I was taking a look at Mapquest and how the Red Line just fails to match up with Cleveland Clinic.  Obviously, if your buses are full, there's demand there.  Plus, it's always seemed kind of stupid to me that we spent all this money on a rail system that passes really close to the biggest employer in the region, but you can't get "there from there" without passing through some shall-we-say "uninviting" turf.

 

I turned on the satellite images and took a look at said turf, specifically south of Cedar between 100th and 105th. Damn.  Lots of empty lots and I can't imagine that the remaining buildings are in the best shape, either.

 

Why not put a Waterfront-line type of light rail line through there, expand the 105th-Quincy Station so you can transfer seamlessly between the two, and run over to the Clinic?  Perhaps add a stop for the new juvie court center at 93rd and Quincy as well...

 

That got me thinking, so I went to the Auditors site to check ownerships. There appears to be a fairly even distribution of individual ownerships (Clinic, Fairfax Redevelopment, City, County, State, Private/individual). But grouped together, the individual owners are way out numbered by the agencies.

Until KJP's photos, I didn't realize the density that already exists along Euclid Ave into Euclid.  Red Line expansion to that area would encourage much more.  I think extending the Red Line right up to the Lake County border would make the most sense (at least, until RTA remains strictly a Cuyahoga County-only entity).  The convergence of the 2 super highways (I-90 & Rte 2) right at the western base of large/growing Lake County would really open up passengers to the Red Line high-speed option to Univ. Circle, especially... Downtown and Ohio City would be made much more accessbile to these riders as well...

 

Well maybe Lake County can talk to Cuyahoga County then if they want an express Red Line route with park & ride from Wickliffe to the Windermere stop? I bet the demand for such a thing from Lake county residents would be pretty low.

 

I really don't think that extending the Red Line further would create any more development at this time since we're talking about some pretty run-down areas.  Maybe when we start to see development in East Cleveland along those stops we can then start thinking more about Red Line TOD further down Euclid. Last I checked they were demolishing apartment buildings in East Cleveland that are a stones throw from those existing Red Line stops, not rehabbing them because they have good rail access. Heck, there is not even any TOD along the west side Red Line where there are healthier neighborhoods that are more primed for new development (University Circle aside).

 

... like many UOers have stated: it's amazing this extension wasn't built decades ago... At least RTA is seriously looking at it now... kudos to them!

 

Yes, that extension should have been made 50 years ago to serve the then middle class neighborhoods and industry along that corridor.....along with a Euclid Avenue subway from downtown to University Circle.

 

^Why not just gentrify that stretch so it's no longer "uninviting." That way the area becomes safer or atleast its perception does and there's new investment in the area, which would add much needed new housing and retail in the area.

 

Yes, if that area was nicely built up it would not be too bad of walk from 105th to the Cedar Red Line station. There has to be a demand for that to happen though, but I agree that it would potentially be a feasible project(s) in the near future.

the first extension i would make is extending the waterfront line out to euclid and beyond. this would serve st clair, glenville, collinwood, bratenahl. stations at e. 55th, e. 72nd/gordon park, e. 105th, eddy rd., e. 140th, e. 152nd, and 1 or 2 stops in euclid.

 

as for a commuter line, i dont know whether it would be best to run commuter trains to mentor/painesville along the lakeshore or extended red line. i would personally make those trains express trains that dont use the stops or only use a couple. eventually that line would go all the way to ashtabula/conneaut and erie pa.

 

 

I think a route out to Lakewood makes more sense than to Euclid. KJP would know more about whats possible, but could this rail corridor be used? Look at "The Orange Line" (General ideas for station locations. More locations to the west of course). This could then lead to to further extension out into lakewood and bay village.

 

http://g.co/maps/ujb6e

I think a route out to Lakewood makes more sense than to Euclid. KJP would know more about whats possible, but could this rail corridor be used? Look at "The Orange Line" (General ideas for station locations. More locations to the west of course). This could then lead to to further extension out into lakewood and bay village.

 

http://g.co/maps/ujb6e

Yes, a route out to Lakewood would be nice, but it has its own thread here and it didn't just get money from the FTA. (Whether we should have submitted for funds to do so seems like a topic for that thread.)

 

the first extension i would make is extending the waterfront line out to euclid and beyond. this would serve st clair, glenville, collinwood, bratenahl. stations at e. 55th, e. 72nd/gordon park, e. 105th, eddy rd., e. 140th, e. 152nd, and 1 or 2 stops in euclid.

 

The problem with this is where do you put the line out that direction? If you run between the train tracks where they currently sit and the shoreway you're running through an area with relatively low density (some warehouses, factories and homes, but a lot of empty buildings too.)

 

If you run down St. Clair as a streetcar, you add significantly to the cost, plus St Clair wouldn't be wide enough for a dedicated lane in some places. (And would it really provide any significant benefit that just using the larger articulated busses on route 1 wouldn't?) Also, right or wrong, there is a perceived lack of safety due to the crime in Glenville which may negatively affect the perception of an extended Waterfront Line through the neighborhood.

 

I'd love to continue discussing the WFL, but we'll probably get yelled at if we don't move that discussion over to its proper thread.

 

as for a commuter line, i dont know whether it would be best to run commuter trains to mentor/painesville along the lakeshore or extended red line. i would personally make those trains express trains that dont use the stops or only use a couple. eventually that line would go all the way to ashtabula/conneaut and erie pa.

 

Don't ask me which thread, but we've discussed commuter routes to/through Lake county several times on here. I (and several others on here) are generally in favor of running through University Circle, rather than straight down the lake front because; the freight line that runs beside the Red Line has much lower traffic, that route provides access for a greater number of commuters (because you're including employers in both Downtown and UC), and because you would only add a couple of minutes by going the couple miles south through University Circle.

 

Don't ask me which thread, but we've discussed commuter routes to/through Lake county several times on here. I (and several others on here) are generally in favor of running through University Circle, rather than straight down the lake front because; the freight line that runs beside the Red Line has much lower traffic, that route provides access for a greater number of commuters (because you're including employers in both Downtown and UC), and because you would only add a couple of minutes by going the couple miles south through University Circle.

 

Actually, the Norfolk Southern-owned rail line next to the Red Line through Windermere sees about 20 freight trains per day, and the CSX-owned line along the lakefront, from downtown east to Collinwood, sees maybe three trains per day -- and two of them are nightly Amtrak passenger trains!

