Whoops!  Clearly I need better reading comprehension when it comes to going through earlier posts!

 

The blue route seems better suited for TOD, going by Wolstein and Tri-C. I'd love more development west of Broadway as well, though I don't see how that would be possible.  Is the RTA even considering a Red Line counterclockwise loop, or are they only talking about looping the Blue/Green line?

RTA isn't considering any kind of loop right now.

I look inot more date on light rail and the inherent issues with cost estimation of portiential light rail project I feel it should be

 

The relentless escalation of design features, infrastructural requirements, and project costs for new-start light rail transit (LRT) systems has been a matter of increasing concern to transportation professionals and decision-makers pursuing viable public transport options for North American cities. In a paper titled "Are We Pricing Light Rail Transit Systems Out of Range?" presented to the 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit in Dallas, Texas in November 2000, Richard D. Pilgrim of URS/BRW, Inc. asked that very question, pointing out that:

 

    Capital costs for light rail transit (LRT) systems are showing a wide range of variability as well as rapid increases. System planners are now using planning estimates for costs that often exceed $22 to $28 million/km ($35 to $45 million/mi) for new LRT lines. With costs at these levels, many agencies are faced with a significant problem to identify adequate sources of funds early in the planning process. An especially difficult problem is encountered in pre-New Start cities, where study data from other cities is used to estimate costs during planning studies.[1]

 

Pilgrim went on to caution that "Conclusions of some of those studies may result in LRT alternatives being set aside because expected costs appear to be too high."

 

In that same conference, Kenneth G. Sislak of Wilbur Smith Associates pointed out that the increasingly higher cost of LRT projects was making it increasingly difficult for some smaller cities, with lighter projected ridership volumes, to justify LRT.[2] in "Bus Rapid Transit as a Substitute for Light Rail Transit: A Tale of Two Cities", Sislak noted that

 

    the cost-effectiveness of constructing expensive new start LRT lines is being questioned by local officials in many smaller cities now engaged in studying the feasibility of such investments. The costs of constructing LRT have spiraled upward, whereas estimated levels of future transit system ridership in smaller cities are relatively low compared to larger cities. Can public transportation services in smaller cities be dramatically improved without the extraordinary capital expenditures required of LRT system construction? Bus rapid transit (BRT) may be a rational and cost-effective way to implement significant transit improvements in smaller cities, and it may cost 40 to 70 percent less than current LRT construction estimates.

 

Rapid Streetcar concept

 

An innovative approach to the planning of new LRT systems – the Rapid Streetcar concept – may offer some potential for reducing LRT system project costs, while retaining operational cost efficiencies. This concept draws upon already proven, existing LRT and streetcar (tramway) practices and technology currently used in many European cities and in North American systems such as those now operating in Portland, Tacoma, and New Orleans.

 

In some respects, Rapid Streetcar is a reversion to the original roots of the LRT concept – such as what, for example, the LRT pioneer Stewart F. Taylor proposed in his landmark article "The Rapid Tramway: A Feasible Solution to the Urban Transportation Problem", published in Traffic Quarterly in 1970.[3] Taylor was particularly interested in northern European streetcar transformations and developments, and was convinced that these held substantial promise for urban areas in North America.

 

This same interest in European streetcar evolution had also been exhibited by H. Dean Quinby about eight years earlier.[4] in "Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept", also published in Traffic Quarterly, Quinby focused on what he perceived as a basically new form of transit evolving in a number of West German, Swiss, Belgian, Netherlands, and Swedish cities – what Gregory L. Thompson has described as the efforts of transit agencies in these cities "to upgrade their historic streetcar systems during the post World War II period …."[5]

 

the concept  reduces the costs of LRT construction.

 

the precedent for estimated costs of construction of a Cleveland 5 km loop like I proposed would be Cincinnati, they have estimated 95 million for a 4 mile loop.

 

would put a Cleveland loop at 73.6 million at Cincy's 23.75 million per mile.   

 

but wait there's more...

 

the FTA has a program Urban Circulator Grants designated for urban bus and streetcar projects.

 

Through the Urban Circulator Program grants, FTA will invest in a limited number of projects that fulfill the six livability principles that serve as the foundation for the DOT-HUD-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities:

 

1  Provide more transportation choices

2  Promote equitable, affordable housing

3  Enhance economic competitiveness

4  Support existing communities

5  Coordinate policies and leverage investment

6  Value communities and neighborhoods

 

 

 

Cincy Received 25 million for their streetcar, Cleveland could do the Same.

 

73millon

-25 million

 

48 million would be the difference.  I think it would be worth it to stimulate the development along the route. 

 

 

I don't think Cincinnati's per-mile costs for a lighter-duty of construction needed for a streetcar are transferable to Cleveland's heavier-duty construction needed for light-rail. There are also two major components of a Waterfront II-Downtown Loop that make it very expensive -- 1) having to climb up and bridge over the lakefront railroad tracks to the elevation of the old Davenport Bluffs area, and 2) creating a flying junction (aka grade-separated interlocking -- think highway cloverleaf) with the existing Red/Blue/Green lines. The latter is likely to be the most expensive, considering bridge and grading work, signal installations and computer aided dispatching equipment, and more complicated overhead catenaries. I would not be surprised if construction of the interlocking alone cost at least $50 million.

I don't think Cincinnati's per-mile costs for a lighter-duty of construction needed for a streetcar are transferable to Cleveland's heavier-duty construction needed for light-rail. There are also two major components of a Waterfront II-Downtown Loop that make it very expensive --

 

I would never, try to use heavy duty light rail for a downtown loop.  the Issue Is that we have for last few decades been over spec'ing the LRT alternatives to project like the the EC, where the obvious and most cost effective choice would have been a urban Circulator light rail system, that would be easier to maintain.

