I do agree it would be great to hit both those locations.  And sadly I agree that while the Rapid+ is by far the most atttactive, this BRT lite concept seems most likely. 

 

"The characteristics of this service would include substantial stations, passenger information systems and transit signal priority, but would operate in mixed-traffic similar to the existing HealthLine east of MLK Blvd."

 

How is transit signal priority going on the "full BRT" held up as a model for the word?  The one that's reportedly near capacity already with acres of undeveloped land around its middle?

How is transit signal priority going on the "full BRT" held up as a model for the word?  The one that's reportedly near capacity already with acres of undeveloped land around its middle?

 

Excellent questions!

In fact, the problems associated with the city being responsible for signal prioritization on the existing HealthLine is a mark against pursuing a full-blown BRT elsewhere in Cleveland -- unless the city is willing to give GCRTA control over the traffic signals.

 

BTW, I spoke to soon that extension of the Red Line is a dead issue.... The study team took a second look at the 6.5-mile Red Line extension to the Euclid Park & Ride. Yes, it could cost more than $900 million to build. And if the East Side Red Line's day-long service frequency of a train every 15 minutes each way was extended east to Euclid, it wouldn't achieve a "medium" cost-effectiveness rating from the FTA because its high cost would be amortized among an insufficient number of riders (about 9,800 per day).

 

But a funny thing happened when the study team ran the FTA's ridership model with the East Side Red Line operating at the SAME frequency as the West Side Red Line (ie: every 6-8 minutes peak travel hours, and 15 minutes off-peak). The ridership jumped! Instead of 9,800 rides per day, it rose to 13,400 per day! So the Red Line achieved a "medium" cost-effectiveness rating of $9.41 annualized cost per trip. Any project that has an annualized cost per trip of between $6.00-$9.99 scores the "medium" rating and is considered JUSTIFIED by the FTA. Still, all of the BRT options achieved higher cost-effectiveness ratings -- from $6.19 (ending at Lake Shore-East 260th) to $6.67 (ending at Shoregate). None of the BRTs are cheap either -- ranging form $353 million to $431 million.

 

But what's even more stunning is that the Red Line extension (operated with the same service frequency on the east side as now exists on the west side) would attract 11,100 NEW TRANSIT TRIPS per day whereas the BRT options attracted only 3,800 to 4,300 new transit trips per year because the BRT would replace the existing bus services (and thus would merely shift existing transit trips onto the new BRT). BTW, the #28 bus on Euclid would NOT be replaced by the extension of the Red Line along the parallel NS RR corridor.

 

Because of the significant number of new daily transit trips, the reductions in car traffic would be significant -- a reduction in 75,200 in DAILY vehicle-miles traveled. That's three times more than any of the BRT options! When we consider how traffic-congested University Circle has become (and will get worse), or redeveloping the industrial triangle (East 152/Euclid/Ivanhoe) with transit-accessible advanced manufacturing, or addressing a major contributor of climate-changing carbon emissions, maybe $900 million is a small price to pay?

I took a quick glance through the project site and didn't see it mentioned.  Is the potential for TOD at euclid square mall and the bluestone business park factored in to the red line extension at all?  That looks like over 100 acres of land to me that abuts the RR tracks without much active development going on.

I took a quick glance through the project site and didn't see it mentioned.  Is the potential for TOD at euclid square mall and the bluestone business park factored in to the red line extension at all?  That looks like over 100 acres of land to me that abuts the RR tracks without much active development going on.

 

No. The study data I just cited is based on existing conditions. The next step is for a final alternative to be chosen. Then GCRTA and the cities along the route plus other stakeholders will develop a business case (including economic development, land use planning, etc).

In fact, the problems associated with the city being responsible for signal prioritization on the existing HealthLine is a mark against pursuing a full-blown BRT elsewhere in Cleveland -- unless the city is willing to give GCRTA control over the traffic signals.

 

Not to mention the fact that this route actually spans three cities,  all of which I'm guessing would have to agree to cede control of the traffic signals along the route to achieve maximum potential.

 

Is the data that you cited about rides generated publicly available?  It is understandable that the BRT option would duplicate a lot of existing services and thus would perform low on that measure.  In fact its hard for me to believe that a BRT-lite would generate anything significant in terms of new ridership as it would have almost none of the advantages of BRT and suffer from having far fewer stops to catch riders.

