KJP, any idea how expensive those airport automated trams cost?  Would it ever be cost effective to run something like that under the bridge?  One on the west side, and one on the east, maybe a second east side one at Tower City?

 

I have no idea. And as long as the frequent 20, 22, 26 and 81 buses run over the top of the bridge, you don't have to wait long for a cross-bridge "shuttle" today. If the tram, streetcar or LRT penetrated neighborhoods more deeply on either side of the bridge, then it might do something different than what the buses currently do. Consider the routings of Cleveland first trolley lines in the mid-1800s. They make awfully good routings for new streetcars today, don't ya think?

 

if we dont upgrade the healthline with a streetcar which would be my first option, it never should have been a bus.

 

then we should.

 

4) run a red line extension from either 117 or West Blvd.  into lakewood.

 

 

 

Actually, I like the last one very much, and think RTA could do this relatively cheaply.  I would extend a short .6 or .7 mile Red Line extension from West Blvd/Cudell along the NS tracks to W. 117.  RTA should build just 2 inexpensive stations on this short extension, an interim stop at W. 110th and then the terminal (for now) at W. 117.  This would be a totally surface route (easy to do since the Red Line is powered by catenary rather than 3rd rails (thus no danger to kids/public) and street crossings would be guarded by the standard electronic gates + cross bucks... Why do this short extension which would terminate less than 1 mile from an existing Red Line station (W. 117/Madison)?... Because this short, relatively cheap extension would place rail directly within easy walking distance of Edgewater/Lakewood Gold Coast: a huge, densly populated area (you're welcome, KJP)... Such an extension could spur a number of positive, spin-off developments including:

 

1) Giving a push to the West Shore Commuter rail line (which, I know, will never get off the ground --er, get ON the ground w/o dedicated transit funding by lazy Lorain County).  Such a station would be a great Rapid-to-Commuter train transfer station allowing commuter trains to dogleg over to NS' Lakeshore route for a junction allowing direct access to a future North Coast Transportation Center -- at the door of the soon-to-open Medical Mart Conv Center and the planned improved N. Coast Harbor area around E. 9th and the R&RHOF.

 

2) encourage fed funds for an grade-separated, RR/Rapid overpass which, in turn, would allow Rapid passenger access from the west side of W. 117, which would put the transit terminal within close walking distance to the greatest mass of residents: notably, the Lakewood Gold Coast + residents along Clifton Ave.  NOTE: you could much more easily build an RR/Rapid overpass on W. 117 because it's mainly commercial at this point, as opposed to the neighborhood side streets in either Edgewater or Lakewood, where the complaint would be that officials would be cutting neighbhoods in half with an "ugly" elevated RR.

 

3) encourage closing off streets at the grade-level rail crossings btw W. 110 and W.117...

 

4) encourage significant TOD growth at the Rapid terminal where there is currently empty lots and or spotty, suburban-like strip development.

 

5) help meld the north/south (of the tracks) sections of Edgewater and Lakewood with transit/TOD development (not unlike what is planned for the future Mayfield Red Line stop at Li'l Italy and U. Circle Uptown.)

 

To me, when you consider the relatively cheap cost of such a spur added to the signifcant potential benefits of it, ... it's a NO BRAINER.

KJP, do you have a sense what the exact concern is in Pittsburgh?  Is it on the operating cost side or is it that there's no more capital funding to keep the bus fleet up to date?

 

My understanding is that it's operating cost concern, although many citizens see $523.4 million going to build the North Shore Connector while their bus routes are being cut and believe that some of that capital funding should have been used as operating funding to keep their bus routes running. We had the same concerns expressed here in Cleveland as RTA spent $200 million in capital dollars for the HealthLine while other bus routes were cut. Many do not know or care that the transit authority cannot use the federal/state/local capital dollars for local operating costs of existing bus routes. Only state and federal legislators can change the spending laws under which transit authorities must operate.

 

Btw, I drove thru Pittsburgh a month ago -- briefly drove be the new North Shore connector and stopped at the Rivers casino (and actually won some $$ -- btw, the parking gates were up in the parking garage and parking was totally free w/o even minimum gambling times)... It sure looks like the T LRT does a terrible job of connecting to the casino... passengers must walk a couple blocks through surface parking lots and across a busy street from the rail station to reach the casino.  In between, there's a cheaply built bus terminal ostensibly to connect with the T and (I guess) remove buses from the Golden Triangle by feeding them into the rail terminal.

 

To me the ONLY way the N-S Connector makes sense is for an extension to the Pitts Airport...

 

... Imagine, our Waterfront Line was built for only $60-70M and will, in the end, have just as much, if not more TOD impact than the N-S connector.  If RTA had spent that kind of money for rail, Cleveland folks would have tarred, feathered (and arrested) RTA officials.

I agree with the suggestions for converting the current Health Line to light rail.  I was just thinking about the problems for the HL if downtown continues to develop as it is doing... I noted, with all the excess traffic generated by the casino and other events, like last week's Indians' games, that Euclid and Prospect were gridlocked, with many people forced to leak in/use the HL's dedicated lane.  I saw at least one HL bus held up by cars, including a cop car, in the HL lane… Also, I feel the current raised median along Euclid accommodating the HL is greatly restricting this street’s existing heavy traffic as well as its traffic’s future growth.

 

Keep in mind, downtown, though developing nicely, is FAR from the growth we want it to be, and yet, the HL is already at/near capacity -- buses are often (usually) packed to capacity and they are being slowed by crowding a various downtown stations.  My God, what's the HL going to be like once the Schofield/Kimpton Hotel project is done?  The condo/apt. tower is built atop 515?  the Ameritrust Tower/rotunda are brought back to life (-- to name just a few projects geared toward regenerating the dead stretch of Euclid from 668 to Playhouse Sq.? 

 

The HL will need to be converted into Light Rail and the downtown portion MUST be dropped into a SUBWAY.  Again, Euclid and Prospect were parallel parking lots Friday night.  And we're only talking spinoff from a new casino (capacity held to 3,000) and a baseball game (around 30,000).  With more development and other activity in downtown, these crowds could seem small.... This means the streetcar/transit mall idea through the core of town won't fly; a subway surface type operation (Boston, Philly, SF ... the planned Red Line in Baltimore) will be needed.

 

We have the facilities to undertake this ( the Van Sweringen-built, grade-separated Huron tunnels feed the current Tower City complex as well as the unused ex-Shaker Rapid platforms adjacent to the existing platforms currently in use (given the high volume of a Euclid Ave Light Rail, segregation from the Red/Green/Blue/Waterfront platforms would be most feasible and, yet, because of the physical rail connection, there would be the ability to share maintenance facilities and move equipment from one system to another -- transfers btw the 2 systems, though not as easy as the current set up, would still be nearby and in an indoor, climate controlled environment… and once again, a light rail line could use the existing, already-built HL stations (although several should be eliminated to increase the overall speed and reliability of the LRT.

 

Also consider that the fine UO presentation of past subway proposals noted that a prime rationale for the subway was to remove buses from the core of downtown, particularly in the Public Square area.  RTA already has build the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones transit center and the proposal for a WHD, west downtown bus terminal would match the STJ center.  Bus transferees could access the LRT/subway to complete their trips into/through downtown, thus opening up downtown to more pedestrians while, still, not losing transit access (increasing it, in fact). 