 

However, the CSX line along the lakefront goes through some desolate areas until it gets well east of East 55th Street (it could provide a spark for that area however) and it doesn't improve access to the booming University Circle area which has no competing highway. Also, the CSX line along the lakefront may see some additional local freight traffic in the near future, but that's not yet a certain thing. If it does happen, the opportunity of using it for transit could diminish.

yea, lets not put rail through an area because more lower income and black people live there  :roll:

 

that line wouldnt go right through the heart of those neighborhoods but im thinking of the least expensive way to put more rail service in the central city. it doesnt look like there will be money anytime soon to build new tracks. plus it could spur some TOD along the lakefront. if you really wanted to have rail go right through those neighborhoods it would need to be a subway line or street cars. in order for cleveland to be a sustainable urban city mass transit needs to serve as much of the city limits as possible.

 

 

Subways will never happen. Streetcars should be the future, which is ironic considering our past.

yea, lets not put rail through an area because more lower income and black people live there  :roll:

 

 

Hey, you owe me a big apology for ignorantly suggesting that I, among anyone, would play transportation-keep-a-way from lower income and minorities. You really need to read more of my postings here, my blogs, my articles, my press releases and my interviews. And you need to follow me around and see what I do for a living!! You can attack my ideas, but don't ever question my desire to help those less needy to have mobility. I have taken a vow of poverty to fight for those less fortunate in a state that considers them less worthy simply because they cannot afford cars.

 

You know why I said these are desolate areas along the lakefront? ? ? ? Because no one lives there!

 

 

Like I said, you don't get into any population along the lakefront corridor until you get well east of East 55th, and then the only neighborhoods that are closest to the tracks are in Bratenahl, which is wealthy and separated from the tracks by I-90. So it's unlikely that more than few residents from there are going to walk around to bridges to reach a station. The neighborhoods south of the tracks with population density are south of St. Clair -- that's a half-mile walk through industrial areas. Again, unlikely that anyone would do that. Unless there was a large residential development or two planned along the tracks that would warrant extending the Waterfront Line eastward along the lakefront, it would be a waste of money.

 

There are neighborhoods by the lakefront tracks near East 105th Street, but you have to add 4.8 miles of light-rail track (light rail trains are non-compatible with FRA-compliant crash-standards for heavy CSX and Amtrak trains) next to the existing CSX tracks to get out there.

 

Why build nearly five miles of track including overhead catenaries at a cost of $20 million to $30 million per mile through areas with little or no ridership generation possibilities just to reach the first ridership generators?

 

OR...... You could build six miles of track to extend the Red Line east from Windermere to Euclid, serve a mix of industries and neighborhoods the entire way -- including those where MORE lower income and minorities live than along the lakefront line -- as I have suggested.

 

Or didn't you read my suggestions? Or maybe you just like to throw out unfounded accusations just to start some shit? Well, you accomplished your goal, mister.

KJP! KJP! KJP! KJP!

 

Hahahha.

 

And based on that map, you can see how much low density there is surrounding our current routes. And the extension doesn't seem to really hit high density areas either, besides Euclid possibly. On the east side, the densest northern area appears to Glenville, where rail is absent. On the west side, the route I suggested that would run through Detroit Shoreway, Edgewater, and Lakewood would be surrounded with high density.

We also can't see what the population density is in East Cleveland with this map, which addresses only the City of Cleveland. As I noted earlier there is a huge apartment complex, Indian Hills, just into Euclid from Cleveland and between the tracks and Euclid Avenue. It has 10 six-story apartment buildings!

 

I have a detailed map that shows county-wide densities based on property valuation, but it is so large that Photoshop keeps crashing when I try to open it there.

 

I'll see what other resources are out there. And yes, even based on this map, it looks like the better place to put the HealthLine was on Superior instead of Euclid. But there's many social service entities, hospitals and universities which do not show up on this map. If such facilities existed along the lakefront line, or if there was population, then that would be a good route for higher-level transit services. It's not.

We also can't see what the population density is in East Cleveland with this map, which addresses only the City of Cleveland. As I noted earlier there is a huge apartment complex, Indian Hills, just into Euclid from Cleveland and between the tracks and Euclid Avenue. It has 10 six-story apartment buildings!

 

I have a detailed map that shows county-wide densities based on property valuation, but it is so large that Photoshop keeps crashing when I try to open it there.

 

I'll see what other resources are out there. And yes, even based on this map, it looks like the better place to put the HealthLine was on Superior instead of Euclid. But there's many social service entities, hospitals and universities which do not show up on this map. If such facilities existed along the lakefront line, or if there was population, then that would be a good route for higher-level transit services. It's not.

 

Do you have a map of rail corridors?

I just wanted to go over some of the Rail options being brought up here (KJP will correct me if I am wrong.)

 

We have 3 maybe 4 levels of rail service each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

Commuter Rail

Heavy Rail

light Rail

streetcar

 

Commuter rail is designed to be a long distance regional mass transit  service between cities with in the region.  our region is northeast Ohio.  Commuter rail is traditionally a service to connect workers to their jobs the difference between Commuter Rail and heavy Rail is distance covered (up to 50 miles),  speed, and Stop spacing, what good is it to have a trains that can go 80MPH if it stops every 1/2 mile?  the key to the success of Commuter Rail is Speed, it has to be time competitive with driving.  if it is not people will drive.  commuter rail must operate in a dedicated ROW. it is a point to point transportation system, must have connections to modes of transport to work.  Can be Diesel or electric, electric is less costly to maintian but more expensive to deploy.

Depends on model 90-120 per car, up to usually less than 5 cars used.

width 9'8"

 

heavy Rail like the RedLine, is designed to be primarily an inner city mode of of transport, with more stops than Commuter Rail, must operate in a dedicated ROW, either Tunnels, Elevated Rail, or a rail corridor.  the advantages of heavy Rail is greater speeds, ( up to +60mph) stop usually more than one mile apart. operating costs are generally lower than light rail. better suited to longer routes than light rail designed to augment other transit services. passengers 80-90 per car up to 2 cars  Heavy Rail corridors unless they are subways or elevated rail are usually far from Where people are

 

 

9'8" wide

 

Light Rail like the blue and green line, Are the modern version of the trolley,  most light rail operate in dedicated ROWs, although they are capable of operating in road corridors. they have top speeds of 50mph, usually have a much higher stop frequency, usually less than 1/2 mile between Stops, due to this frequency their Quality of service is affected by the length of the route.  Like the HL the longer the route the more delays are allowed to build up.  in Road ROW the Trains are too big to operate comfortably with Cars, even though they are only 3" wider than buses,  their maneuverability is limited they effectively take up alot more space on the road.  The passenger seated count 80-90 per car  up to 2 cars.

 

9'3" wide.

 

Street Car  primarily Operate in road right of ways, they are narrower than than light rail cars, 7'7" vs 9'3",  have much lower speeds (<45mph) greater stop frequency,usually less than 1/4 mile between stops. can operate effectively in traffic, best used in short loops, and to get people within a 1/8 mile of their destination. can replace buses in high volume lines, low operating costs, higher initial start-up costs than BRT, Trams can last 30 years or more vs buses which can last 12 years on average.

carrying capacity usually equivalent to a long bus 50-74 passengers.    can go where the people are, the srteets

 

7'7" wide.

