What about Walworth Run, which has an RR track and Train Ave. running through it, for development?   The area around it is getting some attention.

19 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

What about Walworth Run, which has an RR track and Train Ave. running through it, for development?   The area around it is getting some attention.

 

An infill station at Fulton makes a lot of sense, IMHO. Metroparks could fund the ADA overhead access from Fulton to the Greenway/station platform and thus provide the 20 percent local funding match to 80 percent federal grant for a new station. The stretch between West 65th and Ohio City stations is the longest between any two stations on the Red Line. A station here would also boost prospects for redeveloping the Scrapcom and Caraustar properties, both of which have attracted significant developer interest.

On 1/11/2023 at 10:55 AM, KJP said:

 

An infill station at Fulton makes a lot of sense, IMHO. Metroparks could fund the ADA overhead access from Fulton to the Greenway/station platform and thus provide the 20 percent local funding match to 80 percent federal grant for a new station. The stretch between West 65th and Ohio City stations is the longest between any two stations on the Red Line. A station here would also boost prospects for redeveloping the Scrapcom and Caraustar properties, both of which have attracted significant developer interest.

 

I am not sure Fulton Rd station is as good a location as we would like.  Looking at a map, everything to the south of the station is pedestrian hostile for the first few hundred yards.  Then you get to the northern half of Clark-Fulton, but the density is pretty middling.  To the north is a better pedestrian experience, but the catchment area is pretty small before you start to overlap with W. 25th and W. 65th St. stations' catchment areas.  The thing that would save it would be truly massive redevelopments on those two lots you mentioned.  Townhouses won't do it.

On 1/12/2023 at 11:15 AM, X said:

 

I am not sure Fulton Rd station is as good a location as we would like.  Looking at a map, everything to the south of the station is pedestrian hostile for the first few hundred yards.  Then you get to the northern half of Clark-Fulton, but the density is pretty middling.  To the north is a better pedestrian experience, but the catchment area is pretty small before you start to overlap with W. 25th and W. 65th St. stations' catchment areas.  The thing that would save it would be truly massive redevelopments on those two lots you mentioned.  Townhouses won't do it.

 

So, perhaps a significant development on the Caraustar property might change your mind? 😉

Onboard digital way-finding like this would be great on the new rail cars:

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Onboard digital way-finding like this would be great on the new rail cars:

 

And buses too.

Hearing the new info and discussion in regards to the Terminal Tower/Tower City/Riverview Development master plan(whatever you want to call it), I had a few thoughts I wanted to put out there and get feedback from those with great rail knowledge. I have a lot in my head and I'm not sure if I'll be able to put it all in writing properly, I'm excited because of all the potential I feel this could have... I'll do my best to write it out.   So @KJP @Boomerang_Brian@E Rocc  @MyPhoneDead and the many others in this thread with rail insight, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the below. 

 

So The City is planning this new "Riverview Development" along with Bedrock, as I understand it they are partnering together and may include others potentially too, this would be because the project will require extremely extensive infrastructure work at the very beginning(water/sewer/power etc). Basically no major development, or at least to this scale, could move forward in this area without involvement from the city.. and/or financial incentives from the city. With that being said, I feel like the city is in a prime position to try and push for/encourage/influence (whatever you want to call it) Gilbert/Bedrock to go along with making the Terminal Tower a transportation hub again. From reading things on this forum; in NEOTrans Blog, in other media outlets, along with thoughts of my own.. I have what I think would be a great idea for the new "Riverview Development."

 

As it's been discussed in the past, keep Tower City as the main terminal for the RTA, move the Amtrak Hub there as well and also extend the CVSR to connect to this main transportation terminal. Also, it would be the best time to complete the downtown loop. This will make it the most effective/useful for the public/riders as all transportation is located in one central place, thus bringing greater ridership immediately. Build this Hub by extending off the current station below Tower City and give Bedrock/Gilbert air rights over it to develop as the designs show(I believe@KJP mentioned something like this in a previous article), if he doesn't have to pay for this I believe Gilbert would be incentivized to do it as the access/traffic would only be a bonus for his properties. I would think it'd be easier to lease/sell the condos/apartments/offices/hotels/stores that are built over and around this hub if all the tenets knew that just a few floors below they had access to rail that would take them anywhere around downtown(via the loop), greater CLE, the airport, Cuyahoga Valley and even other cities/states via Amtrak.

Another idea I just saw someone post that I think would really put this idea over the top was to move the casino into one of the other buildings around Tower City, maybe one built on the river(I don't really care, just off the Square), and put a City Walmart/Target there in it's place. This would help firstly by activating that location again, it's really needed as the outside of the casino portion of the building is dead space, and it gives those on/passing through our central square access to all those supplies. It also gives all the riders coming through the terminal access to get supplies and brings foot traffic past the food court and all the shops inside of CLE's premier building. That alone would do a lot for the currently dull Tower City in and of itself, let alone what all aforementioned people from the new development to come would bring.

 

As they begin this new "Master Plan" with the infrastructure work they MUST do, why not take advantage!? Let's take all the Fed/State/City money we can(like what's going towards the new Amtrak station already) and ask for whatever more we can get towards a Transportation Hub(from Infrastructure Bill money/Green Money/Public access money... etc) and combine it all into one giant project. This way it's not a huge tax burden on the residents of the city, all while also giving them a better functioning asset that would be more useful giving them grater access... thus gaining more public support.

I think the city has the power and is in the perfect position(with all the infrastructure work required) to make this move, to bring together all the people involved and show them the vision of how this would benefit every business and organization that would play a part in it... but most importantly, how it would benefit the citizens. I really hope our leaders don't miss out on this great opportunity!  Sadly we missed that subway opportunity in the 1950s, that was a huge failure by our leadership, I just hope our leaders today don't make a similar mistake and miss this opportunity. 

 

I feel this is the perfect time, the perfect moment to make a massive and bold move for the city that could expedite the growth we're seeing downtown and propel us further into the future much faster! 

 

I didn't cover everything going through my head (you're welcome 😄), but I think you get the idea.

I know this was a lot of reading and all, but I'd love to hear back from those of you with greater knowledge on these subjects.

 

Does the city have the strongest hand, do they hold the trump card due to the infrastructure work that's needed?

Could this possibly work as described above?

Do we have the leaders to do it?

 

Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!!!

Nothing will happen unless Bedrock says they want it. If they say they're revising their Tower City/Riverfront masterplan to include an intercity rail hub, then it could have significant influence on the state and Amtrak. But Bedrock may be waiting for the state and Amtrak to say they want to be in Tower City. If so, they're going to be waiting for a long time. Ohio/Amtrak/NOACA et al can incrementally expand the lakefront station to ultimately accommodate an Amtrak hub that could require a major city station above the reworked/expanded lakefront tracks (probably a $300 million project) and reroute all of the through freight trains to the NS mainline south of downtown, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars more. And by the time they're all done creating an Amtrak hub here, the money they spent on the lakefront would probably equal what would be needed to put Amtrak back into the old Cleveland Union Terminal.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Nothing will happen unless Bedrock says they want it. If they say they're revising their Tower City/Riverfront masterplan to include an intercity rail hub, then it could have significant influence on the state and Amtrak. But Bedrock may be waiting for the state and Amtrak to say they want to be in Tower City. If so, they're going to be waiting for a long time. Ohio/Amtrak/NOACA et al can incrementally expand the lakefront station to ultimately accommodate an Amtrak hub that could require a major city station above the reworked/expanded lakefront tracks (probably a $300 million project) and reroute all of the through freight trains to the NS mainline south of downtown, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars more. And by the time they're all done creating an Amtrak hub here, the money they spent on the lakefront would probably equal what would be needed to put Amtrak back into the old Cleveland Union Terminal.