 

Only 1 subway station would need to be built: at or near E. 9th/Prospect/Playhouse Sq…. It may make more sense, following this station,  to route the LRT along east along Prospect , with trains surfacing  around E. 14th with a surface station at the STJ bus terminal.  Cars could then hook over to Euclid via one of the cross streets (ie E. 22) which, of course, would be closed to auto traffic for the block btw Euclid and Prospect.

 

I agree with the suggestions for converting the current Health Line to light rail.  I was just thinking about the problems for the HL if downtown continues to develop as it is doing... I noted, with all the excess traffic generated by the casino and other events, like last week's Indians' games, that Euclid and Prospect were gridlocked, with many people forced to leak in/use the HL's dedicated lane.  I saw at least one HL bus held up by cars, including a cop car, in the HL lane… Also, I feel the current raised median along Euclid accommodating the HL is greatly restricting this street’s existing heavy traffic as well as its traffic’s future growth.

 

Keep in mind, downtown, though developing nicely, is FAR from the growth we want it to be, and yet, the HL is already at/near capacity -- buses are often (usually) packed to capacity and they are being slowed by crowding a various downtown stations.  My God, what's the HL going to be like once the Schofield/Kimpton Hotel project is done?  The condo/apt. tower is built atop 515?  the Ameritrust Tower/rotunda are brought back to life (-- to name just a few projects geared toward regenerating the dead stretch of Euclid from 668 to Playhouse Sq.? 

 

The HL will need to be converted into Light Rail and the downtown portion MUST be dropped into a SUBWAY.  Again, Euclid and Prospect were parallel parking lots Friday night.  And we're only talking spinoff from a new casino (capacity held to 3,000) and a baseball game (around 30,000).  With more development and other activity in downtown, these crowds could seem small.... This means the streetcar/transit mall idea through the core of town won't fly; a subway surface type operation (Boston, Philly, SF ... the planned Red Line in Baltimore) will be needed.

 

We have the facilities to undertake this ( the Van Sweringen-built, grade-separated Huron tunnels feed the current Tower City complex as well as the unused ex-Shaker Rapid platforms adjacent to the existing platforms currently in use (given the high volume of a Euclid Ave Light Rail, segregation from the Red/Green/Blue/Waterfront platforms would be most feasible and, yet, because of the physical rail connection, there would be the ability to share maintenance facilities and move equipment from one system to another -- transfers btw the 2 systems, though not as easy as the current set up, would still be nearby and in an indoor, climate controlled environment… and once again, a light rail line could use the existing, already-built HL stations (although several should be eliminated to increase the overall speed and reliability of the LRT.

 

Also consider that the fine UO presentation of past subway proposals noted that a prime rationale for the subway was to remove buses from the core of downtown, particularly in the Public Square area.  RTA already has build the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones transit center and the proposal for a WHD, west downtown bus terminal would match the STJ center.  Bus transferees could access the LRT/subway to complete their trips into/through downtown, thus opening up downtown to more pedestrians while, still, not losing transit access (increasing it, in fact). 

 

Only 1 subway station would need to be built: at or near E. 9th/Prospect/Playhouse Sq…. It may make more sense, following this station,  to route the LRT along east along Prospect , with trains surfacing  around E. 14th with a surface station at the STJ bus terminal.  Cars could then hook over to Euclid via one of the cross streets (ie E. 22) which, of course, would be closed to auto traffic for the block btw Euclid and Prospect.

 

congestion is good thing.

 

don't look for  billion dollar solution to $2000 dollar problems.  the solution is not to bury the streetcar but to enforce the laws that people can not drive in the bus only lane.

 

Downtown Cleveland will either be built for cars, which means more parking, and less development or be designed for people, on foot, on bike and on transit. you cannot have both.

 

watch this video.

 

Congestion is not a good thing as it stifles the efficiency of systems and networks. Density can be is a good thing as long as it has the support systems to sustain it. New York City has less traffic congestion than many cities with less density because New York has evolved to such densities with the availability of systems at such a scale which sustain its scale of density. So just as there  are economies of scale, there are diseconomies of scale. Cleveland lacks the support systems to sustain downtown densities much more than what it has now.

 

Some of us thrive on density and activity and the excitement of the urban experience, but not everyone feels that way. And congestion is the breaking down of the functionality and productivity of urban support systems. I realize that congestion, like concentrations of crime, is a normal urban condition. But that doesn't mean that we let it run rampant. Instead, we will always try to manage it. If we don't, then we end up fleeing from it.

Congestion is not a good thing as it stifles the efficiency of systems and networks. Density can be is a good thing as long as it has the support systems to sustain it. New York City has less traffic congestion than many cities with less density because New York has evolved to such densities with the availability of systems at such a scale which sustain its scale of density. So just as there  are economies of scale, there are diseconomies of scale. Cleveland lacks the support systems to sustain downtown densities much more than what it has now.

 

Some of us thrive on density and activity and the excitement of the urban experience, but not everyone feels that way. And congestion is the breaking down of the functionality and productivity of urban support systems. I realize that congestion, like concentrations of crime, is a normal urban condition. But that doesn't mean that we let it run rampant. Instead, we will always try to manage it. If we don't, then we end up fleeing from it.

 

congestion is too many people driving in the available road space at the same time.  congestion is good because it provides a disincentive to drive.

 

99.9 percent of the time Euclid is well under capacity. you don't build a subway for that .01% of congestion.  even during rush hour drivers know to avoid Euclid ave, it was the influx of unfamiliar visitors that caused congestion as they become more familiar with downtown they will adjust, and hopefully use transit.

 

do not fear that by gridlocked roads during an event will keep people from downtown, but fear a downtown that become more not less car oriented.than it already is.

 

the Euclid corridor has become a pedestrian mecca, in downtown, why would you destroy that to simply make more space for cars?

 

You cannot have a auto culture and pedestrian culture at the same time you have to choose one or the other.  because they are not compatible with each other.

Congestion takes many forms. I see the one you are concerned with is car traffic. There was also transit congestion....

 

Lower Euclid Avenue in 1948....

 

East 102nd and Euclid in 1951....

 

And while individuals may prefer one culture over another (auto vs pedestrian), the community has to embrace at least some of both in order for elected officials, businesses and others to satisfy a wide variety of constituencies and customers. Nothing is all one thing or another except perhaps in command/control economies/political systems.

Congestion takes many forms. I see the one you are concerned with is car traffic. There was also transit congestion....

 

Lower Euclid Avenue in 1948....

 

East 102nd and Euclid in 1951....

 

And while individuals may prefer one culture over another (auto vs pedestrian), the community has to embrace at least some of both in order for elected officials, businesses and others to satisfy a wide variety of constituencies and customers. Nothing is all one thing or another except perhaps in command/control economies/political systems.

Don't you think Cleveland though is trying to become more pedestrian friendly with examples being the Bike Station opening in the Gateway District, the plans to redevelop I believe E.22nd Street or Chester, the pop up Rockwell demonstration a couple weeks back to promote biking downtown by adding bike lanes, and I attended an urban design presentation back in April at Kent's CUDC that shows designs and plans to present to the city that had less car lanes, lower curbs, and wider sidewalks. I believe Cleveland is realizing that encouraging pedestrians to get around without their cars is the best way for sustainability for downtown and the city itself.

