Extending the Red Line east to a Noble Redevelopment District may require.....

 

> Acquiring the backyards of 21 residential properties on Elderwood (east of Collamer and west of Coit) and on Northfield, and replacing their backyard garages with new ones several feet closer to their homes (option of acquiring the entire property for demolition or resale). This includes one in-law suite just west of Coit.

 

> Demolishing three other structures or groups of structures -- an abandoned residence at 1703 Collamer, a vacant warehouse at 14847 Elderwood, and a closed textile/lighting/warehouse complex at 1734 Ivanhoe.

 

Doing streetviews of this area is horrific. There aren't many other places like this area in Greater Cleveland, much less the USA. These are the garages along Elderwood that, at minimum, might have to be razed/relocated....

 

 

 

The Elderwood warehouse at left, with the see-through roof, is one that would have to be razed for a Red Line extension to the Noble District...

 

 

 

It is at the end of Chapman Avenue, perhaps one of the most emblematic streets of East Cleveland.....

 

 

 

 

 

The house at left is one of the structures that would have to be razed for an extension of the Red Line to the Noble District. The others may ultimately be razed (or collapse from neglect) as well.....

 

 

 

The GE Lighting plant on Euclid Avenue, at the south end of the "Noble District". GE Lighting moved operations to China....

 

 

 

The closed Ivanhoe plants of Carnegie Textile and Artemus Lighting which moved to Solon and Mayfield Hts as well as the Ribbon Warehouse whose status is unknown.....

 

 

 

Thank you for traveling with us on this lovely tour of East Cleveland! Maybe they'll finish knocking it down and start all over again.

Chapman Ave, like so much of East Cleveland, is maddening.  So much wasted density in beautifully designed buildings.  Terrible.  Too bad the TOD couldn't incorporate rehabbing these structures.

I do like Ken's idea of extending to Noble, but if a rail extension can't happen (and I remain convinced it won't because why get my hopes up?), it'd be really nice to have a flyer operate from Euclid to Windermere or UC with limited stops (every mile or so) so that it could build ridership for a future rail extension, but I'm just scared they'll decide to run a BRT-lite that stops way too damn often (like the Healthline) and takes just as long to travel through the area as the current busses. If that happens, it'll be failure since it doesn't have everything going for it like the HL did, and it might be a generation or more before someone considers anything else.

Those street views are so desolate. Kind of amazing.

Those street views are so desolate. Kind of amazing.

 

That's where rail transit can, with the proper planning, be a tool for urban growth.

I'd love to see our rail transit system extended, but I don't see the point of extending it to yet another desolate location.  Especially one that is going to require a tremendous amount of demolition and remediation to be made habitable, and then has very iffy prospects of attracting investment.  What's the draw to living there?  Access to a rail line that has only a few stops that go near much of anything?

I'd love to see our rail transit system extended, but I don't see the point of extending it to yet another desolate location.  Especially one that is going to require a tremendous amount of demolition and remediation to be made habitable, and then has very iffy prospects of attracting investment.  What's the draw to living there?  Access to a rail line that has only a few stops that go near much of anything?

 

I think the convergence/transfer point of three major transit lines (Lake Shore-W152nd BRT, Euclid/Lake County DMU & Red Line extension) would produce a decent ridership. Then you add a large tract of factories demolished for new commercial activity (corporate/research center) with some mixed use rather than a residential-dominated TOD would work better here (reduces clean-up costs and produces desperately needed jobs). And several regular route bus services would converge here, along with a park-n-ride for Heights commuters. That make this extension is multi-faceted, and thus doesn't depend on any one thing. BTW, the current federal funding awards for major transit projects gives higher "scores" when it is intended to promote job creation, jobs access, economic development, etc. in low-income/impoverished areas. On that score, those photos I posted are just the kind of thing project application reviewers at the FTA are looking for. But will see what the numbers are from the planning work. Who knows -- it may be too heavy of a lift for GCRTA.

 

Of course, the application criteria can be a moving target throughout a project's multi-year (multi-decade) planning process. WMATA's Metro extension to Dulles Airport had to back to the drawing board several times with different presidential administrations and Congresses changing the rules, delaying the project years and adding tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars to the cost.

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....

 

The blue line makes no sense.  NONE.

 

Reviving the Cedar-Fairmont Shaker Lakes Trolley route would make more sense.  Send the line up Fairmont to JC.

 

Also add a branch on Euclid Hts. Blvd, then east to Green Rd. via Mayfield.

Wow, that truly looks Third World. 

 

Speaking of which, a big part of why lighting manufacture moved to China was the banning of incandescents.  CFCs can't be made economically here.

Speaking of which, a big part of why lighting manufacture moved to China was the banning of incandescents.  CFCs can't be made economically here.

 

The banning of incandescents didn't start until 2009 (Europe) and 2014 (US).  Like a lot of other manufacturing, particularly of things that aren't expensive to begin with or aren't particularly heavy (e.g., cars), the move of lighting manufacturing out of the US to Mexico and then China began long before the incandescent ban.

 

Extending the red line through these neighborhoods may have some of the same advantages of the "Opportunity" corridor -- cleaning up blight and (hopefully) providing a catalyst for redevelopment.  Some of those plants, like the former GE plant, have probably had a series of uses over the years, and materials now known to be toxic may have been used, which might require expensive cleanup that no local entity can afford without federal assistance.  Extending the red line would give us a better shot at federal cleanup dollars.

 

you can always bring the rail over there and rehab or rebuild, but the first problem is somebody needs to have new ideas for what to do in those old factories.

