This is a real sharp website feature -- you select some basic travel needs and it ranks the options that come closest to meeting your travel needs....

 

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/explore-alternatives

 

Keep in mind that one of the factors that will give an alternative a higher federal score is its development potential. So Alignment B may actually end up getting a high score, even though it has the second-lowest population. I suspect we may end up seeing a mix of possibly two alternatives included in a final recommendation.

How is Streetcar even a possibility when we couldn't even get one down Euclid instead of BRT?

How is Streetcar even a possibility when we couldn't even get one down Euclid instead of BRT?

 

Few cities were considering streetcars in the mid- to late-1990s when the decision was made to go with BRT. And few new projects were getting FTA New Starts funding. Today, a streetcar could get an  FTA Urban Circulator grant, however, if the start-up costs can be kept low.

KJP, Musky....anyone who wants to weigh in, how likely is this to be actually built?  Is this just a study for a study's sake, or will one of the alternatives likely be built?

 

 

KJP, Musky....anyone who wants to weigh in, how likely is this to be actually built?  Is this just a study for a study's sake, or will one of the alternatives likely be built?

 

 

 

I can't speak to the likelihood of occurrence, but I can tell you that a study like this is a prerequisite for any such project. It is one of the factors that weighs into the awarding of federal capital funds, without which the likelihood of a project of this scope and scale ever commencing would be less than zero.

 

The goal now is to refine and develop the "preferred alternative", and then pursue funding for that alternative if local support is there and other factors that weigh-in, including operational sustainability and organizational priorities, make it sensible to pursue. Changing climates are why old plans from any agency sometimes get unshelved, dusted off, updated, and actually implemented sometimes long after they were first thought about, and why sometimes studies of this kind are thought of as only being "for a study's sake".

KJP, Musky....anyone who wants to weigh in, how likely is this to be actually built?  Is this just a study for a study's sake, or will one of the alternatives likely be built?

Personnally, I'm highly doubtful that anything will get built. I'm still of the opinion that an improvement in bus service is all that's needed and all we'll get. If RTA manages to use this study to come up with federal funds for a few new vehicles for those routes I can't blame them for it.

I don't feel like rail is needed and would have a negative result because it would leave a bad opinion of rail, like the waterfront line.

I don't feel like rail is needed and would have a negative result because it would leave a bad opinion of rail, like the waterfront line.

 

Rail could be needed....through the west side. I wonder if they'll ever do a study of a line through Lakewood...but that's for another thread...

KJP, Musky....anyone who wants to weigh in, how likely is this to be actually built?  Is this just a study for a study's sake, or will one of the alternatives likely be built?

 

 

 

You aren't asking me to predict the future are you?

 

Without additional funding resources, partners, etc. like LakeTran, Akron Metro, special improvement districts, or private-sector partners like Cleveland Clinic, or privatized parking resources, here is why I don't think GCRTA will build more extravagant forms of rail (ie: heavy rail, long-route commuter rail, light rail with dedicated rights of way, etc): because they can't afford it with the resources they have. And GCRTA won't initiate less expensive forms of rail (ie: streetcars and self-propelled diesel rail cars) because they don't take them seriously and/or don't have much experience with them.

 

A few months ago I sat down and figured out some rough estimates of what it would cost to build and operate some of the larger rail extensions that have been considered (to Euclid and beyond, to Lakewood and Westlake, to Solon and Aurora, etc). This doesn't include smaller rail extensions such as the Blue Line to a new Warrensville terminal, or concepts GCRTA isn't yet looking at including streetcars sustained by others, self-propelled diesel rail cars (ie DMUs) as outer feeders, an extension of the Green Line to Beachwood Place (via John Carroll as the first phase), or routing the Blue Line to University Circle instead of downtown.

 

And it's not the capital costs I'm most concerned about, although that is difficult to come up with in a state that invests just 1% of transportation dollars into transit when 9% of households statewide have no cars. It's also difficult to come up with that money in a metro area which lacks Congressional muscle. But what is more concerning to me is that many of the rail extensions studied thus far are too expensive from an operational perspective for GCRTA to sustain with its existing resources. The choice is to seek more resources locally or regionally, keep lobbying the state, and/or hope our Congressionals gain more power -- or pursue less costly alternatives identified in these planning efforts.