 

I hope this helps the debate.

 

 

University Circle's Growth and it controlling entity of UCI, give us a tremendous opportunity to grow our mass transit options in our area.

 

We need not look to new TOD on  our borders but to embrace the natural TOD that is UC.

 

University Circle is Isolated from the interstate highway system, this offer more incentives for people to use mass transit.

 

the people at UCI understand how important transit is to their future growth, the reality is that future growth there cannot be sustained by Traditional Automotive centered development.  I feel that RTA would have a willing partner that would have the resources to facilitate a similar free Trolley system to that which is used downtown to get commuters from the train to the thier jobs.  We have more control over the Quality of service at their destination, and less so at the suburban areas they will board those trains. In many ways UC has eclipsed downtown in walk-ability and suitability for transit, as downtown has become more spread out UC is becoming more consolidated and compact.  while the processes and momentum being established by the non profits in downtown liek Downtown Cleveland Alliance and CSU will bear fruit in the future, right now the momentum is at UC.

 

So what is the best way to support the growth in in University Circle?

 

First the study of options for any expansion of transit service must be done with the utmost diligence and thoroughness. we cannot have a repeat of previous projects that have had lackluster results, like the Waterfront line. This project must be a Home run for the RTA, because as we move towards a Regional commuter rail strategy, we have to be able to show the people of not only Cuyahoga county but also those counties surrounding Cuyahoga,  that they can trust a transit agency to live up to their promises.  if We say X amount of people will use this service at a cost of Y dollars, it had better be correct.  Why? because regional transit requires regional funding, in the future we will have to convince voters to increase their support for transit, if they don't there is no way We can improve transit service here.

 

I would like to see a reasonable long term plan for RTA, one that Seeks to both increase ridership and reduce future operating costs, which are killing the budget.

 

I would like to see a way to directly link the blue and green lines from the Southeast suburbs with UC.

 

 

 

Pretty good descriptions of various rail modes. I'm sure there are official/technical descriptions online somewhere, too....

 

 

Do you have a map of rail corridors?

 

I cropped the original map which is of all NE Ohio railroad and electric interurbans that existed at the peak of America's railways in the mid-1910s. This cropped map shows only Cuyahoga County and parts of its collar counties....

 

 

 

Now here's few maps that show what I think is a pretty good assessment of areas worthy of service by higher-density, higher level transit services. As the colors get more yellow or red, the areas may be appropriate for service by rail or bus rapid transit because they may refer to housing density or employment density. However, some low-density areas may be appropriate for rail -- such as recreation areas like the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. BTW, this map also blows up the presumption that the highest land values per acre are out in places like Pepper Pike or Hunting Valley. They're in places like Lakewood, downtown and Cleveland Heights because of their density....

 

 

 

Showing detail in downtown & University Circle....

 

 

 

In Northeast Cuyahoga County, showing that either the land along the NS rail line to the northeast of Windermere either isn't worth much or doesn't have much density (unfortunately these maps may be better at showing what might be appropriate corridors for rail/BRT than what isn't)....

 

understand the fundamentals of transit use:

1. It must be more cost effective than Driving

or

2. It must be easier than driving

or

3. It must faster than driving

 

If you have all three you will be very successful at pulling people out of their cars.

 

extending the Waterfront line  to Euclid is a non starter, because light rail is poorly suited to for that type of route.   

 

Collinwood yards Requires a maximum speed of (correct me if I am wrong KJP) 15 mph while traveling through it.  for a commuter Train that must meet the needs above, it kills it, the options were to build a flyover to traverse the yard or make the line less effective by increasing the time it takes to get to Downtown Cleveland, which makes it less attractive to use.

 

What attracts me to the idea of using RTA lines for commuter Rail is Control.  To use Freight rail lines for passenger Rail places passenger rail as a secondary use for those lines. the CSX or NS have the right to prioritize their freight traffic, over commuter traffic.  By using existing RTA Right-of-Way you can access RTA transit stations including University circle and tower City, you will not have to build a new Depot facility, or a station facility in downtown Cleveland.  RTA can also prioritize Express trains over local trains making it more attractive for commuters.

 

 

 

research  for Regional rail has already been done see it here.

 

http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/govts/counties/countiesOH/OHMPONOACA/OHMPONOACA.html

 

 

 

Biker, you make some excellent points...

 

I also believe that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to Univ. Circle's TOD potential and the Red Line (and, yes, the Health Line too)... Extension of the Red Line 6 miles to near Euclid Square Mall would, I think, explode Red Line ridership to levels it's never seen, for once this project is actually green-lighted (and let's X our collective fingers), developers are going to swoop down on the area that will make MRN's (excellent) Uptown project look like small potatoes.  And as we're seeing with the proposed residential project in lower East Cleveland, more spin-off development will happen NE of the tracks, too. 

 

These facts, plus opening up the Rapid to a large commuting populace: Lake County; would most assuredly make the Red Line a hit.

 

Plus, the extension would open up the Rapid to do what it doesn't do anywhere in it's current system: namely, run trains in a straight-line, high speed corridor adjacent to an established regular (see slow) street/road for a substantial distance.  The Shaker and Van Aken Rapids follow street corridors, but the longest segment (Shaker Square-to-Green Road) is 4 miles, which is not bad.  Problem is, the Shaker trains are slow in the Shaker/Van Aken street level corridors because they are street level and must stop for car and foot traffic at traffic lights; not to mention the stops are close together (roughly 1/3 miles apart).  BTW, I'm not knocking the Blue/Green system because they are great for suburban access/distribution and, of course, they make up any lost time to downtown over the 6 mile grade separated corridors...

 

An expanded Red Line to Euclid would mean about 8 miles of rail would directly compete with Euclid; and it would best the street b/c of its total (or near total) grade separation plus its much wider-spaced stations.  And since people's movement patterns are naturally along Euclid Ave in that corridor, the advent of a much faster train would make the Red Line an instant draw... esp, as we predict, University Circle becomes much denser with development and, therefore, much slower to access by car or bus.

Collinwood yards Requires a maximum speed of (correct me if I am wrong KJP) 15 mph while traveling through it.  for a commuter Train that must meet the needs above, it kills it, the options were to build a flyover to traverse the yard or make the line less effective by increasing the time it takes to get to Downtown Cleveland, which makes it less attractive to use.

 

What attracts me to the idea of using RTA lines for commuter Rail is Control.  To use Freight rail lines for passenger Rail places passenger rail as a secondary use for those lines. the CSX or NS have the right to prioritize their freight traffic, over commuter traffic.  By using existing RTA Right-of-Way you can access RTA transit stations including University circle and tower City, you will not have to build a new Depot facility, or a station facility in downtown Cleveland.  RTA can also prioritize Express trains over local trains making it more attractive for commuters.