 

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

 

 

Interestingly enough, I just discovered that there ARE steps in this location. They are actually quite cool. Unfortunately they need repairs and do not continue all the way down to Edgehill anymore/ever??  It would be awesome to see them rehabbed but I believe they are located on the parcel with that old church, so the city does not have ownership of them. Im also afraid if it was brought up they would shut them down due to safety reasons, even though you can tell they are used often based on footprints in the snow as well as well as the fact that I physically saw people using them today.

 

Top of the stairs.

 

Winding down the hill

 

 

Damaged step

 

Staircase suddenly ends

 

Gate on Edgehill

 

"Step" up to gate

The blue line makes no sense.  NONE.

 

Reviving the Cedar-Fairmont Shaker Lakes Trolley route would make more sense.  Send the line up Fairmont to JC.

 

Also add a branch on Euclid Hts. Blvd, then east to Green Rd. via Mayfield.

 

Sure it does. Like I've said a million times on this forum, the single largest commuting destination from the Heights isn't downtown anymore, it's to University Circle. We don't need two light-rail lines to go downtown. Only 11,000 people a day use both the Green and Blue Lines COMBINED. That's horrible for a rail line. The Green Line is the bigger loser between the two of them thanks to low-density, high-income households east of Shaker Square along Shaker Boulevard. Outside of the rush hours and special events downtown, this line is devoid of ridership. Downtown's workforce has fallen and its commuter shed has spread farther out, beyond the reach of the rail lines. There are no special retailers to draw Shaker Heights residents downtown anymore. Where is the ridership supposed to come from? Unless this region makes a commitment to adapt its land use policies to include a small bit of transit-oriented development rather than highway dominated land use policies, then the rail system has to be the one to adapt. In fact, I think a little of both is in order.

 

So how is Fairmount Boulevard any different than Shaker Boulevard in its lack of transit-supportive land uses? Unless the mansions will be demolished for higher-density housing, Fairmount is a loser. It doesn't even have bus service anymore! The only reason why I'd route a rail line from Shaker Square to University Circle via a small part of Fairmount is because of the dense neighborhood that exists at Cedar-Fairmount and that many of its residents work or attend school in UC.

 

Yes, a rail line from UC to Coventry probably makes sense, based on the commuting draw of UC from Coventry. Beyond Coventry, I do not know where the commuters, shoppers, etc. are traveling to, and if enough of them are going to UC or downtown to make it worthwhile to build a rail line. It did once upon a time.

The blue line makes no sense.  NONE.

 

Reviving the Cedar-Fairmont Shaker Lakes Trolley route would make more sense.  Send the line up Fairmont to JC.

 

Also add a branch on Euclid Hts. Blvd, then east to Green Rd. via Mayfield.

 

Sure it does. Like I've said a million times on this forum, the single largest commuting destination from the Heights isn't downtown anymore, it's to University Circle. We don't need two light-rail lines to go downtown. Only 11,000 people a day use both the Green and Blue Lines COMBINED. That's horrible for a rail line. The Green Line is the bigger loser between the two of them thanks to low-density, high-income households east of Shaker Square along Shaker Boulevard. Outside of the rush hours and special events downtown, this line is devoid of ridership. Downtown's workforce has fallen and its commuter shed has spread farther out, beyond the reach of the rail lines. There are no special retailers to draw Shaker Heights residents downtown anymore. Where is the ridership supposed to come from? Unless this region makes a commitment to adapt its land use policies to include a small bit of transit-oriented development rather than highway dominated land use policies, then the rail system has to be the one to adapt. In fact, I think a little of both is in order.

 

So how is Fairmount Boulevard any different than Shaker Boulevard in its lack of transit-supportive land uses? Unless the mansions will be demolished for higher-density housing, Fairmount is a loser. It doesn't even have bus service anymore! The only reason why I'd route a rail line from Shaker Square to University Circle via a small part of Fairmount is because of the dense neighborhood that exists at Cedar-Fairmount and that many of its residents work or attend school in UC.

 

Yes, a rail line from UC to Coventry probably makes sense, based on the commuting draw of UC from Coventry. Beyond Coventry, I do not know where the commuters, shoppers, etc. are traveling to, and if enough of them are going to UC or downtown to make it worthwhile to build a rail line. It did once upon a time.

 

It's a matter of record that I agree with Ken that both Shaker Rapid lines going downtown is a waste of a valuable resource.  I'd go so far as to call it the most graphic symbol of the overly downtown-centric mindset RTA has displayed since the merger.

 

It speaks volumes that Coventry chose to take out several historic buildings including Coventry Beverage and Pizza (best Polish Boys in the region) to build a parking garage.  If there ever was a suburban neighborhood one would expect to be transit friendly, that would be it.  They've invested heavily in the car because for suburban non-commuting trips, that's the overwhelming choice.

 

I'm not sure I'd send either of them downtown, past the Clinic area.  Route one of them to CC, UC, Coventry and back around....if it's not already too late.

The only reason I like the idea of keeping the Shaker lines as they currently exist (besides that it would cost more than RTA is willing to invest to move one of them) is that having 2 lines makes the areas around the E116 and Buckeye/Woodhill stations twice as attractive for TOD (if we could ever get developers in the area interested).

^ That's one of my favorite areas. If you could get rid of the power lines you'd have a great view of the city as you travel west on Buckeye. I'd love to see that area get some TOD love.