 

Ken's the expert on the topic, but what I would think would make sense is having either the blue or green line pass through University Circle and terminate at Cleveland Clinic.    It's kind of amazing how all three rail lines bypass an employment center as important as CC.

Hi @NR, I like your thinking on all of that. I very much doubt the city’s leaders have that in mind. It just isn’t current American thinking to consider the opportunities of rail. That said, it’s a substantially better time for it than 20-30 years ago. Now I think many leaders would at least be open to the conversation. Ronayne’s recent Tweets are particularly encouraging. I think it will be up to us as advocates to get a vision of Tower City out there for consideration. Ken has laid out what a plan for Tower City built around rail could look like.
 

The only place I’d differ from what you suggested is that I think the Huron / Euclid Ave / East 22nd subway proposal would be substantially superior to any WFL loop proposal. And that’s just on its own merits, not even considering that it could eventually be extended along Euclid all the way to Uni Circle. 

Given all of KJP's comments over the years, I don't see Amtrak coming to Tower City as being likely.  Particularly given the lack of rail fans in the governor's mansion and state legislature.

 

We do need a better rail station for inter-city and interstate travel, and I can get on board with it being on the lake near its current location rather than in Tower City if we have good connectivity from there to Tower City via the Waterfront Line.  Not unlike the airport being connected to the city via the Red Line.  I wish we would see progress on that, such as an RFP for a new rail station (and possibly combined with a bus terminal with a shared parking garage, as has been discussed for a number of years now).

 

I still would like to see the waterfront line include a downtown loop.  And the Healthline converted to light rail, and .. and... and... 

Moving this over from the Ohio Intercity Rail convo, because my follow up answer seems to be a better fit in this “ideas for the future” thread

 

4 hours ago, mrnyc said:

if you had a pile of your uncle joe’s infrastructure $ and you had to choose between this amtrak 3C plan or instead could fund a local commuter system for each of the 3C’s, which would you take? inter city or intra city rail? and no cheating saying both lol, make sophie’s choice!

 

i would say keep an inter city amtrak row, but go with local commuter rail.

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The money required to do proper regional (commuter) rail would be MUCH larger than what’s being discussed for 3C&D. With that in mind, I’m voting 3C&D vs the amount of regional rail we’d get for the same money. 
 

Now rerouting the RTA Blue Line from Shaker Square to UH to Cleveland Clinic for $300-$400M? WAY more people would use that than 3C&D. It’d take more cars off the road, would to more to improve lives and communities, and make the entire RTA system more useful. Generally speaking, local transit projects have a much bigger impact than intercity transit. 

 

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

seems like we could have a Elyria, lakefront, eastlake/mentor service pretty easily if there was interest. 

Perhaps a really thin commuter system could be established for those (and a line to Solon) on existing, maintained freight track for cheap. But such a system just wouldn’t generate much ridership. There aren’t enough people commuting to jobs in a walkable radius of the lakefront station (or even Tower City). The built environment around the potential commuter stations (with the exception of Lakewood and Rocky River) isn’t conducive to generating ridership. And parking and traffic are relatively easy downtown (compared to cities w successful regional rail), so there isn’t much incentive for drivers to switch to rail. 

 

So what would work for regional rail? From my perspective it would require good frequency (15 minute headways), electrification (for better accel/decel, thus improving travel time), and redoing zoning around the commuter stations for mixed use ToD. It’s a huge project! And to get the frequency necessary to drive ridership, you have to decrease the freight interference. Even if NS through freight were to use Ken’s lakefront bypass proposal, I don’t think the lakefront station could handle proper regional rail frequency between the port and the lift bridge. Downtown station almost has to move back to Tower City to use the high level viaduct over the river. And I think a station in Uni Circle with a good connection to the Clinic is necessary. 

 

This would be awesome, but it’s definitely a HUGE project. Starting w something more feasible is the best path (e.g., blue line reroute to Uni Circle and the Clinic).

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

And I think a station in Uni Circle with a good connection to the Clinic is necessary

 

Agree and would like to see UC as a secondary hub--is there a plan out there for how this can be done? Street car? Subway?

 

@E Rocc, you mentioned this recently too, your thoughts?

13 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Agree and would like to see UC as a secondary hub--is there a plan out there for how this can be done? Street car? Subway?

 

@E Rocc, you mentioned this recently too, your thoughts?

My single favorite Cleveland rail proposal is to reroute the Blue Line so that it connects Shaker Square to University Circle to Cleveland Clinic. The image below is my version of that proposal. I'd like both the Euclid Ave and E116th sections to be subway, built cut and cover. This new routing would result in the vast majority of Uni Circle and Clinic's ~120K+/0- jobs being within a 5 minute walk of a Rapid station. (The VA Hospital would be the only significant employer missed - VA would be just shy of 1 mile / 20 minute walk from the Euclid / E105 station.) So many jobs with a direct, comfortable, frequent rail connection to all the apartments and amenities that surround the Blue Line in Shaker Heights. It would be an absolute lifeline for Shaker Square. It would save RTA operating money, as the new blue line would be much shorter and require fewer operator hours to cover. It would greatly increase Red Line ridership, as a simple transfer now gets riders to so many more useful locations. Hospitals are HUGE ridership generators. Plus UH and CC and UC entities wouldn't have to keep building parking garages - a huge savings for them that could be reinvested elsewhere.

 

It was based on idea Ken proposed - but his routing used the Cedar streetcar RoW to go up the hill to Cedar Fairmount, southeast to Coventry blvd, then Moreland to Shaker Square. In my opinion that adds too much rider time and adds a new group of NIMBYs to fight (I see you, Cleveland Heights). I like the idea of keeping the new route entirely in the city of Cleveland.

 

It's also similar to a secondary portion of the dual hub proposal of the 90s, but that one followed Stearns or MLK south of CWRU and would have missed UH ridership and most CWRU ridership. Ken's proposal introduced the idea of taking Euclid further east to Adelbert to get the UH and more CWRU riders and I like that concept a lot.

 

To me the most important aspect would be to minimize Right of Way interference. Streetcar would be slow and therefore bad. I think subway on that portion of Euclid Ave is really important. Traffic is already a mess.

 

And in super fantasy world, there would be a regional rail station immediately north of the current University / Cedar rapid station. Walk to UH / Case quad, new rerouted blue line to Clinic, or red line to Little Italy. The rail RoW through that area is super wide.

 

On 3/15/2022 at 9:08 AM, KJP said:

There's a rumor going around in the railfan community that Norfolk Southern intends to abandon the NS line through Lakewood. Specifically, the plan is reportedly to remove the tracks from the east end of the Sheffield Yard at Avon Lake to the Cloggsville Connection just west of West 25th Street. Unless the online communities clamor for and possibly even fund a rail transit line, it's not going happen. RTA isn't going to pursue it or fund it. RTA can't even afford to replace its buses let alone its rail cars. So if this rumor is true, look for a trail. At best, a transit right of way could be preserved next to a trail. But after the freight trains are gone for a few years, no one is going to want any form of rail to return.

