More on Cleveland SkyLift. So this is the dude from LeanDog, very cool. Love this forward thinking.

Software entrepreneur has his eye on the sky with plans for lakefront skylift

KARIN CONNELLY | FRIDAY, AUGUST 09, 2013

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/skylift080913.aspx

 

this is ridiculous and indirect competition with RTA.  We no longer have the river taxi, make this an experience that takes people from one side to the other side of the flats.   

That is probably the best start. Let it grow after that. I doubt they can build it all at once.

Cable cars are a novelty and fun in the right urban places (like to NYC's Roosevelt Island), but Stahl proposes this (and RTA buys into it) as a serious transit facility, which seems a bit absurd.  At a max speed of 35 MPH and limited capacity, such transit thinking is a bad idea.  Now as a fun, amusement-ride type means of getting back 'n forth across the Flats or to a remote place like Whiskey Island, I can see it.  But SkyLift as a "transit line" stretching from Edgewater Park, to Burke, to Muni Lot and the Phase II casino area just doesn't make sense ... and could potential hamper lake and riverfront development if placed improperly.  And I agree with MTS, much of this route duplicates the Waterfront Line anyway (so why is Joe Calabrese  backing it???). 

 

I think Calabrese needs to focus on improving and expanding RTA, and perhaps finding wealthy private stakeholders, like a Jon Stahl or a Dan Gilbert (see Detroit's Woodward Ave LRT plan) as sources of public-private funding for such expansion...

 

P.S. With Phase II of FEB on the way, planners should think about a serious Water Taxi with routes around the river and lakefront connecting both Banks of the Flats with Edgewater, North Coast harbor, Whisky Is, etc. ... a la Baltimore, Chicago and others.  To me this is the more sensible, cheaper alternative to SkyLift and just as, if not more, fun.

Imagining a Dream Rapid for Cleveland

24 June 2013  No Comment

 

By Christoper Lohr

 

In March, The Atlantic Cities featured a map by Baltimore resident Chris Nelson that showed every Subway Restaurant as an actual subway stop arrayed nicely into a transit network that extended throughout greater Baltimore. Skip ahead to a few days ago and Business Insider wrote an article on the NYC Subway system plan from the 1970′s that never ended up being built.

 

 

http://rustwire.com/2013/06/24/imagining-a-dream-rapid-for-cleveland/

article about austin, tx plans to use a gondola for public transportation...  it includes build cost comparisons between subway, light rail and gondolas...

 

The cost of installing a gondola system also makes sense when compared to other transit systems, McDaniel says. He points to the numbers. Running subway lines under a city can cost about $400 million per mile. Light rails systems run about $36 million per mile. But the aerial ropeways required to run gondolas cost just $3 million to $12 million to install per mile. In the end, McDaniel says the entire 35-mile system would only cost the city of Austin around $550 million.

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/new-public-transport-idea-austin-texas-has-high-hopes

Vibrant NEO ‏@VibrantNEO 11m

Would you rather invest in parks or transit?

 

http://imaginemyneo.crowdgauge.org/client/play/

More on Cleveland SkyLift. So this is the dude from LeanDog, very cool. Love this forward thinking.

Software entrepreneur has his eye on the sky with plans for lakefront skylift

KARIN CONNELLY | FRIDAY, AUGUST 09, 2013

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/skylift080913.aspx

 

This is a nice piece of thinking outside the "limits" comparable to the Opportunity Corridor. 

More on Cleveland SkyLift. So this is the dude from LeanDog, very cool. Love this forward thinking.

Software entrepreneur has his eye on the sky with plans for lakefront skylift

KARIN CONNELLY | FRIDAY, AUGUST 09, 2013

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/skylift080913.aspx

 

this is ridiculous and indirect competition with RTA.  We no longer have the river taxi, make this an experience that takes people from one side to the other side of the flats.   

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it you that objected to the Opportunity Corridor because it would compete with the Red Line?

 

If so....why should RTA be immune from competition?

Note that we have a Skylift thread.

Here is what I would do for an "Immediate Needs" transit expansion:

 

Note that Cleveland's CTS Rapid (current Red Line) reached its peak ridership in 1960 with 18.3 million riders. The Red Line carried 6.2 million riders last year (nearly double what it carried in 2010 at low tide), most of this ridership is on the West Side. The Shaker Rapid's high point was in 1948 when it carried 7.4 million riders. Today, ridership on the Blue/Green lines is just 2.7 million. By contrast the HealthLine carries 4.6 million riders. Justification for the Shaker Rapid (especially the Green Line) is evaporating as fewer people commute or shop downtown. The Blue Line extension study revealed changing travel patterns with more trips destined to University Circle than to downtown from that part of town.

