^Keep in mind that the longer you extend the HL route, the worse the service gets for the core of the route.  Especially if the extension isn't bus-only lanes.  I wouldn't think the HealthLine would be the best type of service to extend that far out.  That said, I think it would be awesome to see some more modest exensions (maybe up Cedar Hill) or thinking about how other bus routes could use the corridor's bus lanes for more efficient distribution in Midtown or downtown and to eliminate some transfers.  The center plaforms downtown are an issue, but non-HL buses could leave the bus lanes before that point.  Not sure any of this is remotely viable right now given the budgetary squeeze though.

Understandable. I think it would be great to have express service to eastern suburbs' with something resembling an urban center once you get past the Windemere station. Namely Willoughby and Painesville.

Personally, I'd much rather see the red line than the healthline extended, but that's a different subject for a different thread. I don't think it would make sense to push the Healthline out that direction as busses stop so much more often than trains.

Agreed. I'm more of a trains guy, anyhow!

 

This is a redirect of discussion from the HealthLine thread:

 

There have been casual discussions among RTA staff about conducting an alternatives analysis for improving the transit linkages between Windermere and Euclid, but nothing serious at this time. RTA seems to want to pursue only one major-new transit project at a time, and the Blue Line extension is that project right now. Extending the Red Line or HealthLine east to Euclid would be sought for two principal traffic flows: improving worker access to Euclid's manufacturing employment base, and to improve transit access from NE Cuyahoga County and Lake County to University Circle (please note the order in which I listed those). Also, RTA would likely argue that those areas already have good transit access to downtown Cleveland with the park-n-ride express RTA and Laketran buses.

 

I'm more of a train guy too (shocking!!), but the bus extension would be able to put more workers at the doors of more employers out in Euclid and in University Circle (especially the Clinic area which is farther from the Red Line). The Red Line should be able to get workers to many job sites faster, but those employers who are not near the Red Line may require circulator buses, or a rerouting of existing buses to act more as circulators near the rail stations.

 

For example, the #48 bus and #35 buses could be rerouted slightly to act more as UC circulators at the end of their routes. And the Clinic runs so many shuttle buses everywhere, from all the various parking decks, that perhaps they could run one to the Red Line's UC/Cedar station (which CircleLink shuttles serve). The more interesting question is out in Euclid. There, the #1, 28, 34 and 94 routes could be readjusted a bit to serve more employers. The #1 is the most obvious one to me since it ends next to where the rail line could also end: at Euclid Square Mall (or inside the redeveloped mall!). That is also where I would end all Laketran bus routes, including the downtown express routes. More round trips could be offered to feed into the end of the Red Line, afforded by the savings of not going all the way into downtown anymore. And the local Laketran buses on Euclid Avenue could feed into/from the Red Line to reach employers in Lake County, and give residents there better access to Cleveland. And yes, I would eliminate all of the #239 Euclid park-n-ride bus flyers to downtown and scale back the #28 route's frequency, or even eliminate the route depending on what could be with other routes or on rider/community surveys.

 

As for how to extend the Red Line, I would reroute NS freight trains via the CSX right of way, adding another track for NS to travel by Collinwood Yards, opening up the NS right of way that runs past Windermere. East of the Windermere station, I'd build a transfer track from the Red Line tracks to the NS line. I would then acquire dual-mode (diesel & electric) high/low-floor rail cars for use anywhere on the GCRTA rail system and even on lightly used railroad lines such as the NS line out to Euclid Square Mall and possibly beyond, and on the West Shore Corridor out to Lorain and possibly Vermilion.

My RTA Fantasy....

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215312482559953359515.0004ae749d82e263db968&msa=0&ll=41.482862,-81.606445&spn=0.570982,1.234589

My own personal pipe dream has always been a subway line running under Detroit Avenue to West Boulevard, serving the growing communities along that corridor, that would continue above ground west of West Boulevard and act as a commuter line going out through Lakewood along the freight ROW parallel to and north of Detroit.

 

Yes, that would be awesome but Cleveland does not have the density to justify the cost for a subway. New subway tunnels are rarely built in the U.S.

 

I think a line such as this would have to be above ground and somehow follow one of these routes:

 

1. Follow the same route as the Red Line until West Blvd and then branch out down the rail corridor through Lakewood.

2. Use the Detroit-Superior bridge and then run along the Shoreway out to the railroad corridor along the lake. The line would then turn on the railroad corridor that goes through Lakewood.

3. Like number 2, except the line out of downtown would use the Waterfront Line route but would instead head west out of downtown using the lakefront rail corridor.

 

I like number 2 since it could provide for extra stops at 25th & Detroit and by Battery Park. Number 1 could not provide any extra stations east of West Blvd and number 3 could not provide the stop at 25th & Detroit.

 

Yes, that would be awesome but Cleveland does not have the density to justify the cost for a subway. New subway tunnels are rarely built in the U.S.

 

 

Why do you say that?  That's an honest question.  What conditions would you want to see to consider it a worthwhile infrastructure investment?

 

(And before the peanut gallery freaks out, yes I understand how incredibly expensive subways are to build and that they've rarely been done in recent history.  It's been discussed in countless threads in the five years I've been on this site.)

 

I think a line such as this would have to be above ground and somehow follow one of these routes:

 

1. Follow the same route as the Red Line until West Blvd and then branch out down the rail corridor through Lakewood.

2. Use the Detroit-Superior bridge and then run along the Shoreway out to the railroad corridor along the lake. The line would then turn on the railroad corridor that goes through Lakewood.

3. Like number 2, except the line out of downtown would use the Waterfront Line route but would instead head west out of downtown using the lakefront rail corridor.

 

I like number 2 since it could provide for extra stops at 25th & Detroit and by Battery Park. Number 1 could not provide any extra stations east of West Blvd and number 3 could not provide the stop at 25th & Detroit.

 

Number two is the best option of those three, but I think they all suffer from the same problem that much of the red line does.  Routing along existing freight tracks is the cheap option, but the line won't stop anywhere worthwhile.  It'll serve to shuttle people from Lakewood into downtown, just like the west side of the red line basically shuttles people from the park-n-ride stations into downtown. 

