There seems to be a mindset in Cleveland that to study something is wasting time and money better put to use elsewhere.  It smacks against the instant gratification philosophy.  "Do we want it?  Hell yea we want it. So build it already!"  I think there is also a feeling that people with money and interest in projects can sway the people doing the study and perhaps that most studies done in Cleve aren't ever independent or objective or will take forever to complete.  Finally, there's no assurance when the study is complete that the pols will even act on the results of the study.

 

On a different note I took a look at RTA website to get a look at the structure of the organization and came across their 2025 plan.  I was struck that they take the path in regards to rail expansion that since they have no clue what is going to happen with the land around Cleveland and its suburbs in the next 15+ years they have no thoughts about rail expansion at this time.  I wonder when that time is going to come when they will understand what is happening with the land use..  Will there be a little bell that goes off in someone's head?  Will they then issue a rail expansion directive?  I can see with the amount of projects that are on the board from the various developers that a year or 2 wait to come up with rail expansion wasn't a bad idea but I think they need to get on the ball now and start realizing the potential of expansion.  There have been enough projects announced throughout the region to have an idea of what land use is going to look like in the next 10 years.  Now they should figure out who to partner with in helping the developers achieve their goals not sit around as uninterested bystanders.

Your company wouldn't last 10 seconds against all the other well-established engineering companies that actually have a clue as to why studies are needed. And, if federal funds are sought, a series of studies are required by LAW.

 

OK, tell me, how much will it cost? What will the ridership/revenues be? How many train frequencies are needed? What does the operational analysis say about the ability of commuter rail to interface with freight traffic? Where will extra capacity/siding tracks be needed? How much train equipment is needed? Where should the stations go?

 

Would you rather find out by just putting trains on the tracks and finding out the hard way? By having trains scheduled at times when people don't want them? By causing conflicts with existing freight traffic and having trains late all the time? By having to relocate stations that were already built in the wrong places with your tax dollars?

 

With your apparent lack of desire to plan ahead, I'd love to see what your finances look like.

 

There was a study done in 1970 about building a train system in the state of ohio. Its in the main library. majorirty of the stuff you stated is in the book

 

Well THAT'S current and relevant! :roll:

GREAT WAY OF PUTTING IT: "voluntarily holding ourselves back."

 

What ridership study has RTA conducted of the West Shore Corridor? What capital cost analysis of various options for implementing service has been done by them? None on either count. That is what we are trying to do -- get the answers. But lack of information apparently has not stopped RTA from forming their own opinion about rail.

 

As for traffic congestion, it's is a lousy rationale for building rail or other transit -- it puts transit in the sloppy-seconds role. All successful transportation projects were built on their own merits to serve public policy goals and given the opportunity to shape their own supportive land uses. Building rail as a relief valve for highways is a sure way to limit the usefulness of transit to only a rush-hour service, and not a way to build a transit-based lifestyle that can truly reduce vehicle-miles traveled, curb urban sprawl, reduce energy use and cut ozone precursor emissions.

 

 

Amen...

There was a study done in 1970 about building a train system in the state of ohio. Its in the main library. majorirty of the stuff you stated is in the book

 

Not sure what study you're talking about. But just to humor you, it's not like there's been no changes in commuting patterns, rail traffic patterns, rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, land use patterns, population demographics, public policies and just about everything in the past 37 years.

 

I always love reading your stuff Edsiou. I'm always interested to read what's happening on other planets.

^by the by, while we hear a lot about West Shore, what is up with the cvsr proposed extension to TC?  If it is built, what possibility would it become, at least in part, a commuter rail line?  Just to reiterate contra Mr. Self, I-77 south is usually a commuter nightmare so such a rail line would be of great service to a lot of people.  I noticed  a freshly graveled stub rail line down near the TC amphitheater during the Rib Cookoff.

 

 

To me it would make more sense to extend the rail east along the lake towards Euclid.  It would hit more low income residential areas which are the main users of public transportation.