What power lines? :P

 

http://goo.gl/maps/87Awn

What power lines? :P

 

http://goo.gl/maps/87Awn

 

Wow. Looks like a desolate streetscape...oh yeah...WHAT wires?  :-D

The only reason I like the idea of keeping the Shaker lines as they currently exist (besides that it would cost more than RTA is willing to invest to move one of them) is that having 2 lines makes the areas around the E116 and Buckeye/Woodhill stations twice as attractive for TOD (if we could ever get developers in the area interested).

 

Still, having one of the rail lines to E116th and Woodhill offers 10-minute headways during rush hours (yet only 30 minutes off-peak). By running the Blue Line to UC, that equals the travel time to Tower City and thus the service-hour expense of running to Tower City. The service-hour expense of the Waterfront Line is therefore saved. Blue (and Green) Line trains take 10 minutes to travel the Waterfront Line, so that saved operating expense COULD allow GCRTA to increase the service frequency on the Blue/Green lines to 20 minutes off-peak vs. the current 30. So while stations west of Shaker Square have 15-minute headways to downtown now, they could have 20-minute headways if the Blue Line's service-hours saved from the Waterfront Line were reallocated.

 

BTW, once upon a time GCRTA planned to reroute both Blue/Green Lines north from the Shaker-East 116th intersection along MLK/Fairhill to UC, leaving East 93rd/Woodhill (plus East 79th, East 55th, and East 34th) without any rail service. This could be a good routing to get the Blue Line to UC today. Adjusted for inflation from 20 years ago, GCRTA estimated it would cost about $150 million to build this "Shaker Connector" to UC. That included a new station at MLK/Fairhill -- this would also serve as a station for the SW corner of Cleveland Heights (that's my futile attempt to keep this discussion relatively on-topic!).

 

Interestingly, given the medical facilities in the area of MLK/Fairhill and the vacant land for more, this could be a very good development site and a medical satellite for UC.

BTW, once upon a time GCRTA planned to reroute both Blue/Green Lines north from the Shaker-East 116th intersection along MLK/Fairhill to UC, leaving East 93rd/Woodhill (plus East 79th, East 55th, and East 34th) without any rail service. This could be a good routing to get the Blue Line to UC today. Adjusted for inflation from 20 years ago, GCRTA estimated it would cost about $150 million to build this "Shaker Connector" to UC. That included a new station at MLK/Fairhill -- this would also serve as a station for the SW corner of Cleveland Heights (that's my futile attempt to keep this discussion relatively on-topic!).

 

 

I didn’t know RTA was planning on eliminating Blue/Green service west of E. 116 completely viz the Shaker Connector.  Even if they were, it was only in tandem with the Dual-Hub subway planned along Euclid, meaning that, Shaker, et al. passengers still had quick access into downtown – trains wouldn’t have just ended at UC.  Also, I thought the planning was to route the Blue/Green University Circle service in grade-separated manner and not as a slow moving streetcar stopping at traffic lights intersecting for autos. 

I didn’t know RTA was planning on eliminating Blue/Green service west of E. 116 completely viz the Shaker Connector.  Even if they were, it was only in tandem with the Dual-Hub subway planned along Euclid, meaning that, Shaker, et al. passengers still had quick access into downtown – trains wouldn’t have just ended at UC.  Also, I thought the planning was to route the Blue/Green University Circle service in grade-separated manner and not as a slow moving streetcar stopping at traffic lights intersecting for autos. 

 

This was GCRTA's and Cleveland's preferred alternative they submitted to NOACA, which NOACA rejected as too expensive. And the only subway station would have been at East 9th. All the other stations along Euclid would have been at-grade with intersections (basically the HealthLine but with tracks)....

 

 

 

Note that the Shaker Connector portion would have been only 1.2 miles. With a daytime population of 70,000 and growing fast, UC is very strong ridership anchor for terminating a rail line. There is no law that requires all rail lines must go downtown, especially when you have one as anemic as ours (employment-wise) and you have an alternative destination as dynamic as UC.

 

A future option about running the Blue Line to UC is that it can be extended to downtown someday via the already established dedicated transit right-of-way down Euclid, including all the stations. But let's keep this focused on improving UC traffic/parking.

Oh OK, my mistake.  Then I guess the route would have standardized Blue/Green and Red Line cars, ... probably low floor. . . I think there's merit to expanding the Blue and/or Green lines to U. Circle.  But I do maintain that grade separation would be needed to make it work.  The auto traffic in the area is bad enough, esp. along Euclid and through the Cedar Glen area so that mingling cars with trains just would make matters worse; wouldn't be feasible.... Since the E. 116 Blue/Green section is already below the surface, turning north into the median of E. 116/MLK in an open cut would be workable, along with shift to a side-of-the-road portion down the (windy) bluff section into the MLK-Cedar-Carnegie intersection.

Interestingly enough, I just discovered that there ARE steps in this location. They are actually quite cool. Unfortunately they need repairs and do not continue all the way down to Edgehill anymore/ever??  It would be awesome to see them rehabbed but I believe they are located on the parcel with that old church, so the city does not have ownership of them. Im also afraid if it was brought up they would shut them down due to safety reasons, even though you can tell they are used often based on footprints in the snow as well as well as the fact that I physically saw people using them today.

 

 

Excellent shots.  I've caught glimpses of those stairs before but never had the opportunity to take a close look.

 

The other area that could use stairs is Overlook Road north of Edgehill.  The apartment buildings on that block are so, so close to the main drag of Little Italy (and future rapid stop) as the crow flies, but the walking route is much longer, either via the Edgehill or Kenilworth. Not exactly sure where a staircase could go, though.