 

 

Once upon a time, Amtrak was able to do 40 mph through the Collinwood Yards on bypass tracks. I haven't ridden that route since CSX took it over from Conrail, so things may have changed since then.

 

But you are correct -- having the control AND capacity to operate rail transit with frequency and reliability is of paramount importance (ranked between #1 low fares and #4 speed among prospective passengers).

What's Ansel Road look like these days?  I've never really been there but have eyed maps and always looked longingly at it as a place to put a a N-S streetcar-style deal that would run from at least St. Clair, down Ansel a ways, and then ideally connect with the Heathline and the Red Line.  I would like to see a lot more  density around Rockefeller Park, get more use out of it and make it more of a centerpiece of the east side.  If we could manage to get it up and out to Gordon Park and the lakefront parks up there, all the better.  It could link with a WFT extension and... *sigh*.

yea, lets not put rail through an area because more lower income and black people live there  :roll:

 

 

Hey, you owe me a big apology for ignorantly suggesting that I, among anyone, would play transportation-keep-a-way from lower income and minorities.

 

There's no way in hell KJP would say anything like that.

 

I've said something that could be misinterpreted as that.  I've repeatedly said that some suburbanites would tend not to ride buses that stop in "inner city" neighborhoods.  Hell, I suspect that's part of the reason for some "flyer" routes. 

 

But as a "right winger" among liberals, I'm "allowed" to say such things.  :)

 

Seriously, that point almost goes without saying.  It was even used by some Maple Heights residents to oppose the merger BITD.  The question is will they ride even if such stops are avoided, and is it cost effective to develop such routes?

What's Ansel Road look like these days?

 

Check Google's Streetview. That's how I provided the "existing condition" views on page one of this thread.

 

There's no way in hell KJP would say anything like that.

 

Thanks. We may disagree fairly often. But I think we respectfully disagree. We have our different viewpoints not because of what the facts are, since you do a good job of citing them. We grew up with different values on what those facts say to us.

 

And, BTW, I'm sure there will be those who will not be happy that the express buses to downtown from the Euclid Park-n-Ride could be lost if the Red Line is extended. Some commuters probably feel safe in that there are no stops between Euclid and downtown, whereas the Red Line would travel through and stop in East Cleveland to get to UC and downtown.

 

There could be some express trains created because the Red Line would have to travel out so far from the city -- 14 miles is a pretty long for a rail line otherwise making stops roughly every mile or so. Every other train originating at the Euclid Park-n-Ride could run express to downtown, with stops made only at UC-Cedar.

 

Oh, and the idea someone mentioned of a transit link between UC and the southeast suburbs, I am hoping that GCRTA considers another alternatives analysis -- either building an LRT from the Shaker Square area to UC, or extending the branch of the HealthLine that goes to UC-Cedar all the way up the hill to Shaker Square. If GCRTA extends the Blue Line to North Randall, this would tap the convergence of highways in that area (US422, I-271, I-480) and be a good park-n-ride if there is security and if GCRTA operates express trains from that location.

 

EDIT: actually, I'm going to take that last paragraph over to:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.0.html

The longest BART line is now just shy of 50 miles long, with no express trains and stations spaced an average 2-3 miles apart, so some cities are building VERY long rapid transit lines. 

Understood. I was trying to give local folks an excuse to offer express trains locally to compete with highway traffic here, which moves much more quickly than Bay Area traffic.

The longest BART line is now just shy of 50 miles long, with no express trains and stations spaced an average 2-3 miles apart, so some cities are building VERY long rapid transit lines. 

 

That doesn't mean it cant happen, considering Shaker trains have had express service in the past.

Biker, you make some excellent points...

 

I also believe that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to Univ. Circle's TOD potential and the Red Line (and, yes, the Health Line too)... Extension of the Red Line 6 miles to near Euclid Square Mall would, I think, explode Red Line ridership to levels it's never seen, for once this project is actually green-lighted (and let's X our collective fingers), developers are going to swoop down on the area that will make MRN's (excellent) Uptown project look like small potatoes.  And as we're seeing with the proposed residential project in lower East Cleveland, more spin-off development will happen NE of the tracks, too. 

 

These facts, plus opening up the Rapid to a large commuting populace: Lake County; would most assuredly make the Red Line a hit.

 

Plus, the extension would open up the Rapid to do what it doesn't do anywhere in it's current system: namely, run trains in a straight-line, high speed corridor adjacent to an established regular (see slow) street/road for a substantial distance.  The Shaker and Van Aken Rapids follow street corridors, but the longest segment (Shaker Square-to-Green Road) is 4 miles, which is not bad.  Problem is, the Shaker trains are slow in the Shaker/Van Aken street level corridors because they are street level and must stop for car and foot traffic at traffic lights; not to mention the stops are close together (roughly 1/3 miles apart).  BTW, I'm not knocking the Blue/Green system because they are great for suburban access/distribution and, of course, they make up any lost time to downtown over the 6 mile grade separated corridors...

 

An expanded Red Line to Euclid would mean about 8 miles of rail would directly compete with Euclid; and it would best the street b/c of its total (or near total) grade separation plus its much wider-spaced stations.  And since people's movement patterns are naturally along Euclid Ave in that corridor, the advent of a much faster train would make the Red Line an instant draw... esp, as we predict, University Circle becomes much denser with development and, therefore, much slower to access by car or bus.

 

 

The Decline of downtown has hurt transit in this region because, All of our eggs were in one basket.  UC is TOD.

 

the goal of running everything into downtown must be rethought,  maybe we should make UC and even West 25th market square secondary transfer points.    i thingk we lot sight of the purpose of high volume transit, it is designed to be primarily a point to point transport , to take people from one another to another Area, not from their doorstep to their place of work or business.

 

it really doesn't matter where they come from where its TOD or a park and Ride lot, it matter that once they begin their trip on transit they can go where they want to go. 

 

focusing on diversifying transit circulation so we are better able to serve trips other than commuting.  In areas like downtown and UC, Trams could be used to circulate between the red line and health line to where they work live and play. 

 

TO me Light rail whoich should be called medium rail, is a complex architecture and is NOT a replacement for street Cars. 

 

Tram rail can be lighter duty and far less expensive to install and maintain because the trains are lighter and slower.  this is a Cross section of a U type Tram Rail.

 

vs

 

 

the difference is the depth of the rail.

one is only 72mm vs the other at 154mm.

 

 

both are made by arcelor-mittal, Ironic huh.

 

http://www.arcelormittal.com/rails+specialsections/en/tram-rails.html

 

how can we better connect our vibrant neighbors together?