Not to mention the fact that this route actually spans three cities,  all of which I'm guessing would have to agree to cede control of the traffic signals along the route to achieve maximum potential.

 

Is the data that you cited about rides generated publicly available?  It is understandable that the BRT option would duplicate a lot of existing services and thus would perform low on that measure.  In fact its hard for me to believe that a BRT-lite would generate anything significant in terms of new ridership as it would have almost none of the advantages of BRT and suffer from having far fewer stops to catch riders.

 

It will be shortly. In fact, if you attend the public meetings coming up next week.....

 

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/events

 

....you will hear and see it. In fact, I'm shocked folks here haven't jumped all over the data I shared on the prior page!

....you will hear and see it. In fact, I'm shocked folks here haven't jumped all over the data I shared on the prior page!

Believe me I'm drooling over the possibilities.

 

.. In fact, I'm shocked folks here haven't jumped all over the data I shared on the prior page!

 

You know KJP, I was on the road and asleep at the info switch... Thanks for the heads up...  I'm actually stunned at what you are reporting and, of course, hopeful.  It has been my feeling all along that extending the Red Line is the most attractive option but, cost-wise and rider-wise, at least with the prior numbers reported in the study, electrified rail didn't seem to make sense.  Now, who knows?

In fact, the problems associated with the city being responsible for signal prioritization on the existing HealthLine is a mark against pursuing a full-blown BRT elsewhere in Cleveland -- unless the city is willing to give GCRTA control over the traffic signals.

 

BTW, I spoke to soon that extension of the Red Line is a dead issue.... The study team took a second look at the 6.5-mile Red Line extension to the Euclid Park & Ride. Yes, it could cost more than $900 million to build. And if the East Side Red Line's day-long service frequency of a train every 15 minutes each way was extended east to Euclid, it wouldn't achieve a "medium" cost-effectiveness rating from the FTA because its high cost would be amortized among an insufficient number of riders (about 9,800 per day).

 

But a funny thing happened when the study team ran the FTA's ridership model with the East Side Red Line operating at the SAME frequency as the West Side Red Line (ie: every 6-8 minutes peak travel hours, and 15 minutes off-peak). The ridership jumped! Instead of 9,800 rides per day, it rose to 13,400 per day! So the Red Line achieved a "medium" cost-effectiveness rating of $9.41 annualized cost per trip. Any project that has an annualized cost per trip of between $6.00-$9.99 scores the "medium" rating and is considered JUSTIFIED by the FTA. Still, all of the BRT options achieved higher cost-effectiveness ratings -- from $6.19 (ending at Lake Shore-East 260th) to $6.67 (ending at Shoregate). None of the BRTs are cheap either -- ranging form $353 million to $431 million.

 

But what's even more stunning is that the Red Line extension (operated with the same service frequency on the east side as now exists on the west side) would attract 11,100 NEW TRANSIT TRIPS per day whereas the BRT options attracted only 3,800 to 4,300 new transit trips per year because the BRT would replace the existing bus services (and thus would merely shift existing transit trips onto the new BRT). BTW, the #28 bus on Euclid would NOT be replaced by the extension of the Red Line along the parallel NS RR corridor.

 

Because of the significant number of new daily transit trips, the reductions in car traffic would be significant -- a reduction in 75,200 in DAILY vehicle-miles traveled. That's three times more than any of the BRT options! When we consider how traffic-congested University Circle has become (and will get worse), or redeveloping the industrial triangle (East 152/Euclid/Ivanhoe) with transit-accessible advanced manufacturing, or addressing a major contributor of climate-changing carbon emissions, maybe $900 million is a small price to pay?

 

This merits repeating...

This merits repeating...

 

And visually demonstrating. Here's a few important charts......

 

 

I agree with extending our rail service further to existing Park n' Ride facilities, but my first question is, why Euclid?  Why not extend further from 117th through Lakewood into Rocky River.  Or why not from the Airport through Berea into Strongsville?  If existing bus ridership shows that Euclid would generate the most revenue for extended service, then I agree.  However, if RTA's due dilligence shows that ridership is greater elsewhere, then spend the $900M to extend it there. 

 

I'm somewhat new to the discussion, so if Euclid is obviously the best option in a non-theoretical way, the I agree with the extention. 

