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.

 

I don't see how your comment is relevant to the quote or supported by fact.  The quoted comment deals with large subway palace-like stations, citing Seattle's metro bus/LRT tunnel built 24 years ago.  Cleveland has no subway (other than the short airport tunnel).  Also, I don't get your Red Line commuting comment.  It's undeniable that the Red Line has seen tremendous growth in recent years -- carrying the most passengers in 22 years according to recent reports..  Plus rail commuter growth to/from downtown Cleveland, which has lost tons of jobs in the last 3 decades, and which only grown slightly job-wise in the last few years, does not appear to be where the growth is.  Rather growth has occurred in off peak travel, to downtown and Ohio City, in particular, have expanded as significant restaurant & entertainment districts. 

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.

 

I don't see how your comment is relevant to the quote or supported by fact.  The quoted comment deals with large subway palace-like stations, citing Seattle's metro bus/LRT tunnel built 24 years ago.  Cleveland has no subway (other than the short airport tunnel).  Also, I don't get your Red Line commuting comment.  It's undeniable that the Red Line has seen tremendous growth in recent years -- carrying the most passengers in 22 years according to recent reports..  Plus rail commuter growth to/from downtown Cleveland, which has lost tons of jobs in the last 3 decades, and which only grown slightly job-wise in the last few years, does not appear to be where the growth is.  Rather growth has occurred in off peak travel, to downtown and Ohio City, in particular, have expanded as significant restaurant & entertainment districts. 

 

You are Taking it too literally.

 

the advantages of grade separated open cut,  subway or elevated rail is speed, but the effort used to traverse the stairs or other obstacles must be counted as a disadvantage, over surface transport, if a person isn't going very far, it would make it more likely to take a slower surface route than a faster grade separated route. the importance of the distance the person travels and the speed that Service travels matters most in choosing grade separated vs Surface transit.

 

also think about how new subways are being built Really deep nowadays.

 

the east side access tunnel is 180ft below grade, the 2nd ave subway is 80 feet below grade.

 

"MTA is constructing deep-bore subways so as not to risk the ire of a cut-and-cover NIMBYism. Much as how an elevated line will not see the light of day despite advances in engineering reducing the noise and blight, cut and cover and the disruptions it brings will never return to New York."

 

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/10/01/guys-the-second-ave-subway-is-really-far-underground-and-the-times-is-on-it/

 

 

 

University Circle needs traffic answers sooner rather than later: editorial

 

 

University Circle is a bit of a misnomer. It's not much of a circle at all. It takes its name from the streetcar roundabout that used to sit where the Children's Museum of Cleveland is now. Trolleys going to and from downtown Cleveland and the Heights would be redistributed there.

 

Indeed, if somebody were to christen the region today based on its transportation patterns, it would more aptly be called University Pretzel, University Knot or just Confusing As Heck. And yet, it's a remarkable section of Cleveland that employs 50,000 people in a two square-mile area and is home to the city's most prestigious institutions.

 

Western Reserve College moved there from Hudson in the late 19th century. Then came Case School of Applied Science, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Severance Hall.

 

It's also home to Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals Case Medical Center, both major employers as well as medicine-dispensing and biomedical research marvels. Not to mention a raft of other cultural and academic institutions and a burgeoning residential sector.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/02/university_circle_needs_traffi.html#incart_opinion

^NOTE as usual the PD is clueless about Cleveland transit.  ie -- Blue/Green riders don't have go all the way downtown to transfer back out the UC via the Red Line, as the editorial states.  Also, there's no comment on the NE Red Line/Health Line ongoing study which could greatly reduce auto traffic into UC. 

^NOTE as usual the PD is clueless about Cleveland transit.  ie -- Blue/Green riders don't have go all the way downtown to transfer back out the UC via the Red Line, as the editorial states.  Also, there's no comment on the NE Red Line/Health Line ongoing study which could greatly reduce auto traffic into UC. 

 

I haven't checked the article, but are there comments after the article correcting it?

University Circle needs traffic answers sooner rather than later: editorial

 

 

University Circle is a bit of a misnomer. It's not much of a circle at all. It takes its name from the streetcar roundabout that used to sit where the Children's Museum of Cleveland is now. Trolleys going to and from downtown Cleveland and the Heights would be redistributed there.

 

Indeed, if somebody were to christen the region today based on its transportation patterns, it would more aptly be called University Pretzel, University Knot or just Confusing As Heck. And yet, it's a remarkable section of Cleveland that employs 50,000 people in a two square-mile area and is home to the city's most prestigious institutions.