 

5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Perhaps a really thin commuter system could be established for those (and a line to Solon) on existing, maintained freight track for cheap. But such a system just wouldn’t generate much ridership. There aren’t enough people commuting to jobs in a walkable radius of the lakefront station (or even Tower City). The built environment around the potential commuter stations (with the exception of Lakewood and Rocky River) isn’t conducive to generating ridership. And parking and traffic are relatively easy downtown (compared to cities w successful regional rail), so there isn’t much incentive for drivers to switch to rail. 

If NS really does abandon this line it certainly opens up an opportunity for the westward portion of this regional line. I'm not as familiar with the far west side, but I agree with Brian that at least through Lakewood and into Rocky River this would make sense.

 

Now whether or not we'd take advantage of this opportunity is another question. I don't see it happening without support from the suburbs themselves, and at least one other level of government. Fun to think about though.

@Boomerang_Brianin your proposal, would the Shaker-Green line still exist and go downtown?  One thought would be to have certain runs of each line go to CCF, while other runs go downtown, at least in peak hours to enable single rides on both lines.

 

Also, I still think certain peak hour runs of the Shaker-Green line should be made "express" with stops only at bus transfer points in Shaker Heights to make it more attractive for park/ride commuting.

Edited February 16, 20232 yr by urb-a-saurus

11 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

My single favorite Cleveland rail proposal is to reroute the Blue Line so that it connects Shaker Square to University Circle to Cleveland Clinic. The image below is my version of that proposal. I'd like both the Euclid Ave and E116th sections to be subway, built cut and cover. This new routing would result in the vast majority of Uni Circle and Clinic's ~120K+/0- jobs being within a 5 minute walk of a Rapid station. (The VA Hospital would be the only significant employer missed - VA would be just shy of 1 mile / 20 minute walk from the Euclid / E105 station.) So many jobs with a direct, comfortable, frequent rail connection to all the apartments and amenities that surround the Blue Line in Shaker Heights. It would be an absolute lifeline for Shaker Square. It would save RTA operating money, as the new blue line would be much shorter and require fewer operator hours to cover. It would greatly increase Red Line ridership, as a simple transfer now gets riders to so many more useful locations. Hospitals are HUGE ridership generators. Plus UH and CC and UC entities wouldn't have to keep building parking garages - a huge savings for them that could be reinvested elsewhere.

 

It was based on idea Ken proposed - but his routing used the Cedar streetcar RoW to go up the hill to Cedar Fairmount, southeast to Coventry blvd, then Moreland to Shaker Square. In my opinion that adds too much rider time and adds a new group of NIMBYs to fight (I see you, Cleveland Heights). I like the idea of keeping the new route entirely in the city of Cleveland.

 

It's also similar to a secondary portion of the dual hub proposal of the 90s, but that one followed Stearns or MLK south of CWRU and would have missed UH ridership and most CWRU ridership. Ken's proposal introduced the idea of taking Euclid further east to Adelbert to get the UH and more CWRU riders and I like that concept a lot.

 

To me the most important aspect would be to minimize Right of Way interference. Streetcar would be slow and therefore bad. I think subway on that portion of Euclid Ave is really important. Traffic is already a mess.

 

And in super fantasy world, there would be a regional rail station immediately north of the current University / Cedar rapid station. Walk to UH / Case quad, new rerouted blue line to Clinic, or red line to Little Italy. The rail RoW through that area is super wide.

 

 

This corresponds exactly to what I was thinking, in much more detail.   Both Shaker lines don't need to be going downtown.

29 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

@Boomerang_Brianin your proposal, would the Shaker-Green line still exist and go downtown?  One thought would be to have certain runs of each line go to CCF, while other runs go downtown, at least in peak hours to enable single rides on both lines.

 

Also, I still think certain peak hour runs of the Shaker-Green line should be made "express" with stops only at bus transfer points in Shaker Heights to make it more attractive for park/ride commuting.

Yes. Green line still downtown. My dream would be to use the blue line reroute to show how successful ToD can be, then put new ToD on the Green Line at Warrensville Center and Green and maybe other stations. As far as alternating service on the lines between downtown and UC, I think that would be confusing to users. Most import thing is to connect apartments to UC and the hospitals, and there are many more apartments along the blue line. 
 

Regarding express service - since the Shaker line only stops on request, how much time would this save? Honest question (I’m not a regular rider). I think it’s much more important to get signal prioritization. Also, parking lots are generally poor transit ride generators. Walking, bus transfer, and biking all generate more rail transit rides (in properly designed systems). Once someone is in their car, they are most likely to simply drive all the way to their destination. ToD around stations is a FAR better use of the land than those awful parking lots.  

I trust most riders to be able to read the destination sign of a bus or train they are getting on.  If they have a hangover and get on the wrong train, they could transfer at Shaker Square.  It's like when some rapids went only as far as West Park and others continued to the airport.  Anyway, I fully agree with the signal prioritization.  I project that an express Shaker-Green run downtown would BEAT a car.  It would stop only at Warrensville,  Lee, and Coventry in the heights area.

Edited February 16, 20232 yr by urb-a-saurus

On 2/15/2023 at 8:25 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

My single favorite Cleveland rail proposal is to reroute the Blue Line so that it connects Shaker Square to University Circle to Cleveland Clinic. The image below is my version of that proposal. I'd like both the Euclid Ave and E116th sections to be subway, built cut and cover. This new routing would result in the vast majority of Uni Circle and Clinic's ~120K+/0- jobs being within a 5 minute walk of a Rapid station. (The VA Hospital would be the only significant employer missed - VA would be just shy of 1 mile / 20 minute walk from the Euclid / E105 station.) So many jobs with a direct, comfortable, frequent rail connection to all the apartments and amenities that surround the Blue Line in Shaker Heights. It would be an absolute lifeline for Shaker Square. It would save RTA operating money, as the new blue line would be much shorter and require fewer operator hours to cover. It would greatly increase Red Line ridership, as a simple transfer now gets riders to so many more useful locations. Hospitals are HUGE ridership generators. Plus UH and CC and UC entities wouldn't have to keep building parking garages - a huge savings for them that could be reinvested elsewhere.

 

It was based on idea Ken proposed - but his routing used the Cedar streetcar RoW to go up the hill to Cedar Fairmount, southeast to Coventry blvd, then Moreland to Shaker Square. In my opinion that adds too much rider time and adds a new group of NIMBYs to fight (I see you, Cleveland Heights). I like the idea of keeping the new route entirely in the city of Cleveland.

 

It's also similar to a secondary portion of the dual hub proposal of the 90s, but that one followed Stearns or MLK south of CWRU and would have missed UH ridership and most CWRU ridership. Ken's proposal introduced the idea of taking Euclid further east to Adelbert to get the UH and more CWRU riders and I like that concept a lot.

 

To me the most important aspect would be to minimize Right of Way interference. Streetcar would be slow and therefore bad. I think subway on that portion of Euclid Ave is really important. Traffic is already a mess.

 

And in super fantasy world, there would be a regional rail station immediately north of the current University / Cedar rapid station. Walk to UH / Case quad, new rerouted blue line to Clinic, or red line to Little Italy. The rail RoW through that area is super wide.

 

How much cheaper do you suppose this would be than upgrading the healthline to rail? (With some or all of it below grade).

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

How much cheaper do you suppose this would be than upgrading the healthline to rail? (With some or all of it below grade).