I don't want us to get too excited, however. Keep in mind that the $1.5 billion downtown subway and rail option for the Dual Hub Corridor also scored high enough with the FTA to receive federal funding. But the locally preferred alternative was the $200 million bus rapid transit. Coming up with nearly $1 billion for a Red Line extension (probably 50% federal, 50% non-federal) will be very difficult.

 

I agree with extending our rail service further to existing Park n' Ride facilities, but my first question is, why Euclid?  Why not extend further from 117th through Lakewood into Rocky River.  Or why not from the Airport through Berea into Strongsville?  If existing bus ridership shows that Euclid would generate the most revenue for extended service, then I agree.  However, if RTA's due dilligence shows that ridership is greater elsewhere, then spend the $900M to extend it there. 

 

I'm somewhat new to the discussion, so if Euclid is obviously the best option in a non-theoretical way, the I agree with the extention. 

 

It wasn't the corridor studied this time. The other corridors you mentioned were studied in the past. None of them produced enough ridership and/or cost too much to meet the FTA's cost-effectiveness criteria.

I agree with extending our rail service further to existing Park n' Ride facilities, but my first question is, why Euclid?  Why not extend further from 117th through Lakewood into Rocky River.  Or why not from the Airport through Berea into Strongsville?  If existing bus ridership shows that Euclid would generate the most revenue for extended service, then I agree.  However, if RTA's due dilligence shows that ridership is greater elsewhere, then spend the $900M to extend it there. 

 

I'm somewhat new to the discussion, so if Euclid is obviously the best option in a non-theoretical way, the I agree with the extention. 

This study is purely about connecting UC to East Cleveland, Collinwood and Euclid. Some other study would have to go into that.

 

The Airport to Berea to Strongsville extension was studied in the 90s and shot down (mostly) by residents. Routes 251 and 451 were the compromise. I've been a vocal proponent of a similar compromise, but FTA rules have changed so that a park & ride style bus apparently doesn't score as high as it used to.

 

Isn't the Lakewood - Rocky river being addressed by Cleveland-Lakewood: "Enhance Clifton" transit project ?

 

They're studying this corridor specifically because the current bus service in the corridor is pretty terrible (too many slow meandering routes with too low frequency, connections that aren't timed, etc).

^^gotribe -- those are all worthwhile extensions imho.  To be honest, I don't really know what the genesis of the Red Line/BRT proposal was but wherever it was, I'm pleased it happened.  My guess is that RTA settled on this one, in part, because of all the development, and concomitant congestion, at University Circle; the fact that the Red Line ends in a stub in a poor city and can be extended along a relatively straight, flat existing ROW and that it has the potential to draw in significant Lake County traffic without having to extend the line into Lake County (and battling with a  political jurisdication semi or not interested in sharing costs) ... Also the fact there is currently no real quick route to access U. Circle from the far NE by car or transit and that a relatively inexpensive (note the word "relatively") high-speed/high capacity rail line could both get people to the Circle (and downtown, Ohio City and the Airport) quickly and take cars off the street -- this latest twist in FTA analysis indicates substantially more than originally thought.

 

Also, the projected terminal at Euclid Square is right at junction of 2 substantial radial freeways (and connecting to the Outerbelt East south along I-271).  If Cleveland's quirky transit riders prove anything, is that they are often willing to drive substantial freeway distances, hop off and park at Rapid terminals for the easy/quick ride into downtown.  I'm sure that's a factor here... the study KJP cites indicate these factors were in play, as well as the positive impact on the transit dependent in the corridor...

 

^KJP -- I know full-blown Red Line expansion is going to be a reach, but I'll hold out hope.  The Dual-Hub subway (which I still believe in) is a deal-breaker cost-wise in a lot of cities.  The fact the 6.5 mile Red Line extension is at surface along a rail ROW spanned by heavy electrical transmission lines, hopefully will allow it to be reasonably cost effective, esp in mirroring West Side service frequency as you note.  I also hope/wish simpler unmanned, street-level stations with ADA ramps, esp the presumed terminal at the Euclid Square terminal, could make Red Line extension even more cost effective.  I'm also hoping that use of the existing maintenance facility at E. 55 would negate any kind of elaborate terminal facilities at Euclid Square, even further holding down costs.

Some more graphics. Economic development along the route can and should be part of the local funding share. The planning envisions some economic development, namely the first graphic. The two following it are mine....

