On 4/2/2025 at 12:48 PM, KJP said:

I rode LA's Red Line two weeks ago. I was surprised at how badly their trains are deteriorating. Our Red Line trains are 10 years older and, cosmetically, appear in much better shape.

When I found out their current rolling stock was made by Breda it kind of shocked me. I wonder why we just didn't order a complete Breda fleet when we ordered the LRV's.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I've heard that the deterioration on Cleveland's Red Line trains does come from salt but not from roads since it has no grade crossings. Instead, it comes from the salt used on RTA station platforms

I'm sure they get hit plenty also on the underpasses from the roadways above.  

 

One of my houses is on a busy roadway and in the spring there is a coating of salt dust on everything that gets kicked from the roads 

58 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

When I found out their current rolling stock was made by Breda it kind of shocked me. I wonder why we just didn't order a complete Breda fleet when we ordered the LRV's.

 

Because, and this is a paraphrase from then-GCRTA General Manager Leonard Ronis (he was GM from 1974-81, ie: he was the last GM of CTS and the first GM of GCRTA): "Cleveland belongs with the likes of Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago. We deserve a heavy rail metro system."

 

He said that when some of his staff suggested they convert the CTS Rapid into a light-rail line. Ronis had led the rebuilding of the Shaker Rapid into a modern light-rail line in 1980-81, at a then-large cost of about $100 million. That was a condition of the pre-1975, then-city of Shaker Heights rapid transit system joining the GCRTA. There was some complaints from city of Cleveland officials and others who said that too much was being spent to benefit a high-income suburb while transit needs in the city of Cleveland and elsewhere were not being met. So Ronis' words about keeping the big-boy CTS Rapid as a heavy rail line was also a peace offering to Cleveland.

23 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Because, and this is a paraphrase from then-GCRTA General Manager Leonard Ronis (he was GM from 1974-81, ie: he was the last GM of CTS and the first GM of GCRTA): "Cleveland belongs with the likes of Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago. We deserve a heavy rail metro system."

 

He said that when some of his staff suggested they convert the CTS Rapid into a light-rail line. Ronis had led the rebuilding of the Shaker Rapid into a modern light-rail line in 1980-81, at a then-large cost of about $100 million. That was a condition of the pre-1975, then-city of Shaker Heights rapid transit system joining the GCRTA. There was some complaints from city of Cleveland officials and others who said that too much was being spent to benefit a high-income suburb while transit needs in the city of Cleveland and elsewhere were not being met. So Ronis' words about keeping the big-boy CTS Rapid as a heavy rail line was also a peace offering to Cleveland.

Oh yeah I do remember that. I know in retrospect keeping it heavy rail looks silly but wasn't our rail ridership in 1980 a very high levels, I believe 3.2 Million? What was the justification for the switch to light rail? Was the rail ridership steadily declining?

3.2 million is what the Red Line was last year.

 

IIRC, in 1960, the Red Line ridership was about 20 million, and the Shaker rapids was 7 million.

 

Trying to find more specific data.

 

But it dropped through the 1960s and 70s until RTA came along and introduced its ultra-low 35 cent fare. By 1980 with the energy crises and the final year of the low fare, ridership had jumped to 120 million for the entire bus and rail system.

APTA is probably the best resource I've found - breaks down every transportation type within a system. You can also see back several years of data, which is released quarterly.

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-Q4-Ridership-APTA.1.pdf

GCRTA on Page 28/40

 

Total Ridership 23' = 22,271,500

Total Ridership 24' = 24,875,000

+11.69%

 

Red Line (HR) ridership is decreasing, Blue/Green Line (LR) ridership is increasing. I could imagine Red Line ridership might increase again once new cars are acquired, but that's wishful thinking I suppose

 

Edited April 3Apr 3 by Geowizical

8 hours ago, KJP said:

IIRC, in 1960, the Red Line ridership was about 20 million, and the Shaker rapids was 7 million.

 

7 hours ago, Geowizical said:

GCRTA on Page 28/40

 

Total Ridership 23' = 22,271,500

Total Ridership 24' = 24,875,000

If @KJP is correct, that's amazing that ridership in 2024 was that close to ridership in 1960.  It seems like there's been a lot of road-centric construction and reduced investment in transit in the intervening years.