 

Western Reserve College moved there from Hudson in the late 19th century. Then came Case School of Applied Science, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Severance Hall.

 

It's also home to Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals Case Medical Center, both major employers as well as medicine-dispensing and biomedical research marvels. Not to mention a raft of other cultural and academic institutions and a burgeoning residential sector.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/02/university_circle_needs_traffi.html#incart_opinion

 

We used to say that UC stood for Universal Cluster-eff back in my CWRU days. 

 

The idea that one must go downtown to transfer is a common misperception, though the PeeDee of course should not have printed it. 

At the moment the biggest traffic holdup is the construction on 105th. Finish that up, start operating the express busses from Shaker and get some transit out to Euclid and I imagine the traffic issues will take care of themselves.

At the moment the biggest traffic holdup is the construction on 105th. Finish that up, start operating the express busses from Shaker and get some transit out to Euclid and I imagine the traffic issues will take care of themselves.

 

Definitely. Some more housing within walking/biking distance of employers and CWRU would help too.

The cedar hill multi-use path should be great. I bet you see more people walking, and especially biking down it to University Circle or the red line station.

 

Especially true if the Cedar-Fairmount streetscape occurs this spring along with plans to develop the top of the hill.

The cedar hill multi-use path should be great. I bet you see more people walking, and especially biking down it to University Circle or the red line station.

 

Especially true if the Cedar-Fairmount streetscape occurs this spring along with plans to develop the top of the hill.

 

What are the plans for the streetscape and the top of the hill?  I haven't seen or heard anything.  If true, it could go a ways toward alleviating traffic problems in UC.

There's a new video update on the study at http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/project-updates/video-alternatives-development-process-out

 

Also some new documents at http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/documents

BTW, ridership modeling is coming in. The BRT-lite option north to Lake Shore Blvd and east to the high-rises near East 260th is showing some decent ridership numbers. Not as good as the HealthLine, but still not bad. The Red Line extension east to the Euclid P&R is better, but much more expensive owing to the many bridges, including a long flyover over the NS mainline between Shaw Avenue and Coit Road. The flyover is needed to avoid structural demolitions, relocating tracks in the active portion of Euclid Yard and to put the Red Line on the north side of the NS ROW where the Euclid P&R is located.

 

I don't have DMU ridership data, but it seems apparent that the DMU will have to operate all the way downtown on the Red Line. Running it only between Euclid P&R and Windermere, or even Euclid P&R to University Circle produced disappointing ridership data. Downtown is still the primary employment concentration (it has as many office workers as the rest of Cuyahoga County combined). So the DMU option will likely be for a single-seat downtown-Euclid P&R trip via the Red Line tracks (how this interfaces with existing Red Line schedules/operations remains to be seen). Then a single-track will be extended east from the track that passes over the RTA roadway (a former streetcar track!) to the bus garage. Because of the new FRA interoperability standards due in 2015 (and the provision of automatic train stop signaling protecting the crossing), the DMU track will switch onto the southernmost NS main track midway between Shaw and Coit, crossover at-grade between the two main tracks, then switch off the northernmost NS track onto its own track between Coit and Collamer. Seven new stations are proposed -- Shaw, Noble, London-Wayside, East 193rd, Dille, East 222nd, and Euclid P&R. Fortunately, the NS ROW is very wide, so very little new property must be acquired to make this happen. The only property that may need to be acquired is at stations.

^Very interesting.  I'm guessing the one seat DMU option would have significantly shorter travel times to downtown than the BRT alternatives?

^Very interesting.  I'm guessing the one seat DMU option would have significantly shorter travel times to downtown than the BRT alternatives?

None of the BRT alternatives goes downtown.

^Very interesting.  I'm guessing the one seat DMU option would have significantly shorter travel times to downtown than the BRT alternatives?

 

More than likely. However the DMU probably won't be any faster than the #239 freeway flyers from the Euclid P&R. It takes the #239 only 30 minutes to run from the Euclid P&R to Tower City. The DMU could take roughly the same time, as it takes the Red Line 19 minutes to travel the 8 miles from Tower City to Windermere (including seven enroute station stops). The Euclid P&R is 5.5 miles farther, which may be reached in 11-15 minutes (the big schedule delay would be the at-grade crossing of NS). Perhaps the DMU would run limited-stop on the Red Line, stopping only at Windermere, the two UC stops and East 55th to increase the speeds?