To me it would make more sense to extend the rail east along the lake towards Euclid.  It would hit more low income residential areas which are the main users of public transportation.

 

That's what I'd like to see. Plus it may entice drivers in the Northeastern area to take rail transit, since now they have to drive to the Windemere station, when its easier to just take 90.

^by the by, while we hear a lot about West Shore, what is up with the cvsr proposed extension to TC?  If it is built, what possibility would it become, at least in part, a commuter rail line?  Just to reiterate contra Mr. Self, I-77 south is usually a commuter nightmare so such a rail line would be of great service to a lot of people.  I noticed  a freshly graveled stub rail line down near the TC amphitheater during the Rib Cookoff.

 

No service is imminent. CSX is being a real pain in the ass in giving CVSR access to its tracks north of Rockside to downtown. But, should CVSR get access (or better yet, acquire the tracks), here's how CVSR might be of use to commuters...

 

CVSR's rail equipment yard and maintenance building is located about 4,000 feet south of Alexander/Pleasant Valley Road. CVSR will probably want to have their first train heading south from Tower City to get people to the national park. Why run an empty (known as a "deadhead") equipment move all the way to Tower City? Why not carry fare-paying passengers?

 

However, friends of mine at CVSR say they'd like to run a shuttle service using their new (well, new to CVSR) Rail Diesel Cars between Tower City and Rockside Road and make a couple stops along the way (ie: Steelyard Commons, Canalway Visitors Center off East 49th, Granger Road, etc). Maybe they can run shuttles a bit farther south to get more into the park. But perhaps using a deadhead run as a revenue move might suffice as the "commuter" run. But it would be that only by use, not by design, mind you. Under state law, RTA is the only service provider allowed to carry transit passengers within Cuyahoga County (except by interagency agreement).

To me it would make more sense to extend the rail east along the lake towards Euclid.  It would hit more low income residential areas which are the main users of public transportation.

 

That's what I'd like to see. Plus it may entice drivers in the Northeastern area to take rail transit, since now they have to drive to the Windemere station, when its easier to just take 90.

 

Might be VERY easy to do, at least from Collinwood to downtown. CSX has reduced use of the line next to I-90 to such an extent that Amtrak's two daily passenger trains outnumber CSX freight trains. Under federal law, CSX must maintain Amtrak-used tracks to the condition they were in when CSX acquired them, pay Amtrak a penalty, or pay any capital construction that will allow Amtrak to use an alternative route.

 

So what speed is that track next to I-90 maintained for? 79 mph.

 

Add a couple of low-cost station platforms, lease some train cars, secure an operating subsidy, and you've got yourself a commuter rail service from downtown to Collinwood. Assuming CSX will let you!

CSX... booo!

KJP, I know I asked this before, but do you remember the "railbus".  What was that all about?

GCRTA borrowed a British Leyland Railbus and ran it for about a month during rush hours in the spring of 1985. It ran from the Shaker Rapid Transit platforms at Tower City Center to a transfer track near the East 55th shops. It then used Norfolk Southern tracks east to Mentor (SR615/Depot Street area), making an enroute stop in Euclid (near where RTA's park-n-ride is today of St. Clair). By the end of the demonstration, it was carrying so many passengers that people stood jammed in the aisle of the small rail vehicle. I believe its seating capacity was 50 people. The passengers began a petition drive to get the Railbus to stay. But it went back to the UK. All was not lost, though. The demonstration resulted in Laketran operating express buses from Lake County to downtown Cleveland via I-90.

 

Here's what the Railbus looked like on its home turf in the UK (though not the exact same Railbus that ran here, but pretty close). I shot beta video of it and a few stills, but I don't remember where the stills are.

 

 

KJP, I don't remember that, but I guess I was away at school and not really paying attention to what was happening in the urban planning world.

 

Wow...who knew!  Thanks for the education!