Congestion takes many forms. I see the one you are concerned with is car traffic. There was also transit congestion....

 

Lower Euclid Avenue in 1948....

 

East 102nd and Euclid in 1951....

 

And while individuals may prefer one culture over another (auto vs pedestrian), the community has to embrace at least some of both in order for elected officials, businesses and others to satisfy a wide variety of constituencies and customers. Nothing is all one thing or another except perhaps in command/control economies/political systems.

 

Don't you think Cleveland is trying to become more pedestrian friendly? Examples being the "Bike Station" opening in the Gateway District, The plan to try and redevelop either E.22nd or Chester, the "Pop Up Rockwell" demonstration that encouraged using bikes by adding bike lanes, and I also attended a presentation at the Kent's CUDC downtown that included ideas to present to the City that showed less car lanes, lower curbs, and wider sidewalks. I think Cleveland is really realizing now that gearing your city towards being pedestrian friendly is vital in the sustainability of Downtown, and the city itself.

Don't you think Cleveland is trying to become more pedestrian friendly?

 

Kinda sorta, but not meaningfully.  Cleveland that just built a giant suburban plaza to compete with its own downtown.  Bike lanes and wider sidewalks are just window dressing if the built environment is increasingly car-oriented.

Cleveland that just built a giant suburban plaza to compete with its own downtown.

 

Because I'm genuinely curious, what giant suburban plaza are you referring to?

Steelyard Commons.

Don't you think Cleveland is trying to become more pedestrian friendly?

 

Kinda sorta, but not meaningfully.  Cleveland that just built a giant suburban plaza to compete with its own downtown.  Bike lanes and wider sidewalks are just window dressing if the built environment is increasingly car-oriented.

Would this suburban plaza be the Steelyard commons? If so I agree to an extent some of the non big box stores could have just been added downtown instead of their but that's off topic. To really get the pedestrian movement rolling do you think Cleveland could approach NYC planners to see how they have had such a success with making their city pedestrian friendly? Manhattan for example has on 22% of it's residents using cars which is impressive. Is that because NYC has such an extensive rail service which is hailed as one of the best in the world. Honestly I believe this would greatly decrease car usage if the red line ran further west to say Lakewood, and the Red Line was extended east towards Euclid or Beachwood. This would allow for easier transportation of people to and from their destinations and I believe residents out their would be willing to ride it. I say this because if you take the #30, 39, and 39F for examples they are constantly crowded so the demand for transit is there but RTA has to be willing to pull the trigger. The HL needs to get rid of the bus move them to another congested route to make travel their more efficient and include Light Rail aka Streetcars instead, because for Euclid to already be gridlocked without all of the developments online yet (The casino phase II isn't built, the Hotels aren't open, or the MM/CC etc.) means something needs to change.

McLovin I strongly agree.

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

The bus garage should go as planned as long as their is enough room for the HL buses to turn around or park because I believe they should be re-used somewhere else maybe the #1 route since it's the RTA's 3rd busiest route according to KJP's list. I don't think you spend $850,000 apiece on buses to scrap them after 4-5 years but if this actually would happen later down the road re-using them would have to be talked about then because the planned usage for buses are 12 years.

The 55 route might be another possibility for re-purposing the HL vehicles.

The 55 route might be another possibility for re-purposing the HL vehicles.

Is that a west side route? If it is the RTA would have to choose what station it wants to have the bus come out of Windermere or Triskett. I believe RTA would keep the HL vehicles in the Windermere station because for one the east side is still busy but also the west side has a new set of articulated buses they are running. They could just keep purchasing that style of bus for the West, and the HL style for the east.

A few points of clarification that may seem like mere semantics, but are relevant to the focus of the discussion:

• The West Side Transit Center plan is for far more than a "bus garage", so please don't minimize or dismiss it as such. It includes retail and residential components.
  
• The 12-year lifespan for a transit vehicle is not a "planned usage", it is a federal funding requirement. When the feds pay for new buses, they expect them to be on the road for a minimum of 12 years. In situations where they're not, the funded agency actually has to pay back the federal government.
  
• The east side/west side thing as far as where vehicles are berthed versus where they provide service can be overcome. Case in point, all #239 coaches, which serve the Euclid Park-N-Ride, now spend their off-hours at Triskett with all other Park-N-Ride coaches. This was done for maintenance load-balancing and efficiency purposes.
  

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

 

forget about the tunnels, you want more capacity on the healthline your need STREETCARS.... why because they can hold a lot more people

 

my personal project.

 

Health line BRT

Width 2.6 meters

Height 3.3 meters 130inches 10’ 10”

Length 18.54 meters 60 feet

Step height 14 inches

Seats 47

Max capacity 100

Weight 20 tonnes

Turning radius 13.4m

Fleet size 23

Length of route 6.8 miles

 

Potential replacement fleet

 

Bombardier flexity 2 freedom 5 module

Standard gauge

Width 2.4m -2.54

Length 30.8m 101

Height 11’10” 3.6m

Floor height 14-12.8in

Weight (empty) ?

Max weight 48 metric tonnes

Wheel diameter .65m

Seats 64-70

Seat + standees 132 crush capacity 181

Top speed 70-80kmh ~50mph

Max acceleration 1.2 m/s

Voltage 600-750 volt

 

http://lrv.ttc.ca/Meet_Your_New_Ride.aspx

 

 

Toronto is buying 205 of these vehicles. they use the same voltage as our rail system.

 

 

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

 

forget about the tunnels, you want more capacity on the healthline your need STREETCARS.... why because they can hold a lot more people

 

my personal project.

 

Health line BRT

Width 2.6 meters

Height 3.3 meters 130inches 10’ 10”

Length 18.54 meters 60 feet

Step height 14 inches

Seats 47

Max capacity 100

Weight 20 tonnes

Turning radius 13.4m

Fleet size 23

Length of route 6.8 miles

 

Potential replacement fleet

 

Bombardier flexity 2 freedom 5 module

Standard gauge

Width 2.4m -2.54

Length 30.8m 101

Height 11’10” 3.6m

Floor height 14-12.8in

Weight (empty) ?

Max weight 48 metric tonnes

Wheel diameter .65m

Seats 64-70

Seat + standees 132 crush capacity 181

Top speed 70-80kmh ~50mph

Max acceleration 1.2 m/s

Voltage 600-750 volt

 

http://lrv.ttc.ca/Meet_Your_New_Ride.aspx

 

 

Toronto is buying 205 of these vehicles. they use the same voltage as our rail system.

Boy this makes so much more sense and I would love to see these going down Euclid, but how much do you think the replacement would cost?

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

 

forget about the tunnels, you want more capacity on the healthline your need STREETCARS.... why because they can hold a lot more people

 

my personal project.

 

Health line BRT

Width 2.6 meters

Height 3.3 meters 130inches 10 10

Length 18.54 meters 60 feet

Step height 14 inches

Seats 47

Max capacity 100

Weight 20 tonnes

Turning radius 13.4m

Fleet size 23

Length of route 6.8 miles

 

Potential replacement fleet

 

Bombardier flexity 2 freedom 5 module

Standard gauge

Width 2.4m -2.54

Length 30.8m 101

Height 1110 3.6m

Floor height 14-12.8in

Weight (empty) ?