 

 

 

^Why would you want to dead end it and make it almost impossible to ever extend it again? Not that I think the Red Line itself should be extended further (you'd want commuter rail if you took it any further) but I hate terminals like that. If the airport hadn't been designed as a terminal, it'd be a lot cheaper to extend to the IX center.

^Why would you want to dead end it and make it almost impossible to ever extend it again? Not that I think the Red Line itself should be extended further (you'd want commuter rail if you took it any further) but I hate terminals like that. If the airport hadn't been designed as a terminal, it'd be a lot cheaper to extend to the IX center.

 

First of all, I designed it so it could be extended farther east, preferably alongside the CSX line so it could include a future joint station with Amtrak at this Town Center concept. Yet I asked the study team leader if he looked farther east to determine whether it would be better to be on the north side of the NS mainline or the south side. He responded that the line would never be extended farther east. And I reminded him of the airport station situation which precludes an affordable extension.

^I wouldn't have any problem with the Red Line terminating at Euclid Sq. -- that's probably about as far as it should go -- it would reach the N.E. corner of Cuyahoga County in Euclid and nearby several substantial burbs just inside the western border of Lake County.  It would turn the 7.8 Stokes-Windermere branch into a 14.3 line -- that's pretty long for a rapid line in a medium sized city/metro area (those absurdly long 25+ mile D.C. Metro lines are unusual).  Beyond Euclid Sq, diesel commuter rail would seem most logical, probably the DMU's KJP mentioned.

This merits repeating...

 

And visually demonstrating. Here's a few important charts......

 

 

The verdict is that DMU are more expensive to run frequency, and the increased capital costs of Electrified Rail is more that justified by the operational cost savings.

 

running at 7.5 minute headways it make sense to electrify, and the DMU can't perform as well as electrified trains which adds costs.

 

the big question can this be used to get RTA to start thinking about new fleet, and some major upgrades to the system.

^I took that DMU and Rapid+ just plain aren't going to happen on this route, but HRT or BRT are still possible.

^I took that DMU and Rapid+ just plain aren't going to happen on this route, but HRT or BRT are still possible.

 

That's correct. See the cost-effectiveness chart I posted earlier.

here is link to the presentation we have been referring to.

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2014-05-13RedLineHL.pdf

^From that, the most important slides were at the end.

 

Summary Evaluation

• Alternative B

  – DMU option is not cost-effective.

  – HRT option provides significant mobility benefits

  – HRT option medium rating for cost-effectiveness without right-of-way costs.

  – HRT costs twice as much as the BRT options and is less cost effective.

• Alternative E

  – Rapid+ option is not cost effective.

  – BRT option has fewer mobility benefits than Alternative B.

  – BRT option would qualify for a medium rating for cost-effectiveness.

  – Satisfies statutory requirement for dedicated transit lanes.

  – Future "transit village" development.

• Alternative G

  – Rapid+ option is not cost effective.

  – BRT option has fewer mobility benefits than Alternative B.

  – BRT option would qualify for a medium rating for cost-effectiveness.

  – Does NOT currently satisfy statutory requirement for dedicated transit lanes.

  – Future "transit village" development.

 

 

Next Steps

• Ridership forecasts

  – Use NOACA model for more refined estimates of trips on project.

 

• Business Case

  – Develop No Build and Do Minimum alternative.

  – Capital cost for Do Minimum alternative.

  – Operations and maintenance cost estimate for all alternatives.

  – Fiscal capacity and financial analysis.

  – Comparative analysis.

 

• Select locally preferred alternative (LPA)

  – Cost effectiveness and other FTA evaluation criteria.

  – FTA New Starts templates.

Has the revised report of 5/12/14 been circulated among stakeholders?  Given the more favorable analysis toward Red Line extension, it would be nice if these stakeholders would be made aware and get behind this project: movers/shakers like Chris Ronayne, Mike Polansek (who’s Collinwood ward would be served by Red Line expansion, and who has expressed pro-Red Line

expansion sentiment), the Euclid mayor and others… Is this happening?

 

Obviously there have been public meetings, but I'm not reading or hearing any public officials commenting on the study or getting behind Red Line expansion... like, say, the Opportunity Corridor where public officials have all lined up and supported the roadway very little study.

RTA should seek $300 million in Turnpike money for this.

 

1 billion dollars project

500 million from a federal New starts grant.

