Ugh, fine. Here's the sum up...

 

The problem rail has in transit is that road maintenance & construction comes out of city and state budgets while rail maintenance & construction comes mostly out of RTA's budget. As a result Joe C (and RTA's board to some degree) accepts the reality that it's easier to extend bus routes than rail routes. Perfectly understandable.

 

The problem that some of us have had in the past is that it has appeared that Joe seems to have little interest in pushing for rail and has made a few statements that show he's out of touch on what rail costs and ways to be flexible to reduce costs. In one article that's probably been deleted as a result of the site crash he quoted some outrageous number like $100M per mile for why the Red Line probably wouldn't be extended to Euclid.

 

In the RTA thread, Joe has been defended as having advocated rail options (blue line extension across Chagrin/Warrensville) but the UO perception of him as anti-rail persists. He seems to be open to rail when it's a total no brainer, but he's also seemed a little ignorant (the blue line option studied in the alternatives analysis was double track when many of us would have liked to see a single track option that would have been significantly cheaper.)

 

That leads us back to the Red Line/HealthLine extension. If the alternatives analysis genuinely considers the rail options like a Diesel/Electric single track option and it still looks like doing nothing or just improving bus service is the best option, that's fine. The fear that several of us have is that the analysis will only compare double tracked electric (like the current RedLine) and will show that this would be way too expensive (no argument there, it would be way too expensive for the potential ridership).

 

I think your analysis is spot on... Also, despite all the analysis/pre-clearance hoops a city must jump through to get Fed money for rail expansion capital, and that the Fed matching dollars aren't what they used to be, I believe the FTA still provides a 50% match (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)... What makes RTA unique, even before Joe C (the Dual Hub fiasco), but especially since his 2001 appointment as GM, is that most cities set an agenda for rail expansion, pick one or more routes for future expansion and THEN let the feds shoot it down if they find the plan unfeasible... In Cleveland, we never even get rail plans to the Feds because we shoot them down before they get to the Feds... I'll admit, this Red Line expansion proposal is a departure from RTA's M.O. which is why it has me somewhat surprised...

 

... but is Joe C. really pushing for a rail expansion option?  Don't hold your breath.

Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Let me just say that he's certainly been accused of disliking rail on multiple occasions on UO and the accusations are not entirely without cause.

I would think that rail would be more efficient than buses since they can last 30+ years and require less maintenance than buses. With buses the RTA replaces them yearly at 450,000 a piece and the ideal life span is 13 years (depending on work load of course) not to mention cost of fuel and maintenance due to harsh conditions. Rail also transports customers much fastet than bus, with all these benefits its hard to even understand a dislike of rail.

 

Are the buses really $450,000 to replace?!? That sounds very high.

Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Let me just say that he's certainly been accused of disliking rail on multiple occasions on UO and the accusations are not entirely without cause.

I would think that rail would be more efficient than buses since they can last 30+ years and require less maintenance than buses. With buses the RTA replaces them yearly at 450,000 a piece and the ideal life span is 13 years (depending on work load of course) not to mention cost of fuel and maintenance due to harsh conditions. Rail also transports customers much fastet than bus, with all these benefits its hard to even understand a dislike of rail.

 

Are the buses really $450,000 to replace?!? That sounds very high.

No they actually are

Since it either wasn't posted before or was deleted in the site crash, RTA has a separate site setup for the project.

 

http://redlinehealthlinestudy.com/overview

I dont like this project. If we were going to do rail Id rather have it serve communities where rail would be supported greater. A route out to Lakewood hitting Gordon Square and Edgewater would be nice. It would be a nice neighborhood rail system, rather than the park and ride rail system we have and that RTA loves.

 

Red Line Expansion - Too expensive for ridership and too slow.

Healthline Expansion - Too slow and would affect the rest of the routes timing(which is already terrible)

As someone who grew up in Euclid, and who still has most of his family in Euclid I can testify that RTA is well used there, despite it not being one of the more hip communities in Cleveland.