REMINDER:

 

The public is invited and encouraged to attend one or more of the following meetings:

 

Cuyahoga County—October 24, 2011               

Lakewood City Hall                                   

Auditorium                                               

12650 Detroit Avenue                               

Lakewood, OH 44107                               

6-8 pm                                                   

 

Lorain County—October 26, 2011

Black River Landing

421 Black River Lane

Lorain, OH 44052

6-8 pm

 

Erie County -- October 25, 2011

Erie County Administration Building

3rd Floor Commissioner’s Chambers

2900 Columbus Avenue

Sandusky, OH 44870

6-8 pm

Cleveland, Lorain and Sandusky would be linked by bus, rail under transit plan

Published: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 7:07 AM    Updated: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 7:17 AM

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- An ambitious, 16-year plan to resurrect Lorain County's bus system and link Sandusky to Cleveland by commuter rail lacks a key ingredient -- money.

 

But that hasn't stopped advocates from rolling out a plan this week for the WestShore Corridor Transportation Project, with estimated costs of $400 million.

 

The multiphase effort addresses what planners say is a dearth of public transit links between Sandusky, Lorain and Cleveland.

 

 

 

Readb more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/post_533.html

I attended the meeting in Lakewood last night the turnout was light only about 15 people, most were from Lorain county. 

 

couple things that stood out.

 

FTA funding for this project is contingent primarily on Lorain county, reestablishing transit service, finding a secure funding source for transit and addressing the land use issues.

 

Going to this meeting made me appreciate how good we have it in Cuyahoga county.

 

The feedback from Lakewood officials has been positive, Tom Bullock (councilman Ward 3?) sat in on the meeting and expressed his and the mayors support for the project.

 

They are considering dual mode Diesel/electric trains, but as of now there are no trains that meet FRA standards for mixed use with freight trains, although that may change in the next 5-10 years. 

 

Got some info from the Consultant on the blue line extension, he believes it will end up being buses to both Randall park mall and to the Chagrin highlands, not Rail.

 

Talked an RTA Representative about the Redline extension and Clifton Blvd project. it was said the Clifton project was awarded 3 million, but is short of the 5 million needed for the project.  Red line, was assumed to be BRT only with the healthline possibly being split at University circle and second line from UC to Downtown Euclid.

 

 

 

Thanks for the update, biker.  At least I'm glad there IS a timetable for the West Shore commuter rail, even if it seems a bit long (given the fact that the route has been looked at and proposed for over a decade)... It's discouraging, though, that only 15 (mainly) Lorain County folks were interested enough to show up.

 

As to the Blue and Red Line proposals, ... I'd seriously want to look into the background of this "consultant."  Is he legit or, just as in the GM-backed National City  Lines that were hatched merely to destroy American cities' streetcar/rail transit systems in the 1930s and 40s, it a shadowy organization (in greater Cleveland, at least) that's out to shove friggin' BRT down our throats no matter how ill matched for our transit needs, or how underperforming BRT is compared to rapid transit.  You have to wonder whether there could possibly be potential illegality, too, for if FTA is spending millions of tax dollars for RTA to study "alternatives" and yet, even before a dime is spent, you have some "consultant" running around claiming that, well, it's all over but the shoutin'... forget any rail, THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE that all proposed extensions will be BRT... Well, connect the dots.  Doesn't give to much integrity to the Federal "alternative analysis" process, does it?

 

Anyway, back to West Shore…

 

Thanks for the update, biker.  At least I'm glad there IS a timetable for the West Shore commuter rail, even if it seems a bit long (given the fact that the route has been looked at and proposed for over a decade)... It's discouraging, though, that only 15 (mainly) Lorain County folks were interested enough to show up.

 

As to the Blue and Red Line proposals, ... I'd seriously want to look into the background of this "consultant."  Is he legit or, just as in the GM-backed National City  Lines that were hatched merely to destroy American cities' streetcar/rail transit systems in the 1930s and 40s, it a shadowy organization (in greater Cleveland, at least) that's out to shove friggin' BRT down our throats no matter how ill matched for our transit needs, or how underperforming BRT is compared to rapid transit.  You have to wonder whether there could possibly be potential illegality, too, for if FTA is spending millions of tax dollars for RTA to study "alternatives" and yet, even before a dime is spent, you have some "consultant" running around claiming that, well, it's all over but the shoutin'... forget any rail, THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE that all proposed extensions will be BRT... Well, connect the dots.  Doesn't give to much integrity to the Federal "alternative analysis" process, does it?

 

Anyway, back to West Shore…

 

it was the same consultant for the west shore.  his reason were simple there isn't enough riders to support the extension.  Chagrin highlands is extremely unfriendly to transit.  it is a 10 minute walk for Harvard to the door at Eaton Corp's new HQ.

 

now if this was part of a larger commuter rail link to Solon then things would change.

 

the second source was an engineer from RTA.  She said that about the redline extension.

Here are some views of the Windermere station taken by me on Nov. 2 showing the stub end of the eastbound track that would probably have to be extended through the station if the Red Line was extended east to Euclid....

 

 

 

 

The area over which the above track would have to be extended, likely on a new bridge deck with a glass enclosure around it. I took the following pictures from right to left in case anyone wants to stitch them together to create a panoramic view...

 

 

 

 

Biker, you make some excellent points...

 

I also believe that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to Univ. Circle's TOD potential and the Red Line (and, yes, the Health Line too)... Extension of the Red Line 6 miles to near Euclid Square Mall would, I think, explode Red Line ridership to levels it's never seen, for once this project is actually green-lighted (and let's X our collective fingers), developers are going to swoop down on the area that will make MRN's (excellent) Uptown project look like small potatoes.  And as we're seeing with the proposed residential project in lower East Cleveland, more spin-off development will happen NE of the tracks, too. 

 

These facts, plus opening up the Rapid to a large commuting populace: Lake County; would most assuredly make the Red Line a hit.

 

Plus, the extension would open up the Rapid to do what it doesn't do anywhere in it's current system: namely, run trains in a straight-line, high speed corridor adjacent to an established regular (see slow) street/road for a substantial distance.  The Shaker and Van Aken Rapids follow street corridors, but the longest segment (Shaker Square-to-Green Road) is 4 miles, which is not bad.  Problem is, the Shaker trains are slow in the Shaker/Van Aken street level corridors because they are street level and must stop for car and foot traffic at traffic lights; not to mention the stops are close together (roughly 1/3 miles apart).  BTW, I'm not knocking the Blue/Green system because they are great for suburban access/distribution and, of course, they make up any lost time to downtown over the 6 mile grade separated corridors...

 

An expanded Red Line to Euclid would mean about 8 miles of rail would directly compete with Euclid; and it would best the street b/c of its total (or near total) grade separation plus its much wider-spaced stations.  And since people's movement patterns are naturally along Euclid Ave in that corridor, the advent of a much faster train would make the Red Line an instant draw... esp, as we predict, University Circle becomes much denser with development and, therefore, much slower to access by car or bus.

