People seemed to want to talk about this a lot. I started a thread like this before, but I allowed it to denigrate into an argument with someone I didn't agree with. Yet I see from the GCRTA thread that this is a hot enough topic, so I've transferred the discussion from that thread to this one. You all can chat about the Waterfront Line extension all you want.

 

But someone will have to force it down Joe Calabrese's throat to get RTA to consider it again.

 

Just to re-cap, this is the routing for the Waterfront Line extension which RTA seemed to favor after conducting a Major Investment Study in 2000 or 2001.....

 

waterfrontlineII-m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

RTA's Waterfront Line on a downhill track

Posted by Sarah Hollander August 11, 2008 05:53AM

 

CLEVELAND -- When the Waterfront Line opened 12 years ago last month, Cleveland was caught up in the optimism of a comeback city.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/rtas_waterfront_line_on_a_down.html

Perhaps it is time to start planning extending the Waterfront line along more of the "water front"..... as in paralleling the Shoreway to the East.....to reach more potential riders.  It is a great asset, but I always wondering why it just stopped at the Rock Hall and went no further.

^Actually it goes to the Municipal Lot with the final station at approximately East 13th and South Marginal Road.

i always thought it was a ridiculous pet project of mike white's in the first place and was then stunned that they didnt bury it from tc to the northern flyover curve stretch while they had the chance. ah well.

 

agree it at least needs to be expanded east to reach it's 'current' full potential.

 

it will definately eventually reach it's 'full' potential, but too bad for the time being it's a rapid line ahead of it's time.

 

i wish one day they would extend it west too at the flyover to whisky island and edgewater --- beach train!!!

 

 

 

In the long run I think it'll be fully integrated into the FEB project and be of great use.  I'd like to see it go east of the Rock HOF, CBS, etc.. however, the track space issue with CSX is obviously a problem.

Which track space issue with CSX?

 

 

Hunter Morrison, Cleveland's planning director through the 1980s and '90s, said he's confounded by the fate of the line. He and others figured major development would quickly spring up around the stations, sustaining a steady supply of passengers.

 

"I go to Portland, Chicago, Seattle, and they've been pursuing transit-oriented development for 15 years," he said. "What's wrong with Cleveland?"

 

Morrison said RTA is not to blame for the line's low ridership. "RTA can only do so much. The other players [developers and residents] need to act."

 

Exactly the point!  Most cities would have sprouted development even before the Waterfront Line was finished... but here, 12 years later, and we're just starting development in a small footprint in a portion of torn-down Flats.  Most cities wouldn't have zero TOD development where their line ends -- next to a weed-covered hill in a large, surface parking lot like Muny... It's called TOD!... Then again, MOST cities would NOT of allowed their nationally-recognized entertainment district slide into the crapper so quickly, either.

I see cutting the Waterfront Line to barebones like this as foolish... more symbolism than really saving money, because RTA wouldn't be; not really.  $314,000 in savings for a year is pocket change (as is $625,000/year to operate the WFL) for an agency RTA’s size, when you get down to it, esp for an electrified rail line.  It only highlights what I've noted before: you're not saving much because the WFL is an extended rail service, not a stand-alone rapid rail line; Blue/Green motormen are on-shift anyway; electric is already being used, and the 2.2 mile extension isn't long enough to drain the coffers that much.

 

It's funny how folks here always bitch about the empty trains of which, admittedly, there are some.  But what about the 247-loop (or is it now a trolley?); whatever it is ... the one that goes from Public Sq. and, more or less duplicate the WFL route even ending in the Muny Lot.  Many times during the course of the day, I've seen as many of those buses, if not more, running empty as I do WFL trains, yet nobody says anything EVEN THOUGH the buses are running on the thing fuel that got us into this mess initially (or so we're told): GAS... is there something wrong with this picture.

 

... Cleveland people just don't get it: the Waterfront Line is probably the most visible transit line to out-of-towners; including people who shape national public opinion about our town -- oh yeah, they DO matter folks; esp when we're trying to lure commerce and industry here.  It serves our most visible attraction: the Rock Hall.  And right at a time when we're trying to encourage transit; right when we're finally building SOME TOD along the line to try and get folks more in the habit of utilizing transit to get there, we pull the plug on the Waterfront Line (well, just about) ... So while I see cutting out the Community Circulators as even MORE hideous because of the many transit-needy who rely on them, these Waterfront Line cuts are foolish, too imho… (oh yeah, there are plenty of blue-collar employees (of the Rock Hall, Stadium, Federal Building and others) who rely on the WFL, ... during NON rush hour; what about them?