 

At one point the 39 was very, very popular

 

(^sorry ClevelandOhio, I know you didn't mean any offense.  It's just a chip on my shoulder from everyone on the West Side along the Lake or the East Side Hts who think if you are not in one of those communities, you don't really matter)

Lovely picture of the Health Line in the background of that webpage.  No indication at all which option might already be favored.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/megabuscom_adds_more_cleveland.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

As someone who grew up in Euclid, and who still has most of his family in Euclid I can testify that RTA is well used there, despite it not being one of the more hip communities in Cleveland.

 

At one point the 39 was very, very popular

 

(^sorry ClevelandOhio, I know you didn't mean any offense.  It's just a chip on my shoulder from everyone on the West Side along the Lake or the East Side Hts who think if you are not in one of those communities, you don't really matter)

 

Jealous much??

 

 

I kid...I kid.

As someone who grew up in Euclid, and who still has most of his family in Euclid I can testify that RTA is well used there, despite it not being one of the more hip communities in Cleveland.

 

At one point the 39 was very, very popular

 

(^sorry ClevelandOhio, I know you didn't mean any offense.  It's just a chip on my shoulder from everyone on the West Side along the Lake or the East Side Hts who think if you are not in one of those communities, you don't really matter)

 

Agreed. I'm from Collinwood and I feel the exact same way. Transit is used heavily on this side of town too. Can't just build everything on the west side

^ Eastside has more rail.

 

And I'm an Eastsider so my opinion isn't slanted towards the westside.

There is no rail in Euclid, there is rail in Lakewood.

^On the border. If rail is really going to be successful it needs to connect neighborhoods, and be connected to neighborhoods. A line running serving Gordon Square, Battery Park, Edgewater Park, Edgewater Neighborhood, Golf Coast, and Downtown Lakewood would probably be the best line in the region, serve neighborhoods, and have ridership worth the cost. And you could extend it to serve the old rocky river neighborhood and have a park and ride(ugh!). And have the line run east to UC.

^On the border. If rail is really going to be successful it needs to connect neighborhoods, and be connected to neighborhoods. A line running serving Gordon Square, Battery Park, Edgewater Park, Edgewater Neighborhood, Golf Coast, and Downtown Lakewood would probably be the best line in the region, serve neighborhoods, and have ridership worth the cost. And you could extend it to serve the old rocky river neighborhood and have a park and ride(ugh!). And have the line run east to UC.

 

I'd like such a line that would drop down into the existing Det-Superior subway deck then jog over to the West portal of Tower City using the old Shaker Rapid terminal... but it probably is not going to happen.  It would run too close to the existing Red Line where, for example, the West 65th station is .4 mile from the heart of Gordon Square (W. 65 & Detroit).  There are much wider areas town that can be served -- like the proposed Red Line out to Euclid Square.

 

While serving dense walkable neighborhoods is great, we shouldn't just reject extensions because they have park 'n ride features.  Other cities that have as great of density and more than Cleveland are building park 'n ride rapids -- Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis and Dallas ... to name a few.  And all of these, with the possible exception of Dallas, are wildly popular/successful with the riding public.

Park and Ride is a very good thing.  Our list of dense and walkable neighborhoods is too small for that to be a limitation.  We need transit to serve as many people as possible.  It has to come to them, it has to fit into their existing lives in a practical way.  As transit coverage increases, our opportunities for creating more walkable neighborhoods will increase with it.

Park-n-rides are 3/2 beer, training wheels, bunny hills, the shallow end of the pool, etc. That's not always a bad thing. I use 'em sometime too.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/megabuscom_adds_more_cleveland.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Welcome 4adam1r. This was also posted in the Megabus thread. But it's good to have it here too for reference purposes.

Park-n-rides are 3/2 beer, training wheels, bunny hills, the shallow end of the pool, etc. That's not always a bad thing. I use 'em sometime too.

 

Ha!

 

I do feel like they should have them on the route I suggested. But if we are going to spend all the money it takes to build a line, and all of the political opposition, I want a route that will kick ass and serve popular urban neighborhoods as well as serve the suburban population. The route out to lakewood and beyond seems like the best fit for that line.

The west side Red Line is heavily dependent on park-n-rides as is the Green line. So a given rider uses it only two times a day: inbound to work and outbound from work. It serves no central role in people's lifestyles (shopping, entertainment, school, medical appointments, etc).