 

 

The Decline of downtown has hurt transit in this region because, All of our eggs were in one basket.  UC is TOD.

 

the goal of running everything into downtown must be rethought,  maybe we should make UC and even West 25th market square secondary transfer points.    i thingk we lot sight of the purpose of high volume transit, it is designed to be primarily a point to point transport , to take people from one another to another Area, not from their doorstep to their place of work or business.

 

it really doesn't matter where they come from where its TOD or a park and Ride lot, it matter that once they begin their trip on transit they can go where they want to go. 

 

focusing on diversifying transit circulation so we are better able to serve trips other than commuting.  In areas like downtown and UC, Trams could be used to circulate between the red line and health line to where they work live and play. 

 

TO me Light rail whoich should be called medium rail, is a complex architecture and is NOT a replacement for street Cars. 

 

Tram rail can be lighter duty and far less expensive to install and maintain because the trains are lighter and slower.  this is a Cross section of a U type Tram Rail.

 

vs

 

 

the difference is the depth of the rail.

one is only 72mm vs the other at 154mm.

 

 

both are made by arcelor-mittal, Ironic huh.

 

http://www.arcelormittal.com/rails+specialsections/en/tram-rails.html

 

how can we better connect our vibrant neighbors together?

 

Can you explain your "decline" of downtown comment?

Here are some views of the Windermere station taken by me on Nov. 2 showing the stub end of the eastbound track that would probably have to be extended through the station if the Red Line was extended east to Euclid....

 

 

 

 

The area over which the above track would have to be extended, likely on a new bridge deck with a glass enclosure around it. I took the following pictures from right to left in case anyone wants to stitch them together to create a panoramic view...

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't been to windermere in years. There was a rail loop, similar to the what was at Shaker Sq., Warrensville, Van Aken.  KJP, is the loop still there?

 

I haven't been to windermere in years. There was a rail loop, similar to the what was at Shaker Sq., Warrensville, Van Aken.  KJP, is the loop still there?

 

No. The start of the loop used to be in the lower-left of this picture posted on page 2:

 

Biker, you make some excellent points...

 

I also believe that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to Univ. Circle's TOD potential and the Red Line (and, yes, the Health Line too)... Extension of the Red Line 6 miles to near Euclid Square Mall would, I think, explode Red Line ridership to levels it's never seen, for once this project is actually green-lighted (and let's X our collective fingers), developers are going to swoop down on the area that will make MRN's (excellent) Uptown project look like small potatoes.  And as we're seeing with the proposed residential project in lower East Cleveland, more spin-off development will happen NE of the tracks, too. 

 

These facts, plus opening up the Rapid to a large commuting populace: Lake County; would most assuredly make the Red Line a hit.

 

Plus, the extension would open up the Rapid to do what it doesn't do anywhere in it's current system: namely, run trains in a straight-line, high speed corridor adjacent to an established regular (see slow) street/road for a substantial distance.  The Shaker and Van Aken Rapids follow street corridors, but the longest segment (Shaker Square-to-Green Road) is 4 miles, which is not bad.  Problem is, the Shaker trains are slow in the Shaker/Van Aken street level corridors because they are street level and must stop for car and foot traffic at traffic lights; not to mention the stops are close together (roughly 1/3 miles apart).  BTW, I'm not knocking the Blue/Green system because they are great for suburban access/distribution and, of course, they make up any lost time to downtown over the 6 mile grade separated corridors...

 

An expanded Red Line to Euclid would mean about 8 miles of rail would directly compete with Euclid; and it would best the street b/c of its total (or near total) grade separation plus its much wider-spaced stations.  And since people's movement patterns are naturally along Euclid Ave in that corridor, the advent of a much faster train would make the Red Line an instant draw... esp, as we predict, University Circle becomes much denser with development and, therefore, much slower to access by car or bus.

 

 

The Decline of downtown has hurt transit in this region because, All of our eggs were in one basket.  UC is TOD.

 

the goal of running everything into downtown must be rethought,  maybe we should make UC and even West 25th market square secondary transfer points.    i thingk we lot sight of the purpose of high volume transit, it is designed to be primarily a point to point transport , to take people from one another to another Area, not from their doorstep to their place of work or business.

 

it really doesn't matter where they come from where its TOD or a park and Ride lot, it matter that once they begin their trip on transit they can go where they want to go. 

 

focusing on diversifying transit circulation so we are better able to serve trips other than commuting.  In areas like downtown and UC, Trams could be used to circulate between the red line and health line to where they work live and play. 

 

TO me Light rail whoich should be called medium rail, is a complex architecture and is NOT a replacement for street Cars. 

 

Tram rail can be lighter duty and far less expensive to install and maintain because the trains are lighter and slower.  this is a Cross section of a U type Tram Rail.

 

vs

 

 

the difference is the depth of the rail.

one is only 72mm vs the other at 154mm.

 

 

both are made by arcelor-mittal, Ironic huh.

 

http://www.arcelormittal.com/rails+specialsections/en/tram-rails.html

 

how can we better connect our vibrant neighbors together?

 

Can you explain your "decline" of downtown comment?

 

the decline as downtown Cleveland as a center of job growth in the region.

 

the share of all jobs in Cleveland or north east ohio, in downtown Cleveland has declined.

 

while downtown has shrunk University Circle has grown.  the reality is of our region's major job centers.

 

 

These areas are impossible to serve effectively with transit to be competitive with Automobile travel.

Radial employment centers.

Beachwood

Independence

North Olmsted

 

While downtown, and UC are favorable to being serviced by transit.

 

there are 2 things going on in Downtown Cleveland

1) It is transforming from a single function employment center to a more divere, residential, entertainment and tourist area.

2) It is losing importance as a employment center, as the regions spreads out and the businesses decide to relocate, and traditional businesses decline.

 

 

don't get me wrong Downtown is the largest employment center in the state, and UC is close behind, the reality today is it is less important to regional employment (commuting) than it was 25 years ago.  Since RTA has been so focused on downtown it may have missed the opportunity to take advantage of employment growth of University circle, and take advantage of residential growth in downtown Cleveland.

 

 

 

^To be fair to RTA, I think it's been on top of the employment growth at University Circle and has doubled down on its fixed route infrastructure there via the Healthline and two and a half rail station projects (I'm counting the completed E105th station as a half project).  And I'm not sure loosening the radial routing would really do much for ridership, not within RTA's current budget, anyway.  Just too many origin-destination permutations.

