^How much confidence do you have that the WFL loop would increase property values enough to generate significant revenue from a TIF? Can't say I have much.  And new development wouldn't add to it, because we don't make new development pay [non-school] property taxes round these parts. We already give the tax increment to the developer. 

Edited May 27, 20196 yr by StapHanger

About five years ago, we (AAO) were very close to getting Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway to start formal planning for a streetcar on Detroit Avenue, starting downtown, using the subway deck of the Detroit-Superior bridge, and continuing west to Lake Avenue in phase one, and to West Blvd Red Line station in phase two. The local funding would have come from a TIF on property taxes. The CDCs spoke with a number of developers who were already buying property in this corridor. They were asked if they would be willing to forego their tax abatements if their property taxes were used instead to support a streetcar. In exchange, the CDCs would work with the city in backing location efficient mortgages and reducing parking minimums for their developments. The developers/property owners they spoke with were supportive of that approach.

 

EDIT: RTA killed the idea even though we weren't necessarily looking for them to run the streetcar. They were afraid it would siphon off existing transit resources even though no existing resources were to be tapped.

Edited May 28, 20196 yr by KJP

Pulling this over from the Sherwin Williams HQ thread because I'm always up for chatting about potential rail expansion.

 

2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

I hope that the city thinks outside of the box in its attempt to retain SW, much like what was in the Amazon bid.  One thing I thing that could be transformational would be for the city to spend the $$ to complete the rail system so that SW employees, and other new DT corporate employees can get to and from work.  How about completing the DT waterfront rail loop going into the Huron Rd. portal?   How about making a rail loop from TT over the DS birdge lower deck, down w25th and back on the Hope Memorial bridge lower level?  That would open up a lot of housing for SW workers and maybe attract some other headquarters to Cleveland.

 

56 minutes ago, marty15 said:

The downtown/waterfront loop would be incredible. Avenue District station, Browns/Rock Hall station, Playhouse Square/CSU station, Progressive Field/RMF/NuCLEus station, FEB........ Fack....would be packed all day long.

 

42 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Agree 100%.

 

Not sure of the cost for the original construction, annual maintenance costs or how it's paid for but MIA has a no-fare People Mover that runs from Edgwater/Adrienne Arsht Center to the Art Museums/Frost Science Center to Bayfront Park/AA Arena to Civic Center to Brickel and back again. 

It really takes $$$, leadership and commitment to pull it off. I use it alot rather than drive and pay to park. Unfortunately, most of the time its empty.

A CLE project to tie PS and new SW HQ to all other CBD districts would be phenomenal but costly.

 

8 minutes ago, Sapper Daddy said:

Spot on.  Would like to see rail go south of the inner belt as well.  Really fill out that empty land and that large Progressive Field employee lot at e 14th and Broadway.

 

Quick summary: the late 1990s proposal to create a Waterfront Loop would probably cost $210M today (per @KJP ) using this route (most likely the green line along Prospect and South on East 22nd):

 

 

About 10 years ago, @KJP estimated that a Waterfront Loop utilizing the Huron subway tunnel with a ramp west of East 9th would cost $250M.  If the subway was extended under Huron, East 9th, and a bit of Prospect, surfacing between Huron and Bolivar, the total cost would be $350M.  I found a handy online inflation calculator that tells me costs are about 20% higher today, so let's call it $300M / $420M.  I'd really like it to go under East 9th, but $100M - $120M added cost makes it that much harder to get done.  Maybe start with the original loop proposal, then add the Huron / Prospect connector at a later date to properly serve both Gateway and East 9th districts.

 

(This is also Ken's image):

 

 

 

Light rail?

31 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Light rail?

Yes. My understanding is that Heavy Rail would not be able to handle the slope or curves of the existing Waterfront Line. It would also require redoing the existing station platforms for the high floor. 

 

A low floor Light Rail would be ideal. 

To me, this would be the ideal Downtown Loop/Rail setup.  Obviously it would cost money, but if/WHEN we do it, I think this would be the best way.

 

The ORANGE line would be the new path for the outer eastern portion of the Loop. 

The PURPLE line would be a crossing rail that would enter from the OhioCity/HingTown station at 25th & Detroit.  This would give people in the center of the loop better access to it and allow for flexibility for all riders.

 

I really hope that this gets done in some way, shape or form.  I also hope they continue to expand our Rail System(instead of the busses), I think this would be a huge boost for our city!!!

 

Hopefully as our downtown population and job opportunities grow it will prompt more Rail System growth! 

14 hours ago, NR said:

To me, this would be the ideal Downtown Loop/Rail setup.  Obviously it would cost money, but if/WHEN we do it, I think this would be the best way.

 

The ORANGE line would be the new path for the outer eastern portion of the Loop. 

The PURPLE line would be a crossing rail that would enter from the OhioCity/HingTown station at 25th & Detroit.  This would give people in the center of the loop better access to it and allow for flexibility for all riders.

 

I really hope that this gets done in some way, shape or form.  I also hope they continue to expand our Rail System(instead of the busses), I think this would be a huge boost for our city!!!

 

Hopefully as our downtown population and job opportunities grow it will prompt more Rail System growth! 

 

Any time of loop is short sighted, period.  If we're going to build rail, do it right and go all out or do nothing.  Extend the waterfront line to Brat.  Start a line from the East Bank East along St. Clair.  The first line built should be built in Cleveland under Detroit from the Lakewood border, under the Bridge and under Superior to Euclid & Superior Cleveland Rapid station.

 

Any talk of a loop can be managed with buses.

9 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

Any time of loop is short sighted, period.  If we're going to build rail, do it right and go all out or do nothing.  Extend the waterfront line to Brat.  Start a line from the East Bank East along St. Clair.  The first line built should be built in Cleveland under Detroit from the Lakewood border, under the Bridge and under Superior to Euclid & Superior Cleveland Rapid station.

