I was just wondering, since the group seems to know these things.  Would a west side BRT or trolly line be feasible.

At first I was thinking Detroit Ave, and use the lower section of the Detroit Sup bridge and wind up at Tower City.

 

Then I thought of the new Lakeshore Boulevard (old shoreway) It could just be built into the new road.  Or at least it could be planned when the money is available. 

 

What do y'all think

 

:-)

I was thinking about this, I planned it such that it would originate from Public Square, which in my plan had all the middle traffic cut out such that it is a pedestrian only square.  It would then go all the way down Superior->Detroit.  I was liking light rail more, but whatever is more cost effective. 

what about a shoreway to Clifton Rd?  An extension of the waterfront line.

 

There's the West Shore Trolley, proposed by EcoCity Cleveland...

 

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/prendergast_westshore.html

 

About a year back, when I first learned about the details of the Euclid Corridor project, and during that whole West End fiasco in Lakewood, I had an idea for Detroit Avenue: build a BRT line on Superior Avenue from Public Square westward to Detroit, run it through the Detroit-Shoreway and Cudell neighborhoods, though Lakewood, and terminate at the West End area.  It would be cool to see the area return to its roots as a transportation center (the West End used to be a streetcar barnyard).

i could see brt or light rail along the lake and on clifton. it's an old streetcar street anyway so it can handle it. i think this was proposed at some point if the euclid brt works out and if and when the shoreway gets re-built. at least i thought i read that somewhere. regardless they should put in a median and plan for it at minimum on the new shoreway boulevard. and yes indeed, the lower deck of the bridge is just ready and waiting for re-use someday isn't it?

 

otoh, the only thing acceptable along detroit is subway and it should go thru lakewood too if ever built. someday it may be who knows? as of now it would never happen while calabrese runs rta or if the ya-hoos at odot got involved.

 

 

There's the West Shore Trolley, proposed by EcoCity Cleveland...

 

Actually, I proposed that (the West Shore Trolley II)....I guess I just blew my cover!   :wave:

 

Since I sent that to EcoCity, I revised my idea (dream?) for downtown rail transit routes....

 

 

 

So Black is Euclid BRT

Blue is Waterfront

Red is red line to airport/Windermere

Green? Orange? (new?)

 

How much partial credit do I get?

Green Line is a westward extension of one of the existing Shaker Heights rapid lines west to the Airport. It assumes RTA re-equipping their rail fleet with a standardized rail car that can operate on any line. The Orange Line is a totally new line, from Euclid or Collinwood to Westlake via downtown. Maybe someday....

 

Take credit for it. You came up with an original idea, too. What prompted you to come up with the idea and post it?

 

KJP

Hmm, I like the proposed Orange Line route but I'd love to see it run up Clifton Blvd. rather than Detroit.

 

I know that there's the West 98th/West Blvd. station but quite frankly, it's 1. too far to walk (or in some cases inaccessible) from the areas north like Lake Avenue (especially in bad weather), and 2. the area around it, particularly Detroit Avenue near West Blvd gets a little dicey and once you go east of West Blvd., it gets dicier, imho. 

Lakewood and western Cleveland remind me of the neighborhoods I lived in Chicago, along the brown (Ravenswood) line.  It is not as densly populated, but I think it is populated enough.

 

If the line went into the next shoreway boulevard, then all development north might be TOD.  (OK, all I know about TOD I learned on this forum so don't flame me)

 

With Battery park coming in, there are more potential riders.  If it were part of the waterfront line, it could help that struggling line a bit.

 

Just my thoughts

 

LRT on Clifton would be awesome. The street is wide enough to sustain one without hindering car traffic too much (if it does... well, screw you, automobile drivers  :-D), and as said before, it could be built into the Shoreway Boulevard and be a westward extension of the Waterfront Line.

 

Speaking of Clifton, I've heard a few months ago that a tree median was proposed for the street (i.e., make it into a true boulevard, instead of just a very wide, well-kept road).  Is this in the works?

^I think a landscaped streetcar median, like the St. Charles line in New Orleans, would be great on Clifton.