 

It's water over the dam now, but dual hub was probably our last best chance to really reinvent public transit in the region; in addition to the one seat ride to Midtown and the Clinic it would have offered west siders, the operational efficiency gains through improved downtown rail circulation would have been spectacular, freeing much more bus route miles for improved/sustained suburban service.  Oh well.

^To be fair to RTA, I think it's been on top of the employment growth at University Circle and has doubled down on its fixed route infrastructure there via the Healthline and two and a half rail station projects (I'm counting the completed E105th station as a half project).  And I'm not sure loosening the radial routing would really do much for ridership, not within RTA's current budget, anyway.  Just too many origin-destination permutations.

 

I agree we cannot serve these radial areas, there are not enough resources in the world to properly service those dispersed areas.

 

I think in situations like the chagrin highlands and independence you need the business located there to take the initiative to get their people to transit, not to have transit come to them.

 

It's water over the dam now, but dual hub was probably our last best chance to really reinvent public transit in the region; in addition to the one seat ride to Midtown and the Clinic it would have offered west siders, the operational efficiency gains through improved downtown rail circulation would have been spectacular, freeing much more bus route miles for improved/sustained suburban service.  Oh well.

 

I think the future has to begin by improving service within those areas best serviced by transit, and have reasonable growth potential and/or better quality transit has the potential to spur development.

Biker, I would disagree that there is no corridor in Greater Cleveland that could support a subway.  Of course, I agree with Strap that Dual Hub was our last, best chance, but certainly it is more than capable, esp with Cleve Clinic and UH/UC in its path.... Compare Atlanta's Peachtree (North MARTA Line corridor) -- it supports a heavy rail subway with impressive daytime numbers.  A Public Square to Euclid Square (via U.Circle) could be just as successfull.  Consider that, right now, Downtown Cleveland is at least as strong, if not stronger, downtown employment/residential center as downtown Atlanta.  Of course we know, Atlanta has several "downtowns" north along Peachtree (North Atlanta, Midtown and Buckhead, 7 miles away, being the most prominent). 

 

In Cleveland with Playhouse Square and CSU are growing, along with the Clinic and U. Circle... One problem with Clevelander's analysis of rail as we tend to look at the existing locations as static and not as potential after-rail TOD/growth areas.  I think it's why we have no coordinated TOD program along our rail system today (aside from progressive developers, like Ari Maron)....

 

I sure hope RTA seriously moves forward with the full Red Line extension to Euclid, and not some diesel switchover service.  I think its the best way to create even greater TOD growth at downtown, UC and along Euclid... even in a non-TOD-minded region like Greater Cleveland.

A Euclid Ave. subway is a no-brainer, along with rail on or under High St. between OSU and Columbus and in Cincinnati between Downtown, UC, and Xavier.  These infrastructure improvements are in the state's interest and could be bundled into a piece of state legislation that would avoid contentious local ballot issues.  Also, a 3c's project with significant new trackwork could be designed so as to provide commuter rail service in addition to intercity trains on the same track.  But that would make too much sense. 

 

Baltimore, for example, never had a ballot issue to build its subway because when the Maryland legislature ponied up to pay the local match for the Washington Metro lines that extend into the state, Baltimore demanded a similar amount of money.  Unfortunately the Baltimore subway wasn't a game-changer for that city because only one line was built due to 1970's-era inflation, and heavy rail specs make it extremely expensive to extend. 

 

there are 2 things going on in Downtown Cleveland

1) It is transforming from a single function employment center to a more divere, residential, entertainment and tourist area.

2) It is losing importance as a employment center, as the regions spreads out and the businesses decide to relocate, and traditional businesses decline.

 

 

don't get me wrong Downtown is the largest employment center in the state, and UC is close behind, the reality today is it is less important to regional employment (commuting) than it was 25 years ago.  Since RTA has been so focused on downtown it may have missed the opportunity to take advantage of employment growth of University circle, and take advantage of residential growth in downtown Cleveland.

 

Even twenty years ago, people in the manufacturing sector avoided going downtown whenever possible.  I think there's one major headhunter left there.  Searchmasters moved out to Independence a few years ago.  If I'm not mistaken, downtown these days is primarily banking, government, and associated businesses such as accountants and law firms. 

 

If you look at a map, downtown is not even the geographical center of Greater Cleveland.  That's probably Independence.

"We don't go downtown anymore" happened in a lot of cities, probably most of them.  Cleveland has fought back from that better than most, despite several factors working against it.  Your description sounds more like downtown Columbus.  As for downtown not being in the center, it's a port city and that's how most of them are set up.  There's nothing wrong with having additional downtowns like Independence and Beachwood, this too is common, but I think it would be beneficial if they were all in the same municipality.  Case in point Atlanta, as mentioned above.

 

As much as we need new rail, RTA also needs more non-radial routes that reflect the current dispersion of jobs and retail.  If downtown weren't so devoid of retail, the radial system would make a lot more sense, because it was designed for a downtown that wasn't just offices and restaurants.  Having one "center of everything" is the most efficient way for a community to function.  Now that we don't, transit planning becomes a challenge and we're guaranteed less bang for our buck.  It also causes new bottlenecks on the freeways, as capacities planned for one traffic pattern are increasingly used for another.  480 between Independence and Beachwood, which also serves as Cleveland's outerbelt, is the clearest example of this.

"We don't go downtown anymore" happened in a lot of cities, probably most of them.  Cleveland has fought back from that better than most, despite several factors working against it.  Your description sounds more like downtown Columbus.  As for downtown not being in the center, it's a port city and that's how most of them are set up.  There's nothing wrong with having additional downtowns like Independence and Beachwood, this too is common, but I think it would be beneficial if they were all in the same municipality.  Case in point Atlanta, as mentioned above.

 

As much as we need new rail, RTA also needs more non-radial routes that reflect the current dispersion of jobs and retail.  If downtown weren't so devoid of retail, the radial system would make a lot more sense, because it was designed for a downtown that wasn't just offices and restaurants.  Having one "center of everything" is the most efficient way for a community to function.  Now that we don't, transit planning becomes a challenge and we're guaranteed less bang for our buck.  It also causes new bottlenecks on the freeways, as capacities planned for one traffic pattern are increasingly used for another.  480 between Independence and Beachwood, which also serves as Cleveland's outerbelt, is the clearest example of this.

 

Cleveland fought back better than most in large part because of the Indians' resurgence in 1994, followed by the Browns' return in 1999 and then the LeBron era of the Cavaliers.  The Flats kicked it into gear at about the same time.  With the possible exception of the rapids, RTA was never really a part of that as late night and weekend schedules were always light, if they existed at all.

 

Another drawback of the radial approach is illustrated by my example.  I do occasionally take the bus into work....but I usually get there between 6 and 630am.  It's impossible to get there before 7 on RTA.  The bus I have to take downtown doesn't start running until 5.  This leaves aside the fact that a 25 minute drive takes 2 hours....that's probably unavoidable.