 

So rail lines that depend on park-n-rides have inherent ridership limitations and typically underperform rail corridors that either serve densely developed communities that perform disparate functions, or are built with viable redevelopment plans in place to populate station hinterlands with uses that cause each station's hinterlands to interact with one another -- especially via the new rail line. For example, if one station hinterland is populated with basic retail mixed with residential and another is populated with offices mixed with residential and a third is populated with nightlife/entertainment mixed with residential, there is going to be a lot of interaction among these station hinterlands at different hours of the day. And if these are developed densely within a 1,000 feet of the station with limited parking, attractive walking/biking environments, then the rail line is going to be big part of the lifestyles of people living in these station hinterlands.

 

That's the bock beer, the 1,000-cc engine motorcycle, the black diamond slope, and the high dive over the Olympic-sized pool. Jump in!

The west side Red Line is heavily dependent on park-n-rides as is the Green line. So a given rider uses it only two times a day: inbound to work and outbound from work. It serves no central role in people's lifestyles (shopping, entertainment, school, medical appointments, etc).

 

So rail lines that depend on park-n-rides have inherent ridership limitations and typically underperform rail corridors that either serve densely developed communities that perform disparate functions, or are built with viable redevelopment plans in place to populate station hinterlands with uses that cause each station's hinterlands to interact with one another -- especially via the new rail line. For example, if one station hinterland is populated with basic retail mixed with residential and another is populated with offices mixed with residential and a third is populated with nightlife/entertainment mixed with residential, there is going to be a lot of interaction among these station hinterlands at different hours of the day. And if these are developed densely within a 1,000 feet of the station with limited parking, attractive walking/biking environments, then the rail line is going to be big part of the lifestyles of people living in these station hinterlands.

 

That's the bock beer, the 1,000-cc engine motorcycle, the black diamond slope, and the high dive over the Olympic-sized pool. Jump in!

 

You mean the Van Aken line, the Shaker line doesn't have much park and ride.

The west side Red Line is heavily dependent on park-n-rides as is the Green line. So a given rider uses it only two times a day: inbound to work and outbound from work. It serves no central role in people's lifestyles (shopping, entertainment, school, medical appointments, etc).

 

So rail lines that depend on park-n-rides have inherent ridership limitations and typically underperform rail corridors that either serve densely developed communities that perform disparate functions, or are built with viable redevelopment plans in place to populate station hinterlands with uses that cause each station's hinterlands to interact with one another -- especially via the new rail line. For example, if one station hinterland is populated with basic retail mixed with residential and another is populated with offices mixed with residential and a third is populated with nightlife/entertainment mixed with residential, there is going to be a lot of interaction among these station hinterlands at different hours of the day. And if these are developed densely within a 1,000 feet of the station with limited parking, attractive walking/biking environments, then the rail line is going to be big part of the lifestyles of people living in these station hinterlands.

 

That's the bock beer, the 1,000-cc engine motorcycle, the black diamond slope, and the high dive over the Olympic-sized pool. Jump in!

 

You mean the Van Aken line, the Shaker line doesn't have much park and ride.

The Blue line has a few spaces at each station but the Green line has a big lot at Green Road that lots of people from University Heights and places north of it use.

The west side Red Line is heavily dependent on park-n-rides as is the Green line. So a given rider uses it only two times a day: inbound to work and outbound from work. It serves no central role in people's lifestyles (shopping, entertainment, school, medical appointments, etc).

 

So rail lines that depend on park-n-rides have inherent ridership limitations and typically underperform rail corridors that either serve densely developed communities that perform disparate functions, or are built with viable redevelopment plans in place to populate station hinterlands with uses that cause each station's hinterlands to interact with one another -- especially via the new rail line. For example, if one station hinterland is populated with basic retail mixed with residential and another is populated with offices mixed with residential and a third is populated with nightlife/entertainment mixed with residential, there is going to be a lot of interaction among these station hinterlands at different hours of the day. And if these are developed densely within a 1,000 feet of the station with limited parking, attractive walking/biking environments, then the rail line is going to be big part of the lifestyles of people living in these station hinterlands.