 

As an urban Circulator, operating in a Road ROW you would not need or want Breda light rail cars, operating in a road corridor, it too wide, too expensive and not maneuverable enough to fit in a Road ROW.  for A Down town loop all you need is a streetcar type system like what Cincy is doing.

 

1) having to climb up and bridge over the lakefront railroad tracks to the elevation of the old Davenport Bluffs area.

2) creating a flying junction (aka grade-separated interlocking -- think highway cloverleaf) with the existing Red/Blue/Green lines. The latter is likely to be the most expensive, considering bridge and grading work, signal installations and computer aided dispatching equipment, and more complicated overhead catenaries. I would not be surprised if construction of the interlocking alone cost at least $50 million.

 

the bluff may or may not have to be conquered.  lets take a step back, this would be a Starter system, while it would be nice to connect the system to the larger rail facility off of East 55th.  in the beginning it may be best not to do so in phase 1 and to do it at a later date.  Instead build a streetcar maintenance facility along the line the one proposed in New Haven would measure 150ft x 150ft, would be built at a cost much less than a direct connection to the end of the waterfront line.  As an urban circulator you would not normally run trains from the waterfront line onto the Downtown loop.

 

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/TrafficParking/pdfs/2011-0120_NH%20Streetcar%20Final%20Report_Complete.pdf

 

Another option could be to run a track through the flats up St Clair or main avenue, although I have dobuts about the grade of those hills. 

 

max grade for a Tram is 9%

 

 

So what would you do with the existing Waterfront Line? Force riders to transfer to a tram? Replace or amend the Waterfront Line with infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate trams on it?

 

Once you've built a house, you often have to live with it, including buying more furniture that will fit in it even if its not your favorite kind of furniture. You don't build a separate house just so you can buy new kinds of furniture.

So what would you do with the existing Waterfront Line? Force riders to transfer to a tram? Replace or amend the Waterfront Line with infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate trams on it?

 

people ride the Waterfront line?

 

People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route 

 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

Once you've built a house, you often have to live with it, including buying more furniture that will fit in it even if its not your favorite kind of furniture. You don't build a separate house just so you can buy new kinds of furniture.

 

It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars.  how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered?

 

if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network?  will it reduce operating costs?  think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together.  I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection.   

So what would you do with the existing Waterfront Line? Force riders to transfer to a tram? Replace or amend the Waterfront Line with infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate trams on it?

 

people ride the Waterfront line?

 

People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route 

 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

Once you've built a house, you often have to live with it, including buying more furniture that will fit in it even if its not your favorite kind of furniture. You don't build a separate house just so you can buy new kinds of furniture.

 

It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars.  how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered?

 

if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network?  will it reduce operating costs?  think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together.  I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection.   

 

And where would people transfer at TC?? 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

 

Whether anyone rides the Waterfront Line is not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the operating environment. And I cannot say for sure if they are necessarily compatible. When the PCCs were replaced with the Bredas in 1980-81, the entire Shaker Rapid's infrastructure was completely rebuilt and replaced. That was also a decade before ADA and nearly three decades before the FTA's draconian level-boarding requirements. Also are the power supply provisions the same? Would substations and transformers need to be altered? A tram could be designed and built to suit its operating environment, so there would have to be assessment of if and how many changes would need to be made to infrastructure or to vehicle design or if there could be a "meeting in the middle." I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think compatibility can be assumed.

 

I am philosophically opposed to forced transfers, so bringing a new type of equipment into the mix rubs me the wrong way. I prefer to keep butts in the same seats (even if they aren't the best seats), especially considering RTA's infrequent schedules. I don't know how RTA would feel about this, but they are also aware of the pitfalls of forced transfers. And as a government agency which typically is powered by inertia and daily routines, you will have to show that changing from the status quo will be well worth their time and money in order to get their support. Or get a powerful politician to fall in love with trams so that he/she can put pressure on RTA's board!

So what would you do with the existing Waterfront Line? Force riders to transfer to a tram? Replace or amend the Waterfront Line with infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate trams on it?

 

people ride the Waterfront line?

 

People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route 

 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

Once you've built a house, you often have to live with it, including buying more furniture that will fit in it even if its not your favorite kind of furniture. You don't build a separate house just so you can buy new kinds of furniture.

 

It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars.  how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered?

 

if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network?  will it reduce operating costs?  think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together.  I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection.   

 

And where would people transfer at TC??

 

they would travel from the platforms 3 levels below west prospect, to the street directly above those platforms, it is literally on elevator ride to from platform level (-1) to street level (3).    the tranfer would require less walking than a transfer on public Square.

So what would you do with the existing Waterfront Line? Force riders to transfer to a tram? Replace or amend the Waterfront Line with infrastructure and equipment necessary to operate trams on it?

 

people ride the Waterfront line?

 

People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route 

 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

Once you've built a house, you often have to live with it, including buying more furniture that will fit in it even if its not your favorite kind of furniture. You don't build a separate house just so you can buy new kinds of furniture.

 

It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars.  how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered?

 

if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network?  will it reduce operating costs?  think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together.  I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection.   

 

And where would people transfer at TC??

 

they would travel from the platforms 3 levels below west prospect, to the street directly above those platforms, it is literally on elevator ride to from platform level (-1) to street level (3).    the tranfer would require less walking than a transfer on public Square.