 

Any talk of a loop can be managed with buses.

 

What ridership generators exist between downtown and Bratenahl? Unless you want to extend it along St. Clair?

 

Yeah, that Chicago Loop. What a waste.

 

Yeah, that London Circle Line. What a waste.

 

Yeah, that Tokyo Yamanote loop. What a waste.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

What ridership generators exist between downtown and Bratenahl? Unless you want to extend it along St. Clair?

 

Yeah, that Chicago Loop. What a waste.

 

Yeah, that London Circle Line. What a waste.

 

Yeah, that Tokyo Yamanote loop. What a waste.

In context.  in context. the Chicago loop was appropriate then and builtin into the fabric of the city.  A loop in Downtown Cleveland is not viable.  If a loop is created, then what?  

 

Cross city lines with stations on parallel streets would suit the city better NOW and going forward.

3 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

In context.  in context. the Chicago loop was appropriate then and builtin into the fabric of the city.  A loop in Downtown Cleveland is not viable.  If a loop is created, then what?  

 

Cross city lines with stations on parallel streets would suit the city better NOW and going forward.

 

People who are paid a lot more to know about this stuff believed otherwise. They felt it would generate enough ridership at relatively low cost to meet federal funding criteria.

 

And, in anticipation of your next answer, the existing part of the Waterfront Line wasn't expected to generate enough ridership to meet federal funding criteria, which is a big reason why federal funding wasn't sought for it.

Not against the loop by any means but I do feel the purple Detroit/Superior line pictured above would have the most immediate and  substantial impact.

On 10/18/2019 at 10:10 AM, NR said:

To me, this would be the ideal Downtown Loop/Rail setup.  Obviously it would cost money, but if/WHEN we do it, I think this would be the best way.

 

The ORANGE line would be the new path for the outer eastern portion of the Loop. 

The PURPLE line would be a crossing rail that would enter from the OhioCity/HingTown station at 25th & Detroit.  This would give people in the center of the loop better access to it and allow for flexibility for all riders.

 

I really hope that this gets done in some way, shape or form.  I also hope they continue to expand our Rail System(instead of the busses), I think this would be a huge boost for our city!!!

 

Hopefully as our downtown population and job opportunities grow it will prompt more Rail System growth! 

 

I think that a downtown loop would be the most impactful transit project, as it would make the existing rail system much more useful (if it was done right).  That said, what @NR has proposed doesn't get you closer to anything worth going to other than CSU.  (And the baseball / bball arena, but that could be addressed by an infill station on the existing tracks.)  As I've thought about it more, I think it would be far more useful to bring loop closer to the CBD.  Rather than running on East 17th from the Muni lots to Chester (as was originally proposed in the late 1990s), route this part of the loop along East 12th in dedicated lanes (the existing median or rail only lanes).  East 12th is an 800 foot walk to East 9th - so much more of the CBD becomes accessible.  (I mean, the ideal would be a subway under East 9th, but that would be crazy expensive - I'm trying to find the right balance of utility and cost.)  I just think East 12th would make it way more useful to way more people as compared to the East 17th proposal (and especially compared to @NR's proposal in the distant hinterlands of downtown).

 

The rest of the route would be east along Chester and then following the original proposal: south on a newly no-through-traffic East 17th to catch Playhouse Sq, then east along Prospect to the STJ Transit Center at East 22nd and the southern edge of CSU, then south on East 22nd past the hospital, then east along Comm College Ave to hit Tri-C, then south on East 30th to link back to the existing lines.  Ideally a future phase (orange dots) would split south of Playhouse Sq to go west along Prospect, through or under East 9th, and under Huron to the existing tunnel stub.  One of the Blue/Green lines would go clockwise around the loop, the other would go counterclockwise, and dedicated loop trains would also run to increase the frequency.  I'll admit the stair-step route looks a bit silly on the map, but I think it does a good job of connecting the key locations and being practical (e.g. utilizing the median on East 12th).

 

Obviously signal prioritization and dedicated rail lanes would be critical for sufficient speed.

 

A multi-modal transit center at the current Amtrak / East 9th rapid station becomes much more useful, as nearly every part of downtown is accessible with no more than one transfer.

 

Once all of downtown is accessible from the rail lines, the rail lines become much more useful, and then it is easier to justify investing in rail expansion.

 

And I do really like the Detroit / Superior streetcar / subway proposal.  I just think that the Waterfront Loop combined with a multi-modal transit center would have a much bigger impact.  The only reason I might put Detroit / Superior streetcar first would be if SHW picks the Jacobs / Weston lots and we attempted to coordinate the opening of both the streetcar and the HQ.  That would be cool.

 

My proposal is in Orange (the Yellow shows the previous East 17th proposal).  The thin purple lines are walks of 1000 feet from the proposed route. 

 

 

 

On 10/19/2019 at 12:30 AM, MyTwoSense said:

 

Any time of loop is short sighted, period.  If we're going to build rail, do it right and go all out or do nothing.  Extend the waterfront line to Brat.  Start a line from the East Bank East along St. Clair.  The first line built should be built in Cleveland under Detroit from the Lakewood border, under the Bridge and under Superior to Euclid & Superior Cleveland Rapid station.

 

Any talk of a loop can be managed with buses.

 

Completely disagree.  With the current system, much of the downtown business area is not within a 15 minute walk from a rapid station.  If you think people will take the Rapid to Tower City, walk 10 minutes to the bus stop on Public Square and wait for a bus, then why aren't people already doing it? 

