Im not sure if this has been posted before.

 

I'm bumping this thread for a couple reasons.

 

First, Laketran conducts a ridership survey every couple of years to try to guage interest and explore whether they have any gaps in their coverage and I noticed (I occasionally ride Laketran when the weather is terrible) they specifically asked "if a route was offered to University Circle, would you be interested?". Which to me at least indicates Laketran is noticing a portion of their potential riders are driving to UC. Perhaps, as was suggested last year in this thread, Laketran and RTA could try to work together in some way to move people.

 

The other reason I thought the thread should be bumped is it's now been 10 months since RTA received $1M in grant money toward this. Is it fair to start asking what's the progress? Have they chosen who will conduct the analysis? Do they have a rough time frame on when we might hear something? Has anyone caught any rumors about what possibilities are being compared? Where's the oracle of Brooks Brothers when you need them? (In other words, I'm impatient and curious)

I have not heard anything, but I do think the cheapest, highest-performing option would be a Rapid+ self-propelled rail-diesel cars like on Tri-Met's Beaverton, OR service, which effectively extends their LRT. The NS railroad and Euclid are the most direct routes from the eastern part of the county (and Lake County) into University Circle as an enroute point on the way to downtown. But the NS tracks would be much faster. The NS former Nickel Plate RR is greatly underutilized in that corner of the metro area. It sees only about 20 trains a day and is double-tracked for much of the route to serve many industries that are no longer there, or have switched to trucks. East of Euclid, it is single-tracked, but there are a number of sidings that could be connected to extend the double-track to Willoughby as a first phase, then farther east in a subsequent phase. This Rapid+ brand could then be offered in other parts of the metro area where freight traffic is light (west to Avon Lake, east to Solon and Aurora, south to Independence, etc.) but uses the Rapid tracks to access Tower City -- if compatibility issues can be worked out.

I have not heard anything, but I do think the cheapest, highest-performing option would be a Rapid+ self-propelled rail-diesel cars like on Tri-Met's Beaverton, OR service, which effectively extends their LRT. The NS railroad and Euclid are the most direct routes from the eastern part of the county (and Lake County) into University Circle as an enroute point on the way to downtown. But the NS tracks would be much faster. The NS former Nickel Plate RR is greatly underutilized in that corner of the metro area. It sees only about 20 trains a day and is double-tracked for much of the route to serve many industries that are no longer there, or have switched to trucks. East of Euclid, it is single-tracked, but there are a number of sidings that could be connected to extend the double-track to Willoughby as a first phase, then farther east in a subsequent phase. This Rapid+ brand could then be offered in other parts of the metro area where freight traffic is light (west to Avon Lake, east to Solon and Aurora, south to Independence, etc.) but uses the Rapid tracks to access Tower City -- if compatibility issues can be worked out.

 

I talked about something like this a few years ago, and IIRC there were some issues with using freight trackage.  On the most ambitious scale, I was talking about a loop, not a radial system.  Something like Downtown - Clinic/UC - Willoughby/Mentor - Solon/Aurora - Independence - Strongsville/Brunswick - Avon/Bay - Downtown.

 

Back when I was riding regularly, it seemed that there was little interest in non-radial routes or "park and ride", with some exceptions.  This was a long time ago and things may have changed. 

Unless there's doorways to existing or potential meaningful traffic sources within an easy walk (has paved walkways, no fences, no multi-lane highways lacking sidewalks) that's 1,500 feet or less from a station, then rail is probably not a good option. A Red Line extension might work as a collector system for dropping passengers off in University Circle or downtown. It might also work for reverse commutes if all the outer stations are served by coordinated bus schedules to area industries, businesses, and employers. Terminating at downtown Willoughby or Painesville (much more expensive) at least offers a walkable CBD near the tracks, especially in Willoughby's case, even if it's not rich in employment or residential. But at least both offer the potential for it, which could be unleashed if rail service were provided.

 

Rail is a linear mode, and requires its traffic sources to be concentrated around its stations. Only when a rail network is sufficiently developed as a radial or hub-and-spoke system does a circumferential route perform well as a network connector. It often gets less of its ridership from walk-in trade at circumferential stations. Many of its riders are often using it to connect from one rail line to another. It is why Chicago has long considered such a circumferential route because it has a dozen commuter rail routes that extended 30-80 miles out into the hinterlands that usually require traveling all the way into downtown to connect to another route.... http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/metra_system_map.html

"It is why Chicago has long considered such a circumferential route because it has a dozen commuter rail routes that extended 30-80 miles out into the hinterlands that usually require traveling all the way into downtown to connect to another route...."

 

Hmmm....that sounds familiar.  It's what RTA's been accused of pretty much since its inception.

 

This is particularly an issue on the south side of this area, partly because for a rather obvious geographic reason, downtown is not centered in the region (also true for Chicago).

 

 

Except RTA is more like CTA in that it's mostly a city-based system with some service into the suburbs. Chicago's Metra is the one planning the circumferential route between rail routes that extend 30-85 miles out from the city. Imagine a NE Ohio rail system with routes extending to Medina, Sandusky, Ashtabula, Youngstown and Canton. So if you wanted to ride from Canton to Youngstown, you'd have to go to downtown Cleveland first. What Chicago is planning is a circumferential route 15-25 miles out from downtown. There are circumferential bus routes in Cleveland, yet except for the #40 on Lee, they do not get much ridership because they connect land uses of lower density that are designed to make car use more convenient, not transit.

I think the use a heavy rail driave the cost of everything too high to make it a viable alternative in this area.

 

I am a firm beiliever ( as everyone knows) of the rapid Streetcar concept that seeks to drastically reduce the cost of rail.

 

I could see RTA buying the Fright line, allowing overnight freight access only and Running redline trains out to Euclid square mall. what I can't see is building a parallel ROW to do the same gosh Darn thing.

 

the most interesting thing to watch in the Alternatives analysis is IF they even propose  buying the existing ROW and leasing it back to the Railroads for use at night.

 

A similar strategy should be sought with the Line thru other areas like Lakewood.

 

ALAS when our system is run by people extremely reluctant to change the odds of anything getting through are slim to none. :(

 

Euclid Sq. Mall, laketran-RTA transit hub?

From an e-mailed press release........