"Speaking of Clifton, I've heard a few months ago that a tree median was proposed for the street (i.e., make it into a true boulevard, instead of just a very wide, well-kept road).  Is this in the works?"

 

Can't say I've heard about that - do you remember where you heard that? I'd love to see it happen - even if it only slows people down to 40-45mph instead of their routine 50+.

How cool would it be to say Cleveland took a highway and converted it to a boulevard with a transit spine?  And opened up a huge chunk of land in the process?

 

 

Can't say I've heard about that - do you remember where you heard that? I'd love to see it happen - even if it only slows people down to 40-45mph instead of their routine 50+.

 

It was from the Lakewood Buzz forum (http://lakewoodbuzz.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x).  I can't find the thread that mentioned the proposal, but it talked about Cleveland and Lakewood redeveloping the street on both sides of the border leading up to W.117th.  The development would have included modifying the street to build a green median.

 

Looking back, though, it was probably from an "idea thread", and I must have misinterpreted it as an actual proposal.  Still, I think something like this could actually work. Maybe it could link up with the Shoreway Boulevard as one single road?

According to the Lakewood report in our office, the city of Lakewood is considering it. RTA has talked about a BRT down Clifton but that's all it has been -- talk.

 

My map showed the light rail line as replacing the Norfolk Southern (ex-Nickel Plate route) track, but I proposed that when freight train traffic had diminished to less than 2 trains a day. Freight traffic has gone back up since the recession, to perhaps 8-12 per day.

 

Still, it's possible to do, if RTA built for NS some additional capacity to detour the freight traffic or if the freight train traffic were limited to the middle of the night when there would be no light-rail service. Such is the case on a portion of a light-rail north of Baltimore, and on a new diesel light-rail corridor between Trenton and Cambden N.J.

 

If CEI could be persuaded, they already have a power transmission line along the NS rail line west of Cleveland, through Lakewood and beyond. If that power line were rebuilt by CEI as part of installing electric catenary wires over a light-rail transit line (to which CEI would provide the power and possibly recoup its investment), RTA might be able to use the existing track and leave enough space for passing tracks and a bike path.

 

Still, it wouldn't be cheap. Building enough capacity for NS to detour its trains to another route could cost tens of millions of dollars. But RTA buying the NS right of way for perhaps $10 million to $20 million could be used to leverage a Federal Transit Administration grant for the project. The first phase could branch off from the existing Red Line at the West Boulevard station to Westlake Park and Ride, with the second phase linking the West Boulevard station to downtown via Edgewater Park and the Shoreway boulevard. It's fun to dream.

 

KJP 

In a moment of sheer boredom, I decided to sit down and figure out how much the first phase of a West Shore LRT could cost, if it were built as an 11-mile branch off the Red Line at the West Boulevard Rapid station, west to Crocker Road in Westlake. I would use the existing tracks of the NS mainline as much as possible. The second phase would route the LRT down the Shoreway Boulevard, then under the Veteran Memorial Bridge, and through downtown on Rockwell. Here is what I found out for the first phase....

 

Acquire 11 miles of N/S mainline ..................... $15 million

Build 3rd main freight bypass via Elyria/Berea ... $50 million

Build overhead catenaries-wires ...................... $30 million

Add Quiet Zone crossing protection .................. $15 million

Extend 2nd track to Crocker Road .................... $  4 million

Constuct up to 16 stations ............................... $17 million

Retrofit W65th & W25th stations for LRT .......... $  2 million

Build WSLRT-Red Line junction at W.90th ......... $  5 million

Install LRT cab signals on 15 miles of track ....... $  8 million

Add 30% contingency ..................................... $44 million

 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST .............................. $190 million

 

That may sound like a lot of money, and perhaps it is to some, but consider that the two-mile Waterfront Line cost $70 million. Just thought you might find this of interest.

 

KJP

veeerrry interesting thanks for doing the math.

 

i bet the old nocoa commuter rail plan is even cheaper than that. the initial plan for the lorain to lakewood to clevo to aurora commuter train route was via lightly used already existing rail so i bet it would be even cheaper than rapid extensions --- by far.

 

i remind people these cobbled together rail costs are nothing compared to building and maintaining roads and highways.