 

Please know I'm looking at the screen - imagining it's your face - with a "WTF!  Are you serious B---h?" look on my face!  For our system that type of transfer is ridiculous!

they would travel from the platforms 3 levels below west prospect, to the street directly above those platforms, it is literally on elevator ride to from platform level (-1) to street level (3).    the tranfer would require less walking than a transfer on public Square.

That's not the craziest idea I've seen proposed, but I don't think you'll sell anyone on it.

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

 

Whether anyone rides the Waterfront Line is not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the operating environment. And I cannot say for sure if they are necessarily compatible. When the PCCs were replaced with the Bredas in 1980-81, the entire Shaker Rapid's infrastructure was completely rebuilt and replaced. That was also a decade before ADA and nearly three decades before the FTA's draconian level-boarding requirements. Also are the power supply provisions the same? Would substations and transformers need to be altered? A tram could be designed and built to suit its operating environment, so there would have to be assessment of if and how many changes would need to be made to infrastructure or to vehicle design or if there could be a "meeting in the middle." I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think compatibility can be assumed.

 

The voltage used on the Redline and LRT is the same, Correct?  the most important thing is to optimize the type of transit for it's indented use.  while it would be nice to purchase 50 new LRT that can make the GB lines ADA compliant,  the risk of making the streetcar too expensive to run, and too small to meet the needs of the GB lines. 

 

Now 3 decades later after going heavy light rail, we have a light rail that is arguably too large and too expensive for the ridership it receives.

using old thinking to address new problems, get us mandates for a isolated ROW and double trackage for a LRT extension to a starter line.

 

the decision to use Breda, has reduced the flexibility of RTA to expand the system.  the PCCs used previously were designed for street running

 

 

I am philosophically opposed to forced transfers, so bringing a new type of equipment into the mix rubs me the wrong way. I prefer to keep butts in the same seats (even if they aren't the best seats), especially considering RTA's infrequent schedules.

 

how would a rider get from a Red Line station like brookpark.  to the MM, CSU, or the galleria, you either walk or you transfer to another bus.  it is a reality that riders already are used to, with a dense area like Downtown general people anticipate walking or transferring to get to their final destination.

 

To me Frequency is the problem,  transfers are not, a one seat ride to a major destination like Downtown would require most riders to either walk or transfer to another bus or to the current trolleys. this also ignore the 10,000 residents living downtown and the hundreds of thousands of visitors that need to move around downtown.    the focus of any functional tram system is to keep the frequency up, while minimizing operating the tram too far out, where it's lack a speed affects performance decreases frequency.

 

remember Streetcar Augment walking, they allow walker to go further than would normally go.  this would make it possible for workers who work in playhouse square to eat lunch at tower city or in the warehouse district.

 

 

I don't know how RTA would feel about this, but they are also aware of the pitfalls of forced transfers. And as a government agency which typically is powered by inertia and daily routines, you will have to show that changing from the status quo will be well worth their time and money in order to get their support. Or get a powerful politician to fall in love with trams so that he/she can put pressure on RTA's board!

 

I will Try to have something made up to give to Howard and Joe Calabreeze next time I see them. 

 

The idea to get across, is to rethink the how LRT is presented, and understand that speed in not always king, and that streetcar can be built at a much lower cost than conventional LRT.

 

that it is proven that trams/streetcars can encourage redevelopment of urban area, downtown streetcar loop could be expanded to other revitalized neighborhoods around downtown like Tremont, Ohio city and Campus district. the effectiveness of placing the route around parking lots to encourage development on those lots.  the key to the success of transit and TOD is to reduce Car ownership, and make it easier for residents to access day to day needs via transit.

 

any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail.  the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again.

 

 

Whether anyone rides the Waterfront Line is not relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the operating environment. And I cannot say for sure if they are necessarily compatible. When the PCCs were replaced with the Bredas in 1980-81, the entire Shaker Rapid's infrastructure was completely rebuilt and replaced. That was also a decade before ADA and nearly three decades before the FTA's draconian level-boarding requirements. Also are the power supply provisions the same? Would substations and transformers need to be altered? A tram could be designed and built to suit its operating environment, so there would have to be assessment of if and how many changes would need to be made to infrastructure or to vehicle design or if there could be a "meeting in the middle." I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think compatibility can be assumed.

 

The voltage used on the Redline and LRT is the same, Correct?  the most important thing is to optimize the type of transit for it's indented use.  while it would be nice to purchase 50 new LRT that can make the GB lines ADA compliant,  the risk of making the streetcar too expensive to run, and too small to meet the needs of the GB lines. 

 

Now 3 decades later after going heavy light rail, we have a light rail that is arguably too large and too expensive for the ridership it receives.

using old thinking to address new problems, get us mandates for a isolated ROW and double trackage for a LRT extension to a starter line.

 

the decision to use Breda, has reduced the flexibility of RTA to expand the system.  the PCCs used previously were designed for street running

 

 

I am philosophically opposed to forced transfers, so bringing a new type of equipment into the mix rubs me the wrong way. I prefer to keep butts in the same seats (even if they aren't the best seats), especially considering RTA's infrequent schedules.

 

how would a rider get from a Red Line station like brookpark.  to the MM, CSU, or the galleria, you either walk or you transfer to another bus.  it is a reality that riders already are used to, with a dense area like Downtown general people anticipate walking or transferring to get to their final destination.

 

To me Frequency is the problem,  transfers are not, a one seat ride to a major destination like Downtown would require most riders to either walk or transfer to another bus or to the current trolleys. this also ignore the 10,000 residents living downtown and the hundreds of thousands of visitors that need to move around downtown.    the focus of any functional tram system is to keep the frequency up, while minimizing operating the tram too far out, where it's lack a speed affects performance decreases frequency.