 

The reason why this is important is that GCRTA will likely not run both the #239 AND the DMU. Yet the FTA doesn't allow transit agencies to cannibalize their existing bus services to pay for new rail services. The only way they can is if the rail service offers an upgrade over the bus service, and the FTA doesn't recognize the mere existence of rail as an upgrade to a superior transit mode. To be considered an upgrade, the rail service has to offer faster, more frequent service with more access (re: stops) for more communities and users to benefit from it. So if the DMU can operate at least as fast as the #239 (possible), with more stations (yes, absolutely, with new access to Ohio's fourth-largest employment center), and offer more frequencies (likely, as the #239 offers only five AM inbounds and six PM outbounds). So the DMU won't just replace the #239 with more frequent service that's about as fast yet with more stops. It will provide a service GCRTA (and Laketran) doesn't currently offer -- a fast transit service to University Circle from near the Cuyahoga/Lake line (and possibly beyond, someday).

 

BTW, a BRT north to the Lake Shore corridor will never be as fast as the #239 which originates from a loop at East 222nd/Lake Shore. From that bus loop to Tower City, the #239 takes just 41 minutes. There's no way a HealthLine extension will be anywhere near that fast, so I don't see GCRTA eliminating the #239 after a BRT extension.

 

None of the BRT alternatives goes downtown.

 

The BRT option is assumed to be an extension of the HealthLine, with buses running from Public Square to East 260th/Lakeshore near the Lake County line.

Paired Analysis

workers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

Baseline

22,010 Workers

 

Red Line today

 

After redline Extension within Cuyahoga county

 

28,170 workers

 

After Redline Extension to Lake county

 

31,859 workers

 

Access: <2 miles from Home  <.5 miles from work

Red Line Today 22,010

Red Line Extension (Cuyahoga) 28,170

Red Line Extension (Lake) 31,859

 

I moved the previous post to this thread.

 

That 6,000 increase is nearly equal to the one-way rides projected for the Red Line extension to Euclid which the planning team estimates will cost $800 million. A significant portion of the Red Line is proposed to be built on an elevated alignment, including the first mile east of Windermere, the flyover of the NS tracks in the area of London-Ivanhoe, and an elevated alignment on the north side of the Euclid Yard where sidings come off to current/future industries to the north. The projected ridership doesn't justify this rail extension, or even a DMU which is projected to cost upwards of $600 million.

 

The "surface alignment" (either BRT or streetcar) from Windermere north to Lake Shore and east to the high-rises is estimated at $200 million to $300 million. The operating cost for the streetcar may be less than BRT because it can accommodate more riders on fewer departures per hour, and the streetcar could operate through to downtown on the Red Line tracks. I don't remember the exact ridership for the surface alignment (via Five Points, Waterloo District, Lake Shore, Downtown Euclid, lakefront high-rises), but it was nearly 10,000 a day.

 

There's also a hybrid option being considered, but there's no data on that yet.

More than likely. However the DMU probably won't be any faster than the #239 freeway flyers from the Euclid P&R. It takes the #239 only 30 minutes to run from the Euclid P&R to Tower City. The DMU could take roughly the same time, as it takes the Red Line 19 minutes to travel the 8 miles from Tower City to Windermere (including seven enroute station stops). The Euclid P&R is 5.5 miles farther, which may be reached in 11-15 minutes (the big schedule delay would be the at-grade crossing of NS). Perhaps the DMU would run limited-stop on the Red Line, stopping only at Windermere, the two UC stops and East 55th to increase the speeds?

 

The reason why this is important is that GCRTA will likely not run both the #239 AND the DMU. Yet the FTA doesn't allow transit agencies to cannibalize their existing bus services to pay for new rail services. The only way they can is if the rail service offers an upgrade over the bus service, and the FTA doesn't recognize the mere existence of rail as an upgrade to a superior transit mode. To be considered an upgrade, the rail service has to offer faster, more frequent service with more access (re: stops) for more communities and users to benefit from it. So if the DMU can operate at least as fast as the #239 (possible), with more stations (yes, absolutely, with new access to Ohio's fourth-largest employment center), and offer more frequencies (likely, as the #239 offers only five AM inbounds and six PM outbounds). So the DMU won't just replace the #239 with more frequent service that's about as fast yet with more stops. It will provide a service GCRTA (and Laketran) doesn't currently offer -- a fast transit service to University Circle from near the Cuyahoga/Lake line (and possibly beyond, someday).

