^ A lot of people in San Diego absolutely HATE the word "density."  It's like a four letter word. I always ask why, and they always, always then go on to list all of the problems associated not with density, but with suburban sprawl.

 

Most people just have no idea what they're talking about. 

I’m thinking we should dig some subway tunnels with this beauty once it’s done digging holes to store wastewater for treatment. Save the lake, then enable responsible transit. 
 

 

On 4/25/2022 at 10:32 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m thinking we should dig some subway tunnels with this beauty once it’s done digging holes to store wastewater for treatment. Save the lake, then enable responsible transit. 

 

 

Someone with a strong social media presence( @KJP) should quote tweet this and tag those with a voice (CSU, the Mayor, RTA...etc) and suggest that after this project is complete the bore should be used to create a Downtown Loop Subway!!! With all the new residential continually being added to the CDB this would be dynamic for downtown residents as well as all the businesses currently there... I think it would also strengthen the pull of companies to the CBD as well. It could also lessen the need for parking spaces in the CBD as well.

 

Below is a quick graphic I made in paint 🤣 If we could have a simple route like below I think it would be amazing!

Edited May 9, 20223 yr by NR

Does Anyone know if Cleveland Union Terminal could accommodate Superliners? 

1 hour ago, biker16a said:

Does Anyone know if Cleveland Union Terminal could accommodate Superliners? 

 

I assume you mean the old station platforms where the parking deck was inserted? I think it would be really tight (probably too tight) since Superliners are 16' 2" tall. How tall are RTA rail cars with the pantograph extended? Aren't they about 15'?

 

That's assuming CUT will ever see a passenger train again. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

42 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I assume you mean the old station platforms where the parking deck was inserted? I think it would be really tight (probably too tight) since Superliners are 16' 2" tall. How tall are RTA rail cars with the pantograph extended? Aren't they about 15'?

 

That's assuming CUT will ever see a passenger train again. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

5 hours ago, jawn said:

 

Unfortunately that doesn't tell us what the overhead clarences are in CUT.

On 5/11/2022 at 12:13 PM, KJP said:

 

I assume you mean the old station platforms where the parking deck was inserted? I think it would be really tight (probably too tight) since Superliners are 16' 2" tall. How tall are RTA rail cars with the pantograph extended? Aren't they about 15'?

 

That's assuming CUT will ever see a passenger train again. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

The distance between platform level and the mezzanine level is 22.5 feet 

12 minutes ago, biker16a said:

The distance between platform level and the mezzanine level is 22.5 feet 

 

Isn't that floor surface to floor surface? So was your firm just hired by the property owner? 🕵️‍♂️

22 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Isn't that floor surface to floor surface? So was your firm just hired by the property owner? 🕵️‍♂️

 Its floor to floor. 

I am just asking if anyone knew.

OH: Cleveland streets to include more multi-modal, environmentally-friendly designs under strengthened Complete and Green Streets policy

 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/safety-security/news/21270150/oh-cleveland-streets-to-include-more-multimodal-environmentallyfriendly-designs-under-strengthened-complete-and-green-streets-policy

Question for you Rail gurus: Do you see any way that the new Browns stadium could help with the completion of the Downtown loop?

Whether that be the Browns help fund part of it, or that it is simply pushed for completion to assist with folks getting to the new stadium village? 

35 minutes ago, NR said:

Question for you Rail gurus: Do you see any way that the new Browns stadium could help with the completion of the Downtown loop?

Whether that be the Browns help fund part of it, or that it is simply pushed for completion to assist with folks getting to the new stadium village? 

 

Not unless Mayor Bibb and/or the new county exec points a gun at RTA after throwing $200 million at their feet and says "build it." Seriously. Forget rail expansion in Cleveland. If fact, I fully expect RTA to start abandoning rail, starting with the Green Line east of Shaker Square if they can't get state money to rebuild the tracks. RTA believed the only reason why Cleveland had any hope of keeping its rail system was that 100,000 people worked downtown. That number has been significantly reduced and RTA has no idea how to operate anything other than a transit system designed to get 9-5 workers in/out of downtown.