 

remember Streetcar Augment walking, they allow walker to go further than would normally go.  this would make it possible for workers who work in playhouse square to eat lunch at tower city or in the warehouse district.

 

 

I don't know how RTA would feel about this, but they are also aware of the pitfalls of forced transfers. And as a government agency which typically is powered by inertia and daily routines, you will have to show that changing from the status quo will be well worth their time and money in order to get their support. Or get a powerful politician to fall in love with trams so that he/she can put pressure on RTA's board!

 

I will Try to have something made up to give to Howard and Joe Calabreeze next time I see them. 

 

The idea to get across, is to rethink the how LRT is presented, and understand that speed in not always king, and that streetcar can be built at a much lower cost than conventional LRT.

 

that it is proven that trams/streetcars can encourage redevelopment of urban area, downtown streetcar loop could be expanded to other revitalized neighborhoods around downtown like Tremont, Ohio city and Campus district. the effectiveness of placing the route around parking lots to encourage development on those lots.  the key to the success of transit and TOD is to reduce Car ownership, and make it easier for residents to access day to day needs via transit.

 

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

The PCC cars were ordered by the City of Shaker Heights after the Shaker lines were diverted off downtown Cleveland streets in 1930 to operate over the current dedicated tracks into Cleveland Union Terminal. The PCC cars were chosen by the City of Shaker Heights because it was in high production at the time so the per-unit costs were very low, and they were very reliable, high-performing cars for streetcar or interurban use.

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

No it's not. The Cleveland Transit System (today's Red Line) WAS routed over the Shaker lines from CUT to East 55th starting in 1955, a practice which continues to this day. The Tokyu cars operating on the Red Line cannot use the Shaker lines because the curves are too sharp and the station platforms are too low.

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

The PCC cars were ordered by the City of Shaker Heights after the Shaker lines were diverted off downtown Cleveland streets in 1930 to operate over the current dedicated tracks into Cleveland Union Terminal. The PCC cars were chosen by the City of Shaker Heights because it was in high production at the time so the per-unit costs were very low, and they were very reliable, high-performing cars for streetcar or interurban use.

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

No it's not. The Cleveland Transit System (today's Red Line) WAS routed over the Shaker lines from CUT to East 55th starting in 1955, a practice which continues to this day. The Tokyu cars operating on the Red Line cannot use the Shaker lines because the curves are too sharp and the station platforms are too low.

 

KJP, I know all that.  However, I could have sworn that the voltage/power for the Cleveland Rapid was too much to handle for the Shaker Lines.  Are you sure.  In my 40 years of riding the rapid I've never once seen a Cleveland rapid car on the Shaker lines, curves/platforms withstanding!  Yet I have seen Shaker trains on the Cleveland line, I'm sure those were tours.

Yes, I'm sure. The proof is in their shared use from Tower City to East 55th. The Red Line and the Shaker lines trains are using the same overhead wire for their power on that section. In fact sometimes the Shaker cars run out to Brookpark Yard by the airport. While they can take the easier grades and curves of the Red Line, they cannot stop at its high-level platform stations.

Yes, I'm sure. The proof is in their shared use from Tower City to East 55th. The Red Line and the Shaker lines trains are using the same overhead wire for their power on that section. In fact sometimes the Shaker cars run out to Brookpark Yard by the airport. While they can take the easier grades and curves of the Red Line, they cannot stop at its high-level platform stations.

 

IIRC,  the Cleveland Electric system upgraded right prior to the Shaker rehabilitation update.  That is why I'm thinking the Cleveland lines use more power, meaning the shaker trains can run o the Cleveland lines, but the Cleveland cars cannot run on the shaker lines, because the cars require additional power.  And this has nothing to do with curves or platforms.

All three lines use 600 volts direct current, which is common on older rail transit systems.

All three lines use 600 volts direct current, which is common on older rail transit systems.

 

I normally agree with you, but something in my head keeps telling me that they can't.  I just remember something about the power and the cantenary were different.  But anyway...............  LOL

MTS, KJP is correct about this.  If you notice, btw Tower City and E. 55, Red Line and Blue-Green cars draw on the same power lines; you see this esp in the E. 55th Street yard, where you often see a Red Line car sitting on the same track behind a Blue/Green LRT... As KJP noted, Blue/Green LRTs can negotiate Red Line tracks, but not vice-versa. This is mainly because of the snaky, tight-radius curves on several spots along the Blue/Green-Waterfront trackage, most notably: the Blue Line immediately after it branches off the Green Line just east of Shaker Sq (hell, you could stroll over from your comfy digs at Moreland Courts and take a look at it!  :-D), and several points along the Waterfront Line, esp at the base of the ramp from Tower City and along the several sharp curves on the elevated section above the NS tracks right near the a-building FEB tower.  There's no way those long, non-articulated Red Line cars could negotiate those curves (just as they couldn't handle the tight turns on Chicago's L along the Loop).

MTS, KJP is correct about this.  If you notice, btw Tower City and E. 55, Red Line and Blue-Green cars draw on the same power lines; you see this esp in the E. 55th Street yard, where you often see a Red Line car sitting on the same track behind a Blue/Green LRT... As KJP noted, Blue/Green LRTs can negotiate Red Line tracks, but not vice-versa. This is mainly because of the snaky, tight-radius curves on several spots along the Blue/Green-Waterfront trackage, most notably: the Blue Line immediately after it branches off the Green Line just east of Shaker Sq (hell, you could stroll over from your comfy digs at Moreland Courts and take a look at it!  :-D), and several points along the Waterfront Line, esp at the base of the ramp from Tower City and along the several sharp curves on the elevated section above the NS tracks right near the a-building FEB tower.  There's no way those long, non-articulated Red Line cars could negotiate those curves (just as they couldn't handle the tight turns on Chicago's L along the Loop).