Max weight 48 metric tonnes

Wheel diameter .65m

Seats 64-70

Seat + standees 132 crush capacity 181

Top speed 70-80kmh ~50mph

Max acceleration 1.2 m/s

Voltage 600-750 volt

 

http://lrv.ttc.ca/Meet_Your_New_Ride.aspx

 

 

Toronto is buying 205 of these vehicles. they use the same voltage as our rail system.

 

 

 

Biker, streetcars would have been stuck in traffic and not moving just like every vehicle on Prospect and Euclid last weekend -- and we ONLY had the casino (3-4,000 people) and and Indians game (25,000)... Suppose there was even another, bigger event.  I know you love trams, but they need to be in tunnels in the center of major cities, like Cleveland, to maximize the surface space to allow for pedestrian movement.  And the thing is, as I and others have outlined, between the Det-Superior subway deck, the unused Shaker platforms under Tower City, and the Van Sweringen tunnel turn-outs under Huron Rd pointing toward Prospect/E. 9th, PHS, WE HAVE the facilities to extend subways surface service throught downtown... why would you want to throw that away?  It would allow downtown to grow in a healthier manner.

The 55 route might be another possibility for re-purposing the HL vehicles.

 

the Hl buses are being used so much I don't think they will last their design life (10-12 years) . I would think RTA would use them in their next BRT project the extension out to Euclid Square mall.

 

having doors on both sides of the bus affects capacity for Clifton it would be better to use standard 60 foot buses that the 26 uses with doors on the curb side only.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of the transit center.  I understand it is to be a massive multi-purpose facility.  I was more expediently pointing out that growth on the HL may affect the numbers for that center if the goal is shifted to light rail.  I recall that the HL would likely be rolling through there was or maybe that was just being surmised.  I was just posing the question if the center needs the HL traffic as part of its reason to be built. 

  I understand that this was federal money used for the HL.  It would also be a massive project to rip up another street in Cleveland to install a similar system which would take multiples of years.

  With the intent on the various politicians part to want to spend casino money in downtown for the public good, I don't know of a better way than with public transportation.. Perhaps it will be just more free trolley buses running around downtown.. 

  I would certainly be curious how expensive it would be to retrofit the HL for rail, if I were the county executive, and see where other savings would come from going forward.  That would have a more lasting impact for a high profile politician than several new trolley buses downtown.

  When I say rail I'm also including modern street cars not meaning a train necessarily just something on rails.

The crucial point is to use the hidden assets of Cleveland that are not being used: the tunnels underneath downtown that would alleviate the traffic underneath Euclid near the casino.

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

 

forget about the tunnels, you want more capacity on the healthline your need STREETCARS.... why because they can hold a lot more people

 

my personal project.

 

Health line BRT

Width 2.6 meters

Height 3.3 meters 130inches 10’ 10”

Length 18.54 meters 60 feet

Step height 14 inches

Seats 47

Max capacity 100

Weight 20 tonnes

Turning radius 13.4m

Fleet size 23

Length of route 6.8 miles

 

Potential replacement fleet

 

Bombardier flexity 2 freedom 5 module

Standard gauge

Width 2.4m -2.54

Length 30.8m 101

Height 11’10” 3.6m

Floor height 14-12.8in

Weight (empty) ?

Max weight 48 metric tonnes

Wheel diameter .65m

Seats 64-70

Seat + standees 132 crush capacity 181

Top speed 70-80kmh ~50mph

Max acceleration 1.2 m/s

Voltage 600-750 volt

 

http://lrv.ttc.ca/Meet_Your_New_Ride.aspx

 

 

Toronto is buying 205 of these vehicles. they use the same voltage as our rail system.

 

 

 

Biker, streetcars would have been stuck in traffic and not moving just like every vehicle on Prospect and Euclid last weekend -- and we ONLY had the casino (3-4,000 people) and and Indians game (25,000)... Suppose there was even another, bigger event.  I know you love trams, but they need to be in tunnels in the center of major cities, like Cleveland, to maximize the surface space to allow for pedestrian movement.  And the thing is, as I and others have outlined, between the Det-Superior subway deck, the unused Shaker platforms under Tower City, and the Van Sweringen tunnel turn-outs under Huron Rd pointing toward Prospect/E. 9th, PHS, WE HAVE the facilities to extend subways surface service throught downtown... why would you want to throw that away?  It would allow downtown to grow in a healthier manner.

 

then you close the street to thru traffic, and only allow people leaving the garages or going home to enter Euclid after games.  they used to do this on prospect all the time after cavs games and Indians games when they .  I am assuming that they did not do this.

 

clvlndr I have been a bike messenger in downtown cleveland before when both the browns and Indians were playing in the 90s when with 42,000 Indians fans and 72,000 browns fans and rush hour traffic. it was messy but never grid lock because drivers knew what to do.

 

do not your perceptions of on one event form an opinion that is not rooted in fact,  if people were driving in the bus lane they needed a ticket, how long are we going to continue to build for the dumbest drivers in the world, and not for the smartest one?  as the casino is open longer people will adjust they always do.  but building for the once a year out of town driver is a dead end, downtown Cleveland's future lies with the residential development, not with the once a year visitors from the hinterland,  We need to prioritize the needs of the people who are in downtown 365 days a year and not those only there 3-4 times a year, they  must adjust to the urban form that embraces walking, riding, and transit not the other way around. because if we remove the median on Euclid it will undo all the work done to make the street more walkable, turn back into a desolate urban freeway 99.9% of the time and 

 

Again watch this video.

 

This could be an interesting debate. In one corner, you have clvlndr who has long wanted a downtown subway and in the other corner you have biker16 who really wants a streetcar/tram.

 

But let me the one to give you and others a different challenge so we can figure out how to pay for our urban transportation dreams, whatever they may be.

 

As you may be aware there is a serious and worsening discontinuity occurring in this nation's transportation system. On one side you have a significant demographics/transportation market shift underway (including here in Ohio) where the highways-only/preserve-the-status-quo crowd will only acknowledge that gas tax revenues are flat and, in Northeast Ohio, population is not growing. Those who want the status-quo in transportation spending preserved are less interested in the reasons why gas tax revenues are flat nationwide and what important changes are occurring within Northeast Ohio's flat population. While driving is flat or falling, urban transit use is growing throughout the nation, and city-to-city travel on buses and trains are booming -- up nearly 30 percent in the 2000s. And today, about half of Northeast Ohio's population is a millennial/baby boomer. Think about that with regards to their housing location and transportation needs. The implications for our region are profound, as many millennials want walkable, dynamic settings where transportation options exist. And many baby boomers are "retiring in place" preferring to keep their existing homes or even wishing to downsize in the same neighborhoods where they raised their families.

 

But since fares are kept artificially low on transit, buses and trains, the more passengers they carry, the more money they lose. And at the same time, since a significant portion of capital funding for transit improvements and expansion comes from the gas tax (the revenues from which are flat or falling), there is less money available for transit agencies to change, improve and expand services. Unless there is a new source of revenue found to capture the the value from this momentous change, urban transit, intercity bus carriers and Amtrak will be unable to expand in response to ridership growth.