I proposed this, including an elevator to the top of the parking deck on Murray Hill Road, from which a level, aerial walkway could extend over to the top of the hill. The elevator should be large enough to accommodate a couple of bicycles. The parking deck would replace the existing lot, plus the one across Murray Hill lost to my proposed expansion of CWRU's South Village to meet growing demands for student housing. The deck would also provide added parking for the new housing (but farther away from them than the UC-Cedar Red Line station, of course!)....

 

You'd be knocking a gap in those trees that surround the top of the hill with that walkway, for what it's worth.

 

I'd also put redundant stairs in that garage, otherwise the elevator(s) can get pretty packed at peak times.  Plus if you do that you can replace the elephant stairs (zig-zagging line just below your deck) with something a little more user friendly.

I'd advocate making the entire light rail system into a european Tramway, with the ability to operate in mixed Traffic. 

 

BTW those Trams can move pretty fast.

 

I'd Follow the basic route KJP suggested except by using Mixed Traffic standard (I.E. redured turing radii) you can loosen the requirement that any takings of buildings would be needed, keeping costs to a minimum.

 

 

 

 

Inset of Shaker Square I have made changes o this route to eliminate the need to run the train around the existing octagon, and To proceed directly north From the Center of the Square.

 

 

Inset of University circle (tentative) I struggle to find appropriate need to extend it to Cleveland clinic, since IMO the clinic doesn't represent the future of UC, it land use isn't conducive to transit, and the heart of UC is at Mayfield and euclid.

^As far as I can tell in UC there's 3 primary areas there that most people commute to for work. The UH/South side of Case/Uptown area (which you have covered nicely with your loop), the CC, and the Museums/VA/North side of Case. I think you significantly increase the potential of a line by including at least 2 of the 3. I like Ken's plan a little better than yours since it includes the UH area and the Clinic (Plus has the potential to someday replace the HL down Euclid.)

For the money/ridership/TOD spinoff, I think it would be much smarter to leave the blue line the way it is and just built a route connecting Coventry and/or Cedar as far out as you can go.  Perhaps if all of a sudden we have massive rail expansion this reroute would make sense but for now I think it would make more sense to serve the greatest areas where transit would work, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, Cedar Lee, etc...

I proposed this, including an elevator to the top of the parking deck on Murray Hill Road, from which a level, aerial walkway could extend over to the top of the hill. The elevator should be large enough to accommodate a couple of bicycles. The parking deck would replace the existing lot, plus the one across Murray Hill lost to my proposed expansion of CWRU's South Village to meet growing demands for student housing. The deck would also provide added parking for the new housing (but farther away from them than the UC-Cedar Red Line station, of course!)....

 

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5537/11509177585_b49869ae9e_b.jpg

 

I do not think the walkway connection is needed since the stairs are right near by. People complain about them but they work perfectly fine. I believe the rounded pathway connecting to the walkway wouldn't work due to the topography over there plus it would require taking down a lot of trees which is a huge negative. Honestly I do not think the garage is needed. A lot of the residents would be students. University Circle has one of the largest percentage of walking commuters, and a lot of these students come from out of state/country and do not bring a car with them. Additionally, biking is HUGE in University Circle. The amount of bikes at a bike rack is ridiculous over there. Also parking for residents could be better handled with smaller garages under the buildings.

 

 

Keep in mind that GCRTA plans to operate an express bus route from park-n-rides in North Randall and Chagrin Highlands, with stops at the new Blue Line terminal at Warrensville, Shaker Square and University Circle. Perhaps there will be more than one stop in UC. But I do not know where they will be.

 

What this bus service could help clarify is whether there is ridership for building a rail line from the vicinity of Shaker Square to UC and where the trains using this rail line should originate/terminate beyond that new rail segment.

Keep in mind that GCRTA plans to operate an express bus route from park-n-rides in North Randall and Chagrin Highlands, with stops at the new Blue Line terminal at Warrensville, Shaker Square and University Circle. Perhaps there will be more than one stop in UC. But I do not know where they will be.

 

What this bus service could help clarify is whether there is ridership for building a rail line from the vicinity of Shaker Square to UC and where the trains using this rail line should originate/terminate beyond that new rail segment.

Possibly a good sign of what we should expect/hope for with the RedLine extension too.

I didn't want to take the UC parking/transportation thread too far in this direction so I'll post here.

 

For a while, I've been assuming the baseline alternative (and RTA's eventual preferred alternative) will be something like what they want for the Blue line extension. I'm guessing an express bus service with stops at

• 222nd and Lakeshore
  
• Euclid Park&Ride (then hop onto 90)
  
• Get off the freeway at 156th and stop somewhere near Waterloo
  
• 5 points (St Clair and 152nd)
  
• Windermere (for transfers to HL/RedLine)
  
• Then a stop or two around UC (Probably the same few places the express busses to/from Warrensville & Harvard stop.)
  

By doing something like that, RTA would improve speed and access to these neighborhoods as much if not more than most of the options they're already exploring. And as a bonus, if it's a huge success then they've already got ridership for whenever they do build rail.

It could result in that, but it's hard to say at this point. The big difference is that the FTA guidance on New Starts projects changed from when the Blue Line Extension study was begun and carried out, to when the Red Line/HealthLine Extension study was begun and carried out. We don't yet know what projects will look like under the new FTA guidance as the Red Line/HealthLine Alternatives Analysis is one of the first conducted under the new guidelines which put greater emphasis on economic development potential in distressed areas, and less emphasis on service speed.

