:wtf: :wtf:

Is there anything that can be done, now, with the Waterfront line? I think it was stated before, that Red line trains could not make the curves on it. Is that true? How could the West side trains get over to the Waterfront line, or is that impossible without spending money? What could be done with the old Shaker station? If there is some kind of future expansion,(???) Streetcars to West side, commuter rail, Health line conversion to come into Tower City, Duel Mode rail cars, Duel Mode Trolleybuses running together in Tower City.

 

:wtf: :wtf:

Is there anything that can be done, now, with the Waterfront line? I think it was stated before, that Red line trains could not make the curves on it. Is that true? How could the West side trains get over to the Waterfront line, or is that impossible without spending money? What could be done with the old Shaker station? If there is some kind of future expansion,(???) Streetcars to West side, commuter rail, Health line conversion to come into Tower City, Duel Mode rail cars, Duel Mode Trolleybuses running together in Tower City.

 

We have an old system of rail, that was designed over 50 years ago, without taking into account the tremendous growth of the suburban and exurban areas in the intervening years.

 

plus the overall metropolitan area have not grown as fast as other areas of the country. this means the cost of driving in Cleveland is not high enough in time nor in money, to push people into wanting more transit options.

 

plus our state is one of the most urbanized in the country, but has no defined policy towards urban areas or addressing the needs of urban areas.  nevermind those areas generate 75% of state GDP, their is 0 focus on these areas from the state level.

 

in closing there are number of macro economic factor out side of the technical challenges that impede better rail service in cleveland.

Oh by the way, the Waterfront Line started up seven-day-a-week service again -- info lost in the server crash.

Bumped due to the resurgence of Flats East Bank, big residential projects in Playhouse Square, development of North Coast Harbor, and perhaps something built in the Muny parking lot and or Burke Lakefront Airport.

^Some form of the Waterfront Line Loop definitely makes sense in this overall downtown resurgence, including PHS and the rapidly (no pun intended) developing Campus District...

 

But I agree with McLovin in today's FEB thread: there's traffic enough NOW to justify at Summertime (esp weekend) WFL service until at least Midnight, when the regular trains stop... I advocate WFL service till 2p (or maybe even all night on Friday and Saturday), but I guess you have to crawl before you can walk.  As McLovin noted, the total weekend night gridlock in the geographically tightly-configured FEB, renders any rubber-tired vehicle (beyond bikes) ineffective... including RTA C-Line Trolleys, and Trolley free fares won't change this.

I noticed that my photos and graphics from eight to 11 years ago (on the first few pages) needed to be refreshed at photobucket. So I attempted to refresh them. They appear on my computer but I'm not sure if they're appearing on anyone else's. Can a few forumers let me know if they're seeing them?

I noticed that my photos and graphics from eight to 11 years ago (on the first few pages) needed to be refreshed at photobucket. So I attempted to refresh them. They appear on my computer but I'm not sure if they're appearing on anyone else's. Can a few forumers let me know if they're seeing them?

Nope

^ditto.

OK. I'll upload the graphics to flickr and re-post them.

And I'll pose this option if building a subway under Huron proves too expensive.

 

downtown loop-wye by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

^Some form of the Waterfront Line Loop definitely makes sense in this overall downtown resurgence, including PHS and the rapidly (no pun intended) developing Campus District...

 

But I agree with McLovin in today's FEB thread: there's traffic enough NOW to justify at Summertime (esp weekend) WFL service until at least Midnight, when the regular trains stop... I advocate WFL service till 2p (or maybe even all night on Friday and Saturday), but I guess you have to crawl before you can walk.  As McLovin noted, the total weekend night gridlock in the geographically tightly-configured FEB, renders any rubber-tired vehicle (beyond bikes) ineffective... including RTA C-Line Trolleys, and Trolley free fares won't change this.

 

The simple fact that they built it justifies running it until the bars close.  Otherwise it's sunk cost sitting there idle.  The price of building rail is high but the price of building unused rail is prohibitive.  As for extending it into a loop, I can't see that performing better than existing options for getting around downtown.  If we're going to lay track we should lay track right up St. Clair.  That would solve a problem in a way that only rail can.

 

The simple fact that they built it justifies running it until the bars close.  Otherwise it's sunk cost sitting there idle.  The price of building rail is high but the price of building unused rail is prohibitive. 

 

Right on the money!  :wave:

^^^btw, KJP, I liked your other WFL loop renderings utilizing the Huron subway better than the one shown.