 

A route that complimented a commercial corridor with multiple "destination zones" would generate activity well beyond rush hour.  A line directly serving Detroit would hit downtown Lakewood, the stretch of Detroit between W. 117 and 112, the greater Gordon Square area (which basically stretches from W. 75 to W. 54), Max Hayes High School, the nightclubs on Detroit between W. 29 and W. 25, and downtown Cleveland.

 

Such a line has to be on Detroit, not just near it.  People won't walk a half mile from a station to their destination.  If they did, the W. 65th station would be a major gateway to Gordon Square.

 

Yes, that would be awesome but Cleveland does not have the density to justify the cost for a subway. New subway tunnels are rarely built in the U.S.

 

 

Why do you say that?  That's an honest question.  What conditions would you want to see to consider it a worthwhile infrastructure investment?

 

(And before the peanut gallery freaks out, yes I understand how incredibly expensive subways are to build and that they've rarely been done in recent history.  It's been discussed in countless threads in the five years I've been on this site.)

 

I think a line such as this would have to be above ground and somehow follow one of these routes:

 

1. Follow the same route as the Red Line until West Blvd and then branch out down the rail corridor through Lakewood.

2. Use the Detroit-Superior bridge and then run along the Shoreway out to the railroad corridor along the lake. The line would then turn on the railroad corridor that goes through Lakewood.

3. Like number 2, except the line out of downtown would use the Waterfront Line route but would instead head west out of downtown using the lakefront rail corridor.

 

I like number 2 since it could provide for extra stops at 25th & Detroit and by Battery Park. Number 1 could not provide any extra stations east of West Blvd and number 3 could not provide the stop at 25th & Detroit.

 

Number two is the best option of those three, but I think they all suffer from the same problem that much of the red line does.  Routing along existing freight tracks is the cheap option, but the line won't stop anywhere worthwhile.  It'll serve to shuttle people from Lakewood into downtown, just like the west side of the red line basically shuttles people from the park-n-ride stations into downtown. 

 

A route that complimented a commercial corridor with multiple "destination zones" would generate activity well beyond rush hour.  A line directly serving Detroit would hit downtown Lakewood, the stretch of Detroit between W. 117 and 112, the greater Gordon Square area (which basically stretches from W. 75 to W. 54), Max Hayes High School, the nightclubs on Detroit between W. 29 and W. 25, and downtown Cleveland.

 

Such a line has to be on Detroit, not just near it.  People won't walk a half mile from a station to their destination.  If they did, the W. 65th station would be a major gateway to Gordon Square.

 

I always thought a 'healthline' type system going up Detriot/Superior would make a lot of sense. You could connect Downtown, W. 25th in Ohio City, W. 65th in Gordon Square and W.117th in Lakewood seamlessly. While I am sure there are already buses that go this route I think having centered load on/drop off areas, traffic priority, new buses go a long way to encourage ridership.

When the 26 route on Detroit was combined with the 3 route on Superior as the 326, it was GCRTA's busiest bus route in the entire system, carrying up to 3.5 million riders per year. The next busiest route was the #6 (pre-HealthLine) with just under 3 million riders per year.

 

The rail lines carry the most riders. But here were the top-10 busiest bus routes pre-HealthLine, and before the split of the crosstown 326 into two east-side and west-side routes:

 

#1 - 326 Detroit-Superior - 3.44 million

#2 - 6 Euclid Ave - 2.94 million

#3 - 22 Lorain - 2.04 million

#4 - 1 St. Clair - 2.00 million

#5 - 15/15A Union-Harvard - 1.96 million

#6 - 14 Kinsman - 1.89 million

#7 - 10 East 105th - 1.87 million

#8 - 20All West 25th-State - 1.35 million

#9 - 2 East 55th - 1.23 million

#10 - 40 Lakeview-Lee - 1.21 million

 

My suggestion is that GCRTA develop and adopt a service standard, then seek resources to capitalize and sustain infrastructure and operations needed to meet that standard.

 

For example, a service standard could be that any transit stop in the City of Cleveland be no more than 30 minutes away from another by transit once the trip starts. Or that any transit stop in Cuyahoga County be more 1 hour away from another. This would require more routes offering faster services including rail, bus rapid transit or freeway flyer buses.

 

Of course, the above standard is based on the start of a transit trip. But what about the start of the traveler's trip -- the moment he/she walks out the door? Now we're getting into issues of number of routes, service coverage (geographic areas) and frequency of service. So that if I walk out the door of my house, office, store, factory, school etc., I should expect to be able to reach my destination anywhere in the City of Cleveland within X time, or within Cuyahoga County in Y time. This is a much more difficult and expensive standard to meet.

 

EDIT: of course, an advocacy organization such as All Aboard Ohio could develop and recommend such standards, and what infrastructure, services, capital funding and operating funding would be needed to meet such a standard. Then it would be up to the community to decide if this was worth pursuing.

My own personal pipe dream has always been a subway line running under Detroit Avenue to West Boulevard, serving the growing communities along that corridor, that would continue above ground west of West Boulevard and act as a commuter line going out through Lakewood along the freight ROW parallel to and north of Detroit.

 

Yes, that would be awesome but Cleveland does not have the density to justify the cost for a subway. New subway tunnels are rarely built in the U.S.

 

I think a line such as this would have to be above ground and somehow follow one of these routes:

 

1. Follow the same route as the Red Line until West Blvd and then branch out down the rail corridor through Lakewood.

2. Use the Detroit-Superior bridge and then run along the Shoreway out to the railroad corridor along the lake. The line would then turn on the railroad corridor that goes through Lakewood.

3. Like number 2, except the line out of downtown would use the Waterfront Line route but would instead head west out of downtown using the lakefront rail corridor.

 

I like number 2 since it could provide for extra stops at 25th & Detroit and by Battery Park. Number 1 could not provide any extra stations east of West Blvd and number 3 could not provide the stop at 25th & Detroit.

