Commercial Road hill that ODOT built as part of the Inner Belt project.

 

Here, a developer could build a hill-clinging townhouse or apartment development like in Rocky River/Lakewood, San Francisco, Pittsburgh or this one near the Stony Brook MBTA station in Boston.

KJP there aren't any amenities near this location.  TOD requires a Walable environment. I'm sure you drove your car to take these pictures, people would be more likely to drive here than take transit which defeats the purpose of TOD.

 

 

KJP there aren't any amenities near this location.  TOD requires a Walable environment. I'm sure you drove your car to take these pictures, people would be more likely to drive here than take transit which defeats the purpose of TOD.

 

C'mon you're smarter than that. This broad swath of land so close to downtown and along a rail transit line and highways is a developer's wet dream. It's a clean piece of paper to design anything you want here. Use your creativity. What would you design? When Moses Cleaveland landed at the mouth of the Cuyahoga, do you think he saw a mosquito-infested swamp with no amenities? Hell no. He saw a clean piece of paper, and this is what he put on it.....

 

 

What would you put here? Something is going to go here, and it can be whatever you want it to be.

KJP there aren't any amenities near this location.  TOD requires a Walkable environment. I'm sure you drove your car to take these pictures, people would be more likely to drive here than take transit which defeats the purpose of TOD.

 

Agreed. I wonder if a football stadium could fit over here? It would be nice to have a new stadium that is built away from the lakefront and has direct access from all three rail lines.

Of course I drove here. There's no station here yet! Wow, this is chicken-n-egg silliness. If having all three rail lines here is good enough for a football stadium (which won't be here in my lifetime), then it's good enough to build a entire neighborhood from scratch. People with more influence and wherewithal than I have recommended a station and supportive development for this site. Maybe one day more of you will come along.

 

EDIT: Do you know what this is?

 

The same thing as this:

 

 

It's a clean piece of land.

 

Except the first picture (taken a decade ago) looks like this now:

 

 

It's Crocker Park. Now we can sh!t on it because it is Crocker Park. Or we can recognize that we can turn a piece of clean land into a urban (or new urbanist) neighborhood -- even in suburban Westlake. I'm sure we can find a developer willing to do the same in the shadows of downtown Cleveland and on a rail line. And we can recognize that a mixed-use neighborhood would produce far more ridership for rail than any other possible use between Tower City and East 55th stations. And there's no where else that you can build anything so large and transformative within 2,000 feet of the rail system and a future station without acquiring a long from multiple private property owners, tearing stuff down, and/or grading land to make it level. Least of all without having to get GCRTA to move or extend a rail line.

Of course I drove here. There's no station here yet! Wow, this is chicken-n-egg silliness. If having all three rail lines here is good enough for a football stadium (which won't be here in my lifetime), then it's good enough to build a entire neighborhood from scratch. People with more influence and wherewithal than I have recommended a station and supportive development for this site. Maybe one day more of you will come along.

 

why didn't you walk there? Because you are expecting people to walk to Heinen's at East 9th and Euclid, because it is far too difficult to take the Redline to get to Heinen's.

 

There are better and more appropriate locations in and around downtown Cleveland for the sort of Development you propose there. It is a wasteland that would require a Herculean effort to make appropriate for TOD. 

 

EDIT: Do you know what this is?

 

 

The same thing as this:

 

It's a clean piece of land.

 

Except the first picture (taken a decade ago) looks like this now:

 

It's Crocker Park. Now we can sh!t on it because it is Crocker Park. Or we can recognize that we can turn a piece of clean land into a urban (or new urbanist) neighborhood -- even in suburban Westlake. I'm sure we can find a developer willing to do the same in the shadows of downtown Cleveland and on a rail line. And we can recognize that a mixed-use neighborhood would produce far more ridership for rail than any other possible use between Tower City and East 55th stations. And there's no where else that you can build anything so large and transformative within 2,000 feet of the rail system and a future station without acquiring a long from multiple private property owners, tearing stuff down, and/or grading land to make it level. Least of all without having to get GCRTA to move or extend a rail line.

