You'd probably first see one going up Cedar to Euclid Heights Boulevard to Coventry, then east to Severance on Mayfield. That was the only proposed LRT into Cleveland Heights in recent times (in RTA's 1993 long-range plan). There also was a serious planning effort in the late 1960s to build an LRT along a similar routing, but its costs ($16 million) were deemed too high. The city of Cleveland Heights even preserved the old streetcar tracks next to Cedar Glen and in Euclid Heights Boulevard's median for many years after the streetcars stopped running so they could be revived as a Shaker Rapid-type service. I don't when they were finally pulled up, but I think it was after the 1960s effort was stopped.

I thought the original 50s/60s plan was to extend the, then, CTS (aka, the Red Line, as in heavy rail) service up the right side of Cedar, to Euclid Hts, Coventry and out Mayfield (to around Warrensville), as you're saying... The sad irony, as you note, is this surface routing was for the original streetcar interurbans built in the 1890s to fuel the 1st suburbanization on the Heights (some original mansions from the era still exist along Overlook Rd.), which was held extant after service was phased out in anticipation of this branch off the Rapid from Cedar Glen... If I recall, there was about $3M (in 1950s dollars, of course) left over from the original 1955 Rapid and a choice btw extending the West Side Rapid from W. 117 to West Park or the Coventry branch.  The choice made is apparent; I once read that part of the rationale, aside from going for East vs. West Side balance, was the expense of building a necessary underpass for trains underneath Cedar & Euclid Hts at the top of Cedar Hill.

Wow, that would have been awesome if rapid service had been extended to Coventry.  Imagine the impact that would have bad on downtown and Cleveland Heights!

I wish the idea could be revived again (fat chance w/ you-know-who heading RTA).  The idea of LRT technology would be more preferable than high-platform trains in the classic brownstone apt building area of Coventry. Fortunately, Coventry has maintained a compact, ped-oriented TOD-type presence over 1/2 century after the demise of streetcars -- it's absolutely perfect for direct connection into the Rapid system; in some ways, even better than Shaker Square (although Coventry's less populated than the Square area, its commercial area seems denser with businesses and apts immediately adjacent)...

 

Methinks, though, Coventry's going to have to continue to make do with the current up-the-hill, Rapid connecting service of the No.s 7, 9 and round-about Community Circulator buses... At least the busy No. 9 bus "feeder" connection to Coventry will be much improved once the E. 120 Red Line station is relocated toward Little Italy with (hopefully) a No. 9 loop there...

I would love to scan and post images from the 1960s Cleveland Heights rapid transit study, but my scanner is on the fritz. So, here's a text description (follow along with your street map of Cleveland Heights, boys and girls)...

 

The routing proposed east of the Euclid Heights/Coventry intersection was not on Mayfield. Instead, it would have cut across street blocks. Coventry was proposed to be realigned eastward between Euclid Heights Blvd and Mayfield, with the old street turned into a pedestrian mall. The Rapid was to follow the new Coventry Road to a point just south of Mayfield, then go behind the houses on Hampshire. At Middlehurst, the line would go into a subway until it reached Severance. It was proposed go below Cumberland Park, beneath residential properties along the north side of Oak Road, and east of Ivydale Road the line would be behind homes on the north side of Euclid Heights Blvd.

 

The station at Severance Center was to be on a gentle S-curve in the southwest corner of the Severence area. The S-curve would have brought the line to the southern edge of Severence, and head due east directly behind the homes along Severn Road. In the vicinity of Staunton Road, the line would dive back into a subway and stay directly behind homes on the north side of Severn until the line entered the Oakwood Country Club.

 

A stub-end station with no apparent potential for extension eastward would be on the west side of Warrensville Road. The station site would have been just south of Warrensville's intersection with Bexley. A two-track yard for storing up to 20 transit cars was proposed to be built on the golf course property.

 

Backtracking here geographically... The section that was to be built first and which would have cost about $16 million (in 1950s $$) was from the existing CTS Rapid, up Cedar Hill and Euclid Heights Blvd and ending at Coventry. And, as clvlndr noted, the rapid transit line would have gone under the Cedar/Euclid Hts/Overlook intersection. But it would have emerged on the east side of the intersection on the south side of Euclid Hts, not in the median. The reason is there was a proposed development called Agora East slated to go there, and the rapid transit station would have been in its basement. The line was to curve back under Euclid Heights Boulevard's eastbound lanes and come up to the surface in its median east of Surrey.