Great question! Let's start w Dual Hub proposal - would have been subway under Huron to Euclid, surfacing in the East 20's and remaining surface level for the rest of the way east. Then it followed MLK south and reconnected w Red Line at Stearns, southwest of Cedar / University Station. (This is the part I didn't like - completely misses UH and mostly misses CWRU.) A secondary phase would have connected it to the Shaker Lines at East 116th essentially the same as what I'm suggesting. This is roughly 4.75 miles of new track including one mile of new subway to get to Uni Circle (not counting the extension to the Shaker Lines). This would certainly be north of $1B with US costs. I'd be really curious in a @KJP cost estimate on what this would cost today. Of course, you could "save" a lot of capital cost by surfacing immediately on Huron just East of Ontario, but then the rail would be dramatically slower, AND all the people who only go downtown for events would whine about how much worse the train would make traffic (ignoring how all the people in the train aren't in cars). I really think subway is important in the downtown area.

Here's the more recent heavy rail downtown subway proposal - Huron to Euclid to East 22nd to the existing tracks. This has more subway than the above proposal - the part under East 22nd connecting the Euclid corridor back to the existing Rapid tracks south of the post office. From the report: "The new alignment is approximately 3,948 additional operating feet, or 0.75 miles, per direction compared to the current route. Additional crew operating time is estimated at 2.8 minutes per one-way trip, allowing for 15-second station dwell times at each new station." This was estimated to cost $1B just a few years ago. Great proposal that I would support, but it is both far more expensive and probably wouldn't generate as much ridership as the CC-UC-SS connector I'm proposing.

 

Full proposal:

https://t.co/pf88K0qrOS

 

 

If the CC-UC-SS connector was all surface light rail, @KJP had estimated this to be in the $250-$300M range a few years ago. We've seen sharp inflation, so probably $300-$400M today (please correct me if I'm off, Ken!). As jammed as Euclid Ave can be in the stretch from 105th east, I'd really prefer for at least that portion to be subway with shallow cut and cover construction. I'd also like the Shaker Lines connection at East 116th to be below grade - both help improve travel times. It would add a lot of cost, but I have no idea how much. I'm sure it'd still be WAY less than any downtown subway proposal. There is quite a bit that could be at surface level even with grade separation. Certainly the part going down the hill along Stearns, and then you have the part on the existing grade separated rail Right of Way near the Cedar-Uni station. Probably the section along 116th could be at grade in dedicated RoW without too much travel time penalty.

 

The other thing that I really love about this proposal is that it's a great phase 1 for converting the HealthLine to rail. (Downtown subway would similarly be a great first phase for that project.)

 

 

Another comparison worth discussing is the downtown loop as an extension of the Waterfront Line. While I would be supportive of this project, I think it has some pretty glaring weaknesses in terms of ridership generation and would not be nearly as impactful as any of the above proposals. I really dislike the way it completely misses the Central Business District. (East 17th to East 9th is 0.43miles, about a 9 minute walk. The best ridership is generated within a 5 minutes walk.)

 

 

The travel times around the downtown loop are just brutal. 25 minutes around the loop - compared to the downtown subway proposal adding 2.8 minutes - and the latter better serves ridership generators!

 

 

17 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Great question! Let's start w Dual Hub proposal - would have been subway under Huron to Euclid, surfacing in the East 20's and remaining surface level for the rest of the way east. Then it followed MLK south and reconnected w Red Line at Stearns, southwest of Cedar / University Station. (This is the part I didn't like - completely misses UH and mostly misses CWRU.) A secondary phase would have connected it to the Shaker Lines at East 116th essentially the same as what I'm suggesting. This is roughly 4.75 miles of new track including one mile of new subway to get to Uni Circle (not counting the extension to the Shaker Lines). This would certainly be north of $1B with US costs. I'd be really curious in a @KJP cost estimate on what this would cost today. Of course, you could "save" a lot of capital cost by surfacing immediately on Huron just East of Ontario, but then the rail would be dramatically slower, AND all the people who only go downtown for events would whine about how much worse the train would make traffic (ignoring how all the people in the train aren't in cars). I really think subway is important in the downtown area.

Here's the more recent heavy rail downtown subway proposal - Huron to Euclid to East 22nd to the existing tracks. This has more subway than the above proposal - the part under East 22nd connecting the Euclid corridor back to the existing Rapid tracks south of the post office. From the report: "The new alignment is approximately 3,948 additional operating feet, or 0.75 miles, per direction compared to the current route. Additional crew operating time is estimated at 2.8 minutes per one-way trip, allowing for 15-second station dwell times at each new station." This was estimated to cost $1B just a few years ago. Great proposal that I would support, but it is both far more expensive and probably wouldn't generate as much ridership as the CC-UC-SS connector I'm proposing.

 

Full proposal:

https://t.co/pf88K0qrOS

 

 

If the CC-UC-SS connector was all surface light rail, @KJP had estimated this to be in the $250-$300M range a few years ago. We've seen sharp inflation, so probably $300-$400M today (please correct me if I'm off, Ken!). As jammed as Euclid Ave can be in the stretch from 105th east, I'd really prefer for at least that portion to be subway with shallow cut and cover construction. I'd also like the Shaker Lines connection at East 116th to be below grade - both help improve travel times. It would add a lot of cost, but I have no idea how much. I'm sure it'd still be WAY less than any downtown subway proposal. There is quite a bit that could be at surface level even with grade separation. Certainly the part going down the hill along Stearns, and then you have the part on the existing grade separated rail Right of Way near the Cedar-Uni station. Probably the section along 116th could be at grade in dedicated RoW without too much travel time penalty.

 

The other thing that I really love about this proposal is that it's a great phase 1 for converting the HealthLine to rail. (Downtown subway would similarly be a great first phase for that project.)

 

 

Another comparison worth discussing is the downtown loop as an extension of the Waterfront Line. While I would be supportive of this project, I think it has some pretty glaring weaknesses in terms of ridership generation and would not be nearly as impactful as any of the above proposals. I really dislike the way it completely misses the Central Business. (East 17th to East 9th is 0.43miles, about a 9 minute walk. The best ridership is generated within a 5 minutes walk.)

 

 

The travel times around the downtown loop are just brutal. 25 minutes around the loop - compared to the downtown subway proposal adding 2.8 minutes - and the latter better serves ridership generators!

 

 

So, for the sake of simplification, I'm going to preliminarily conclude your proposal will cost between 1/5 and 1/3 of what rail along Euclid / downtown subway would cost (depending on numerous specifics). That's not bad, and since it could conceivably be a precursor to rail along the length of Euclid, it makes some sense.

 

My biggest concern is that 15 minute frequency isn't really sufficient for anyone with options to seriously consider a route involving a transfer. Maybe if reliability was perfect and the schedules were reasonably aligned, but realistically I think we'd have to increase frequency to make this worthwhile. That said, it would connect people to jobs, so maybe it will generate enough ridership from direct riders. 

 

17 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I really dislike the way it completely misses the Central Business District. (East 17th to East 9th is 0.43miles

Somewhat tangential, but I agree. I'm not huge on the downtown loop idea as proposed, because I think it would a good chunk of it would go down the deserted portion of downtown. The only particularly. useful bit would be where it crosses Euclid, which wouldn't be necessary if we had proper rail down Euclid. It should probably go down E13, at least near Lakeside, it could move a few blocks East later.