There was a study done in 1970 about building a train system in the state of ohio. Its in the main library. majorirty of the stuff you stated is in the book

 

Not sure what study you're talking about. But just to humor you, it's not like there's been no changes in commuting patterns, rail traffic patterns, rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, land use patterns, population demographics, public policies and just about everything in the past 37 years.

 

I always love reading your stuff Edsiou. I'm always interested to read what's happening on other planets.

 

In 1980 there was suspose to be a 1% sales tax increase for train services like hub ohio is pushing for. We had the recession and that tax went to the general fund.THe whole study is in the library.

 

 

Other planet.

How silly.

Then again working for a second rate newspaper.

 

I got a question.

 

 

Would this be viable for CVSR,

 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

availability of capital to short line railroads for infrastructure investment

 

If they could adapt the CVSR as a short line Rail road,then the federal goverment would kick in funding.

 

Edsiou, you can leave the personal attacks out of your posts (and spend more time making them coherent)- the next one I see gets you a month off.

I'll second that. 

In 1980 there was suspose to be a 1% sales tax increase for train services like hub ohio is pushing for. We had the recession and that tax went to the general fund.THe whole study is in the library.

 

The high-speed rail sales tax was in 1982 and voted down. Thus it was never collected for anything.

 

I got a question.

Would this be viable for CVSR,

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

availability of capital to short line railroads for infrastructure investment

 

If they could adapt the CVSR as a short line Rail road,then the federal goverment would kick in funding.

 

Not true. CVSR is eligible today for federal funding through the TEA21 renewal in 2005, called SAFETEA-LU, via a new program called Transit In The Parks.

 

Pretty good awareness for a reporter at a second-rate newspaper, donchathink?!?

 

Don't worry fellas, I'm leaving it there.

Edsiou, you can leave the personal attacks out of your posts (and spend more time making them coherent)- the next one I see gets you a month off.

 

Please forgive but then again will you be scolding KJP

  "I'm always interested to read what's happening on other planets"

on his personal attacks.

 

To me it would make more sense to extend the rail east along the lake towards Euclid.  It would hit more low income residential areas which are the main users of public transportation.

 

 

 

That's what I'd like to see. Plus it may entice drivers in the Northeastern area to take rail transit, since now they have to drive to the Windemere station, when its easier to just take 90.

 

Might be VERY easy to do, at least from Collinwood to downtown. CSX has reduced use of the line next to I-90 to such an extent that Amtrak's two daily passenger trains outnumber CSX freight trains. Under federal law, CSX must maintain Amtrak-used tracks to the condition they were in when CSX acquired them, pay Amtrak a penalty, or pay any capital construction that will allow Amtrak to use an alternative route.

 

So what speed is that track next to I-90 maintained for? 79 mph.

 

Add a couple of low-cost station platforms, lease some train cars, secure an operating subsidy, and you've got yourself a commuter rail service from downtown to Collinwood. Assuming CSX will let you!

 

 

Were would the stations be?

Edsiou, this isn't the elementary school playground - I don't care who started it, I'm asking *you* to shape up.

Edsiou, this isn't the elementary school playground - I don't care who started it, I'm asking *you* to shape up.

 

Ill put the dun cap on for today.

 

THis talk of the train go down to collinwood,is not bad but in a many of the areas it is not viable for example 55 st. and the collinwood yards.. To congested with trians that would be hard to set up a station.

Where there's a will, there's a way!

were there ever any plans for more stations on the red line (within the existing system footprint)?

 

it seems that there are some stretches between red line stations west of tower city that are spaced unusually far apart for an urban heavy rail system.  although some of the areas aren't dense today (and idk how they were years ago), i wonder if any of the land around the red line and w41 or w44 and red line and w85, for example, could be primed for TOD type devlopments.