Here's all of the route alignment maps in one place. With the subway continued under East 9th, the only shared-access right of way would be the short sections of Prospect and East 17th between Euclid and Prospect....

 

Option 1: Huron Ramp rising along Huron

downtown rail loop-huronramp1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Option 2 (part 1): Huron Ramp subway under East 9th

downtown rail loop-huronsubway1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Option 2 (part 2): Huron Ramp subway rising along Prospect

downtown rail loop-prospectramp1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

East 17th Transitway -- Euclid-Superior segment

downtown rail loop-euclid-superior1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

East 17th Transitway -- Superior-Davenport Bluffs segment

downtown rail loop-superior-davenport1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Lakefront trackage redesign/ramp

downtown rail loop-davenport-e9th1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

1) KJP[/member] - great info

 

2) There isn't any real momentum for this project, is there?

1) KJP[/member] - great info

 

Thanks.

 

2) There isn't any real momentum for this project, is there?

 

None whatsoever. RTA would probably actively campaign against it unless a big time powerbroker offered a financing plan that held the transit agency fiscally harmless, much like what Dan Gilbert did with the QLine streetcar in Detroit.

 

None whatsoever. RTA would probably actively campaign against it unless a big time powerbroker offered a financing plan that held the transit agency fiscally harmless, much like what Dan Gilbert did with the QLine streetcar in Detroit.

 

Query: is there some person or entity who could recruit a Gilbert type (if not Gilbert himself) to back such a project?  The Loop, esp the Huron subway version, would directly impact Gilbert's casino in a positive way.

 

 

None whatsoever. RTA would probably actively campaign against it unless a big time powerbroker offered a financing plan that held the transit agency fiscally harmless, much like what Dan Gilbert did with the QLine streetcar in Detroit.

 

Query: is there some person or entity who could recruit a Gilbert type (if not Gilbert himself) to back such a project?  The Loop, esp the Huron subway version, would directly impact Gilbert's casino in a positive way.

 

In all honesty, I think people would resist if it were Gilbert just because he has his name on it. I think you'd need a Beth Mooney via Key Bank or a collaboration of prominent Cleveland companies with their HQ downtown - MedMu, SW, Jones Day, Squire Patton Boggs, Forest City, or AmeriTrust.

Can someone explain to me two things with this idea?

 

1. How would this work in terms of trains coming in from shaker, let's say. Would half circle the loop going one way and half circle the loop going the other?

 

2. Are we expecting that this would add more people to ridership than, say, building a new line heading south or west or east? This would just get people slightly closer to their end destination?

 

I'm a little confused as to what problem this expensive idea is addressing. thanks!

Query: is there some person or entity who could recruit a Gilbert type (if not Gilbert himself) to back such a project?  The Loop, esp the Huron subway version, would directly impact Gilbert's casino in a positive way.

 

In all honesty, I think people would resist if it were Gilbert just because he has his name on it. I think you'd need a Beth Mooney via Key Bank or a collaboration of prominent Cleveland companies with their HQ downtown - MedMu, SW, Jones Day, Squire Patton Boggs, Forest City, or AmeriTrust.

 

Interestingly, Fred Geis started following the All Aboard Ohio twitter account about a year ago. I've tried to engage him directly, but I'm not close enough to him or his gatekeepers to have him pay attention to me. Also, in the past month, Millennia Companies CEO Frank Sinito began following AAO's twitter account. Could mean some curiosity or interest that's worth following up on by those who can reach them. I can provide guidance but not access.

 

Can someone explain to me two things with this idea?

 

1. How would this work in terms of trains coming in from shaker, let's say. Would half circle the loop going one way and half circle the loop going the other?

 

2. Are we expecting that this would add more people to ridership than, say, building a new line heading south or west or east? This would just get people slightly closer to their end destination?

 

I'm a little confused as to what problem this expensive idea is addressing. thanks!

 

Coming from one of the Shaker lines (my preference is Green) on 30 minute headways off-peak and 15 minutes peak, and from the Red Line-Windermere every 30 minutes off-peak and 15 minutes peak, the trains would operate around the loop in the clockwise direction and then go out of downtown to the Red Line-Airport every 15 minutes off-peak, 7.5 minutes peak. In the opposite direction and coming from the Red Line-Airport, trains would operate around the loop in the counter-clockwise direction and then go out of downtown on the Red Line-Windermere and Green Line. This assumes the rail fleet is replaced with a standardized rail car.