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

If @KJP is correct, that's amazing that ridership in 2024 was that close to ridership in 1960.  It seems like there's been a lot of road-centric construction and reduced investment in transit in the intervening years.

 

Unfortunately, the 24.8 mil in 2024 is the ENTIRE GCRTA system - bus, paratransit, HR, LR, and so on. A long way off from the 60s I fear.

:/

 

The silver lining here is that total GCRTA ridership is continuing to increase since the pandemic, at the highest rate among the 3 Cs (Cleveland = +11.69%, Columbus = +6.20%, Cincinnati +2.90% YTD). Also, GCRTA is far and away the most-used transit authority in Ohio - like, no one else is even close, so there's that to be thankful for. Modernization of our rail system from the trains to the stations and a city/metro population that is no longer hemorrhaging and in some cases increasing in population should help. That being said, we must continue to advocate and push RTA to increase ridership and be forward-thinking and innovative in transit solutions.

Edited April 4Apr 4 by Geowizical

All the trash dumping in the rail right-of-way coming from the airport to downtown is not a good look; very 3rd world vibes. Does this ever get cleaned up? And who is responsible? The City? The railroads?

9 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

All the trash dumping in the rail right-of-way coming from the airport to downtown is not a good look; very 3rd world vibes. Does this ever get cleaned up? And who is responsible? The City? The railroads?

Sad to hear - we remember the effort to clean it up for the 2016 RNC.

2 hours ago, Willo said:

Sad to hear - we remember the effort to clean it up for the 2016 RNC.

 

Was glad they cleaned up the garbage, it was third world and looked horrible. I wish they didn't cover the graffiti though. It was really interesting.  

When court community services are sending out the cleaning crews, not only do they work along the highways, but sometimes along the rapid lines.

 

Too bad they also don't clean up the trains, and remove the homeless from the trains and stations. I don’t ride anymore because of these conditions.

11 minutes ago, KJP said:

When court community services are sending out the cleaning crews, not only do they work along the highways, but sometimes along the rapid lines.

 

Too bad they also don't clean up the trains, and remove the homeless from the trains and stations. I don’t ride anymore because of these conditions.

 

I've seen neighborhood groups doing cleanups before as well, especially around the Red Line Greenway. 

 

It's a shame the RTA police riding around in pairs in their full-sized SUVs 24/7 can't patrol the rapid ROW's and try to catch some illegal dumpers in action. 

 

 

Cuz I'm bored, I was doing some napkin math in my head but I'm curious what more knowledgeable people know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this:

 

So RTA will have a total of 48 new units by 2028. I assume one "unit" refers to this:

 

If this is the case, I'm assuming one unit would be the equivalent of a current Blue/Green line train, and two units coupled would be roughly the equivalent of a current Red line train.

 

1) RED: From the airport it takes one train about an hour and a half to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 15 min intervals in between, that would require 6 trains running on the Red line at any given time. If 6 trains run on the Red line, and they continue to run it that way in 2027 with two unit-trains, that means 12 of the 48 units will be used just for the Red line. Otherwise, 6 units.

2) BLUE/GREEN: From Tower City, it takes about an hour to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 30 min intervals in between, that would require 2 trains running. Two trains on the Blue and Green lines each would mean 4 out of 48 units, each train with one unit.

3) Therefore, if trains are run in 2027/28 as they are now, that means at any given time, AT MOST, a third (16/48) of the units will be operational.

 

I guess what I'm trying to ask/wrap my head around is whether or not RTA CAN and WILL a) increase frequency on the Green and Blue lines because of the surplus rolling stock, and b) if we know whether they will continue to couple two units together for Red Line trains.  I ask this because I don't think in any articles I've seen mention of them increasing Blue/Green line frequency. Not only is 30 min interval very annoying for people trying to plan out taking the trains, but the Blue and Green lines have been increasing ridership YOY while the Red line decreases. 

 

The math seams to work out with plenty spare to switch units out for repairs, etc. Plus, it sounds like their option is for 60 total, which would be a HUGE surplus once they get around to it. Obviously these could be used for new lines with different routings like a Van Aken-Airport line, but I'm more just curious about the operations on the existing 3 lines BEFORE that happens.