 

A transfer from the existing Rapid onto a loop line train at Tower City to a stop on the loop cuts out that 10 minute walk from Tower City's Rapid station to Public Square and makes it far more convenient to take the Rapid in the first place.

All Aboard Ohio is going to start making a case for doing something other than the status quo for the Waterfront Line. When you shut down a rail line for six months and no one misses it, there's something seriously wrong with that rail line. Abandonment isn't the answer, as RTA has put about $10 million into the line since 2010, including a rehab of the bridge over Front Street and the railroad tracks for which bidding is about to get underway. About 80 percent of those state-of-good-repair funds were federal, meaning that if RTA abandons the line, it would have give those back to the Federal Transit Administration. Since the money has been or is about to be spent, the funds would have to come from RTA's budget.

 

Since the status quo is no solution either, the only reasonable solution is expansion. The Waterfront Line was never built to end in a parking lot. It was always assumed to go somewhere after that, be it to the east along the shoreline or, more likely, to turn south and return to the main line somewhere south east of Tower City to operate as a downtown loop. Of course, with the proper land use planning and incentives to support the land use plan, both could be done.

 

Here's part of an assessment AAO has developed:

 

Three years after the Waterfront Line opened, its extension as a loop around downtown was the subject of a Major Investment Study conducted by MK Centennial for GCRTA. A year later, the locally preferred alternative was to route the Downtown Loop south from the lakefront along East 17th Street (converted into a transit-prioritized corridor), east on Prospect Avenue (Euclid Avenue would be better), south on East 21st/22nd streets, east on Community College Avenue, then south on East 30th Street to return to the Red/Blue/Green lines mainline. The proposed routing and six new station locations would put about 70 percent of the Central Business District within 1,250 feet (about a 5-minute walk) of a rail transit station and better than 90 percent of the CBD within 1,875 feet (about a 7 ½-minute walk) of a rail transit station. That routing was projected to generate nearly 800,000 new transit riders (not including riders diverted from slower buses) per year by 2025 and incur annual operating costs of up to $2.87 million.

 

At the time, the FTA required new-start rail transit services to achieve a cost per new rider of $20 or less to be warrant federal capital grants. The Downtown Loop was projected to have a cost per new rider of $11.84 to $13.95 – a very favorable cost-effectiveness rating. It was also projected to help support the development of the northeast side of downtown, north of CSU to the lakefront and east of East 13th Street where downtown’s high-rise development comes to an abrupt cliff. Thus, the Downtown Loop was projected to attract 2.2 million square feet of nonresidential development, nearly 1,000 housing units, $441 million in overall development (in 2000$), nearly 9,000 permanent jobs, $250 million in new payroll and $17.8 million in new local tax revenues per year. Rail infrastructure construction costs in 2000 were estimated at $102 million to $118 million. Adjusted for inflation, Downtown Loop construction costs in 2020 would be about $157 million to $182 million.

 

In other words, if a tax-increment financing district were established along the Downtown Loop’s rail corridor and up to 40 percent of the capital costs were funded by the Federal Transit Administration, the new tax revenues generated from this new rail transit line could service a 10- year bond issue to finance its construction and possibly have money left over to support its operating costs as well. GCRTA did not pursue a TIF to fund the Downtown Loop. Instead, it hoped to fund this and other capital projects from the countywide sales tax and from federal grants. But GCRTA brought on a new general manager in March 2000 who immediately halted all major transit expansion projects. The Downtown Loop never advanced into preliminary engineering. By the end of the next year, the nation was in the post-Sept. 11 recession causing Cuyahoga County sales tax revenues to fall and most New Starts FTA grant funding to dry up.

 

It should be noted that Downtown Loop ridership, cost and benefit estimates were generated 20 years ago and based on what downtown Cleveland was like 20 years ago. Back then, downtown’s residential population was just over 9.000 people. It has more than doubled since and continues to absorb an average of 500 new residential housing units (averaging nearly two occupants per unit) per year. That’s equal to one new 34-story Lumen apartment tower and one new 28-story Beacon apartment tower filling up every year.

 

Also, the Superior Arts District was just getting started in 2000 east of East 18th Street. Now, most of the former garment factory buildings that are within a few minutes’ walk of the proposed Downtown Loop route are being repurposed with housing, ground-floor restaurants, and offices – including the headquarters for GBX Group and soon, the headquarters for CrossCountry Mortgage which will relocate 700 employees from Brecksville. Its headquarters’ staffing is forecast to grow to 2,000 employees in the coming years. Chicago-based Akara Partners plans a huge expansion of the Flats East Bank community early in 2021, featuring up to 2,000 housing units, tens of thousands of square feet of co-working office spaces and neighborhood-oriented retail. It plans to start this expansion with construction of an 11-story building next to the Flats East Bank Waterfront Line station. Another five towers are planned.

 

St. Vincent Charity Hospital is in the midst of a $125 million campus growth and enhancement plan. The hospital has more than 1,200 employees, supports 1,300 downtown jobs and receives thousands of visits per day. Those numbers are growing as downtown and its nearby neighborhoods grow. Tri-C Metro Campus’ student population remains stable, helped by a campus redesign to be more pedestrian friendly. It includes a heavily renovated $38 million Campus Center. And in 2000, few could have foreseen the replacement of the derelict Cedar Extension Estates housing project with the mixed-income, mixed-use Central Choice Neighborhood (Sankofa Village, Cleveland Scholar House) – a large-scale, mixed-use project on 15 acres with nearly 400 apartments and townhouses at full buildout.