 

Interesting plan, but I don't like the routing east of Coventry. While it would have been a very fast service owing to it being mostly in a subway, its terminus location would have precluded further extension eastward. And we know the "wisdom" of doing that based on the Red Line's alignment at Hopkins, which also made its extension difficult if not impossible.

^... Guess I was a little conservative in my recollection of 1950s dollars;...Tracks would have gone on the south side of Euclid Hts?  ugh;  I wouldn't have liked that.  Too many nice apartments; houses would have been destroyed... I just wish we could revisit LTR going under the big intersection then rising up in the middle of Euclid Hts (as the old trolleys once did...  Unfortunately, expansion past Coventry, now, is problematic.  Putting tracks in Coventry -- as tracks once were -- wouldn't be good b/c of all the foot and slow auto traffic...

 

Also, as you allude to, the corner of Euclid Hts & Coventry is at the summit of a hill; very challenging (and expensive) engineering would have been necessary... Relocation of Coventry?  Turn the current street into a ped mall?  Probably not feasible.  This would cause the destruction of a number of old houses and apartments.   Maybe it can be done, but...

 

As I noted before, I think the central/NE Heights area is going to have to survive on feeder buses connecting with the Red, Blue & Green Rapids lines for some time to come.  Look at it this way: there are parts of the county with much worse transit service than the Heights... There are a lot more doable rail projects -- particularly commuter rail -- which should have greater priority at this point.

Given all the stuff along Cedar (at Farimount, Lee, Taylor, Warrensville Ctr, Green, Richmond) a good transit line that connects to the University RTS would seem like a good idea.  The current bus route along Cedar has stops about every 100 ft... Even a BRT with stops at this major intersections would seem to be attractive and might help alleviate some of the car traffic.

Clvlndr, as you know they were not shy about demolishing anything "old" in the 1960s. But I seem to remember that there isn't anything on the northeast corner of the Cedar/Euclid Heights intersection. Even if there is/was, it would have been demolished for the Agora East development that would have had the Rapid line and station in the basement.

 

I'm not crazy about the proposed alignment east of Coventry either. If I was to route the line, I would have sent it north on Coventry from Euclid Heights then east on Mayfield. But I would put the section along Coventry below Coventry, with a subway station midway between Mayfield and Euclid Heights. I'd then have the line come up to street level in the middle of Mayfield, roughly around Glenmont (where my mother lived in the 1950s!).

A couple of RAIL videos posted about the RTA:

 

A video of a walk through time of the RTA system (couple of good euclid ave shots, evolution of rail cars, etc.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khVkowqpSS0

 

These aren't as interesting, trains leaving station, etc.

 

 

 

 

Anybody have any interesting video to upload?  I'd love to see the video that they play on the detroit-superior bridge tour uploaded. 

 

 

 

 

 

^ Send these to Joe C. and tell him to loop them..watch until it hits him..rail is GOOD!

nice to catch of few shots of the old fairmount line.

nice to catch of few shots of the old fairmount line.

 

Yeah, if its wasn't for the church I wouldn't have recognized it.  I didn't recognize any of the video that wasn't fairmont or the shaker lines.  A lot of it looked like still take by Joe Testarosa?(sp).

 

I have a question, was the fairmont line the "original" shaker rapid?  I've been trying to find the answer to that question.

I have a question, was the fairmont line the "original" shaker rapid?  I've been trying to find the answer to that question.

 

Before 1920, the Shaker Rapid at some point merged onto the Fairmount line in order to get downtown. Because of the heavy trafic on Euclid Avenue, it took a great deal of time to get downtown, which is why the Vans wanted their rapid to have a separate right of way. However, until they could find a route to get downtown, the rapid cars had to take the Fairmount route down from the Heights. It would not be until April of 1920 that the Shaker Rapid was directly connected to Public Square via Kingsbury Run and the Nickle Plate Railroad right of way.

 

Below is a part of a citywide 1925 transit map I have. This part shows only the Cleveland Railway Company (the city's streetcar system) that existed in 1925 in the area between downtown and the Heights. The dashed lines are the CRC routes/tracks that had existed but were abandoned by 1925. Non-CRC routes/tracks are not shown.