 

I do not think the walkway connection is needed since the stairs are right near by. People complain about them but they work perfectly fine.

 

The #6 bus worked perfectly fine to get people up and down Euclid, but it was still replaced by the BRT line.

 

People complain about them because they are not on anything resembling an ergonomic scale.    I'd bet that there's a much larger percentage of back, hip, and knee problems among people using those things than among demographically comparable groups.  I'm not sure how ADA would apply to them, but if it does there are issues there too.  This is a high end university and the elephant stairs may be somewhat iconic but they do not reflect this status.

 

 

I do not think the walkway connection is needed since the stairs are right near by. People complain about them but they work perfectly fine.

 

The #6 bus worked perfectly fine to get people up and down Euclid, but it was still replaced by the BRT line.

 

People complain about them because they are not on anything resembling an ergonomic scale.    I'd bet that there's a much larger percentage of back, hip, and knee problems among people using those things than among demographically comparable groups.  I'm not sure how ADA would apply to them, but if it does there are issues there too.  This is a high end university and the elephant stairs may be somewhat iconic but they do not reflect this status.

 

 

Wow, I actually agree with E Rocc! If we complain about something, how can it work perfectly fine? And if we were always satisfied with not improving a condition that we complain about, then how would society have progressed?

 

Fact is, if CWRU needs more housing to accommodate a rapidly growing undergraduate population, is buying properties between Murray Hill Road and the UC-Cedar Rapid station, may consider adding South Village housing there and on the adjacent parking lot it owns, it will need a new parking deck somewhere. If so, why not build it on a property already owned by CWRU and used for parking. And why not design that parking deck so that it can used to provide ADA-compliant access (and easier foot/bike access for everyone else) to the existing South Village housing at the top of the hill?

 

To me, when an investment can address multiple needs and goals simultaneously, you make that investment. Especially when few people like the status quo -- the stairs. So build this...

 

 

there is as everyone know demand From the heights into UC but there is a much larger catchment area to the south east, Solon, mancdonia and there-a-bouts that are dififcult to commute to UC by car.  I know the Map doesn't show it  :roll: but it exists.  to capture these commuter you have to get the Blue line to Either I271 or/and I-480 for a park and ride to UC to work.

 

 

For the money/ridership/TOD spinoff, I think it would be much smarter to leave the blue line the way it is and just built a route connecting Coventry and/or Cedar as far out as you can go.  Perhaps if all of a sudden we have massive rail expansion this reroute would make sense but for now I think it would make more sense to serve the greatest areas where transit would work, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, Cedar Lee, etc...

 

their are limits to streetcars.

 

1) is speed, operating without dedicated lanes Like the Health line or it own ROW would be needed to maintain any car competitive time on a 5 mile route from beachwood place to UC. 

 

Average Speed on a Mixed traffic streetcar is 10-12 MPH.

 

2) I don't believe there is a strong enough ridership on cedar, the 32 only had 435,000 riders in 2011, you'd need to get up closer to 1.5 million which is about the threshold for BRTLite, to make It worth the cost to move to rail, and without an sizable reduction in Travel time, I don't believe you can do that.

 

Extension to Beachwood place and Golden gate.

 

right now the green line is a weak generator of ridership because the Land Use surrounding it does not support transit, extending to greenline as a mixed traffic limited Stop Route to Beachwood Place and paralleling I-271 to golden Gate would place high quality transit in reach of Transit supportive developments.

 

The Line would operate in mixed traffic with 1/4 mile stop spacing from green to Beachwood place (slow) dedicated ROW from Beachwood place to Marisol Rd. (Fast)  mix Traffic from Marsol to golden gate.

 

Estimate travel time to Downtown from Beachwood place ~37 mins, ~20 mins to Shaker Square, even faster is shake Hts allows for signal priority for transit on Shaker Blvd.  the potential for a 35 min ride from Beachwood to downtown is very competitive with driving, add in parking costs and you could see a decent jump in ridership.

 

University Circle Streetcar.

 

 

KJP and I agree on routing though shaker Square to UC Via, Fairmont and cedar because it is the most direct and has the greatest potential to pick up ridership along the way.

 

I believe that the route should touch both Redline stations in UC, and act as a regional commuter route AND act as a circulation of Redline riders from the station to the front doors of their Jobs,homes and Schools in UC.

 

Thus a counter clockwise loop from Adelbert to Mayfiled (Via Circle Dr.), and to Euclid where it would use HL stations, all the way to the Cleveland Clinic.  The beauty of this is that resident of Murray hill and the little Italy station are less than a 5 min walk to a route that can get you to work, play or school.

 

I am still not happy with this route but the goal has to be to improve mobility within UC and well as mobility to UC.

 

2) I don't believe there is a strong enough ridership on cedar, the 32 only had 435,000 riders in 2011, you'd need to get up closer to 1.5 million which is about the threshold for BRTLite, to make It worth the cost to move to rail, and without an sizable reduction in Travel time, I don't believe you can do that.

 

 

It has 30 - 60 minute intervals. With those it will never serve as a viable transportation option for those who can choose. An elevated rail line with 5 - 15 minute intervals would do much better and not only serve rush hour commuters but also shoppers throughout the day. It would be the best routed line in the system.

 

2) I don't believe there is a strong enough ridership on cedar, the 32 only had 435,000 riders in 2011, you'd need to get up closer to 1.5 million which is about the threshold for BRTLite, to make It worth the cost to move to rail, and without an sizable reduction in Travel time, I don't believe you can do that.