 

Cleveland State University is starting a campus land use master plan that will likely feature significant new housing additions including at the existing site of the Wolstein Center (next to the proposed Downtown Loop routing), as well as north of CSU’s campus (along on the Loop route). Although CSU has grown only slightly since 2000 (from 15,680 to just over 16,000 today), more of its students are living on campus and more are coming from out of state (especially Chicago and the East Coast). And while CSU commuters enjoy fast one-seat transit rides from the western lakeshore suburbs on the Cleveland State Line (Clifton Blvd/Westgate TC), they lack fast, one-seat transit rides from Southwest, Southeast, East and Northeast suburbs.

 

They could gain them with the Downtown Loop combined with GCRTA replacing its heavy- and light-rail fleets with light-rail trains. Thus Red Line trains to/from the Southwest and from Northeast suburbs could physically be able to circulate through downtown on the loop – which they were not able to do because the Red Line was never expected to use anything but heavy-rail cars in 2000. Thus the Major Investment Study from 2000 could not consider the possible benefits from converting the GCRTA rail system to an all-light-rail operation. Considering the data from 2000 and all of the positive changes to GCRTA and the affected community since, a new analysis of the Downtown Loop should be undertaken.

 

###

I fear this makes too much sense to be taken seriously by the city or RTA. But I hope this gets the traction it needs. Especially when you consider the possibility of a unified fleet you really start to see the potential upside. 

^^ This is THE BEST thing that could happen for downtown. 

It would be great to see this built, and the fares taken care of by a major corporate sponsor.   Make it free and include late night hours on weekends to ensure success. 

Great analysis KJP.  It seems only really in the last 3-5 months are we seeing that there is a nice lasting growth trajectory for downtown Cleveland.  There are so many major projects afoot downtown that you could’ve tripled or quadrupled the length of your article and still not be exhaustive. 

   Its a brilliant strategy to crush the handwringing of RTA about heavy vs light rail and whether to keep them separated or unify the fleet by transforming another headache of RTA and turning it into the crown jewel with a functional loop for a quickly growing downtown. 

   It’s definitely time for a transformation of downtown.  Add in the Amtrak station the greyhound station the bridge over rt 2 from the convention center. It goes on and on the institutions this touches. 

   

Not only does this Waterfront Line need a downtown loop, I would branch it west via Superior-Detroit Avenues. Hell, reopen the Detroit-Superior viaduct.  Take it to W 98 station and out through Lakewood. 
 

imagine a one seat train ride from downtown lakewood to the Flats or Van Aiken District etc.

On 10/19/2019 at 9:40 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

I think that a downtown loop would be the most impactful transit project, as it would make the existing rail system much more useful (if it was done right).  That said, what @NR has proposed doesn't get you closer to anything worth going to other than CSU.  (And the baseball / bball arena, but that could be addressed by an infill station on the existing tracks.)  As I've thought about it more, I think it would be far more useful to bring loop closer to the CBD.  Rather than running on East 17th from the Muni lots to Chester (as was originally proposed in the late 1990s), route this part of the loop along East 12th in dedicated lanes (the existing median or rail only lanes).  East 12th is an 800 foot walk to East 9th - so much more of the CBD becomes accessible.  (I mean, the ideal would be a subway under East 9th, but that would be crazy expensive - I'm trying to find the right balance of utility and cost.)  I just think East 12th would make it way more useful to way more people as compared to the East 17th proposal (and especially compared to @NR's proposal in the distant hinterlands of downtown).

 

The rest of the route would be east along Chester and then following the original proposal: south on a newly no-through-traffic East 17th to catch Playhouse Sq, then east along Prospect to the STJ Transit Center at East 22nd and the southern edge of CSU, then south on East 22nd past the hospital, then east along Comm College Ave to hit Tri-C, then south on East 30th to link back to the existing lines.  Ideally a future phase (orange dots) would split south of Playhouse Sq to go west along Prospect, through or under East 9th, and under Huron to the existing tunnel stub.  One of the Blue/Green lines would go clockwise around the loop, the other would go counterclockwise, and dedicated loop trains would also run to increase the frequency.  I'll admit the stair-step route looks a bit silly on the map, but I think it does a good job of connecting the key locations and being practical (e.g. utilizing the median on East 12th).

 

Obviously signal prioritization and dedicated rail lanes would be critical for sufficient speed.

 

A multi-modal transit center at the current Amtrak / East 9th rapid station becomes much more useful, as nearly every part of downtown is accessible with no more than one transfer.

 

Once all of downtown is accessible from the rail lines, the rail lines become much more useful, and then it is easier to justify investing in rail expansion.

 

And I do really like the Detroit / Superior streetcar / subway proposal.  I just think that the Waterfront Loop combined with a multi-modal transit center would have a much bigger impact.  The only reason I might put Detroit / Superior streetcar first would be if SHW picks the Jacobs / Weston lots and we attempted to coordinate the opening of both the streetcar and the HQ.  That would be cool.

 

My proposal is in Orange (the Yellow shows the previous East 17th proposal).  The thin purple lines are walks of 1000 feet from the proposed route. 

 

 

 

 

@Boomerang_Brian At first, I thought that what you proposed could not be done. But after looking at it, I think something close to it may be possible.

 

The reason why I thought that routing the Waterfront Line south on East 12th Street couldn't be done is because the LRT gradient to get up and over the southernmost set of lakefront freight tracks (Norfolk Southern's) would be too steep. While I still think that's true for positioning it to go south on East 12th, it's not true for East 13th Street. Just one block farther east gives the rail extension enough room to climb at a reasonable gradient to the top of the bluff. 