 

 

October 15, 2012

For Immediate Release

[email protected]

(202)225-5871

 

Kucinich Brings Community Together to Plan the Future of Rail Traffic in Northern Ohio

Reduced Freight Traffic Paves way for Commuter Rail, Quiet Zones

 

Cleveland, Ohio (October 15, 2012) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) met

with local, county, regional, state, and federal government and railroad

officials to review the status of train agreements and set a future course

regarding the relationship between train communities and the railroads. In

particular, communities want to create quiet zones and plan for commuter rail.

 

“When news broke of the Norfolk Southern and CSX application to acquire Conrail

more than 15 years ago, we created precedent-setting agreements with the

railroads. Those agreements created caps on the number of trains in some

communities and required major infrastructure improvements to make our cities

safer, quieter, and less congested,” said Kucinich.

 

“Through federal regulations which protect the environment and amplify the voice

of local government, mayors and other local officials were able to negotiate

with the railroads to mitigate ill effects of increased freight traffic through

their communities. I am proud to have played a role in these agreements and

continue to work with local officials to help realize their goals,” said

Kucinich.

 

“Because we now have fewer trains along the Nickel Plate Line, we also have a

chance to pursue commuter rail between Cleveland and Lorain, something we never

would have been able to do had the railroads tripled freight traffic on this

line,” said Kucinich. “Still, cities need help in putting the planning in place

to make commuter rail happen,” he added.

 

In June 1997, Norfolk Southern and CSX applied to the federal Surface

Transportation Board (STB) for the merger and acquisition of Conrail. The STB

oversees all Class 1 rail mergers. The National Environmental Policy Act of

1970 requires that all federal actions having a major impact on the natural or

human environment must undergo a public evaluation involving notifying the

public and hearing community concerns. Shortly after the announcement of the

merger, Kucinich filed papers with the STB to be a Party of Record in the

procedures, initially opposing the merger, and then agreeing to it under the

condition that local agreements mitigating the effects were made part of the

approval.

 

The various local agreements made in conjunction with the 1997-98 STB procedures

put a cap on the number of trains along the Nickel Plate Line in Cleveland,

Lakewood, Rocky River, and Bay Village. The agreements also made possible an

initial $87 million in grade separations in Berea, Brook Park, Olmsted Falls,

and Olmsted Township and more money in later years for additional grade

separations in Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township. The agreements further

enabled the funding for gates and lights at all the crossings in these

communities. Further negotiations led to changing Ohio and federal law to allow

quiet zones in Ohio communities.

 

In the meeting today with officials from Bay Village, Cleveland, Lakewood,

Olmsted Falls, Strongsville, Cuyahoga County, the Northeast Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Public Utilities

Commission of Ohio, the offices Ohio Reps. Mike Foley and Nickie Antonio and

U.S. Reps. Jim Renacci and Betty Sutton, and Norfolk Southern Railroad, the

parties agreed that while much progress has been made, more needs to be done to

plan for quiet zones and passenger rail.

 

“In the next several weeks, we will continue to review how more communities can

realize additional benefits of working in agreement with the railroads and

forging a bipartisan path toward quieter and more sustainable communities,” said

Kucinich.

 

###

Basically a press release rewrite.....

 

Lakewood, surrounding communties on track in giving support to rail projects

Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:30 PM    Updated: Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 3:32 PM

    By Sun News staff

 

LAKEWOOD Several local communities are throwing their continued support behind the development of commuter rail in Ohio, with intent to encourage further conversation.

 

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich met with government and railroad officials to review the status of current train agreements and set a future course regarding the relationship between communities and the railroads that run through them.

 

Area politicians and representatives from various agencies agreed that much has been done to work toward local quiet zones and plan for future development, but conceded that there's plenty of work remaining.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index.ssf/2012/10/lakewood_surrounding_communtie.html

Redirected from: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.8365.html#ixzz2CyKzDn7G

 

Here's a fun little briefing piece I put together last month for All Aboard Ohio's 2012 Fall Meeting regarding what's going on with Cleveland transit (especially rail) these days. Surprisingly, quite a lot!....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/a40f10ff8e.pdf

 

EDIT: you may need to right-click on the image and then select "rotate clockwise" :)

This is a very intriguing slide that I hope happens because Euclid Avenue could use a rail line because majority of the Red Line stops are so out of the way that it holds back what ridership could actually be if they were on a street like Euclid.

 

Thanks! Portland spent a lot of money ($166 million) on the 15-mile WES regional rail extension from the end of the light-rail system. I don't think such a large expenditure is needed to get to Euclid (or my first-phase preference, Willoughby). In fact, I would bet that regional rail would be lowest-cost, fastest (service-wise) option for travel from the northeastern suburbs to University Circle and downtown, as well as from the city to manufacturing and service jobs in the far northeastern suburbs. This is an RTA planning exercise, so if there is interest in expanding this into Lake County, then Laketran is going to have to put some money into the planning.

 

Consider that the NS rail line is mostly double-tracked (13 miles of double track from Downtown Cleveland to a half-mile shy of the Euclid Park-n-Ride) and is under capacity (it has maybe 20-25 freight trains a day on it). If RTA and Laketran want to extend this service further east, such as another 7 miles to downtown Willoughby, it would require constructing a second main track here. Fortunately, half (3.6 miles) of this Euclid-Willoughby section has passing sidings along it already, which could incorporated into the second main track. That also means that only railroad bridge overpass needs to be widened to accommodate a second track -- Worden Road in Wickliffe. Going farthest east of Willoughby (such as to Painesville) would require some expensive track and bridge construction. I'd save that for a second phase).

 

My operating plan would have maybe a half-dozen morning rush hour trains run from Willoughby all the way into downtown Cleveland -- on new track to get as close to Tower City as possible. Or possibly an FRA waiver could be granted for the trains (especially if they're self-propelled) to use RTA tracks into Tower City station. I'd have a similar number of rush-hour trains in the afternoon rush travel all the way from Downtown Cleveland to Willoughby.

 

I would have at least one commuter rail station in the University Circle area -- I can't decide if it should be next to the Mayfield or Cedar RTA stations. Whichever one will give the best pedestrian access to the most UC jobs and CWRU classrooms.

 

In the off-peak hours, I'd run the commuter trains only between UC, Windermere and Willoughby.