300 million from Turnpike funds

55 million City of Cleveland

15 million East cleveland

35 million Euclid

55 million RTA

40 million County

 

 

 

RTA ideas for extending public transit in northeastern Cuyahoga County pared to three alternatives

 

 

Plans to extend public transit in the northeast corner of Cuyahoga County have been whittled to three alternatives -- one that would extend the heavy rail Red Line and two that would lengthen the route of the rapid-bus HealthLine.

 

 

Each option would push RTA's service past its current end point at the Windermere station on Euclid Avenue in East Cleveland. RTA says there's an underserved, strong concentration of commuters and non-work travelers in its far-eastern service area who would benefit from better access to University Circle, Midtown and downtown Cleveland.

 

 

"It's a very transit-rich environment. There's a good customer base out there," said Kenneth Sislak, associate vice president of AECOM, the consultant hired by RTA to analyze alternatives.

 

 

A boost to service in northeastern Cuyahoga County is part of RTA's long-range strategic plan. Even getting to first base -- that is, securing federal dollars for a major project -- requires a methodical series of studies and public hearings, with no guarantee that a proposal will become a reality.

 

 

But RTA Chief Executive Joseph Calabrese said he's encouraged by a new emphasis from the White House on public transit. President Obama's four-year, $302 billion surface transportation plan proposes an "historic increase" in transit funding — from $12.3 billion to $22.3 billion annually.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/05/rta_ideas_for_extending_public.html#incart_m-rpt-1

^This article lays out the alternatives very well: one of the more comprehensive, well written PD transit articles I’ve seen.  Joe C says RTA will “value engineer” the proposals to attempt to curb costs of the 3 options.  It’ll be interesting to see how that works…  The article notes that the Red Line extension does not include property acquisition which obviously, at some point, must be factored in.  As these rough numbers indicate, extending the tracks is slightly more than double the costs of the 2 BRT options ($917M vs $426M and $430M), although both BRT options extend farther northeast along Lakeshore Blvd to just inside the Lake County line at Shoregate shopping center.  However, the impact of the Red Line extension will probably be many times more in terms of ridership, capacity, increased land values altering residential patterns.  I would also suspect that routing feeder bus routes off Lakeshore along E. 260th and/or Babbitt Rd into the new Red Line terminal at Euclid Sq. would draw more riders to the buses than simply expanding BRT which very well may share the capacity issues of the current Health Line.   

 

These next few months should be interesting.

 

Haven't had a chance to post this until now.......

 

Greater Cleveland RTA expansion talks for move into Euclid, Lake County continue

By Amy Popik, The News-Herald

POSTED: 05/22/14, 12:10 AM EDT | 3

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is continuing along with the Red Line/Healthline Extension Study, which could potentially extend services into Euclid and Lake County.

 

At the third round of public meetings, AECOM Technical Services, the planning company that is working on the study, presented the latest information and analysis into the remaining alternatives, from an extension of the Red Line to new HealthLine routes through East Cleveland, Euclid and the Cleveland neighborhood of Collinwood.

 

As of the last public meeting, the study was considering four alternatives out of nine, labeled B, D, E and G, each with varying routes, stops and types of transit.

 

Now the study has narrowed the alternatives to three.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20140522/greater-cleveland-rta-expansion-talks-for-move-into-euclid-lake-county-continue

This is why extending the Red Line to Euclid is the best option for sustaining a vibrant, beautiful University Circle....

 

Amazing.  Arlington VA (across the river from DC) added 50k people, yet traffic counts declined on key roads. How?  http://t.co/UP7WOxNWKc

 

Oh, and there's this tweet too....

 

Take a look at the Market Perspective Analysis for #RedLineHealthLine and see how the money fits in! http://t.co/OZ76iFbpSz #Transit #CLE

Is there a precident for an outlier county paying a higher percentage of the construction costs when extending a rapid transit line through the original county into the outlier county?

 

(Above question shorter: Can we get Lake County to pay for a chunk of extending the red line in Cuyahoga County as well as all if the costs to extend it to Mentor?)

It won't go outside of Cuyahoga County. The ridership doesn't justify the cost of extending the Red Line beyond Euclid.

This is why extending the Red Line to Euclid is the best option for sustaining a vibrant, beautiful University Circle....

 

Amazing.  Arlington VA (across the river from DC) added 50k people, yet traffic counts declined on key roads. How?  http://t.co/UP7WOxNWKc

 

Oh, and there's this tweet too....