 

 

It has 30 - 60 minute intervals. With those it will never serve as a viable transportation option for those who can choose. An elevated rail line with 5 - 15 minute intervals would do much better and not only serve rush hour commuters but also shoppers throughout the day. It would be the best routed line in the system.

 

Good point.

 

there is as everyone know demand From the heights into UC but there is a much larger catchment area to the south east, Solon, mancdonia and there-a-bouts that are dififcult to commute to UC by car.  I know the Map doesn't show it  :roll: but it exists.  to capture these commuter you have to get the Blue line to Either I271 or/and I-480 for a park and ride to UC to work.

 

That area is bigger than that actually, it goes into Bedford, Walton Hills and certainly Maple Heights (from where I commuted to CWRU).

 

This ties into the other point about frequency.  By definition, the same resources on a shorter route means more frequency, which means shorter door to door travel times, on average.  If the Shaker lines terminate somewhere in the vicinity of UC, perhaps at KJP's proposed station, you can either run them more frequently or further out.

It has 30 - 60 minute intervals. With those it will never serve as a viable transportation option for those who can choose. An elevated rail line with 5 - 15 minute intervals would do much better and not only serve rush hour commuters but also shoppers throughout the day. It would be the best routed line in the system.

 

It had much more frequent service in the recent past, but ridership fell to the point that such frequency was no longer justified. That's why the service levels are now down to every 30 minutes peak and 60 off-peak. The transit ridership trend line on this corridor is going down because the growth in commuting especially the farther east you go on Cedar is to the jobs at Legacy Village, Beachwood Place, and the office parks along I-271.

 

Furthermore, few transit agencies are building elevated rail lines, or subways, because federal funding for major-new transit projects is dwindling, and where they are being built, it is highly competitive. The only elevated/subway line that are winning funding are in a few highly trafficked corridors in a few heavily congested, growing cities. Cleveland meets none of those tests, nor does GCRTA have the financial wherewithal to sustain an elevated rail line or subway. We would likely have to increase GCRTA's countywide sales tax by about 50 percent in order to have a shot at affording the construction and operating costs of something so intensive. I do not see this county supporting such a tax hike. Even if it did, Cedar isn't the first corridor that comes to mind for such a huge transit endeavor.

 

I agree that we must move transit improvements forward. But remember that "perfect" is the enemy of "good." Get the improvements you can get, and after you achieve them pursue new ones.

 

Furthermore, few transit agencies are building elevated rail lines, or subways, because federal funding for major-new transit projects is dwindling, and where they are being built, it is highly competitive. The only elevated/subway line that are winning funding are in a few highly trafficked corridors in a few heavily congested, growing cities. Cleveland meets none of those tests, nor does GCRTA have the financial wherewithal to sustain an elevated rail line or subway. We would likely have to increase GCRTA's countywide sales tax by about 50 percent in order to have a shot at affording the construction and operating costs of something so intensive. I do not see this county supporting such a tax hike. Even if it did, Cedar isn't the first corridor that comes to mind for such a huge transit endeavor.

 

I agree that we must move transit improvements forward. But remember that "perfect" is the enemy of "good." Get the improvements you can get, and after you achieve them pursue new ones.

 

2 years (2012) ago Pittsburgh opened its North Shore Connector LRT tunnel under Allegheny River to the tune of nearly $500M.  North Shore included significant street subway components and terminates in a short elevated section. 

In 2006, St. Louis opened its 9-mile Blue Line (Light rail) to Shrewsbury that is totally grade separated – it contains significant subway tunnel, open-cut and elevated sections.

 

Both Pittsburgh and St. Louis are very similar to Cleveland in terms of size, (rustbelt/industrial) character, demographics and recent population loss.  And while I don’t know when St. Louis’ Blue Line was green-lighted, it was completed in the 6th year of the Bush Administration … as in conservative Republican.  So while I don’t doubt that the FTA grant process is competitive, I don’t understand why Cleveland should be scared away from a worthy LRT simply because it requires some grade separation when other cities, including some nearly identical to us, were successful.

 

THAT SAID I'm not sure a full-fledged, grade-separated rail expansion all the way to BP can be justified, esp. given the fact that the Green Line is relatively close by and RTA, no doubt, would have to explain why a shorter/cheaper extension of the Green Line to BP (as flawed as I noted earlier) wouldn’t do… I DO think, however, a grade-separated Coventry route possibly extended to Severance (essentially the 1968 Battelle study only using an LRT branch rather than HRT) shouldn’t be looked at considering University Circle’s stunning growth and the still high density of the Coventry corridor with a high number of apt dwellings/units.

 

 

THAT SAID I'm not sure a full-fledged, grade-separated rail expansion all the way to BP can be justified, esp. given the fact that the Green Line is relatively close by and RTA, no doubt, would have to explain why a shorter/cheaper extension of the Green Line to BP (as flawed as I noted earlier) wouldn’t do… I DO think, however, a grade-separated Coventry route possibly extended to Severance (essentially the 1968 Battelle study only using an LRT branch rather than HRT) shouldn’t be looked at considering University Circle’s stunning growth and the still high density of the Coventry corridor with a high number of apt dwellings/units.

 

If "BP" is Beachwood Place, I wouldn't even pursue it.  The mall will almost certainly oppose that and the city of Beachwood may as well.  There have been too many high profile "incidents" lately, and as we've discussed before, the perception would be that a train connection would increase the chances of more.