 

One opportunity is the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium. It is challenged to make the region more economically dynamic while simultaneously reducing vehicle-miles traveled. In the past, those would have been considered diametrically opposed missions. Not anymore. Now each is needed for the other to occur. In the absence of change to transportation spending practices at the state and federal levels, it may up to regions like ours to take care of our own transportation investment and nodal redevelopment needs, such as redesigning old suburban town centers with a mix of rent-to-own housing built around and above pedestrian-accessible shops and services and served by a matrix of interregional buses, trains, bike paths and local circulators.

 

So before we debate further what kind of rail and other transit services we want, let's first figure out how we're going to pay for it. How do we capture the value from rising transit/bike/pedestrian activity and increased development in urban and suburban nodes, while avoiding the reduction in tax revenues from flat/falling driving and the retirement of the baby boomers over the next 20 years?

This is just conjecture if casino tax money isn't factored in.  The reason I am in agreement with Clvlndr is it helps the greatest amount of people and improving access to UC. I think its best to start spending the casino money at the core of the city to handle future expansion since other big goverments are not going to bring much $$ to the table going forward. It makes sense to me that people that gamble at casino should see things improve for all around that casino.

  I see the casino tax dollars that should be used as bonus capital money for improving infrastructure in the various blocks surrounding tower city.  Perhaps that is a different thread but i thought that was where we were going with this.

In the absence of change to transportation spending practices at the state and federal levels, it may up to regions like ours to take care of our own transportation investment and nodal redevelopment needs, such as redesigning old suburban town centers with a mix of rent-to-own housing built around and above pedestrian-accessible shops and services and served by a matrix of interregional buses, trains, bike paths and local circulators.

 

So before we debate further what kind of rail and other transit services we want, let's first figure out how we're going to pay for it.

 

I think Federal and State aid is going to continue to decline.  Let's suppose that is the case.  The question of how we are going to pay for the maintenance and replacement of our infrastructure is going to be up for debate a lot more frequently in the coming years. 

 

We really need to make smart long-term investments because we're going to have to pay more of our local transportation costs with local dollars.  That means we have to start thinking not just about the initial capital cost, but maintenance, repair and replacement costs also need to be considered on every infrastructure project.  In some cases it will make more sense to spend more for lower long-term costs.  And in some cases it will make more sense to tear up or downgrade the road or bridge.

 

Hard work and hard choices ahead.

Hopefully casino tax revenue can be primarily used for improving transportation downtown. If capacity of public transportation is near full on HL then a more robust system is needed. Light rail is def the way to go there especially using tunnels. How would a project like that affect the warehouse district bus garage if that was being planned with HL buses in mind?  Where would the HL buses be re-used?

 

forget about the tunnels, you want more capacity on the healthline your need STREETCARS.... why because they can hold a lot more people

 

my personal project.

 

Health line BRT

Width 2.6 meters

Height 3.3 meters 130inches 10’ 10”

Length 18.54 meters 60 feet

Step height 14 inches

Seats 47

Max capacity 100

Weight 20 tonnes

Turning radius 13.4m

Fleet size 23

Length of route 6.8 miles

 

Potential replacement fleet

 

Bombardier flexity 2 freedom 5 module

Standard gauge

Width 2.4m -2.54

Length 30.8m 101

Height 11’10” 3.6m

Floor height 14-12.8in

Weight (empty) ?

Max weight 48 metric tonnes

Wheel diameter .65m

Seats 64-70

Seat + standees 132 crush capacity 181

Top speed 70-80kmh ~50mph

Max acceleration 1.2 m/s

Voltage 600-750 volt

 

http://lrv.ttc.ca/Meet_Your_New_Ride.aspx

 

 

Toronto is buying 205 of these vehicles. they use the same voltage as our rail system.

Boy this makes so much more sense and I would love to see these going down Euclid, but how much do you think the replacement would cost?

 

I am researching the numbers for it.

 

Toronto has a few special issues with its network:

 

they don't use standard gauge for rail.

they use on street boarding , where people have to enter traffic to board the Tram

they use 600vdc not the standard 750vdc. (cleveland uses 600vdc)

 

the train is also available in multiple lengths.  from 3 to 7 car configurations.

 

it is possible to link up to 4 trains together

 

 

 

the 3 module version would be a good urban circulator. 

 

 

 

 

KJP, I hear your concerns about financing… These proposals are really a fantasy thing with me, really.  Realistically, I don’t see it happening, -- not with the general anti-rail mentality of current transportation officials, both locally and in the State, generally (headed by John “3Cs Killer” Kasich).

 

That said, I always hold out the dream that a miracle could occur.  Rail transit expansion, being as expensive as it is, usually happens when communities are, in one way or another, feeling good about themselves and are in a solutions-oriented mode: like Cleveland was in the 1990s when Dual Hub was seriously proposed and the Waterfront Line was actually built (the latter being a minor miracle in my book).  Officials were so determined to build the WFL as a Bicentennial Legacy project, that they went to the State (headed then by ex-Cleveland Mayor Voinovich), and got money for an accelerated construction schedule… I know there are often as many financial, legal or governmental hurdles was one can imagine, but as the old saying goes: if there’s a will, there’s a way.  If officials want something bad enough and (for a change) are willing to work TOGETHER, they can make big projects like rail happen.

 

Right now, I’m pretty content with the rail transit system Cleveland has; it’s not perfect, but it works on many levels and has grown, exponentially, in popularity in recent years, esp as an off-peak solution as core areas like Downtown and Ohio City have developed as major entertainment and resource neighborhoods… Flats East Bank and University Circle Uptown, hold the promise of greater rail usage/popularity—both of these projects are TOD’s with strong  high-density growth potential. 

 

Downtown Cleveland currently is well served by the rail system as it exists.  Perhaps as a result of the single core rail hub station, most of the high-density residential and retail development are closely packed in near the Tower City hub thus negating, for the moment, a need for subway  or surface tram distribution… But as you constantly note quite well, mass transit is tool for planning future, smart growth.  Los Angeles, a town for the bulk of my 40-plus years, was deemed the transit-less, car capital of the world is being transformed before our eyes into a series of conveniently connected, walk-able, high-density TOD neighborhoods grouped around transit stations of its rapidly growing rail network.  Somewhere along the line the light bulb went off, the anti-transit mentaility disappeared, and the City of Angles now can't build rail lines fast enough.  I wish this bug would infect Cleveland and Ohio... Unfortunately, here in this rather conservative city and state, we are not patient or sophisticated enough to plan for future growth of this type.  We look at development of rail solely for transporting populations as they exist and not as they could exist in neighborhoods and communities built much better.  The aforementioned Amtrak 3C’s debacle certainly proved that.

 

 

 

 

^ Kasich fortunately won't be governor forever. As soon as 2014, just over 2 years from now, he could be ousted from power and a new governor could put rail back on the fast track, no pun intended.

 

This isn't really a political thread, and I don't want to make it one, but I don't think Ohio is truly all that conservative. We have more urban/metropolitan areas than any other midwestern state and the bulk of our population lies in metros. Part of the problem is gerrymandered districts that allow conservative Republicans to maintain a virtual lock on power in the state legislature, particularly in the Senate. Also, the Democratic party which is traditionally involved in governing most cities and addressing their issues is unusually weak at the state level of government here in Ohio and has been that way since the early 1990s when the term limits referendum was passed.