 

That's the bock beer, the 1,000-cc engine motorcycle, the black diamond slope, and the high dive over the Olympic-sized pool. Jump in!

 

You mean the Van Aken line, the Shaker line doesn't have much park and ride.

The Blue line has a few spaces at each station but the Green line has a big lot at Green Road that lots of people from University Heights and places north of it use.

Keith the blue line has more than "a few" at each station, the Green Road and Green Road west stations are large but the Blue Line is more park and ride driven than the Green Line.  Hell, the Drexmore station was partially created to add more parking.

No I meant the Green Line which generates much of its ridership from the park-n-ride at Green Road. The Blue Line gets a healthy mix of park-n-ride ridership and walk-in trade to/from nearby residential and commercial districts.

No I meant the Green Line which generates much of its ridership from the park-n-ride at Green Road. The Blue Line gets a healthy mix of park-n-ride ridership and walk-in trade to/from nearby residential and commercial districts.

Verywell, fine!

^One of the positives of the Red Line is the growth/potential growth of traditional urban rapid transit patronage (walk-up riders and bus transfers), and it's only going to increase with the TOD development at W. 25 and the new Little Italy-UC station -- all this in addition to the sharp rise in apartment and condo dwellers downtown, as well.

The problem is that the line was built on an industrial rail row which is designed to be disconnected from neighborhoods. It is highly surrounded by industrial and contaminated vacant sites. The Green/Blue line are better candidates for TOD. I would love to see more investment into the Shaker Square area, with high density market rate development along Shaker Blvd, west of the square.

In Euclid, the rail line separates the industrial from the residential.  Also in Euclid, many of the largest employers, like Lincoln Electric are along the line.

I know Lincoln is trying to show an environmentally friendly face (see large windmill). I am pretty sure they would jump on the opportunity to purchase naming rights for a station, maybe the whole line.  Lincoln's corporate color is red.

The problem is that the line was built on an industrial rail row which is designed to be disconnected from neighborhoods. It is highly surrounded by industrial and contaminated vacant sites.

 

That's old news.  Fact is, many of these factories have been vacated and torn down and there's lots of opportunities to develop TOD.  And as we see in the case with Little Italy, there are areas the NS and Red Line have always gone through that have been zoned residential that the Transit agencies (both CTS and RTA) have, for whatever reason, not capitalized on.  Cleveland decided long ago that this city didn't have the density to build extensive subways that go down main streets.  Few if any cities of Cleveland's size and character have extensive subways.  We did miss the boat on not building the downtown subway or the single line through the throat of the city: Dual Hub.  But those ships have sailed, and rather than complain about what we don't have, we must make due with what we've got.

 

There are significant opportunities for TOD along the Red Line, and finally we're finding them.  And there's more opportunity to develop along the stations I've mention as well as develop around more: W. Blvd/Cudell, W. 65, W. 117 and even University Circle... there are also infill station/TOD possibilities as well like W. 85, W. 41-44, or even Lakeview in East Cleveland.

 

The Green/Blue line are better candidates for TOD. I would love to see more investment into the Shaker Square area, with high density market rate development along Shaker Blvd, west of the square.

 

Shaker Square as it is, is a nationally recognized TOD model and it remains an attractive neighborhood because of it... but it is pretty much built out and is a very high-density area for a "house city" like Cleveland.  Officials need to save/rehab the buildings that exist, esp south of the Square and near Buckeye, where considerable blight has crept in, in recent years.  This is true for much of the Blue and Green Lines.  There is the plan for super TOD at the Van Aken terminal.  Spot opportunities exist at E. 116 and maybe Lee Road, where many plans have been botched with the suburban-ish strip developed in the early 1990s... The powers that be determined it was simply too much heavy lifting to extend the Green Line 1.5 miles to I-271 where extensive TOD could have been built...but as with Dual Hub, that ship too has sailed...

 

KJP has noted TOD possibilities along an extended Red Line which should be studied. We're a city that is light/moderate density developed around industry that was built along freight railroads.  That's who we are, ... not Seattle, Frisco, D.C., Boston, etc, etc.  Those freight and passenger ROW's have been exploited for the high-speed rail transit we currently have, and we should continue to look to them for much of our future transit growth.