 

Thoughts appreciated :)

15 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Cuz I'm bored, I was doing some napkin math in my head but I'm curious what more knowledgeable people know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this:

 

So RTA will have a total of 48 new units by 2028. I assume one "unit" refers to this:

 

If this is the case, I'm assuming one unit would be the equivalent of a current Blue/Green line train, and two units coupled would be roughly the equivalent of a current Red line train.

 

1) RED: From the airport it takes one train about an hour and a half to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 15 min intervals in between, that would require 6 trains running on the Red line at any given time. If 6 trains run on the Red line, and they continue to run it that way in 2027 with two unit-trains, that means 12 of the 48 units will be used just for the Red line. Otherwise, 6 units.

2) BLUE/GREEN: From Tower City, it takes about an hour to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 30 min intervals in between, that would require 2 trains running. Two trains on the Blue and Green lines each would mean 4 out of 48 units, each train with one unit.

3) Therefore, if trains are run in 2027/28 as they are now, that means at any given time, AT MOST, a third (16/48) of the units will be operational.

 

I guess what I'm trying to ask/wrap my head around is whether or not RTA CAN and WILL a) increase frequency on the Green and Blue lines because of the surplus rolling stock, and b) if we know whether they will continue to couple two units together for Red Line trains.  I ask this because I don't think in any articles I've seen mention of them increasing Blue/Green line frequency. Not only is 30 min interval very annoying for people trying to plan out taking the trains, but the Blue and Green lines have been increasing ridership YOY while the Red line decreases. 

 

The math seams to work out with plenty spare to switch units out for repairs, etc. Plus, it sounds like their option is for 60 total, which would be a HUGE surplus once they get around to it. Obviously these could be used for new lines with different routings like a Van Aken-Airport line, but I'm more just curious about the operations on the existing 3 lines BEFORE that happens.

 

Thoughts appreciated :)

The Red Line also runs to Windemere, and there's the Waterfront Line as well -- but your point stands, it looks like RTA will have more than enough trains.  Enough for a downtown loop and lower headways on the Blue/Green lines?  One can dream....

29 minutes ago, Foraker said:

The Red Line also runs to Windemere, and there's the Waterfront Line as well -- but your point stands, it looks like RTA will have more than enough trains.  Enough for a downtown loop and lower headways on the Blue/Green lines?  One can dream....

While we're dreaming... add converting the healthline BRT to rail, or is that part of your dream downtown loop? 

22 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Cuz I'm bored, I was doing some napkin math in my head but I'm curious what more knowledgeable people know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this:

 

So RTA will have a total of 48 new units by 2028. I assume one "unit" refers to this:

 

If this is the case, I'm assuming one unit would be the equivalent of a current Blue/Green line train, and two units coupled would be roughly the equivalent of a current Red line train.

 

1) RED: From the airport it takes one train about an hour and a half to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 15 min intervals in between, that would require 6 trains running on the Red line at any given time. If 6 trains run on the Red line, and they continue to run it that way in 2027 with two unit-trains, that means 12 of the 48 units will be used just for the Red line. Otherwise, 6 units.

2) BLUE/GREEN: From Tower City, it takes about an hour to make the out-and-back, and to satisfy 30 min intervals in between, that would require 2 trains running. Two trains on the Blue and Green lines each would mean 4 out of 48 units, each train with one unit.

3) Therefore, if trains are run in 2027/28 as they are now, that means at any given time, AT MOST, a third (16/48) of the units will be operational.

 

I guess what I'm trying to ask/wrap my head around is whether or not RTA CAN and WILL a) increase frequency on the Green and Blue lines because of the surplus rolling stock, and b) if we know whether they will continue to couple two units together for Red Line trains.  I ask this because I don't think in any articles I've seen mention of them increasing Blue/Green line frequency. Not only is 30 min interval very annoying for people trying to plan out taking the trains, but the Blue and Green lines have been increasing ridership YOY while the Red line decreases. 

 

The math seams to work out with plenty spare to switch units out for repairs, etc. Plus, it sounds like their option is for 60 total, which would be a HUGE surplus once they get around to it. Obviously these could be used for new lines with different routings like a Van Aken-Airport line, but I'm more just curious about the operations on the existing 3 lines BEFORE that happens.

