...Cleveland, where growth centers are located in isolated pockets...

 

This is why I think we have so much to gain from transit investments.  We gotta link all those nodes together.  And the St Clair corridor has a lot more inherent growth potential than that nasty part of E79th.  Exhibit A: The lake. 

I think the track record is pretty clear that rail access isn't nearly enough to overcome the other problems neighborhoods in our region have attracting new development.  Most buyers simply don't care.  And those that do find plenty of affordable housing already, so there isn't exactly a lot of new TOD development pressure.

Both major transit projects of the recent era (WFL and BRT) seem to be driving development.  And our #1 development spot (UC) has transit galore, with the new BRT service and 2 new rail stations in the works.  I guess you can't rule out coincidence, but it walks and talks like correlation.

^Correlation, sure, causation, I doubt it.  And I think it's extremely generous to say that the WFL is driving any development.  And actually, I would guess that most of the impact of the BRT on development was from the full street reconstruction and beautification, not the transit itself.

Then I dont think you understand TOD.

 

I understand it just fine actually and I'm all for it. IMHO Cleveland is not ready for an east extension of the waterfront line at this point, but I think it's ready for a downtown loop. If you were to build that east extension today it would end up being primarily a park-n-ride. The majority the land north of St. Clair out to Rockefeller Park is industrial at this point and the lake front parkland over that way needs an overhaul. It would be another thing if that area was being primed for redevelopment, but that is just not the case. In fact most people in the  Cleveland area view that as a part of the city to be avoided. Hopefully sometime down the road it will be revitalized and a rail extension would make sense, but like I said in my earlier post there are areas that will have a demand for this sooner.

 

Very true, Hoot. There has to be more things attracting development than repelling it, including linkages to growth centers. That's a big problem in Cleveland, where growth centers are located in isolated pockets. It's a big reason why there is development occuring along the HealthLine, because it better serves the growth center of University Circle, and a relatively stable, large commercial district located in downtown that has the potential for growth. Plus its linkage between the health care and biotech clusters in/near University Circle with the medical mart downtown is another thematic factor developers are recognizing.

 

If the northeast side of downtown is to become something, then it needs to tap into these things or create its own thematic economic development initiative. Perhaps redeveloping the area with housing that's linked by transit to the rest of downtown, airport and University Circle is sufficient to attract some investment like the Avenue District. But I think the area needs a 24-hour vibe, such as with the long-dreamt Tech Center on Rockwell or the expansion of the Artists Quarter westward and link it with the District of Design just south of there.

 

Perhaps those are things that could be united with the presence of a downtown loop. But it has to be supported with land use planning, redevelopment incentives, and vision -- something that the first part of the Waterfront Line was not.

 

This is the way I also see it. Cleveland needs to have a good vision to build upon its assets. After one part of town gets going it will spread to adjacent areas. That is typically how it works in any city that has gone through mass revitalization. I can think of several areas where TOD should be implemented (Downtown, Ohio City/25th St, West Blvd, 150th & Puritans, W. 117th), but it should be in already active areas first. It's nice they are finally doing it right around University Circle, and of course Shaker Square is a good example.

Then I dont think you understand TOD.

 

I understand it just fine actually and I'm all for it. IMHO Cleveland is not ready for an east extension of the waterfront line at this point, but I think it's ready for a downtown loop. If you were to build that east extension today it would end up being primarily a park-n-ride. The majority the land north of St. Clair out to Rockefeller Park is industrial at this point and the lake front parkland over that way needs an overhaul. It would be another thing if that area was being primed for redevelopment, but that is just not the case. In fact most people in the  Cleveland area view that as a part of the city to be avoided. Hopefully sometime down the road it will be revitalized and a rail extension would make sense, but like I said in my earlier post there are areas that will have a demand for this sooner.

 

Did you read the stops.  I highly doubt the locations i listed would be "park and ride".

 

Did you read the stops. I highly doubt the locations i listed would be "park and ride".

 

Yes, and I like your ideas in the long term. I just don't see this as an area with the most demand for this type of investment, thus more prime areas should be targeted first.

If it only serves the St. Clair corridor, then yeah, that seems wasteful.  I don't see much point in an eastward extension if it doesn't reach the "prime" areas beyond E152nd.  That's where the demand comes from... desirable areas separated from everything else by miles of rough stuff.  Just like Shaker, where rail service fills a similar need and is very popular.  Has it spurred growth at 79th and Kinsman?  No, and it isn't likely to spur growth at 79th and St Clair either.  But it does wonders for downtown and for Shaker.

^The Shaker rapids are not "very popular" by any real metric.  They draw a very low share of Shaker residents (just look at the census numbers) and they have some of the lowest rail line ridership numbers in the entire country.  I love them, ride them and will fight for them, but comparing a proposed new service to them is probably an indication the proposed new service isn't worth building.

