Lookie what I found regarding the Warrensville-Van Aken Transit Oriented Development.....

 

From:  http://www.shakeronline.com/dept/planning/Warrensville-VanAkenTransitOrientedDevelopment.asp

 

 

The estimated cost to implement proposed infrastructure and transit improvements is $49 million. Both the City and RTA are currently working to obtain funding from the Federal and State governments....

 

Executive Summary (772kb):

http://www.shakeronline.com/Media/PDFs/Uploader/71820081131311-FinalReport_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

 

Full report (9.28mb):

http://www.shakeronline.com/Media/PDFs/Uploader/71820081132432-FinalReport.pdf

Very impressive and somewhat surprising in that they anticipate crossing Warrensville at grade. I would have thought a tunnel would have been a necessity.

Very impressive and somewhat surprising in that they anticipate crossing Warrensville at grade. I would have thought a tunnel would have been a necessity.

 

I'm just glad to see they are atleast thinking about expanding the Blue line.

Very impressive and somewhat surprising in that they anticipate crossing Warrensville at grade. I would have thought a tunnel would have been a necessity.

 

It's a tunnel.

Are you sure? That's not the way I read it.

Very impressive and somewhat surprising in that they anticipate crossing Warrensville at grade. I would have thought a tunnel would have been a necessity.

 

It's a tunnel.

 

Please re-read the "Transit Priority" section on page 29 of the full report - transit will be at-grade. The only "tunnel", as such, will be a punch-through of the extension through the building proposed for the southeast corner of the new four-legged intersection (see the image on page 33).

 

This reminds me a lot of how the light rail in Buffalo, NY passes underneath the HSBC tower.

So what is projected to cost $49 million?

So what is projected to cost $49 million?

 

from page 53 of the Final Report document: demolition, new & reworked track, catenary power, a new substation and two new stations account for $37.5 million, or about 75% of the total; the remainder is in surrounding roadwork, utility relocation, and other supporting items

I wonder where the bus waiting/staging area moves to?  Anyway, that sure disrupts a lot of current businesses but it looks like a great proposal.  Anything to reduce the size of the intersection from hell is a good thing.

I wonder where the bus waiting/staging area moves to?  Anyway, that sure disrupts a lot of current businesses but it looks like a great proposal.  Anything to reduce the size of the intersection from hell is a good thing.

I would assume they would move it to the parking lots as they did during the reconstruction.

 

 

from page 53 of the Final Report document: demolition, new & reworked track, catenary power, a new substation and two new stations account for $37.5 million, or about 75% of the total; the remainder is in surrounding roadwork, utility relocation, and other supporting items

 

Thanks. See, I should read the whole report! I'm glad someone can!

 

This sounds like the biggest financial barrier to possible future extensions of the Blue Line. Spending $37.5 million for perhaps a half-mile of rail extension is a big-ticket item, especially when construction costs for light-rail in low- to medium-density areas are typically $5 million to $20 million per mile.

I saw this adjusted plan in our Shaker Life mag a month or 2 ago... I'd prefer a subway, but the plan as drafted could work w/ a subway Blue Line going through diagonally... The trick appears to be the rerouting Van Aken and Northfield away from the intersection onto Warrensville and Chagrin, respectively, w/ a narrower (obviously NO TURNS), traditional 4-point, traffic-calmed, ped-friendly perpendicular intersection rather than the unwieldy 6-point, mega-wide, ped-hostile intersection that now exists. 

 

While it doesn’t look like the Blue Line will be extend to the Highlands anytime soon, all planners seem to agree that a reconfigured Van Aken/Warrensville requires at least the short extension to the UH/ex-OfficeMax office building.

 

What are they really gaining though by extending the Blue-line just that little stretch across the intersection?  I could see extending it maybe to Harvard or futher if any work is to be done, but just 1/2 mile or so?  The reduced scale of the Warrensville/Chagrin intersection is more pedestrian friendly.  The only thing I would see as a reason is that if this area would be developed, that would be the time to at least extend it across the intersection in anticipation of future expansion.  That way they've sort of "crossed the bridge" already and can continue on.