 

----

 

I appreciate your insight. I still think rail down Euclid (ideally all subway, but realistically partially subway) is what Cleveland primarily needs in terms of transit, but I like your idea as a (cheaper) phase one option. The fact that it creates the start of a Euclid rail right of way is fantastic, hopefully if the city goes that way it would be a phase one with a later extension all the way to Public Square or Tower City.  

6 hours ago, Ethan said:

So, for the sake of simplification, I'm going to preliminarily conclude your proposal will cost between 1/5 and 1/3 of what rail along Euclid / downtown subway would cost (depending on numerous specifics). That's not bad, and since it could conceivably be a precursor to rail along the length of Euclid, it makes some sense.

 

My biggest concern is that 15 minute frequency isn't really sufficient for anyone with options to seriously consider a route involving a transfer. Maybe if reliability was perfect and the schedules were reasonably aligned, but realistically I think we'd have to increase frequency to make this worthwhile. That said, it would connect people to jobs, so maybe it will generate enough ridership from direct riders. 

.....

Somewhat tangential, but I agree. I'm not huge on the downtown loop idea as proposed, because I think it would a good chunk of it would go down the deserted portion of downtown. The only particularly. useful bit would be where it crosses Euclid, which wouldn't be necessary if we had proper rail down Euclid. It should probably go down E13, at least near Lakeside, it could move a few blocks East later.

 

----

 

I appreciate your insight. I still think rail down Euclid (ideally all subway, but realistically partially subway) is what Cleveland primarily needs in terms of transit, but I like your idea as a (cheaper) phase one option. The fact that it creates the start of a Euclid rail right of way is fantastic, hopefully if the city goes that way it would be a phase one with a later extension all the way to Public Square or Tower City.  

 

Blue Line reroute connecting SS to UC and CC - I agree that 15 minute headways would be sub-optimal; however, the primary reason for this route is single seat trips. There are a LOT of apartment buildings along the Blue Line, and plenty of redevelopment opportunities around Shaker Square and other BL stations. CC&UC mean >100k jobs within a 15 minute walk of stations, and at least 50K of those within a 5 minute walk.  Since the Blue Line reroute would save a couple of miles compared to the current route, you could run more frequent service without increasing the number of trains or operator hours. And there are also quite a few opportunities for bus lines to feed this new route that would become much more useful and generate more ridership.

 

Here's the way I look at it - if I had $2B I'd be doing everything I could to make the full subway along Euclid from downtown to UC to SS happen. If I had $500M, I'd focus on the SS-UC-CC connector. Through advocacy, I think we're much more likely to find the funds necessary for the simpler, but still extremely useful, proposal.

You *may* be able to build a subway from downtown to UC for $2 billion. Its $750 million price tag in 1995 adjusts to $1.5 billion today using the BLS inflation calculator that applies to most things except infrastructure which is rising in price faster. 

 

BTW, I would put the Downtown Loop on East 13th north of Euclid and East 21st/22nd south of Euclid.

 Redirected from the UC Circle Square thread.....

 

3 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

 

@KJP - where can one find more information on that concept? First I've heard of that. 

 

It's a figment of my imagination, but based on elements of two recent RTA planning efforts:

+ the Dual Hub Corridor plan that ultimately resulted in the development of the HealthLine. An RTA-recommended element that was rejected by NOACA was the Shaker Connector to reroute one or both Shaker/Green-Van Aken/Blue lines from Shaker Square to University Circle and then travel down Euclid Avenue on the surface and in subway with a rerouted Red Line to downtown Cleveland.

+ the Blue Line extension to Highland Hills/North Randall that resulted in a variant called the University Circle Express bus that would have paralleled the Blue Line rail operations and traveled from both North Randall and from Highland Hills to meet at the Warrensville Station (Van Aken District) then travel without stopping to Shaker Square that the buses would serve before traveling to University Circle.

 

My contention is, at the rate University Circle is growing in jobs and residents and at the rate downtown has lost office jobs, it doesn't make sense to run both the Green and Blue lines to downtown. Instead, I believe that one of the two rail lines should be redirected to UC which is served by only one rail line and then, only at UC's periphery. My preference is for the Blue Line to be rerouted to UC because I think it should also be extended to I-271 at Highland Hills to tap eastern suburban commuters to UC. I think, given the growth of UC and the Highland Hills area, and the change in FTA scoring policies regarding rail extensions, that the Blue Line extensions to UC and Highland Hills would likely meet the FTA's criteria for federal funding.

 

Here's some maps....

 

 Redirected from the UC Circle Square thread.....
 
 
It's a figment of my imagination, but based on elements of two recent RTA planning efforts:
+ the Dual Hub Corridor plan that ultimately resulted in the development of the HealthLine. An RTA-recommended element that was rejected by NOACA was the Shaker Connector to reroute one or both Shaker/Green-Van Aken/Blue lines from Shaker Square to University Circle and then travel down Euclid Avenue on the surface and in subway with a rerouted Red Line to downtown Cleveland.
+ the Blue Line extension to Highland Hills/North Randall that resulted in a variant called the Blue Line Express Bus that would have paralleled the Blue Line rail operations and traveled from both North Randall and from Highland Hills to meet at the Warrensville Station (Van Aken District) then travel without stopping to Shaker Square that the buses would serve before traveling to University Circle.
 
My contention is, at the rate University Circle is growing in jobs and residents and at the rate downtown has lost office jobs, it doesn't make sense to run both the Green and Blue lines to downtown. Instead, I believe that one of the two rail lines should be redirected to UC which is served by only one rail line and then, only at UC's periphery. My preference is for the Blue Line to be rerouted to UC because I think it should also be extended to I-271 at Highland Hills to tap eastern suburban commuters to UC. I think, given the growth of UC and the Highland Hills area, and the change in FTA scoring policies regarding rail extensions, that the Blue Line extensions to UC and Highland Hills would likely meet the FTA's criteria for federal funding.
 
Here's some maps....



 

That’s a really good idea and great overview - thanks!

With the tight turns in the proposed route to UC compared to the blue and green lines (relatively straight and smooth), do you think it would require a different type of train car? Or could the system bulk procure one type of car to run on all routes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

11 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

That’s a really good idea and great overview - thanks!

With the tight turns in the proposed route to UC compared to the blue and green lines (relatively straight and smooth), do you think it would require a different type of train car? Or could the system bulk procure one type of car to run on all routes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The existing and proposed replacement light-rail trains can take the sharp turns on the Waterfront Line. Nothing proposed here has curves that sharp.

Corridor overview

 

 

Detail of proposed flying junction using existing infrastructure

 

 

PROPOSAL:

GCRTA (or a public agency on its behalf) acquires NS Cleveland District from Cloggsville Connection (near Monroe Cemetery) to State Route 83 in Avon or, at minimum, from about West 90th Street in Cleveland west to Crocker-Bassett Road in Westlake/Bay Village, and give NS trackage rights for limited, local-only freight service between Sheffield Yard and Cleveland.

 

Use 11.3 miles of NS Cleveland District track,

Add/use 8.3 miles of second track (1.3 miles in Cleveland, 7 miles in Rocky River and Westlake/Bay) including 3.3 miles of existing second track.