 

 

Isn't there already a significant (abandoned) subway tunnel under Detroit that hooks up with the D-S bridge lower deck?

 

tedolph

 

 

Why do you say that?  That's an honest question.  What conditions would you want to see to consider it a worthwhile infrastructure investment?

 

Well I was just throwing some ideas out there that would likely happen before a 2 mile subway tunnel ever got funded. I agree that putting a subway down Detroit Ave would be by far the best way of extending light rail to the west. Personally I would love to see it built under the current conditions as an economic development tool.

 

Unfortunately, as you mentioned, major subway projects simply don't happen very often in the US. So unless Cleveland gets a large population boom or there is a big change in transit philosophy it would be tough to push through. To my knowledge a Detroit Ave subway out to W. 85th is not even something that RTA has seriously looked at, or any light rail out through Lakewood for that matter.

 

I think the best example of a new subway tunnel for arguments sake is Pittsburgh, where they're constructing a 1 mile tunnel to extend their light rail north of the Allegheny River. I actually think a west light rail line in Cleveland could do much more for the region than that Pittsburgh extension will do for Pittsburgh.

 

Such a line has to be on Detroit, not just near it.  People won't walk a half mile from a station to their destination.  If they did, the W. 65th station would be a major gateway to Gordon Square.

 

A half mile is not ideal, but I don't think that it's a deal breaker. If W. 65th Street was lined with cool shops, bars, and cafes it would be a pleasant walk. A good pedestrian streetscape makes a world of difference. W. 65th actually has many structures for such amenities, both north and south of Detroit Avenue. I live in Chicago and have walked a half mile many times to get to neighborhood entertainment hubs.

 

That being said, it would obviously be much better centered down Detroit Ave since that is the area's major commercial and transportation corridor.

 

I always thought a 'healthline' type system going up Detriot/Superior would make a lot of sense. You could connect Downtown, W. 25th in Ohio City, W. 65th in Gordon Square and W.117th in Lakewood seamlessly. While I am sure there are already buses that go this route I think having centered load on/drop off areas, traffic priority, new buses go a long way to encourage ridership.

 

I don't think Detroit Avenue is wide enough for BRT since it requires a dedicated bus lane.

 

Isn't there already a significant (abandoned) subway tunnel under Detroit that hooks up with the D-S bridge lower deck?

 

I believe so, but I'm not sure how long it is. I doubt that its goes very far west of W. 25th Street.

 

Isn't there already a significant (abandoned) subway tunnel under Detroit that hooks up with the D-S bridge lower deck?

 

I believe so, but I'm not sure how long it is. I doubt that its goes very far west of W. 25th Street.

 

The ramp was between W 28th and W29th.

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=3&lon=-81.71026969267606&lat=41.490270124728724&year=1952

 

My RTA Fantasy....

 

Nice.  I'd add rail lines that formed loops out in the suburbs so that trains could move continuously in one direction rather than out-and-back lines.

Not sure if this is the right thread, but I wonder why Cleveland never built toll roads or made people pay to cross some of the busier bridges? While it would add more traffic to surface streets, it would probably add more riders to existing transit and might prompt expansion.

i would have to see the data on that.  people may just pay, but complain about it.

Paint the Red Line cars red!

Paint the Red Line cars red!

Why?

Paint the Red Line cars red!

Why?

 

Keith you beat me to it!

 

I think it's stupid and painting the vehicles is an added cost and maintenance issue!

Paint the Red Line cars red!

Why?

 

I just personally think the silver cars are a bit dull. Red would add some color and make the trains more flashy.

I really prefer them with the shiny stainless steel look. (Though a few I've been on could do with a nice wash down.)

My RTA Fantasy....

 

Nice.  I'd add rail lines that formed loops out in the suburbs so that trains could move continuously in one direction rather than out-and-back lines.

 

Thats good for some lines , but becomes a pain when the line needs to be extended.

Paint the Red Line cars red!

Why?

 

I just personally think the silver cars are a bit dull. Red would add some color and make the trains more flashy.

 

I prefer the Red Line cars just as they are.  Their silver bodies are quite sleek imho-- adding that, plus their interior design (3 doors vs. 2 at the ends of the Airporters -- meaning quicker enterance/exiting), and comfortable ride, makes these the best rail cars Cleveland's run in my lifetime (which stretchs back to the yellow orange Shaker Rapid cars and the CTS "bluebirds").  The Tokyu cars also have the beauty of being super large without feeling big and bulky like the Airporters.

^^I would love the Det-Superior bridge subway deck to be used, but a subway up Detroit probably wouldn't be cost effective, even if it surfaced and ran street level just beyond W. 25th... This is because the existing Red Line exists too close to this corridor, even though it doesn't directly serve the inner portion.  However, even at W. 65 at the thriving Gordon Square complex, the W. 65 Madison/Lorain/Eco Village station is barely 3/4 mile away (if it's even that).  Then, from W. 65 westward, Detroit slopes to the SW so to the point where the Red Line actually crosses Detroit at the West Blvd station... There are too many areas that have no nearby service that should have priority over a Detroit rapid line; like a W. 25/Pearl/Parma line or the Blue Line extension, the later of which happily RTA is moving forward on in its planning. 

My RTA Fantasy....

 

Nice.  I'd add rail lines that formed loops out in the suburbs so that trains could move continuously in one direction rather than out-and-back lines.

 

Thats good for some lines , but becomes a pain when the line needs to be extended.

 

I proposed something like this awhile back on a "pipe dream" scale, and also crossing county lines.  A Brunswick/Strongsville -Hopkins - Bay Village - Downtown - Cleveland Clinic - Mentor - Twinsburg - Brecksville - B/S superloop.  It's kind of dumb that the Red Line doesn't touch Cleveland Clinic.

 

That's probably impractical.  But the fact is using downtown as the central hub for everything makes RTA impractical for nearly all suburb to suburb trips.  We're talking four to five times the trip length, and in reality, some potential riders aren't exactly comfortable rolling through the inner city.

 

I'd experiment with a bus route along 480.  Stops in Twinsburg, Garfield Heights with a Park and Ride at the old Walmart site, Independence if you can find a way to get on and off quickly over there, Ridge Road, Hopkins, and Great Northern Mall. 