 

 

 

That's true. Costs for starting commuter rail on that route would be less, but offer less frequent service and fewer stations. I suspect that if a rail service is started in that corridor, it would probably begin as a "demonstration" service between Cleveland (perhaps terminating at the West Boulevard station) and Lorain, with several trains each weekday and, at most, a half dozen stations. If the demonstration succeeds, then permanent service might ensue.

 

KJP

If it "only" cost $190 million, it would have already been built.

 

Betcha the price would be more along the lines of $500 million.

Maybe, but never underestimate the ability of people in this town to balk at that cost of investing in worthwhile infrastructure!

 

I think that if any new lines will be built, they need to go out further than they do taday.  Especially the eastbound Red Line.  If it continued past the current Windermere (roughly 14000 block, in East Cleveland) terminus, and went through Euclid and Willowick and into Eastlake and Mentor, then ridership would increase because more of the region is included.  People would be willing to park & ride because of the convenience of stops in there neighborhoods.  But since Red Line stops where it does, mose people east of East Cleveland in the NE suburbs do not consider this a transportation option.

 

For any northwest side line, it would need to go through Rocky River and into Westlake, and the current westbound Red Line should continue into Berea.

If it "only" cost $190 million, it would have already been built.

 

You're assuming that people in Greater Cleveland, and especially in Lakewood, want more rail service in their communities. Maybe so, maybe not. But too many of our "leaders" don't believe this is the case.

 

Regardless, as long as the neighborhoods along most existing rail lines look like Mogadishu and are about as safe, it will be a tough sell to bring rail farther out into the quiet, bucolic suburbs where isolation from the "Big Bad City" is desired. Best to pursue a TOD strategy first along existing rail lines, to show to communities that don't yet have rail that they're actually missing something.

 

KJP

 

tod strategy first yes if you are talking only about the rapid. and the good news is its happening too.

 

as for new rail, the best bet for the westside is still for the commuter rail plan to happen. it's cheapest and easiest to make work. it would require a new "neorail" agency to run it not rta and that is a good thing. heck lorain already has a brand new train station waiting for action.

 

the problem:  dennis kucinich is 100% against any rail he is the only thing keeping it from happening. the last it was studied the mayor's along the way were already polled and were in favor of it as were citizens in anectdotal discussions. but dennis the menace single-handedly shot down many years of work by flipply and arrogantly ignoring all that effort and saying no. this was our progressive presidential candidate? i think not he's nimby and short-sighted. so then spineless nocoa mothballed the whole thing!

 

 

 

What were Kucinich's reasons?  It's not like a highway that severs neighborhoods, but would it require some imminent domain?

dennis was concerned about the number of trains coming along per day. he had previously won an agreement to keep it low.

 

however, in the meantime the number has dipped even lower to only like two or three per day only over the last few years. a further dig is it was even in play or at least discussion for the railroad to give up the line entirely as there is a southern alternate route available, although i think that would take some new construction to make work.

 

so his worry just does not compute. flexible and a quick thinker kucinich is not these days. the region as a whole needs to be considered, not just simpleminded nimby-ism. it's not even that he disapproved, what really galls me is where was he at the start of the planning years before?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have followed this thing closely for Sun Newspapers, since before NS and CSX proposed acquiring Conrail and NS wanted to triple the freight train traffic through Lakewood (traffic at the time was 13-16 trains a day). The communities from Cleveland west through Lakewood and into Lorain County got an agreement from NS that capped the number of trains at 16 per day. NS spent more than $30 million to detour trains through Berea and Linndale. As recently as two years ago, NS reduced the traffic through Lakewood to a daily average of 1.2 trains per day. Some argued that this was an opportunity to run commuter trains through Lakewood, as even a half-dozen commuter trains in each direction wouldn't increase the daily total above the cap contained in the agreement. Kucinich would have none of it, fearing that the agreement would be compromised.