 

 

agree it at least needs to be expanded east to reach it's 'current' full potential.

 

it will definately eventually reach it's 'full' potential, but too bad for the time being it's a rapid line ahead of it's time.

Perhaps it is time to start planning extending the Waterfront line along more of the "water front"..... as in paralleling the Shoreway to the East.....to reach more potential riders.  It is a great asset, but I always wondering why it just stopped at the Rock Hall and went no further.

Wouldn't it also be important for it to have a southward link that would at least connect with an east-west transit line (i.e. Silver Line) to complete the "Loop" back to Tower City?

agree it at least needs to be expanded east to reach it's 'current' full potential.

 

it will definately eventually reach it's 'full' potential, but too bad for the time being it's a rapid line ahead of it's time.

Perhaps it is time to start planning extending the Waterfront line along more of the "water front"..... as in paralleling the Shoreway to the East.....to reach more potential riders. It is a great asset, but I always wondering why it just stopped at the Rock Hall and went no further.

Wouldn't it also be important for it to have a southward link that would at least connect with an east-west transit line (i.e. Silver Line) to complete the "Loop" back to Tower City?

 

I would love to see the waterfront line loop back up East 12th, go underground at Reserve Square and then travel underneath Huron to connect back to Tower City... can we make it happen?

No. Not as long as Joe Calabrese is GM/CEO of GCRTA. He canceled the further planning for the Waterfront Line II/Downtown Loop.

agree it at least needs to be expanded east to reach it's 'current' full potential.

 

it will definately eventually reach it's 'full' potential, but too bad for the time being it's a rapid line ahead of it's time.

Perhaps it is time to start planning extending the Waterfront line along more of the "water front"..... as in paralleling the Shoreway to the East.....to reach more potential riders. It is a great asset, but I always wondering why it just stopped at the Rock Hall and went no further.

Wouldn't it also be important for it to have a southward link that would at least connect with an east-west transit line (i.e. Silver Line) to complete the "Loop" back to Tower City?

 

I think the East/Lakeshore route is more important.  It serves a wider area and greater population that has no access to rail... More importantly, the Lakefront line has the greatest potential to FINALLY spur residential (hopefully high rise/high density) development on our ugly lakeshore.

No. Not as long as Joe Calabrese is GM/CEO of GCRTA. He canceled the further planning for the Waterfront Line II/Downtown Loop.

 

Well, I'm glad at the very least people are starting to talk critically about this man... It's not a personal thing at all, but it's time to realize the important public trust being RTA chair entails and that Calabrese is acting irresponsibly towards planning for the future.  Running a system nicely and garnering "Best Transit system" in North America isn't the whole of his responsibilities.

I think that if locals are not happy with Calabrese's attitude toward rail projects, they should say so. If it were me, I'd start talking to other groups and also begin a dialog with RTA board members. They set the policy.

 

As far as the Waterfront Line is concerned, I'd propose the following:

 

a) Extension east in phases, first to E. 55th St, then to Euclid Square Mall, which would be converted into a transportation hub/TOD development, replacing the defunct mall.

 

b) Construction of a downtown loop, as previously discussed.

 

Other stuff:

 

a) Construction of a new Cleveland Intermodal Hub at the site of the current Amtrak station, connecting the present convention center with the lakefront. Air rights could be developed in the form of high-rise towers.

 

b) Extension of the Blue Line to I-271

 

There's more, but I think the best thing would be for all who might advocate changes such as these to come together and agree on a common proposal and take that to the RTA board, Cleveland City Council, the mayor and developers.

 

I wouldn't listen to naysayers like Calabrese for one minute. We should be driving the agenda here and not vice-versa.

agree it at least needs to be expanded east to reach it's 'current' full potential.

 

it will definately eventually reach it's 'full' potential, but too bad for the time being it's a rapid line ahead of it's time.

Perhaps it is time to start planning extending the Waterfront line along more of the "water front"..... as in paralleling the Shoreway to the East.....to reach more potential riders. It is a great asset, but I always wondering why it just stopped at the Rock Hall and went no further.