 

RTA needs to create a TOD redevelopment masterplan that identifies locations for TOD nodes throughout the county. Each one needs to be a 15-minute city. All rapid stations need to be the heart of each 15-minute city. RTA's masterplan, done in partnership with each city and any CDCs within that city, would be empowered by their 1-cent sales tax that gives them a better bond rating for incentivizing neighborhood development projects than the port authority. They also have a potential partner in the Ohio Department of Development that offers Brownfield funds, TMUD tax credits, opportunity zone credits, historic credits, affordable housing credits and other that come into play. And the FTA has greatly expanded financial tools to support TOD as well featuring grants, loans and credits.

 

The fulfillment of this masterplan would not only produce new ridership for RTA but also new revenue streams for future expansion. But it would take someone with great vision to communicate and lead this plan, and possess the strength to challenge entrenched interests to shake off their cobwebs and join this new endeavor or risk the further isolation of the poor as the transit authority continues to rot away.

At the very least, they could turn the Shaker-Green line into a peak hour express with limited stops east of Shaker Square to serve commuters from the Heights and Hillcrest areas.  Riding the 9 on Mayfield all the way to downtown is excrutiatingly slow.  The old 9F used to be competitive with driving!

Edited July 9, 20222 yr by urb-a-saurus

So basically, rail is not going to survive in this town? Lovely. RTA needs a complete overhaul. I’m hoping Bibb and a new county executive can get them to change their ways.

 

Is RTA even buying new rail cars at this point? 

On 7/8/2022 at 1:27 PM, KJP said:

 

Not unless Mayor Bibb and/or the new county exec points a gun at RTA after throwing $200 million at their feet and says "build it." Seriously. Forget rail expansion in Cleveland.

😩

Dammit, Ken.  We want our downtown loop!!  ARgh

On 3/31/2022 at 8:29 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

And from Lakewood dev thread:

If NS is truly considering abandoning the Lakewood freight tracks, wouldn’t it be possible to run frequent regional rail on them for a fraction of the capital cost of a streetcar? It seems like it would be pretty convenient to everything a Lakewood streetcar could connect. I assume it would provide much faster service. It’d be nice if someone w the political power to make it happen would have the vision to do so. Somebody could buy a few DMUs to get started. I think the only must from an infrastructure perspective would be a connection to the Red Line tracks at West Blvd and some platforms. (Maybe even encourage a local freight rail to subcontract use of the tracks to Avon at night?)

 

It could later be electrified and use EMUs. Then take those DMUs and run them from downtown to Solon (because a good portion of that is a local freight line, not a main line) and now we have the basis of a regional rail system. 

 

Huge loss if NS tears out the tracks. 

 

 

don't put it past them. if that happens they could take the rail with them and sell it off or use it elsewhere. after ford left town they tore out the second track across lorain, so its now left with only a single train track across town along a double track row. i just checked on google earth and like i suspected the double tracking doesn't pick up again until the border at sheffield lake. sad.

Ford Lorain closed in 2005. I don't know when the second track was pulled out in Lorain, but it was removed from SR83 to Cleveland in 1993, leaving only the Bay Village passing siding.

i looked closer and double track and more is still there for the stretch from avon lake belden road west through sheffield lake to the root road border of lorain. presumably for use by avon lake ford.

 

then east of belden its again gone down to one track.

 

what a freakin shame they were allowed to do this. ugh.

Not mine, but someone posted a future Cleveland metro system map on Reddit. It looks very pie-in-the-sky to me, and perhaps a bit optimistic for the stated budget, but it seems like the poster genuinely put a lot of thought into it, and I figured some of the people on here would enjoy looking over it.

 

 

^ they dinnint close da loop!

14 hours ago, mrnyc said:

^ they dinnint close da loop!

I’d support a loop if it’s the only thing we would get, but when someone is proposing as expansive a system as this, a downtown loop really wouldn’t be a very good feature. Much better would be two or three trunk lines that intersect each other in downtown. That would enable one to get anywhere downtown easily, while also maximizing the speed for longer trips. 