 

The bottom of an LRT bridge here would have to be about 23 feet or so above the NS tracks. Allowing for a bridge structure, the top of the rails may need to be about five feet higher than that. The Waterfront Line's track elevation below East 9th Street is about 590 feet above sea level. The NS tracks just north of East 13th are at about 600 feet. So the tracks would need to rise to 628 feet above sea level, or a climb of about 38 feet across a distance of about 1,200 feet for a gradient of about 3.2 percent. In that climbing LRT right of way would be a curve having a radius of roughly 310 feet.  It would then need to climb another 12 feet across a distance of about 400 feet to Lakeside Avenue for a gradient of 3 percent. 

 

This gradient with a 300-foot radius curve is doable because the Waterfront Line already has a similar feature. At Flats East Bank, north of Main Avenue to the NS mainline, the Waterfront Line has a 3.3 percent gradient with a 310-foot radius curve in it.

 

An East 13th routing would put stations within 1,250 feet (equal to about a 5-minute walk) of East 9th Street. That's hitting the sweet spot for attracting CBD-bound office commuters.

 

One problem/opportunity is that the Cuyahoga County Board of Developmental Disabilities (1275 Lakeside Ave) would probably have to be acquired and demolished. A station could be built here or just south of Lakeside and designed in such a way to support air rights development. This is a small (36,420-square-foot, one-story) building that, if demolished, would open up to development nearly 3 acres of land with a transit station closeby and an unobstructed view of Lake Erie. It would be a great site for a high-rise residential development.

 

MAP KEY

Light Orange Line = RTA-studied Downtown Loop (except I show a routing on Euclid instead of Prospect)

Dark Orangle Line = Downtown Loop via East 13th Street

Dark Blue Circles = 1250-foot (5-minute) walk of existing station

Light Blue Circles = 1250-foot (5-minute) walk of AAO-proposed station

Yellow Circles = 1250-foot (5-minute) walk of proposed station on East 17th routing 

 

 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by KJP
Added map key

So do you visualize this as a street level rail line, elevated rail or underground?  Option 2 or 3 appeal to me the most.  I can hear the anti rail people already complaining about the cost, low ridership, etc etc.  I don't see this as a "build it and they will come", I see it as more of a build it because they ARE coming!

43 minutes ago, cfdwarrior said:

So do you visualize this as a street level rail line, elevated rail or underground?  Option 2 or 3 appeal to me the most.  I can hear the anti rail people already complaining about the cost, low ridership, etc etc.  I don't see this as a "build it and they will come", I see it as more of a build it because they ARE coming!

This is street level w dedicated lanes and signal prioritization (hopefully). Subway or elevated would be WAY more expensive. Lanes and prioritization are a better solution to keeping it moving anyway. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This is street level w dedicated lanes and signal prioritization (hopefully). Subway or elevated would be WAY more expensive. Lanes and prioritization are a better solution to keeping it moving anyway. 

Would be really good to get an RTA advocate in charge of signal prioritization at the city.

What makes a rail project viable is a lot of new riders resulting from the project vs. a low project cost. The 1999-2000 proposal for a Downtown Loop extension of the Waterfront Line was estimated to generate about 2,000 new transit riders per day. That's not a large amount of riders but the capital cost necessary to generate them wasn't very large either. So if we increase the capital cost by routing the downtown loop in a tunnel or elevated structure without attracting much higher ridership necessary to keep the cost per new rider low, the extension will not meet the Federal Transit Administration's metrics for favorably rating a new start rail project. If your project doesn't earn a favorable FTA rating, your project doesn't get FTA New Start capital grants. Routing the Downtown Loop in a tunnel or elevated structure would also not save significant amounts of time compared to routing the Downtown Loop on the surface of East 17th Street that would be converted into a transit priority corridor.

Even though the waterfront line expansion sounds less amazing than an expansion elsewhere into other neighborhoods or suburbs, I actually think it is very needed. From my not-from-Cleveland perspective, there is really little reason to use the current RTA rail system for visitors to the city without a completed loop in Downtown. For example, if someone is visiting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a completed loop would incentivize them to get onto the Waterfront Line and visit Playhouse Square, East Fourth, Tower City, etc. I think a completed loop which goes on street level would do wonders for ridership. I also think a lot of people literally just don't know the Waterfront Line exists, or that Cleveland has a light rail system at all! Cleveland is lucky to have a light rail system still, and it's an asset the city needs to take advantage of. Plus, extending the Waterfront Line would also give more incentives for the neighborhoods currently serviced by the RTA lines to ride the train Downtown as they could get dropped off closer to the places they want to go to. 

 

 

Also, the idea for a streetcar along Detroit would be awesome as that stretch of road has seen a ton of growth - I also had no idea there was an abandoned subway viaduct under Detroit, that's super cool.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 12:46 PM, cfdwarrior said:

So do you visualize this as a street level rail line, elevated rail or underground?  Option 2 or 3 appeal to me the most.  I can hear the anti rail people already complaining about the cost, low ridership, etc etc.  I don't see this as a "build it and they will come", I see it as more of a build it because they ARE coming!

 Cleveland was awarded a federal grant in 1976 for the construction of an elevated downtown loop (People Mover) but turned it down.

 

21 hours ago, Dblcut3 said:

Also, the idea for a streetcar along Detroit would be awesome as that stretch of road has seen a ton of growth - I also had no idea there was an abandoned subway viaduct under Detroit, that's super cool.

 The abandoned subway viaduct is opened for tours once a year, I think it is usually around Memorial Day weekend.  

On 11/20/2020 at 10:14 PM, KJP said:

What makes a rail project viable is a lot of new riders resulting from the project vs. a low project cost. The 1999-2000 proposal for a Downtown Loop extension of the Waterfront Line was estimated to generate about 2,000 new transit riders per day. That's not a large amount of riders but the capital cost necessary to generate them wasn't very large either. So if we increase the capital cost by routing the downtown loop in a tunnel or elevated structure without attracting much higher ridership necessary to keep the cost per new rider low, the extension will not meet the Federal Transit Administration's metrics for favorably rating a new start rail project. If your project doesn't earn a favorable FTA rating, your project doesn't get FTA New Start capital grants. Routing the Downtown Loop in a tunnel or elevated structure would also not save significant amounts of time compared to routing the Downtown Loop on the surface of East 17th Street that would be converted into a transit priority corridor.