 

My favored stations would probably be:

 

Downtown Cleveland (rush-hour only)

University Circle (Cedar or Mayfield)

Windermere

Collinwood (London-Wayside)

Euclid (Dille or Chardon Rd)

Euclid Park-n-Ride

Wickliffe (Lloyd or Worden)

Willoughby (SR91 or Dalton)

Downtown Wiloughby (Erie St-Lost Nation)

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :)

 

Redirected from: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.8365.html#ixzz2CyKzDn7G

 

Here's a fun little briefing piece I put together last month for All Aboard Ohio's 2012 Fall Meeting regarding what's going on with Cleveland transit (especially rail) these days. Surprisingly, quite a lot!....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/a40f10ff8e.pdf

 

EDIT: you may need to right-click on the image and then select "rotate clockwise" :)

This is a very intriguing slide that I hope happens because Euclid Avenue could use a rail line because majority of the Red Line stops are so out of the way that it holds back what ridership could actually be if they were on a street like Euclid.

 

Thanks! Portland spent a lot of money ($166 million) on the 15-mile WES regional rail extension from the end of the light-rail system. I don't think such a large expenditure is needed to get to Euclid (or my first-phase preference, Willoughby). In fact, I would bet that regional rail would be lowest-cost, fastest (service-wise) option for travel from the northeastern suburbs to University Circle and downtown, as well as from the city to manufacturing and service jobs in the far northeastern suburbs. This is an RTA planning exercise, so if there is interest in expanding this into Lake County, then Laketran is going to have to put some money into the planning.

 

Consider that the NS rail line is mostly double-tracked (13 miles of double track from Downtown Cleveland to a half-mile shy of the Euclid Park-n-Ride) and is under capacity (it has maybe 20-25 freight trains a day on it). If RTA and Laketran want to extend this service further east, such as another 7 miles to downtown Willoughby, it would require constructing a second main track here. Fortunately, half (3.6 miles) of this Euclid-Willoughby section has passing sidings along it already, which could incorporated into the second main track. That also means that only railroad bridge overpass needs to be widened to accommodate a second track -- Worden Road in Wickliffe. Going farthest east of Willoughby (such as to Painesville) would require some expensive track and bridge construction. I'd save that for a second phase).

 

My operating plan would have maybe a half-dozen morning rush hour trains run from Willoughby all the way into downtown Cleveland -- on new track to get as close to Tower City as possible. Or possibly an FRA waiver could be granted for the trains (especially if they're self-propelled) to use RTA tracks into Tower City station. I'd have a similar number of rush-hour trains in the afternoon rush travel all the way from Downtown Cleveland to Willoughby.

 

I would have at least one commuter rail station in the University Circle area -- I can't decide if it should be next to the Mayfield or Cedar RTA stations. Whichever one will give the best pedestrian access to the most UC jobs and CWRU classrooms.

 

In the off-peak hours, I'd run the commuter trains only between UC, Windermere and Willoughby.

 

My favored stations would probably be:

 

Downtown Cleveland (rush-hour only)

University Circle (Cedar or Mayfield)

Windermere

Collinwood (London-Wayside)

Euclid (Dille or Chardon Rd)

Euclid Park-n-Ride

Wickliffe (Lloyd or Worden)

Willoughby (SR91 or Dalton)

Downtown Wiloughby (Erie St-Lost Nation)

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :)

 

 

I disagree.  Subway outside of Cuyahoga County doesn't work.  Too long.  If we want trains to Willoughby, it should be commuter.  The Cleveland Rapid should not go past Euclid.

 

 

This is a subway map for NE Ohio.

I disagree.  Subway outside of Cuyahoga County doesn't work.  Too long.  If we want trains to Willoughby, it should be commuter.  The Cleveland Rapid should not go past Euclid.

He's talking about commuter trains.

MTS, how in the world did you get "subway" from my write up?? Did you read it? Did you see my mentioning the use of tracks shared by freight trains? How many subways do you know that are used by freight trains?

 

If I'm going to take the time to describe something, the least you can do is take the time to read it. If you don't want to read it, then please don't bother offering an opinion of it.

 

For those with attention deficit disorder, here's what I'm talking about......

 

How to Ride WES Commuter Rail

 

rail service should be extended to every place they had it before, especially Painesville! so there! :clap:

rail service should be extended to every place they had it before, especially Painesville! so there! :clap:

 

Some of All Aboard Ohio's members get mad at me for suggesting providing bus services where others have suggested rail. The only way you're going to see trains run everywhere they once did is if you've got a time machine.

 

I do think extending a rail service to Painesville may be worthwhile. The projected ridership numbers in past studies and based on those using Laketran to get to downtown Cleveland suggests there is a decent ridership market. Yet there is still no Laketran service to University Circle, probably because Euclid is too slow (even with BRT extended east) and I-90/MLK is too congested. Extending the Red Line is probably too expensive. So that's why I suggest a  diesel-powered commuter rail service on the EXISTING freight tracks owned and used by NS. To do that, RTA will have to have $500 million in liability insurance or contract with someone who does (ie: Amtrak). And NS must have guarantees that its freight operations (including the capacity for growth) will not be negatively impacted. If that cannot be guaranteed, then RTA will have to provide sufficient infrastructure that offers enough track capacity to ensure that guarantee.

^I know very little (well, almost nothing) about Laketran routes, but I just assumed at least one of them passed through Univerisity Circle since they go downtown. That's surprising. I know it's unrealistic to expect rail service to be widespread as it once was (I just wanted to post that picture :laugh:). I think there was even a line which ran to Fairport Harbor--of all places (!)--which once crashed through the St. Clair Street bridge, which links P'ville & Fairport, plunging it into the Grand River. Needless to say there were more than a few fatalities.

^Nope, Laketran only goes downtown.

 

If there was service to University Circle, I'd ride it daily. As it is, it's faster from Western Lake county (and parts of Euclid) to take Laketran to downtown and then transfer to the Healthline than it is to make 3 transfers (39 to the 30 to the HL) and go directly to UC on RTA.

 

And here's a NorthEast Rapid+ train schedule for your future travels (OK, way into the future!)......