 

Take a look at the Market Perspective Analysis for #RedLineHealthLine and see how the money fits in! http://t.co/OZ76iFbpSz #Transit #CLE

 

I just glanced at the recent Market analysis... Maybe I'm reading into it (and admittedly, for the moment I skimmed it), but it seems like it's making a strong case for extending the Red Line.  It is also the 1st time, officially, where I've seen the suggestion of a mini Red Line extension to Noble. I'm very encouraged by the HRT precedents cited and the belief similar development could happen at Noble, Ivanhoe Rd and even Euclid Square.  This is very positive imho.

Is there a precident for an outlier county paying a higher percentage of the construction costs when extending a rapid transit line through the original county into the outlier county?

 

(Above question shorter: Can we get Lake County to pay for a chunk of extending the red line in Cuyahoga County as well as all if the costs to extend it to Mentor?)

 

yes, they can pay a higher percentage of the costs. 

 

it wouldn't be easy but it can be done.

I forgot to share this.....

 

2 Jul

Redline/HL Study @RedlineHLStudy

Ck out the Urban Fabric Analysis for #RedLineHealthline Alternatives, &see how stations might fit in! http://redlinehealthlinestudy.com/document/urban-fabric-analysis … #Transit #CLE

This is an RFP with a response deadline of June 27.....

 

W25 Transit Oriented Development Strategy

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – TRANSIT FEASIBILITY

 

Abstract

Cleveland Neighborhood Progress seeks a qualified consultant to assist in the evaluation of viable transit options for

the West 25th Street corridor in Cleveland, Ohio.

 

Background

In 2013, in partnership with several civic institutions and community organizations, Neighborhood Progress

commenced facilitation of a far-reaching community conversation among four west side Cleveland neighborhoods.

Now referred to as the West 25th Street Initiative, the work has evolved into an effort that is equal parts community

development and economic empowerment. Discussions have been broadly related to eight focus areas: commercial,

education, housing, pedestrian, recreation, services, transit, and workforce. Going forward, the initiative will provide a

framework for continued engagement to define and advance the collective empowerment agenda of the communities

of people that live, work, and play along the corridor.

 

Area

The target area for this study spans five neighborhoods along a four mile stretch of the West 25th Street/Pearl Road

corridor, from Detroit Road to the North to the Cleveland Zoo to the South. Analysis will likely extend several blocks

into the community fabric on either side of the corridor and will include many significant institutions and employers.

 

Study

The transit-oriented development strategy is a focused effort to thoroughly assess a few very important questions

facing this target area, namely:

1. What type of transit and level of service can this corridor support now? In the future?

2. What are the basic economics of feasible approaches?

3. How would the preferred approach be integrated (schematically) into the existing streetscape?

4. What are the critical considerations for station location and infrastructure?

 

Timeline

The development strategy has been scheduled to be completed over a four-month period, but the consultant would

need to provide their final recommendations to the consultant team within 2.5 to 3 months from the beginning of the

contract or no later than Oct 1, 2014.

After reading the summary at the end it sounds like they have a clear favorite, and it's not rail.

^Shocking!

I forgot to share this.....

 

2 Jul

Redline/HL Study @RedlineHLStudy

Ck out the Urban Fabric Analysis for #RedLineHealthline Alternatives, &see how stations might fit in! http://redlinehealthlinestudy.com/document/urban-fabric-analysis … #Transit #CLE

 

KJP, a couple Qs:

 

1. What's your take on the Urban Fabric Analysis?

 

2. Is this particular analysis just one aspect of the Locally Preferred Alternative, or the last word?

 

3. Even though I agree with McLovin that there's a bit of a slant towards Rapid+/BRT, the study did allow that a Red Line rail station has far more impact on land use than BRT, but that the latter would interact better with the existing streetscape.. The question is: will it make the street/walking environment better or simply make it look better, a la the Health Line? --- or perhaps the better question is: which is the more transformative technology or which is the cheapest?

 

-- what is the priority?  What should it be?

^Shocking!

I mean as you've stated I believe this analysis had a slant toward the BRT alternative, and worded the analysis to believe the BRT was the better option. I felt like the breakdown of the BRT option was more extensive as well.

^Shocking!

I mean as you've stated I believe this analysis had a slant toward the BRT alternative, and worded the analysis to believe the BRT was the better option. I felt like the breakdown of the BRT option was more extensive as well.