 

Would the estimate of riders be higher now that we have 20k residents in downtown, with more housing and businesses being added each year?

 

I'd much prefer a subway or elevated line over a streetcar!!  Hopefully those in power see the need and the benefit of a Downtown Loop, and the need to do it right overall the first time.

46 minutes ago, NR said:

 

Would the estimate of riders be higher now that we have 20k residents in downtown, with more housing and businesses being added each year?

 

I'd much prefer a subway or elevated line over a streetcar!!  Hopefully those in power see the need and the benefit of a Downtown Loop, and the need to do it right overall the first time.

@KJP answered this question a couple weeks ago, which is what kicked off the recent conversation:

 

On 11/16/2020 at 6:00 PM, KJP said:

All Aboard Ohio is going to start making a case for doing something other than the status quo for the Waterfront Line. When you shut down a rail line for six months and no one misses it, there's something seriously wrong with that rail line. Abandonment isn't the answer, as RTA has put about $10 million into the line since 2010, including a rehab of the bridge over Front Street and the railroad tracks for which bidding is about to get underway. About 80 percent of those state-of-good-repair funds were federal, meaning that if RTA abandons the line, it would have give those back to the Federal Transit Administration. Since the money has been or is about to be spent, the funds would have to come from RTA's budget.

 

Since the status quo is no solution either, the only reasonable solution is expansion. The Waterfront Line was never built to end in a parking lot. It was always assumed to go somewhere after that, be it to the east along the shoreline or, more likely, to turn south and return to the main line somewhere south east of Tower City to operate as a downtown loop. Of course, with the proper land use planning and incentives to support the land use plan, both could be done.

 

Here's part of an assessment AAO has developed:

 

Three years after the Waterfront Line opened, its extension as a loop around downtown was the subject of a Major Investment Study conducted by MK Centennial for GCRTA. A year later, the locally preferred alternative was to route the Downtown Loop south from the lakefront along East 17th Street (converted into a transit-prioritized corridor), east on Prospect Avenue (Euclid Avenue would be better), south on East 21st/22nd streets, east on Community College Avenue, then south on East 30th Street to return to the Red/Blue/Green lines mainline. The proposed routing and six new station locations would put about 70 percent of the Central Business District within 1,250 feet (about a 5-minute walk) of a rail transit station and better than 90 percent of the CBD within 1,875 feet (about a 7 ½-minute walk) of a rail transit station. That routing was projected to generate nearly 800,000 new transit riders (not including riders diverted from slower buses) per year by 2025 and incur annual operating costs of up to $2.87 million.

 

At the time, the FTA required new-start rail transit services to achieve a cost per new rider of $20 or less to be warrant federal capital grants. The Downtown Loop was projected to have a cost per new rider of $11.84 to $13.95 – a very favorable cost-effectiveness rating. It was also projected to help support the development of the northeast side of downtown, north of CSU to the lakefront and east of East 13th Street where downtown’s high-rise development comes to an abrupt cliff. Thus, the Downtown Loop was projected to attract 2.2 million square feet of nonresidential development, nearly 1,000 housing units, $441 million in overall development (in 2000$), nearly 9,000 permanent jobs, $250 million in new payroll and $17.8 million in new local tax revenues per year. Rail infrastructure construction costs in 2000 were estimated at $102 million to $118 million. Adjusted for inflation, Downtown Loop construction costs in 2020 would be about $157 million to $182 million.

 

In other words, if a tax-increment financing district were established along the Downtown Loop’s rail corridor and up to 40 percent of the capital costs were funded by the Federal Transit Administration, the new tax revenues generated from this new rail transit line could service a 10- year bond issue to finance its construction and possibly have money left over to support its operating costs as well. GCRTA did not pursue a TIF to fund the Downtown Loop. Instead, it hoped to fund this and other capital projects from the countywide sales tax and from federal grants. But GCRTA brought on a new general manager in March 2000 who immediately halted all major transit expansion projects. The Downtown Loop never advanced into preliminary engineering. By the end of the next year, the nation was in the post-Sept. 11 recession causing Cuyahoga County sales tax revenues to fall and most New Starts FTA grant funding to dry up.

 

It should be noted that Downtown Loop ridership, cost and benefit estimates were generated 20 years ago and based on what downtown Cleveland was like 20 years ago. Back then, downtown’s residential population was just over 9.000 people. It has more than doubled since and continues to absorb an average of 500 new residential housing units (averaging nearly two occupants per unit) per year. That’s equal to one new 34-story Lumen apartment tower and one new 28-story Beacon apartment tower filling up every year.

 

Also, the Superior Arts District was just getting started in 2000 east of East 18th Street. Now, most of the former garment factory buildings that are within a few minutes’ walk of the proposed Downtown Loop route are being repurposed with housing, ground-floor restaurants, and offices – including the headquarters for GBX Group and soon, the headquarters for CrossCountry Mortgage which will relocate 700 employees from Brecksville. Its headquarters’ staffing is forecast to grow to 2,000 employees in the coming years. Chicago-based Akara Partners plans a huge expansion of the Flats East Bank community early in 2021, featuring up to 2,000 housing units, tens of thousands of square feet of co-working office spaces and neighborhood-oriented retail. It plans to start this expansion with construction of an 11-story building next to the Flats East Bank Waterfront Line station. Another five towers are planned.