 

what would it take for RTA to add a station, even if it was a barebones wood platform to start with? and are there any reasons that these areas (or others) couldn't be added to the system (with TOD construction, for example)?  with proof-of-payment coming online soon, fare collection wouldn't slow down the trains and might allow for a few extra stops within the existing 25 minute trip to the airport. 

Funny you should mention West 44th! In 1970, then-Cleveland Planning Director Norm Krumholz was part of developing plans plans for a significant transit oriented development, including high-rise housing, retail and such around a new Red Line station at West 44th. I don't know why it didn't happen.

 

There has also been discussion in the past few years of relocating the Campus station to the East 14th/Broadway area or to East 30th/Broadway to be closer to the post office (thousands of workers!) and a little closer to Tri-C Metro. But that wouldn't increase the number of stations on the rapid system. It's just a relocation.

I agree, that campus station needs to be relocated.  Its current location is just out of place and not accessible to the area it seeks to serve.

 

Does anyone know when RTA decided to not extend the Green line?  Because they obviously had intended to do so from Green Road to Brainard Road/I-271 which would be great because it would promote those from other areas to use the Rapid.  I have friends from Mentor who have never rode the train because it's inconvenient to get to.  Now if there was a park and ride off of I-271 they might do so.  The roads were clearly designed to extend the line.

 

Now I know the city of Beachwood has built a small park in a portion of this land, but if the RTA decided they wanted to do this extension at some point, would it be possible?  It's not as if they built any structure, just some walking trails and parking lots, no buildings.  Or did RTA sell the land to the city of Beachwood?

I agree, that campus station needs to be relocated.  Its current location is just out of place and not accessible to the area it seeks to serve.

 

Does anyone know when RTA decided to not extend the Green line?  Because they obviously had intended to do so from Green Road to Brainard Road/I-271 which would be great because it would promote those from other areas to use the Rapid.  I have friends from Mentor who have never rode the train because it's inconvenient to get to.  Now if there was a park and ride off of I-271 they might do so.  The roads were clearly designed to extend the line.

 

Now I know the city of Beachwood has built a small park in a portion of this land, but if the RTA decided they wanted to do this extension at some point, would it be possible?  It's not as if they built any structure, just some walking trails and parking lots, no buildings.  Or did RTA sell the land to the city of Beachwood?

 

KS...if you search this thread, or clvlndr name he explained what happened. I think there was pretty significant discussion on the Green Line extention.

^or did RTA even own the land to begin with?

I believe the land was/is municipally owned. I don't think it was transferred to RTA when the city of Shaker Heights transferred the Rapid to them.

^or did RTA even own the land to begin with?

 

I'm pretty sure the land in shaker heights is owned by shaker heights not RTA, even after the transition from SHRT to RTA.  Not sure about the Beachwood land.

 

The one thing Shaker and/or RTA could have done was extend the line to Sulgrave as there is a very small parking lot there.  However, where the Sulgrave Parking is place, might actually be in Beachwood.

Funny you should mention West 44th! In 1970, then-Cleveland Planning Director Norm Krumholz was part of developing plans plans for a significant transit oriented development, including high-rise housing, retail and such around a new Red Line station at West 44th. I don't know why it didn't happen.

 

Wow, that's nearly 40 years ago and, yet, we're still struggling to get at least some TOD even at existing stations. Urbanlife raises an interesting discussion and should be investigated by RTA.  On the East Side, some community group (I forget) suggested when (if?) E. 120 is finally relocated closer to Little Italy that a new station be built at Lakeview, in E. Cleve; where that empty factory was demolished a few years ago.  I believe the Vans, who planned the Red Line, called for a station at Mayflield L.Italy and Lakeview -- is this "Back to the Future?"

 

Ironic Norm Krumholz and the Green Line/I-271 extension should arise in back-to-back posts, for he led the charge to squelch the project, which called for a Mode Mixer parking lot connecting to I-271 (why spend $Millions to serve "fat cats" I believe he said).   Not a bad guy politically but, but is staunchly anti-rail -- I think this extension is now off the radar in favor of the Blue-Line/I-271 proposal.  In the 30 intervening years, the Shaker/Richmond Rd/271 area remains noncommercial; rezoning, now, would be problematic.