Looks like you answered your own question. If the line is extended across the intersection, a major hurdle will have been cleared, making further extensions much easier.

from page 53 of the Final Report document: demolition, new & reworked track, catenary power, a new substation and two new stations account for $37.5 million, or about 75% of the total; the remainder is in surrounding roadwork, utility relocation, and other supporting items

 

Thanks. See, I should read the whole report! I'm glad someone can!

 

This sounds like the biggest financial barrier to possible future extensions of the Blue Line. Spending $37.5 million for perhaps a half-mile of rail extension is a big-ticket item, especially when construction costs for light-rail in low- to medium-density areas are typically $5 million to $20 million per mile.

 

I can offer up some additional budget details, courtesy of our Engineering department:

 

there's nearly a half-million dollars in demolition costs, because we'd be taking out two stations (Farnsleigh & Warrensville) and building two (new one between existing Farnsleigh & Warrensville, and new intermodal east of the reconfigured intersection)

crossovers, switches, and side track are about $2.6 million

new catenary is budgeted at $2.1 million

the new substation is $3 million all by itself

signals are $11.5 million

the new Farnsleigh/Warrensville intermediate station is about $1.3 million

the new intermodal terminus is about $2.3 million

utility relocations are just over $3.5 million

design, admin & contingency are about $9 million

 

so, this is not just construction costs, this is the whole nut, and since it involves ancillary items like stations, signals, and supporting infrastructure (crossovers & switches), and is taking place in a well-established developed area, it's quite involved

 

just to satisfy my own curiosity, can you cite your source for the $5-20 million figure you quoted?

 

Firenze98 & BuckeyeB, you are correct, crossing this intersection will be a major hurdle cleared... that intersection is hell on earth any way you slice it (I believe the phrase I once used was "designed by a drunken monkey with Parkinson's")

Wow, $11.5 million for signaling just for LRV traffic on the tracks?  That's a big chunk.

 

I don't see what the bid deal is about lack of subway: with a four way intersection, adding a light phase for a LRV every few minutes won't shut down the east side.  I do hope the trains get signal priority though!

 

Any indication how much buy-in there is from the property owners? 

urban sophistication-PD used that as a title last week-i've been saying it for a long time.  TOD is a perfect example of that!

Wow, $11.5 million for signaling just for LRV traffic on the tracks?  That's a big chunk.

 

I don't see what the bid deal is about lack of subway: with a four way intersection, adding a light phase for a LRV every few minutes won't shut down the east side.  I do hope the trains get signal priority though!

 

Any indication how much buy-in there is from the property owners? 

 

I spoke to the engineer again, and it turns out a $3.6 million chunk of that was actually overstated by a factor of 4, i.e., it should only be $900k, which reduces the signals total to about $8.8 million ($11.5 - $2.7). Keep in mind, this is just a planning budget that allows us to assess what ballpark we're in and what funding sources are appropriate for a given project. This is not the "shopping list" that is used for hard costs (we're WAY too early in the process for something like that). So, this error is, regardless of magnitude, inconsequential at this time. Every number in the planning budget is gone over with a fine-tooth comb as planning becomes reality.

 

Some further detail -- the signals budget includes integration into our ATC (Active Train Control) system, which is not currently in use on the Blue Line, but makes sense from a safety standpoint, especially in such a pedestrian-dense environment. ATC is the system that provides for override of operator control of a train based on signal feedback (it's the cab beeping & deceleration you'll sometimes encounter on a Red Line train as the signals indicate that two trains are operating too close together, or that a train is approaching a work zone, or some other signaling event is taking place).

 

It also includes signal work related to bus entry and exit from the proposed intermodal station. And, it does include full traffic signal preemption (one step above prioritization) capability at the main reconfigured intersection, with the hardware necessary for both the trains and the traffic signals. Some or all of this could be excluded from the final design.

Looks like you answered your own question. If the line is extended across the intersection, a major hurdle will have been cleared, making further extensions much easier.

 

Yep, as I writing that I thought the same thing.  Just wasn't sure if there was another reason.