On 7/8/2022 at 1:27 PM, KJP said:

I fully expect RTA to start abandoning rail, starting with the Green Line east of Shaker Square if they can't get state money to rebuild the tracks. RTA believed the only reason why Cleveland had any hope of keeping its rail system was that 100,000 people worked downtown. That number has been significantly reduced and RTA has no idea how to operate anything other than a transit system designed to get 9-5 workers in/out of downtown.

Meanwhile, there are other cities in the country where the solution to post-pandemic commuting patterns is to re-designing their rail transit systems to increase mobility all day long and well into the evening hours.  Why is this town so damned backward in its thinking sometimes? 

Edited August 22, 20222 yr by gildone
spelling

On 8/20/2022 at 12:04 PM, Ethan said:

Not mine, but someone posted a future Cleveland metro system map on Reddit. It looks very pie-in-the-sky to me, and perhaps a bit optimistic for the stated budget, but it seems like the poster genuinely put a lot of thought into it, and I figured some of the people on here would enjoy looking over it.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this with us.

 

Personally, I'm not a real fan of how this person designed the system. I don't see a lot of benefit to extending rail all the way out to so many rural and or low population places. I don't think there'd be munch benefit to nor is it wise to build a line to places like Aurora or Cuyahoga Falls, and besides that, they're in different counties.

 

I'd much rather see something closer to the below map created with that money. Also, I don't want any new taxes or fees for this, I'd want it funded with current/redirected ODOT money.

 

Note: I added two lines(in purple), One to make a Downtown-Loop and another to connect ParmaTown>Southland>150th>117th/Detroit

 

I think something like this would be used a lot more, makes more sense and is a better use of money.

25 minutes ago, NR said:

 

Thanks for sharing this with us.

 

Personally, I'm not a real fan of how this person designed the system. I don't see a lot of benefit to extending rail all the way out to so many rural and or low population places. I don't think there'd be munch benefit to nor is it wise to build a line to places like Aurora or Cuyahoga Falls, and besides that, they're in different counties.

 

I'd much rather see something closer to the below map created with that money. Also, I don't want any new taxes or fees for this, I'd want it funded with current/redirected ODOT money.

 

Note: I added two lines(in purple), One to make a Downtown-Loop and another to connect ParmaTown>Southland>150th>117th/Detroit

 

I think something like this would be used a lot more, makes more sense and is a better use of money.

I like it.  But my #1 priority is a downtown loop.  I think it needs to go up E17/E18/E21 and connect Cleveland State, St. Vincent Hospital, and Tri-C (and a Gateway station by the ballpark/arena).  Suddenly a lot more destinations are connected to rail, making all the feeder lines into downtown more useful as well.

After seeing eastbound traffic backed up on the Opportunity Corridor this morning, from Quincy to Carnegie, and being reminded of the Green Ribbon plan for relocating the Shoreway over the Cuyahoga Valley, I propose the following.....

 

1. Get rid of the Shoreway bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley and redirect its reduced traffic onto the Detroit-Superior Bridge

2. Downgrade the Shoreway between West 3rd and Dead Man's Curve into a boulevard

3. Construct rail infrastructure necessary to reroute freight out of Lakewood/Rocky River/Westlake and to reroute all through freight off the lakefront to the Lakefront Bypass south of downtown Cleveland

4. Develop a diesel light-rail route from Westlake or Avon Lake to Downtown Solon or Geauga Lake via the downtown Cleveland Lakefront

5. Construct the Downtown Loop

6. In the future, reroute the Blue Line from downtown/Playhouse Square to Shaker Square via Euclid and Cedar/Fairmount/Coventry/North Moreland

7. In the very distant future, construct a subway from Playhouse Square to Tower City

 