 

I would also run new, loop-only trains in both directions around the downtown loop every 15 minutes all day and run them fare-free -- assuming there are private sponsors or additional funding sources such as a parking surcharge (which could also help pay for construction).

 

As for the Blue Line, I would operate it initially as Warrensville-Tower City. But my ultimate goal is to have the Blue Line routed north from Shaker Square to University Circle, and maybe someday down Euclid Avenue to the downtown loop and/or northeast to Euclid.

 

Extending the Red Line to Euclid would likely be enhanced by this, particularly if every other train didn't use the full loop but instead operated north from the current alignment by the post office, headed north on East 14th/18th to the Playhouse Square area and then turned west on/below Prospect/Huron to Tower City. A commuter rail service linking Lorain with Solon/Aurora would also be enhanced by this by providing faster/higher capacity circulation downtown.

 

The biggest problem this idea is addressing is the incredibly low usage of the rail system and the incredibly large amount of downtown land devoted to parking. The parking exists because the rail system has such poor circulation and access downtown. Cleveland's Red Line is the only heavy rail line in the nation with just one downtown rail station. Most of downtown's CBD is well east of Tower City and requires a forced transfer or a long walk to reach more employment, educational and entertainment destinations. The stations at East 9th/Prospect and at Euclid/East 17th penetrate downtown especially from the west side which is the most heavily used of the rail lines.

 

To improve downtown access from the east side, there is justification for a reroute of one of the Shaker lines coming from the south, such as along East 14th/18th toward Euclid Avenue. That was the initial Waterfront Line II/downtown loop plan some 15 years ago. They did not want to build the rail line down Huron using the ramps into Tower City -- not after NOACA's board told RTA that a subway in Cleveland was a non-starter. And maybe that's still the case.

 

But I think downtown is becoming a self-sustaining, urban eco-system all its own, and a low-fare/free rail service that does nothing but loop downtown (as well as provide better downtown access from the other lines) is an attractive concept to sustain and enhance that growth. I believe that for all downtown, but especially for the northeast side of downtown which is amazingly undeveloped. That part of downtown should have mid- to high-rise residential buildings along Davenport Bluffs rather than the warehouses and parking lots that blight it today.

Hmmm. Interesting. I like the concept a bit more after that explanation. A few questions arise: would a crosstown redline then have to loop around downtown before a west sider could step off on the east side? Or would there also be a sole cross-town route? Or would a west sider have to transfer to reach the east side?

 

I do think that the distance to get to the train tracks in tower city does just FEEL long. Even once you are inside the building you have a while until you get to the station. I think copenhagens new metro stations are great examples of fitting modern stations into a tight urban environment.

 

My only issue with this remains a rather confusing looking system map. With trains going around loops in different directions and people having to loop around downtown at one pet of their day if they use the same station

A glimpse of part of the future route of the downtown loop. Maybe it should just be operated as an independent loop, and not even by RTA?

 

Does NOACA still feel adverse to the Huron subway concept under Grace Gallucci?  Might be worth exploring.

 

At the moment, it seems like the main entertainment areas are closest to Tower City, like E. 4th street, which is really a block (at most 1.5 blocks) from Tower City.  E. 9th is .4 miles, which is significant ... but walkable or a quick HL/Trolley jaunt... Although I'm becoming more and more skeptical that Nucleus is ever going to happen, I believe some development of that lot on Prospect will develop making a subway through that area along Huron into TC almost a necessity if, in fact, a rail line is going to pass through this area -- either the back side of the WFL loop or, perhaps, a replacement for the Health Line.

... As we can see major-to-huge residential and residential/retail projects are planned and/or about to rise in the already dense Euclid/Prospect corridor out to CSU -- there's Beacon/515, (huge/vertical) nuCLEus and now the planned 34-story Playhouse Sq. apt tower (itself is across the street from CSU's mixed use 535-bed Edge building which is close to opening).  NOACA has held a "no subway" stance since the 1990s which helped kill the highly worthwhile Dual-Hub rail plan.  At some point, NOACA's going to have to get up off of this stance because the sheer amount of foot and auto traffic in this area will make mere streetcars unfeasible.  Cleveland is already blessed with a downtown subway rail tunnel as well as a grade-separated turnout at Huron Road to connect to it... Use it!

 

Here's all of the route alignment maps in one place. With the subway continued under East 9th, the only shared-access right of way would be the short sections of Prospect and East 17th between Euclid and Prospect....