Wouldn't it also be important for it to have a southward link that would at least connect with an east-west transit line (i.e. Silver Line) to complete the "Loop" back to Tower City?

 

I think the East/Lakeshore route is more important. It serves a wider area and greater population that has no access to rail... More importantly, the Lakefront line has the greatest potential to FINALLY spur residential (hopefully high rise/high density) development on our ugly lakeshore.

 

I agree that the lakeshore extension will increase ridership and development, but I think it's very important to include a plan to complete the downtown loop along with the lakefront extension.  I think more people would be willing to ride if they could be dropped off on East 12th at Lakeside, Superior or Euclid instead of East 9th down by the Rock Hall.  That's a pretty lengthy walk uphill... and in the winter can be a beast with the winds off the lake.

^Hootenany, if most or all such a loop could be either elevated or in tunnel, I'm with you. 

OK everyone...time for one of those patented KJP diagrams!! :-D

Sounds like help may very well be on the way - *for the immediately coming year*. How do we make sure this translates into long-term improvement in GCRTA's bottom line?

I know this would be sort of a hybrid between two threads.. but with the increasing ridership of Amtrak and the potential for additional routes through Cleveland, it would seem to me that RTA would want to capitalize on the waterfront line stopping at the Amtrak station.

^Hootenany, if most or all such a loop could be either elevated or in tunnel, I'm with you.

 

I was thinking that it could run in the median on East 12th until it got in front of Reserve Square with priority lighting similar to the BRT.  This would possibly reduce East 12th to 4 lanes instead of 6... but I think that would be acceptable.  It would go underground before crossing chester, continue under East 12th, cross Euclid, go under the buildings there and then basically follow Huron back to the tracks that go into Tower City.  Didn't someone mention something about an unfinished tunnel under a portion of Huron??? 

 

As for the subway stops I would think you would have one at Euclid and E 12th, Huron and Prospect intersection (probably at that little park/plaza thing... but that would make the Euclid and Prospect stops really close.), and then finally one by the Q.  These stops may be spaced too close though.  There may only be room for two stops in which case the Euclid and Q stops probably make the most sense.

^The more I think about it the more I love this idea.  I think it would spur a lot of development on the East side of E 12th while serving the current office complexes West of E 12th... perfect?

Part of the problem with RTA is that it only touches one place in downtown: Tower City. This has been a problem since the Van Sweringen days and a loop would address that. The Lakefront extension partially addressed that, but with the cut in service (with more to come) the line does not really help, at least as things are now.

 

Yes, there is an unfinished tunnel under Huron. This was a part of the Van's plans back in the day. If you ride a train into Tower City from the east and drop down and then back up on a roller coaster alignment, you are at the point where the tunnel branches off. I don't know how far it goes...probably not far.

 

One problem we will have is how to get past the railroad tracks at the lakefront. The Waterfront line is on the north side of those tracks and you'd have to either burrow under or go over them.

 

Looking at a map, it appears that the Waterfront Line would have to drop downgrade immediately east of the E 9th St station into a trench. The tracks would have to go low enough to turn and go under the railroad and then come back to to street level between Lakeside and St. Clair. Any Lakefront extension to E 55th and beyond would branch off at the bottom of the trench and come back up to the east.

 

This is a very constricted area. S. Marginal Rd is right next to the tracks---very crowded---but it might be possible.

 

We could have stops at E. Lakeside Ave - St. Clair Ave. -Superior Ave. - Euclid Ave (a must) - E. 9th/E Huron - E 6th/E Huron. That would hit a lot of popular destinations in downtown.

 

Apart from that, I think it makes sense to go down E 12th. I doubt the auto traffic would justify 6 lanes there anyway.

 

I'd like to see someone develop a proposal to build the loop, extend the waterfront line east and build an intermodal terminal between Mall C (as proposed many years ago) and the Lakefront, over RTA and Amtrak. Build the new convention center, the intermodal hub and high rise housing over the tracks, tying the Lakefront to downtown proper.

 

One other thing to consider: Look at the possibility of wye tracks at the E 12th junction. That way, a train from Euclid could turn south at E 12th St and loop all the way around downtown and head back east via Tower City and E 9th St.

One problem we will have is how to get past the rail tracks at the lakefront. The Waterfront line is on the north side of those tracks and you'd have to either burrow under or go over them.