Oh, and build the BRT on West 25th/Pearl/Ridge to Parmatown

BTW, by rerouting the through freights off the lakefront, the virtually unused CSX line to Bratenahl and Collinwood can be used for diesel LRVs if we want to put a ton of high-rises along the lakefront. And it opens access to the W&LE tracks to Bedford, southern Solon and possibly Twinsburg and Kent for regional rail service and Amtrak to Pittsburgh could be routed over it as well to bypass much of the freight yards on the city's southeast side. And look at the connectivity to UC, Midtown etc from the southeast suburbs.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90795956/this-wild-public-transit-concept-is-uber-meets-urban-gondolas?partner=rss&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rss fastcompany&utm_content=rss&s=09

 

A crazy, futuristic concept here.  Still, seems relatively simple from a technology point of view, and probably low cost.

1 hour ago, JohnSummit said:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90795956/this-wild-public-transit-concept-is-uber-meets-urban-gondolas?partner=rss&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rss fastcompany&utm_content=rss&s=09

 

A crazy, futuristic concept here.  Still, seems relatively simple from a technology point of view, and probably low cost.

 

“Elon Musk tries to dig tunnels under cities, we’re trying to do the opposite,” says Martin Angelov, an architect and the founder of Half Company, “but we try to make it as human-scale as possible.”

 

My first thought when I saw this.   Otherwise, the concepts are quite similar, though the gondola trips would likely be shorter.  It also reminds me of the “bubble car” concept I’ve seen in SF books.

 

It also addresses Elon’s “random strangers” comment that riled up some communitarians.   Perhaps the two could be blended.

3 hours ago, JohnSummit said:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90795956/this-wild-public-transit-concept-is-uber-meets-urban-gondolas?partner=rss&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rss fastcompany&utm_content=rss&s=09

 

A crazy, futuristic concept here.  Still, seems relatively simple from a technology point of view, and probably low cost.

 

Reminds me of....

 

 

On 8/25/2022 at 1:39 PM, KJP said:

BTW, by rerouting the through freights off the lakefront, the virtually unused CSX line to Bratenahl and Collinwood can be used for diesel LRVs if we want to put a ton of high-rises along the lakefront. And it opens access to the W&LE tracks to Bedford, southern Solon and possibly Twinsburg and Kent for regional rail service and Amtrak to Pittsburgh could be routed over it as well to bypass much of the freight yards on the city's southeast side. And look at the connectivity to UC, Midtown etc from the southeast suburbs.

 

Shouldn't USDOT be planning and regulating interstate rail?  I know a lot of small communities like the taxes from rail lines, but it seems like interstate travel would be better planned and regulated by a national body that looks at all options (roads, trains, planes) for freight and passengers and regulates and maintains the routes.  As with roads, let the operators be private, but nationalize the right of way and maintenance of that right-of-way, regulate train length and have a national rail scheduling system (like the air traffic control system).  The 19th century ended awhile ago, past time to upgrade.

21 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Shouldn't USDOT be planning and regulating interstate rail?  I know a lot of small communities like the taxes from rail lines, but it seems like interstate travel would be better planned and regulated by a national body that looks at all options (roads, trains, planes) for freight and passengers and regulates and maintains the routes.  As with roads, let the operators be private, but nationalize the right of way and maintenance of that right-of-way, regulate train length and have a national rail scheduling system (like the air traffic control system).  The 19th century ended awhile ago, past time to upgrade.

 

USDOT does plan and regulate (from a safety perspective) interstate rail. The Surface Transportation Board (was the Interstate Commerce Commission) regulates business matters (mergers, pricing, right of way abandonments, etc) regarding interstate rail.

 

The railroad industry will tell you that nationalization doesn't work. They'll point to the U.S. Railway Administration that was established during World War I which technically nationalized American railroads although the railroad continued to own their rights of way. The private railroads will tell you nationalization was a disaster, making an already overwhelmed rail system dysfunctional. Others say it created standardization and resulted in greater capacity for more traffic.