 

I think something else was at work, as I've been covering the "Kucinich beat" for Sun since 2001. Kucinich "made his bones" on fighting to keep the freight trains out of the West Shore communities. If he sought commuter trains, he might be viewed as going back on his word (even though a commuter train is shorter, quieter and would serve the West Shore, unlike freight trains, which just roar through). There was a lot of emotion expressed by residents and local officials when NS proposed tripling the freight train traffic, and Kucinich remembers that. Kucinich is a strong supporter of commuter rail, "except on that line" through Lakewood, he has told me several times.

 

In the last couple of years, as rail freight traffic has risen dramatically nationwide, freight traffic through Lakewood has since increased to about 8-10 trains per day day. I live 10 houses from the tracks, and I count them, when I notice them. Does that mean that if you add a half-dozen commuter trains in each direction per day, will that compromise the agreement with NS on capping the trains? Not according to an attorney working with Lorain County interests, who want to see commuter rail on that line. He believes the deal with NS is exclusive of commuter rail. It may also be a moot point. I seem to recall that the agreement with NS expired five years after the June 1, 1999 NS/CSX acquisition of Conrail assets. In other words, the agreement expired six months ago -- maybe. I'd like to verify that, but keep forgetting to check it out.

 

I think the solution to all this is to run a six-month commuter rail demo service, with a couple of trains a day, just to see what people think about it. If people living near the tracks don't like the extra couple of trains, or not enough people ride it, or it doesn't mix well with NS trains, then it was worth a shot. But I think the opposite will happen. Kucinich can save face if enough people get in his and tell him to try the demo service to see how things go. Those who will benefit from this service are Kucinich's core constituency -- people who need access to suburban jobs but can't afford cars, the environmental community, the urban-progressive community, etc etc. But they haven't pressured him, so he has no reason to budge.

 

So that's where things stand now.

 

KJP

As I recall, there are meetings going on right now in Lakewood about the parking situation.

If they decide it is a good idea, won't Kucinich jump on board.  (Probably saying he has been fighting the fat cats at RTA for years to get this done)  :|

"Kucinich is a strong supporter of commuter rail, "except on that line" through Lakewood, he has told me several times."

 

sorry dennis the menace, that nimby-centric illogic does not compute!

 

 

didn't RTA try a "RailBus" in the early 80's.  Is that what you are proposing KJP? Or was that different?

Something like that. You're thinking of the British Railbus that ran in 1985 between downtown, Euclid and Mentor. But it could be a more substantial vehicle, such as what Ottawa uses, called the O-Train --

 

http://www.octranspo.com/train_menue.htm

 

 

Or, it could be like what is used on the River Line in New Jersey, between Trenton and Camden, that opened earlier this year (2004).

 

http://www.njtransit.com/an_cp_project006.shtml

or

http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Camden-Trenton/

 

 

Both of these are diesel-powered light-rail services (dubbed "cordless light rail"). I suspect we could probably borrow one of these trains (more likely from New Jersey which has numerous train sets, whereas Ottawa only has three) for about six months to give it a test drive here.

 

KJP

I haven't spent any significant time in Lakewood in quite a few years, although I did experience the delight of riding the N-S line through the neighborhood in an open-window 1920's coach behind a steam locomotive (NKP 765) around 1985.

 

I don't know what technology might exist on the line now, but I wonder if a compromise might be reached through a trade-off; say, install four-sector crossing gates and whatever other safety provisions are needed to make it a quiet zone (no diesel air horns) in exchange for neighborhood acceptance of more train traffic. Except for the air horns, trains move pretty quietly on welded rail so long as they're not working up a grade.

 

Fully-developed commuter rail can be pretty non-intrusive; contemporary equipment is lighter and less noisy than conventional long-distance passenger equipment, and the trains are short and fast and complete their transit of a neighborhood quickly. Commuter trains could be almost unnoticeable. A big potential benefit of properly designed and implemented commuter rail is the reduction of fast, noisy auto traffic on neighborhood thoroughfares as commuters switch from driving to riding.

In the past 85 years, there have been a number of plans for building subways in Cleveland, two of which involved public votes. The ultimate outcome hasn't been totally in vain, as they resulted in what is today called the Euclid Corridor Improvement Project (aka Euclid Transitway, RTA Silver Line, etc). But, back in the day, some impressive plans were put forward.