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/2cd869b918.pdf

MTS, how in the world did you get "subway" from my write up?? Did you read it? Did you see my mentioning the use of tracks shared by freight trains? How many subways do you know that are used by freight trains?

 

If I'm going to take the time to describe something, the least you can do is take the time to read it. If you don't want to read it, then please don't bother offering an opinion of it.

 

For those with attention deficit disorder, here's what I'm talking about......

 

How to Ride WES Commuter Rail

 

 

I hadn't eaten, my sugar was low!  damnit!

MTS, how in the world did you get "subway" from my write up?? Did you read it? Did you see my mentioning the use of tracks shared by freight trains? How many subways do you know that are used by freight trains?

 

If I'm going to take the time to describe something, the least you can do is take the time to read it. If you don't want to read it, then please don't bother offering an opinion of it.

 

For those with attention deficit disorder, here's what I'm talking about......

 

How to Ride WES Commuter Rail

 

 

I hadn't eaten, my sugar was low!  damnit!

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses...  :roll:

MTS, how in the world did you get "subway" from my write up?? Did you read it? Did you see my mentioning the use of tracks shared by freight trains? How many subways do you know that are used by freight trains?

 

If I'm going to take the time to describe something, the least you can do is take the time to read it. If you don't want to read it, then please don't bother offering an opinion of it.

 

For those with attention deficit disorder, here's what I'm talking about......

 

How to Ride WES Commuter Rail

 

 

I hadn't eaten, my sugar was low!  damnit!

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses...  ::)

 

 

I hadn't eaten, my sugar was low!  damnit!

 

 

OK, now that I've had the final word -- back on topic!

:clap:

I like this idea too!

:clap:

I like this idea too!

 

I don't.  I don't think Regional Rail should have stops, but in very few places, in Cuyahoga County.  Instead of the stops KJP post, I feel like those should be Cleveland Rapid stops.  Let the Lake County train stop in Euclid (for transfers to RTA services), University Circle and Downtown.

What is the mission of this service? Is it merely to get commuters to Downtown Cleveland and to University Circle faster than a bus and without all of the parking garages and traffic required of driving?

 

That's probably going to be a principal flow of traffic. But another is inner-city residents getting to manufacturing and warehouse jobs along the rail line in Euclid and points east. RTA buses are pretty full with first-, second- and third-shift workers heading to jobs clustered along the rail line, between Euclid Avenue and I-90, yet many more jobs are farther east into Lake County in Wickliffe, Willowick, Eastlake and Willoughby (with more in Mentor). The rail line is ideally located for this, and the stops need to be a little closer together (1.5 to 2 miles) here than what is normal for a regional commuter rail service (3-6 miles) to provide access to jobs.

 

Also having more stops in Cuyahoga County is necessary to access where these workers live. This region lacks transit service frequencies, requires too many transfers, and lacks commuter rail or reverse-run express buses. The result is that only 26 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90-minute transit trip. Preferably, that number should be 50 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland put within a 45-minute transit trip. That goal can be accomplished by attracting more jobs to the urban core and by offering faster transit to suburban/exurban job clusters.

 

This preferred transit option for this study area needs to serve both traffic flows (downtown/UC commuters, reverse-commutes) and reach farther east to tap more traffic generators. My regional rail concept does that more effectively and at less cost than a +/- $500 million extension of the Red Line to Euclid (too expensive and doesn't go far enough east to tap enough bedroom communities or suburban jobs) or a +/- $150 million extension of the HealthLine to Euclid (too slow for the money or for UC/downtown commuters so it may end up serving only urban core residents trying to reach suburban jobs).

What is the mission of this service? Is it merely to get commuters to Downtown Cleveland and to University Circle faster than a bus and without all of the parking garages and traffic required of driving?

 

That's probably going to be a principal flow of traffic. But another is inner-city residents getting to manufacturing and warehouse jobs along the rail line in Euclid and points east. RTA buses are pretty full with first-, second- and third-shift workers heading to jobs clustered along the rail line, between Euclid Avenue and I-90, yet many more jobs are farther east into Lake County in Wickliffe, Willowick, Eastlake and Willoughby (with more in Mentor). The rail line is ideally located for this, and the stops need to be a little closer together (1.5 to 2 miles) here than what is normal for a regional commuter rail service (3-6 miles) to provide access to jobs.

 

Also having more stops in Cuyahoga County is necessary to access where these workers live. Only 26 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90-minute transit trip. Preferably, that number should be 50 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland put within a 45-minute transit trip. That goal can be accomplished by attracting more jobs to the urban core and by offering faster transit to suburban/exurban job clusters.

 

This preferred transit option for this study area needs to serve both traffic flows and reach farther to tap more traffic generators. My regional rail concept does that more effectively and at less cost than a +/- $500 million extension of the Red Line to Euclid (too expensive and doesn't go far enough east to tap enough bedroom communities or suburban jobs) or a +/- $150 million extension of the HealthLine to Euclid (too slow for the money or for UC/downtown commuters so it may end up serving only urban core residents trying to reach suburban jobs).

 

This is why I suggest expanding subway rail out to euclid and letting that handle cuyahoga county resident.  The Regional Rail line can run "express" in cuyahoga county therefore giving residents of lake county faster service.  I dont think Cuyahoga County residents would ride as the cost per ride would be higher than the Cleveland Rapid.

Way too expensive. A surface extension of the Red Line will be at least $500 million. A subway?? SHUDDERS

 

Not sure what the fare for the regional rail service will be, but it doesn't need to be dictated by what other US regional rail services charge. When GCRTA transitions to a smart card, they can do all kinds of different things with it, including a zone fare as well as have neighboring transit agencies partner with it to increase convenience and share in the immense cost.

Way too expensive. A surface extension of the Red Line will be at least $500 million. A subway?? SHUDDERS

 

Not sure what the price of the regional rail service will be. When GCRTA transitions to a smart card, they can do all kinds of different things with it, including a zone fare as well as have neighboring transit agencies partner with it to increase convenience and share in the immense cost.

I'm speaking in regard to the fare.  The fare cost to ride the "regional rail" (commuter) will be more than the "subway" (aka Cleveland Rapid) or Healthline.  I'm sure the fare would be more.  Every city I've been in or lived in with subway/light rail and regional (commuter) rail.  The cost for commuter rail in the city is more expensive than the cost for the subway/light rail in the city.