 

Fact is, GCRTA doesn't want to devote staff time and internal resources to doing planning efforts that don't produce anything. If they start a federally compliant planning process, it's because they hope to build something and to get some federal funds to help pay for it. But whatever they build is going to have to be sustained (ie: operated for 20+ years) at GCRTA's expense -- unless some transit investments are initiated by others who are willing to contribute their own resources to sustain. That can be done by some of the larger municipalities, community development corporations or even some private interests. GCRTA planning & development staff said they are willing to provide planning expertise for these externally initiated projects, and even submit federal grant applications on their behalf. Also, because GCRTA is funded by a permanent sales tax, it can get below market-rate bond interest rates that other potential local project sponsors cannot. But no such external interest (such as by Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, UCI, City of Cleveland, City of Euclid) has offered to help sustain a higher level of transit development in the Red Line/HealthLine study area via a Special Improvement District or direct sponsorship.

 

The reason why I write about those funding tools is because GCRTA can play an important role in establishing station-area development zones and making developments in those zones more attractive to developers than areas away from Rapid stations. That's is the most important and cost-effective thing that GCRTA could do to strengthen its low-ridership rail system. And to make it more cost effective? Reduce its operating cost by modernizing the overhead electrical supply systems, standardizing its rail system with a single rail car fleet, and right-sizing its largest rail facilities -- Central Rail and Tower City Station -- to current operational realities.

 

Yes, GCRTA could support a streetcar project sought or sustained by others in a targeted corridor where it now operates multiple overlapping bus routes -- with multiple drivers driving full buses with only 40-50 people aboard compared to fewer streetcars carrying 75-150 people using electrical power instead of price-volatile fossil fuels. But GCRTA doesn't take streetcars seriously as a viable transportation mode right now. They tend to view them moreso as amusements. So if a streetcar happens anywhere locally, it will be because someone other than GCRTA initiated it.

 

So, long story short.......

 

If past is prologue, I think what GCRTA may recommend for the Red Line/HealthLine extension study is what GCRTA is building along Clifton in Cudell/Edgewater (a BRT lite) and what it recommended for the Blue Line extension study -- pursue a blend of low-cost options that would funnel and speed more passenger traffic into its fixed alignment Rapid (rail, BRT etc) system from beyond the termini of that system. That would then increase traffic densities on the existing Rapid. And perhaps ridership on one or more of the feeder routes grows so much that it warrants conversion to a higher level of transit, such as a streetcar or light rail as a result of some future follow-up study.

 

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Gee, that post had everything except an intermission. Thanks.

Gee, that post had everything except an intermission. Thanks.

 

Or popcorn

 

Ken, good analysis but one phrase leaps out at me:  “federally compliant planning process”.  Are you saying that any and all planning activities have to comply with federal rules?

Ken, good analysis but one phrase leaps out at me:  “federally compliant planning process”.  Are you saying that any and all planning activities have to comply with federal rules?

 

If you hope to secure federal funds for any part of the project that results from it, yes.

 

BTW, a friend of mine debunked my analysis by saying that you design the transit system you want, then seek the funding for it (not vice versa). He cited this story of Washington DC which has some significant state-of-good-repair issues it cannot afford to address, yet it is moving forward on a major expansion http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/rapid-transit/wmata-eyes-big-system-expansion.html

 

 

 

 

RTA members and consultants working on the Red Line/Health Line Extension Study held a public meeting Tuesday night ...

 

Discussed were different topics such as accessibility and environmental effects, as well as alternative routes that could become a reality for people on the east side of Cleveland.

 

Nine alternatives, labeled A through I, showed the route, possible stops and type of transit.

The study looked at heavy rail rapid transit (Red Line rapid trains), bus rapid transit (HealthLine bus), Rapid+ (light rail/street car), diesel multiple unit (bus/train that can be operated on freight rail lines), and bus possibilities.

 

From the nine options presented, four were recommended for further study and analysis. All options will continue from the Windermere station in East Cleveland.

 

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20131211/greater-cleveland-rta-moves-forward-with-extension-into-euclid

 

by Amy Popik

For more information about the study, maps of the alternative routes and how to submit comments, visit www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com .