If "BP" is Beachwood Place, I wouldn't even pursue it.  The mall will almost certainly oppose that and the city of Beachwood may as well.  There have been too many high profile "incidents" lately, and as we've discussed before, the perception would be that a train connection would increase the chances of more.

 

Gee, thanks for helping to feed the hate/fear/ignorance by ratifying/excusing it.  :roll: Those are your perceptions. Not reality. The reality is that anyone can steal a car or ride a bus or hitchhike to Beachwood Place today and commit a crime if they really wanted to. Sorry, but your world of hate/fear/ignorance is dying. The construction of a train station at Little Italy is an example. One day we will build a rail line and station at Beachwood Place, too. And when it does, I hope hate/fear/ignorance rolls over in its grave once again.

 

Now can we PLEASE get back to University Circle??

2 years (2012) ago Pittsburgh opened its North Shore Connector LRT tunnel under Allegheny River to the tune of nearly $500M.  North Shore included significant street subway components and terminates in a short elevated section. 

In 2006, St. Louis opened its 9-mile Blue Line (Light rail) to Shrewsbury that is totally grade separated – it contains significant subway tunnel, open-cut and elevated sections.

 

Both Pittsburgh and St. Louis are very similar to Cleveland in terms of size, (rustbelt/industrial) character, demographics and recent population loss.  And while I don’t know when St. Louis’ Blue Line was green-lighted, it was completed in the 6th year of the Bush Administration … as in conservative Republican.  So while I don’t doubt that the FTA grant process is competitive, I don’t understand why Cleveland should be scared away from a worthy LRT simply because it requires some grade separation when other cities, including some nearly identical to us, were successful.

 

I don't recall all the details of Pittsburgh's North Shore LRT extension, such as what Congressional support existed to secure the funds. But I do recall that it was projected to cost $350 million with a 50/50 local/federal funding share. The project ended up costing $550 million, with 100% federal stimulus funds making up the difference. Even the then-pro-rail Gov. Ed Rendell called the North Shore LRT extension a "tragic mistake." BTW, how are Pittsburgh's transit finances since then?

 

St. Louis couldn't get federal funding for the Blue Line, so it was funded ENTIRELY by local dollars that included a 1/2-cent sale tax increase -- much like what we would probably need to do here in Cuyahoga County to afford not only the local funding share of constructing a major rail expansion, but also operating it too.

St. Louis couldn't get federal funding for the Blue Line, so it was funded ENTIRELY by local dollars that included a 1/2-cent sale tax increase -- much like what we would probably need to do here in Cuyahoga County to afford not only the local funding share of constructing a major rail expansion, but also operating it too.

 

Oh OK... I guess if there's a will there's a way... as with the Waterfront Line.  The City was gung-ho to finish the WL as a Cleveland Bicentennial project, that it bypassed FTA (or it's predecessor, can't remember) and got State and Local funds to get it done quickly.  As for getting Cuyahoga County residents to come out of their pockets for a major rail transit project, I can only defer to the New York word: fuggedaboudit... I think that last (and maybe the only) significant rail transit project officials successfully lobbied local residents to fund (through city bonds sales)  was the downtown subway and, well...

 

My guess, in looking at all of this, is that Red Line expansion to the NE (including a combo of HRT and DMU as discussed on that thread) along with the planned "express bus" from Chagrin Highlands via Van Aken, may be the only viable transit solution to UC traffic congestion for the foreseeable future.

 

Furthermore, few transit agencies are building elevated rail lines, or subways, because federal funding for major-new transit projects is dwindling, and where they are being built, it is highly competitive. The only elevated/subway line that are winning funding are in a few highly trafficked corridors in a few heavily congested, growing cities. Cleveland meets none of those tests, nor does GCRTA have the financial wherewithal to sustain an elevated rail line or subway. We would likely have to increase GCRTA's countywide sales tax by about 50 percent in order to have a shot at affording the construction and operating costs of something so intensive. I do not see this county supporting such a tax hike. Even if it did, Cedar isn't the first corridor that comes to mind for such a huge transit endeavor.

 

I agree that we must move transit improvements forward. But remember that "perfect" is the enemy of "good." Get the improvements you can get, and after you achieve them pursue new ones.

 

2 years (2012) ago Pittsburgh opened its North Shore Connector LRT tunnel under Allegheny River to the tune of nearly $500M.  North Shore included significant street subway components and terminates in a short elevated section. 

In 2006, St. Louis opened its 9-mile Blue Line (Light rail) to Shrewsbury that is totally grade separated – it contains significant subway tunnel, open-cut and elevated sections.

 

Both Pittsburgh and St. Louis are very similar to Cleveland in terms of size, (rustbelt/industrial) character, demographics and recent population loss.  And while I don’t know when St. Louis’ Blue Line was green-lighted, it was completed in the 6th year of the Bush Administration … as in conservative Republican.  So while I don’t doubt that the FTA grant process is competitive, I don’t understand why Cleveland should be scared away from a worthy LRT simply because it requires some grade separation when other cities, including some nearly identical to us, were successful.

 

THAT SAID I'm not sure a full-fledged, grade-separated rail expansion all the way to BP can be justified, esp. given the fact that the Green Line is relatively close by and RTA, no doubt, would have to explain why a shorter/cheaper extension of the Green Line to BP (as flawed as I noted earlier) wouldn’t do… I DO think, however, a grade-separated Coventry route possibly extended to Severance (essentially the 1968 Battelle study only using an LRT branch rather than HRT) shouldn’t be looked at considering University Circle’s stunning growth and the still high density of the Coventry corridor with a high number of apt dwellings/units.