 

One thing I really wish would happen that I thought was going to become a more permanent fixture a few years ago is a coalition of the Big 6 or Big 8 cities' mayors. I remember around 2005 or so the mayors of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Akron and Dayton all met up and talked about the common issues their cities were experiencing while trying to put together a pro-cities agenda. Something like this becoming more permanent and non-partisan, allowing for independent mayors and the increasingly rare moderate, Voinovich-style of Republican mayor would be a very positive development for this state. If a new mayors' coalition formed around a platform of creating intra and inter-city rail, among other issues, drawing from the cities as their political base, they could shift the political dialogue and focus in this state.

^From your lips to the (Ohio voters') ears, NEOBuckeye... we can only hope!  Sadly, a center piece of Kasich's platform was elimination of 3C's, and we foolish voters voted him in anyway (I use "we" in the collective sense only, of course) and, of course, he instantly made good on his promise, killing thousands of potential jobs (in a recessionary economy) and defeating a chance to develop regional passenger rail in this somewhat backwards state ... That fact, alone, gives me pause.

Redirected from the "Subway Story" thread.....

 

^Yeah, I always thought inclusion of the Blue/Green Lines was a bad idea.  I really don't think the number of commuters from the Shaker/Hts/Beachwood area going to the Clinic or University Circle institution justified the tremendous cost -- and the out-of-the-way Dual Hub routing.  Again, I tend to think our transit ideas sometiems fail because we get distracted from the main purpose of the project to begin with: connecting downtown to Univ. Circle by rail, not connecting Shaker Heights to Univ Circle... It was Dual Hub, not Triple Hub.

 

Although in retrospect, bringing more high-density transit (like the Blue/Green lines) into University Circle makes a lot of sense today because of UC's growth and ever-present need for massive parking garages. Each of those huge decks costs 10s of millions of dollars. How many aren't needed if UC was more accessible by rail (or even BRT!) from more directions? My biggest problem with the HealthLine is that it was routed east of UC via Euclid to parallel an underperforming rail line to a dying city. If it was to be routed east of UC, it should have been sent up the hill to either Cleveland Heights (Severance Center?) or to Shaker Square. And its never too late to do that!

^ Very interesting. What would be your suggested route?

Redirected from the "Subway Story" thread.....

 

^Yeah, I always thought inclusion of the Blue/Green Lines was a bad idea.  I really don't think the number of commuters from the Shaker/Hts/Beachwood area going to the Clinic or University Circle institution justified the tremendous cost -- and the out-of-the-way Dual Hub routing.  Again, I tend to think our transit ideas sometiems fail because we get distracted from the main purpose of the project to begin with: connecting downtown to Univ. Circle by rail, not connecting Shaker Heights to Univ Circle... It was Dual Hub, not Triple Hub.

 

Although in retrospect, bringing more high-density transit (like the Blue/Green lines) into University Circle makes a lot of sense today because of UC's growth and ever-present need for massive parking garages. Each of those huge decks costs 10s of millions of dollars. How many aren't needed if UC was more accessible by rail (or even BRT!) from more directions? My biggest problem with the HealthLine is that it was routed east of UC via Euclid to parallel an underperforming rail line to a dying city. If it was to be routed east of UC, it should have been sent up the hill to either Cleveland Heights (Severance Center?) or to Shaker Square. And its never too late to do that!

 

Good point.  I sure wish that the old CTS had been able to connect a route up Cedar Hill/Euclid Hts to Coventry, and beyond.  Both Cedar-Fairmount and (especially Coventry, are great high-density walking districts that would have been naturals for rail.  Right now, I think the best we can hope for in the immediate future is the continued health of both the Red Line and the HL and that they work in tandem.  The UC Uptown project and it's continuing spin-off growth can really be a shot in the arm for the Red Line, esp if somehow we can see the huge Intesa TOD project built... Then, if somehow the Red Line can be extended to Euclid ... well, this last one is more pie-in-the-sky; Cleveland's track record doesn't suggest it'll see the light of day even though it makes so much sense (you can't bet RTA is going to push BRT to the hilt)... But a guy can always dream.

My biggest problem with the HealthLine is that it was routed east of UC via Euclid to parallel an underperforming rail line to a dying city. If it was to be routed east of UC, it should have been sent up the hill to either Cleveland Heights (Severance Center?) or to Shaker Square. And its never too late to do that!

 

A million times this.  What drives me kind of nuts about the HL is that it combines the worst of buses (low quality ride, low prestige, combustion engine) with the worst of rail (zero routing flexibility). Increasingly I feel like the core HL infrastructure should be used by branches that access more neighborhoods to increase the number of one stop rides to UC, midtown and downtown.  The HL's current penetration into residential neighborhoods is awful.

^ Very interesting. What would be your suggested route?

 

I'd follow the 1968 proposed Cleveland Heights Rapid Transit routing, with a slight variation. Even though "streetcar" service on the south side of Cedar Glen (the hill portion) and the median of Euclid Heights Boulevard was ended in the early 1950s, the tracks were kept in place until the mid-60s in the hopes of reactivating them as a Shaker Rapid-style branch of the Red Line. When no one was willing to pay the $24 million (yes, you read that right) cost of reactivating those tracks and extending them on a dedicated right of way (including cut-and-cover subway) to the Oakwood Golf Course, the plan was canned and the existing tracks removed.

 

So my routing for a Severance BRT would be use the former Cedar Glen Rapid ROW up the hill to have a traffic-free route here. While there is still the streetcar median remaining on Euclid Heights Blvd, I would not build BRT lanes on it. I think that would cause local opposition. Instead, I might put landscaped stations in the median and have them be sponsored by local community groups or garden clubs like the landscaped boxes in the median of Hilliard Boulevard in Westlake. Then I'd take it north up Coventry, with no dedicated lanes but signal prioritization, then east on Mayfield to Severance Center. When there are festivals in Coventry that close the street, I would detour via Derbyshire/Kenilworth/Mayfield.

Anticipating the question "Do you have any maps of the 1968 Cleveland Heights Rapid Transit extension".... Why yes I do!

 

 

 

:wtf:

:cry:

Can you do one of your maps of this idea? It's hard to make out. Thanks.

Not for a while. Here's a description of each segment:

 

+ CTS Rapid junction to Overlook (top of hill) via Cedar Glen -- side-of-road surface right of way;

+ Overlook to Coventry via Euclid Heights Blvd - open cut ROW;

+ Coventry to Hurst Road (just east of Coventry) via new Coventry Road -- side-of-road surface ROW;

+ Hurst to South Taylor (west edge of Severance Center) via cross-blocks -- cut-and-cover subway;

+ South Taylor to Staunton Rd (SW corner of Severance) via southern edge of Severance Center -- open cut or surface ROW;

+ Staunton to Andrews Rd (west edge of Oakwood Country Club) via cross-blocks -- cut-and-cover subway;

+ Oakwood terminal area at Warrensville Center Road -- surface alignment.

 

Here's the write-up from the July 1986 Dual Hub Revised Scoping Report which references numerous transportation, railroad and transit projects in and near the Dual Hub Corridor (downtown-University Circle) since the city was founded. It details the Cleveland Heights project, whose demise was a factor in the creation of a county-wide transit agency. Yet the rail extension never was the subject of a project development process again. Ironically, I converse regularly with Bill Vigrass (you'll see his name below) who is in his 80s and living in New Jersey these days, still picking up a transit consulting gig now and then...