If they're not going to build a Red Line extension, then I don't like any of the other options much. The more I look at the "Street Running" options, the more I realize none of them is going to be much faster than the current bus routes. I guess it depends on RTA's goals, if they want to be able to say "we provide transit to an increased % of the population" then none of the options provides transit to people that don't currently have bus routes. If RTA wants to provide a faster ride then their only realistic options are a Red Line extension or an express bus. A BRT along the lines of the Healthline is probably the last thing they need.

My hunch based on what I know of the study team? I suspect the study team will narrow their final recommendation to include two options: a DMU extension to the Euclid P&R at Babbitt Road and a BRT-lite from Windermere to Lake Shore-East 260th on a route to be determined (probably Alt E http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/dynamic-docs-overview/alternative-alignment-e). If you note, the Red Line extension to Babbitt also has a DMU "sub-option" to it (http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/dynamic-docs-overview/alternative-alignment-b). So when a "Red Line" extension is suggested, it may not be the electrified heavy rail Red Line we all know.

 

Whether a DMU option survives to preliminary engineering depends on whether GCRTA understands what it is and if it doesn't require major track capacity enhancements for Norfolk Southern to accommodate it. I hope that GCRTA staff visits DMU services in operation in New Jersey (Trenton-Camden), Dallas-Denton County, Portland-Wilsonville, Oceanside-Escondido and/or Austin-Leander before they make any decisions.

I’m not saying the DMU option is a bad idea, because I think it is a GOOD idea – far better than expanded BRT.  But I just think there could be an even better solution that may cost somewhat more, but should be worth exploring… What about extending the wires over the existing NS ROW?

Advantages:

- Same acceleration of the existing system

- Far lesser capital costs than constructing new ROW with new tracks, bridges and other ROW acquisition and construction costs

- Use of the existing HRT/LRT maintenance and repair facilities at E. 55 – building facilities for the repair, maintenance and constant fueling of internal combustion DMU engines will costs millions more in capital costs.  So too will new, non-compatible DMU cars.

- Heavy duty, high-tension electric delivery lines already are strung along the corridor which can be tapped into for EMU electrical substations.

- The ability to utilize existing rolling stock on the extension.

- We currently have an existing, fully electrified central terminal in the CBD traffic hub of NEO – Tower City.  Now special DMU diesel platforms need not be built.

- The ability to expand the electric system as long as needed, since freight rail on the old Nickel Plate NS route can be transferred onto the Lakeshore New York/Chicago route opening up the pair of eastbound tracks for extended service deep into Lake (or even Ashtabula) Counties – if RTA (or some conglomeration regional authority) somehow wanted to go that far.  Just extend the wires over the track and construct simple, ground-level, ADA compliant stations.  Remember, RTA runs cheaper HRT than most cities since we use unmanned, barrier-free POP stations.  So, again, costs wouldn’t for stations wouldn’t be any more than DMU service. 

Just my take.

 

^Is NS open to the idea of selling their tracks?

Is RTA willing to single track the last few miles?

What about the few businesses that require the use of the existing tracks? (Yes, I know there's only a few.)

Are there sufficient cars in the existing stock to be able to handle an extended line?

 

The DMUs could use the existing platforms and could be made to use electric where available.

When waiting in the cold for an eastbound healthline I had 4 westbound busses pass by. When I got on, I saw two more west bound in a row. That's basically 6 westbound in the time one east bound comes. Completely unreliable, and those next bus signs at the stations are completely useless. Any extension of BRT would be a disaster IMO. But rail is also not worth in this corridor IMO. If rather they do nothing or just create(if it doesn't already exist) a normal bus route that runs the route and connects to Windermere.

^Is NS open to the idea of selling their tracks?

 

NS would not sell the line nor would they be asked. GCRTA could either use the existing NS tracks to Babbitt Road or secure an easement to lay an extra track alongside the NS tracks.

 

Is RTA willing to single track the last few miles?

 

Single-track? You mean the new portion east of Windermere? For a new, light-density rail service that doesn't operate as often as the Red Line, I'm hopeful they will be OK with that. Double track is certainly not necessary for the potential ridership that's there, even if it is extended eastward into Lake County someday.

 

What about the few businesses that require the use of the existing tracks? (Yes, I know there's only a few.)

 

Standard practice is to do what's done at the Port of Cleveland. Have an at-grade rail-rail crossing that's signal-protected with automatic train stop.