 

I'm not talking about the equipment, i'm strictly talking about the power supply.  But I guess I'm remember something different.

As to Biker16's earlier comments, while I'm not wild about the tram proposal, I do agree that transfering shouldn't be a major issue in a downtown area (since many rail riders into downtown liberally transfer to/from the free Trolleys as well as the HL to downtown points like Playhouse Sq. or CSU).  Both of these routes have high frequency, esp during rush hour.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about the equipment, i'm strictly talking about the power supply.  But I guess I'm remember something different.

 

I think I know what you're talking about. When the Blue/Green lines were completely rebuilt in 1980-81 (for what seemed like a huge cost back then -- $100 million), the electric power supply was also replaced. It is possible, although I cannot find documentation, that the voltage was increased on the Blue/Green lines to be equal to that of the Red Line.

 

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

I don;t think that is factually correct.  if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason.  and there why bother,  remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route.

 

if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages.  the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC

Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC.

 

I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace.

 

I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System.

 

I'm not talking about the equipment, i'm strictly talking about the power supply.  But I guess I'm remember something different.

 

I think I know what you're talking about. When the Blue/Green lines were completely rebuilt in 1980-81 (for what seemed like a huge cost back then -- $100 million), the electric power supply was also replaced. It is possible, although I cannot find documentation, that the voltage was increased on the Blue/Green lines to be equal to that of the Red Line.

 

I remember something about the New (at the time) cars using electricity only when moving, and at other times the power would stay above.  Something that the Cleveland trains couldn't do.    Then the old PCC cars trolley poles were replaced with the new pantographs.  In my old age, I don't remember all the details!  LOL

 

I'm not talking about the equipment, i'm strictly talking about the power supply.  But I guess I'm remember something different.

 

I think I know what you're talking about. When the Blue/Green lines were completely rebuilt in 1980-81 (for what seemed like a huge cost back then -- $100 million), the electric power supply was also replaced. It is possible, although I cannot find documentation, that the voltage was increased on the Blue/Green lines to be equal to that of the Red Line.

 

the PCC operated on 600VDC.  the use of more robust LRT  trains may have required an increase on  the Available Amperage the line needed, more inline to what the heavy rail required.

 

for example it is possible to run a 5 amp, appliance on a 12 amp circuit,, it is not possible to run a 15 amp appliance on a 12 amp circuit.  you don't have to change the voltage, just increase the available current.

 

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

I don;t think that is factually correct.  if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason.  and there why bother,  remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route.

 

if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages.  the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC

Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC.

 

I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace.

 

I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System.

Sweetie before tower city the Shaker lines exited their right of way and went up to Broadway at street level.  Then took city streets to Public Square.  Remember the section between SQ and UT was built in 2 sections.  SQ to 34 street then 34 to TT.

I'm not sure where I come down yet, but biker16, I think you raise good questions about the cost/benefit of incremental extensions of our existing, under-performing rail system vs. planning with a freer hand.  I was in favor of dual hub, but I fear that things like the WFL loop are such distant second-bests that they may not really be worth the $.

As to Biker16's earlier comments, while I'm not wild about the tram proposal, I do agree that transfering shouldn't be a major issue in a downtown area (since many rail riders into downtown liberally transfer to/from the free Trolleys as well as the HL to downtown points like Playhouse Sq. or CSU).  Both of these routes have high frequency, esp during rush hour.

 

As to KJP's point about RTA not trusting it's drivers to obey single-track signals, ... it speaks volumes about the training, or lack-thereof, of RTA drivers, and that's sad... Baltimore's 20-year old LRT was, until recently, mostly single-track; they've since double-tracked most of it (save the Hunt Valley extension and the short stub branch into Penn Station).  IIRC Balto's LRT used old-fashion track-side signals like most of the Blue/Green Lines... To my knowledge, there were no head-on collisions in Baltimore on single track sections.

 

I cannot understand why PTC or whatever RTA would use for non overridable signaling costs so much.

I was in favor of dual hub, but I fear that things like the WFL loop are such distant second-bests that they may not really be worth the $.

 

I favor extending the WFL to make it a peripheral downtown loop.  For one, it would increase the potential ridership of that line.  With construction proceeding and tenants coming to the Flats, the combination seems likely to lead to much higher ridership on the WFL than there is now.  Second, I think it would benefit RTA's rail system overall, but placing stops much closer to a larger pool of employers. 

 

In a small sampling over lunch I found a few people in our office near CSU who do not ride RTA because of the "difficulty" in transferring from the Red Line to the bus.  They would have to exit the train at TT, walk out to the street, wait for a bus, and then walk from Euclid to our office.  I say "difficulty" because it really doesn't seem that hard, but apparently it makes a difference to some people.  They all thought that if the WFL were extended to come closer to the office, they would be willing to wait at TT for a transfer and then walk from the closer stop to the office.  Even if it saved no time, they thought that this would be "easier" and they would be more likely to use RTA in that way.  Most thought they could live with one transfer but not two.

 

I don't know why (bus prejudice?) but there you go.  Anecdotal at best, I know.

 

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

 

 

 

I don;t think that is factually correct.  if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason.  and there why bother,  remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route.

 

if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages.  the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC

Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC.

 

I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace.