Btw, has anyone heard anything about the E.120 station relocation proposal?  An RFQ from RTA went out sometime last year, but things have gone quiet.  Also, the proposal to finally redevelop the Triangle at U. Circle, where a new station would serve, has gone quiet, too, aside from the fact that the building at the Triangle where MOCA's supposed to relocate has been vacated.

 

Silence is never good with major projects in this town.  Any updates re both these would be appreciated...

Blue line extension to I-271 would be great also.  Does anyone know how far back I should look to read up on the blue line extension and/or have some sort of site about it?

According to RTA's website, www.riderta.com, the Blue Line extension is put on hold for now. Look under "Major Projects", and you'll find their 2025 Transit Plan. That's the most recent information on there in regards to that, anyway.

It seems Shaker Heights is more interested in developing the median of Shaker Blvd., not putting the Green Line down it. That's a project not likely to happen.

 

RTA put the Blue Line extension on hold when it realized it couldn't convince the Jacobs Group to pursue developing Chagrin Highlands with pedestrian- and transit-friendly development patterns. There wasn't much sense in extending a rail line to I-271 when it would be surrounded by parking lots and wide open spaces. It probably would have generated some decent ridership during the rush hours, but that doesn't warrant building $150 million worth of transit infrastructure to carry people no more than four hours a day. But that doesn't seem to dissuade ODOT from adding that extra lane each way to area interstates to handle rush hour travel.

Ergh, I say!!

I still do not understand this.  Even to Sulgrave as promised when the "rehabilition" was started has never been realized.  But WTF I'm not going past Coventry on the train on a regular basis any damn way!

I still do not understand this.  Even to Sulgrave as promised when the "rehabilition" was started has never been realized.  But WTF I'm not going past Coventry on the train on a regular basis any damn way!

 

you're not missing much.....except me, sob.

It seems Shaker Heights is more interested in developing the median of Shaker Blvd., not putting the Green Line down it. That's a project not likely to happen.

 

RTA put the Blue Line extension on hold when it realized it couldn't convince the Jacobs Group to pursue developing Chagrin Highlands with pedestrian- and transit-friendly development patterns. There wasn't much sense in extending a rail line to I-271 when it would be surrounded by parking lots and wide open spaces. It probably would have generated some decent ridership during the rush hours, but that doesn't warrant building $150 million worth of transit infrastructure to carry people no more than four hours a day. But that doesn't seem to dissuade ODOT from adding that extra lane each way to area interstates to handle rush hour travel.

 

I think it's more than Shaker; when RTA pulled the plug, Beachwood decided to move away from trying to accommodate Green Line expansion.

 

As for the Blue Line you're saying this: Jacobs has a rail line that could be extended to his development, but he'd rather not construct the development for high density that would best support it... Meanwhile, on the West Side, we have a high-density, faux Main Street (Crocker Park) out in the middle of nowhere amdist sprawl and no rapid rail nearby... Sometimes, the lack of vision, cooperation or flat-out leadership in this region makes you want to pull your hair out.

 

were there ever any plans for more stations on the red line (within the existing system footprint)?

 

it seems that there are some stretches between red line stations west of tower city that are spaced unusually far apart for an urban heavy rail system.  although some of the areas aren't dense today (and idk how they were years ago), i wonder if any of the land around the red line and w41 or w44 and red line and w85, for example, could be primed for TOD type devlopments.

 

what would it take for RTA to add a station, even if it was a barebones wood platform to start with? and are there any reasons that these areas (or others) couldn't be added to the system (with TOD construction, for example)?  with proof-of-payment coming online soon, fare collection wouldn't slow down the trains and might allow for a few extra stops within the existing 25 minute trip to the airport. 