 

Apart from that, I think it makes sense to go down E 12th. I doubt the auto traffic would justify 6 lanes there anyway.

 

 

I would think you could ramp the waterfront line up to make it level with E12 along the lakefront and create a 'T' intersection at that level.  The waterfront line travelling East would drop back down to the current track level and continue East.  The spur heading South on E 12th would go over the freight tracks and start travelling down the median.

 

With this 'T' intersection (not sure what the rail term is) you could have a continuous downtown loop (CW and CCW) while allowing the newly extended waterfront line to terminate at Tower City.  Or you could just terminate it at a new intermodal station near the Amtrak station as you mention.  I really think this downtown loop is necessary for the long term success of both RTA and the City of Cleveland.

That E 12th St junction would have to evaluated by an engineer, which I am not. The reason I proposed a tunnel is that the railroad tracks are going upgrade and are probably 6-10 ft above the RTA Lakefront tracks at that point.

 

You'd have to add that to the 25' clearance you'd need get over the railroad tracks if you build an overpass. Thus you'd have a humpback up to clear the railroad and then drop back down to E 12th Street level. In addition, you'd have a very steep climb between E 9th and E 12th. Not sure if that would work. Again, an engineering firm would have to answer that.

 

Conversely, if you are going UNDER the tracks, you only need to drop about 20 ft., since that railroad rise works to our advantage. However, once you get to the south side of the tracks, you probably will be at least 40 ft below street level, necessitating a long climb to the surface between Lakeside and St. Clair, probably closer to the latter.

 

Either way would be tricky.

 

The rail term for a "T" intersection is a wye, which is what I was talking about before. Sorry about that rail jargon. :-D

 

One other note: In conversations with The Authority---KJP---we discussed this idea and he came up with a downtown loop that came off the Lakefront at E 17th St and ran south to a point near Playhouse Square and on, ducking between some buildings to a point where the line could turn west to Tower City or head south to RTA to back east. The nice thing about this is that rail lines are almost at street level by this point, making burrowing under them much easier.

 

I'll let him add his two cents from here on...

^I would think it would be easier and cheaper to go up and over then tracks than under even if you do need to rise above the level of E 12th.  A bridge designed to support commuter/light rail would be cheaper than the bridge necessary to support the freight traffic.

 

So, does a 'wye' on the waterfront line allow a train travelling north on E 12th to go east AND west when it gets to the waterfront?  I think that is a must to allow the new extension to terminate at Tower City OR a new intermodal station near Amtrak.

We'd need an alternatives analysis to see whether a bridge or tunnel is best or even what route, whether it's E 12th or E 17th.

 

Yes, a wye would allow trains coming off E 12th going north to head east or west --or-- Trains from Euclid could either go to the lakefront or Tower City --or-- loop around downtown and back, hitting both places. Max flexibility is key.

^Thanks for the thread and the recap KJP.  I have actually never seen this rendering/plans as I'm pretty new to the forum.  Interesting that there seems to be no true 'loop' in this plan.  I guess the BRT could make it a loop with a transfer...

 

KJP - can I find a copy of this study anywhere?  Just curious why they only proposed the E 17th street route.  It seems to me that there isn't really much out there.  Sure this would spur development but would it happen fast enough?  Or would they cut service just like they are doing now with the current Waterfront line?  I just think an E 12th street loop would make more sense, but maybe there were some technical or financial shortcomings.  Anyway, is there a report anywhere I can check out?

I'm sure you could contact RTA or NOACA and get a copy of the Waterfront Line Extension Major Investment Study Final Report.

Discussion redirected from Cleveland casino discussion in projects/construction....

 

I don't share your optimism as the waterfront line takes almost as long as walking does, plus the B line trolley is also competitive on time and is free. I agree that FEB might bring some passengers to the WFL, but I can't see convention goers taking the WFL to the casino.

 

True. But for visitors not accustomed to our weather, they might welcome an option to being out on the streets in winter. And I'm still thinking ahead to things like having intercity passenger trains converging at a North Coast Transportation Center, having the Waterfront Line making a loop of downtown and having two free trains that do nothing but loop the city, clockwise and counterclockwise.

No, but I see conventioneers at the new convention center (extended over the tracks per the North Coast Transportation Center) using the Waterfront Line to visit the casino, or Quicken Loans Arena.