Speaking of loops and routing the Red Line closer to the Clinic, here's an old idea of mine.......

 

^A few months ago when RTA talked about adding another Trolley route downtown my first thought was that it would make more sense to pursue a loop around the University Circle area. A tram seems a little excessive in cost, where as another trolley loop wouldn't be nearly as much.

I wanted something more befitting of a world-class cultural center. There already is a bus loop -- CircleLink...

 

http://shuttle.case.edu/circlink.htm

 

I wanted something more befitting of a world-class cultural center. There already is a bus loop -- CircleLink...

 

http://shuttle.case.edu/circlink.htm

 

Yes, there's the circlelink, but it's not frequent enough to be useful unless you pay close attention to the schedule. If it were something like the downtown trolleys that run every 10 minutes it would be more useful.

 

I'd love to see a tram around the circle too, it does deserve one, but I'd settle for a trolley bus. Either way I think we need an improvement.

I like your old plan KJP.  Its even better today with uptown.

Thanks! It would be even more awesome with West Quad, Upper Chester and a more pedestrian-friendly Clinic -- especially that God-awful Cole Eye Institute! This was an old drawing I did of remaking that too....

 

BEFORE

 

AFTER

 

Redirected from the Red Line/HealthLine extension thread:

 

 

Oh, and the idea someone mentioned of a transit link between UC and the southeast suburbs, I am hoping that GCRTA considers another alternatives analysis -- either building an LRT from the Shaker Square area to UC, or extending the branch of the HealthLine that goes to UC-Cedar all the way up the hill to Shaker Square. If GCRTA extends the Blue Line to North Randall, this would tap the convergence of highways in that area (US422, I-271, I-480) and be a good park-n-ride if there is security and if GCRTA operates express trains from that location.

 

 

EDIT: here's some maps based on the above....

 

 

 

These preliminary engineering drawings of the Shaker Connector LRT (estimated to cost about $70 million) are from the Dual Hub Corridor PE-Draft Environmental Impact Study of the mid-1990s....

 

 

 

Two options for linking up with a Red Line rerouted down Euclid or Chester, via either the existing Red Line or Euclid rights of way through the eastern half of UC....

 

 

 

 

focusing on diversifying transit circulation so we are better able to serve trips other than commuting.  In areas like downtown and UC, Trams could be used to circulate between the red line and health line to where they work live and play. 

 

TO me Light rail which should be called medium rail, is a complex architecture and is NOT a replacement for street Cars. 

 

Tram rail can be lighter duty and far less expensive to install and maintain because the trains are lighter and slower.  this is a Cross section of a U type Tram Rail.

 

vs

 

 

the difference is the depth of the rail.

one is only 72mm vs the other at 154mm.

 

 

both are made by arcelor-mittal, Ironic huh.

 

http://www.arcelormittal.com/rails+specialsections/en/tram-rails.htm

 

 

I See systems I see economies of Scale,  I see dis-economies of scale.

 

I see that we are not using the right tools for the right jobs.

 

Light rail in Cleveland should be replaced with a modern tram system. that tram system could incrementally be expanded back into the Street grid network at substantially lower cost than a misguided light Rail extensions.  the idea is to grow ridership, while reducing overall operating cost.  this combination can create a more sustainable transit network, that is not longer forced to cut service and raise fares, to meet subsidy shortfalls.

 

the downtown loop should connect to tower city,above grade not below grade. It is illogical to spend million of dollars detouring the Tram away from where the people are, on the street.

 

If your think about connections, you think about Connecting UC to the vibrant neighbors hoods around it, Shaker Square, Coventry, Cedar/firmament, Little Italy, to the assets within UC, CC, UH, CAse, wade oval, VA.

 

how do you do this?

 

I would seek federal dollars to fund a transit needs Study for university circle and it surrounding areas. 

 

I would suspect that it may be viable to route a tram line from Shaker Square to the University circle Red line station.

 

I would route it from Shaker Square via, N moreland blvd -> East On fairHill -> north on Coventry -> west on fairmount -> West on cedar -> end at RedLine station.

 

I would strongly advocate for place the rail in the existing road corridor not in the median as a cost saving measure. I consider this route a No brainier. where to go after this is a good question< I would like to see the tram head down Euclid corridor to the front door of the Cleveland Clinic's New J building going in the one way and looping out back to Euclid back down Euclid and into UH campus to thier front door, loop back around down Euclid back to University RED line station following the same route back to Shaker Square.

 

I am not sure the best way to connect Wade Oval, VA to upper Little Italy and Coventry.

 

the downtown loop should connect to tower city,above grade not below grade. It is illogical to spend million of dollars detouring the Tram away from where the people are, on the street.

 

 

Except that all rail rights of way in the vicinity of Tower City are below street grade, and to connect new rights of way with them requires descending to below street grade. And fortunately infrastructure already exists for some of this, including the Huron subway headers built 80+ years ago. We can always overlay trams as a connecting service, but it would be cost-prohibitive to replace our existing conventional rail system with trams. There's a reason why standard-gauge rail networks are 4'8.5" inches wide -- because they were the same gauges as ruts caused by wagons on Roman roads. They stayed with it because there already was a huge investment in it.

 

Oh, and there's actually a good reason why conventional rails are so popular. Because the contact point with steel wheels is so small.

 

Take a dime out and hold in your hand. That dime is the size of the contact point between a railroad rail and a railroad train's wheel. Railcars weighing up to 125 tons each put their massive weights on small contact points -- and the smaller the contact point there is between a wheel and its right of way, the less friction there is. Less friction means having to use less energy to sustain a vehicle's physical momentum. And that's why conventional trains employing a technology from 200 years ago are so energy efficient and why they are STILL in use.

 

Moving on.....

KJP the track gauge does not change, what does change is the method of installation of the track into the Road bed,  It is much more straight forward for road builder to install than the trandional Rail.