 

McLovin that was meant as a shot at RTA (and their analysis) not you.  Hope you didn't take it the wrong way; I agree with your statement.

^Shocking!

I mean as you've stated I believe this analysis had a slant toward the BRT alternative, and worded the analysis to believe the BRT was the better option. I felt like the breakdown of the BRT option was more extensive as well.

 

McLovin that was meant as a shot at RTA (and their analysis) not you.  Hope you didn't take it the wrong way; I agree with your statement.

No I didn't, but I do appreciate you taking time out to clarify, thank you.

KJP, a couple Qs:

 

1. What's your take on the Urban Fabric Analysis?

 

2. Is this particular analysis just one aspect of the Locally Preferred Alternative, or the last word?

 

3. Even though I agree with McLovin that there's a bit of a slant towards Rapid+/BRT, the study did allow that a Red Line rail station has far more impact on land use than BRT, but that the latter would interact better with the existing streetscape.. The question is: will it make the street/walking environment better or simply make it look better, a la the Health Line? --- or perhaps the better question is: which is the more transformative technology or which is the cheapest?

 

-- what is the priority?  What should it be?

 

I haven't looked at it or the market analysis yet. Hope to look at them this weekend.

This is an RFP with a response deadline of June 27.....

 

W25 Transit Oriented Development Strategy

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – TRANSIT FEASIBILITY

 

Abstract

Cleveland Neighborhood Progress seeks a qualified consultant to assist in the evaluation of viable transit options for

the West 25th Street corridor in Cleveland, Ohio.

 

Background

In 2013, in partnership with several civic institutions and community organizations, Neighborhood Progress

commenced facilitation of a far-reaching community conversation among four west side Cleveland neighborhoods.

Now referred to as the West 25th Street Initiative, the work has evolved into an effort that is equal parts community

development and economic empowerment. Discussions have been broadly related to eight focus areas: commercial,

education, housing, pedestrian, recreation, services, transit, and workforce. Going forward, the initiative will provide a

framework for continued engagement to define and advance the collective empowerment agenda of the communities

of people that live, work, and play along the corridor.

 

Area

The target area for this study spans five neighborhoods along a four mile stretch of the West 25th Street/Pearl Road

corridor, from Detroit Road to the North to the Cleveland Zoo to the South. Analysis will likely extend several blocks

into the community fabric on either side of the corridor and will include many significant institutions and employers.

 

Study

The transit-oriented development strategy is a focused effort to thoroughly assess a few very important questions

facing this target area, namely:

1. What type of transit and level of service can this corridor support now? In the future?

2. What are the basic economics of feasible approaches?

3. How would the preferred approach be integrated (schematically) into the existing streetscape?

4. What are the critical considerations for station location and infrastructure?

 

Timeline

The development strategy has been scheduled to be completed over a four-month period, but the consultant would

need to provide their final recommendations to the consultant team within 2.5 to 3 months from the beginning of the

contract or no later than Oct 1, 2014.

 

this sounds interesting.

Where'd you find this kjp?

The $1 billion Red Line extension to Euclid is projected to see 13,400 riders per day. That sounds like a lot until you compare it to projections for the DC Metro's Silver Line which opened this past weekend.....

 

They aren't running their extension to abandoned malls and the backs of factories.

They aren't running their extension to abandoned malls and the backs of factories.

 

Yep. But the point being is that this what Cleveland rail projects are competing with for federal funding. Sure, the Red Line extension meets federal funding criteria. It doesn't mean it's actually going to receive any money.

The $1 billion Red Line extension to Euclid is projected to see 13,400 riders per day. That sounds like a lot until you compare it to projections for the DC Metro's Silver Line which opened this past weekend.....

 

 

Part of the reason why Metro is the 2nd busiest rail network behind NYC.

They aren't running their extension to abandoned malls and the backs of factories.

 

Yep. But the point being is that this what Cleveland rail projects are competing with for federal funding. Sure, the Red Line extension meets federal funding criteria. It doesn't mean it's actually going to receive any money.

 

This is why I wish some corporate, big-money interest could partially fund this project in a P3 arrangement.  You'd think that from UH to Lincoln Electric and other corps along the Red Line path, there would be some interested stakeholder who could get behind this project.  Oh yeah, I forgot, transit, esp rail transit, is a no-no only in this town; only to be used by the (lazy) poor and minorities who can't afford cars in order to experience the freer, American/liberty lifestyle.