 

People are going to find a way to do what they want to do with what exists.  480 gets jammed, as does 271 south and many surface streets (82 in Macedonia comes to mind).  The question a transit agency must face is is it trying to mold behavior, or respond to it.

Biker, I would disagree that there is no corridor in Greater Cleveland that could support a subway.  Of course, I agree with Strap that Dual Hub was our last, best chance, but certainly it is more than capable, esp with Cleve Clinic and UH/UC in its path.... Compare Atlanta's Peachtree (North MARTA Line corridor) -- it supports a heavy rail subway with impressive daytime numbers.  A Public Square to Euclid Square (via U.Circle) could be just as successfull.  Consider that, right now, Downtown Cleveland is at least as strong, if not stronger, downtown employment/residential center as downtown Atlanta.  Of course we know, Atlanta has several "downtowns" north along Peachtree (North Atlanta, Midtown and Buckhead, 7 miles away, being the most prominent).

 

If you replaced the RedLine with a subway from UC to Dowtown you may have something, if you want to simply add to the existing Redline you will struggle to attack enough riders to sustain the system.

 

In Cleveland with Playhouse Square and CSU are growing, along with the Clinic and U. Circle... One problem with Clevelander's analysis of rail as we tend to look at the existing locations as static and not as potential after-rail TOD/growth areas.  I think it's why we have no coordinated TOD program along our rail system today (aside from progressive developers, like Ari Maron)....

 

I think We need more developers like Ari,  I would hate to have all of our eggs in one basket again.

 

I sure hope RTA seriously moves forward with the full Red Line extension to Euclid, and not some diesel switchover service.  I think its the best way to create even greater TOD growth at downtown, UC and along Euclid... even in a non-TOD-minded region like Greater Cleveland.

 

I would love to see RTA buy the line and expand it to lake county.

 

I  a perfect world you would want It electrified all the way out to lake county, the issue with that of course is the expense of dedicated ROW and in the instance of the redline extension it is the costs of adding 14 bridges for that new line.

 

RTa would be better off hedging and look to purchase either Dual mode Diesel/electric trains and/or Trans that can operate on battery power for short periods of time to allow Freight to cross RTA right of ways.

 

short and medium term I see not other way to start inter county commuter rial without using FRA compatible Diesel trains to reach out of county riders to feed TOD development in Cuyahoga county. 

 

battery optional trains could be useful in crossing frieghtlines at grade without building bridges.

 

the focus has to be on building transit friendly environments, growing them and using their growth to encourage development of commuter rail to the surrounding areas.

People are going to find a way to do what they want to do with what exists.  480 gets jammed, as does 271 south and many surface streets (82 in Macedonia comes to mind).  The question a transit agency must face is is it trying to mold behavior, or respond to it.

 

But transit changes DO mold behavior.  The interstates are a prime example.

People are going to find a way to do what they want to do with what exists.  480 gets jammed, as does 271 south and many surface streets (82 in Macedonia comes to mind).  The question a transit agency must face is is it trying to mold behavior, or respond to it.

 

But transit changes DO mold behavior.  The interstates are a prime example.

 

Yes, though there were economic and strategic reasons for such as well (I know the "one straight mile of every five" is an urban legend, but it *does* work out that way, more or less). 

 

I'm talking about the mission of the agency.  Is its goal to maximize ridership?  Then it should be responding to not merely the needs but the desires of its potential customer base, like any competitive business.  Or is its goal to provide an alternative to those who might otherwise have trouble getting from place to place?

 

If its somewhat of both, the degree to which its each will determine priorities.

 

If its somewhat of both, the degree to which its each will determine priorities.

 

It usually is a little of both -- the side that the pendulum swings usually depends on which way the political winds are blowing at that moment. A transit agency's primary mission is to survive, for it cannot be a public service if it no longer exists. But doing something more than surviving means that someone at the agency is going to be brave enough to stick their neck out and take a risk. And you cannot grow without risk. As we all know, public agencies don't "do" risk very well, especially in a region like ours that isn't growing.

 

That's why planning initiatives like the Red Line/HealthLine extension are so refreshing, even though there are probably some at GCRTA who are nervously wondering why their agency is doing something so "dangerous" or "risky" or "scary." If the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction to make folks at GCRTA feel a little braver about moving ahead with a significant capital investment recommendation as a result of this planning, then there likely will not be any BRT or Red Line extension advanced into preliminary engineering.

It usually is a little of both -- the side that the pendulum swings usually depends on which way the political winds are blowing at that moment. A transit agency's primary mission is to survive, for it cannot be a public service if it no longer exists. But doing something more than surviving means that someone at the agency is going to be brave enough to stick their neck out and take a risk. And you cannot grow without risk. As we all know, public agencies don't "do" risk very well, especially in a region like ours that isn't growing.

 

That's why planning initiatives like the Red Line/HealthLine extension are so refreshing, even though there are probably some at GCRTA who are nervously wondering why their agency is doing something so "dangerous" or "risky" or "scary." If the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction to make folks at GCRTA feel a little braver about moving ahead with a significant capital investment recommendation as a result of this planning, then there likely will not be any BRT or Red Line extension advanced into preliminary engineering.

 

Very well said.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/post_536.html

 

Just posted on cleveland.com

 

I don't think this is a good idea. This will bring people that should not be in the warehouse district there. Maybe i'm wrong??

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/post_536.html

 

Just posted on cleveland.com

 

I don't think this is a good idea. This will bring people that should not be in the warehouse district there. Maybe i'm wrong??

 

huh?  want to explain that one?

 

If its somewhat of both, the degree to which its each will determine priorities.

 

It usually is a little of both -- the side that the pendulum swings usually depends on which way the political winds are blowing at that moment. A transit agency's primary mission is to survive, for it cannot be a public service if it no longer exists. But doing something more than surviving means that someone at the agency is going to be brave enough to stick their neck out and take a risk. And you cannot grow without risk. As we all know, public agencies don't "do" risk very well, especially in a region like ours that isn't growing.

 

That's why planning initiatives like the Red Line/HealthLine extension are so refreshing, even though there are probably some at GCRTA who are nervously wondering why their agency is doing something so "dangerous" or "risky" or "scary." If the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction to make folks at GCRTA feel a little braver about moving ahead with a significant capital investment recommendation as a result of this planning, then there likely will not be any BRT or Red Line extension advanced into preliminary engineering.

 

Does RTA have a formalized mission statement?  Quarterly/annual quantifiable objectives?  Regular management reviews by department and/or the entire agency?  Internal audits vis a vis documented procedures and objectives.

 

These are serious questions.  By profession I'm a quality manager, specializing in ISO 9000 systems.  These types of things are not only required by the standard, they are tremedously powerful business tools.