 

Therefore, the immediate needs are to address shortcomings of the rail system which needs to emphasize improved access to University Circle and provide stronger ridership anchors at the outer ends of the Red Line-East, Blue Line and Green Line.....

 

Re-equip rail fleet (currently 108 cars) with standardized 75-car high-low floor LRT equipment at $3.5 million per car -- CAPITAL $263 million

Shaker-UC LRT Connector -- 1.7 miles -- CAPITAL $112 million (RE: inflation-adjusted 1995 GCRTA cost projection of $73 million) -- OPERATING $3.7 million/yr. (assumes restructuring Blue Line as Windermere-Warrensville route);

Beachwood Place-Green Line extension -- 2.4 miles -- CAPITAL $116 million (RE: Blue Line Ext-Harvard) -- OPERATING $5.25 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak);

Collinwood Red Line extension -- 6.5 miles -- CAPITAL $335 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $7 million/yr. (assumes 15 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak);

Blue Line Extension to new Warrensville terminal -- 0.3 miles -- CAPITAL $64 million (RE: GCRTA) -- OPERATING negligible (assumes no change in frequency);

 

New local capital financing needed $527 million, proposed to be covered by a 20-year, 2.5% bond issue which requires about $36 million/yr to retire. This bond issue could be funded by two sources:

+ Cuyahoga County sin tax at $25 million per year.

+ RTA's current ridership expansion-based capital budget is $11.6 million per year.

 

There are new annual operating costs incurred by these rail projects, and are estimated at $16 million per year. Subtract about $6 million saved from discontinued parallel bus routes and segments.

 

The net $10 million increase in operating costs is not sourced. Potential sources could include economic growth in Cuyahoga County, resulting in new sales tax revenues to RTA. Tax Increment Financing & Transportation Improvement Districts at Warrensville, Beachwood Place, University Circle and elsewhere could provide additional millions per year. Leasing parking in Cleveland could generate about $90+ million up front and several million per year (based on Cincinnati's experience). Advertising, sponsorships and other revenues could provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

 

This changes dramatically if federal funds are sought to pay half of the capital costs of the Shaker-UC Connector and the Green Line extension to Beachwood Place. Thus the local capital financing needed is $413 million. If covered by by a 20-year, 2.5% bond issue would require about $27 million/yr to retire. Nearly all of that could be funded by the Cuyahoga County sin tax. That would leave RTA to fund the added operating cost, which it could afford to do by shifting part of its capital budget to operating.

 

The problem is, seeking federal funds slows down the process dramatically, will cause costs to rise and do so without the guarantee that a rail alternative would be recommended. GCRTA is seeking federal funds for the Blue Line extension and would have to seek them for re-equipping and standardizing the rail fleet due to the cost involved. There are federal rail modernization funds available specifically for these purposes. And the Collinwood extension would have to tap federal New Start funds, if it is a recommended alternative. However the Green Line extension to Beachwood Place and the Shaker-UC Connector are proposed to be locally financed because, in my mind, they are so important to the future survival of the Shaker lines, that we should seek them ASAP.

 

Overview of Immediate Needs (IMHO)....

 

Red Line extension to North Collinwood....

 

Green Line extension to Beachwood Place....

 

Shaker-UC Connector....

Here is what I would do for an "Immediate Needs" transit expansion:

 

Note that Cleveland's CTS Rapid (current Red Line) reached its peak ridership in 1960 with 18.3 million riders. The Red Line carried 6.2 million riders last year (nearly double what it carried in 2010 at low tide), most of this ridership is on the West Side. The Shaker Rapid's high point was in 1948 when it carried 7.4 million riders. Today, ridership on the Blue/Green lines is just 2.7 million. By contrast the HealthLine carries 4.6 million riders. Justification for the Shaker Rapid (especially the Green Line) is evaporating as fewer people commute or shop downtown. The Blue Line extension study revealed changing travel patterns with more trips destined to University Circle than to downtown from that part of town.

 

Therefore, the immediate needs are to address shortcomings of the rail system which needs to emphasize improved access to University Circle and provide stronger ridership anchors at the outer ends of the Red Line-East, Blue Line and Green Line.....