 

GA_Lancer is correct. Here's some more info... From 1916-20, the Shaker Rapid, then called the Cleveland Interurban Railroad Co., deviated from Shaker Boulevard northward in Coventry's median, then to Fairmount to head downtown. From 1920-30, the Shaker Rapid ran on a joint right of way with the New York Central Railroad (NYC's access to the Northern Ohio Food Terminal) as far east as where the Campus Rapid station is today. The ramp the tracks used to get up to street level on Pittsburgh Avenue is still visible. The Shaker Rapid entered downtown on Pittsburgh/Broadway and Ontario. Its current route west of the Campus Station opened in 1930 when Cleveland Union Terminal opened.

 

Anyway, here's the map......

 

Wow, I never knew that.  I always wondered what those poles in the middle of fairmont were.

 

Look at all those "barns" the street cars system must have been awesome here.

to think a streetcar used to run right in front of my house.....sigh

to think a streetcar used to run right in front of my house.....sigh

 

Cool where is your house?

I have a question, was the fairmont line the "original" shaker rapid?  I've been trying to find the answer to that question.

 

Before 1920, the Shaker Rapid at some point merged onto the Fairmount line in order to get downtown. Because of the heavy trafic on Euclid Avenue, it took a great deal of time to get downtown, which is why the Vans wanted their rapid to have a separate right of way. However, until they could find a route to get downtown, the rapid cars had to take the Fairmount route down from the Heights. It would not be until April of 1920 that the Shaker Rapid was directly connected to Public Square via Kingsbury Run and the Nickle Plate Railroad right of way.

 

 

Almost right... from 1920 to 1930, Shaker Rapid cars rode up a ramp at E. 34th street, and followed the route of the Broadway streetcars into downtown and Public Square.  In 1930, Terminal Tower was finished, including the 1.5 grade-separated ROW (for the Rapid and electric intercity passenger trains) directly to Public Square, so Rapid cars then went directly into the Terminal and cars were removed from the the ramp at E.34.  The ramp, though weed-covered, is still visible and was used as a drive/parking ramp (from Broadway) by E. 34th RTA fare booth workers until RTA eliminated the fare booth in the early 90s.

^KJP actually said it better ... and with visuals, no less.

my bad, i forgot about the E. 34th St ramp. It's been a while since I've read about the subject.

How long did everyone wait for RTA yesterday in the snowstorm?  I waited 3 hours for the 55X.

 

This is why this city needs more RAIL!!  Rail doesn't get effected by this weather.  I believe the Rapids were only running a few minutes behind.

How long did everyone wait for RTA yesterday in the snowstorm?  I waited 3 hours for the 55X.

 

This is why this city needs more RAIL!!  Rail doesn't get effected by this weather.  I believe the Rapids were only running a few minutes behind.

 

green and blue lines were perfectly on time.

 

I heard that the West side portion of the red line was running a few minutes behind (but when it runs ever 10 minutes, its not really a big deal)

^Exactly.  Roads were shit in DC this morning, buses were off schedule, and running only on major roads.  The subway got me to work in the normal amount of time, with no delay.

Stolen from the Valentine's Day snowstorm thread:

 

Though the Regional Transit Authority's rapid lines had minor delays, RTA spokesman Chad Self said, people waited up to 90 minutes at bus stops to make connections. "With gridlock on the highways and on city streets, our buses are going to be in that same gridlock," said Self, who urged people to use the rail lines in storms.

 

RTA making the case for commuter rail?  Hell must have icicles today too...

 

How will that Silver Line BRT work in this kind of weather?

Rail doesn't get effected by this weather. 

 

For the second time in two weeks my express NYC line was running (slowly) on the local track last night due to the "inclement weather" (it had been snowing for half an hour).  The MTA is about has hardy as a Virginian public school system.  Pathetic.  Happy to hear RTA rapids know how to push through the white stuff without trouble.

How will that Silver Line BRT work in this kind of weather?

 

Short answer is probably "It won't."  Longer answer is that it will likely fare moderately better than a typical bus in sections where the bus-only lanes exist.  The gridlock caused by cars would theoretically not be as much of a problem in lanes where there are no cars.  Nevertheless it will still be slow going for the BRT vehicles until crews can clear the roads, and that, plus cross-traffic will cause major delays. 

 

Rail doesn't get effected by this weather. 

 

For the second time in two weeks my express NYC line was running (slowly) on the local track last night due to the "inclement weather" (it had been snowing for half an hour).  The MTA is about has hardy as a Virginian public school system.  Pathetic.  Happy to hear RTA rapids know how to push through the white stuff without trouble.