 

Option 1: Huron Ramp rising along Huron

 

Option 2 (part 1): Huron Ramp subway under East 9th

 

Option 2 (part 2): Huron Ramp subway rising along Prospect

 

East 17th Transitway -- Euclid-Superior segment

 

East 17th Transitway -- Superior-Davenport Bluffs segment

 

Lakefront trackage redesign/ramp

 

Thanks KJP -- great work.    :clap:

 

I have some questions though. 

 

E17th is pretty much an alley between Euclid and Chester.  Would it be better to route the line down E18th where there's more activity?

 

Also, I'm concerned that a line that close to the theaters would create a traffic mess at post-theater time, particularly with the garages on E17 and E14.

 

I'm also concerned about the opening of the trench as the line comes up into Gateway.  What does the open part of the trench do to the pedestrian experience there, and how will that impact the buildings next to the open portion of the trench?  Auto traffic will certainly be impacted for those buildings as well.  Is there a good way to mitigate that?

 

Would it be feasible to just have a station at Gateway (as you (KJP) have proposed in the past), and run the line further south to turn past CCC and St. Vincent before turning north again to close the loop?

 

 

Let's hope someone with money and influence can get behind completing the loop.  I really think it would make a difference in traffic and the ability to get around downtown without a car.

Thanks KJP -- great work.    :clap:

 

I have some questions though. 

 

E17th is pretty much an alley between Euclid and Chester.  Would it be better to route the line down E18th where there's more activity?

 

Also, I'm concerned that a line that close to the theaters would create a traffic mess at post-theater time, particularly with the garages on E17 and E14.

 

I'm also concerned about the opening of the trench as the line comes up into Gateway.  What does the open part of the trench do to the pedestrian experience there, and how will that impact the buildings next to the open portion of the trench?  Auto traffic will certainly be impacted for those buildings as well.  Is there a good way to mitigate that?

 

Would it be feasible to just have a station at Gateway (as you (KJP) have proposed in the past), and run the line further south to turn past CCC and St. Vincent before turning north again to close the loop?

 

Let's hope someone with money and influence can get behind completing the loop.  I really think it would make a difference in traffic and the ability to get around downtown without a car.

 

Very good questions. I favored East 17th because it is less used by cars, especially by through traffic, than East 18th. To me, it seemed to be a right-of-way that could be "sacrificed" to transit without too many negative consequences and offer a fast, dedicated transit right of way, free of mixed traffic except at intersections where signalization could keep the trains scooting along. Someday, I would hope to see East 18th extended through to an intersection with the Shoreway as a boulevard. And an East 17th transitway would be close enough to the activity along East 18th to benefit from it without trains being slowed by it.

 

Yes, the theater doors exiting onto East 17th at the end of shows (especially at the Palace) would be a problem. The solution is to instead route exiting theatergoers out to Euclid where they will more tempted to buy a post-show drink, dessert, or gift from the shops along Euclid. If I'm running Playhouse Square, I send theatergoers exiting through a gift shop where they can buy shirts, mugs, etc. if they liked the show, similar to how amusement parks do at the end of their showcase rides.

 

The Gateway open trench bothered me too, which is why I came up with the second idea to have the line come up to street level on Prospect east of East 9th where the pedestrian and left-turning traffic is much less. There would still be about 400 feet of open trench along the street corridor where pedestrians could not jaywalk or cars could not left turn. That affects the Halle Annex/garage mostly, as well as the surface parking lot just east of it. Extending the subway to east of East 9th is a much more expensive option and not just because of the longer subway or the fact that a subway station at East 9th would need to be built. But there is a huge sewer line underneath East 9th Street. I seem to recall the diameter of the conduit is about 9 feet. So the roof of the rail line tunnels would have be several feet below that. Digging deeply below and around that sewer while keeping nearby buildings from falling into the deep cut-and-cover trench will be a costly task.

 

To me, a potential compromise was actually opened up by the Inner Belt project and the relocation of Norfolk Southern's intermodal rail yard to Maple Heights. The Inner Belt project has created a small street grid just south of the highway and the relocation of the rail yard has opened up a chunk of land for redevelopment as well as two rail bridges that could be incorporated into a wye junction for the downtown loop. While it's not as sexy as a subway under Huron and as ridership-rich as a station at East 9th one block south of Euclid, it's a lot less expensive and it offers downtown loop routing options for trains from the west and east sides. Problem is, it runs around the fringes of downtown and doesn't penetrate it (except at East 17th/Euclid).

 

I posted a map earlier on this page of how that wye junction south of the Inner Belt could look.

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.