 

Thoughts appreciated :)

 

Thanks for the post. I've thought about this a lot as well and come to a similar conclusions. It is a good starting point to assume that the Red line should continue operating with at least 2 units, and Blue/Green with 1. 

 

In a scenario where the three existing lines continue on their same routes, increasing frequency should prioritize the Blue Line first. Getting the route to every 15 minutes (with 2 additional units per hour) would really increase the usability of the line. Even 1 more car running increasing frequency to every 20 minutes would be a notable upgrade.

 

Obviously it would be great to get increased frequency on the Green Line, but in a scenario where there is only enough resources (not just rail cars but money/operators for increased operations) to add 2 new cars per hour, they should both go to the Blue Line. If Green Line frequency is kept at every 30 minutes during the day (again do to limitations beyond rail car shortages), service could at least be improved with the addition of two units for the morning/evening commute to get 1 hour of 15 minute frequency. An upgrade in service this small can improve the usability of the line for the 9-5 commuters. 

 

Just for some added context, outside of additional runs in the morning/evening commute (between 5-7.5 minute frequency during peak), service was about the same off peak in terms of frequency on the rapid lines ~20 years back. Here are the weekday timetables for the Red and Blue/Green Lines before the ~2008 service cuts:

 

 

Could they turn the Red Line into a multi-line regional rail system? The trains look more like commuter rail than a metro.

GCRTA intends to increase the frequency on the Blue/Green lines from every 30 minutes all day, to every 20 minutes off-peak. I've heard that they also want peak frequency to be increased to every 10 minutes on the branches (meaning every 5 minutes on the trunk between Shaker Square and Tower City).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Green Line extended all the way to the airport. If so, look for the Red/Green lines west of Tower City to be every 10 minutes off-peak, and then every 5 minutes peak. East of Tower City, the red line would probably run every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak.

 

Too bad we couldn't build a UC-Shaker Square connector to run a new line from the Van Aken District to Windermere every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak. 😁

14 minutes ago, KJP said:

GCRTA intends to increase the frequency on the Blue/Green lines from every 30 minutes all day, to every 20 minutes off-peak. I've heard that they also want peak frequency to be increased to every 10 minutes on the branches (meaning every 5 minutes on the trunk between Shaker Square and Tower City).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Green Line extended all the way to the airport. If so, look for the Red/Green lines west of Tower City to be every 10 minutes off-peak, and then every 5 minutes peak. East of Tower City, the red line would probably run every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak.

 

Too bad we couldn't build a UC-Shaker Square connector to run a new line from the Van Aken District to Windermere every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak. 😁

Oh wow, those are much better frequencies should it come to pass. Thx for the update!

Of course, this assumes GCRTA has the operating budget for such frequencies. But increasing the Shaker branches' frequencies to every 20 minutes all day is the low-hanging fruit. GCRTA could also cut the Red Line frequencies to every 20 minutes all day with a Green Line extension to the airport, giving them service every 10 minutes between the Airport and East 55th.

^ assuming present rail configurations, i.e. no blue line reroute, downtown loop, waterfront line, etc., why not just reroute both the blue and green lines down the western side of the red line? I know it sounds ridiculous to completely give up on the waterfront line, but we basically have already, and it's basically useless at 15-20 minute frequencies anyway. That would easily give us five minute headways from the airport to downtown.

 

Honestly the waterfront line might be better off reconfigured as more like a streetcar that just runs to Towercity. It could have decent frequency with relatively low cost in trains and manpower for RTA since it's such a short distance. In that scenario it may even be a good candidate to consider going free (I know that's not popular here, but it could expose tourists and locals to RTA, and get them used to the idea, a loss leader of sorts). 

 

Anyways, just some heretical ideas on how RTA could perhaps best manage it's very limited resources. 

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Awesome stuff. But do you have a girl/S.O.? 😉

35 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Sorry to be that guy, but would you mind reposting this in the Transit ideas for the future thread for discussion so that we can keep this one focused on RTA news.  I look forward to reviewing your concepts in more detail over the weekend. 

12 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

48 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up.  The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations:

 

The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations.

 

9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case).

 

Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. 

 

The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. 

 

One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. 

 

If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). 

 

The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes.

 

This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train.

 

Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. 

 

TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines. 