Acquire at least 11.5 miles of right of way from NS = $15+ million
electrification of 19.6 track-miles x $5 million track-mile = $98 million (say $100 million)
new track at $2 million per track-mile = $10 million
upgrade of existing second track at $1 million per track-mile = $3.3 million
renovation of Rocky River bridge (placeholder) = $5 million
install universal crossovers near Crocker Rd = $4 million
Construct 8 single-level stations at $5 each = $40 million
Construct 1 two-level station (West Blvd) = $15 million
rehab flyover bridge and underpass = $10 million
construct four turnouts = $5 million
expand Siemens railcar order by 10 cars = $55 million

SUBTOTAL = $262 million

30% contingency = $79 million

TOTAL = $341 million

 

I estimate a running time of 35 minutes (vs 60-75 minutes by bus) from the Crocker/Bassett station to Tower City Center. Headways of 15 minutes from 4 a.m. to 1 a.m. Eastbound trains would wait at the east end of extended double-track West Clifton station in Lakewood for the westbound train to pass, then enter single track across Lakewood. When the eastbound returns to double track at West 110th Street, the next westbound is allowed to enter the Lakewood single track.

 

EASTBOUND

station.....miles dep/arr times
Crocker-Bassett..00.0 dp  4:00a  4:15a 
Dover Center........01.5 dp  4:03a  4:18a 
Columbia P&R......02.7 dp  4:06a  4:21a 
Elmwood Park......04.8 dp  4:10a  4:25a 
Rocky River..........06.0 dp  4:13a  4:28a 
West Clifton.........06.7 dp  4:15a  4:30a 
Lakewood Ctr......08.0 dp  4:18a  4:33a 
West 117th St......09.5 dp  4:21a  4:36a 
West Blv-Cudell..10.5 dp  4:23a  4:38a 
West 65th............11.9 dp  4:27a  4:42a 
Fulton...................13.0 dp  4:30a  4:45a 
Ohio City..............13.8 dp  4:32a  4:47a 
Tower City............14.9 ar  4:35a  4:50a 

 

WESTBOUND

station.....miles dep/arr times

Tower City...........00.0 dp  4:10a  4:25a 
Ohio City...............01.1 dp  4:13a  4:28a 
Fulton...................01.9 dp  4:15a  4:30a 
West 65th............03.0 dp  4:18a  4:33a 
West Blv-Cudell..04.4 dp  4:22a  4:37a 
West 117th St......05.4 dp  4:24a  4:39a 
Lakewood Ctr......06.9 dp  4:27a  4:42a 
West Clifton.........08.2 dp  4:30a  4:45a 
Rocky River..........08.9 dp  4:32a  4:47a 
Elmwood Park.......10.1 dp  4:35a  4:50a 
Columbia P&R.......12.2 dp  4:39a  4:54a 
Dover Center........13.4 dp  4:42a  4:57a 
Crocker-Bassett..14.9 ar  4:45a  5:00a
 

48 minutes ago, KJP said:

Corridor overview

 

 

Detail of proposed flying junction using existing infrastructure

 

 

PROPOSAL:

GCRTA (or a public agency on its behalf) acquires NS Cleveland District from Cloggsville Connection (near Monroe Cemetery) to State Route 83 in Avon or, at minimum, from about West 90th Street in Cleveland west to Crocker-Bassett Road in Westlake/Bay Village, and give NS trackage rights for limited, local-only freight service between Sheffield Yard and Cleveland.

 

Use 11.3 miles of NS Cleveland District track,

Add/use 8.3 miles of second track (1.3 miles in Cleveland, 7 miles in Rocky River and Westlake/Bay) including 3.3 miles of existing second track.

Acquire at least 11.5 miles of right of way from NS = $15+ million
electrification of 19.6 track-miles x $5 million track-mile = $98 million (say $100 million)
new track at $2 million per track-mile = $10 million
upgrade of existing second track at $1 million per track-mile = $3.3 million
renovation of Rocky River bridge (placeholder) = $5 million
install universal crossovers near Crocker Rd = $4 million
Construct 8 single-level stations at $5 each = $40 million
Construct 1 two-level station (West Blvd) = $15 million
rehab flyover bridge and underpass = $10 million
construct four turnouts = $5 million
expand Siemens railcar order by 10 cars = $55 million

SUBTOTAL = $262 million

30% contingency = $79 million

TOTAL = $341 million

 

I estimate a running time of 35 minutes (vs 60-75 minutes by bus) from the Crocker/Bassett station to Tower City Center. Headways of 15 minutes from 4 a.m. to 1 a.m. Eastbound trains would wait at the east end of extended double-track West Clifton station in Lakewood for the westbound train to pass, then enter single track across Lakewood. When the eastbound returns to double track at West 110th Street, the next westbound is allowed to enter the Lakewood single track.

 

EASTBOUND

station.....miles dep/arr times
Crocker-Bassett..00.0 dp  4:00a  4:15a 
Dover Center........01.5 dp  4:03a  4:18a 
Columbia P&R......02.7 dp  4:06a  4:21a 
Elmwood Park......04.8 dp  4:10a  4:25a 
Rocky River..........06.0 dp  4:13a  4:28a 
West Clifton.........06.7 dp  4:15a  4:30a 
Lakewood Ctr......08.0 dp  4:18a  4:33a 
West 117th St......09.5 dp  4:21a  4:36a 
West Blv-Cudell..10.5 dp  4:23a  4:38a 
West 65th............11.9 dp  4:27a  4:42a 
Fulton...................13.0 dp  4:30a  4:45a 
Ohio City..............13.8 dp  4:32a  4:47a 
Tower City............14.9 ar  4:35a  4:50a 

 

WESTBOUND

station.....miles dep/arr times

Tower City...........00.0 dp  4:10a  4:25a 
Ohio City...............01.1 dp  4:13a  4:28a 
Fulton...................01.9 dp  4:15a  4:30a 
West 65th............03.0 dp  4:18a  4:33a 
West Blv-Cudell..04.4 dp  4:22a  4:37a 
West 117th St......05.4 dp  4:24a  4:39a 
Lakewood Ctr......06.9 dp  4:27a  4:42a 
West Clifton.........08.2 dp  4:30a  4:45a 
Rocky River..........08.9 dp  4:32a  4:47a 
Elmwood Park.......10.1 dp  4:35a  4:50a 
Columbia P&R.......12.2 dp  4:39a  4:54a 
Dover Center........13.4 dp  4:42a  4:57a 
Crocker-Bassett..14.9 ar  4:45a  5:00a
 

What can we do to get more eyes on this proposal? Can we bring this to the attention of regional planning groups or rail advocacy groups such as NOACA or AAO? Is there an appropriate recipient(s) for us to send some form of a chain letter to?

 

I'm not an expert on where to best apply pressure, but I know that many members of this forum are better versed in this regard. Obviously the money is a lot, and will be the main issue, but regardless, getting this into the public consciousness is the first step. 

Create a new organization. Call it something like Citizens For The West Shore Rapid. Find a few businesses, chambers, mayors and city council members (current or past) to be on your steering committee. Create a website and social media pages. Then start putting out data why expanding the Rapid to the West Shore communities is a good idea. I'll bet you could get Westlake Mayor Dennis Clough to be on it. Might get the West Shore Chamber of Commerce too. Perhaps they'd even be willing to be the fiscal agent for such a new organization?

 

If NS can end through service on the line through Lakewood for two months (as it did from Nov. 10, 2022 to Jan. 10, 2023), then it can do it all the time. Buy the right of way from them. This is the NS rail line on Jan. 5, 2023 at Fry Avenue. After East Palestine, now would be an opportune time to make that overture to NS...