 

grade separation is expensive.  It would be More appropriate to run streetcars/trams/LRT on Mayfield in the left lanes with median platforms, and IF the City would allow it Make those lanes transit only, all day long, if not Peak only bus lanes.

 

 

This would be fast but A fraction of the cost of fully grade separated.

 

There is a continuum to Rapid transit From mixed traffic to Subways/Elevated Rail.

 

From Slow To Fast

Mixed Traffic

1AMixed traffic, stops on the curb out of the flow of Traffic. ( traditional bus operation not usable with rail)

1BMixed traffic, Stops on bus Blubs or bump outs ( doesn't require to leave and Reenter the Traffic flow Saves between 30secs to 1 min per stop, standard for modern Streetcars)

1CMixed traffic, median stations, with platforms in ahead of the traffic signal, Signal preemption works best with this design (think EC stations between East22nd and East 105th, the signal lets the vehicle pass thru light then the vehicle loads passengers as opposed to being stopped by a light after loading passengers.)

 

Transit lanes

2ADedicated transit lanes peak only curb lanes. (BRT lite Clifton Boulevard, reduces obstructions from Queued vehicles in the lane, useful at improving peak service, but operates with the same disadvantages of a traditional mixed traffic bus off peak. allows on street parking)

2BDedicated transit lanes all day curb lanes. ( Superior Ave. From west 6th to east 17th st. see above but minus the disadvantages of the Off peak service.

2C Dedicated Transit lanes center lanes All Day (Healthline between downtown and University circle fastest rapid transit behind fully grade separated, limited to >5 min headway due to cross traffic. )

 

Grade separated

3A median running LRT ( shaker Rapid east of Woodhill. Cross traffic can limit Frequency to >5 mins, and can reduce maximum operating speeds)

3B Fully separated subway/Elevated/trench (redline limit on speed dictated by rolling stock geometry and need. frequencies at close as 90secs, extremely reliable service.

 

 

 

THAT SAID I'm not sure a full-fledged, grade-separated rail expansion all the way to BP can be justified, esp. given the fact that the Green Line is relatively close by and RTA, no doubt, would have to explain why a shorter/cheaper extension of the Green Line to BP (as flawed as I noted earlier) wouldn’t do… I DO think, however, a grade-separated Coventry route possibly extended to Severance (essentially the 1968 Battelle study only using an LRT branch rather than HRT) shouldn’t be looked at considering University Circle’s stunning growth and the still high density of the Coventry corridor with a high number of apt dwellings/units.

 

If "BP" is Beachwood Place, I wouldn't even pursue it.  The mall will almost certainly oppose that and the city of Beachwood may as well.  There have been too many high profile "incidents" lately, and as we've discussed before, the perception would be that a train connection would increase the chances of more.

 

I disagree

grade separation is expensive.  It would be More appropriate to run streetcars/trams/LRT on Mayfield in the left lanes with median platforms, and IF the City would allow it Make those lanes transit only, all day long, if not Peak only bus lanes.

I hate median platforms. They preclude using regular busses in non-peak hours on the same corridor. They require riders to cross an extra street: there are few things in the world that frustrate me more than seeing a HL bus pull up to the station but not being able to catch it because there are cars driving by. And they make the traffic pattern more confusing for drivers resulting in cars regularly turning into the bus lane on accident which increases risk to pedestrians crossing to the median platform. Drivers are accustomed to busses holding up the right lane of traffic already, riders are accustomed to the bus stopping on the curb, and if the dedicated bus lanes on a main road are actually faster, than why not use multiple bus routes that feed to those lanes?

 

Sorry, rant off. What were we talking about?

grade separation is expensive.  It would be More appropriate to run streetcars/trams/LRT on Mayfield in the left lanes with median platforms, and IF the City would allow it Make those lanes transit only, all day long, if not Peak only bus lanes.

I hate median platforms. They preclude using regular busses in non-peak hours on the same corridor. They require riders to cross an extra street: there are few things in the world that frustrate me more than seeing a HL bus pull up to the station but not being able to catch it because there are cars driving by. And they make the traffic pattern more confusing for drivers resulting in cars regularly turning into the bus lane on accident which increases risk to pedestrians crossing to the median platform. Drivers are accustomed to busses holding up the right lane of traffic already, riders are accustomed to the bus stopping on the curb, and if the dedicated bus lanes on a main road are actually faster, than why not use multiple bus routes that feed to those lanes?

 

Sorry, rant off. What were we talking about?

 

I have herd your concerns from many people, especially the visually and hearing impaired.

 

but there is a balance between speed and community impact.

 

keep in mind the breda cars are 9'4" wide, Toykus are 10' 4" wide.

an interesting take on grade separation

 

Your statement that "there seems to be a considerable investment of time getting up and down from [metro] stations, while with surface transport you're immediately there," reflects a recent trend in overbuilding/making civic showpieces out of subway stations, rather than a drawback inherent in subterranean rapid transit.

 

A well-designed system should never add enough surface-to-platform distance to negate the time savings of grade separation, to cause riders to miss their trains, or to let the above thought even enter your mind.

 

This remains the subway ideal:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Foldalatti_Andrassy.png

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Metro )

 

And while that may be infeasible today, we need not have swung so far to the other extreme. This is unnecessary, expensive, and counterproductive:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/UniversityStreetStation.jpg

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Seattle_Transit_Tunnel )

 

it explains why people may not use the redline for anything more than commuting.