 

Are there sufficient cars in the existing stock to be able to handle an extended line?

 

The existing rolling stock would likely not be used. I am hopeful that if GCRTA supports this option, that the rolling stock it selects would have purchase options for more orders so they can ultimately be used system-wide. Thus future extensions to Westlake, Solon, Cuyahoga Valley, etc. could use the existing GCRTA rail system to enter downtown and travel across Cleveland.

 

The DMUs could use the existing platforms and could be made to use electric where available.

 

Depending on how they're designed, yes. If not, then the DMU could simply operate as a shuttle between Windermere and Babbitt, then ultimately into Lake County someday.

 

When waiting in the cold for an eastbound healthline I had 4 westbound busses pass by. When I got on, I saw two more west bound in a row. That's basically 6 westbound in the time one east bound comes. Completely unreliable, and those next bus signs at the stations are completely useless. Any extension of BRT would be a disaster IMO. But rail is also not worth in this corridor IMO. If rather they do nothing or just create(if it doesn't already exist) a normal bus route that runs the route and connects to Windermere.

 

You should share that in the general HealthLine thread too. That's a service issue GCRTA should be made aware/reminded of.

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/explore-alternatives

 

The website is pretty slick, though it would be nice to compare the stats of all the alts side by side. Also, what would be good is if they labeled existing major uses along each corridor---even vacant lots, which show the potential for development.  Amongst the alternatives only 2 are heavy rail; the rest are street-running. Not very balanced. RTA may have already made up its mind and be going through the hoops of public requirements. Buses are cheaper than rail--so that's what RTA will do whether or not its good for the area. Look at the bus on Euclid Ave which should have been rail underground..... Regarding the alternatives, I prefer A or B, though don't know the area enough to know if a corridor along A (near St. Clair) or B (near Euclid) is better, though I like the idea of providing service to Collinwood, which is a growing area (e.g., Waterloo) which is Option A. Also, the stations could be closer together on the Options A/B, so it would serve more people within a 1/4 mile than they are currently claiming. The stations SHOULD be closer together.

Last chance!

 

Greater Cleve RTA ‏@GCRTA 19m

Public mtg from @RedLineHLStudy tonight 6-8pm at Collinwood Rec Center, 16300 Lake Shore Blvd.

 

NOTE1: Denver, as recently as 7-8 years ago planned for less frequent DMU commuter rail to its airport until it decided to invest in the much superior electric EMU system which, now, is blossoming into a 4 branch network to Denver’s northern suburbs.  You can't nickel & Dime and penny pinch and expect comparable results the way Cleveland usually does concerning transit ... or as former Browns coach Sam Rutigliano was fond of saying: sometimes ... "you've gotta stomp the grapes before you can sip the wine." 

 

NOTE 2: Cleveland, with its existing Red, Blue, Green, Waterfront Rapid system, has the electrified inner-city/close-in burbs and downtown hub infrastructure that Denver didn’t have going in ... and yet, Denver is forging ahead, because it deems the benefits of quality mass transit to be THAT important... such a novel concept.

 

FWIW, I saw a huge showstopper for streetcar today here in NOLA.

A car stalled in the road as I was headed into lunch, it was in the path of the streetcar, and the streetcar was stuck behind it.

Now I am guessing in most cities that car would be towed quickly, but in NOLA the line was still blocked after my lunch.

I'm guessing BRT would be able to navigate around.

 

As I said, for what it's worth

FWIW, I saw a huge showstopper for streetcar today here in NOLA.

A car stalled in the road as I was headed into lunch, it was in the path of the streetcar, and the streetcar was stuck behind it.

Now I am guessing in most cities that car would be towed quickly, but in NOLA the line was still blocked after my lunch.

I'm guessing BRT would be able to navigate around.

 

As I said, for what it's worth

 

Pretty sure people in Cleveland are smart enough to just push the car out of the way.

Anybody make it to the public meeting? If so, any interesting outcomes?

FWIW, I saw a huge showstopper for streetcar today here in NOLA.

A car stalled in the road as I was headed into lunch, it was in the path of the streetcar, and the streetcar was stuck behind it.

Now I am guessing in most cities that car would be towed quickly, but in NOLA the line was still blocked after my lunch.

I'm guessing BRT would be able to navigate around.