 

I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System.

Sweetie before tower city the Shaker lines exited their right of way and went up to Broadway at street level.  Then took city streets to Public Square.  Remember the section between SQ and UT was built in 2 sections.  SQ to 34 street then 34 to TT.

 

I need dates.

 

I think you are saying that this happened in the 1920s.

 

http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=SHRT

SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT - The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

 

The SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT, built by the VAN SWERINGEN† brothers, provided a convenient transportation link from the residential properties they were developing in the suburb to the downtown commercial center. The Shaker Rapid, originally the Cleveland Interurban Railroad, began service on 11 April 1920 with 2 branches, Moreland (later Van Aken) Blvd. and Shaker Blvd. With tracks located on the Shaker and Moreland median strips, the rail rapid transit had a traffic-free right-of-way from its eastern termini to SHAKER SQUARE. From Shaker Square to E. 93rd St., tracks were laid in a cut blasted from solid rock. Westward from there to E. 34th St., they entered KINGSBURY RUN leading to the steam railroads' corridor. At E. 34th St., the rapid cars were forced to climb from their private right-of-way and follow public streets to their loop at PUBLIC SQUARE. When the final leg of their traffic-free route was completed in July 1930, the cars continued on private right-of-way to a station in the newly completed CLEVELAND UNION TERMINAL. The Shaker Rapid, engineered to keep its cars segregated from traffic, delivered quick and dependable transit service. In 1929 the Moreland line was extended eastward from Lynnfield (its original terminus) to Warrensville Center Rd. In 1937 the Shaker line was extended from Warrensville Center Rd. to a new loop at Green Rd.

 

Following the collapse of the Van Sweringens' financial empire, the Shaker Rapid was placed into receivership in 1935; the banks operated the system for 9 years and then sold it to the city of Shaker Hts. Municipal operation began on 6 Sept. 1944. On 5 Sept. 1975, the lines were transferred to the GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, who reimbursed SHAKER HEIGHTS approx. $95,600 for various costs incurred by the city. In 1980 the Authority began an 18-month, $100 million renovation of the system, upgrading it to contemporary light rail standards. Service on the renamed Blue (Van Aken) and Green (Shaker) lines was inaugurated on 30 Oct. 1981.

Last Modified: 22 Jul 1997 02:02:40 PM

 

 

Sweetie the PCC used because the Shaker Trains actually ran at street level for the majority of their route into downtown.  You do realize that, right?  In addition, the Shaker lines were to poor to purchase new cars, which is why those cars were use right up until the 80's!

 

IIRC the voltage on the Shaker lines is different than on the Cleveland line.  The Cleveland cars cannot run on the Shaker lines.

 

 

 

 

I don;t think that is factually correct.  if it were the Van Swergens bought the nickle plate for no reason.  and there why bother,  remember the shaker rapid predates the redline. and to this day it still operates at street level in a road ROW for much of the route.

 

if anything the redline's specs were adapted to meet the existing standards on the route at the time. It is standard practice for supplier to deliver trains to work on difference voltages.  the Eurostar is designed to work on 4 different voltages, 25,000VAC, 1500VDC, 750VDC and 3000VDC

Standard voltage for new LRT is 750 volts DC.

 

I found in NOACA planning document that RTA has substations over 60 years old, that they are looking for federal funds to replace.

 

I would have any street car operate on 600VDC like the rest of the System.

Sweetie before tower city the Shaker lines exited their right of way and went up to Broadway at street level.  Then took city streets to Public Square.  Remember the section between SQ and UT was built in 2 sections.  SQ to 34 street then 34 to TT.

 

I need dates.

 

I think you are saying that this happened in the 1920s.

 

http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=SHRT

SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT - The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

 

The SHAKER HEIGHTS RAPID TRANSIT, built by the VAN SWERINGEN† brothers, provided a convenient transportation link from the residential properties they were developing in the suburb to the downtown commercial center. The Shaker Rapid, originally the Cleveland Interurban Railroad, began service on 11 April 1920 with 2 branches, Moreland (later Van Aken) Blvd. and Shaker Blvd. With tracks located on the Shaker and Moreland median strips, the rail rapid transit had a traffic-free right-of-way from its eastern termini to SHAKER SQUARE. From Shaker Square to E. 93rd St., tracks were laid in a cut blasted from solid rock. Westward from there to E. 34th St., they entered KINGSBURY RUN leading to the steam railroads' corridor. At E. 34th St., the rapid cars were forced to climb from their private right-of-way and follow public streets to their loop at PUBLIC SQUARE. When the final leg of their traffic-free route was completed in July 1930, the cars continued on private right-of-way to a station in the newly completed CLEVELAND UNION TERMINAL. The Shaker Rapid, engineered to keep its cars segregated from traffic, delivered quick and dependable transit service. In 1929 the Moreland line was extended eastward from Lynnfield (its original terminus) to Warrensville Center Rd. In 1937 the Shaker line was extended from Warrensville Center Rd. to a new loop at Green Rd.

 

Following the collapse of the Van Sweringens' financial empire, the Shaker Rapid was placed into receivership in 1935; the banks operated the system for 9 years and then sold it to the city of Shaker Hts. Municipal operation began on 6 Sept. 1944. On 5 Sept. 1975, the lines were transferred to the GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, who reimbursed SHAKER HEIGHTS approx. $95,600 for various costs incurred by the city. In 1980 the Authority began an 18-month, $100 million renovation of the system, upgrading it to contemporary light rail standards. Service on the renamed Blue (Van Aken) and Green (Shaker) lines was inaugurated on 30 Oct. 1981.