 

EDIT: please note that I'm not anti transit or anti rail.  Just anti throwing money away on low ridership projects (like the WFL in the first place).

If it only serves the St. Clair corridor, then yeah, that seems wasteful.  I don't see much point in an eastward extension if it doesn't reach the "prime" areas beyond E152nd.  That's where the demand comes from... desirable areas separated from everything else by miles of rough stuff.  Just like Shaker, where rail service fills a similar need and is very popular.  Has it spurred growth at 79th and Kinsman?  No, and it isn't likely to spur growth at 79th and St Clair either.  But it does wonders for downtown and for Shaker.

 

If the primary goal is to serve the areas of Collinwood and to the east then why not just do the Red Line extension as posted earlier in this thread?

No need to add conditions to your message. They are low usage due to the land use surrounding them. They are strictly a CBD-based commuter service to/from bedroom communities. The Warrensville TOD will help the Blue Line have more bi-directional usage throughout the day but the Green Line will remain a morning-inbound, afternoon-outbound traffic flow unless it sees development around the Warrensville and Green Road stations, and the line is extended to I-271 as has been discussed for 40+ years.

 

Anyway, to bring this back to a downtown-loop discussion, having the LRT services reach more of downtown (and be tied to more development downtown and elsewhere) will also help to boost ridership on the Shaker Lines and offer more low-mileage lifestyle choices. But I don't recall the ridership numbers from the Waterfront Line/Phase II Major Investment Study. I'm sure they're out there somewhere on the web.

You mean this? From page 2 of this thread....

 

 

This, this, a thousand times, this.

By the way, if I were king for a day (or at least a year...), by the time this is built I would have ordered a new fleet of dual-floor light-rail transit cars that could serve the high-level platform stations of the Red Line and the low-level platforms of the Blue/Green/Waterfront lines.

 

That would allow Red/Blue/Green Line trains to use the loop interchangeably. For example, half the Red Line trains coming into downtown from the west on the Red Line to run counter-clockwise around the loop before heading out east to Windermere (and westbound trains run clockwise) and the other half to either the Green or Blue lines. But I would also offer a free or reduced-fare loop only train at certain times of the day (such as during weekday lunch hours, special events, and Friday/Saturday evenings) if there were sufficient sponsorships.

You mean this? From page 2 of this thread....

 

 

This, this, a thousand times, this.

 

I agree.  Couple this loop with a nice Detroit-Superior streetcar/subway (or elevated light or heavy rail... I'm not picky) from Lakewood to Cleveland Heights or possibly farther down Mayfield to I-271 and you've got yourself some nice service downtown.

That loop plan is great, and 17th is really ideal for it.

Here is what RTA has most recently said about the status of this project....

 

Waterfront Line Extension

 

This project would extend the Waterfront Line (WFL) from its current terminus near the

Cleveland Municipal Parking lot near the Shoreway and E. 13th Street. The purpose

would be to improve downtown access to RTA's rail system in downtown Cleveland.

One alignment being considered extends the line southeast from its current terminus

through Downtown past Playhouse Square and Tri-C's main campus, where it would

reconnect with the Red/Blue/Green Line Joint Area in the vicinity of E. 30th Street and

the Main Post Office.

 

This extension would “complete the loop” initiated by the Waterfront Line segment built

in 1996 and help establish a more effective downtown transit distribution system. The

initial alignment options would link the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project (ECTP), a

BRT project, with the Flats, a new convention center, North Coast Harbor, Playhouse

Square, Cleveland State University and Cuyahoga Community College.

 

The Alternative's Analysis study for this extension has been completed. The Locally

Preferred Alternative (LPA) process has not started because of a major planning effort

currently underway along the Lakefront. The Waterfront Line is a vital part of that plan

and further study of its extension will proceed after the City comes to a consensus on

what the Lakefront plan will be. The current City of Cleveland administration will assist

in determining its future. Additionally, Cleveland's Lakefront Plan is considering

extending the Waterfront Line east along the lakefront as far as East 88th Street and

possibly out to Collinwood, where significant public and private sector development

investments continue to be targeted. This extension is illustrated in the Chapter 1

section describing plans by others. This alternative was not included in RTA’s

Waterfront Line Extension study and would need a separate FTA-compliant evaluation.

 

SOURCE: http://www.artsintransit.gcrta.org/pdf/transit2025/Transit_2025_March_2006_Final_ch4.pdf (Page 56)

^and for the lakefront plan (if anyone is interested) with the Waterfront Line running next to the tracks between St. Clair and the Shoreway. (In my opinion a somewhat stupid place to put it.)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/cpc.html

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf

^and for the lakefront plan (if anyone is interested) with the Waterfront Line running next to the tracks between St. Clair and the Shoreway. (In my opinion a somewhat stupid place to put it.)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/cpc.html

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf

 

Isn't that 6/7 years old?  I honestly would like to believe that is no longer relevant 

That is the plan from the campbell administration

^and for the lakefront plan (if anyone is interested) with the Waterfront Line running next to the tracks between St. Clair and the Shoreway. (In my opinion a somewhat stupid place to put it.)