If this project get legs...and it looks like it might...the next logical step is to start pushing for an extension down Harvard Rd to I-271. There should be a large park-n-ride facility here.

 

Aside from that, I like the way this project makes the area a whole lot safer for motorists and pedestrians and also makes the area ped friendly. Just a look at the diagram shows how the character would reall change for the better.

 

KJP and I were out there a couple of weeks ago and the place is an abomination as it is now.

tell me about it.  I fear for my life when i have to cross Chagrin to walk to work after riding the Blue to the end.

If this project get legs...and it looks like it might...the next logical step is to start pushing for an extension down Harvard Rd to I-271. There should be a large park-n-ride facility here.

 

Aside from that, I like the way this project makes the area a whole lot safer for motorists and pedestrians and also makes the area ped friendly. Just a look at the diagram shows how the character would reall change for the better.

 

KJP and I were out there a couple of weeks ago and the place is an abomination as it is now.

 

Rather amazing that, after the Vans died after building awesome TOD Shaker Square, the city the state's oldest rapid transit spawned couldn't get it right, building sprawling, ped-hostile, auto-oriented strip shopping centers... I guess Shaker partially got it right at Chagrin-Lee when the bowling alley and drug store addressed the street w/ parking in back; only to throw it all away w/ the late-80s rebuild w/ oceans of asphalt in front... this Van Aken project could right a major wrong.

Wow, $11.5 million for signaling just for LRV traffic on the tracks?  That's a big chunk.

 

I don't see what the bid deal is about lack of subway: with a four way intersection, adding a light phase for a LRV every few minutes won't shut down the east side.  I do hope the trains get signal priority though!

 

Any indication how much buy-in there is from the property owners? 

 

I spoke to the engineer again, and it turns out a $3.6 million chunk of that was actually overstated by a factor of 4, i.e., it should only be $900k, which reduces the signals total to about $8.8 million ($11.5 - $2.7). Keep in mind, this is just a planning budget that allows us to assess what ballpark we're in and what funding sources are appropriate for a given project. This is not the "shopping list" that is used for hard costs (we're WAY too early in the process for something like that). So, this error is, regardless of magnitude, inconsequential at this time. Every number in the planning budget is gone over with a fine-tooth comb as planning becomes reality.

 

Some further detail -- the signals budget includes integration into our ATC (Active Train Control) system, which is not currently in use on the Blue Line, but makes sense from a safety standpoint, especially in such a pedestrian-dense environment. ATC is the system that provides for override of operator control of a train based on signal feedback (it's the cab beeping & deceleration you'll sometimes encounter on a Red Line train as the signals indicate that two trains are operating too close together, or that a train is approaching a work zone, or some other signaling event is taking place).

 

It also includes signal work related to bus entry and exit from the proposed intermodal station. And, it does include full traffic signal preemption (one step above prioritization) capability at the main reconfigured intersection, with the hardware necessary for both the trains and the traffic signals. Some or all of this could be excluded from the final design.

 

I agree, the train signal costs could be dropped as this would be a short, slow-moving segment in which visual rules could be in effect for rapid drivers... However, of course, a tunnel or extension would change this.

I think from a public safety standpoint signals are mandatory, let alone a legal one. Furthermore, rail signals should be interlocked with highway traffic signals at this very busy intersection.

I think from a public safety standpoint signals are mandatory, let alone a legal one. Furthermore, rail signals should be interlocked with highway traffic signals at this very busy intersection.

 

I don't think so, not if this segment crosses the Warr-Chagrin intersection at grade and only extends to the UH building.  The Green line is, I'm almost certain, un-signaled from Cortland to the Green Rd. terminal, around 1.5 miles.  Ditto, the Blue line from Lynnfield to Warrensville; and I'm not sure if the Waterfront Line, beyond Settler's Landing is signaled at all... In non of those segments, I've ever heard of a train accident.  Adding signal costs to the Blue Line short extension would only drive up costs and give planners an excuse -- as "reasonable/sensible" transit people, not to do this worthwhile project. 

just to satisfy my own curiosity, can you cite your source for the $5-20 million figure you quoted?