The problem is that the line was built on an industrial rail row which is designed to be disconnected from neighborhoods. It is highly surrounded by industrial and contaminated vacant sites. The Green/Blue line are better candidates for TOD. I would love to see more investment into the Shaker Square area, with high density market rate development along Shaker Blvd, west of the square.

 

Where exactly??  It's already developed.  Anything West the Our Lady of Peaces properties  is no longer SS and is really the East 116 area.

The problem is that the line was built on an industrial rail row which is designed to be disconnected from neighborhoods. It is highly surrounded by industrial and contaminated vacant sites.

 

That's old news.  Fact is, many of these factories have been vacated and torn down and there's lots of opportunities to develop TOD.  And as we see in the case with Little Italy, there are areas the NS and Red Line have always gone through that have been zoned residential that the Transit agencies (both CTS and RTA) have, for whatever reason, not capitalized on.  Cleveland decided long ago that this city didn't have the density to build extensive subways that go down main streets.  Few if any cities of Cleveland's size and character have extensive subways.  We did miss the boat on not building the downtown subway or the single line through the throat of the city: Dual Hub.  But those ships have sailed, and rather than complain about what we don't have, we must make due with what we've got.

 

There are significant opportunities for TOD along the Red Line, and finally we're finding them.  And there's more opportunity to develop along the stations I've mention as well as develop around more: W. Blvd/Cudell, W. 65, W. 117 and even University Circle... there are also infill station/TOD possibilities as well like W. 85, W. 41-44, or even Lakeview in East Cleveland.

 

The Green/Blue line are better candidates for TOD. I would love to see more investment into the Shaker Square area, with high density market rate development along Shaker Blvd, west of the square.

 

Shaker Square as it is, is a nationally recognized TOD model and it remains an attractive neighborhood because of it... but it is pretty much built out and is a very high-density area for a "house city" like Cleveland.  Officials need to save/rehab the buildings that exist, esp south of the Square and near Buckeye, where considerable blight has crept in, in recent years.  This is true for much of the Blue and Green Lines.  There is the plan for super TOD at the Van Aken terminal.  Spot opportunities exist at E. 116 and maybe Lee Road, where many plans have been botched with the suburban-ish strip developed in the early 1990s... The powers that be determined it was simply too much heavy lifting to extend the Green Line 1.5 miles to I-271 where extensive TOD could have been built...but as with Dual Hub, that ship too has sailed...

 

KJP has noted TOD possibilities along an extended Red Line which should be studied. We're a city that is light/moderate density developed around industry that was built along freight railroads.  That's who we are, ... not Seattle, Frisco, D.C., Boston, etc, etc.  Those freight and passenger ROW's have been exploited for the high-speed rail transit we currently have, and we should continue to look to them for much of our future transit growth.

 

I also think TOD could be built near the East 105 & Quincy Station.  I believe that Station, UC and the New L.I. station all must be redone with TOD to anchor the area and create connectivity.

 

Clvndr, you know damn well, the Shaker extension to 271 was not RTAs fault, blame Beachwood and NEO Coordinating Agency (or another area agency), which felt as though the green line extension would be paid for by the entire county, but only benefit Eastsiders, then Beachwood created a park in the cut when Green and Richmond roads were reconstructed.

Here are graphics I developed for one de-industrialized area and shared with the planning team.....

 

 

 

Would include single-family housing......

 

 

And multi-family housing over retail, restaurants etc......

 

 

 

And then we follow the route from west to east, showing how a dual-powered electric-diesel train service (like New Jersey Transit's RiverLINE) called "Rapid+" could be extended eastward on mostly single-track with passing sidings.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^ KJP: That multi-family graphic (fourth illustration from the top)would look good for that station on the Opportunity Corridor where you have the Red, Blue and Green lines coming together.

Thanks. But RTA will NEVER invest in any rail extensions as long as the current regime is still there. They don't think Cleveland can get any federal funds for rail. And I don't count the Blue Line relocation of the Warrensville Terminal as an extension. They will seek federal rail modernization funds for that. Yet, I hear a lot of skepticism from staff on whether they will succeed in getting those funds.