 

these track will support trams that weigh <40 tons, and have 8 sets of wheels and never go over 35mph., not for freight trains that weigh 125 tons have 4 pairs of wheels., and can go 80 mph.    this what I mean by overbuilding for the intended use. I would never replace RTA right of rails with U type Tram rail it doesn't make any sense. but for streetcar/ trams U type rail make all the sense in the world. and the trams Can easily transition to traditional rail when needed.  this means we don't need to dig any deeper to install tram rail than would be need to install a concrete pad for A BRT.

 

BTW Traditional Tram Rail look like this.

 

 

http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html

 

http://www.lr55-rail-road-system.co.uk/testing2.htm

 

Why I don't think a tunnel is needed? because Tower city does not have the space. and if it did it would be better used for Additional heavy or light rail traffic.  It should not inconvenience any rider to have to walk to the surface to prospect or the front of tower city to catch the loop.  you would also be taking the Train away from more rider dense areas like Public Square and prospect, to detour to Huron, where nothing is going unless there is a Game.  never mind the cost of building a tunnel, even if it's there, it would be more expensive than simply leaving it above grade.

 

btw, looking at those old Dual Hub maps, I never could understand why the line would diverge SE from Euclid and E. 107th along Stearns Rd. to the current U. Circle Station.  That seems out of the way instead of merely following Euclid to E. 120 and rising out of the tunnel to the existing Windermere line... Oh well, Dual Hub is dead, so no need worrying about it now.  I do believe, somewhere down the line, that our City Father's will do the smart thing and convert the Health Line to Light Rail, connect to the Huron Subway stub and build one subway station under Huron btw E. 9 and Playhouse Sq. before rising to the surface along Euclid at the CSU campus heading east.  Also, they will elimininate up to 1/3 of the HL stations to speed up the trains -- the no. of HL station stops is OK for buses, but isn't logical for trains.

KJP the track gauge does not change, what does change is the method of installation of the track into the Road bed,  It is much more straight forward for road builder to install than the trandional Rail.

 

these track will support trams that weigh <40 tons, and have 8 sets of wheels and never go over 35mph., not for freight trains that weigh 125 tons have 4 pairs of wheels., and can go 80 mph.    this what I mean by overbuilding for the intended use. I would never replace RTA right of rails with U type Tram rail it doesn't make any sense. but for streetcar/ trams U type rail make all the sense in the world. and the trams Can easily transition to traditional rail when needed.  this means we don't need to dig any deeper to install tram rail than would be need to install a concrete pad for A BRT.

 

BTW Traditional Tram Rail look like this.

 

 

http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html

 

http://www.lr55-rail-road-system.co.uk/testing2.htm

 

Why I don't think a tunnel is needed? because Tower city does not have the space. and if it did it would be better used for Additional heavy or light rail traffic.  It should not inconvenience any rider to have to walk to the surface to prospect or the front of tower city to catch the loop.  you would also be taking the Train away from more rider dense areas like Public Square and prospect, to detour to Huron, where nothing is going unless there is a Game.  never mind the cost of building a tunnel, even if it's there, it would be more expensive than simply leaving it above grade.

 

 

I didn't say the gauge would change. I used it as an example of how things do not change because of prior investments in a certain standard or practice.

 

And that wasn't the only thing you missed in what I said. Please see some of my posts on the first two pages of the Waterfront Line Extension thread for more.

btw, looking at those old Dual Hub maps, I never could understand why the line would diverge SE from Euclid and E. 107th along Stearns Rd. to the current U. Circle Station.  That seems out of the way instead of merely following Euclid to E. 120 and rising out of the tunnel to the existing Windermere line... Oh well, Dual Hub is dead, so no need worrying about it now.  I do believe, somewhere down the line, that our City Father's will do the smart thing and convert the Health Line to Light Rail, connect to the Huron Subway stub and build one subway station under Huron btw E. 9 and Playhouse Sq. before rising to the surface along Euclid at the CSU campus heading east.  Also, they will elimininate up to 1/3 of the HL stations to speed up the trains -- the no. of HL station stops is OK for buses, but isn't logical for trains.

 

btw, looking at those old Dual Hub maps, I never could understand why the line would diverge SE from Euclid and E. 107th along Stearns Rd. to the current U. Circle Station.  That seems out of the way instead of merely following Euclid to E. 120 and rising out of the tunnel to the existing Windermere line... Oh well, Dual Hub is dead, so no need worrying about it now.  I do believe, somewhere down the line, that our City Father's will do the smart thing and convert the Health Line to Light Rail, connect to the Huron Subway stub and build one subway station under Huron btw E. 9 and Playhouse Sq. before rising to the surface along Euclid at the CSU campus heading east.  Also, they will eliminate up to 1/3 of the HL stations to speed up the trains -- the no. of HL station stops is OK for buses, but isn't logical for trains.

 

I am going to challenge you guys on this Huron Tunnel Idea, why detour away from where your riders are?  what do you gain?  speed?  speed to go where? from playhouse square to tower city in 5 minutes less than doing so on the surface. with the additional burden of having riders switch modes in from Subway to bus to get to their final destination.  its not worth it. 

 

I Favor the establishment of a Tram line loop in downtown Cleveland.  I cannot See green or blue line LRVs operating in a Road ROW, their turning radius, and width would make them too unwieldy to be placed at grade running with street traffic.  We could replace them with  8 foot wide and 90ft long Tram Car that could carry 70 people, this could eventually replace the buses used on the healthline, it would be fully compatible the existing stations, but would offer 20 extra seats and room for an additional 30 standees.

 

If you replace the Current light rail fleet  with Street capable Light rail vehicle (trams) that would be 100% low floor and ADA compliant at all current Blue and Green line stations you gian economies of scale  with a fleet of 50-60 trams, that could be easily expanded to ourside of original Rail right of ways. 

 

 

By Using new Technology We can lower the construction costs.

 

vs

 

and LR55 Rails that are much cheaper to install. vs conventional Rail.  most importantly It only requires a trench 8 in  deep by 16 inches wide to install, vs the traditional method digging a 2 foot deep trench the width of the road lane, pouring a 8 inch thick concrete pad the width of the road and securing the Rails to the pad, filling in the road way with concreat of asphalt.