 

Here's a decent article about the WWI experience:.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/freightwaves-classics-us-railroads-were-nationalized-in-world-war-i

 

Here is an article about the potential for nationalizing railroad infrastructure today:

https://www.thegazette.com/staff-columnists/americas-highways-are-nationalized-why-not-its-rail/

 

Railroad executives and operations people will tell you that the rail industry is very different from the highway system. They'll point to the mergers of Union Pacific and Southern Pacific or the Conrail split among NS and CSX which resulted in a months-long meltdown of freight service in which stopped trains clogged mainlines and yards over confusion of crew assignments and claim that will always be the case under nationalization. But it shouldn't, because the public infrastructure-owning agency can continue CSX or NS or UP having an operating franchise over a territory of railroad tracks for a number of years. Then it can offer an operating franchise to another company (be it freight or passenger) over that territory of track after it determines whether that line has the capacity to handle it. If not, then capacity can be added to it by the public agency.

 

They'll claim that they will no longer be able to afford buying locomotives or freight cars (rolling stock) because they take loans out again their rights of way to finance the addition of new rolling stock. But many railroads today lease their rolling stock from companies like GATX or from the locomotive manufacturers themselves. In short, it's BS.

 

And they'll claim that it will mean that shipping costs will rise because the marginal cost of them adding another train to a route they already own is insignificant and very difficult to calculate. But if they add another train to a route owned by a public agency, they'll have to pay user fees (such as a cost per ton-mile or car-mile). That's true and they will also be relieved of many costs, such as needing to generate a profit from their right of way, or paying insurance costs on the right of way (the public agency won't have to either), or paying the interest on capitalization (as well as the financier's profit margin) of improvements and maintenance of the right of way, or paying the costs of security (railroads have their own police departments). The government is the highway and aviation industry's banker, insurer and law enforcement when it comes to infrastructure.

 

If the public sector is truly interested in making this work, then it also needs to provide the same externalized cost benefits to the railroads as it does to its competition. Namely, the dispatchers (rail traffic controllers) need to be funded not by users but by general taxpayers as air traffic controllers at the FAA are. And security of the railroad system needs to also be primarily funded by general taxpayers, just as air travelers provide a small share of funding to the TSA. So should it be with rail users.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

If the public sector is truly interested in making this work, then it also needs to provide the same externalized cost benefits to the railroads as it does to its competition. Namely, the dispatchers (rail traffic controllers) need to be funded not by users but by general taxpayers as air traffic controllers at the FAA are. And security of the railroad system needs to also be primarily funded by general taxpayers, just as air travelers provide a small share of funding to the TSA. So should it be with rail users.

Let's do it.

Have to pay Congress more than what the Class 1's and some right-wing lobbying groups are paying.

52 minutes ago, KJP said:

Have to pay Congress more than what the Class 1's and some right-wing lobbying groups are paying.

That's a problem, certainly.  But removing the maintenance, scheduling, security, and tax burdens have to be pluses for the Class 1's as well.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

That's a problem, certainly.  But removing the maintenance, scheduling, security, and tax burdens have to be pluses for the Class 1's as well.

 

They would. And you'll never convince them of it. They'll rip out their last track before they figure it out.

(Just found this thread, great thread. Agree with DOT director KJP plans above) here’s Cincinnati’s plans on expanding rail throughout the city, note we’re ahead (aside from the street car) we should definitely continue to build out what we have, also I feel like Columbus has to be way behind.

Also if the 3c connector ever takes off the more rail within the city will certainly aid in the effectiveness of carless options year round

2 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Just for fun, how about a future rail line on it with a connection to the airport rapid at a combined viaduct/flats station, then heading south through future development in Walworth Run, ultimately adding extensions to Brook Park on the CCCStl NS alignment, with stops at W44, W65-Clark, W73-Denison, West Blvd, Memphis, W130-Bellaire, W150-Brook Park.

 

What I really wanted was to bring it to Carter and over the RR bridge behind the federal courthouse to connect with the Waterfront Line.

 

I hate to be a kill-joy, but we're never going to see any rail transit expansion in Cleveland until the doughnut hole of sprawl is filled. If every neighborhood was populous and vibrant like Ohio City or University Circle, then we'd have a shot at something.