 

A good place to start is the construction of the Detroit-Superior High Level Bridge (today, the Veterans Memorial Bridge), which was completed in 1918. On its lower level was Cleveland's first subway and, as it turns out, its only subway. The subway had two stations, one at West 25th/Detroit (still mostly intact) and the other at West 9th. This is what the east entrance to the subway looked like in 1947, seven years before the tracks were ripped out and replaced with a futile attempt by County Engineer Albert Porter of paving the lower deck for cars to relieve traffic congestion on the upper deck. The idea came to a crashing halt as cars kept hitting the support piers holding up the upper deck. The lower deck was soon sealed, but the current county Engineer Bob Klaiber, often holds tours of it as visitors tend to leave wondering how it could be re-used....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________

 

The Detroit-Superior subway was built to be the linchpin of a plan for linking planned subways on the east and west sides of the city. The plan was released in 1919, the same year voters passed a franchise to the Van Swerigen brothers to build a new Union Terminal on Public Square, for uniting railroads, interurban lines and proposed rapid transit routes into a single, massive station. This was separate from the 1919 subway plan, which was to be voted on the following year. The initial phase of the $15 million subway plan included extending the existing subway east on Superior to East 9th Street, with two other subways extending out from Public Square under Euclid Avenue to East 22nd Street and under Ontario to near the Central Market (where Jacobs Field is today).

 

Future extensions included extending the Detroit Avenue subway west to West 85th Street, the West 25th Street subway south beyond Lorain Avenue, the Euclid Avenue subway east to University Circle and have a subway spur turning south at East 40th Street. Beyond the subway portions, streetcar lines would be converted to rapid transit routes, with elevated tracks or below street level operations in an open cut (scroll right)...

 

________________

 

The subway plan was turned down by city voters in 1920, who said it should have been a county tax proposal. Other factors included labor shortages, high-interest rates after World War I, a large city debt, and the high cost of construction materials.

 

With the Cleveland Union Terminal project proceeding, the Van Swerigens began building rapid transit infrastructure that would lay the foundation for the future Red Line. The brothers also began planning for a citywide network of rapid transit routes, including subways under Euclid Avenue and St. Clair Avenue. Part of the Union Terminal even included portals for a subway to go under Huron Road to reach Euclid Avenue at Playhouse Square. The portals still exist today. All of the construction and planning work for the rapid transit and subway lines was stopped dead in its tracks by the Great Depression. This was the 1929 rapid transit/subway plan.....

 

________________

 

Major construction projects stayed in limbo as materials and labor were needed to win World War II. As the war drew to a close, the following plan was put forth by the Cleveland Transit System to build rapid transit with a downtown subway. This plan became the foundation for the construction of the Red Line, which began in 1952. Here are some maps and planning graphics for the 1944 plan, which also proposed keeping streetcar lines on the outer portions...

 

 

 

________________

 

A variant of the downtown subway routing was issued by CTS in 1947, and was proposed as a means to keep construction costs down. Part of the reason for the high costs was the existence of a layer of quicksand just below the city surface, that required the construction of slurry wall to keep ground water out of the tunnels. This was the revised plan....

 

________________

 

While construction on the CTS Rapid (Red Line) began in 1952, funded out of a $30 million federal Reconstruction Finance Corporation loan, Cuyahoga County voters approved a $35 million bond issue, funded out of a new 0.5-mill property tax levy, to build a downtown loop subway. The proposed routing would have put 72 percent of the rapid transit system's riders within 800 feet of their downtown destinations, as opposed to only 14 percent at Cleveland Union Terminal (Tower City). This was the proposed routing, plus a graphic of a over-under subway configuration on East 13th Street, owing to the adjacent storm and sanitary sewer lines....

 

 

________________

 

As the battle over the subway raged between Albert Porter and CTS officials, several other variants of the subway routing were presented and later discarded. I won't get into the details of this fight, as I've discussed them elsewhere on this forum. I can find them if someone wants me to.

________________

 

In the 1970s, more plans for a subway beneath Euclid Avenue surfaced (pardon the pun). They matured into the Dual Hub Corridor plan, with RTA (CTS's successor after 1974) preferring the following route and design features of the subway portion, as presented in 1993....