 

@KJP, things seemed to have picked up on the line.  Just a casual observation, but I've seen 2 trains through on it in the last 12 hours (including the one that woke me up at 3 am! ) 

Sometimes. I live 10 houses from the tracks and on the fifth floor, so I have a clear view (and sound direction) of the trains. I noted three trains this morning. Another went through during breakfast.

 

NS can run as many or as few trains as it wants on this line. There are is only one local shipper between Cleveland and Avon Lake -- Dependable floor products on Linda Avenue in Rocky River.

Might as well share with the class, for anyone who was interested in a visual I made this a while back with a couple different station locations and an extension to Broadway in Lorain and ran it eastward all the way to Solon, but we'll get that when the Red Line is extended to Mentor and Elyria. Any who, here's @KJP 's proposal: 

 

18 minutes ago, ELaunder said:

Might as well share with the class, for anyone who was interested in a visual I made this a while back with a couple different station locations and an extension to Broadway in Lorain and ran it eastward all the way to Solon, but we'll get that when the Red Line is extended to Mentor and Elyria. Any who, here's @KJP 's proposal: 

 

Will get rid of my car if this ever happened 

I'd love to see it happen, especially if it could be run right through to Lorain.  Going past Rt 83, stops at Moore and Abbe Rd would get a lot of jobs within walking distance, then going on into Lorain stops at Lake Breeze, Euclid, Kansas, Broadway, Oberlin, and Leavitt Rd would have decent residential density.

Opportunity Corridor was jammed the day it opened. Why? Because GCRTA's rail system was built for DowntownCLE not boomtown University Circle. So:

 

Red Line to Euclid: $1000m

Blue Line redesign: $800m

Green Line redesign: $400m

Orange Line to Westlake: $350m

 

 

31 minutes ago, KJP said:

Opportunity Corridor was jammed the day it opened. Why? Because GCRTA's rail system was built for DowntownCLE not boomtown University Circle. So:

 

Red Line to Euclid: $1000m

Blue Line redesign: $800m

Green Line redesign: $400m

Orange Line to Westlake: $350m

 

 

Love it. Blue line evolving into original Dual Hub is fantastic and by FAR the most important of these ideas, but how do you figure $800M? It seems like doing it right would be much more expensive at American costs. I do think at least some parts should be subway -  Huron / Euclid to at least East 18 and from west of 105 to Adelbert. (Really that whole route should be subway, but American project costs are so bad.)

About $250m for Shaker-UC connector, $250m for I-271 extension, and $300m to convert Euclid Corridor to rail. No subway and run the trains around Public Square as the buses do. Build subways in congested downtowns, not empty ones devoid of traffic like ours. If these rail transit investments help revive downtown then we can consider subways again.

 

41 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I do think at least some parts should be subway -  Huron / Euclid to at least East 18 and from west of 105 to Adelbert. (Really that whole route should be subway, but American project costs are so bad.)

 

25 minutes ago, KJP said:

Build subways in congested downtowns, not empty ones devoid of traffic like ours. If these rail transit investments help revive downtown then we can consider subways again.

 

 

I agree with you both -- given Cleveland winters, a subway might require less maintenance and would greatly speed transit times by eliminating issues with traffic and traffic lights. 

But I also agree with KJP, at least on the basis of cost -- building a subway line, while attractive for getting out of traffic and the weather, is far out of our reach right now. 

 

We should continue to emphasize development along the lines KJP proposed while we wait for those lines to be completed.  FTOD (Future-Transit Oriented Development)

 

Maybe when the sewer district is done digging overflow tunnels they can leave the tunneling machine(s) underground to dig subway tunnels.  Any progress is better than  none!

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

 

 

I agree with you both -- given Cleveland winters, a subway might require less maintenance and would greatly speed transit times by eliminating issues with traffic and traffic lights. 

But I also agree with KJP, at least on the basis of cost -- building a subway line, while attractive for getting out of traffic and the weather, is far out of our reach right now. 

 

We should continue to emphasize development along the lines KJP proposed while we wait for those lines to be completed.  FTOD (Future-Transit Oriented Development)

 

Maybe when the sewer district is done digging overflow tunnels they can leave the tunneling machine(s) underground to dig subway tunnels.  Any progress is better than  none!

The subway should be mostly cut and cover - WAY less expensive and the system is better for riders because stations aren’t so deep. This decreases walk time to/from platform. To me, this is the big advantage of underutilized, overly wide streets. You’d only have to close half of Euclid for the subway trench, which then gets covered back up when they’re done building. The bus, deliveries, and emergency service could continue to use the other half of the road. 

11 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

To me, this is the big advantage of underutilized, overly wide streets.

Funny enough, this is why I would think surface trains would be the way to go. Instant road diet!

27 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Funny enough, this is why I would think surface trains would be the way to go. Instant road diet!

I’m all for an accompanying road diet, but the subway advantage is also with cross streets. We can’t even get signal prioritization for the HealthLine. Transit needs to be fast to maximize its value. I wouldn’t push for everything to be subway, but in downtown and Uni Circle I think it’s really important to build for the future that we want. If we’re building based on the current situation, it would be hard to justify any rail investments. 
 

Getting downtown and Uni Circle right is far more important than any other transit investment in the county. I would trade the best service there for all other proposed extensions in a heartbeat. (After that, my next priorities would be Euclid Ave rail from downtown to UC, then the new orange line through Lakewood to Rocky River. All the other concepts are much lower priority.)

36 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Funny enough, this is why I would think surface trains would be the way to go. Instant road diet!

 

How would that be a road diet?  Sections of ROW used for transit won't be used for pedestrian infrastructure.

During the Dual Hub corridor planning, they ruled out cut and cover for three reasons -- one, they wanted to use the "blind headers" for the Huron Subway the Van Swerigens partially built. From just east of the intersection of Huron/Ontario, the Dual Hub subway was to turn northeast with a station below the parking deck that the City Club Apartments is being built next to. The other reason was because the East 9th Street sewers are huge. I believe the combined storm/sanitary sewer is 9 feet in diameter. That's why they didn't want the Euclid-9th subway station to be built below that intersection and it's why cut-and-cover wasn't possible there. And there's that layer of quicksand that's not too far below the downtown surface which complicates all downtown digging.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Opportunity Corridor was jammed the day it opened. Why? Because GCRTA's rail system was built for DowntownCLE not boomtown University Circle. So:

 

Red Line to Euclid: $1000m

Blue Line redesign: $800m

Green Line redesign: $400m

Orange Line to Westlake: $350m

 

 

I like a lot of what you proposed, however I'd make a few changes.

 

Instead of extending the Red, Blue or Green lines any further into the suburbs.... I'd rather take that money and put it into providing service to those in the city. Specifically, I'd put the money into creating a new Rail Line from the Ohio City station all the way down 25th to Brookpark Rd(if you wanted to take it down Ridge to ParmaTown or TriC-West then fine, but it needs to go to Brookpark Rd).

 

My thoughts:

1- I'm not worried about extending rail to the Suburbs, those folks chose to leave the city and live in the sprawl, let them drive.

2- That being said, if they live in the burbs they probably have a car, and either way I don't think you'd add that many riders. So instead of extending those lines short distances and gaining few riders, take the money from each and put it toward the new lines in the city.... where you'll have way more riders.