 

Don't confuse Auto-centric development with Transit centric development, they are very different. the difference is Walkablity, you have to have somewhere to walk from or somewhere to walk to to support TOD. Transit oriented development unlike auto-centric development cannot be mode centric. TOD has to involve Walking, biking, along with Rail and bus transit, and it has to a be part of a place, building there and hoping the Density will come is unrealistic especially since there is a far larger high density area less than 3/4 mile away.  which is too far to encourage frequent walking trips and to close to encourage frequent heavy rail trips where the Time to and From platform outweighs the advantages of speed. for someone who lives there they will simply drive, they could bike but won't because the linkages are all dangerous high speed roads.

 

with auto-centric design there is a little penalty to build further and further from the NODE (interchange) because all trips are in vehicle are signal mode trips. you simply drive further, and have an infinite number of potential stops on the way.

 

This is the problem to a lesser extent with the lakefront, the linkages are auto-centric and the most convenient way to move from the lakefront to downtown is to drive.

 

then there is the issue that the transit system doesn't go where most people need to go, which means they will have a Vehicle around for those trips where the transit system doesn't go, which is alot of places in our region.

 

you can't build greenfield TOD until the issue of system connectivity and accessibility is solved.

 

you can't build greenfield TOD until the issue of system connectivity and accessibility is solved.

 

 

Either the developer builds the station or you use a TIF from the TOD to build the station. Plenty of real-world examples of this from around the USA.

I think these problems will be solved. There is  a forty year trend towards development in dense downtown areas which is a reversal of the forty year trend out to the suburbs.

 

I like the Westshore transit idea a lot. With all the new bus booths being built on Clifton Ave., I am hoping that RTA will increase frequency and days of service on the bus that runs on Clifton.

 

Does anyone know about the rumor that there is  a plan to have trolleys run from downtown to the Edgewater neighborhood. One of the peopel working at a coffee shop told me that he thought stores and restaurant owners on Clifton were thinking of paying for trolleys to bring people from downtown to

Edgewater.

I think these problems will be solved. There is  a forty year trend towards development in dense downtown areas which is a reversal of the forty year trend out to the suburbs.

 

I like the Westshore transit idea a lot. With all the new bus booths being built on Clifton Ave., I am hoping that RTA will increase frequency and days of service on the bus that runs on Clifton.

 

Everything I've heard from RTA staff is that they expect FTA will actually demand more frequent service (including weekend service). FTA is investing millions into Enhance Clifton and may not feel like its investment is being utilized to the fullest without more frequent/weekend service.

 

Does anyone know about the rumor that there is  a plan to have trolleys run from downtown to the Edgewater neighborhood. One of the peopel working at a coffee shop told me that he thought stores and restaurant owners on Clifton were thinking of paying for trolleys to bring people from downtown to Edgewater.

 

Downtown Lakewood businesses are going pay for a trolley bus service to address worsening parking problems. Perhaps Edgewater businesses are on a "me-too" desire. Haven't heard that one, though. I am hearing that Ohio City and Gordon Square interests want to do something transit-wise, as do West 25th interests as far south as Old Brooklyn. Lots of cool ideas percolating.

you can't build greenfield TOD until the issue of system connectivity and accessibility is solved.

 

 

Either the developer builds the station or you use a TIF from the TOD to build the station. Plenty of real-world examples of this from around the USA.

 

I was referring to the ENTIRE transit system not just that station. It is difficult to be dependent on a system that doesn't go where you need to go, in a reasonable amount of time.  You are more likely to keep the car around or use other forms for of transportation that can do what the transit system cannot.

I think these problems will be solved. There is  a forty year trend towards development in dense downtown areas which is a reversal of the forty year trend out to the suburbs.

 

I like the Westshore transit idea a lot. With all the new bus booths being built on Clifton Ave., I am hoping that RTA will increase frequency and days of service on the bus that runs on Clifton.

 

Does anyone know about the rumor that there is  a plan to have trolleys run from downtown to the Edgewater neighborhood. One of the peopel working at a coffee shop told me that he thought stores and restaurant owners on Clifton were thinking of paying for trolleys to bring people from downtown to

Edgewater.

 

What I can't understand is why RTA proposed to study extending the Red Line to the NE from Stokes-Windermere where it passes mostly industrial sites along the RR ROW and NOT westward along NS ROW into/through Lakewood, the 2nd most densely populated city between NYC and Philadelphia (behind Hamtramck, MI)?

^ Because they never intended on rail, just BRT, which lakewood is already getting.