Thanks. But RTA will NEVER invest in any rail extensions as long as the current regime is still there. They don't think Cleveland can get any federal funds for rail. And I don't count the Blue Line relocation of the Warrensville Terminal as an extension. They will seek federal rail modernization funds for that. Yet, I hear a lot of skepticism from staff on whether they will succeed in getting those funds.

 

I do look at the Blue line terminal relocation as an extension because, tiny though it will be, it will put the rail terminal in a more convenient spot to intercept park 'n ride traffic and allow the planned TOD more space to expand... If Team Calabrese can't pull this one off... 

Use these venues/resources to give productive input on routes, en route sites and transportation alternatives you want considered........

 

PUBLIC MEETINGS

 

The first round of public meetings are scheduled for September at the following dates, times and locations:

 

September 9 – City of East Cleveland

Place: East Cleveland Public Library

14101 Euclid Ave., East Cleveland, 44112

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

September 10 – City of Cleveland

Place: Western Reserve Historical Society

10825 East Blvd., Cleveland, 44106

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

September 12 – City of Euclid

Place: MCMS, Inc.

22639 Euclid Avenue, Euclid, 44117

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

The RTA and AECOM study team will make presentations and be available to answer questions regarding the study, study process and timing of future public meetings. More information is available:

 

Study web site: http://redlinehealthlinestudy.com

 

Facebook page: Facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy

 

Twitter handle: @RedlineHLStudy

 

Study Answer Line: (216) 282-6113

3 public meetings to begin Red Line/HealthLine study

 

RTA is exploring its options to expand the Red Line and/or HealthLine into Euclid, and officials want to hear from you. Meetings are set for Sept. 9, 10 and 12 in affected areas.

 

Why should you attend?

* To Speak: Tell RTA what you think about the project

* To Listen: Hear about this new study

* To Learn: About new projects

* To Share: Your experiences, insight and input on this study

 

Meeting details -- Each meeting will last from 6-8 p.m.

* Monday, Sept. 9, Library, 14101 Euclid Ave., East Cleveland, on the HealthLine and next to the Red Line at the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere.

* Tuesday, Sept. 10, Western Reserve Historical Society, 10825 East Blvd., University Circle, a short walk from the HealthLine station near Severance Hall.

* Thursday, Sept. 12, MCMS Inc., 22639 Euclid Ave. Ride the Red Line or HealthLine to the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere, and transfer to the #28 bus.

 

For more information:

* Web: www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com

* Phone: 216-282-6113

* Twitter: @RedlineHLStudy

* Facebook: www.facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy

* YouTube: www.youtube.com/GreaterClevelandRTA

Use these venues/resources to give productive input on routes, en route sites and transportation alternatives you want considered........

 

PUBLIC MEETINGS

 

The first round of public meetings are scheduled for September at the following dates, times and locations:

 

September 9 – City of East Cleveland

Place: East Cleveland Public Library

14101 Euclid Ave., East Cleveland, 44112

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

September 10 – City of Cleveland

Place: Western Reserve Historical Society

10825 East Blvd., Cleveland, 44106

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

September 12 – City of Euclid

Place: MCMS, Inc.

22639 Euclid Avenue, Euclid, 44117

Time: 6-8 p.m.

 

The RTA and AECOM study team will make presentations and be available to answer questions regarding the study, study process and timing of future public meetings. More information is available:

 

Study web site: http://redlinehealthlinestudy.com

 

Facebook page: Facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy

 

Twitter handle: @RedlineHLStudy

 

Study Answer Line: (216) 282-6113

 

KJP,

below is a report on (I'm sure your aware) of the innovative P3 public/private partnership that was formed in Denver after the 2008 crash to help fund that region's highly ambitious FasTracks program where federal funding was threatened by the crash -- this particular report focuses on the ambitious and unique 36-mile electrified commuter rail component of, what will soon be, an system of electrified LRT/commuter rail network of 82 miles ... and growing.