 

As I said, for what it's worth

 

Everywhere else, they have a dedicated towing service to remove disabled vehicles from the route.

 

there are laws on the book in Ohio directly addressing the needs of streetcar and vehicles, in every case the streetcar has the priority.

^For this particular instance, #1 It's New Orleans, so no one is in a rush to fix anything #2 it was a U-Hall.

It just made me realize that streetcars without dedicated lanes can be less reliable than busses in certain cases. 

^For this particular instance, #1 It's New Orleans, so no one is in a rush to fix anything #2 it was a U-Hall.

It just made me realize that streetcars without dedicated lanes can be less reliable than busses in certain cases.

 

you will tow the Uhaul

 

here is a safety video from DC where they should be up and running by February of 2014.

 

 

The entire 37 mile proposed system.

@Redline/HLstudy

Tell us what you think of the #RedlineHealthLineStudy route alternatives here!: http://t.co/uABAQjj52r… #Transit #CLE #Euclid #RTA

what I'd like to see for this project is.

 

1) Creation of DMU commuter service into Lake county directly into UC and tower city , I.E. one seat ride.  to replace existing Commuter buses that laketran sends into Downtown Cleveland every weekday.

 

Cost estimates would range between 3-5 million per year for the service based upon a $500 per hour cost for Commuter Rail.

 

2) Creation of new BRT lite from Windermere to downtown Euclid Via  E-152nd and lakeshore.

 

what I'd like to see for this project is.

 

1) Creation of DMU commuter service into Lake county directly into UC and tower city , I.E. one seat ride.  to replace existing Commuter buses that laketran sends into Downtown Cleveland every weekday.

 

Cost estimates would range between 3-5 million per year for the service based upon a $500 per hour cost for Commuter Rail.

 

2) Creation of new BRT lite from Windermere to downtown Euclid Via  E-152nd and lakeshore.

 

 

Sounds fine to me. GCRTA also spends about $500,000 for its Euclid P&R buses to downtown, which probably wouldn't be needed anymore. Another way to figure commuter rail costs is about $40 per train-mile. If you run trains every 20-30 minutes inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening, plus hourly trains at other directions/times, that's about 20 trains x $40/TM x 18 miles x 255 work days per year = $3.67 million per year. If you want weekend and holiday service too, figure trains roughly every other hour, or 14 trains per weekend day & holiday x $40/TM x 18 miles x 110 weekend days & holidays per year = $1.11 million per year. So that's a total of $4.78 million per year for daily service. Anywhere from 20 to 40 percent would be covered by fares or $956,000 to $1.9 million. The rest ($2.9 million to $3.8 million would have to be covered by sales tax revenue, sponsorships, advertising, etc.

 

GCRTA could contribute $500,000 by terminating the #239 bus, and possibly another $500,000 by reducing service frequency on the #28 bus by about 15 percent. So that would leave about $1.9 million to $2.8 million for Laketran to fund, which I suspect they could afford by eliminating several of their park-n-ride routes into downtown Cleveland, as biker16 noted.

in 2011

the 239 Euclid Park-n-Ride

 

Boardings

70,490

in service trips

2,783

in service hours

1,957

in service miles

40,179

total bus hours

3,913

total miles

83,094

 

simple math.

Total fare Revenues $2.50 * 70490 approximately $176,000

Total operational cost $130-150 per hour of operation.  $130-150 *3913 hours $509,000-587,000 per year.

 

the 39f lakeshore flyer

 

Boardings 

195,627

in service trips 

4,554

in service hours

4,104

in service miles 

74,738

total bus hours 

5,909

total miles

110,734           

 

simple math.

Total fare Revenues $2.25 * 195,627 approximately $440,160

Total operational cost $130 per hour of operation.  $130 *5909 hours $768,170 per year.

 

LakeTran commuter bus

2012 ridership

198,000

 

2012 Vehicle Revenue Hours (does not include deadheading)

9,893

 

2012 operating cost

$1,980,000

 

2012 Fare revenue

$614,000

 

BTW Laketran commuter fares are $3.75 each way.

 

what I'd like to see for this project is.

 

1) Creation of DMU commuter service into Lake county directly into UC and tower city , I.E. one seat ride.  to replace existing Commuter buses that laketran sends into Downtown Cleveland every weekday.