I don't share your optimism as the waterfront line takes almost as long as walking does, plus the B line trolley is also competitive on time and is free. I agree that FEB might bring some passengers to the WFL, but I can't see convention goers taking the WFL to the casino.

 

 

But they will take it and so will residents and workers.  These areas will now all be connected via multiple modes of transportation.  Also, the trolley does not run late a night.  The WFL is the option and in inclement weather, it the ideal way to travel

Discussion redirected from Cleveland casino discussion in projects/construction....

 

I don't share your optimism as the waterfront line takes almost as long as walking does, plus the B line trolley is also competitive on time and is free. I agree that FEB might bring some passengers to the WFL, but I can't see convention goers taking the WFL to the casino.

 

True. But for visitors not accustomed to our weather, they might welcome an option to being out on the streets in winter. And I'm still thinking ahead to things like having intercity passenger trains converging at a North Coast Transportation Center, having the Waterfront Line making a loop of downtown and having two free trains that do nothing but loop the city, clockwise and counterclockwise.

Ok, well if we assume that the WFL gets completed as a loop, and RTA makes it free, and some form of reasonably nice station gets built onto the end of the convention center, then yes, the casino will improve ridership of the WFL. However, I think that completing the WFL as a loop, making it free, and building some form of reasonably nice station at the end of the convention center would do a lot more for the WFL than a casino ever will.

Discussion redirected from Cleveland casino discussion in projects/construction....

 

I don't share your optimism as the waterfront line takes almost as long as walking does, plus the B line trolley is also competitive on time and is free. I agree that FEB might bring some passengers to the WFL, but I can't see convention goers taking the WFL to the casino.

 

True. But for visitors not accustomed to our weather, they might welcome an option to being out on the streets in winter. And I'm still thinking ahead to things like having intercity passenger trains converging at a North Coast Transportation Center, having the Waterfront Line making a loop of downtown and having two free trains that do nothing but loop the city, clockwise and counterclockwise.

 

KJP, I'd also like to add that out-of-town visitors who are unfamiliar with Cleveland may be apprehensive about finding their way from their hotel in FEB to the Science Center or from the casino to the Rock Hall.  A door-to-door connection would be very helpful to such people, especially if they don't have a car at their disposal.

 

More on-topic, though, I'd like to ask you what your thoughts are on the possibility of adding a small WFL station to the casino (effectively creating a new terminus) or barring that, what kind of connection could be made from the casino to the Tower City rapid station?

If they don't connect the casino to Tower City (and thus the rapid station) they are clinically insane.

If the Casino is going to be built at the intersection of Huron and Ontario, than they're building right on top of the walkway from TowerCity to the Q, so reason dictates they'd tie into that.

 

But they will take it and so will residents and workers.

Workers along the line aren't taking it now, I can't imagine that the casino would change that.

Also, the trolley does not run late a night.

Neither does the WFL, but both can be adjusted if needed. In fact I'd be surprised if the casino doesn't become the new sponser of the trolley at some time over the next couple years and sponser it at later hours.

The WFL is the option and in inclement weather, it the ideal way to travel.

I would agree that the WFL would be the prefered method of travel in inclement weather IF the Northcoast Transit Center gets built, otherwise, standing on an exposed or semi exposed platform like you have at E 6th and E 9th now with the wind whipping and rain or snow coming down sounds a whole lot worse than standing in a bus shelter on St. Clair to wait for the trolley.

OK, it's time to have some fun -- with maps and pics!

 

Given the existing, under construction, planned and proposed traffic generators downtown, a permanent, fixed guideway distribution and circulation system linking these sites would seem in order.

 

Ironically, we have some of assets of such a system already in place. Most of you likely know about these. Perhaps you don't know about one of them.....

 

Here are the existing & under construction traffic generators and fixed-guideway circulation system assets downtown:

 

downtown loop1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

Here are some of those assets:

 

Flats East Bank-view of station1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Flats East Bank-083112-rev3m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

FlatsEastBank-092515-3 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

WP_20150624_027 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

IMG_1125 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

IMG_1129 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

IMG_1130 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

20170515_220812 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Norton Furniture building-E21st-Payne-2017 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CSU the langston by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CSU crowds students by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CSU-Edge21-2017 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Playhouse-Sq-apartment-tower3L by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

PlayhouseSquare-night2 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ameritrust-CCHQ-The9 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

ProgressiveField-1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

TheQ-Finals2007-6 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

tower-city by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

And this is what portions of the existing but under-utilized circulation system look like (I'm sure they're familiar to you :) ):

 

WaterfrontLRTVeteransBridge by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

So what happens if you take those assets and make a true circulation system out of them?