 

In September 1968, Battelle completed its evaluation of the Cleveland Heights branch for the City of Cleveland Heights, and issued its report, "Feasibility of the Proposed Cleveland Heights Rapid Transit Branch." The study, under management of J. William Vigrass, found the rapid transit branch to be economically feasible. Its revenue -- at that time -- would have covered operating costs and made a significant contribution to the capital cost of rolling stock. "The non-recapturable public benefits are more than sufficient to justify public investment in permanent plant; namely track, right of way, stations, parking facilities, signalling, and power distribution facilities." However, the City of Cleveland Heights could not bear the one-third matching share for a UMTA grant (UMTA = Urban Mass Transit Administration, the forerunner of today's Federal Transit Administration, which was then a part of the Department of Housing & Urban Development). CTS (Cleveland Transit System) bonded indebtedness prevented it from participating in any capital costs. This frustrating circumstance underscored the need for a county-wide transit agency with taxing powers.

 

Of significance to the Dual Hub Corridor, the report states, "with only one downtown station, Cleveland Union Terminal, the CTS rapid has a severe handicap when compared to other cities' rapid transit and subway lines having multiple CBD (Central Business District) stations. One result is light-density traffic, especially in the off-peak periods. The volume of traffic on the CTS line is far less than that customarily considered a minimum for rail rapid transit. Yet, by prudently tailoring service and operating practices to volume, CTS has had a successful unsubsidized operation."

 

Furthermore, the study concluded that Cleveland Heights Branch ridership would be 70% higher if a downtown distribution alignment tapped the Cleveland State University area and the Erieview area. This conclusion was reached even without those two traffic generators being in the data base used by Battelle.

 

The alignment, shown on the accompanying map (see earlier posting), followed the abandoned streetcar right-of-way up Cedar Hill and in the median of Euclid Heights Boulevard to Coventry Road, then a new alignment approximately parallel to and south of Mayfield Road, across the south edge of the Severance Center property, and across Oakwood Country Club grounds to a terminal at Warrensville Center Road. No fewer than twelve alternative alignments were examined, including an onward extension to I-271. Penetration to the major north-south arterials of the Heights area was found essential to diverting motorists to transit.

 

Stations would be located at Surrey Place, Coventry, Lee Road, Taylor Road and Warrensville Center Road; parking at these stations would have accumulated to 4,600 spaces. Extension beyond Severance Center was necessary to obviate conflict with customer parking.

 

Capital cost was estimated at $24-million, including $3-million for rolling stock. The branch would carry 7,649 weekday riders (see note above on ridership impact if CSU and Erieview were served), including 675 diverted from buses, 311 diverted from Shaker Heights Rapid Transit, and 2,540 diverted from CTS rapid transit. Battelle also reported: (1) automated or mechanically-assisted fare collection; (2) one-man trains; (3) automated train operation; (4) high-performance rolling stock (i.e., capable of speeds up to 75 or 85 mph); and (5) a local fare within the City of Cleveland Heights.

 

Battelle issued a separate report for the City of Cleveland Heights on "Potential for Redevelopment of Selected Areas that May be Affected by the Establishment of a Rapid Transit System." It analyzed building conditions, aesthetic quality, 1967 land use, and areas needing attention. It highlighted joint-development opportunities at the Surrey Place station (called "Agora") and Coventry Road. Cleveland Playhouse was interested in the Surrey Road site. At Coventry, the street pattern would have been revised and an arcade of stores connecting to the rapid transit station was proposed.

high-performance rolling stock (i.e., capable of speeds up to 75 or 85 mph)

 

!

This could be an interesting debate. In one corner, you have clvlndr who has long wanted a downtown subway and in the other corner you have biker16 who really wants a streetcar/tram.

 

But let me the one to give you and others a different challenge so we can figure out how to pay for our urban transportation dreams, whatever they may be.

 

As you may be aware there is a serious and worsening discontinuity occurring in this nation's transportation system. On one side you have a significant demographics/transportation market shift underway (including here in Ohio) where the highways-only/preserve-the-status-quo crowd will only acknowledge that gas tax revenues are flat and, in Northeast Ohio, population is not growing. Those who want the status-quo in transportation spending preserved are less interested in the reasons why gas tax revenues are flat nationwide and what important changes are occurring within Northeast Ohio's flat population. While driving is flat or falling, urban transit use is growing throughout the nation, and city-to-city travel on buses and trains are booming -- up nearly 30 percent in the 2000s. And today, about half of Northeast Ohio's population is a millennial/baby boomer. Think about that with regards to their housing location and transportation needs. The implications for our region are profound, as many millennials want walkable, dynamic settings where transportation options exist. And many baby boomers are "retiring in place" preferring to keep their existing homes or even wishing to downsize in the same neighborhoods where they raised their families.

 

But since fares are kept artificially low on transit, buses and trains, the more passengers they carry, the more money they lose. And at the same time, since a significant portion of capital funding for transit improvements and expansion comes from the gas tax (the revenues from which are flat or falling), there is less money available for transit agencies to change, improve and expand services. Unless there is a new source of revenue found to capture the the value from this momentous change, urban transit, intercity bus carriers and Amtrak will be unable to expand in response to ridership growth.

 

One opportunity is the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium. It is challenged to make the region more economically dynamic while simultaneously reducing vehicle-miles traveled. In the past, those would have been considered diametrically opposed missions. Not anymore. Now each is needed for the other to occur. In the absence of change to transportation spending practices at the state and federal levels, it may up to regions like ours to take care of our own transportation investment and nodal redevelopment needs, such as redesigning old suburban town centers with a mix of rent-to-own housing built around and above pedestrian-accessible shops and services and served by a matrix of interregional buses, trains, bike paths and local circulators.

 

So before we debate further what kind of rail and other transit services we want, let's first figure out how we're going to pay for it. How do we capture the value from rising transit/bike/pedestrian activity and increased development in urban and suburban nodes, while avoiding the reduction in tax revenues from flat/falling driving and the retirement of the baby boomers over the next 20 years?

 

you bring up some very interesting points. 

 

I think we need to step back and look to the private sector for operational funding needed to make transit work in out area.

 

their are tools like TIF Tax increment financing that should be used to fund operation of new transit investment.

 

in corridors where we are looking to install fixed guideway operation AKA( streetcars or heavy rail) any type of premium transit service should be funded by multiple sources, the municipalities, Special improvement districts, along with Transit authorities should pay for premium services.

 

with TIF any additional tax revenue of the property with in an area surrounding the transit development would be used to fund the day to day operation of the service.

 

For cleveland Tram network I would lean heavily on the city, SIDs and business community to commit to pay for a chunk of the service only then would I involve a regional entity like RTA or even the port authority for local match for federal or state grants.  once this public/private structure is created it can operate with greater freedom than the RTA can, on wages, state laws etc. 

 

to attract more riders, I would create a free transit Zone in Downtown Cleveland and University Circle. where the trolleys.  and travel within the zone is free.    the formation of a basic circulation system that is free is the first step to greater transit use, because it creates pedestrians and every transit trip begins or ends as a pedestrian trip.

 

pedestrian friendly is the key to modal shift.