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/cpc.html

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/poster/waterfront_poster.pdf

 

Isn't that 6/7 years old? I honestly would like to believe that is no longer relevant

No, it isn't really relevant, but it is the plan that RTA was referring to in the Transit 2025 plan that KJP posted. In other words, RTA hasn't said anything about extending the Waterfront line in a few years, it's not really a priority to them.

No, it isn't really relevant, but it is the plan that RTA was referring to in the Transit 2025 plan that KJP posted. In other words, RTA hasn't said anything about extending the Waterfront line in a few years, it's not really a priority to them.

 

You're probably correct.  I like to think of transit as a cure for a city's economic ills, esp TOD rail... But many Americans don't think that way (maybe some in the Obama Admin who, of course, was trying to GIVE us 3-C seed/start-up $$ until a man named Kasich and...)... The reality is that extensive rail expansion is going to be a hard sell for a city like Cleveland with our steep population losses and rough economy.  While I've preferred the shoreline east expansion, to E. 88th and beyond, the fact is a Google or Bing maps satellite view shows mainly industrial usage, with miles of derelict factories and weed-covered rail sidings... about the only residential growth in the corridor in recent times is the lonely Quay-55 at East 55.  To extend would create a Waterfront Line problem all over again, unfortunately.  RTA has other priorities now, among them completing the Red Line station rebuilding program, the Blue Line expansion plan and studies for BRT west along Clifton, in addition to finding a better source of dedicated funding... the current struggling WFL will finally be getting its 1st major TOD, with the Wolstein Flats East Bank project, so it'll probably be a wait-'n-see approach until any serious WFL expansion will occur, Loop or Shore Line...

 

 

BTW, while looking through my archive CDs, I found this which you all might find of interest. It was provided in 1999 to folks in Columbus who were advocating a light-rail project there.....

 

 

---What: Waterfront Line began construction in Sept. 1994 and was

finished in July 1996, a week before the city's bicentennial. It is a 2-mile

extension of the Blue/Green lines from Shaker Heights.

 

---Why:  Line was built to serve special-event traffic and some tourist

destinations, most notably the Flats and North Coast Harbor (where the Rock

& Roll hall and science center are located). It was built as Phase One, as

the Regional Transit Authority planned to extend the line even further (see

FUTURE: Waterfront Line Phase Two).

 

---Cost: Original projection was for it to cost $47 million. Final price tag

was $55 million (which does not include $14 million worth of city parks

along the right of way which have nothing to do with the rail line). Cost

increased due to the accelerated construction timetable in order for the

line to be opened in time for the city's bicentennial celebrations. This

meant that construction and designed occurred at the same time--a situation

that isn't being forced in Columbus by any similar deadlines.

 

---Ridership: Original ridership projection was for the line to carry

600,000 riders per year. Actual ridership, as of the end of 1998, was 2.1

million passengers, or an average annual ridership of 868,966 passengers.

Ridership would have been even higher had the Cleveland Browns not left town

a year before the line opened. Construction was suspended on a station

located next to the football stadium in 1995 when the team left, but work

started up again this year with the station to open in August to service

football fans and other stadium traffic. Based on the 10-20 percent of

gameday traffic that uses the "Rapid" system to attend Cavaliers basketball

and Indians baseball games, the Waterfront Line can expect to attract an

additional  72,000 to 144,000 passengers from 10 football games (two games

preseason, eight in regular season)

each year. This doesn't include other events at the stadium (such as

concerts) and everyday ridership from the nearby offices, apartments and

nightspots near the new station.

 

---Development: While RTA expected the line would be used by special event

traffic and tourists, it didn't expect that nearly $700 million in new,

downtown development would happen along the line, which is feeding in new

ridership to the line. According to the city's planning department, the

Waterfront Line had influenced the site location or the orientation of

numerous building projects so they could tap into the rail line. Following

the line's July 1996 opening, nearly 700 housing units, a 22-story office

building, a 25-story hotel, seven restaurants, a science center, and a

72,000-seat stadium have been built, are under construction, or are

planned within 500 feet of the two-mile-long rail line.

 

---Future: As noted earlier, the two-mile section of the Waterfront Line is

actually just Phase One of the project. The line currently dead-ends at a

massive parking lot on downtown's northeast side. Planning has begun on

Phase Two to extend the Waterfront Line around the east side of downtown via

Playhouse Square and Cleveland State University to link up again with the

Blue/Green lines from Shaker Heights, thereby creating a "loop" of the

downtown core. This should bring additional ridership increases to the

Waterfront Line.