Expand  

Sorry to be that guy, but would you mind reposting this in the Transit ideas for the future thread for discussion so that we can keep this one focused on RTA news.  I look forward to reviewing your concepts in more detail over the weekend. 

 

Ya no problem, honestly thought this was the Transit ideas for the future thread. 

 

41 minutes ago, KJP said:

Awesome stuff. But do you have a girl/S.O.? 😉

Lol, speculative cartography beats dooms scrolling! 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

GCRTA intends to increase the frequency on the Blue/Green lines from every 30 minutes all day, to every 20 minutes off-peak. I've heard that they also want peak frequency to be increased to every 10 minutes on the branches (meaning every 5 minutes on the trunk between Shaker Square and Tower City).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Green Line extended all the way to the airport. If so, look for the Red/Green lines west of Tower City to be every 10 minutes off-peak, and then every 5 minutes peak. East of Tower City, the red line would probably run every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak.

 

Too bad we couldn't build a UC-Shaker Square connector to run a new line from the Van Aken District to Windermere every 20 minutes off-peak and every 10 minutes peak. 😁

 

Under these frequencies, the E 55th to Tower City trunk would be running trains every 3 minutes and 20 seconds during peak, on average, and every 6 minutes and 40 seconds off-peak.

 

The E 55th & Opportunity Corridor area is screaming for TOD.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by sonisharri

16 hours ago, sonisharri said:

The E 55th & Opportunity Corridor area is screaming for TOD.

RTA should be far more aggressive in pushing TOD than they are.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

RTA should be far more aggressive in pushing TOD than they are.

Lol come on. The agency has become so inept that I'd if you asked a random board member what TOD is, they would be like a deer in head lights. 

19 hours ago, sonisharri said:

The E 55th & Opportunity Corridor area is screaming for TOD.

 

Agreed but the city is focusing on low density usage like industrial and warehousing for much of the corridor until you get closer to 105th.

 

Edited April 12Apr 12 by Mendo

On 4/12/2025 at 1:14 PM, Mendo said:

 

Agreed but the city is focusing on low density usage like industrial and warehousing for much of the corridor until you get closer to 105th.

 

 

On the OC itself, yes. But there's lots of space for development south of it on E 55th and around the Hyacinth Park area.

Any word on what this is about? 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, GISguy said:

Any word on what this is about? 

 

 

 

This is probably the best you're going to get

 

Here's what they said about it at this morning's GCRTA board meeting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

Here's what they said about it at this morning's GCRTA board meeting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

That says volumes.

15 hours ago, KJP said:

Here's what they said about it at this morning's GCRTA board meeting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

I thought my computer wasn't done loading lol. 

 

GCRTA gives green signal to rebuild two stations
By Ken Prendergast / April 16, 2025

 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) board members voted yesterday to hire a joint venture to rebuild Cleveland’s East 79th Street station on the Blue and Green light-rail lines. That follows last month’s board vote to hire another contractor to reconstruct the Warrensville-Van Aken Blue Line station in Shaker Heights.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/04/16/gcrta-gives-green-signal-to-rebuild-two-stations/

51 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

GCRTA gives green signal to rebuild two stations
By Ken Prendergast / April 16, 2025

 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) board members voted yesterday to hire a joint venture to rebuild Cleveland’s East 79th Street station on the Blue and Green light-rail lines. That follows last month’s board vote to hire another contractor to reconstruct the Warrensville-Van Aken Blue Line station in Shaker Heights.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/04/16/gcrta-gives-green-signal-to-rebuild-two-stations/

Happy to see this, but yikesssss do those price tags have me scared for whenever the Ohio City station finally gets it's much needed rebuild. 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

GCRTA gives green signal to rebuild two stations
By Ken Prendergast / April 16, 2025

 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) board members voted yesterday to hire a joint venture to rebuild Cleveland’s East 79th Street station on the Blue and Green light-rail lines. That follows last month’s board vote to hire another contractor to reconstruct the Warrensville-Van Aken Blue Line station in Shaker Heights.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/04/16/gcrta-gives-green-signal-to-rebuild-two-stations/

 

The 15-minute heater button would be an absolute lifesaver during the winter months—and I say this from experience: a few months ago I practically froze at the Van Aken & Lee rapid station when a train was delayed without notice. My hands were almost too numb to order an Uber.