The DMU commuter train over NS tracks, into or near Tower City, alone, is not a bad idea -- it is certainly superior to extending BRT.  KJP mentions extending the Red Line is "probably" too expensive. I like the idea of extending the Red Line to Euclid Park & Ride with the DMU extending into Lake County as suggested.  I believe the relocated Little Italy station along with the mushrooming TOD near it with Uptown, and esp the Intesa development, will raise demand for Red Line high-density rapid transit to Euclid near the Lake County border. 

What is the purpose and need of a transit improvement? That is the first question has to be answered in an alternatives analysis. Economic conditions and trends in this corridor will be identified and various alternatives of improving transit will be suggested by stakeholders. Those options will then be examined in their abilities of affecting those conditions and trends. That also includes the consequences, if any, of doing nothing. That establishes the purpose and need of making a transit investment here, or not making an investment.

 

So here's a suggestion to people interested in this corridor: use Google Earth or Bing to follow along the NS line from Windermere east to the Euclid park-n-ride to see all its potential ridership generators. I've done this and also checked to see what's still active in this area. So what exists to support a high-capacity transit extension between Windermere and Euclid? Not much. There's very few active businesses or stable residential areas near the tracks. Most of what remains in that corridor is actually along Euclid (not the tracks) where there's already frequent bus service on the #28.

 

Are there prospects for using transit to instigate redevelopment in areas along a Red Line extended along the NS line between Windermere and Euclid. Unless the transit line is routed through the many troubled properties, requiring their clearing and cleaning, no. There are a lot of obsolete, polluted industrial sites in corridor locked in a perpetual 50-year decline, and in a metro area that isn't growing. These properties are stuck in limbo until government agencies can get enough money clear and clean them. Each property will take millions of dollars and years of multi-phase brownfield assessment and clean-up just to become development-ready again.

 

Therefore, whatever transit service is added is going to have to link existing traffic generators -- Downtown, University Circle, Euclid and Lake County. And even those don't justify running 160-seat trains every 15-20 minutes, or building the heavy infrastructure to accommodate them, or for incurring the operating expenses to run them.

 

With all this in mind, who thinks an extension of the Red Line will be sufficiently cost-effective to win federal funding from the FTA? Who thinks GCRTA can afford to operate a Red Line extension through an economic dead zone to reach a parking lot they already serve with express buses?

 

I'm sorry, but unless there's a fast, direct, single-seat transit ride between all of the economically stable locations in this corridor, with a service that has an operating cost/revenue GCRTA and Laketran can afford, and at a start-up cost that the FTA will support based on the projected ridership, I don't see the point in spending a nickel to change anything.

 

I suspect the purpose and need will show that the operation of express bus services between UC and the Euclid park-n-ride lot and hopefully one or more Lake County park-n-ride lots can maximize the travel options at the minimum of cost. But I am hopeful the travel demand models will shows there's actually enough potential ridership to justify and sustain a modest rail service like regional rail. But I'll ask for the best, most cost-effective transit enhancement that we can get from this alternatives analysis.

 

I want the best that this region can afford to buy and sustain.

FYI. Some helpful guidelines regarding an alternatives analysis study....

 

Here are sample purpose-and-need elements:

 

GOAL #1

* Improve connections to downtown Cleveland from transportation markets east of the existing Windermere station.

GOAL #2

* Improve connections to University Circle from transportation markets east of the existing Windermere station.

GOAL #3

* Improve connections to Euclid and Northeast Cuyahoga County (anything outside of the county is outside of GCRTA's jurisdiction) from transportation markets west of the existing Windermere station.

GOAL #4

* Develop transit improvement concepts that promote development and redevelopment opportunities.

GOAL #5

* Develop transit improvements while minimizing impacts to the natural and man-made environment.

GOAL #6

* Develop a transit improvement strategy that is both efficient and cost-effective.

 

Study MUST include the following alternatives

* A No Build Alternative – existing transportation system plus planned and funded projects

* A Baseline Alternative – the best you can do with buses (BRT Light) and little or no dedicated guideway

* One or more Build Alternatives that include light rail or BRT with dedicated guideway

* Project must meet FTA New Starts/Small Starts Program funding criteria

 

FTA New Starts Requirements

* The Baseline Alternative is compared to the No Build to show what can be done with limited infrastructure

* Then the Build Alternatives are compared against the Baseline to show the benefit and cost of adding guideway infrastructure and additional service.

 

The FTA's Cost Effectiveness Test

* Cost estimates consider capital (primarily construction) and operating costs

* FTA Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) (20% of FTA Rating): User benefits are expressed in hours of travel time savings for new and existing transit and roadway users

* New Starts Threshold is $20/Hour of Annual User Benefit

 

It will be very difficult for any fixed guideway (Red Line rail extension, HealthLine BRT extension, or my Rapid+ regional rail add-on) investment in this corridor to fall below the FTA's $20 cost per hour of user benefit threshold. If any investment is above it, it has almost no chance of getting federal funding. To come in below that threshold, the projected investment will have to be relatively low compared to other fixed guideway options and/or the estimated ridership on fixed guideway may have be higher than the other fixed guideway options. But it must be a lot higher than ridership on existing express bus services + the baseline expansion of bus services in this corridor. If a proposed fixed guideway can't meet that test, there will be no fixed guideway.

I understand the difficulty with a lot of the industrial land needing cleanup along the rail route that may be, in the near term, a challenge to develop.  However, hope the possibilities of a rail terminal at Euclid Square are fully examined.  This location is at the junction of freeways extending in 3 different directions outbound from Cleveland, leaving the possibility of a mode mixer: a large factor in the success of the Brookpark and Puritas stations on the West Side.  I-90, SR-2 and Euclid US - 20 extend deep into highly populous Lake County.  The terminal, itself, is in the heart of of one of Cuyahoga County's most populous suburbs.  I hope any such study is accurate and forward-looking -- ie, predicting travel numbers based on such updated factors as the Little Italy/UC station location, and the upgrade of TOD in that area, not population/transit projections based on, say, the 2010 census or before.  I would hope we don't rule out possibilities before fully exploring potential.