 

Re-equip rail fleet (currently 108 cars) with standardized 75-car high-low floor LRT equipment at $3.5 million per car -- CAPITAL $263 million

Shaker-UC LRT Connector -- 1.7 miles -- CAPITAL $112 million (RE: inflation-adjusted 1995 GCRTA cost projection of $73 million) -- OPERATING $3.7 million/yr. (assumes restructuring Blue Line as Windermere-Warrensville route);

Beachwood Place-Green Line extension -- 2.4 miles -- CAPITAL $116 million (RE: Blue Line Ext-Harvard) -- OPERATING $5.25 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak);

Collinwood Red Line extension -- 6.5 miles -- CAPITAL $335 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $7 million/yr. (assumes 15 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak);

Blue Line Extension to new Warrensville terminal -- 0.3 miles -- CAPITAL $64 million (RE: GCRTA) -- OPERATING negligible (assumes no change in frequency);

 

New local capital financing needed $527 million, proposed to be covered by a 20-year, 2.5% bond issue which requires about $36 million/yr to retire. This bond issue could be funded by two sources:

+ Cuyahoga County sin tax at $25 million per year.

+ RTA's current ridership expansion-based capital budget is $11.6 million per year.

 

There are new annual operating costs incurred by these rail projects, and are estimated at $16 million per year. Subtract about $6 million saved from discontinued parallel bus routes and segments.

 

The net $10 million increase in operating costs is not sourced. Potential sources could include economic growth in Cuyahoga County, resulting in new sales tax revenues to RTA. Tax Increment Financing & Transportation Improvement Districts at Warrensville, Beachwood Place, University Circle and elsewhere could provide additional millions per year. Leasing parking in Cleveland could generate about $90+ million up front and several million per year (based on Cincinnati's experience). Advertising, sponsorships and other revenues could provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

 

This changes dramatically if federal funds are sought to pay half of the capital costs of the Shaker-UC Connector and the Green Line extension to Beachwood Place. Thus the local capital financing needed is $413 million. If covered by by a 20-year, 2.5% bond issue would require about $27 million/yr to retire. Nearly all of that could be funded by the Cuyahoga County sin tax. That would leave RTA to fund the added operating cost, which it could afford to do by shifting part of its capital budget to operating.

 

The problem is, seeking federal funds slows down the process dramatically, will cause costs to rise and do so without the guarantee that a rail alternative would be recommended. GCRTA is seeking federal funds for the Blue Line extension and would have to seek them for re-equipping and standardizing the rail fleet due to the cost involved. There are federal rail modernization funds available specifically for these purposes. And the Collinwood extension would have to tap federal New Start funds, if it is a recommended alternative. However the Green Line extension to Beachwood Place and the Shaker-UC Connector are proposed to be locally financed because, in my mind, they are so important to the future survival of the Shaker lines, that we should seek them ASAP.

 

Overview of Immediate Needs (IMHO)....

 

Red Line extension to North Collinwood....

 

Green Line extension to Beachwood Place....

 

Shaker-UC Connector....

I've always thought the routes that the Blue and green route go were pointless simply because the follow the same route as one another besides a couple of stops. I feel like having one of the two go to busier areas (I vote beachwood or UC)  would do wonders for it as long as the other ends downtown. I say a beachwood route serves as best simply because the street traffic there is a nightmare and because of that the rail would be used a lot more.

 

Hmmm I guess I have a bit of a problem with expanding infrastructure to Beachwood Mall ("BM").  50-100 years from now will we still be shopping at BM?  If not, what purpose will the expansion have served?

 

BM has fantastic shopping but if anything has proven true it's that retail moves...quickly.  Furthermore, it chases the market and only the market.  The eastern suburbs have had a good run for the past 50 years (I grew up there) but how does the next 50 look?  Do recent trends show that the future might not be as prosperous?

Hmmm I guess I have a bit of a problem with expanding infrastructure to Beachwood Mall ("BM").  50-100 years from now will we still be shopping at BM?  If not, what purpose will the expansion have served?

 

BM has fantastic shopping but if anything has proven true it's that retail moves...quickly.  Furthermore, it chases the market and only the market.  The eastern suburbs have had a good run for the past 50 years (I grew up there) but how does the next 50 look?  Do recent trends show that the future might not be as prosperous?

 

Well I'm not a big fan of BM, it kind of stinks actually.  But I suspect the grounds are still fertile. 

Hmmm I guess I have a bit of a problem with expanding infrastructure to Beachwood Mall ("BM").  50-100 years from now will we still be shopping at BM?  If not, what purpose will the expansion have served?

 

BM has fantastic shopping but if anything has proven true it's that retail moves...quickly.  Furthermore, it chases the market and only the market.  The eastern suburbs have had a good run for the past 50 years (I grew up there) but how does the next 50 look?  Do recent trends show that the future might not be as prosperous?