 

St. Vincent Charity Hospital is in the midst of a $125 million campus growth and enhancement plan. The hospital has more than 1,200 employees, supports 1,300 downtown jobs and receives thousands of visits per day. Those numbers are growing as downtown and its nearby neighborhoods grow. Tri-C Metro Campus’ student population remains stable, helped by a campus redesign to be more pedestrian friendly. It includes a heavily renovated $38 million Campus Center. And in 2000, few could have foreseen the replacement of the derelict Cedar Extension Estates housing project with the mixed-income, mixed-use Central Choice Neighborhood (Sankofa Village, Cleveland Scholar House) – a large-scale, mixed-use project on 15 acres with nearly 400 apartments and townhouses at full buildout.

 

Cleveland State University is starting a campus land use master plan that will likely feature significant new housing additions including at the existing site of the Wolstein Center (next to the proposed Downtown Loop routing), as well as north of CSU’s campus (along on the Loop route). Although CSU has grown only slightly since 2000 (from 15,680 to just over 16,000 today), more of its students are living on campus and more are coming from out of state (especially Chicago and the East Coast). And while CSU commuters enjoy fast one-seat transit rides from the western lakeshore suburbs on the Cleveland State Line (Clifton Blvd/Westgate TC), they lack fast, one-seat transit rides from Southwest, Southeast, East and Northeast suburbs.

 

They could gain them with the Downtown Loop combined with GCRTA replacing its heavy- and light-rail fleets with light-rail trains. Thus Red Line trains to/from the Southwest and from Northeast suburbs could physically be able to circulate through downtown on the loop – which they were not able to do because the Red Line was never expected to use anything but heavy-rail cars in 2000. Thus the Major Investment Study from 2000 could not consider the possible benefits from converting the GCRTA rail system to an all-light-rail operation. Considering the data from 2000 and all of the positive changes to GCRTA and the affected community since, a new analysis of the Downtown Loop should be undertaken.

 

###

 

I would much prefer a subway too. But the potential ridership and vehicular traffic conditions don't justify it. There are lightly trafficked streets that can be repurposed entirely as a transit-only corridor (East 17th) or have half of it devoted to transit (East 13th) without causing gridlock. In so doing, combined with signal prioritization, you create a transit route that's as fast as a subway without the costs of a subway.

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

In so doing, combined with signal prioritization, you create a transit route that's as fast as a subway without the costs of a subway.

 

 

Argh, there's always a catch...  Still waiting on signal prioritization that was promised on the Healthline.

On 11/20/2020 at 10:14 PM, KJP said:

What makes a rail project viable is a lot of new riders resulting from the project vs. a low project cost. The 1999-2000 proposal for a Downtown Loop extension of the Waterfront Line was estimated to generate about 2,000 new transit riders per day. That's not a large amount of riders but the capital cost necessary to generate them wasn't very large either. So if we increase the capital cost by routing the downtown loop in a tunnel or elevated structure without attracting much higher ridership necessary to keep the cost per new rider low, the extension will not meet the Federal Transit Administration's metrics for favorably rating a new start rail project. If your project doesn't earn a favorable FTA rating, your project doesn't get FTA New Start capital grants. Routing the Downtown Loop in a tunnel or elevated structure would also not save significant amounts of time compared to routing the Downtown Loop on the surface of East 17th Street that would be converted into a transit priority corridor.

 

KJP--how much does it cost per mile two build a two track subway tunnel?  And how much would an underground station cost?

well for yikes here is the high end -- estimated $2.5 to $3.5B per mile for two miles of new second ave subway phase 2 in upper west side manhattan.

 

$930M per mile for los angeles purple line extension in progress.

26 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

KJP--how much does it cost per mile two build a two track subway tunnel?  And how much would an underground station cost?

Would it even have to be 2 track in little ole Cleveland?   Could just be a one way loop and they could put in shuttle buses when maintenance is necessary.   We are very used to that here.  

^A one-way loop guarantees no one will take it.  if the loop is station 1 to 10 in that order, one can easily get from station 5 to 6, in say 2 minutes.  But if a one-way loop, to get from 6 to 5, you'd have to go  6-7-8-9-10-1-2-3-4-5--that makes no sense.  And if no one takes it you won't get the ridership numbers KJP cited that you need to get the federal dollars. And even if you did, no one wants to take a system that goes only one way. I'm not sold on the loop to begin with---but certainly not if its only one way.

definitely always been sold on the loop -- but only if two way and if the crosstown part is buried to huron.

The other thing to consider about subways is that, depending on how deep the stations have to be, it can be a considerable amount of time for riders to get down and back up.  Especially when you're comparing the ride to a 10-15 minute walk.  I think something like a streetcar with at grade stations is far more suitable for a Downtown loop.

3 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

KJP--how much does it cost per mile two build a two track subway tunnel?  And how much would an underground station cost?

 

When GCRTA proposed the Dual Hub rail line between downtown and University Circle via Euclid Avenue, it was to have a subway measuring about 0.8-mile-long (from below Ontario/Huron to just east of the Euclid/East 18th intersection). Among the many Dual Hub options, there was one that would have ended the downtown rail line at CSU, with trains running from Hopkins to CSU. Its capital cost including two subway stations and a ramp up to a surface station along Euclid at East 21st/22nd was $676 million. That was 25 years ago. In today's dollars, that's $1.2 billion.

 

^Thanks. I wish that got built.

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Thanks so much for including the E13th option! I’d like to think my suggestions influenced that a bit. And thanks again for all of your great advocacy!

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Thanks so much for including the E13th option! I’d like to think my suggestions influenced that a bit. And thanks again for all of your great advocacy!