 

I'd like to see an elevated station at Center Street where the Red Line is on a viaduct over the Flats.  It could serve to spur development of that area, and would be within walking distance of Stonebridge and the Powerhouse.

I've thought about that, too. But it would be a very expensive station, and would be a facility that would depend on elevators to get people to/from the overhead bridge. I'm sure many of use have used extra large elevators on some very deep subway stations. That's the kind of elevators that would be needed. And they would need two of them to serve two platforms since the Red Line tracks are on the outside of the bridge with the Shaker layover tracks in the middle. You couldn't do a single platform with the current track configuration that's on the bridge. You'd also need two sets of stairwells for emergencies/back-up. I'd love to see a station there but I don't see it happening.

 

Clvlndr, don't pull your hair out every time you see something dumb happening with transit and development patterns in this town. You'll never have any hair left. Sometimes you just have to keep pointing to the smart things as examples rather than critique the dumb things to convey the message AND to keep yourself sane.

Clvlndr, don't pull your hair out every time you see something dumb happening with transit and development patterns in this town. You'll never have any hair left. Sometimes you just have to keep pointing to the smart things as examples rather than critique the dumb things to convey the message AND to keep yourself sane.

 

Unfortunately, too true. Sigh. Doesn't Cleveland realize that they could be a leader in architecture/design if only they wouldn't tend to settle for the mediocre? Frustration!

Hell with just a station on the RTA Viaduct, let's build on the damn thing and use it as a combination street/mass transit right of way.  Basically a hyper stonebridge that is designed, planned, and built well.

I'd imagine the safety concerns would be too enormous for it to be likely, but I'd like to see a pedestrian walkway on the RTA/CUT viaduct.  It would provide a direct pedestrian route between Ohio City and the center of Downtown, and vice-versa. As an extension of the Tower City-to-Gateway walkway, it could begin in Tower City and end at the doors of the West Side Market.

 

Only problem is, the Red Line tracks run along the edge of the bridge for most of the run, so pedestrians wouldn't be able to see much.  And again with the safety concerns, there would be too many adventurous (i.e., stupid) sightseers that would try to hop onto the tracks.  And, obviously, it would be pointless because a mass transit line already exists on that route. :)

Hell with just a station on the RTA Viaduct, let's build on the damn thing and use it as a combination street/mass transit right of way.  Basically a hyper stonebridge that is designed, planned, and built well.

 

That would be totally awesome.

 

I'd imagine the safety concerns would be too enormous for it to be likely, but I'd like to see a pedestrian walkway on the RTA/CUT viaduct.  It would provide a direct pedestrian route between Ohio City and the center of Downtown, and vice-versa. As an extension of the Tower City-to-Gateway walkway, it could begin in Tower City and end at the doors of the West Side Market.

 

As would that.  I love stairing at the satellite pictures of the viaduct and daydreaming of such things...clearly I am going to get fired if that's how I spend my day.

As a city we should be viewing constraints as opportunities (are you listening Marcel Breuer tower opponents)?  The safety concerns would not be too enormous, come up with something that becomes an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Cleveland's motto, one that not too many people know:

PROGRESS AND PROSPERITY

^Guys, while I appreciate your desire for the City and creativity, don't you think we want RTA to actually improve (and maybe someday) expand the Rapid, first, before we go building cutsie, side stuff like a pedway over the Red Line viaduct? ... esp given all the bridges over the Flats -- including the Det-Superior streetcar subway deck... just a thought.

What is the difference between the 1960's-1970's, when a lot of US cities expanded their rail lines, and now?  I'm sure expanding rail has always been expensive but the costs didn't seem to bother some cities.  I'm wondering why Cleveland's rail seems so second rate compared to other cities of the same size.

^I'd argue (with no facts of course) that for the longest time Cleveland was an excellent example of good mass transit for a city its size. However, in recent years its being jumped over by the likes of St. Louis and Minneapolis and Dallas and Denver and.......