 

BTW, a BRT north to the Lake Shore corridor will never be as fast as the #239 which originates from a loop at East 222nd/Lake Shore. From that bus loop to Tower City, the #239 takes just 41 minutes. There's no way a HealthLine extension will be anywhere near that fast, so I don't see GCRTA eliminating the #239 after a BRT extension.

 

None of the BRT alternatives goes downtown.

 

The BRT option is assumed to be an extension of the HealthLine, with buses running from Public Square to East 260th/Lakeshore near the Lake County line.

 

As has been noted by many UO/HL riders, the Health Line is struggling with overcrowding, bus bunching and slow speeds with the current 7-mile system that runs through sparsely populated Midtown.  How does RTA think that extending it to the County Line is going to offer any kind of improvement over current buses?  Clearly rail transit, in whatever form, is the only serious alternative worth investing in.  If RTA is looking for a non-rail alternative (and you know they are), they might as well simply extend the current #28 bus westward from the Windermere terminal to Cleve. Clinic.  The fact that BRT is even on the table smells like an elaborate ruse.

^Agreed on extending the HL. The line is crowded enough as is, pushing it all the way to Euclid would make it worse. An extension of the HL or even a separate BRT route that terminates at Windermere but stops every 1/4 mile isn't going to offer many advantages over the current bus routes as far as development, speed, or even attracting new riders IMO.

 

I'm still in favor of a park & ride bus with a couple stops in Euclid (Lakeshore & Babbitt, Park and Ride lot), then take the freeway at least to Waterloo then just stop at a few key intersections (Waterloo & 156th, 5-points) on the way down to UC and then stop a few places there (UH, CC).

^That sounds like a good idea, but what route would the bus take from Collinwood down to UC/Cleve Clinic?

^That sounds like a good idea, but what route would the bus take from Collinwood down to UC/Cleve Clinic?

IDK, maybe 152nd to St Clair to Hayden to Euclid? There's a whole pile of options.

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.

 

A tool?  Absolutely.  A sufficient tool?  Not in the absence of jobs, and hence economic growth, and hence a much more business-friendly, and particularly manufacturing-friendly, macroeconomic environment.  If we continue to tolerate "governments" that go out of their way to be hostile to free enterprise, peace, and rule of law, then these desolate streetscapes will soon be emblematic of a whole nation full of dying and dead cities that no amount of transit can possibly rescue.

A tool?  Absolutely.  A sufficient tool?  Not in the absence of jobs, and hence economic growth, and hence a much more business-friendly, and particularly manufacturing-friendly, macroeconomic environment.  If we continue to tolerate "governments" that go out of their way to be hostile to free enterprise, peace, and rule of law, then these desolate streetscapes will soon be emblematic of a whole nation full of dying and dead cities that no amount of transit can possibly rescue.

 

You do realize that we have the lowest taxes, smallest government as a percentage of GDP, and worst economy in 40+ years, right?  The rich are doing well, apparently, but there's no trickle down.  Maybe lowering taxes and reducing government spending is not always the solution to economic problems.

 

I agree that expanding rail transit is insufficient.  I also don't think we can justify the cost to expand rail transit right now, but we can do some planning for the future if the economics ever improve, and we can work to improve the existing system.

Red Line-HealthLine extension to Euclid Part III of public input mtgs are 6 pm May 20-22 in Euclid, East Cle & Cleve http://freepdfhosting.com/8d53e56d16.pdf

^No mention on the flyer of which bus routes to take to get to the meeting locations... shame. (I'm half sarchastic.)

A tool?  Absolutely.  A sufficient tool?  Not in the absence of jobs, and hence economic growth, and hence a much more business-friendly, and particularly manufacturing-friendly, macroeconomic environment.  If we continue to tolerate "governments" that go out of their way to be hostile to free enterprise, peace, and rule of law, then these desolate streetscapes will soon be emblematic of a whole nation full of dying and dead cities that no amount of transit can possibly rescue.

 

You do realize that we have the lowest taxes, smallest government as a percentage of GDP, and worst economy in 40+ years, right?  The rich are doing well, apparently, but there's no trickle down.  Maybe lowering taxes and reducing government spending is not always the solution to economic problems.

 

I agree that expanding rail transit is insufficient.  I also don't think we can justify the cost to expand rail transit right now, but we can do some planning for the future if the economics ever improve, and we can work to improve the existing system.

 

Off topic...the only thing trickling down is scorn by the oligarchs as we either work for less or are unemployed.

Let's keep the conversation on extending the Red Line

Keith, the flyer was sent out by the vendor. Ride RTA.com has the info you want, on the Major Projects page, so will the Digest, which is going to press now, and so will the press release.