 

It not about the mall it about the

density of the residential around the mall,

its about the access to Downtown from Beachwood by car vs this potential transit connection. 

It is about the Density of jobs entry level jobs and the access to those jobs by inner city residents.

 

It is about the logical extension of this line further north tomorrow the Golden Gate area down I 271 where the population density is even greater than around Beachwood place and the presence of hillcrest hospital as a major employer.

 

   

 

Going to BM is about attracting riders to transit for more trips than going to work, and extension to golden gate would induce mere trip between Beachwood and Mayfield Heights, which benefits both communities and the region.

 

Good answer but it relies on some assumptions that I think are faulty.

 

As far as the density of residential around the mall - there's not much, certainly not enough to warrant a rail expansion.  Although there are some apartment complexes, a good portion of those are for jewish retirees - not exactly the group that has much use for the rapid.  (ie: my girlfriend's grandmother who lives on Van Aken and makes a point to tell me she hasn't rode the RTA since the 1970s).

To the west of Richmond you have typical suburban housing...you know, the kind that doesn't support rail expansion.  The cluster housing to the east is upper income and totally auto-oriented, only the adjacent units would be within the magical 5 minute walking radius.

If there is residential density, I guess I'm just missing where it's hiding.

 

As for downtown access from Beachwood via rail: I would love to see it.  I would love to see way more people riding public transit.  But you are assuming that east side suburbanites would be more apt to ride with this extension.  Something tells me that the people who consciously chose to live in Beachwood and the adjacent suburbs and decidedly picked an auto-oriented lifestyle are not going to suddenly see the light.  In addition, the Green line terminus is not far enough away that it would deter people from using it to commute downtown right now.

 

As for the density of entry level jobs please see my previous comment.  The existence of entry level retail jobs at BM assume that auto oriented retail, like the kind provided at BM, will be in in the exact same spot long enough for rail expansion to be worth it.  I think someone could have made the same argument for expanding service to Randall Mall 20 years ago...and well...we know how that turned out.  My point is simple, retail and the jobs that come with it has a nasty habit of picking up and moving 1 mile down the road every decade to chase the newest subdivision in a shrinking metro area.

 

As for the logical extension up 271: you are assuming this is something we want to see happen?  What around Golden Gate is worth the massive public infrastructure improvement?  I see big box stores, tract housing, and so-so mid rises populated by people who chose to leave the city.  Is this stuff we want our tax dollars going to improve?

 

^^I agree with biker 16, it's the residential AND commercial density around BM that makes it rail transit worthy.  And it's not just BM; you have Legacy Village and La Place mall as well.  I'm not sure, though, that extending the Green Line to I-271 then right-turning due north wouldn't be a faster, cheaper way to enter the BM/La Place area via the back door, as opposed to running a slower trolley down the middle of crowded Richmond Rd.

... also, because of the traffic and surface parking sprawl, I would consider raising the Green Line up from the I-271 median onto an elevated trestle over the cars with a few station stops.  This is a new-ish area with few architectural landmarks, so I don't think a people would have much objection to a modern, single concrete pillar elevated rail line.  Although it would be more expensive than running on the surface, it would be a lot cheaper than a subway but with just the same speed and efficiency.

 

 

^^I agree with biker 16, it's the residential AND commercial density around BM that makes it rail transit worthy.  And it's not just BM; you have Legacy Village and La Place mall as well.  I'm not sure, though, that extending the Green Line to I-271 then right-turning due north wouldn't be a faster, cheaper way to enter the BM/La Place area via the back door, as opposed to running a slower trolley down the middle of crowded Richmond Rd.

 

La Place is on the verge of foreclosure and is without an anchor tenant...while BM plans to expand.  Does the future of La Place look good to you? 

 

Legacy just lost the Apple Store to Eaton and now has tenants like the store that is dedicated entirely to selling cheap cell phone cases.  Both of these signal a more disturbing departure from the Legacy of yesteryear.

 

Meanwhile, a massive retail expansion project is almost certainly going to happen in Orange...1 mile away.  All this expansion of retail you would think the residential population must be booming, right?  No, it's not...if the population remains the same - new retail kills old retail somewhere.  The expansion of Eaton, Harvard Park and the new Orange project are ringing the death bells for your once default malls.

 

I wouldn't take a long term gamble on the health of aging malls on the east side.

 

Once again, why would we want to spend millions of dollars of rail infrastructure through a "new-ish area with few architectural landmarks" wrought with "traffic and surface parking sprawl"?

Good answer but it relies on some assumptions that I think are faulty.