 

vs

 

the issue with the Healthline is not in downtown it is in midtown and past UC. 

 

 

the smart thing to do is to add direct express service during peak periods, eliminating all stops between CSU and Cleveland Clinic. to address t

 

 

 

So how do you get from track level in/near Tower City to street level?

So how do you get from track level in/near Tower City to street level?

 

tracks on prospect are EXACTLY 4 floors above the Red/blue/green line tracks, it would take one elevator ride from the station concourse to the skylight level Exit to prospect, where the Trams would be waiting. 

 

My loop would put 95% of major downtown attraction within 1/4 mile or a ten minute walk of this line or the health line, I drove this loop after class yesterday at 6pm, it took me 10 minutes to drive clockwise.  It would be located to hopefully spur development in warehouse district, Avenue district, theater district and gateway district. connecting them all to the Convention center, Casino, Tower City, Stephanie Tubbs Jones TC and CSU.

 

All while using Road Right of ways, that are under utilized from a vehicle perspective  (minus Chester) The loop is roughly 2.5-3 miles, 12 stops spaced 1/4 mile apart, should be able to complete the loop in about 20 minutes. 

 

If we could connect the trams to the waterfront line not for route purposes but for to connect it to the rest of the network maintenance and depot needs, you save money.

 

if you could connect the tram line to the WF line in the flats, not at the end of the WF line you could save money.  If possible, ( I don't know the Grade % of the hill)  from the intersection of Main and west 10th, come out of the rail right of way, onto main ave, up the hill onto west 9th, connect with the Loop line on St-Clair.  using existing road ROWs to elminate the costs of building a rather complex bridge to connect the WF line to the rest of the city on the bluff.

Biker, connecting a Health Line-converted to rail via the Huron subway, with 1 Playhouse Sq/E. 9th station, would have far greater impact than the tram line you propose (and what is it about tram lines?  Do you work for some tram building company or supplier?)... My proposed route would, essentially, duplicate the Dual Hub Line that was proposed and dumped over a decade ago.  But the reason that it was a attractive is the same reason the route I propose is: it's connectivity, directly, to the current rail network with a straight line subway 'up the throat' of our busiest corridor.  Your little tram loop pales in comparison and impact.  And btw, numerous studies have shown over the years, the people are more attracted to and ride rail lines as opposed to buses over the same routes because of the former's greater permanency.  Also, given the "stations" that exist on the HL, the ones that would be kept along Euclid (again, I'd eliminate a 3rd of them for rail speed w/o losing substantial coverage) already have semi-raised platforms that roughly compare with those on the Blue-Green Lines, RTA would only have to lengthen them to accommodate dual-height rail cars that could connect through Tower City between the dense/crowded Euclid corridor and the Airport & West Side. 

I love trams, but forcing a transfer typically causes ridership to drop by one-third over what was or could otherwise be. That's why extending the coverage of the rail system you already have may be a better option.

Biker--KJP and clvlndr might be right, but I welcome your seemingly well-informed additions to the conversation.  Don't be discouraged.  We all have the city's best interest at heart, want to improve transit, and we're all learning from one another.

 

 

If you had a trolly route such as this, you would have some great connections. Most of the major hotels would be in a short walk to the trolly. It would also connect with tower city, casino, movie theater, RTA lines, Convention Center, Gateway, East 4th, Warehouse District, Playhouse Square, CSU, Apartments, Condos, and Offices.

 

http://g.co/maps/5c7z4

Biker--KJP and clvlndr might be right, but I welcome your seemingly well-informed additions to the conversation.  Don't be discouraged.  We all have the city's best interest at heart, want to improve transit, and we're all learning from one another.

 

 

We also may be completely wrong. The rubber-tired RTA Trolleys require a transfer to/from the rail lines and they are often very full with riders, carrying some 4,000+ people a day. That's not bad for an inferior, rubber-tired bus er, trolley. :-D

3.2billion

40-90 million

15-40 million

15-25 million

 

this is the cost per mile for

subways

light rail

Tramways

BRT

 

there is no corridor in Cleveland that could sufficiently support a subway line.

 

the beauty of streetcars/trams is that they use existing ROWs that are where people are the the Streets.  every time we develop a new rail ROW it gets futher and futher form the streets.  the Red Line is a perfect example of this.  heavy rail in dedicated ROW are great for speed but not so great for convenience.

 

Biker, connecting a Health Line-converted to rail via the Huron subway, with 1 Playhouse Sq/E. 9th station, would have far greater impact than the tram line you propose (and what is it about tram lines?  Do you work for some tram building company or supplier?)...

 

You need to understand that Speed is not everything.

here are couple of interesting thoughts on speed vs spontaneity

 

streetcars and spontaneity

 

Streetcars don't compete with walking, they augment it. When you're out and about on foot you can easily hop on a streetcar to go a bit further than you're prepared to walk, and therefore access a few places that are otherwise out of your reach. Streetcars therefore make a walking-based lifestyle more attractive, and lead to more walking, not less.

 

is speed obsolete?

 

are slow streetcars are better than rapid transit

 

The question of operational speed conjures up a larger issue: who exactly are the intended beneficiaries of enhanced mobility? A high speed system is best if the main intention is to move riders quickly from one side of the region to the other.  Lower operational speeds are better if your intention is to best serve city districts with easy access within them and to support a long term objective to create more complete communities, less dependent on twice-daily cross-region trips.

My proposed route would, essentially, duplicate the Dual Hub Line that was proposed and dumped over a decade ago.  But the reason that it was a attractive is the same reason the route I propose is: it's connectivity, directly, to the current rail network with a straight line subway 'up the throat' of our busiest corridor.  Your little tram loop pales in comparison and impact.  And btw, numerous studies have shown over the years, the people are more attracted to and ride rail lines as opposed to buses over the same routes because of the former's greater permanency. 

 

Dual hub is outdated and no longer Represents the place Downtown is today or will be in the future. downtown has lost tens of thousands of workers and has gained thousands of new residents.  our future seems better tied to residential development and tourism than to the tradistiona commuter base transit of the past.  My little tram loop conects all major districts together. 