 

I believe that a fully electrified extension of the Red Line can and should be done to Euclid Square, even if it is (for now) single tracked in parts (note major portions of Denver's commuter rail, under construction, is single tracked, even the longest branch: the East Line to Denver International Airport).

 

QUESTION: can it happen here?  Specifically, can it be looked into for this 6-mile Red Line expansion?  It would seem to make sense to approach corporate powers at University Circle and downtown that would directly benefit from this line, like CWRU/University Hospital, Lincoln Electric, the Horseshoe Casino, ... to name a few.  Has All Aboard Ohio explored or suggested this?  Can they? ... your thoughts?

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2012/11/16/eagle-p3-fastracks-project-glides.html?page=all

The first people you have to convince are those at GCRTA, as they do not like single-track operation. They consider it inefficient and unsafe for a high-frequency, electrified rail transit route. If you speak to University Circle interests first, they will then go to GCRTA to hear their feedback. When GCRTA staff tells them that single-track operation is not recommended then the idea will die.

The first people you have to convince are those at GCRTA, as they do not like single-track operation. They consider it inefficient and unsafe for a high-frequency, electrified rail transit route. If you speak to University Circle interests first, they will then go to GCRTA to hear their feedback. When GCRTA staff tells them that single-track operation is not recommended then the idea will die.

 

OK, so let's forget single tracking and go for the double-tracking for the full 6 miles -- at less than Joe C's rather inflated $100/mile.  Can/would AAO find a P3 private partner to package?

OK, so let's forget single tracking and go for the double-tracking for the full 6 miles -- at less than Joe C's rather inflated $100/mile.  Can/would AAO find a P3 private partner to package?

 

Denver's population and economy are growing. Greater Cleveland's aren't. You can't get developers to invest here without subsidies. We wouldn't be able to lure a P3 partner without also offering new subsidies.

Denver's population and economy are growing. Greater Cleveland's aren't. You can't get developers to invest here without subsidies. We wouldn't be able to lure a P3 partner without also offering new subsidies.

 

Your premise is flawed on a couple levels.  Denver is using P3 financing to build about 88 miles of rail (about 34 miles was in place before P3 was sought 65 or 6 years ago).  Cuyahoga County/RTA would be seeking it to build a mere 6 mile extension of an existing rapid transit line.  And contrary to your comment, the primary areas served/benefiting -- University Circle, downtown and Ohio City (but mainly University Circle) are all growing.

 

Secondly, you assume there would be no local public subsidy to buttress private financing.  In the early 1990s RTA received state funding to build the 1st rail extension in nearly 40 years - the Waterfront Line.  Forgetting the perceived merits or lack thereof of this project, the State opened its coffers to help subsidize this project to the extent no federal money was sought; hence no federal hoops (like environmental and alternative use studies) were not needed, and the line was built in record time; built in a city that was no better off, economically than it is now, and in many ways, worse.  Of course we had advantages: a pro-rail transit chief, a pushy mayor and an ex-Cleveland mayor governor who, unlike the incumbent, wasn't radically against transit -- Voinovich, in fact, was a key point person in facilitating the WFL. ... but who's to say that next year the arch-conservative Kasich won't be run and replaced by Ed FitzGerald, who is both a Clevelander and a Democrat -- the obviously more pro transit of the 2 political parties. 

If it happens, then we'll know I was wrong.

RTA looks to the northeast for possible rail, bus line extension

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on September 03, 2013 at 6:34 PM, updated September 03, 2013 at 6:41 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The public will have a chance to weigh in next week on a study that looks at whether to extend bus or rail service, or a combination of the two, to the Lake County line or beyond.

 

Planners will sketch out their early findings for a northeasterly push by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority at three community meetings. The alternatives include:

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/rta_looks_northeastward_for_po.html#incart_river#incart_m-rpt-2

Extending the HealthLine would make that route too long and unreliable. There is a parallel, arrow-straight and fast NS rail line that is double-tracked for 40-80 freight trains per day but sees fewer than 20 daily. There is PLENTY of spare capacity on that existing rail infrastructure that would be faster and probably less expensive to modify than any other transit alternative to bring Euclid and Lake County commuters to University Circle -- Ohio's fourth-largest and fastest growing employment center. These are the models.....