 

As far as the density of residential around the mall - there's not much, certainly not enough to warrant a rail expansion.  Although there are some apartment complexes, a good portion of those are for jewish retirees - not exactly the group that has much use for the rapid.  (ie: my girlfriend's grandmother who lives on Van Aken and makes a point to tell me she hasn't rode the RTA since the 1970s).

To the west of Richmond you have typical suburban housing...you know, the kind that doesn't support rail expansion.  The cluster housing to the east is upper income and totally auto-oriented, only the adjacent units would be within the magical 5 minute walking radius.

If there is residential density, I guess I'm just missing where it's hiding.

 

As for downtown access from Beachwood via rail: I would love to see it.  I would love to see way more people riding public transit.  But you are assuming that east side suburbanites would be more apt to ride with this extension.  Something tells me that the people who consciously chose to live in Beachwood and the adjacent suburbs and decidedly picked a auto-oriented lifestyle are not going to suddenly see the light.  In addition, the Green line terminus is not far enough away that it would deter people from using it to commute downtown right now.

 

As for the density of entry level jobs please see my previous comment.  The existence of entry level retail jobs at BM assume that auto oriented retail, like the kind provided at BM, will be in in the exact same spot long enough for rail expansion to be worth it.  I think someone could have made the same argument for expanding service to Randall Mall 20 years ago...and well...we know how that turned out.  My point is simple, retail and the jobs that come with it has a nasty habit of picking up and moving 1 mile down the road every decade to chase the newest subdivision in a shrinking metro area.

 

As for the logical extension up 271: you are assuming this is something we want to see happen?  What around Golden Gate is worth the massive public infrastructure improvement?  I see big box stores, tract housing, and so-so mid rises populated by people who chose to leave the city.  Is this stuff we want our tax dollars going to improve?

 

 

You make a lot of sense... This is all just fun speculation.  Really though, you're right, the current Green Line terminus is close enough, and accessible enough (from the BM area and Eastern burbs) that extending it directly to BM may not really increase inbound ridership into downtown... You would get some increase in BM-area workers from the city.  But you probably wouldn't gain much, at all, casual mall-goers.  The problem?  The Shaker Lines, as they were built, were designed to collect Shaker residents and speed them over the low-density/high speed railroad ROW west of Shaker Square.  Asking riders to use the Green Line going the opposite direction to the mall is counterintuitive to many upper middle class types who could get there much quicker and easier in their cars.  BART or the DC Metro are different because they are totally grade separated, high speed lines that zip above and under heavy suburban traffic... Now, if the Green Line had a grade separated route with 2 or 3 stops in between Shaker Square and BM, it would be a different story... but with the current line riding at street level, stopping for traffic lights and at 20 or so stops... no.

 

Good answer but it relies on some assumptions that I think are faulty.

 

As far as the density of residential around the mall - there's not much, certainly not enough to warrant a rail expansion.  Although there are some apartment complexes, a good portion of those are for jewish retirees - not exactly the group that has much use for the rapid.  (ie: my girlfriend's grandmother who lives on Van Aken and makes a point to tell me she hasn't rode the RTA since the 1970s).

To the west of Richmond you have typical suburban housing...you know, the kind that doesn't support rail expansion.  The cluster housing to the east is upper income and totally auto-oriented, only the adjacent units would be within the magical 5 minute walking radius.

If there is residential density, I guess I'm just missing where it's hiding.

 

As for downtown access from Beachwood via rail: I would love to see it.  I would love to see way more people riding public transit.  But you are assuming that east side suburbanites would be more apt to ride with this extension.  Something tells me that the people who consciously chose to live in Beachwood and the adjacent suburbs and decidedly picked a auto-oriented lifestyle are not going to suddenly see the light.  In addition, the Green line terminus is not far enough away that it would deter people from using it to commute downtown right now.

 

As for the density of entry level jobs please see my previous comment.  The existence of entry level retail jobs at BM assume that auto oriented retail, like the kind provided at BM, will be in in the exact same spot long enough for rail expansion to be worth it.  I think someone could have made the same argument for expanding service to Randall Mall 20 years ago...and well...we know how that turned out.  My point is simple, retail and the jobs that come with it has a nasty habit of picking up and moving 1 mile down the road every decade to chase the newest subdivision in a shrinking metro area.

 

As for the logical extension up 271: you are assuming this is something we want to see happen?  What around Golden Gate is worth the massive public infrastructure improvement?  I see big box stores, tract housing, and so-so mid rises populated by people who chose to leave the city.  Is this stuff we want our tax dollars going to improve?