 

What train line are you on?  the 2/3 and Metro North all run fine.  But I have the option of 3 different stations near me

^4/5/6.  Or more accurately of late, the 6/6/6 when it all runs local.  Sorry everyone to bitch off topic.

I was wondering what the snow clearance strategy would be for the Silver Line.  I had this brief fantasy that they'd install heating devices beneath the pavement to ensure that the lane would never be snowy/slippery.  Considering the "value engineering" that the ECTP has gone through, I doubt this was ever seriously considered.  I would imagine, though, that clearing Euclid in the future will be somewhat different from clearing your average Cleveland street.  There will be raised bumps between the bus lane and the open lane, plus there are medians that weave in and out.  It'll be interesting and I hope that someone thought it out ahead of time!

 

On the MTA issue, I remember the big blizzard in February 2003 over Valentine's Day that pretty much shut down the city.  I still had to go into work and took the C from Lafayette in Fort Greene to Jay Street and transferred to the F.  I remember delays and snow in the stations (from the sidewalk grates above), but it wasn't all that bad.  The worst it ever got was during a huge rain storm when there was flooding everywhere.  That was one of my worst transit days of all time.  I even had to pay twice because the friggin MTA people didn't believe me that I'd been detoured from one station to another without getting a damned receipt.

Red line was a few minutes behind today, but it was as packed as I've ever seen it.

fantastic!  go transit!

Tuesday night at TC was also extremely crowded.  It looked like everyone that took the bus in to work saw the backups and decided to take the Rapid.  Could have used a third car...

i'm willing to bet RTA thought about snow removal.

 

hell, their decision on which bus to buy was based on what systems have successfully operated in wintry conditions.

any one has the plans for the st clair subway,what was suspose to be built in the early part of the past century.

danke

Check out this subway thread that I put together a while ago. I see that I deleted one of the images from my Web host, so I'll see about restoring it...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2726.0

"How long did everyone wait for RTA yesterday in the snowstorm?  I waited 3 hours for the 55X."

 

Yikes, glad I didn't stay at my place! I was in Tremont so I took the 81 and it was about 20ish minutes late. We got stuck for about 5 minutes at the corner of Abbey and West 11th but after that it was pretty smooth sailing.

 

However, if the delay was going to be more than 30 minutes I was all set to give up.

I would like to know everyone's thoughts on an idea a co-worker and I were bouncing around.

 

When I lived in Sydney Australia the transportation authority re-did all of the bus numbers so that they actually gave indication of the direction of travel and destination. 300 level buses were going to the west, 100 level buses were going to the north, 200 south, etc.  The numbers would then get more specific and you could figure out what bus to take just by know the number system.  Would a system like this work in Cleveland?  Would it make public transportation easier to use for someone not familiar with the system?

^this idea has been floated before, along with color variations, etc.  it seems that RTA is more interested in operations improvements and cost cutting that thinking through expansion or major retooling of route number/operation.

 

most of the routes seem to be from historical trolley lines (1, 6, etc), and some like the 326 are a combination of the old 3 and the 26,into a crosstown route.  historically, operating this way may have made sense if you knew the old trolley lines, but I agree that renumbering/reorganizing the route naming would be beneficial. 

Habits are hard to break, though.  And some routes might not operate through just one area (the 326, for example). 

 

I've thought about this, because our bus system is even more confusing than RTA.  For example, there are the 30/32/34/35/36 and the 90/92/93 buses, which all run the same general route, but the 96/97 deviate a bit from the 90/92/93.  Never mind the L1/L2/L4, and the 16A-Z, or whatever it is.  Then there's the 38B....

 

What really helps me when I ride the bus, is a map at the stop.  At shelters, we usually have poster-size maps, and the routes serving that stop are highlighted on a map of the city.  Transfer points to other bus routes and rail stations are indicated, and schedules/frequencies are provided.  Other bus stops have strip maps (about half the time) and a schedule on the signpost. 

 

We're moving toward GPS technology now, where each stop has a 7-digit code you can dial into the phone, and it will tell you when the next bus will arrive.

 

Just my thoughts....

posting a map at a bus shelter? that's absurd.

each RTA stop does have a GPS code that you can call, unfortunately it isn't the same as the shelter number and it isn't posted anywhere - you have to go online and figure it out or call.  so, it ends up taking 10 minutes to figure out when the next bus is coming.