 

Here are some recent start-ups of Diesel Multiple-Unit (DMU) train services, including the date (year) they started operations, endpoints, length of route, start-up capital cost and cost per mile:

 

Austin (Texas) Capital “MetroRail” (2010) Austin-Leander – 32 miles – $105 million – $3.3 million per mile; www.capmetro.org/metrorail/‎

TriMet (Portland, OR) “Westside Express Service” (2009) Beaverton-Wilsonville – 15 miles – $161 million – $10.7 million per mile; http://www.trimet.org/wes/

Denton County (Texas) Transportation Authority “A-Train” (2011) Trinity Mills-Denton – 21 miles – $325 million – $15.5 million per mile; http://www.dcta.net/a-train/a-train/menu-id-132.html

North County (California) Transit District “Sprinter” (2008) Oceanside-Escondido – 22 miles – $351.5 million – $16.1 million per mile; http://www.gonctd.com/sprinter/

New Jersey Transit “RiverLINE” (2004) Trenton-Camden – 34 miles – $1.1 billion – $32.3 million per mile; www.riverline.com/‎

^is it OK to assume you're telling RTA about these and not just us?

KJP, I am not sure I know how to phrase this question.  Are they looking only at an extension of current service, for rail making Windermere just another stop, or are they also looking at building another system that could end at Windermere?  For instance, is it conceivable that passengers would transfer at Windermere from the vehicles that got them there?

 

I was just wondering if this was part of the decision making matrix.

KJP--why was the NJ River Line so much more expensive per mile than the other projects? If went with DMU, perhaps a good cross-the-platform (if the fare system allows) transfer could be made in Euclid or something, meaning, a short eastern extension of the Red Line, combined with DMU service between the Red line eastern terminus and Lake County....... OR why not:

 

Extend the Red LIne to Euclid AND build a separate DMU commuter rail line from Willoughby/Painesville/Lake County to the City? Whatever happened to the railbus?

^is it OK to assume you're telling RTA about these and not just us?

 

The public input starts next week. I also hope to give the public some ideas regarding potential options. "Rail" can mean MANY things.

 

KJP, I am not sure I know how to phrase this question.  Are they looking only at an extension of current service, for rail making Windermere just another stop, or are they also looking at building another system that could end at Windermere?  For instance, is it conceivable that passengers would transfer at Windermere from the vehicles that got them there?

 

I was just wondering if this was part of the decision making matrix.

 

Yes, everything is on the table. You tell RTA what you want to see happen. RTA doesn't give you (the public) a bunch of options for you to choose from. You tell them what ideas and alternatives you want them to study.

 

KJP--why was the NJ River Line so much more expensive per mile than the other projects? If went with DMU, perhaps a good cross-the-platform (if the fare system allows) transfer could be made in Euclid or something, meaning, a short eastern extension of the Red Line, combined with DMU service between the Red line eastern terminus and Lake County....... OR why not:

 

Extend the Red LIne to Euclid AND build a separate DMU commuter rail line from Willoughby/Painesville/Lake County to the City? Whatever happened to the railbus?

 

I can't find pictures of what the railroad tracks looked like pre-RiverLINE, but I can give you a mental picture.... they were junk. The bridges were junk. The stations are more elaborate. There's lots of new double track, street-running and an extension into the Trenton Amtrak station on the Northeast Corridor. They basically took this......

 

 

 

And turned it into this.....

 

 

 

But fortunately, this is what we have to start with, from Windermere east into Lake County.....

 

They call rail+ something like what San Francisco has, so is that virtually a streetcar?

They call rail+ something like what San Francisco has, so is that virtually a streetcar?

 

It's Rapid+ which really has no equal anywhere, even though it combines a number of existing technologies to extend the reach of our Rapid system here, hence the "+". All Aboard Ohio came up with the idea for a vehicle that runs on rails -- it can operate on high-speed dedicated track like what we have in Cleveland or it can operate in the streets or it can operate under diesel power without overhead wires where service frequency is less. It would look very much the like the RiverLINE train above but also have the ability to be powered by electricity, as the RiverLINE's cars do in Europe.