 

END

If I were to "sell" the idea to skeptical suburban Clevelanders, I would do two things:

  1. Use the phrase "completing the project" rather than starting a new project

  2. Couple the parking fee at Muni-lot with the RTA fare.  You pay to park your car, your reciept acts as an RTA transfer.  Maybe on weekends, "everyone in the car rides for free"

 

This will help all the people complaining that they can't park in front of the new casino

^ That would be excellent for casino parking. We dont need to demolish everything surrounding the casino for parking, people can park far away, not deal with downtown traffic, and just take the train right into the casino!

 

And thanks KJP for that, I wonder what the ridership numbers were once they closed the line.

If I were to "sell" the idea to skeptical suburban Clevelanders, I would do two things:

  1. Use the phrase "completing the project" rather than starting a new project

  2. Couple the parking fee at Muni-lot with the RTA fare.  You pay to park your car, your reciept acts as an RTA transfer.  Maybe on weekends, "everyone in the car rides for free"

 

This will help all the people complaining that they can't park in front of the new casino

While I believe in rail, this to me makes no sense.  Why would one from the west or southside completely pass up the Casino to park at the Muni lot and take a 5 minute ride over to the casino.  Why not build park and rides around 25th, or get on the rapid at Brookpark and take it into Tower City where the Casino for the most part is going to be located.  For Eastsiders, why not just take the train into tower city also.  My point basically is that there is already a"Casino Station" in Tower City.  If someone wants to ake a train to the Casino, it is already there. 

Westsiders can take advantage of red line. And eastsides can take advantage of the green/blue lines. But as someone who used to live on the eastside, northern eastside suburbs dont have any access to rail, they can get downtown in the same time they can get to the green road station. So if they can park at the muni lot and take the a short train in, it would be great in reducing the amount of parking needed in the center of the city.

If I were to "sell" the idea to skeptical suburban Clevelanders, I would do two things:

  1. Use the phrase "completing the project" rather than starting a new project

  2. Couple the parking fee at Muni-lot with the RTA fare.  You pay to park your car, your reciept acts as an RTA transfer.  Maybe on weekends, "everyone in the car rides for free"

 

This will help all the people complaining that they can't park in front of the new casino

While I believe in rail, this to me makes no sense.  Why would one from the west or southside completely pass up the Casino to park at the Muni lot and take a 5 minute ride over to the casino.  Why not build park and rides around 25th, or get on the rapid at Brookpark and take it into Tower City where the Casino for the most part is going to be located.  For Eastsiders, why not just take the train into tower city also.  My point basically is that there is already a"Casino Station" in Tower City.  If someone wants to ake a train to the Casino, it is already there. 

From my house it takes longer to get to Windermere than it takes to get to the Muni lot.

That tells an interesting story - that RTA never expected the line to do anything but serve events and the lakefront attractions.  It's actually stunning when you think about it.  The PD reported in 2008 that "Annual ridership on the Waterfront Line averaged about 613,000 between 1998 and 2000. By the next year, ridership had fallen to about 426,000. Since then, RTA has stopped staffing stations along the line and says it no longer keeps count."  So what happened?  In the words of Babu Bhatt, "Where the people?"  Why did ridership decline to just 70% of the projected number by 2001?  Was it all just the decline of the East Bank?

Currently its basically just a route from the northcoast harbor to tower city, with nothing in-between. If you could get more activity in the middle of the line, ridership would go up tremendously.

I know this conversation comes up sporadically, but I wanted to get the general opinions people have right now of the usefulness/need for true downtown light rail.  It's my humble opinion that of all the investments Cleveland and NEO can make to revitalize downtown, the investment in a mass transit option within the Central Business District has the greatest potential to increase private investment. 

 

I wonder, both, what people think of this policy, and also where the loop should go.  I know KJP said the Waterfront line should go south on 17th, I propose 18th, but would love to hear arguments for each.  Does anyone think it should go further east (perhaps using I-90 as a border?) or further west toward 9th keeping it more concentrated.  What are the opinions on best practices to connect Tremont and Ohio City to the Downtown area.

 

I truly believe a rail line connecting the neighborhoods of Ohio City, Downtown, and University Circle/Uptown/Little Italy with multiple stops in each (not the Red Line) would be more valuable than a new public square, Municipal Mall, and even Waterfront development.  We have too many disconnected places, more of them won't help without easily identifiable, accessible, (the Tower City Hub is not really a general use "stop" on the route, it's clearly a hub) and consistent rail options. 

 

I work across the street from the north coast harbor station and have never once used the waterfront line. I have always found the 55 to be faster than taking light rail. However on the days I do take the red line, before elimination of weekday service, I would never consider swiping out re-entering and waiting for a waterfront line when it's an 8 minute walk. The waterfront line added too much time to get to the north coast harbor versus walking/trolley that no one used it despite being near a lot of office buildings. In my opinion the waterfront line could be salvaged with red line trains that stop at tower city then immediately proceeding to north coast harbor. It's the added wait time for stopping and transferring to another train when your final destination is less than a mile away that turned me (and many others ) away from the waterfront line. So in my opinion a loop would be great only if it used the lines we already had, e.g. a continuous red line looping clockwise and a continuous blue line looping counter clockwise.