I like the idea of a multi-modal facility and further believe Amtrak should serve it. I've been by the site many times and always marveled at the ease of connections there, as Clvlndr points out. I can see KJP's point: That it might be much more cost-effective to operate a DMU or some such to Willoughby and thru to CUT. Actually, if we're running a DMU, I'd have it go to Mentor at least.

For people in the know, what is the likelihood we will actually hear any news about this soon?

:clap:

I like this idea too!

 

I don't.  I don't think Regional Rail should have stops, but in very few places, in Cuyahoga County.  Instead of the stops KJP post, I feel like those should be Cleveland Rapid stops.  Let the Lake County train stop in Euclid (for transfers to RTA services), University Circle and Downtown.

 

look at other commuter rail systems and compare them to what KJP has proposed.

 

I personally Don't think laketran will mind eliminating their downtown commuter service to help pay for this.

 

so what you propose is to have a train that stops at an RTA station and have people transfer to a RTA train to finish the voyage.

 

Nevermind the costs that Laketran would incur to operate and Store those trains.

 

Now if you don't think that It should have so many stops, you may have a point especially if these are going to be DMUs which accelerates far slower than electric trains like the redline.

 

 

I suspect the purpose and need will show that the operation of express bus services between UC and the Euclid park-n-ride lot and hopefully one or more Lake County park-n-ride lots can maximize the travel options at the minimum of cost. But I am hopeful the travel demand models will shows there's actually enough potential ridership to justify and sustain a modest rail service like regional rail. But I'll ask for the best, most cost-effective transit enhancement that we can get from this alternatives analysis.

Call me pessimistic, but I suspect all we're getting is a bus to Windermere from the Euclid park and ride. (probably the 28 with a little jog up to the park and ride.) If RTA is doing the alternatives analysis, I'm suspicious that they'll ignore Lake County and the potential ridership they'd get if they could get commuters crossing county lines.

Keith, based on the FTA's $20 threshold, you're probably right. There has to be a lot of traveler-minutes that can be saved in this corridor for an expensive fixed guideway project to meet the FTA's requirements for funding. The fixed guideway either has to offer such fast service or the existing highway-transit trip-minutes (measured by the number of travelers x the minutes of their trips) so slow, or a combination, that it generates so much user benefit that the capital cost of the transit investment is lower than $20 per hour of user benefit.

 

That's why I think DMUs (typically has a lower operating cost than a locomotive-powered commuter train) on the existing NS tracks (which have some spare capacity) have a chance of meeting the FTA threshold. The NS tracks are also much more direct than the I-90/MLK route and offer faster travel than the Euclid Avenue route for bus services, even if a BRT is built along it. Lastly, a DMU can accelerate/decelerate more quickly than a locomotive-powered commuter train.

 

I do not know when the Red Line/HealthLine Extension alternatives analysis will begin. I am hoping the delay is because RTA and Laketran are attempting to secure more funding to expand the geographic scope of the study to extend it into Lake County. If Jerry isn't able to answer that, I should be able to find out in a week or so.

OK, we're saying that it's too expensive, and basically impossible, to extend the Red Line approximately 6 miles along a RR ROW to a potential multi-modal, park-and-ride to draw passengers from freeways running deep into the suburban area....

 

But what about Denver?  They are building their FasTracks network including their EAST LINE, a 23-mile, electric commuter rail line to Denver Int'l Airport (from an newly-built underground Union Station downtown).  This line travels through a considerably lighter density area than the East Red Line, and the last 8-10 miles of the Denver East Line travels through an area of zero population.  Why is a such a, from-the-ground-up, zero-to-23 mile line possible line possible while an extension of the existing RTA Red Line 6 miles is not?

 

Also, FasTracks’ ambitious plans ran into funding issues so, as the below link notes, the Denver transit agency (RTD) as entered into a public private agreement to get it done.  In Cleveland, we’ve entered into public-private funding to build the Health Line BRT (but not for the proposed Dual-Hub subway), and for the excellent downtown Trolley system… and (get this) the PD this morning reported that ODOT is even pushing for public-private funding to shove the so-called Opportunity Corridor freeway-like road through the East Side along the Red Line ROW (now expanded from 2 lanes each way, to 3) down our throats… Even in Detroit, Dan Gilbert’s part of an private consortium to finance an LRT up Woodward Ave. But here in Cleveland, where is talk about public-private funding for an this important expansion of our 90+year old rapid transit network?  Is RTA pursuing this?  Is All Aboard Ohio putting a bug in their ear or helping facilitate such funding?  AAO has spearheaded a number ofgreat, progressive rail projects (like the Kasich-killed 3-C passenger rail, and the still-alive West Shore Commuter rail project) -- seeking funding for expansion of the Red Line in tandem with the DMU commuter rail into Lake County would certainly be another AAO worthwhile endeavor.

 

Or are we only interested in privately financing road projects and buses?

 

RTD Staff Outlines Strategies to Fund FasTracks Projects Process

 

The RTD staff presented to the RTD Board additional items that can contribute to the agency's internal savings account to fund FasTracks projects that aren't fully funded.  Click here for the presentation.

 

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/Board_Pres_11_13_12_FasTracks_FINAL.pdf

 

I don't know anything about the Denver route, except to ask: what is the traffic like on parallel highways? What existing transit services are offered? How much does the proposed rail investment save in terms of travel time (now and in the future, multiplied by the number of trips projected in the future) compared to existing/funded road/transit services? What are projections of employment at ridership anchors like downtown Denver, etc.? What are population projections in this corridor?

 

I suspect the answers for Denver on many of their planned rail routes went something like this: "After voters in 2004 passed a new sales tax to provide the local funding share for a $6.5 billion transit expansion program, RTD began developing more detailed, corridor-specific plans for the proposed expansion. In this studied corridor, most existing transit is on congested arterials, with a new express bus offered on parallel highways. Highway traffic on parallel routes is currently at level C and projected to worsen to Level F by 2040 even after current plans to widen the road to eight lanes at a cost of $150 million are completed. The reason is that metro population is projected to nearly double by 2040 to almost 5 million people. Employment in the Denver CBD and in nodes along the studied corridor is estimated to grow by more than 120 percent by 2040. Furthermore, congestion in the studied corridor, as measured in person-hours, is projected to grow at a rate greater than the regional average, or more than double the current number of person-hours. Thus, the cost of the locally preferred transit investment strategy will cost less than $20 per person/hour of benefit gained from the transit investment (the Cost-Effectiveness Index). That CEI is low enough for the preferred transit investment strategy to justify Federal Transit Administration new-starts funding."