Last Modified: 22 Jul 1997 02:02:40 PM

 

Good job!  Don't you love the Internet?!  he he he

Thank you Strap and Foraker for attempting to bring this subject back on topic!

I'm not sure where I come down yet, but biker16, I think you raise good questions about the cost/benefit of incremental extensions of our existing, under-performing rail system vs. planning with a freer hand.  I was in favor of dual hub, but I fear that things like the WFL loop are such distant second-bests that they may not really be worth the $.

 

If done right, the WFL loop could work.  The one concern I have is dumping loop traffic back onto the inbound Red, Blue and Green lines.  Congestion/delays on the E.55-Tower City segment is bad enough during rush periods, like Browns games.  Imagine what it would be like with the added WFL traffic on a regular basis.

If done right, the WFL loop could work.  The one concern I have is dumping loop traffic back onto the inbound Red, Blue and Green lines.  Congestion/delays on the E.55-Tower City segment is bad enough during rush periods, like Browns games.  Imagine what it would be like with the added WFL traffic on a regular basis.

 

I think it could reduce the number of light-rail trains on the east-side approach tracks to Tower City by half. East of the junction with the Waterfront Line, the number of trains should be same.

KJP, could you remind me how you envision the loop operating?  Would the Blue/Green lines both travel the loop, but in opposite directions?  Or both in the same direction and another car or two traveling the loop in the other?

KJP, could you remind me how you envision the loop operating?  Would the Blue/Green lines both travel the loop, but in opposite directions?  Or both in the same direction and another car or two traveling the loop in the other?

 

I was thinking it could be done in one of several ways.

 

In the scenario RTA proposed, below, I think the idea was to have one of the lines, say a Blue Line train,  operating clockwise around the loop. The other line would operate around the loop in a counter-clockwise direction. At least that's my recollection.

 

 

In the scenario I proposed, below, it would require GCRTA to replace its entire rail fleet with a standardized, dual-floor rail car so it could serve high- and low-level stations alike, much like Pittsburgh's rail system. Here are the Lines:

 

Red: Airport-Tower City-Windermere, every 10 minutes peak, 20 minutes off-peak

Green: Airport-Loop-Green Road, every 10 minutes peak and 20 minutes off-peak (clockwise on loop)

Blue: Westlake P&R-Loop-Warrensville, every 10 minutes peak and 20 minutes off-peak (counter-clockwise)

Orange:  Loop-only (fare-free, 24 hours), every 10 minutes peak and off peak (clockwise & counter-clockwise)

 

^Oh, I see what you're saying.  Well, under the RTA proposal this may present a diff problem: Blue and Green Line trains would be diverted away from Public Sq, still the cross roads and hub to all transit traffic, to chug slowly along city streets until they finally reach the Square after looping around Downtown's perimeter... Essentially, this is returning the Shaker system to the pre-1930 routing before the grade-separated route into TT/Public Sq. (as MTS noted)  And unlike  the old Shaker 1920s route, which I believe was more direct to Pub Sq, this one is round about... Essentially, won't we be moving backwards and not forward?  (maybe not if some cars still will go directly into Tower City ... I guess.

 

I suppose that's why I'd prefer the latter proposal over RTA's -- with a strong push to extend a subway under Huron under Playhouse Sq. before rising to the surface at CSU.  Trains on the surface along Huron through 5-points/New Center (Prospect/Huron/E. 9th) and Playhouse Sq. would be a nightmare in traffic, esp after any Indians game or major event at the Q (... and picture St. Paddy's Day -- trains would take an hour to move through the area at peak parade time)...

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line?

 

it makes no sense, to double the price of a potential system just to utilize a system that has little relevance to the residents or visitors to downtown.  the concept to to circulate people to the major attractions in downtown, the Rock Hall and GLSC are attractions that could be serviced, but for the majority of potential riders the action is on the bluffs, not on the lake.

 

 

 

understanding what downtown is transforming into, a tourist, and residential center, along with it traditional commercial office uses.  it become more important to help people move to and from the major point of interests downtown.

 

look at this map. 

 

 

I put in the waterfront line in blue.

Ken's loop in purple

My loop in orange

red and green lines are potential connection with the waterfront line in the flats.  the grades of the hills may meet the maximum 9% grade requirements, the Green route would be the least steep.

stars are points of interest.

yellow is residential

red tourist attractions

pink office commercial.

 

 

 

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line?

 

it makes no sense, to double the price of a potential system just to utilize a system that has little relevance to the residents or visitors to downtown.  the concept to to circulate people to the major attractions in downtown, the Rock Hall and GLSC are attractions that could be serviced, but for the majority of potential riders the action is on the bluffs, not on the lake.

 

 

 

understanding what downtown is transforming into, a tourist, and residential center, along with it traditional commercial office uses.  it become more important to help people move to and from the major point of interests downtown.

 

look at this map. 

 

 

I put in the waterfront line in blue.

Ken's loop in purple

My loop in orange

red and green lines are potential connection with the waterfront line in the flats.  the grades of the hills may meet the maximum 9% grade requirements, the Green route would be the least steep.

stars are points of interest.

yellow is residential

red tourist attractions

pink office commercial.

 

 

 

 

I agree. Awhile back I actually made my own map which looks very similar to yours. I originally had it running down lakeside but decided st clair might be a better option.

 

http://g.co/maps/gr29d

they would travel from the platforms 3 levels below west prospect, to the street directly above those platforms, it is literally on elevator ride to from platform level (-1) to street level (3).    the tranfer would require less walking than a transfer on public Square.

That's not the craziest idea I've seen proposed, but I don't think you'll sell anyone on it.