Keith, the flyer was sent out by the vendor. Ride RTA.com has the info you want, on the Major Projects page, so will the Digest, which is going to press now, and so will the press release.

I know I know. Hell, I don't need to be told which routes go by those locations. Just being snarky.

Too bad we can't do this here....

 

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has awarded a contract worth $58 million to Stadler to supply eight two-car diesel multiple-units (DMUs) for use on the 10-mile East Contra Costa  BART extension project, which is currently under construction.  This is $7.25 million per two-car unit or $3.625M per unit..

 

^Yeah, that'd be nice. I'll settle for something on tires that's faster than going downtown and transferring to the HL or 38 (accute angles aren't cute). I'm not hopeful that any of the proposed alternatives will be as (for reasons we've already discussed) speed doesn't appear to be a high priority.

Too bad we can't do this here....

 

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has awarded a contract worth $58 million to Stadler to supply eight two-car diesel multiple-units (DMUs) for use on the 10-mile East Contra Costa  BART extension project, which is currently under construction.  This is $7.25 million per two-car unit or $3.625M per unit..

 

Why can't we do that here?  Funding allocation?

Why can't we do that here?  Funding allocation?

 

Two reasons:

 

1. The projected cost of providing infrastructure necessary to extend passenger rail service, including DMUs, within GCRTA's study area incurs significant costs (perhaps $600+ million) without generating significant ridership (I've seen estimates in the neighborhood of 7,000 new daily riders). FYI, extending the Red Line infrastructure itself (with overhead wires, high-level stations, grade separations with all roads/tracks/industrial rights of way) is estimated to cost $800+ million yet generate only 11,000 new daily riders.

 

2. Several weekday commuter trains (as in railroad trains, not transit trains), could operate from a station at or right near Tower City Center, then on dedicated track parallel to the Red/Green/Blue lines to a junction with the Norfolk Southern Lake Division tracks near the new Commercial Road overpass, and then from there to somewhere in Lake County (Mentor? Painesville, Madison?). As long as that option didn't generate significant capital costs and the operating costs were reasonable with respect to ridership, then that may be possible.

 

However #2 was not one of the options considered as the Red Line/HealthLine extension study is limited by GCRTA's service area (Cuyahoga County) since GCRTA was the lone project sponsor. Laketran did not take a direct role in this process which started when Laketran's levy renewal was on the ballot. The renewal is intended to fund Laketran's existing service only and Laketran officials didn't want the appearance that the levy would pay for any part of the Red Line/HealthLine extension. So they stayed out.

Of all options studied, your number 2 seems like the only one to make sense IMO. Besides the do nothing option. Id rather have the commuter train though!

 

There are a lot of industrial jobs along the rail line in mentor, eastlake, and willoughby. You could have a stop serving a massive industrial park and the mentor mall shopping area.

Of all options studied, your number 2 seems like the only one to make sense IMO. Besides the do nothing option. Id rather have the commuter train though!

 

Except that it wasn't studied.

Of all options studied, your number 2 seems like the only one to make sense IMO. Besides the do nothing option. Id rather have the commuter train though!

 

Except that it wasn't studied.

 

I really like your Option 2, so I throw out the following:

 

Can such a study be undertaken in the future?  Can, say, the parameters be expanded?  And to facilitate the preceding, could a NEO rail district, including ODOT, be formed as an FTA receiving body not unlike that formed in Elyria to upgrade the current Amtrak station into the Elyria Transportation Center?

 

I really like your Option 2, so I throw out the following:

 

Can such a study be undertaken in the future?  Can, say, the parameters be expanded?  And to facilitate the preceding, could a NEO rail district, including ODOT, be formed as an FTA receiving body not unlike that formed in Elyria to upgrade the current Amtrak station into the Elyria Transportation Center?

 

 

Sure a study is possible. Not sure if a Northern Ohio Rail Alliance-type situation is needed however for someone 'within' a metro area. It's something that NOACA could study on its own. FYI, there are interests in Erie, PA that would like to investigate a Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo passenger rail service, so they may take the lead all on their own.

 

And one correction -- the Northern Ohio Rail Alliance didn't form to upgrade the Elyria station. That station project had moved along on its own. The fact that the station project was awarded ODOT/Turnpike money after the creation of NORA was likely only a coincidence. It probably would have received the money regardless of whether NORA was formed or not. NORA didn't apply for the ODOT/Turnpike money; the Lorain County did as they are that project's sponsor.