 

Cost estimates would range between 3-5 million per year for the service based upon a $500 per hour cost for Commuter Rail.

 

2) Creation of new BRT lite from Windermere to downtown Euclid Via  E-152nd and lakeshore.

 

 

Sounds fine to me. GCRTA also spends about $500,000 for its Euclid P&R buses to downtown, which probably wouldn't be needed anymore. Another way to figure commuter rail costs is about $40 per train-mile. If you run trains every 20-30 minutes inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening, plus hourly trains at other directions/times, that's about 20 trains x $40/TM x 18 miles x 255 work days per year = $3.67 million per year. If you want weekend and holiday service too, figure trains roughly every other hour, or 14 trains per weekend day & holiday x $40/TM x 18 miles x 110 weekend days & holidays per year = $1.11 million per year. So that's a total of $4.78 million per year for daily service. Anywhere from 20 to 40 percent would be covered by fares or $956,000 to $1.9 million. The rest ($2.9 million to $3.8 million would have to be covered by sales tax revenue, sponsorships, advertising, etc.

 

GCRTA could contribute $500,000 by terminating the #239 bus, and possibly another $500,000 by reducing service frequency on the #28 bus by about 15 percent. So that would leave about $1.9 million to $2.8 million for Laketran to fund, which I suspect they could afford by eliminating several of their park-n-ride routes into downtown Cleveland, as biker16 noted.

 

If you reorients all the bus routes towards the Rail line. having the new BRT Lite service start at Windermere travel north towards lake-shore, and towards downtown Euclid and head south again on 260th street eventually to the Euclid park and ride(only when commuter rail service is active.

 

 

This creates a u shaped route with rail on both ends and provides good Circulation into the under used park and ride. 

I just love the Euclid love

Please note the significance of the change coming in 2015. This can be a very big deal for Ohio metro areas, starting with the Red Line/HealthLine extension on NS tracks to Euclid as phase one, and into Lake County as phase two.....

 

The Cheaper, Brighter Future of American Passenger Rail

JANUARY 3, 2014 AT 7:30 AM BY BRUCE NOURISH

 

....DMUs are diesel-powered versions of their cousins, Electric Multiple Units, of which American light rail vehicles are an example. Each carriage has its own propulsion system, and trains can be made up of as many or as few as are needed to meet demand. DMUs are typically slightly larger than a light rail car, and seat 100-200 people; the photo above is an example European DMU, a Stadler 2/6, on Austin’s Capital Metrorail Red Line. That design was previously only usable on track not shared with freight trains or other traditionally-constructed mainline passenger trains, but after 2015, it will be legal to operate it on shared track. This is a very big deal, because much of the existing urban and suburban rail trackage in the US has at least some freight or mainline traffic.

 

This rule change makes passenger rail financially viable and environmentally justifiable in markets where it would never be possible to fill up a full-size locomotive-hauled train; it allows trains to scale down. A local example of a market DMUs could serve post-2015 would be Sounder North, a commuter rail service that has struggled with low ridership, currently attracting (pp. 19 & 20) less than 125 riders per trip in the mornings, and 150 per trip in the evenings  Sound Transit currently runs the shortest trains allowable under federal rules, a locomotive and two bi-level carriages, providing just under 300 seats, half of which go empty. A pair of Stadler 2/6s, with about 100 seats each, or a Stadler 2/8, a slightly larger DMU which seats about 170, could comfortably carry that load.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/01/03/the-cheaper-brighter-future-of-american-passenger-rail/

 

___________

 

BTW, the article references Austin where standing-room conditions on rush-hour trains prompted the addition of more trains and planning for more routes......

 

University Circle-Cleveland Heights bike, bus links on the radar

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on January 10, 2014 at 9:00 AM, updated January 10, 2014 at 9:04 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- University Circle bills itself as Ohio's "most spectacular square mile," a fabulous stew of education, medical, arts and religious institutions in one city neighborhood.

 

But its cultural and employment magnetic powers have naturally enough attracted other developments that aren't as great – growing rush-hour traffic jams and parking shortages.

 

Two of the district's biggest players –- University Circle Inc. and the city of Cleveland Heights -- are taking a fresh look at how to address the transportation crunch by strengthening bikeways and bus service.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/university_circle-cleveland_he.html

^ Interesting, although I do not understand why a new transit study includes the Bus Loop which should be closed and converted to park space once the rapid station construction is completed.