 

 

You make a lot of sense... This is all just fun speculation.  Really though, you're right, the current Green Line terminus is close enough, and accessible enough (from the BM area and Eastern burbs) that extending it directly to BM may not really increase inbound ridership into downtown... You would get some increase in BM-area workers from the city.  But you probably wouldn't gain much, at all, casual mall-goers.  The problem?  The Shaker Lines, as they were built, were designed to collect Shaker residents and speed them over the low-density/high speed railroad ROW west of Shaker Square.  Asking riders to use the Green Line going the opposite direction to the mall is counterintuitive to many upper middle class types who could get there much quicker and easier in their cars.  BART or the DC Metro are different because they are totally grade separated, high speed lines that zip above and under heavy suburban traffic... Now, if the Green Line had a grade separated route with 2 or 3 stops in between Shaker Square and BM, it would be a different story... but with the current line riding at street level, stopping for traffic lights and at 20 or so stops... no.

 

Good points - I agree.  If I ever come across harsh - I don't mean to attack.  I am enjoying the speculation as well. 

Not at all... I didn't see anything you said as harsh...

Beachwood Place is a higher end mall primarily focusing on female customers and/or big ticket items.

 

People in this area (with options) don’t see transit as a good way to go shopping, because it means carrying their bags. 

 

This is especially true for more affluent shoppers, doubly true for affluent female shoppers, and triply true for affluent female shoppers when the transit route goes through low income areas.

 

Take a look at a map and note what is between Beachwood Place and downtown. 

 

Try to use transit to try to attract lower income shoppers to Beachwood Place and they just might go Beavercreek on you.

 

People in this area dont see transit as a good way to go shopping, because it means carrying their bags. 

 

Walking 10 miles back home is even more difficult.

People in this area dont see transit as a good way to go shopping, because it means carrying their bags. 

 

Walking 10 miles back home is even more difficult.

The people shopping at Beachwood Mall aren't limited to walking vs. transit.

People in this area don’t see transit as a good way to go shopping, because it means carrying their bags. 

 

Walking 10 miles back home is even more difficult.

The people shopping at Beachwood Mall aren't limited to walking vs. transit.

 

I clarified a bit.

The people shopping at Beachwood Mall aren't limited to walking vs. transit.

 

That wasn't my point. I was giving E Rocc a hard time because his assumption was that persons wanting to shop at a mall could always drive there if there wasn't transit. My point is that if there is no transit, then walking is the only other option for a large percentage of Northeast Ohioans. Some households have no cars. Potentially many more have only car per household that's shared among multiple working-age persons and shoppers. How do employees get to Beachwood Place? How do many shoppers? And how do we redesign the land use around the mall to include transit-supportive uses that produce a significant tax base for Beachwood.

How do employees get to Beachwood Place?

They take the 32 bus?  Or the 94?  I consider zero-transfer rides to suburbia are a luxury.

 

I am more interested in expanding rail in areas that have the need and history of accepting and embracing transit and density, and letting development build up around them in places that are ripe for it.  Not to areas whose raison d'etre is pretty much to escape transit and density.

OK, again, let me restate it. E Rocc stated that shoppers don't use transit because he couldn't see them lugging their bags on the bus. My tongue-in-cheek response is that many people would have to walk a long way home without transit. His assumption was that if people wanted to go shopping, they could always drive. My point is that's not an option for many Northeast Ohioans. So for them it's either "transit" or "walk." Now are we following?

 

And I then noted that probably many people take transit (bus only right now) to Beachwood Place to work there. There is also a lot of high-density residential around that area. The combination of those land uses is one of the reasons why the area around Beachwood Place showed up as an area with high propensity to transit.

 

Absolutely, the 32 and the 94 are good ways for some people to get there. But my point is that the Green Line has no ridership anchor except for about four hours each day when people are using the line for park-n-ride rides to downtown. That's a very limited purpose and need for the Green Line. It needs a stronger anchor at the east end of the line to generate ridership throughout the day -- mostly things that support a low-mileage lifestyle. If we don't have high-density land uses around high-capacity transit that support low-mileage lifestyles throughout the day, then we get the kind of disappointing ridership on our rail system that we've seen. This is fundamental to transit. In many places, our rail system is like a fish out of water.

 

Yet only two miles away from the end of the Green Line is just such a mixed-use, high-density place -- Beachwood Place.

 

OK, again, let me restate it. E Rocc stated that shoppers don't use transit because he couldn't see them lugging their bags on the bus. My tongue-in-cheek response is that many people would have to walk a long way home without transit. His assumption was that if people wanted to go shopping, they could always drive. My point is that's not an option for many Northeast Ohioans. So for them it's either "transit" or "walk." Now are we following?