 

My $5 million end is too low. I was thinking of projects like the first leg of the San Diego Trolley which re-used old rails and was built with single track and passing sidings. It was the epitome of starting out on-the-cheap. Here's some more recent projects in Denver.....

 

http://www.lightrail.com/projects/denverproject1.htm

 

Denver

Project: Central Corridor Extension (Existing System)  $21 million per mile

Distance: 5.5 miles

Number of Stations: 

Cost:  $118 million (1995 dollars).

Project Details: In-street running through Downtown Denver from 30th & Downing to I-25 & Broadway. Crosses the Central Business District's 16th Street Mall Shuttle system at its midpoint.  Cost includes initial rolling stock, but excludes maintenance facility.

 

Link to Map of Existing System

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Project: South-West Corridor Extension (Opened July 2000) 21.5 million per mile

Distance: 8.3 miles

Number of Stations: 

Cost:  $177 million (1995 dollars)

Project Details:  Excludes years of significant work to the right of way which prepared the corridor's right of way.  Extension is from the southern terminus (Central at I-25 & Broadway southwest) along Santa Fe Drive to Littleton at Mineral Road. Line is reported to be open with insufficient park-n-ride capacity which may need to be added to in future years.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Project: Platte Valley Corridor Extension (Completion in 2001) 24 million per mile

Distance: 1.8 miles

Number of Stations: 

Cost:  $43 million (1999 dollars)

Project Details: Extends from Central Corridor northward to Denver Union Terminal. 16th Street Mall Shuttle to be extended to Denver Union Terminal.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Project:  South-East Corridor Extension (Construction begins 2000/Opening in 2008)  44 million per mile

Distance:  19.7 miles.

Number of Stations: 

Cost:  $874 million

Project Details:  Cost includes right of way, track, rolling stock and Park 'n Ride Lots. Will run along I-25 southeast from Central Corridor's junction with Southwest at I-25/Broadway. The southern Terminus will be at Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County. There is a significant spur up I-225 to the Nine Mile Park 'n Ride Lot in Aurora.

Funding Details:  Federal: 60% (Hopeful); Local 40% (Metro Denver passed a funding plan in November 1999).  Costs could rise further as the project lacks sufficient pedestrian access to destinations from several stations and has in sufficient park 'n ride capacity to support full ridership potential.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Project: US 36 Corridor  (System in Design Proposal Stage)    18 million per mile

Distance:  22.5 miles

Number of Stations: 

Cost:  $390 million (including rolling stock)

Project Details:  Denver Union Terminal (DUT), (with this corridor the Terminal will technically become a Station) to the University of Colorado at Boulder.  Alignment uses the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) ROW from DUT to 89th Avenue where it will then run along the western edge of the US36 ROW to 106th Avenue where it will again rejoin the BNSF ROW to 96th Street in Broomfield.  It will then depart the BNSF and run along the eastern edge of the US36 ROW to the Williams Village complex at CU south of Baseline Road. Stations will be DUT, NW Denver (44th Ave./Pecos), Westminster South (72nd Ave./Lowell), Westminster Center (Sheridan/89th Ave.), Promenade/Church Ranch (104th Ave./US 36), Broomfield (120th Ave/US36), Flatirons Crossing (96th Street/US 36), Louisville/Superior (McCaslin/US36), Boulder Table Mesa (US36/Foothills Pkwy), Boulder CU (US36/Baseline) also an extension further into Boulder is being evaluated. This would run an additional 1.5 miles to Boulder's Crossroads Mall at Arapahoe/28th St. 7.5 minute bi-directional peak hour headways are proposed. End to end travel time (including stops) is forecast to be 37 minutes, and 23 minutes express from Table Mesa to DUT.

Rolling Stock - The study evaluated using Siemen's SD-100 Light Rail versus Light Diesel-Electric and determined that electric light rail was financially inferior to Light DMUs and therefore the SD-100 (used in the rest of Denver's grid) was eliminated. The line is being based on the Bombardier 644 DMU. The Platte Valley Line is being designed to allow Light DMUs like the 644 to interline with traditional SD-100 cars. The US36 Corridor will interline down the Platte Valley to the Auroura Campus of the University of Colorado, Denver.