 

i think it is easier than going out side of TC to catch the HL

 

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line?

 

it makes no sense, to double the price of a potential system just to utilize a system that has little relevance to the residents or visitors to downtown.  the concept to to circulate people to the major attractions in downtown, the Rock Hall and GLSC are attractions that could be serviced, but for the majority of potential riders the action is on the bluffs, not on the lake.

 

 

 

understanding what downtown is transforming into, a tourist, and residential center, along with it traditional commercial office uses.  it become more important to help people move to and from the major point of interests downtown.

 

look at this map. 

 

 

I put in the waterfront line in blue.

Ken's loop in purple

My loop in orange

red and green lines are potential connection with the waterfront line in the flats.  the grades of the hills may meet the maximum 9% grade requirements, the Green route would be the least steep.

stars are points of interest.

yellow is residential

red tourist attractions

pink office commercial.

 

 

 

 

I agree. Awhile back I actually made my own map which looks very similar to yours. I originally had it running down lakeside but decided st clair might be a better option.

 

http://g.co/maps/gr29d

 

Wow.

 

the connections to Lakeside thru the warehouse district would have been a mess.  too much traffic, and after 6pm there isn't much going on on that street.

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line?

 

Because $72 million was invested in it. I view it as a foundation, which by itself isn't very usable. But if finished, it increases the accessibility and attractiveness of otherwise unattractive properties along it -- especially the Muny Parking Lot and Dock 20 at the mouth of the river. If the Waterfront Line were part of a downtown loop that reaches more activity centers, I believe those properties become more developable and the Waterfront Line more usable. But this vision would have to be pushed by the private sector rather than the city (or RTA) to be credible to the rest of the community. That might ease the community's concerns that we're making the same mistake twice. Until the business community pushes this or some other downtown transit agenda, we'll continue to have discussions as we have for the past nine pages.

why is it so hard to let go of the waterfront line?

 

Because $72 million was invested in it. I view it as a foundation, which by itself isn't very usable. But if finished, it increases the accessibility and attractiveness of otherwise unattractive properties along it -- especially the Muny Parking Lot and Dock 20 at the mouth of the river. If the Waterfront Line were part of a downtown loop that reaches more activity centers, I believe those properties become more developable and the Waterfront Line more usable. But this vision would have to be pushed by the private sector rather than the city (or RTA) to be credible to the rest of the community. That might ease the community's concerns that we're making the same mistake twice. Until the business community pushes this or some other downtown transit agenda, we'll continue to have discussions as we have for the past nine pages.

 

the WFL is ahead of it's time.  the issues with any development on the lake is the bluff.  crating linkages to from the bluff to the lakefront should be a priority.  before any Real development efforts will take hold the issue of pedestrian access must be resolved. 

 

in addition to the issues of pedestrian connectivity, the shore way and rail lines are a huge barrier to improving access. of  the 3 stations serving the lakefront only one has decent point of access to that lakefront that is the east 9th st station.  which east 9th has sidewalks that are far too narrow, and not inviting for pedestrians to use.

 

as it stands now there is no easy way to access the MM from the waterfront line. it seems that the WFL would be great if it were relocated 100 feet to the south or 200 feet to the north.

 

when the time is right,  you could  build it out, or move the line, to be come more functional.adding another access point to the east.

llike this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know the Waterfront line, and it's planning was imperfect (hurriedly built as a monument to Cleveland's bicentennial in 1996).  But we need to realize that Cleveland moves slowly re TOD and it takes the town to get it.  Even though Moreland Courts was built within a few years of the Shaker Rapid's building, it took decades to really build out the Shaker Square area with high-density TOD.  Ditto further down the tracks at Lynfiield-Farnsleigh along Van Aken.  It wasn't until the late 50s and 60s when most of those huge apartment complexes were built (there and nearby on Warrensville), more that 40-50 years after the Van Aken Line first opened... Give the WFL time, even in its current form; the high-rise FEB mixed-use development will be the 1st of many... in the end, it'll have the last laugh (if it could talk, that is).

I know the Waterfront line, and it's planning was imperfect (hurriedly built as a monument to Cleveland's bicentennial in 1996).  But we need to realize that Cleveland moves slowly re TOD and it takes the town to get it.  Even though Moreland Courts was built within a few years of the Shaker Rapid's building, it took decades to really build out the Shaker Square area with high-density TOD.  Ditto further down the tracks at Lynfiield-Farnsleigh along Van Aken.  It wasn't until the late 50s and 60s when most of those huge apartment complexes were built (there and nearby on Warrensville), more that 40-50 years after the Van Aken Line first opened... Give the WFL time, even in its current form; the high-rise FEB mixed-use development will be the 1st of many... in the end, it'll have the last laugh (if it could talk, that is).

 

I agree, i will take time, for the development to take place along the route.  But forcing an extension to service an area that could be developed in the next few decades. when  there are smart investments that could be done today to improve  public transportation in downtown for development going on today.

I live very close to the Settlers Landing stop. What is that utilitarian structure across from the station on the river? You know that really unsightly cube-like building with the weird dark glass on the river side?

I live very close to the Settlers Landing stop. What is that utilitarian structure across from the station on the river? You know that really unsightly cube-like building with the weird dark glass on the river side?

 

A pumping station, if I remember correctly.

I live very close to the Settlers Landing stop. What is that utilitarian structure across from the station on the river? You know that really unsightly cube-like building with the weird dark glass on the river side?

 

A pumping station, if I remember correctly.

 

I thought I heard on a good time III cruise that it was the residence of some famous artist....not to be quoted for attribution.