 

new 2007 bus maps are out (none were published in 2006).  don't expect to see any in shleters anytime soon, although there is some renewed interest in the adopt-a-shelter program, which might result in more prominent community stops having additional amenities - lighting, maps, schedules. 

 

 

Again, I cite a conversation I had with Calabrese last year where he told me that they were working on the transit waiting area improvements.  However, I've yet to see any indication that this is true.  He also thought the notion of information at every stop was...yes, absurd.  I would be satisfied with just the most basic info at every shelter.  I can get over the regular stops not having maps/timetables, but every one should have an actual route number on it (rather than just the RTA logo) and every shelter should have a map & timetable.  I think we've actually gone backwards in the past 10 years.

 

To address your question, Lammonator, I think the number system could help, but people would balk at it.  I would rather just see more information and a color-coding and logo system similar to Portland's Tri-Met system.

He said "absurd"? That's inexcusable!

the issue with the TWE seems to be that RTA doesn't have the expertise or willingness to do this inhouse.  they are looking for a consultant of some type,maybe they have hired them, but i haven't seen any announcements.  Then, they are going to decide how to implement the TWE report from a few years ago.

 

the mentality seems to be about always be about costs (certainly important) and providing basic service, not attracting new riders and making the system work for "choice" riders.  again, RTA is good at operating, but not innovating.

 

one thing the city can do here is to change a local ordinance that prohibits 3d part advertsing on RTA shelters in the city of cleveland.  although cleveland might not be a huge market, this is where other cities are gathering money for shelter upkeep, schedules, signage, etc.  so, let's focus on city hall changing the local ordinance, and maybe we'll see improvements on shelters and stops in the city of cleveland. 

This sounds like a job for All Aboard Ohio!

the issue with the TWE seems to be that RTA doesn't have the expertise or willingness to do this inhouse.  they are looking for a consultant of some type,maybe they have hired them, but i haven't seen any announcements.  Then, they are going to decide how to implement the TWE report from a few years ago.

 

the mentality seems to be about always be about costs (certainly important) and providing basic service, not attracting new riders and making the system work for "choice" riders.  again, RTA is good at operating, but not innovating.

 

one thing the city can do here is to change a local ordinance that prohibits 3d part advertsing on RTA shelters in the city of cleveland.  although cleveland might not be a huge market, this is where other cities are gathering money for shelter upkeep, schedules, signage, etc.   so, let's focus on city hall changing the local ordinance, and maybe we'll see improvements on shelters and stops in the city of cleveland. 

 

My sentiments exactly.

I would be satisfied with just the most basic info at every shelter.  I can get over the regular stops not having maps/timetables, but every one should have an actual route number on it (rather than just the RTA logo) and every shelter should have a map & timetable.

 

I just spent the past two weeks in England.  London's bus stops were pretty amazing.  I would routinely get myself lost (aka randomly walk around because I had nothing else to do on the weekend), but I could walk into a bus shelter and immediately know where I was and how to get back to my hotel.  Coming from someone who doesn't have much experience with bus transit, I was pretty darn impressed. 

 

The funny thing is that the Brits that I was working with kept making fun of their own transit system (although they may have been speaking more about their intercity rail  -- which was also a revelation to me), and I had to say that they would get no sympathy from me, considering what we have here.

He said "absurd"? That's inexcusable!

 

Well, that's not a quote.  He reacted with disbelief and actually told me I was wrong when I said that every stop I ever used in NYC had an information box on it.  Each bus stop pole had a four-sided box on it with a route map, route schedule and other information on it.  If there were multiple buses that stopped there, they'd squeeze multiple maps and schedules in.  That way, you could tell where the buses would take you and if it was worth waiting.  Now, the subways...well, that's another story!

 

[edit: according to MTA's website, "most" stops have these: http://www.mta.info/nyct/bus/howto_bus.htm]

Again, I cite a conversation I had with Calabrese last year where he told me that they were working on the transit waiting area improvements.  However, I've yet to see any indication that this is true. 

 

The TWE project has been totally dragged down by the ineptitude of RTA. The plan is to do a handful of them to see how successful they are.  Look for Tremont, Buckeye and Slavic Village to sport the first TWEs in Cleveland. They could possibly go in this summer.

^I should add, from my previous post, that the poster-size maps at DC bus stops were funded by the Downtown DC BID.