 

 

 

________________

 

NOACA's board of governors didn't support the rail component because it included the costly subway, with the cheapest rail options projected to cost in excess of $500 million. RTA returned with the busway concept, which was approved by NOACA. Now we have the Euclid Corridor Improvement Project, a $200 million variant of the long-planned subway that never was, and may never be.

awesome.  Thanks.

seriously, dead in the tracks? that's the worst pun of the week.......

It's so interesting to look at the old maps and plans.  Too bad some sort of subway wasn't created.

speechless.....but great history thanks so much!

Detroit has a similar sad story of an uncompleted subway plan. At least Cleveland had the Rapid! Many exciting childhood memories of getting on at W 117th and emerging in Terminal Tower or University Circle. A subway station at W 85th? Thay would have done wonders for that part of Cleveland!

Fascinating!

Absolutely...again, great work KJP!  I know this is heartbreaking for us to see, but think about how many similar proposals existed around the country (and even the state) that were never seen through. 

 

I don't know this for sure, but I'd presume that the past decade must represent the greatest rail development period since WWII.  I don't know how we've managed to keep this up with the current federal attitude towards funding priorities...maybe it has something to do with national security???  Some transit wiz convinced the fed that rail cars could be used to stop terrorists???  Right.

 

 

Glad you liked the maps & stuff.

 

Think about this... A national industry survey outfit last year did an inventory of all light-rail construction contracts expected to be let in 2005. The total was $19 BILLION.

 

Some in the Federal Transit Administration have said that, since they aren't able to satisfy the funding demand for all the light-rail projects around the country, the FTA should tighten the requirements for awarding rail grants. In the same breath, these dorks want to relax other requirements to make transit funding available for new high-occupancy vehicle lanes on highways. Seems they feel the local demand is in error, and that we should stick our heads back up our tailpipes. Whatever happened to the public policy rule that all politics is local? Gee, how about increasing the total funding for transit to satisfy the demand?

 

I know where they can stick it....

 

KJP

but how would we build all those missiles and keep the airline industry out of the mud???

MGD,

 

Good points.  ;)

Thank you for posting those, KJP.  It would be interesting to try to guess at the difference we would see in downtown development had the subway been completed.

this is a great thread

^agreed! i knew a thread like this was coming someday. still, i have been grinding my teeth ever since kjp posted it!

 

Excellent, KJP, really good stuff.

 

As the 50s CTS "loop" plan was, realistically, the closest to materializing, I've often agonized over "what if" for Playhouse Square which, while it has revived admirably, is a fraction of what it was/could have been had the subway been built.  This area was Cleveland’s high-end, trendy retail district; our answer to 5th Ave, N. Michigan Ave, etc... Halle's, Sterling-Linder and others were our upscale department stores (just note the detail in the extant elegant Halle Building office/shopping food court today.  Also, the Statler, I understand, was probably our most elegant hotel -- the Ritz of its day.  And let’s not forget the stuffy Union Club.  Playhouse Sq. would have probably been surrounded by apt high rises... this district, indeed most of downtown, suffered a huge setback and decades-long decline as a result of the subway's killing.

 

Truly, from a city development standpoint, Albert S. Porter is hands down the biggest villain in Cleveland history by a wide margin.  Even Dennis Kucinich is a piker compared to this guy.

 

 

Truly, from a city development standpoint, Albert S. Porter is hands down the biggest villain in Cleveland history by a wide margin. Even Dennis Kucinich is a piker compared to this guy.

 

Someone e-mailed me their comments on one of my Cleveland pages (most likely my "maps of Cleveland" page) earlier this year and refered to Porter as Cleveland's Robert Moses (infamous NYC planner for the uninitiated)

let's be fair now, I wouldn't put DK on a list of Cleveland villains...

Villain may be a bit strong, but Dennis really hurt this town's growth even if, intellectually, a few of his ideas made sense (like saving Muny Light from CEI) -- and actually, he's mellowed a great deal in older age.  But Dennis was certainly the worst mayor we've had in modern times, ... but as a public official, he can't compare with Albert Porter -- not even close.  HE certainly was a villain, big time.