 

Actually. many people in my neighborhood growing up (including mom and sometimes myself) would take the Dunham Road bus to Southgate or Randall Park Mall and bring stuff home.  So it's not exactly something I can't imagine.

 

We're specifically discussing Beachwood Place here.  And shoppers.  Certainly people who work on a (presumably) fixed schedule are more likely to use transit.  Just as many others are more likely to use it for commuting than shopping.

How do employees get to Beachwood Place?

They take the 32 bus?  Or the 94?  I consider zero-transfer rides to suburbia are a luxury.

 

Considering that only 17% of employed Cuyahoga County residents work downtown, I'd say that's an approach guaranteed to marginalize transit.

Considering that only 17% of employed Cuyahoga County residents work downtown, I'd say that's an approach guaranteed to marginalize transit.

 

You mean there's a bigger employment center in Cuyahoga County? There isn't. That 17 percent not only makes downtown Cleveland the county's largest employment center but Ohio's largest as well. Why do you expect downtown to be bigger than the largest employment center in Ohio? Expecting a downtown to have much more than 17 percent is pretty unrealistic for a metro area the size of Greater Cleveland.

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

 

Absolutely! A grid of transit makes more sense. Look at Portland's transit network.

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

 

17% of the county works in 1% of the area. It can't be cost effective to shuffle people around from suburb to suburb.

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

 

17% of the county works in 1% of the area. It can't be cost effective to shuffle people around from suburb to suburb.

Is it more cost effective to make everyone go through downtown to transfer?

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

 

Absolutely! A grid of transit makes more sense. Look at Portland's transit network.

 

Or several hubs connected by rail or express buses.

 

Having the sole hub be on the very edge of the service area makes no sense.

Is it more cost effective to make everyone go through downtown to transfer?

 

Sometimes, yes. It consolidates traffic using fewer resources and assets.

Is it more cost effective to make everyone go through downtown to transfer?

 

Sometimes, yes. It consolidates traffic using fewer resources and assets.

 

Google Maps says it takes 26 minutes to drive from Parmatown Mall to Swagelok in Solon.

 

The least amount of time that trip takes on RTA is 2 hours and 40 minutes.

 

You pick some very strange, irrelevant examples to choose from. The application of trips to the right type of vehicle is just a tad important. Why not fly a helicopter from Parmatown to Solon. It would be faster.... Or maybe you could have asked how long it takes to ride transit from Belden Village to Mentor. It can be done. But that trip isn't transit competitive, nor will it ever be -- unless we build a sh*tload of rail.

You pick some very strange, irrelevant examples to choose from. The application of trips to the right type of vehicle is just a tad important. Why not fly a helicopter from Parmatown to Solon. It would be faster.... Or maybe you could have asked how long it takes to ride transit from Belden Village to Mentor. It can be done. But that trip isn't transit competitive, nor will it ever be -- unless we build a sh*tload of rail.

 

From the largest residential suburb to one of the county's larger employers is irrelevant?

 

How about Parmatown to Cleveland Clinic?  25 minutes by car, 1 hour 35 minutes by transit.

 

With the only real hub on the edge of the county, trips within the opposite half become sharp angles, sometimes even acute angles. 

 

In the southern half of the county, transit is what is relatively irrelevant unless one works downtown, or in special cases.

From the largest residential suburb to one of the county's larger employers is irrelevant?

 

It is irrelevant when they're so far apart and the land uses within 2,000 feet of transit stops are so low-density. You'd have to change the land use and densify one or both of them to make that a relevant transit origin-destination pair.

 

Here ya go. This is GCRTA's transit propensity map. The goal? Foremost: Link proximate areas in red with each other. Secondary: Link areas in red with proximate areas in yellow. Thirdly: link the yellow areas with proximate yellow areas, and do so via as many yellow areas along the way. If you have to travel through vast deserts of blue to link 'em up, it may not be worth doing, and it certainly sends those routings farther down the priority list.....

 

FULL SIZE MAP: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3695/9682333912_8ced7a01af_o.jpg

 

Oye, it's simple to me.  If you choose to live 20 miles away from the CBD then you have to eat the hassle and costs associated with it.  If you choose to live near the amenities of the city you benefit from your proximity. 

 

I am aware of the reasons one would live 20+ miles away from the core (schools, safety) but there is no reason that those things couldn't be had in a dense urban neighborhood near the CBD...it just takes some elbow grease sprinkled with gentrification.

 

If you choose to live in Parma - that's cool, to each his own...but don't expect me to subsidize your decision more than I already have.  The suburbs have to lie in the bed they've made.