 

 

I like the idea though. I think a staircase connecting Edgehill to Overlook would be a great idea to improve pedestrian connections. I wish that was added.

 

 

I still think a cedar streetcar is greatly needed! ;)

How steep are Edgehill and Mayfield?

How steep are Edgehill and Mayfield?

 

Mayfield had a single-track streetcar on it, but most streetcars went up the double-track Cedar Glen right of way which still exists along the south side of Cedar, although much of it is overgrown.

Would it make sense, if the Red Line were converted to light rail, to have a spur run up Cedar Glen and towards Cedar/Fairmount and Coventry?

Would it make sense, if the Red Line were converted to light rail, to have a spur run up Cedar Glen and towards Cedar/Fairmount and Coventry?

 

Certainly. And the best way the trains could operate on the spur is from the opposite direction -- from Little Italy station, then to UC-Cedar station, then go up the hill. Or, since the single-largest commuting destination from the Heights is to UC, not downtown, why not run the Blue Line to University Circle instead? This is a potential routing....

 

So if the Red Line trains are extended at all as a result of this alternatives analysis, a short 1.2-mile extension of the double-tracked, electrified Red Line may be considered. The new eastern terminus would be a major redevelopment site I like to call the Noble District, created by demolishing several large, vacant factories including GE's old lamp division which moved to China. GE Lighting research division is still at Nela Park, which could spin off a research complex in the Noble District. There, several transit routes could feed into the Red Line, including existing bus routes and a new BRT-lite and DMU train to Euclid and Lake County. This would also be an easily accessible park-n-ride to commuters bound for UC and downtown from South Euclid and the Hillcrest suburbs....

 

 

 

If the idea for the Noble District sounds familiar, I posted something similar a while ago although my concept had more residential in it than probably would be proposed in the actual study.....

 

 

Would it make sense, if the Red Line were converted to light rail, to have a spur run up Cedar Glen and towards Cedar/Fairmount and Coventry?

 

If it were to spur, I think it should first continue east to the new little italy station, and then reverse and head back towards the cedar station and up towards Cleveland Heights.

^ Interesting, although I do not understand why a new transit study includes the Bus Loop which should be closed and converted to park space once the rapid station construction is completed.

 

 

I like the idea though. I think a staircase connecting Edgehill to Overlook would be a great idea to improve pedestrian connections. I wish that was added.

 

 

I still think a cedar streetcar is greatly needed! ;)

 

Just don't duplicate CWRU's infamous "elephant stairs".

Well I like it.

^^Works for me.

Would it make sense, if the Red Line were converted to light rail, to have a spur run up Cedar Glen and towards Cedar/Fairmount and Coventry?

 

Certainly. And the best way the trains could operate on the spur is from the opposite direction -- from Little Italy station, then to UC-Cedar station, then go up the hill. Or, since the single-largest commuting destination from the Heights is to UC, not downtown, why not run the Blue Line to University Circle instead? This is a potential routing....

 

 

As an alternate KJP, what would you think of routing up Cedar Hill and then east on Euclid Heights Blvd. My thinking is the median is wide enough to be replaced by trains all the way to Coventry.  My dream would be to then remove street parking from Coventry so that the train can turn north through the retail district then head east on Mayfield in the center of the street all the way out to Hillcrest.  That would connect a number of employment and residential hubs.  Auto commuters who use Mayfield would howl but I think this would be awesome. 

Absolutely! But the above was proposed because it saves on service-hours of operating cost. If the Blue Line was routed to the East 93rd-Euclid transportation center (bet you didn't know there was such a place, did ya!) instead of Tower City station, the travel time is roughly the same. And you're saving the cost of operating Blue Line trains through to the Waterfront Line, so you can add service elsewhere -- maybe a streetcar from East 93rd-Euclid to Coventry perhaps? Or extending the Red Line to the Noble District?

 

Point being, more commuters from the Heights are going to UC than downtown, yet there are two rail lines to downtown from the Heights when it could probably make-do with just one. Running the Blue Line to UC opens up a lot of options....

How about a loop that runs west on Chester, south on E 89th St and then east of Carnegie, encircling Cleveland Clinic?