 

 

yep that is correct:

https://articles.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/12/a_last_look_at_the_soon-to-be-.amp

I was looking for something in one of my filing cabinets and stumbled across this document. Since I now finally have Adobe Scan on my phone, I decided to make a PDF out of this and host it at AllAboardOhio.org (where it is available through its Library)....

 

Waterfront Line Phase II-Briefing Summary-2000 (7MB)

http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Waterfront-Line-Phase-II-Briefing-Summary-2000.pdf

 

Here was the Build recommendation

 

^ Hmmm... the way I read that report seemed to strongly advocate build options 4b or 4c, which look remarkably similar to the East 17th extension you’ve been advocating for. I’m reading it as Option 5 only being the recommendation if feasibility reports determined issues with Option 4. And I really like Option 4. I think the B/C variants even further improve utility (compared to Option A using E14th under the inner belt). Am I missing something w regards to Option 5?

 

Easy Playhouse Square access is the key for me (in comparing it to other options). 

 

Overall, both Options 4 and 5 are great for incorporating CSU and Tri C into the rail system. 

 

How would this have worked? Would the loop have been one way? 

15 minutes ago, CbusTransit said:

How would this have worked? Would the loop have been one way? 

I believe loops by their nature are one way. For example, the free trolley loops I believe are one way.  

Just now, Boomerang_Brian said:

^ Hmmm... the way I read that report seemed to strongly advocate build options 4b or 4c, which look remarkably similar to the East 17th extension you’ve been advocating for. I’m reading it as Option 5 only being the recommendation if feasibility reports determined issues with Option 4. And I really like Option 4. I think the B/C variants even further improve utility (compared to Option A using E14th under the inner belt). Am I missing something w regards to Option 5?

 

Easy Playhouse Square access is the key for me (in comparing it to other options). 

 

Overall, both Options 4 and 5 are great for incorporating CSU and Tri C into the rail system. 

 

Tri-C is already served by all the rail lines.  E 34/Campus.

^^^ The loop would be both directions. Ken has advocated for a dedicated bidirectional loop service, and then also having the blue line go one way around the loop, and the green line go the other way around the loop. (I agree this would be ideal). The report doesn’t explicitly say any of this, but based on the travel times it outlines for sure the green/blue opposite directions were the intention. 

 

Edited May 6, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian

^^ The existing 34th isn’t THAT close to Tri C. (Part of the reason why many people advocated for relocation of that station prior to its rebuild.) The waterfront loop, as proposed, would have gone right through that campus. 

 

And if the Blue line ever got extended from Van Akin to Tri-C East, it would be a even more of an education connector. 

Edited May 6, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian
Added Tri C East extension comments

4 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

^^^ The loop would be both directions. Ken has advocated for a dedicated bidirectional loop service, and then also having the blue line go one way around the loop, and the green line go the other way around the loop. (I agree this would be ideal). The report doesn’t explicitly say any of this, but based on the travel times it outlines for sure the green/blue opposite directions were the intention. 

 

That's pretty cool, I stand corrected.

Travel times from that report. 

 

Just now, Boomerang_Brian said:

^^ The existing 34th isn’t THAT close to Tri C. (Part of the reason why many people advocated for relocation of that station prior to its rebuild.) The waterfront loop, as proposed, would have gone right through that campus. 

 

And if the Blue line ever got extended from Van Akin to Tri-C East, it would be a even more of an education connector. 

Where was the proposed relocation of the 34/Campus going to be?

Edited May 6, 20196 yr by Oxford19

41 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

Where was the proposed relocation of the 34/Campus going to be?

 

 Current location circled.  Various proposals marked with X’s. 

 

edit: added a rectangle to show where proposed waterfront line extension station would be on East 30th. Note proximity to Tri C metro campus. 

 

Hmm, I guess I can’t delete the original picture. So you get both versions. 

 

 

Edited May 6, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian

In the latest survey they are talking about taking the blueline away entirely...  Seems instead of offering more light rail, their goal is to destroy what we already have. 

42 minutes ago, G00pie said:

In the latest survey they are talking about taking the blueline away entirely...  Seems instead of offering more light rail, their goal is to destroy what we already have. 

 

What are you referring to?

16 minutes ago, TPH2 said:

 

What are you referring to?

http://www.riderta.com/pillarstudies#systemdesign

 

There are two proposals, the high frequency one eliminates the blue line

Edited May 7, 20196 yr by G00pie

1 minute ago, G00pie said:

http://www.riderta.com/pillarstudies#systemdesign

 

There are proposals, the high frequency one eliminates the blue line

 

No it doesn't, it increases the Blue Line frequency to 15 minutes. 