My problem with a loop like that is that it really doesn't conveniently serve anyone. For most, its a good walk to the station, then when you get to your destination stop, its a good walk from there to where you are heading.

 

Thats why I would prefer a streetcar loop. I proposed a loop that would better serve what downtown has to offer and one that could promote development in areas along the route. Im not fixed on the route, but this is one way I could see it work.

 

Instead of extending the waterfront line which could have several large obstacles, how about we build a streetcar downtown loop. It could look something like that.

 

More stops could be added as well

 

 

1. The convention center stop could serve the new convention center, medical mart, and malls.

2. The west 6th street stop could help the businesses on that street as well as possibly help fill in those lots.

3. The tower city stop would serve tower city, the casino, hotels, offices, as well as connecting to other RTA lines and public square.

4. The prospect/east 4th station would serve east 4th, gateway, as well as possibly help revitalize the buildings and storefronts along prospect.

5. The Hanna theater stop could help energize that corner as well as serve the hanna theater goers.

6. The Playhouse square/CSU would serve both CSU students as well as the rest of the theaters and businesses in that area.

7. The reserve square stop could help possibly fill in those lots and serve area residents and the hotel.

8. The Perk Park stop would serve the new park as well as area businesses.

9. The East 9th street stop would serve the business on the street as well as provide access to the library and surrounding businesses. It could also make the street more attractive to new businesses.

I'd say expanding the Trolley service would meet any demands and be much more appealing under a cost/beneift analysis.  At least that is my opinion as of now.  If momentum in Downtown keeps up, then I might change my mind.  But if this is just another spur of development - a la the early-mid 1990's - then a downtown loop would probably be a massive failure and a money loser for RTA. 

I like East 17th because it's just a little closer to the CBD, would offer a station with Playhouse Square on one side and CSU on the other, and since East 18th is four lanes and 17th only two, I believe East 18th should be extended north to the Shoreway.

 

And as for the rail line not serving anything, I beg to differ. I think commuters coming in from the West Side bound for CSU would love to have a one-seat train ride.

 

Plus, if the city moves forward with the lakefront intermodal center, the Browns et al move forward on their development plans, and the Flats East Bank expands, then there are going to be more traffic generators on the Waterfront Line.

 

And yes, I agree with the idea that the rail system needs to have one type of standardized rail car with half of the Red Line trains coming in from the West side running counter-clockwise on the loop and the other half continuing through to Windermere. After those looping trains return to Tower City, I would have them head east as Green Line trains. This process would reverse with the Green Line trains running clockwise through the loop and become Red Line trains on the west side. In the intervals, I would run a loop-only train in both directions. The Blue Line trains, which are more heavily used than Green Line trains, would originate and terminate at Tower City.

 

But this would require standardization of the rail fleet, possibly with dual-mode trains that could also operate on the WestShore commuter rail.

The Blue Line trains, which are more heavily used than Green Line trains

 

What are the stats on these lines?  From my experience, it seems pretty similar, or maybe even the opposite (especially at rush hour) due to more parking lots near the end of the Green line.  The stops in between Warrensville Center and Shaker Square definitely seem busier on the Blue line, though.

I'm trying to find the data, but I remembered that the Blue Line carried more than the Green Line because it has more consistent ridership throughout the day.

That would make sense.

I know this conversation comes up sporadically, but I wanted to get the general opinions people have right now of the usefulness/need for true downtown light rail.  It's my humble opinion that of all the investments Cleveland and NEO can make to revitalize downtown, the investment in a mass transit option within the Central Business District has the greatest potential to increase private investment. 

 

I wonder, both, what people think of this policy, and also where the loop should go.  I know KJP said the Waterfront line should go south on 17th, I propose 18th, but would love to hear arguments for each.  Does anyone think it should go further east (perhaps using I-90 as a border?) or further west toward 9th keeping it more concentrated.  What are the opinions on best practices to connect Tremont and Ohio City to the Downtown area.

 

I truly believe a rail line connecting the neighborhoods of Ohio City, Downtown, and University Circle/Uptown/Little Italy with multiple stops in each (not the Red Line) would be more valuable than a new public square, Municipal Mall, and even Waterfront development.  We have too many disconnected places, more of them won't help without easily identifiable, accessible, (the Tower City Hub is not really a general use "stop" on the route, it's clearly a hub) and consistent rail options. 

 

 

Fingers crossed this is part of the Lakefront announcement plan ;)

 

Agreed I would rather have this than a new Public Square.