 

Again, I put on my creative-writing hat to pull that wording out of thin air (except for Denver's sales tax issue for transit expansion, and the region's estimated population growth to 2040, both of which are actual). But that's the kind of situation that makes a transit investment worthwhile to the folks at FTA, and Cleveland offers very little of it -- from the lack of a dedicated local funding source for major transit expansion to a lack of population growth, lack of traffic congestion and lack of projected traffic congestion anytime soon.

 

Perhaps the only saving grace for the Red Line/HealthLine extension study is that it involves University Circle -- one of the few growing areas of Greater Cleveland. And the rail line to the northeast can offer the fastest route of access to it as long as the capital/operating costs of the preferred transit investment strategy don't overwhelm the hours of user benefit gained from having that transit investment. The downsides are that University Circle is of moderate size in terms of its visitor/employment/student populations (about 60,000 people daytime http://www.retailspacescleveland.com/universitycircleneighborhood.htm), and some of those populations are a long walk from the rail line.

 

What I and All Aboard Ohio want is not relevant. What we can get will be determined by the technical analysis of  corridor-specific data, how various proposed transit investment strategies will interact with that data vs. the price of each strategy (the Cost-Effectiveness Index), and where each strategy's CEI falls with respect to the FTA's cost/hour of user benefit threshold (the $20).

 

But I am suggesting a transit investment strategy for this corridor which I'm hopeful will interact with the corridor's data projections for the next 30 years (the period that a major transit project is capitalized) in a way that will result in its CEI being low enough for the strategy to be eligible for FTA new-starts funding. But I won't know that until data for the corridor is measured.

 

That data will tell us how substantial a transit investment can be and still expect to receive federal new-starts funding. If the data is underwhelming, so will any maximum transit investment for the corridor.

^Appreciate the detailed answer and some fair points.  But what about a public-private arrangement of the type I cited, which have been utilized here and elsewhere to fund capital transit costs?  ... Also, even though Denver has growth potential, supposedly, what about the fact that, at least to my knowledge, they have no University Circle-like high density employment/residential areas?  Or the fact that Denver is lighter density and more spread out that Greater Cleveland ... and yet, they're getting it done?  Yes, I understand we're a not-growing, Rust Belt city, but (as you acknowledged) there is U.Circle that is growing in the corridor, and that the rail line is the most direct route from inside or near the Lake County Line?

 

Let me also add that it''s very depressing that, despite the population/traffic potential you cite, ODOT is seeking private corporate funding to get the Opportunity Corridor roadway funded to serve Univ. Circle, and yet, we're not hearing about such a funding possibility for rail transit.    It just shows where our priorities lie ... and yes, Keith, I share your skepticism.

ODOT's "public private" venture is that ODOT found a company willing to issue debt based on projected future gas tax revenue increases from new traffic induced by the addition of road capacity. I'm sure that ODOT made a very convincing case, based on past history of how new roadway capacity always induces new traffic and thus generates new gas tax revenues. But that history is being rewritten in the 21 century as driving is on the decline for all the reasons stated here (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,21841.0.html), and ODOT is willing to risk bankrupting itself and possibly the State of Ohio to carry out its myopic mission.

 

How would RTA privately finance a transit investment strategy? Not from fares because, like gas taxes, they don't come anywhere near close enough to covering all costs of the activity that generates the fares/taxes. Maybe from tax-increment financing, but there would have to be a huge (valued in the hundreds of millions) proposed new development at/near a train station, or many smaller new developments at multiple stations yet still totaling in the hundreds of millions. And the local tax jurisdictions (municipalities, school districts, counties, libraries, etc) would have to be willing to support giving up a portion of the new tax revenue from those station-area developments to help finance the transit investment.

 

I do think there needs to be more employers, school facilities, visitor destinations and housing within a 2,500-foot walk of transit stations. And there are estimates that UC employment will grow by 10,000 workers in the next decade and that UC's population will continue to grow at 12 percent. But where in UC? There needs to be a commitment by those affecting land use to place as much of that growth as possible within a 2,500-foot (or closer) walk of Red Line and HealthLine stations. Of course, if a Red Line/Commuter Rail investment strategy is chosen, the time involved in transferring to the HealthLine or other bus circulators will hurt that strategy's Cost-Effectiveness Score. So that's why I drew these concentric circles around the Red Line stations showing a 2,500-foot (15-minute) walk from those stations.....

 

What is the mission of this service? Is it merely to get commuters to Downtown Cleveland and to University Circle faster than a bus and without all of the parking garages and traffic required of driving?

 

That's probably going to be a principal flow of traffic. But another is inner-city residents getting to manufacturing and warehouse jobs along the rail line in Euclid and points east. RTA buses are pretty full with first-, second- and third-shift workers heading to jobs clustered along the rail line, between Euclid Avenue and I-90, yet many more jobs are farther east into Lake County in Wickliffe, Willowick, Eastlake and Willoughby (with more in Mentor). The rail line is ideally located for this, and the stops need to be a little closer together (1.5 to 2 miles) here than what is normal for a regional commuter rail service (3-6 miles) to provide access to jobs.

 

Also having more stops in Cuyahoga County is necessary to access where these workers live. This region lacks transit service frequencies, requires too many transfers, and lacks commuter rail or reverse-run express buses. The result is that only 26 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90-minute transit trip. Preferably, that number should be 50 percent of available jobs in Greater Cleveland put within a 45-minute transit trip. That goal can be accomplished by attracting more jobs to the urban core and by offering faster transit to suburban/exurban job clusters.

 

This preferred transit option for this study area needs to serve both traffic flows (downtown/UC commuters, reverse-commutes) and reach farther east to tap more traffic generators. My regional rail concept does that more effectively and at less cost than a +/- $500 million extension of the Red Line to Euclid (too expensive and doesn't go far enough east to tap enough bedroom communities or suburban jobs) or a +/- $150 million extension of the HealthLine to Euclid (too slow for the money or for UC/downtown commuters so it may end up serving only urban core residents trying to reach suburban jobs).