Moving this from the RTA news thread

 

57 minutes ago, KJP said:

With University Circle threatening to overtake downtown as Northeast Ohio's jobs hub, the fact that there's only one rail line through UC and doesn't serve a ridership base east of it is very unfortunate. Cleveland Clinic plans to build two more parking garages. Why not use that money for the local share of extending one of the Shaker Lines to UC? The Shaker Connector was estimated to cost $120 million in the mid-1990s. Today, it would probably be about $200 million. Save the cost of the flying junction connection with the Red Line and use the savings to extend the connector a couple of station stops into Cleveland Clinic. 

 

17 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, and it would be about the same travel time as if you transferred to the #48 at Shaker Square -- if you were going to someplace like Uptown in UC. But if you were going to the Cleveland Clinic, it would be much faster to just transfer from the Shaker lines to the fairly frequent #10 and go up East 105th. 

 

However, here's a dream scenario including serving a redeveloped Burke Airport. The Blue & Green Lines become a single line called the Turquoise Line.... 😎

 

 

 

 

I thought your previous idea of running it on Adelbert to get the direct Shaker to UH traffic was a good idea, despite adding cost. MLK between Euclid and the hill is kind of a wasteland with minimal ridership generators. 

On 11/1/2022 at 5:10 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Moving this from the RTA news thread

 

 

I thought your previous idea of running it on Adelbert to get the direct Shaker to UH traffic was a good idea, despite adding cost. MLK between Euclid and the hill is kind of a wasteland with minimal ridership generators. 

 

It is now, but CWRU plans to build its new research center with a facade on MLK and they also propose a glassy new Campus Gateway podium for Crawford Tower at MLK and Euclid. See:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/09/03/cwru-seeks-300m-research-center/

 

37 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

It is now, but CWRU plans to build its new research center with a facade on MLK and they also propose a glassy new Campus Gateway podium for Crawford Tower at MLK and Euclid. See:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/09/03/cwru-seeks-300m-research-center/

 

Those would be ridership draws on an Adelbert route too. I think UH is too important to miss it with a rail extension in the area. 

RTA thread still locked, but this is future plans anyway:

 

Tbh I never understood why Euclid 120th Street station was closed. It dropped you off right on Euclid and is walking distance away from Uptown. Yes I know Little Italy station exists and it’s one of our few stations that serves a neighborhood directly, it FEELS slightly separated from UC and seems like it’s designed to serve Little Italy residents and visitors and not UC. I don’t think having both open would have cut down on efficiency they could’ve both coexisted, you just needed to renovate it to make it more attractive.

Euclid 120th would’ve been the stop to directly serve University Circle and could have been scheduled in a way that sync’s you with the Healthline so by the time you get there (say 2-3 minutes before the bus arrives) you have a direct connection to your apartment, office, favorite restaurant etc. Combine that with giving the healthline signal prioritization and the 93/105 transit corridor coming and you have a very efficient way to utilize transit to serve arguably Clevelands most booming neighborhood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The two stops are close.  They could have done a walkway, possibly enclosed, over to Uptown from the LI station, maybe NW of the tracks, then over to E 116th near the CIA.

Edited January 11, 20232 yr by urb-a-saurus

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Tbh I never understood why Euclid 120th Street station was closed. It dropped you off right on Euclid and is walking distance away from Uptown. Yes I know Little Italy station exists and it’s one of our few stations that serves a neighborhood directly, it FEELS slightly separated from UC and seems like it’s designed to serve Little Italy residents and visitors and not UC. I don’t think having both open would have cut down on efficiency they could’ve both coexisted, you just needed to renovate it to make it more attractive.

Euclid 120th would’ve been the stop to directly serve University Circle and could have been scheduled in a way that sync’s you with the Healthline so by the time you get there (say 2-3 minutes before the bus arrives) you have a direct connection to your apartment, office, favorite restaurant etc. Combine that with giving the healthline signal prioritization and the 93/105 transit corridor coming and you have a very efficient way to utilize transit to serve arguably Clevelands most booming neighborhood.
 