As I've said before, I could go with a loop, but I would want it to loop back tighter, down the Huron corridor, and drop into a subway somewhere around 9th (preferrably before E. 9th) to connect with the already-built, grade-separated infrastructure at the current Red, Blue, Green Huron subway into Tower City -- both eliminating several blocks of street running while, also, saving tons of $$ in building a brand-new connection elsewhere on the line... (farther east on the current trunk line, which wouldn't make much sense, esp given the slower speeds and ligher traffic of a wider, street-oriented/traffic light delayd, streetcar route).

 

my Idea of a Tram/lighter rail loop in downtown Cleveland.

 

loop line in green

healthline in blue

 

connector to existing rail in yellow.

 

My goal is to connect our disparate downtown together and to encourage redevelopment of the acres of parking lots that litter downtown.

 

the route is designed to serve as a walking supplement to downtown residents, workers, students, and tourists.  go beyond simple commuter service and become the the day to day service to allow people downtown to get riad of their cars, and feed more people into the rest of the transit system.

 

Using these

 

 

 

I have doubts that it would even be possible to run the current blue line trains in a road right of way.  they may be too big, too heavy and wide to meet the needs of a Tram in downtown.

Thought I'd give it a go. One thing to remember is that an entrance to a subway station does not necessarily have to be directly above where the train runs! I saw this a lot in Europe.. but we see it here too. I think we could play that to our advantage.

 

 

Ignore a few of the errant blue markers. I had txt with them but alas its 2:35 AM and I just don't have the patience.

 

Some specific examples where the subway entrance is both directly where the "M" is, and a second entrance at the blue marker, is of course the Mall/Rock Hall, Then The Galleria (which is just RIPE for a subway), The Trust Rotunda (OOOOH YES!), the Casino, The West Side Transit Center/Aquarium (maybe even a glass tube underwater!).

 

If I were king of the forest...

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.scribblemaps.com/getkml.aspx?id=iwJLQIbRUw%26g=3453D59

 

my Idea of a Tram/lighter rail loop in downtown Cleveland.

 

loop line in green

healthline in blue

 

connector to existing rail in yellow.

 

My goal is to connect our disparate downtown together and to encourage redevelopment of the acres of parking lots that litter downtown.

 

the route is designed to serve as a walking supplement to downtown residents, workers, students, and tourists.  go beyond simple commuter service and become the the day to day service to allow people downtown to get riad of their cars, and feed more people into the rest of the transit system.

 

Using these

 

 

 

I have doubts that it would even be possible to run the current blue line trains in a road right of way.  they may be too big, too heavy and wide to meet the needs of a Tram in downtown.

 

I like it!!

Thought I'd give it a go. One thing to remember is that an entrance to a subway station does not necessarily have to be directly above where the train runs! I saw this a lot in Europe.. but we see it here too. I think we could play that to our advantage.

 

 

Ignore a few of the errant blue markers. I had txt with them but alas its 2:35 AM and I just don't have the patience.

 

Some specific examples where the subway entrance is both directly where the "M" is, and a second entrance at the blue marker, is of course the Mall/Rock Hall, Then The Galleria (which is just RIPE for a subway), The Trust Rotunda (OOOOH YES!), the Casino, The West Side Transit Center/Aquarium (maybe even a glass tube underwater!).

 

If I were king of the forest...

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.scribblemaps.com/getkml.aspx?id=iwJLQIbRUw%26g=3453D59

 

Scav, if somehow we could pull this off, I'd be dancing in the streets... Only in our dreams...

Thought I'd give it a go. One thing to remember is that an entrance to a subway station does not necessarily have to be directly above where the train runs! I saw this a lot in Europe.. but we see it here too. I think we could play that to our advantage.

 

 

Ignore a few of the errant blue markers. I had txt with them but alas its 2:35 AM and I just don't have the patience.

 

Some specific examples where the subway entrance is both directly where the "M" is, and a second entrance at the blue marker, is of course the Mall/Rock Hall, Then The Galleria (which is just RIPE for a subway), The Trust Rotunda (OOOOH YES!), the Casino, The West Side Transit Center/Aquarium (maybe even a glass tube underwater!).

 

If I were king of the forest...

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.scribblemaps.com/getkml.aspx?id=iwJLQIbRUw%26g=3453D59

 

Scav, if somehow we could pull this off, I'd be dancing in the streets... Only in our dreams...

 

I love for this too happen but I just can't see the density or diversity of use to support a subway loop.

Thought I'd give it a go. One thing to remember is that an entrance to a subway station does not necessarily have to be directly above where the train runs! I saw this a lot in Europe.. but we see it here too. I think we could play that to our advantage.

 

Ignore a few of the errant blue markers. I had txt with them but alas its 2:35 AM and I just don't have the patience.

 

Some specific examples where the subway entrance is both directly where the "M" is, and a second entrance at the blue marker, is of course the Mall/Rock Hall, Then The Galleria (which is just RIPE for a subway), The Trust Rotunda (OOOOH YES!), the Casino, The West Side Transit Center/Aquarium (maybe even a glass tube underwater!).

 

If I were king of the forest...