^Amen KJP... It amazes me when Americans, Clevelanders in particular (and E. Roc in particular, particular), choose to live in sprawling, low density areas they've collectively created far away from prime areas of employment, entertainment and commerce, and then, turn around, and gripe about how inconvenient and slow mass transit is.  Once again, ... amazing!

Beachwood Place is a higher end mall primarily focusing on female customers and/or big ticket items.

People in this area (with options) don’t see transit as a good way to go shopping, because it means carrying their bags. 

 

 

I think you are over thinking this.

 

First: route travels downtown to beachwood place, but don't ignore the fact that it also travels from Shaker Square to Beachwood place, and all points in-between, including some very affluent areas of Shaker Heights where people use the train to go downtown may be more willing to use it to shop as well.

 

Second: Beachwood Place is surrounded by other trip generators like high density housing, offices and additional retail like legacy village. 

 

Third: it not like shopping is the only reason people go to the mall, there are 3 reasons people travel

Leisure

Business

shopping

 

Trips from beachwood to shaker square, would also be possible.

 

This is especially true for more affluent shoppers, doubly true for affluent female shoppers, and triply true for affluent female shoppers when the transit route goes through low income areas.

 

Again downtown is the end point, and not always the destination.  good transit can be more than Commuter Transit.

 

in other countries premium transit to malls is very popular.  it generates more than Home to work transit trips.

 

Take a look at a map and note what is between Beachwood Place and downtown.

 

Between Downtown and shaker Square is 6.5 miles of Afflent high value residential development, with 17 stops in-between and 5.3 miles between shaker Square and downtown Cleveland with only 7 Stops in between.

 

Try to use transit to try to attract lower income shoppers to Beachwood Place and they just might go Beavercreek on you.

 

Like I said before Transit is more than shopping it is about workers, and Leisure too.

 

The beachwood place Stop would be good Location for a car sharing station, too.

How do employees get to Beachwood Place?

They take the 32 bus?  Or the 94?  I consider zero-transfer rides to suburbia are a luxury.

 

I am more interested in expanding rail in areas that have the need and history of accepting and embracing transit and density, and letting development build up around them in places that are ripe for it.  Not to areas whose raison d'etre is pretty much to escape transit and density.

 

My fellow urban advocate, we have to think differently about these things.  coverage does not Equal quality service.

 

do you know the Frequency of the 32 or the 94? ( hourly for the 94 and peak half-hourly for the 32)

 

I don't think  it is acceptable to take 2 hours and 3 buses to get to work.  when our Region has such major imbalances in jobs and people something must be done to resolve it. 

 

To put it bluntly the jobs that people in the city needs are in the suburbs because the customers are in the suburbs.

 

this route will not induce sprawl but help contain sprawl, another fact is that lower income people fleeing the city are moving to areas like the golden gate area, they need higher Quality transit. and eventual extension down I-271 to East gate will help improve service there.

 

I gave a presentaion on Multi-destinaion transit system design you should View it here.

 

http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sustanable-development-presentation.pdf

 

^17% of the county works downtown, but 90% of RTA's routes go downtown. Maybe there should be a little bit more focus on moving people to the other employment centers too.

 

17% of the county works in 1% of the area. It can't be cost effective to shuffle people around from suburb to suburb.

Is it more cost effective to make everyone go through downtown to transfer?

 

The issue with the Grid is that you need frequency to make it work. frequency is expensive, and adds cost, that doesn't mean it would not work here, it's just we have to retrain riders to begin to view transfers as a positive not a negative.

 

 

 

 

BTW travel time estimates for this route are 35 mins from beachwood to downtown with Signal preemption on shaker Blvd, add 3 mins without.

 

18mins from shaker Square to Beachwood Place.

 

more about the density around beachwood place.

 

 

Oye, it's simple to me.  If you choose to live 20 miles away from the CBD then you have to eat the hassle and costs associated with it.  If you choose to live near the amenities of the city you benefit from your proximity. 

 

I generally agree with this. There may be a few additional circumferential routes that make sense, but given limited resources and the reality of who rides transit in our area, I'm skeptical a significant realignment would be worth it.

the density of East gate.

 

note the number of high-rises

 

 

Biker 16...it looks like you are calling for a further extension of the RTA Green Line via George Zeiger Dr and Cedar Rd to SOM Center Rd/Mayfield Rd?

Biker16, doesn't this plan ignore the inherent fallibility of suburban retail?  The east side is littered with dead/dying malls and we continue to expand while the population remains the same.  Rail is permanent and costly...suburban retail is cheap and mobile.  What are these stops going to look like in 50 years?