 

downtown loop2m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

You could link up the existing downtown traffic generators, as well as these planned and proposed developments.....

 

FlatsEastBank-Phase3-mixed use by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Flats-residential tower-West10th-Dimit-2017Rs by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

IMG_20160511_105438_324 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

nuCLEus-rendering3 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

925 Euclid by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

AT&T Building-2 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

Putting the above pieces together are aided by another, tiny little asset that's been buried for 80 years but still exists........

 

It's called the Huron Subway Header below the intersection of Huron and Ontario. When it was under construction in 1928-29, photographers reminded or told us what still exists -- a very short section of a subway that was built but never used. If this didn't already exist, it's construction cost today would be prohibitive! This short section would have allowed rapid transit trains from Terminal Tower to turn east under Huron Road, below Ontario. It could still do so:

 

Huron subway approach by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Slightly larger construction photos:

 

Huron subway approach1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Huron subway approach4-091728 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Huron subway approach5-091728 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Huron subway approach6-091728 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Huron subway approach10-020129 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Huron subway approach11-030829 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

There was even an etching made of the Huron Subway Header's construction:

Huron subway approach2-Aug1928 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Very cool KJP.  Look at that building canyon running down Huron in that 3rd construction photo.  I want to be there.

wow!

Nicely done....  Hope to see that someday.

Here's a couple more images to describe how this could be done. In this view, the downtown rail loop would have an open cut in the middle of Huron east of East 6th and rise to street level in front of the Caxton Building. A station in the patio area in front of Paninni's et al is proposed........

 

downtown rail loop-huronramp1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

The image below is actually from the Dual Hub Corridor Alternatives Analysis from 1993. Two of the routing options proposed using the Huron Subway "blind headers" that were built in 1929 as part of the Union Terminal (photos shown in a previous posting). In this Dual Hub report image, I erased much of the Dual Hub track elevation profiles and added my own for the Downtown Loop......

 

Downtown rail loop-Huronramp-profile003 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

This Loop plan makes infinitely more sense than the old one -- beginning the loop at way out of the way E.34th area for a winding, indirect streetcar ride through the low-density  (Beachwood-like) St. Luke's Quadrangle area -- where the only major trip generator is a much downsized Tri-C...

 

The above plan is a straight attack connecting the highest density areas of downtown -- Tower City/Public Sq.  Euclid/E. 9th-Gateway, Playhouse Sq. and CSU.... I really like using the extant Van Sweringen tunnels at Huron rather than building a costly grade-separated connection at E. 34th. 

 

My only quibble with the above plan is I'd rather extend the tunnel at least through the 5-point "New Center" intersection at Prospect/E. 9/Huron.  I know the dreaded "S-word" (as in subway) sends chills up Clevelanders' backs, but to bring surface trains thru and already crazy intersection (which promises to get busier once all the planned development in the area is complete) just wouldn't make a lot of sense.  On top of that, the mix of pedestrians and trains, esp in/around the open portal on Huron, could get really messy (and greatly hamper/slow service with some ped danger ta boot) on Cavs and Indians game days where, as you know, there are massive waves of people moving from the stadiums toward E.4th, Euclid and Public Square...  Therefore, why not extend the subway portion a few extra thousand feet and (yes) build one subway station at the New Center intersection?... trains then could surface along the more lightly used Prospect Ave. section east of the intersection so that, then, they could connect with the planned look KJP outlined.  ... and yes, such a subway does hold out the hope that someday, perhaps, the Health Line could be converted to LRT and directly serve Tower City with the underground connection... but that's a subject for another thread.

 

This new Loop proposal should be seriously presented to RTA and the City Planning Commission; esp in light of the numerous exciting (and trip-generating) development that's being executed that would directly benefit from this loop.

 

^I concur.  Great job KJP.