 

We've discussed the issue of RTA's mission before, whether it's to serve those without other options or to compete (with private transportation) for those that have them.  On the face of it, this sounds like it can do both....for that region.    And yes, Mentor and Willoughby are growing job locations.  Cleveland could, in an ideal world, question why....but much of the reason is federal and outside its control.

 

The issues are this is only one corridor, and one already relatively well served in terms of transit.  In particular, the south is underserved.  This is largely due to the downtown-centric nature of service:  travel within the area requires a sharply angled trip, sometimes even an acute angle.  Another factor is the lack of reverse runs.....but also of buses running early enough to get a worker downtown in time to be at work by 6 or 7.

 

Another is you're still dealing with the fact that people "with options" are going to want fewer stops, not more, particularly in the neighborhoods where those without options live.  A lot of the former don't particularly want to mix with the latter.  Their reasons are irrelevant.  The mutually exclusive nature of the two objectives kicks in, anyway.

 

There's some irony vis a vis your signature quote.  In India, the "rich" are even more averse to mixing with the lower castes than in America, and there are culutral and religious reasons for this.  If the rich take public transit there, it's at the expense of the poor having no options.  30% of Bombay area employees walk to work.

ODOT's "public private" venture is that ODOT found a company willing to issue debt based on projected future gas tax revenue increases from new traffic induced by the addition of road capacity. I'm sure that ODOT made a very convincing case, based on past history of how new roadway capacity always induces new traffic and thus generates new gas tax revenues. But that history is being rewritten in the 21 century as driving is on the decline for all the reasons stated here (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,21841.0.html), and ODOT is willing to risk bankrupting itself and possibly the State of Ohio to carry out its myopic mission.

 

How would RTA privately finance a transit investment strategy? Not from fares because, like gas taxes, they don't come anywhere near close enough to covering all costs of the activity that generates the fares/taxes. Maybe from tax-increment financing, but there would have to be a huge (valued in the hundreds of millions) proposed new development at/near a train station, or many smaller new developments at multiple stations yet still totaling in the hundreds of millions. And the local tax jurisdictions (municipalities, school districts, counties, libraries, etc) would have to be willing to support giving up a portion of the new tax revenue from those station-area developments to help finance the transit investment.

 

 

I'm talking about straight out private investment to assist RTA and the Feds in paying for this rial extension.  Private monies from giant employers like UH or CWRU  Why?  Because the Rapid does/will drop doctors, nurses, students, researchers, etc. right at their door.  Good transit is in their best interest.  Dan Gilbert is helping finance rail in Detroit.  Why can't, say, UH do it here. 

 

Also, why are we acting like this is a "new start" rail system as opposed to a 6 mile extension to a 32-mile network?

http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2011/Presentations/J-Mardente-FRAFTA-Joint-Policy-And-Shared-Use.pdf

 

Based on Pages 24-29 at the above, here's a crazy idea that has precedents (Memphis or New Jersey): Run a limited (off-peak hourly, peak half-hourly?) Red Line extension east of Windermere on NS's second track where it is exists and constructed new where it doesn't. The Red Line trains could be a Rapid+ concept using self-propelled, dual-mode trains that could operate on RTA and NS track turned over to RTA for its use and maintenance. Passing sidings would have to be built as well as industrial track crossovers at three locations I can think of -- an industry on London Road in Collinwood, the old GE plant in Collinwood, and off Chardon Road in Euclid.

http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2011/Presentations/J-Mardente-FRAFTA-Joint-Policy-And-Shared-Use.pdf

 

Based on Pages 24-29 at the above, here's a crazy idea that has precedents (Memphis or New Jersey): Run a limited (off-peak hourly, peak half-hourly?) Red Line extension east of Windermere on NS's second track where it is exists and constructed new where it doesn't. The Red Line trains could be a Rapid+ concept using self-propelled, dual-mode trains that could operate on RTA and NS track turned over to RTA for its use and maintenance. Passing sidings would have to be built as well as industrial track crossovers at three locations I can think of -- an industry on London Road in Collinwood, the old GE plant in Collinwood, and off Chardon Road in Euclid.

 

Nice find.

Crazy idea, but I like crazy. I doubt RTA would like it, they seem to think their trains can't run unless they have a double tracked exclusive ROW.

 

Would platforms at the height of the current Red Line preclude freight operations? I seem to recall reading somewhere that high platforms often get in the way of freight trains, hence the popularity of low platforms where the line is shared. Or are you still assuming that we'll eventually move to multilevel cars so that it wouldn't be an issue? I suppose since you're proposing self-propelled cars, you can assume whatever level platform you want.

Would platforms at the height of the current Red Line preclude freight operations?

 

Yes, as would the low catenary wires, tight turns and gradients of more than 1% ascent/descent. The high-level platforms preclude operation of high-wide loads.

 

Or are you still assuming that we'll eventually move to multilevel cars so that it wouldn't be an issue?

 

Yes, high/low-floor car trains. You can design a railcar anyway you want. They're only limited by the imagination and federal regulations.

 

I suppose since you're proposing self-propelled cars, you can assume whatever level platform you want.

 

Yes. Stations east of Windermere would probably be used less than those west of Windermere, especially the two UC stations and Tower City. So low-platform stations east of Windermere probably wouldn't be a problem in terms of loading/unloading (especially if your railcar has dual floor heights). And a low-platform station would also let NS use the second track in overnight hours (or anytime if you used a WES commuter rail type car).

BTW, GCRTA just issued their RFP to prospective consultants for the Red Line/Healthline extension alternatives analysis. An interesting element in the RFP is that it assumes three extension termination points -- the Lake County line, Euclid Square Mall, and East 185th/Lakeshore.

 

The first option could allow consideration of further extension into Lake County if Laketran decides it wants to participate in this study. The last option is a bit of a surprise consider how far west it is and misses serving all of Euclid. Euclid Square Mall would have to assume its redevelopment, unless GCRTA considers further expansion of its park-n-ride. Otherwise there's not much other ridership potential there. Indeed, much of the main corridor (NS RR/Euclid Ave) in the study area is an economic dead zone. The feds usually write off areas like this when it comes to transportation capacity enhancement studies (HUD funding is another matter).