3- W.25th is one of The Main roads in the city and crosses many other main rds (Clark, Dennison, Memphis...etc). It has Metro, the Zoo and many other important things on its route... all while interacting with many job hubs and major highways.  ALL THIS, and it doesn't have a Rail Line! I think its much more important for those in the City to have Rail access, provide the City residents connection to Metro/Zoo/etc, connect all those neighborhoods... rather than extend it into the suburbs for those creating sprawl.

4- I think the West and South-ish part of the city are much lacking Rail, compared to the Eastside. So rather then extend FURTHUR east into the sprawl and towards the rural, I'd rather see RTA fill in GAPS in the City and inner core.  I think the Orange Line mentioned would be fantastic, however I would only extend it to Rocky River and then stop. Then I'd put a Rail line down W.25 like the Purple Line shown below.

5- If the support is strong, then you could connect the Purple and Red Lines by trying to run along the freight rail lines that parallels Brookpark Rd.

 

I enjoy talking rail expansion in CLE, and I appreciate the wealth of knowledge those on here bring to the table, as I'm only a novice.

Let me know your thoughts about my thoughts 😁

 

29 minutes ago, NR said:

 

I like a lot of what you proposed, however I'd make a few changes.

 

Instead of extending the Red, Blue or Green lines any further into the suburbs.... I'd rather take that money and put it into providing service to those in the city. Specifically, I'd put the money into creating a new Rail Line from the Ohio City station all the way down 25th to Brookpark Rd(if you wanted to take it down Ridge to ParmaTown or TriC-West then fine, but it needs to go to Brookpark Rd).

 

My thoughts:

1- I'm not worried about extending rail to the Suburbs, those folks chose to leave the city and live in the sprawl, let them drive.

2- That being said, if they live in the burbs they probably have a car, and either way I don't think you'd add that many riders. So instead of extending those lines short distances and gaining few riders, take the money from each and put it toward the new lines in the city.... where you'll have way more riders.

3- W.25th is one of The Main roads in the city and crosses many other main rds (Clark, Dennison, Memphis...etc). It has Metro, the Zoo and many other important things on its route... all while interacting with many job hubs and major highways.  ALL THIS, and it doesn't have a Rail Line! I think its much more important for those in the City to have Rail access, provide the City residents connection to Metro/Zoo/etc, connect all those neighborhoods... rather than extend it into the suburbs for those creating sprawl.

4- I think the West and South-ish part of the city are much lacking Rail, compared to the Eastside. So rather then extend FURTHUR east into the sprawl and towards the rural, I'd rather see RTA fill in GAPS in the City and inner core.  I think the Orange Line mentioned would be fantastic, however I would only extend it to Rocky River and then stop. Then I'd put a Rail line down W.25 like the Purple Line shown below.

5- If the support is strong, then you could connect the Purple and Red Lines by trying to run along the freight rail lines that parallels Brookpark Rd.

 

I enjoy talking rail expansion in CLE, and I appreciate the wealth of knowledge those on here bring to the table, as I'm only a novice.

Let me know your thoughts about my thoughts 😁

 

 

Public transit works both ways.  Most of those extensions go out not just to reach suburban commuters, but suburban jobs that transit bound Clevelanders desperately, need.

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Red Line to Euclid: $1000m

Blue Line redesign: $800m

Green Line redesign: $400m

Orange Line to Westlake: $350m

If those cost projections are correct then extending the red line seems very hard to justify. We would (theoretically) be be able to get any two of the other redesigns / extensions for basically the same price. The value from a few extra red line stops compared to just your blue line proposal, or an orange and green combo, seems much less but would cost more, seems fairly easy to prioritize. 

7 hours ago, KJP said:

During the Dual Hub corridor planning, they ruled out cut and cover for three reasons -- one, they wanted to use the "blind headers" for the Huron Subway the Van Swerigens partially built. From just east of the intersection of Huron/Ontario, the Dual Hub subway was to turn northeast with a station below the parking deck that the City Club Apartments is being built next to. The other reason was because the East 9th Street sewers are huge. I believe the combined storm/sanitary sewer is 9 feet in diameter. That's why they didn't want the Euclid-9th subway station to be built below that intersection and it's why cut-and-cover wasn't possible there. And there's that layer of quicksand that's not too far below the downtown surface which complicates all downtown digging.

I don't understand why using the Huron Subway stub would rule out cut and cover? The rest of what you said makes sense, although I never understood that goofy curve of the Dual Hub proposal under the old Hippodrome site - it would only move an East 9th station 500 feet from Prospect to Euclid. When I think about putting a subway under Huron, it seems like a road that could simply be closed from the Gateway garage all the way to Euclid Ave during construction. Neither block is particularly long, people could still walk to things. Maybe maintain one road lane for deliveries. Subways are just so much better and so much faster. I would not do a mezzanine level in order to help keep the platforms from being too deep.

 

(For others, here's some images of the original Dual Hub proposal from the 90s, which eventually morphed into the HeathLine.)

 

6 hours ago, Ethan said:

If those cost projections are correct then extending the red line seems very hard to justify. We would (theoretically) be be able to get any two of the other redesigns / extensions for basically the same price. The value from a few extra red line stops compared to just your blue line proposal, or an orange and green combo, seems much less but would cost more, seems fairly easy to prioritize. 

 

The 2016 Red Line Extension study had going from Windermere to Noble Road at $916 million. I think the other projections are too low.

 

https://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/redlinehealthlineextension

7 hours ago, NR said:

 

I like a lot of what you proposed, however I'd make a few changes.

 

Instead of extending the Red, Blue or Green lines any further into the suburbs.... I'd rather take that money and put it into providing service to those in the city. Specifically, I'd put the money into creating a new Rail Line from the Ohio City station all the way down 25th to Brookpark Rd(if you wanted to take it down Ridge to ParmaTown or TriC-West then fine, but it needs to go to Brookpark Rd).

 

My thoughts:

1- I'm not worried about extending rail to the Suburbs, those folks chose to leave the city and live in the sprawl, let them drive.

2- That being said, if they live in the burbs they probably have a car, and either way I don't think you'd add that many riders. So instead of extending those lines short distances and gaining few riders, take the money from each and put it toward the new lines in the city.... where you'll have way more riders.

3- W.25th is one of The Main roads in the city and crosses many other main rds (Clark, Dennison, Memphis...etc). It has Metro, the Zoo and many other important things on its route... all while interacting with many job hubs and major highways.  ALL THIS, and it doesn't have a Rail Line! I think its much more important for those in the City to have Rail access, provide the City residents connection to Metro/Zoo/etc, connect all those neighborhoods... rather than extend it into the suburbs for those creating sprawl.

4- I think the West and South-ish part of the city are much lacking Rail, compared to the Eastside. So rather then extend FURTHUR east into the sprawl and towards the rural, I'd rather see RTA fill in GAPS in the City and inner core.  I think the Orange Line mentioned would be fantastic, however I would only extend it to Rocky River and then stop. Then I'd put a Rail line down W.25 like the Purple Line shown below.

5- If the support is strong, then you could connect the Purple and Red Lines by trying to run along the freight rail lines that parallels Brookpark Rd.

 

I enjoy talking rail expansion in CLE, and I appreciate the wealth of knowledge those on here bring to the table, as I'm only a novice.

Let me know your thoughts about my thoughts 😁

 

Better serving downtown and university circle is top priority. That said, when you consider the blue line extension through Highland Hills to Harvard/271, the UH hospital (Ahuja) and Tri-C East at the end of that line would be good ridership generators.