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.scribblemaps.com/getkml.aspx?id=iwJLQIbRUw%26g=3453D59

 

Scav, if somehow we could pull this off, I'd be dancing in the streets... Only in our dreams...

 

I love for this too happen but I just can't see the density or diversity of use to support a subway loop.

 

I hear you biker, ... but maybe what we're seeing is the rebuilding of Cleveland's core, so that such density can be created.  Consider how far we've come in just 2 decades, with heightened growth over the last 5 years along the Euclid corridor.  The casino, the med mart and the return of the Flats (East Bank), all have the potential to spin off high density growth (esp the casino)... Also, as Ohio City continues to grow, you're already seeing downtown connected to a sub-downtown (entertainment/residential-wise) connected by a 2.5 min heavy-rail subway/metro ride... and this in the car-is-king! Midwest.... If a sprawling, former country-town like Atlanta can spawn density to support heavy rail metro, so can we.

 

I like the use of the Amsterdam-type trams, though I'm wondering about a few things:

 

I assume that using the Amsterdam model means that the waterfront extension would be street-level, in mixed traffic.  Would being at street level need dedicated lanes to prevent cars from getting in the way, or would they share the same lanes?  I'm wondering this because East 17th is a two-lane street and would be more prone to congestion, while the four-lane East 18th could provide tram-only dedicated lanes.  I'm also wondering about the turning radius on the trams in mixed traffic at 90 degree or sharper turns.

 

Red Line counterclockwise loop:  Since the Red Line is heavy rail, wouldn't the nature of heavy rail prevent the routing the Red Line at street level?  Or would this require a raised route, a tunnel, or a dedicated trench to separate car and foot traffic from the Red Line?  Still, I advocate for this Red Line loop to better connect Hopkins with the Convention Center, or even Burke should Burke ever be used as a commuter airport.

 

Speaking of loops, what are people's thoughts on the B and E line free trolleys that the RTA is offering downtown?

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Bline.pdf

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Eline.pdf

 

I wonder, both, what people think of this policy, and also where the loop should go.  I know KJP said the Waterfront line should go south on 17th, I propose 18th, but would love to hear arguments for each.  Does anyone think it should go further east (perhaps using I-90 as a border?) or further west toward 9th keeping it more concentrated.  What are the opinions on best practices to connect Tremont and Ohio City to the Downtown area.

 

Depending on congestion, another option is routing the clockwise loop on 17th and the counterclockwise on 18th, or vice-versa.  Of course, what you save on congestion you double in costs in station construction.

 

I had drawn a concept map on how to connect Tremont and Ohio City to Downtown (routing along I-90 from Deadman's Curve to Carnegie, then along I-77 to I-490 to W. 25th): http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.msg598007.html#msg598007

 

But after understanding the logistics of the route better, I think that concept needs to be reconfigured.  A smaller, possible "outer loop" would be Carnegie - W. 25th - Main Ave/Shoreway - NCTC - I-90 that would link Ohio City, Flats West and East, Asiatown and Progressive Field.  Tremont gets closed out of the loop, but Slavic Village would be connected through a East 9th/Broadway tram.

My suggestion is to remove all non-transit vehicles from East 17th Street. And heavy rail vehicles can and do cross streets at-grade, including those powered by third rail. See the pictures I posted from Chicago earlier in this thread. And we're assuming that GCRTA will always operate the Red Line with heavy-rail vehicles....

 

 

 

I like the use of the Amsterdam-type trams, though I'm wondering about a few things:

 

I assume that using the Amsterdam model means that the waterfront extension would be street-level, in mixed traffic.  Would being at street level need dedicated lanes to prevent cars from getting in the way, or would they share the same lanes?  I'm wondering this because East 17th is a two-lane street and would be more prone to congestion, while the four-lane East 18th could provide tram-only dedicated lanes.  I'm also wondering about the turning radius on the trams in mixed traffic at 90 degree or sharper turns.

 

My motivation is to Reduce the costs of creating an effective system.  you do that by minimizing the use of dedicated ROWs, every time you seeks to separate Cars and Trains you add millions to the cost of the project, and you remove decrease capacity of the road way.  the disadvatages of mixed operation is speed,dedicaed ROW are faster, but with loops like the one I proposed do not need to be fast, the loops are short enough to allow 20 min service with one tram, and 10 minute service with 2 trams.  TRams are an extension of walking they allow pedestrians to walk further than they normally would, It is not a conventional commuter transit service but truly a connector of adjacent neighborhoods. 

 

 

I see trams like I see buses, 98% of the time they are not there, that 2% of the time drivers and trams operators needs to be aware of each other.  all the leaglities of tram operations are know they have to follow trafic laws and drivers have to follow Traffic laws as well.  there will be accidents, just like there are accidents beteen cars and buses on the Healthline, the difference is trams don't move.  they have to follow the rails. drivers have to be aware of that, but that awareness does not come automatically but overtime as drviers adapt to the new environment, just like the health line.