The only reason why I didn't consider extending the tunnel east of East 9th was because of the added cost. My estimate of construction costs for the above downtown loop is $150 million to $200 million. Fifteen years ago, the Dual Hub subway portion-only was about $250 million. Since this tunnel would be shorter and to account for inflation, that's probably a good estimate of costs for a subway continuing to just east of East 9th. Add perhaps another $100 million to continue the rail north on East 17th to the Waterfront Line.

 

What might be involved to extend the tunnel east of East 9th? There is a 7-foot diameter sewer pipe whose top is 16 feet below East 9th. To stay a safe eight feet below that pipe means having the subway tunnel roof be at least 30 feet below the street surface. The tunnel floor would be another 15 feet or so below the street surface. The tracks would need to climb/descend in the middle of Prospect about 45 feet vertically in a 1,000 foot horizontal distance between the intersection of Huron on the EAST side of East 9th and East 14th. That's a gradient of 4.5 percent. Not bad.

 

Now if we could just use the promised casino revenues of $71 million per year to pay for all of this......

But, wait, there's more! This is what the trackage could look like below street level to access the Huron subway. This is based on the initial, 1930-built transit track layout (as opposed to the railroad trackage) yet includes the 1990 modifications made when Tower City Center and the RTA station was rebuilt. Proposing track alignment changes underneath the old Cleveland Union Terminal (Tower City) complex is tricky because there is a forest of support columns at track level. The columns are EVERYWHERE -- they support the overhead buildings and streets. So I proposed only what could be permitted with respect to the original 1930 complex.....

 

downtown rail loop-CUTapproach tracks1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

This the actual 1930 track layout....

 

Cleveland Union Terminal overview....

cut-track-final by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

i'd prefer use of the shaker terminal for a loop.

You just want your old downtown station back, don't ya?!!

 

And it would work for trains running in the clockwise direction around the loop. But for counterclockwise trains, it means building several crossover tracks at the west approach of Tower City Center or building one crossover track somewhere near the Settlers Landing station and then running up the down chute for the Waterfront Line. Not impossible, but it's like installing traffic signals on a freeway ramp so you can run traffic in both directions.

 

 

That would work for trains running in the clockwise direction around the loop. But for counterclockwise trains, it means building several crossover tracks at the west approach of Tower City Center or building one crossover track somewhere near the Settlers Landing station and then running up the down chute for the Waterfront Line. Not impossible, but it's like installing traffic signals on a freeway ramp so you can run traffic in both directions.

 

 

 

Really, isn't there already a track that connect the cleveland rapid and the shaker rapid terminal at the western end of the stations?  Or is that an westbound only track?

It's westbound only.

OK, two more. These are based on clvlndr's suggestion of continuing the subway to the east side of East 9th Street.......

 

downtown rail loop-prospectramp1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

downtown rail loop-huronsubway1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Consider that the local taxes from the Cleveland casino are projected to be $71 million per year.

 

If Cleveland wanted to self-finance the Downtown Rail Loop on its own to expedite this project:

 

 

Loop with Huron subway limited to ramp section:

 

Guestimated cost: $250 million

Interest rate: 5 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $21,048,720

 

 

Guestimated cost: $250 million

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $19,429,440

 

 

Guestimated cost: $250 million

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 10 years

Yearly cost: $31,623,600

 

________

 

Loop with Tower City-East 14th subway:

 

Guestimated cost: $350 million (low range)

Interest rate: 5 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $29,468,160

 

 

Guestimated cost: $350 million (low range)

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $27,201,120

 

 

Guestimated cost: $350 million (low range)

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 10 years

Yearly cost: $44,272,920

 

 

Loop with Tower City-East 14th subway:

 

Guestimated cost: $400 million (high range)

Interest rate: 5 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $33,677,880

 

 

Guestimated cost: $400 million (high range)

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 20 years

Yearly cost: $31,087,080

 

 

Guestimated cost: $400 million (high range)

Interest rate: 4 percent

Term: 10 years

Yearly cost: $50,597,640

 

Of course, the goal is to use as little of the $71 million as possible because, A. it isn't yet known if $71 million is a reliable figure, B. there are going to be a lot of competing interests for that $71 million so it has to be shown that the downtown loop will support and possibly increase the $71 million amount, and C. the term of the bonds is a key issue because the sooner the bonds are retired, the sooner the community will have the full benefit of the casino (& MM/CC) and any potential spin-off instigated by the downtown rail loop....

Masterful KJP, masterful.  Can we hire you to run RTA?