 

37 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

The two stops are close.  They could have done a walkway, possibly enclosed, over to Uptown from the LI station, maybe NW of the tracks, then over to E 116th near the CIA.

 

The stops are pretty close--the platform at Little Italy is north of Mayfield and the platform at Euclid is south of Euclid. So the distance from front end to front end of platform (for either direction) is about 950 feet. That said, its close but not too close that they could have kept both open. It certainly would have been useful to spur development in that area. If I had to pick one location, I'd pick the Mayfield one, but my preference would be to have both open, especially as the area around E. 120 and Euclid getting denser.

I think the ridership numbers at 120 were terrible when it was still open.  and 120th is just as far from most of UC as the mayfield station. 

 

 

On 8/25/2022 at 1:39 PM, KJP said:

BTW, by rerouting the through freights off the lakefront, the virtually unused CSX line to Bratenahl and Collinwood can be used for diesel LRVs if we want to put a ton of high-rises along the lakefront. 

 

 

While I like the concept in general, IMO one of the biggest mistakes commonly made on this board is overestimation of the demand for high rises on the eastern lakefront.   They exist, and outside of Bratenhal are not considered in high demand.   Some are even public housing.

 

The shoreline curves to the northeast and the prevailing winds begin to blow straight across the lake.   It gets very cold and windy there.

 

   

10 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Tbh I never understood why Euclid 120th Street station was closed. It dropped you off right on Euclid and is walking distance away from Uptown. Yes I know Little Italy station exists and it’s one of our few stations that serves a neighborhood directly, it FEELS slightly separated from UC and seems like it’s designed to serve Little Italy residents and visitors and not UC. I don’t think having both open would have cut down on efficiency they could’ve both coexisted, you just needed to renovate it to make it more attractive.

Euclid 120th would’ve been the stop to directly serve University Circle and could have been scheduled in a way that sync’s you with the Healthline so by the time you get there (say 2-3 minutes before the bus arrives) you have a direct connection to your apartment, office, favorite restaurant etc. Combine that with giving the healthline signal prioritization and the 93/105 transit corridor coming and you have a very efficient way to utilize transit to serve arguably Clevelands most booming neighborhood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It was dingy and dirty and just far enough from Little Italy to be considered dangerous, especially going under the bridges to get there.   I think I used it twice in the five years I was at Case, and I even used the 9 quite a bit.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

While I like the concept in general, IMO one of the biggest mistakes commonly made on this board is overestimation of the demand for high rises on the eastern lakefront.   They exist, and outside of Bratenhal are not considered in high demand.   Some are even public housing.

 

The shoreline curves to the northeast and the prevailing winds begin to blow straight across the lake.   It gets very cold and windy there.

 

   

 

An artists district is forming along and north of St. Clair from the Inner Belt east to MLK, but south of the tracks. As I've often written, artists create the conditions for their own eviction. They stabilize a neighborhood and make it attractive for investors with deeper pockets to come in and provide higher-rent offerings to the point that artists can no longer afford to stay. That has happened in the Warehouse District, Ohio City, Tremont and now the Superior Arts District. The St. Clair-Lakefront strip is happening next. And in a pocket north of this strip and the tracks, where the First Energy Lake Shore Plant was, the site is being cleaned up so they can sell it off. Once cleaned, this spot is perfect for development. It's on a bluff overlooking the lake and the spot of Gordon Park where the Metroparks and the port authority are about to make some significant investments in lakefront recreation. It's a perfect site for 10- to 12-story high rises along it which will actually seem taller to those passing by on I-90 because of the bluff they would be built upon.

 

That density would provide a nice ridership anchor for a rail transit line that's right next to the site. And whether transit is provided to it by a diesel-powered rail car on the existing tracks or by an extension of the Waterfront Line, this area could be primed for redevelopment around transit stops. I hope RTA will consider this corridor in its upcoming TOD corridors study. I also hope they consider the NS line through Lakewood which NS has stopped using except for weekly local service.