^Oh OK, thanks for the clarification... Seems like there may be some funding/application option(s) to the seemingly limited study RTA is engaging in.

The study posted their "Definition of Tier 2 Alternatives Report" which has a boring title but is actually an interesting read if you're into seeing how they determine which alternatives to pursue and how they would work or if you live in the area they're studying.

 

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/project-updates/definition-tier-2-alternatives-report-posted

 

Edit: I should also add that I'm overjoyed that they listened to us at the Euclid public meeting and Alternatives E and G now extend up Lakeshore to 260th.  :clap:

Looking at the struggles of the healthline to keep up with increasing demand which causes overcrowded busses, one would think that if they didn't want to do a red line extension then they would only consider a streetcar as an alternative.

Looking at the struggles of the healthline to keep up with increasing demand which causes overcrowded busses, one would think that if they didn't want to do a red line extension then they would only consider a streetcar as an alternative.

They've pretty much made it clear that a BRT extension would be a seperate route from the HL.

Looking at the struggles of the healthline to keep up with increasing demand which causes overcrowded busses, one would think that if they didn't want to do a red line extension then they would only consider a streetcar as an alternative.

They've pretty much made it clear that a BRT extension would be a seperate route from the HL.

 

But that would make no sense.  Any extension would have to be an extension of the HL, not a brand new BRT, so that what McLovin is saying is logical.

The study web site has not yet updated the list of alternatives.  I've thrown together a map that shows the alignments of the three different alternatives which have been moved forward according to the document.  It also tries to include the relocated stations.

 

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zblW843vKHX8.keNNhDgPsiKo

 

 

To me, from a pure alignment perspective, Alternative E seems like the winner here.  Of course if it's "BRT-lite", I'm not sure anyone wins.

 

 

Looking at the struggles of the healthline to keep up with increasing demand which causes overcrowded busses, one would think that if they didn't want to do a red line extension then they would only consider a streetcar as an alternative.

They've pretty much made it clear that a BRT extension would be a seperate route from the HL.

 

But that would make no sense.  Any extension would have to be an extension of the HL, not a brand new BRT, so that what McLovin is saying is logical.

I didn't phrase that clearly. It'll be an extension of the HL, but the busses will all stop at Windermere and re-space themselves so that they're not any more bunched than currently. Additionally, a lot of riders coming from NE of Windermere will transfer to the Red Line or one of the other busses out of Windermere. (I'll probably take it to Windermere and transfer to the 3 for example.)

The study web site has not yet updated the list of alternatives.  I've thrown together a map that shows the alignments of the three different alternatives which have been moved forward according to the document.  It also tries to include the relocated stations.

 

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zblW843vKHX8.keNNhDgPsiKo

 

To me, from a pure alignment perspective Alternative E seems like the winner here.  Of course if it's "BRT-lite", I'm not sure anyone wins.

I'm conflicted on which I like best. I think it needs to stop in Waterloo, but I think 185th should be covered too.

I really like the possibility of using the extension to drive revitalization along St. Clair in South Collinwood, but I wonder if the North Collinwood alignment would have more potential because of synergy with the CDC efforts there.  It's a tough call.  Either way, I'd much prefer a streetcar over BRT.

I'm conflicted on which I like best. I think it needs to stop in Waterloo, but I think 185th should be covered too.

 

Then have it travel along the north side of I-90 before turning north on 185th.

I'm conflicted on which I like best. I think it needs to stop in Waterloo, but I think 185th should be covered too.

 

Then have it travel along the north side of I-90 before turning north on 185th.

Or take Grovewood to Villaview to 185th. If it works for the 37, why not for this?

I think that would have a lower "catchment" compared to the other two.  It would cover fewer residents than the 152nd routing which hits higher density residential along Lake Shore, and reach fewer places of employment than the 185th routing which serves the St. Clair corridor south of the railyard.

 

It may also be less ideal for a dedicated lane transit service (be it bus or rail) since Lake Shore has a wider ROW than Grovewood.

I think that would have a lower "catchment" compared to the other two.  It would cover fewer residents than the 152nd routing which hits higher density residential along Lake Shore, and reach fewer places of employment than the 185th routing which serves the St. Clair corridor south of the railyard.

 

It may also be less ideal for a dedicated lane transit service (be it bus or rail) since Lake Shore has a wider ROW than Grovewood.

You make good points and that's probably why they're studying the routes they are.

 

I doubt dedicated lanes are happening on any of the routes.