 

At the bottom, it also boldly states "This is not a proposal" 

yes if you also look on the picture, it says, eliminates waterfront loop towards the stadium... 

That's because the waterfront line is very low ridership, and it also reduces the Green Line to rush hour only for the same reason. But Blue Line ridership would likely increase if it goes to 15 minute frequency.

 

But again, they made it clear that it is not a proposal, but just an illustration of what a system that prioritizes only ridership and frequency would look like. 

On 5/6/2019 at 1:26 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 Current location circled.  Various proposals marked with X’s. 

 

edit: added a rectangle to show where proposed waterfront line extension station would be on East 30th. Note proximity to Tri C metro campus. 

 

Hmm, I guess I can’t delete the original picture. So you get both versions. 

 

 

 

Thanks! Looks like all these options are as lousy as the E34-Campus location.  I recall RTA wanting to eliminate this station all together, not relocate it. Instead it rebuilt the same location.  

 

Anyone know now why RTA didn’t stick to its plan to close this station altogether? It’s especially relevant given today’s Frequency or Coverage dilemma being debated now.

 

The WFL should loop up either E 9th, with a west side extension via superior-Detroit, or E 17, with the same west side extension, and of course keeping the loop along the lakefront and flats as it is now.

 

i don’t see the need for an east side extension along the lake to bratenahl and Euclid though.

Edited May 12, 20196 yr by Oxford19

^ “Community outrage” caused it to be rebuilt instead of closed. More people complained about it closing than actually use the station. 

 

And yes, the other locations weren’t great, but they were all better. East 9th extension location is close enough to downtown to be worth developing. (Or putting in a minor league soccer stadium per the current rumors.) And E. 30th would have been a much shorter walk from Tri-C. 

 

All that said, they were not great options. 

Hey @KJP, did you notice that Milwaukee is paying for the next phase of their streetcar with a TIF? (The near term extension they are working on did not qualify for federal matching, but they are intending to build it anyway.) Do you have any idea how much revenue a similar TIF could provide towards the Waterfront Loop completion down E17th that you’ve been advocating for?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 20196 yr by Boomerang_Brian
I’m trying to fix the link. Hmmm.

Depends on how much development is ultimately proposed along it. For example, the TIF from the 1.3-million-square-foot nuCLEus development is estimated at $19 million after it is bonded.

 

The WFL extension report estimated in 1999 that the rail line could attract the development of 3.7 million square feet of office space and about 1.3 million square feet of residential, or 5 million square feet total. While Downtown Cleveland's market has certainly changed since then, let's go with those numbers in the absence of more current data.

 

With nuCLEus as our benchmark, a WFL extension TIF *could* generated about $73 million, after it is bonded. It should be noted that the WFL extension was projected to achieve a cost-effectiveness rating sufficient to win a funding from the Federal Transit Administration. FTA funding grants are typically no more than 40-50 percent of a new-start project's capital costs. The WFL extension was projected to cost $120 million to build in 2000. It probably couldn't get built for at least five or six years, assuming the planning proceeds without interruption. So in six years, the same WFL extension would cost about $210 million, after inflation. It would cost more than $2 million per year to operate (which is what killed it, as RTA sales tax revenues were falling fast back then), so some of the TIF might have to go to offset that.

 

So clearly a TIF merely on new construction would not be enough. There would have to be a TIF district along the entire WFL extension, extending perhaps 1,500 feet out on either side of the rail line (from East 12th to just east of East 23rd), capturing income taxes, gross parking receipts, and perhaps a parking tax based on the square footage of the parking areas.

 

Edited May 26, 20196 yr by KJP

The difference is that the nuCLEus TIF is tied to construction of office space that definitely will happen. The bank takes a rough guess at what the county will value the project at, what tax revenues might be, and lends against it.

 

With a TIF district on the expansion of a rail line, we'd only be guessing on what potential development might be... I imagine it'd be tough getting a bank to lend against that. Perhaps theyd use very conservative estimates, I'll have to read up on that Milwaukee example. Copenhagen, Denmark used such a scheme to finance expansion of their metro system through undeveloped land.

Edited May 27, 20196 yr by mu2010

A bank wouldn't lend it, but the federal government would if backed by the full faith and credit of the city. But again, it would have to a TIF based on existing properties, incomes and parking, then potentially readjusted every five years (meaning less burden on existing property owners as new sites are developed in the TIF area).