 

If Trams augment walking, they will automatically allow residents in the avenue district to better access dining in the warehouse district, and gateway district. even though they could walk, the trams allow them to walk further they could normally, this is even more important because of our harsh winters. people would be more than willing to wait and take the tram in the winter than in the summer.

 

You are 100% correct about the permanency of rail, I placed the line where there is room for development, East 12th, prospect, West 6th.  the issue with placing the subway where you want it is it missed East forth, the Medical mart, city hall, the warehouse district.  with the Tram you have spontaneity, or the ability for people to move where they want to when they want to without planning ahead.

 

this is type of transit that allows people to go without cars.

 

Also, given the "stations" that exist on the HL, the ones that would be kept along Euclid (again, I'd eliminate a 3rd of them for rail speed w/o losing substantial coverage) already have semi-raised platforms that roughly compare with those on the Blue-Green Lines, RTA would only have to lengthen them to accommodate dual-height rail cars that could connect through Tower City between the dense/crowded Euclid corridor and the Airport & West Side.

 

I think the speed of the healthline is less of a problem than you think, crowding and the bunching up of buses are more of an issue.  I would propse first terminating the line at the little Italy station, not windermere.  I would extend the BRT further out Euclid (where?) and have it terminate at university circle station, basically forcing those heading to downtown in between windermere and UC to use the Redline.

 

I would like to RTA move from BRT to Trams from downtown to Little Italy station.  I would replace the current 47 seat buses with 70 seat low floor trams.  shortening the line and increasing  the capascity should help with congestion, in addition you could run express service between Cleveland Clinic and CSU.

Why trams and not the current light rail trains? 

1:the blue line trains are not ADA compliant, the HL buses and a Tram would be ADA compliant

 

2: the turning radius of the Blue and Greenline trains are not sufficient for the HL, it could force some major changes to the line, and likely kill the project before it starts

 

3: the needed construction techniques for a lightRail line would add alot of costs to the project, light rail REQUIRES 18-19in of below grade work  for it's rails, a Tram using lr55 rails would only need 8 inches per rail.  the cantenary system would be more expensive than the lighter duty grade wireing needed for tram system. both add costs to the project and make it easier to kill.

 

4: Blue line and green line train were never designed to be used this way.  with their exposed trucks, and immense size, they would become an obstruction in traffic. and in some cases a hazard to pedestrians.

 

Of course if you can replace the blue and green line trains with a Tram, you gain economies of scale and make all shaker rapid stops ADA compliant.

 

Healthline is blue

 

loop is green

 

connection to waterfront line is yellow.

For those who think rail is bound to cause sprawl and further hurt the central city, I offer the following -- inspired by this article and these graphics:

 

What if Washington never built Metro?

by Ben Fried  •  October 19, 2011 10:24 am

 

Rail~Volution 2011 marks the first time since 2002 that this conference for all things transit and smart growth has taken place in the nation's capital. When it comes to livability, Washington and neighboring Arlington County have some great stories to share with the rest of the country.

 

The Washington Metro system keeps hundreds of thousands of cars off the streets a day, and is responsible for hundreds of millions in tax revenues and household savings per year.

 

....Bottigheimer's stats brought to mind this graphic of a hypothetical NYC, where the subway's been obliterated and everyone has to drive and park to get around instead. The black squares show the space that would be taken up by parking if everyone who rides the subway into Manhattan's CBD drove to work instead.

 

 

Read more at:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12455/what-if-washington-never-built-metro/

 

 

So I offer these graphics which are relevant to this thread. They are the inverse of the Manhattan graphic shown above. These graphics don't show what parking would be created by eliminating rail. They show what parking lots would be eliminated in downtown Cleveland by creating rail.......

 

 

 

 

BTW, if anyone wants to use the above three graphics, feel free to do so.

My Idea for a Tram link to university Circle via Shaker Square.

 

You would have the option to run Blue and/or Green line service direct to university Circle during rush hour,  creating a one Seat ride from the southwest suburbs into UC.

 

all other times it could be either a 12 minute loop from University circle to shaker Square.(in Red)  with a follow on loop that Travels for university Circle Redline to the front doors of both UH and CC.  or a combined route going from Shaker Square to UH and CC.  of course demand would determine the capacity of the tram used.

 

imagine the potential for these routes if and when Commuter rail routes from the East, west and Southwest.

I think it was a mistake that the Red Line appropriated existing rail lines and is not aligned with Lorain and Euclid Avenues.  People talk about low ridership on the RTA in general (yes, I’m aware the Red Line has the most riders) and the lack of adequate TOD along the Red Line route, but it think the reason is this:

 

Transit should have been built along existing traffic flows in the first place,  whereas heavy rail lines in general are purposely built to avoid busy neighborhoods.  It would have made much more sense to route the Red Line along the same route as the cars to capture the traffic that was already there, instead of trying to get people to go to places where they wouldn’t go otherwise.  Cleveland’s Red Line seems to be trying to thread Detroit, I-90, Lorain, and SR 237 with the end result of capturing little of the traffic from any of these arteries.

 

Yes, I do think that Triskett has a nice station, but the fact is that Triskett isn’t the artery that Lorain is, I think, is why TOD along the Red Line has underperformed.  The importance of roads such as Lorain and Euclid would have provided a spine for TOD.  I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the Blue and Green lines along Van Aken and Shaker Blvds have more established TOD than the Red Line while having less traffic.  I think the west side would have been better served by two lines, one along Lorain and the other along Detroit.

 

I don’t want the Red Line to repeat these mistakes in the future, although I think the eastward extension running parallel between St. Clair and Euclid might be close enough to these arteries to draw its own traffic, especially if the route goes all the way to Euclid Square Mall.