 

Boston had a similar setup at one of their rail/BRT stations and it seemed to work really well.

Just an historical note: GCRTA may never have had a heated bus shelter before, but the Cleveland Transit System had at least one.  As late as the early 1970s, the University-Cedar Red Line (then just called the Rapid; Blue and Green were the Shaker Rapid) had a heated bus shelter, with infrared heaters for the bus waiting area outside — each with a sign on it noting that the East Ohio Gas Co. provided them. The heated shelter had a newsstand that was open during peak times. 

My god when is Superior Station going to get a rebuild? It has the best TOD potential, located smack dab in between actual neighborhoods of Cleveland and East Cleveland, is 5 minutes from UC but looks like ABSOLUTE SH*T

23 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

My god when is Superior Station going to get a rebuild? It has the best TOD potential, located smack dab in between actual neighborhoods of Cleveland and East Cleveland, is 5 minutes from UC but looks like ABSOLUTE SH*T

 

It seems to be in the works:

https://www.noaca.org/regional-planning/major-planning-documents/transportation-improvement-program-tip/comment-on-pending-projects/2nd-quarter-sfy-2025-project-planning-reviews/gcrta-new-projects

5 minutes ago, acd said:

 

It seems to be in the works:

https://www.noaca.org/regional-planning/major-planning-documents/transportation-improvement-program-tip/comment-on-pending-projects/2nd-quarter-sfy-2025-project-planning-reviews/gcrta-new-projects

Maybe I'm misreading it but it just seems like a platform rehab and not a station rehab, especially when you realize Cedar-University was just rebuilt.

 

What is strange is that Cedar-University is about 5 years old but isn't ADA Compliant at the platform level?

11 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Maybe I'm misreading it but it just seems like a platform rehab and not a station rehab, especially when you realize Cedar-University was just rebuilt.

 

What is strange is that Cedar-University is about 5 years old but isn't ADA Compliant at the platform level?

Ah, you might be right about that.  I just kind of assumed it was the whole station, but I'm not finding anything to indicate it's more than just the platform.

Rebuilding stations/platforms is good and important. That said, I'll start getting excited when RTA's rebuilding plans start including building above the stations. If RTA is serious about TOD they should start with the land they directly control, and the best TOD land imaginable. Immediately above the stations. Several stations seem like possible contenders, with Ohio City being the most obvious. 

10 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Rebuilding stations/platforms is good and important. That said, I'll start getting excited when RTA's rebuilding plans start including building above the stations. If RTA is serious about TOD they should start with the land they directly control, and the best TOD land imaginable. Immediately above the stations. Several stations seem like possible contenders, with Ohio City being the most obvious. 

It would be nice but can't start above the stations when they haven't even mastered building around the stations.

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

What is strange is that Cedar-University is about 5 years old but isn't ADA Compliant at the platform level?

 

I'm just curious which part of it wouldn't be ADA compliant... there's a massive ramp and an elevator to the platform level, and automatic doors.

14 hours ago, Quilliam said:

Just an historical note: GCRTA may never have had a heated bus shelter before, but the Cleveland Transit System had at least one.  As late as the early 1970s, the University-Cedar Red Line (then just called the Rapid; Blue and Green were the Shaker Rapid) had a heated bus shelter, with infrared heaters for the bus waiting area outside — each with a sign on it noting that the East Ohio Gas Co. provided them. The heated shelter had a newsstand that was open during peak times. 

 

I was on that platform a lot during the early 80s and neither was there anymore.

1) I've never seen a busier RTA than Saturday going to and leaving the Crew game. I really underestimated how many people would use it! Plus, everyone on the train got a good kick out of casually rolling past the absolute hell of a traffic jam in the Flats trying to leave a game lol

 

2) While the RTA employees were extremely helpful in directing people at the W 3rd station by the stadium (thank you!), it made me think: especially for game day situations where you have irregular trains, is there any indication they will install the same digital signage on the waterfront line that they will be installing on the other lines? It would be really useful in cases like Saturday. I suppose if the Browns decide to leave though there won't be "cases like Saturday" 😑

We took the 55 down to the game on Saturday and visited a friend's tailgate party in the Muny Lot. I was surprised to see that there were some two-car Blue/Green Line trains.