 

Red Line counterclockwise loop:  Since the Red Line is heavy rail, wouldn't the nature of heavy rail prevent the routing the Red Line at street level?  Or would this require a raised route, a tunnel, or a dedicated trench to separate car and foot traffic from the Red Line?  Still, I advocate for this Red Line loop to better connect Hopkins with the Convention Center, or even Burke should Burke ever be used as a commuter airport.

 

Speaking of loops, what are people's thoughts on the B and E line free trolleys that the RTA is offering downtown?

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Bline.pdf

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/Eline.pdf

 

You would never Run heavy Rail at street level unless you had no other choice, why? because they cannot maneuver in a street corridors without an enormous effect on other Traffic.  their turns are too wide, and much like a semi truck they require wide berth when they turn, in addition the width of the cars at > 9 feet, are a barriers  to traffic,  Trams on the other hand have tighter Turing radius, only slightly wider than 60ft buses, they can also be narrower than buses, as little as  7'7" wide.  all these features allow the tram to have a smaller footprint in traffic. 

 

you even want to separate Light rail from Trams because of the footprints they have in traffic that make them a better fit in mix ROW.

 

I wonder, both, what people think of this policy, and also where the loop should go.  I know KJP said the Waterfront line should go south on 17th, I propose 18th, but would love to hear arguments for each.  Does anyone think it should go further east (perhaps using I-90 as a border?) or further west toward 9th keeping it more concentrated.  What are the opinions on best practices to connect Tremont and Ohio City to the Downtown area.

 

Depending on congestion, another option is routing the clockwise loop on 17th and the counterclockwise on 18th, or vice-versa.  Of course, what you save on congestion you double in costs in station construction.

 

the issue with 17th is the freight deliverys to the playhouse square, and the CSU garage  creates a bottle neck.  18th street is much wider at 4 lanes and would have reduced risk for delays. 

 

 

I had drawn a concept map on how to connect Tremont and Ohio City to Downtown (routing along I-90 from Deadman's Curve to Carnegie, then along I-77 to I-490 to W. 25th): http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.msg598007.html#msg598007

 

But after understanding the logistics of the route better, I think that concept needs to be reconfigured.  A smaller, possible "outer loop" would be Carnegie - W. 25th - Main Ave/Shoreway - NCTC - I-90 that would link Ohio City, Flats West and East, Asiatown and Progressive Field.  Tremont gets closed out of the loop, but Slavic Village would be connected through a East 9th/Broadway tram.

 

I think you have to know the right tools for The job, know your limits, trams are slow, in order to maintain adequate service frequency. the distances covered by by a street car have to be shorter.  You need good frequency when you have meandering route, you add time, and in order to increase the frequency. you have to add more trains.  you also want have a realistic idea of where you Want development to take place.  I describe the traditional  street car networks in Cleveland because all major development in the city took place along those lines. 

 

If streetcars are a Extension of Walking, you want to service areas where you have a high density of pedestrians, the denser the better, and connect those areas together. 

 

I would like to see a Tram line from public square to Market square, over the Detroit/superior bridge and Lorain/Carnegie bridge Via West 25th.

 

I wuld take an incremental approach to expansion after that,  because the cost to benefit ratio decrease as distance grows and density declines.  when that happens buses become a better option.

 

either way we have to be smart, there used to be 900,000 people living in cleveland at the peak of streetcar use, now there are only 400,000, we have to be realistic about when and where we choose to develop a tram system.

Since the RTA has been talking about this for years, have they ever come up with a map of their own?  I'm just curious to see where it goes and what people think of their routing.  I've heard W. 30th to the Post Office?

 

If streetcars are a Extension of Walking, you want to service areas where you have a high density of pedestrians, the denser the better, and connect those areas together. 

 

I would like to see a Tram line from public square to Market square, over the Detroit/superior bridge and Lorain/Carnegie bridge Via West 25th.

 

I wuld take an incremental approach to expansion after that,  because the cost to benefit ratio decrease as distance grows and density declines.  when that happens buses become a better option.

 

That makes sense.  Then I would have tram lines on W. 6th and E. 9th (unless E. 9th is suitable for LRT?), and I agree that a tram to connect Public Square with Market Square would be a definite plus.  My only hesitation in routing through Public Square is that I don't want it to cut through the square if we're going to close off the streets going through it.

Since the RTA has been talking about this for years, have they ever come up with a map of their own?  I'm just curious to see where it goes and what people think of their routing.  I've heard W. 30th to the Post Office?

 

Yes, GCRTA in 1998-2000 conducted a major investment study (now called an Alternatives Analysis) of extending the Waterfront Line. This is the route GCRTA recommended with the southern routing options shown in blue and green (I seem to recall GCRTA favoring the blue option but for some reason I recall that it wasn't a clear-cut choice)......