 

Granted, realigning the RTA would cost astronomical amounts of money that we don’t have, plus the climate of the country isn’t too friendly to rail right now.  I also understand that tunneling underneath Lorain and Euclid would have to be justified by density that Cleveland doesn’t have – so I’m wondering about the cost feasibility of this alternative, adapted from this post: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,5563.msg53841.html#msg53841

 

1) If heavy rail is too expensive, then a streetcar or street-level light rail along Lorain from the Red Line's Ohio City stop to Kamm’s Corners; an imperfect but OK solution similar to the HealthLine BRT without being a BRT.  While I do like the idea of linking Great Northern Mall to downtown, North Olmsted seems a bit far for a streetcar and that distance would be better suited for a subway. 

 

2) Same for W. 25.  This line could run from the Aquarium/Flats West Bank to the Zoo, with a possible extension into Parma.  Although once in Parma I don't know if it would continue to follow Pearl into Parma Heights, or split along Ridge Rd and head towards Parmatown Mall.

 

3) The downtown section of E. 9th would benefit from surface rail, but south of Tri-C, I don't know where it would go.  The neighborhoods south of that area along Broadway don't look like places where people are going.  I guess one option would be looping the line over I-490 to connect to Tremont and the W. 25 line.

 

4) Eventually, (and I know I'm not alone in this :evil:) I think a subway under Euclid could complement the BRT streetcar line above ground.  Hong Kong runs this above their main subway line:

 

<img src="http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/daodao/photo-s/02/36/d1/97/hong-kong-streetcar-in.jpg" />

 

Ok, Ok, I know HK is one of the densest cities in the world and Cleveland isn't, but it's streetcars are still fun.  I suppose if we're impatient, we could dress up the HealthLine like Lolly the Trolley, which someone had called a bus in streetcar clothing.  :-D

 

5) I prefer a line along Detroit instead of Clifton through Lakewood because Detroit is where downtown Lakewood is.  Understandably, Clifton is wider and more able to accommodate transit, but I think building there spreads out, instead of reinforcing, economic activity for existing businesses.  Since digging a subway under Detroit is prohibitively expensive and the street is too narrow for dedicated ROW for streetcars/BRT, I guess that leaves us with appropriating the N&S line just north of Detroit.  But I think West Shore Commuter Rail also wants that line.  Hmm...  :?

 

I've been flirting with the idea of elevated rail as something less expensive than excavating subway tunnels (if I’m wrong, let me know).  However, I’m not sure if this would be considered beautiful or an eyesore.  I think of elevated rail as modern and beautiful, but in the same vein, I think of elevated highways are ugly and divide city neighborhoods.  I’ve also heard that aesthetics were also a reason why the elevated PeopleMover was not welcome in Cleveland.  My hesitation of placing elevated rail along Euclid is that it would eliminate (instead of complement) the existing BRT and would block the view of the Cleveland Trust Building.

 

Another question: how feasible would it be to refit bridges like Main Ave, Lorain-Carnegie, and the Innerbelt to include a lower deck for RTA and streetcars, like the Detroit-Superior bridge?  Or would that expense be astronomical as well (or even require tearing down the bridge and rebuilding it)?

 

Map to come when I think more about what I think such a network would look like.

^Your assessment of heavy rail and the inadequacies of the Red Line are on target.  Heavy rail lines (subways and els) have historically followed (under, over or, often in Chicago's case, next to or over alleyways behind the building line) major arteries where there is high volume flow. The problem has historically been that, in America especially, only those cities with the highest density have been able to justify the expense of subways.  In the olden days (pre WWII), the biggest/densest cities in America (the Big 4: New York, Chicago, Philly & Boston) usually granted exclusive charter rights to private companies to build subways.  It was therefore up to these companies to finance the building and often the operation of the built lines.  I believe Cleveland did this around WWI, but like most places, the companies could finance the tremendous expense and couldn't justify it based on passenger projections... Cleveland also had a number of proposals to sell bonds to finance subway construction, but these were either defeated by voters in referendums (like in 1920) or by politicians (like County Engineer Albert S. Porter, in the late 50s)...

 

... So medium-sized, moderate-density cities like Cleveland came up with other ideas for rapid transit... of course we know the Van Sweringens pioneered using railroad rights of way as a cheaper alternative, which our present Rapid primarily utilizes to this day (even the 1990s Waterfront line largely follows the N-S mainline along the Lake Shore)... but of course, the problems you note are attendant with such operations -- they tend to travel by industrial areas (which sprung up along the railroads) and away from populations/residential neighborhoods and don't follow along main street arteries -- the Red Line/NS corridor, from Euclid E. 120 through Euclid and beyond being an exception (which is why I believe this leg should be/should have been built).  Despite these flaws, Cleveland was a pioneer of rapid transit among medium-sized, moderate density cities, esp in the American Midwest (to date, outside of huge Chicago, on St. Louis and Minneapolis have built rail lines, with the latter 2 in the last 2 decades... Cleveland's Shaker lines are nearly 100 years old...

 

Your assessment that the Rapid attempted to thread West Side interstates is a bit off -- the Red Line, which was projected in the 40s, built in 1955, predated all the West Side freeways, save the old Shoreway stub that ends at Edgewater Park.

 

In the post Vietnam era of federal matching assists to cities building transit, Cleveland still has not been able to muster political will to build a subway up the Euclid corridor -- something most logical parties believe was the right idea.  We got close with the Dual Hub corridor plan of the 1980s & 90s until it fell apart under Mike White, Tim Hagan (the Commsioner's office) and NOACA... So now we have the cheaper alternative -- the Health Line BRT...

 

... I still believe that someday, some crafty politician or civic leader (like say, a Chris Ronayne type) will see the flaw in the Health Line which, even today, with its corridor barely emerging is already choking under the strain of its own popularity... That individual will convert the Health Line to light rail, dipping into a short subway under Huron Road and Euclid (under Playhouse Square rising at CSU), and connecting to the Red Line, at Tower City and Euclid/E. 120 at the other end... To make such a line really be rapid, many current street crossings and Health Line stations would need to be eliminated.

 

But until we have vision and political will merge, we will continue to go for the cheap alternative (much like Browns stadium, which we foolishly chose not to dome for financial considerations)...  Only then we will realize that CHEAP doesn't usally = BEST.