 

I did a detailed look including gradients to reach Lakeside Avenue from the lakefront and saw that the required gradients and curvature were no less than what was already in place on the existing Waterfront Line. Demolishing two one-story buildings on land that could be used, in part, for Downtown Loop infrastructure (the county property for a track ramp and the city property for a Lakeside station) and the rest of those two parcels for transit-supportive development. Two high-rises here would generously help support a Downtown Loop TIF. And, East 13th is wide enough that it could accommodate the Downtown Loop AND street traffic, especially between St. Clair and Chester. Over the rest of East 13th, the street right of way could be widened a bit at the north end or turned into a one-way street. Between Chester and Euclid, it would have to be turned into a one-lane, one-way street.

 

And, unlike RTA and its consultants, I think the rail line needs to go down Euclid, not Prospect. Perhaps RTA in 2000 still thought it could get the Dual Hub subway built if it had more time to convince the suburban NOACA board members and Krumholz etc. But I think routing via Euclid provides great connectivity between the HealthLine and Downtown Loop, and gives the Downtown Loop better pedestrian access to the East 9th corridor, Playhouse Square, CSU, etc. It also sets the stage for follow-on phases, such as linking Playhouse Square and Tower City with a rail link, and replacing the HealthLine with a rail line someday, perhaps, rerouting the Blue Line via HealthLine.

 

Anyway, here's some graphics......

 

 

 

 

Most new projects are getting TIF's already to pay down construction debt. I wonder if trying to divert that to transit would put off development near the loop.

21 hours ago, X said:

The other thing to consider about subways is that, depending on how deep the stations have to be, it can be a considerable amount of time for riders to get down and back up.  Especially when you're comparing the ride to a 10-15 minute walk.  I think something like a streetcar with at grade stations is far more suitable for a Downtown loop.

 

 

playing around with google maps a minute, here is what i found.

 

first of all, the standards. euro local stop distances are typically longer, sometimes up to 400m or 1320' and usa are typically shorter, down to 100m or 330.'

 

there is no real reason for that difference it's just traditional bureacracy. 

 

using downtown manhattan as a similar comparison setting, i saw the subway stops there are mostly in the 500' apart range.

 

given all that i used a nice standard compromise of 600' between stations for cle just because it works out well.

 

for the e17st wfl route its 3900' between lakeside and prospect. 

 

so dividing by 600' you could get exactly 6.5 subway station stops.

 

6 stations or so makes for a very typical subway experience for that buried stretch.

 

even if its off a bit i think that is pretty much what kjp has re the circles above.

 

as for deep, a lakeside station would be deep, but others can be cut and cover deep. 

 

its going to need a loop anyway like it has in the flats, so the depth of entry could be adjusted there.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 20204 yr by mrnyc

dubz

Edited December 2, 20204 yr by mrnyc

3 hours ago, Mendo said:

Most new projects are getting TIF's already to pay down construction debt. I wonder if trying to divert that to transit would put off development near the loop.

 

If the developments are within a TIF district to support the Downtown Loop, the city should be acting as a clearinghouse to funnel available incentives to developments within that district. Additionally, projects in that district should be able to get location-efficient mortgages or Federal Transit Administration loans, cedits or loan guarantees (through TIFIA) for transit-oriented developments.

 

From the recent Downtown Cleveland Alliance newsletter --

 

Quote

GCRTA CEO India Birdsong Joins DCIC Board of Trustees 
India Birdsong, General Manager and CEO of Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, was elected to the Downtown Cleveland Improvement Corporation (DCIC) Board of Trustees at the 2020 annual meeting.

The Downtown Cleveland Improvement Corporation (DCIC) was created to manage Downtown Cleveland's SID and oversee the use of assessment dollars. 

 

KJP -- have you gotten the Downtown Cleveland Alliance on board with urging RTA to do a loop study?  They may some influence here.

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

From the recent Downtown Cleveland Alliance newsletter --

 

 

KJP -- have you gotten the Downtown Cleveland Alliance on board with urging RTA to do a loop study?  They may some influence here.

 

Not yet. Working on it.

 

BTW, the toughest part of routing a Downtown Loop on East 13th and Euclid would be having light-rail vehicles make the turn between those two streets. If properly articulated, an LRV can make that turn. If GCRTA acquires a fleet of LRVs that can't make that turn, then either the Cowell & Hubbard building would have to be demolished or another routing would have to be used.

 

EDIT: It actually works better for this routing if the Cowell & Hubbard building is demolished. Not only does it provide a more gentle track curvature -- one that already exists on the Waterfront Line. But it also provides a station platform that can allow trains up to three cars long (~250 feet) to fit on the platform. The lengthened HealthLine station platform maxes out at 230 feet, meaning that a 3-car train would hang out over the edge of the platform and block traffic. Considering RTA almost never runs three-car trains, that's not a frequent problem. But it's not a station design that RTA would want to choose. And, by putting this station at the NE corner of East 13th and Euclid, you could get federal New Starts grant money or federal transit-oriented development loan/credits/guarantees to build the foundation or lower levels of a combined rail station and skyscraper.

What if the loop is shortened to go down Euclid back towards the dual hub tunnels and dropping in?   I’m guessing that was only to be tied into the red line not blue/green lines. 

 

Rethinking this.  It would have to drop into tunnels right there at E13 on the turn down Euclid as there is no room to add entry/exit tunnels on Euclid 

Edited December 3, 20204 yr by audidave
updated

For all you people who want the WFL to be a loop---how would it operate? For example, would it be:  one service clockwise in the loop with another service counter clockwise in the loop with the shaker trains running from shaker to somewhere along the loop and then turn back to shaker? where would that station be?  Or would all Shaker Trains use the loop, say clockwise, while another train operated exclusively counterclockwise in only the loop?