 

WE have areas like UC and Downtown where people want to be.  we have to make sure that growth encourages walkablity and and encourages people to leave their cars at home. having a free transit Zone in these areas means that people can feel comfortable leaving their cars at home because everything they will need will be easily accessible.  for the 20-30 thousand new residents to UC and DT, this means they can live without a car and or with only one car.  which is the key to increased long term transit usage.

 

pedestrian friendly, by default means unfriendly to cars. in UC in particular there is an opportunity to install 20 mph speed limits on side streets, opportunity to use extensive traffic calming, all of this creates a place welcoming of biking and walking and unwelcoming of cars.

 

For downtown and UC It begins with tossing out the minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial development and a formidable Tax on every single parking space in the area.  not the 8% tax right now but a fixed assessment based on ever parking space available.  non profits included  something along the lines of a $500 fee per space per year could raise  $13 million on the estimated 26,000 spaces in downtown cleveland.

 

To me the key is to offer a vision of non automotive based transportation,  so that people in areas without out walkablity and transit want it and want to be around it.  this happens in places like Chicago and San Francisco where suburbanites come into the city without their cars, and enjoy the walkable transit oriented communities.  A world where visitors to downtown park their cars at park and ride lots 15-50 miles away and our whisked into the urban core at 100 mph.  but you first must make the urban core walkable and an exceptionally desirable place to be, without a car.  the advantage for the city is that people that use public transportation stay longer and spend more money, than people in cars.

 

it is the urban fabric that make people want to live in the city.

 

 

^Unfortunately, I don't think your proposed funding mechanisms have much potential in Cleveland for the near/midterm future.  People bring up TIFs here, but they only work if the improvement will actually increase the taxable value of proximate properties, and it's not at all clear transit access does this in Cleveland at this point. If anyone knows of any hedonic studies that actually show the effect of transit proximity on market value in Cleveland, I'm happy to be corrected. I can imagine the BIDs chipping in for small time projects like free trolley service, but not any seriously expensive transit infrastructure.  Similarly, I'm not sure special assessments would be at all politically viable.  I'm open minded though; I'd be curious to see even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what kind of extra property taxes per year on the properties in an assessment area it would take to fund a given proposal.  I don't even have an order of magnitude in my head.

 

I completely agree with you about having a downtown free transit zone, at least on the HL.  I think enforcement would make this tricky on other lines.

^Unfortunately, I don't think your proposed funding mechanisms have much potential in Cleveland for the near/midterm future.  People bring up TIFs here, but they only work if the improvement will actually increase the taxable value of proximate properties, and it's not at all clear transit access does this in Cleveland at this point. If anyone knows of any hedonic studies that actually show the effect of transit proximity on market value in Cleveland, I'm happy to be corrected. I can imagine the BIDs chipping in for small time projects like free trolley service, but not any seriously expensive transit infrastructure.  Similarly, I'm not sure special assessments would be at all politically viable.  I'm open minded though; I'd be curious to see even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what kind of extra property taxes per year on the properties in an assessment area it would take to fund a given proposal.  I don't even have an order of magnitude in my head.

 

I completely agree with you about having a downtown free transit zone, at least on the HL.  I think enforcement would make this tricky on other lines.

 

I think once we have a working streetcar you will have the community begging for it expansion to their neighborhood.

 

TIF is how Portland helps pay for it's streetcar system, the operating costs are not as high as people think they, but the capital costs are 10-20 million per track mile.

 

if the health line can attract 4.2 billion dollars in new investment how much could streetcar attract?

 

most importantly we cannot expect RTA to run this system the formation of a consortium of public and private may be needed to keep costs down. 

 

 

^The health line didn't attract $4.2B.  As has been discussed in the HL thread, $4.2B is how much was built along its route; for a vast majority of that, causal inferences are specious, IMHO.

 

I don't mean to be too quick to dismiss TIF; it's possible that it could generate some money, but I don't we can look to Portland as financing model.  The market there is just so, so different, with high ridership by people willing to pay a [significant] premium to live near transit options and lots of demand for new development.  And before the streetcar, there was ample evidence from decades of MAX to suggest some serious property value benefits. I just don't see any of those factors in Cleveland, at least not in nearly the same magnitude.

 

I'm definitely not anti-streetcar.  I agree with some of your thoughts, especially as they emphasize the relatively affordability of streetcar development vis a vis light/heavy rail, especially grade separated.  I just think Cincinnati offers more realistic expectations for funding, and it's 93% governmental, from what I can gather: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/streetcar_cost.cfm

Phased Streetcar concept.

 

based upon the Portland model It is no longer necessary to have connection to the existing rail network, even though Portland has connection from the Tram network to the light rail network the trams are too slow and hold up traffic, for 90% of repair can be handled in the Car barn, and for the 10% that cannot it can be shipped to the main facility for repair.

 

Starter system.

 

Begins and ends at tower City feeds people from public square to the warehouse district, MMCC, 9/12 district, CSU, playhouse square, gateway district and east 4th.

 

 

Market Square expansion

 

The tram would beginning at tower City connecting with the RTA rail network around the edge of the Warehouse district move across the Detroit Superior bridge,  head south on west 25th then east on Lorain and west on West 24th street where parking lots for the west side market present redevelopment opportunities. then head west onto bridge ave before heading north on west 25th, back to Detroit, over the bridge, right hand turn onto West Huron, passing by the phase II casino.

 

near East expansion 

 

goal to distribute passengers from the CDB to TriC, also to distribute residents of the near by housing authorities into the CBD.

 

this would begin at tower city center, take new Eastbound track in Prospect Ave, right turn at East 21st street left onto Carnegie, right onto East 22nd street southbound until community college BLVD heading  east bound, right unto east 30th street right unto woodland ave  right unto 22nd street left unto prospect ave ending at tower city.

 

Gordon square loop

 

 

Would utilize new shaker Rapid rolling stock to connect the east side directly to TRI-c, CSU, Playhouse Square and East 9th street.

 

route exits the trench at East 34th street, connects with Broadway ave, makes a right at east 30th street, left turn onto, woodland ave connects with existing near east route into tower city

 

Reverse loop/ outer loop.

 

to improve service to the civic district and residential development around CSU, this would make a Counter clockwise loop. trough downtown cleveland

 

Shaker Square to University Circle Blue/green connection to UC

 

 

 

as the name states this would connect shaker Square with UC. peak weekday would provide direct service from blue and green line to UC and loop operation at all other times.

 

would utilize Road ROWs, begins in a loop around shaker Square  exits the Square on North Moreland blvd, for most of route platforms are located in the median, continues east on Fairhill rd, follows Coventry rd to Fairmount blvd, to cedar Rd stops at university cedar rail station, continues to MLK Blvd, make left turn onto Euclid ave westbound (enters Euclid corridor) continues on Euclid until East 93rd Street  loops around on East 93rd Street back unto Euclid ave eastbound, right turn on Cornell Rd, left turn on Circle dr, left turn on Mayfield west , left turn onto Euclid ave, left turn onto,  sterns Rd, on to cedar Rd, follows west bound route back to Shaker Square

 

 

for the tleath line I think the changes are self explanatory

 

 

 

 

lakefront loop.

 

 

 

complete network

 

Damn dude, and I thought I needed a hobby!

 

Actually, this is my hobby. I just turned it into a vocation. :)

Actually, this is my hobby. I just turned it into a vocation. :)