Funding Details:  A funding proposal using Tax Incremental Financing will be introduced into the state legislature in 2000.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Note - Unless noted, costs DO NOT include rolling stock.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Disclaimer - Information posted has been received in the form of:

 

Phone conversations

Private e-mails

Newsgroup postings

Webpage postings

Printed periodicals.

Note the last paragraph.

 

Shaker Heights intersection on the road to improvement with $4 million state grant

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter

November 28, 2008 20:30PM

 

SHAKER HEIGHTS -- An effort to untangle one of the most confusing and dangerous interchanges in Cuyahoga County is moving forward now that the city has received a $4 million grant from the Ohio Department of Transportation.

 

Few projects would better qualify for a grant to improve safety and reduce congestion than the intersection of Van Aken and Chagrin boulevards at Warrensville Center and Northfield roads.

 

"It's the first giant piece of funding to implement the new road system," said Joyce Braverman, the city's planning director.

 

The grant, combined with $2.3 million from the city and $500,000 from the county, will allow officials to seek proposals for engineering and environmental work next year, Braverman said.

 

About 65,000 cars travel daily through the interchanges, which include shopping plazas, a Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority rapid line and a bus terminal. It is the county's fifth-busiest intersection and the most dangerous in Shaker Heights.

 

Realigning the roads will cost about $10 million, and the city is seeking additional money through the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, Braverman said. Construction is planned for 2012.

 

The proposal calls for a standard four-way intersection of Chagrin Boulevard and Warrensville Center Road. The plan and other details are on the city's Web site, shakeronline.com.

 

As the city moves forward to fix the roads, the RTA will seek about $40 million in federal money to relocate its bus terminal and extend the rail tracks. That project is slated for 2014, Braverman said.

 

Sounds like a good plan. Not so sure about removing the direct access to Northfield. I seems like there might be some congested on that SE area - that's just an initial view without knowing the traffic counts coming in from there.

extend the train all the way to randall. 

extend the train all the way to randall. 

 

Or Akron, or Warren/Youngstown

extend the train all the way to randall. 

 

Or Akron, or Warren/Youngstown

 

This is not a commuter rail line, so extending to the outer burbs or should not be considered.

extend the train all the way to randall.

 

Or Akron, or Warren/Youngstown

 

This is not a commuter rail line, so extending to the outer burbs or should not be considered.

 

It's the perfect point to switch to those lines though.  The blue line could still go to Randall.  They should think of the future when they do this interchange.

extend the train all the way to randall. 

 

If $40M only buys RTA an extension across the intersection, it would be awfully tough justifying an extension all the way to a dead mall with little hope of redevelopment anytime soon (even with transit access).  Definitely hard to say that should be a higher priority use of capital funds than the west shore rail options that could help address Innberbelt traffic.  Just my opinion.

 

I really like what Shaker is doing here- this could be a fantastic transit village if redeveloped thoughtfully.  I hope there is some big time buy-in from the shopping center owners.

It's going to be interesting to watch what happens to the value of real estate at the new "end of the line".  Any one know the ratio of the built environment to vacant land there?

If $40M only buys RTA an extension across the intersection, it would be awfully tough justifying an extension all the way to a dead mall with little hope of redevelopment anytime soon (even with transit access).  Definitely hard to say that should be a higher priority use of capital funds than the west shore rail options that could help address Innberbelt traffic.  Just my opinion.

 

I really like what Shaker is doing here- this could be a fantastic transit village if redeveloped thoughtfully.  I hope there is some big time buy-in from the shopping center owners.

 

There are people who live in the neighborhoods west of northfield that could

-Walk to new stops along Northfield instead of walking to a bus stop on Warrensville

- Eliminated the Warrensville bus or reduce frequencies

- There are business near Randall

- The reuse of vacant land near the mall would go along way opposed to doing just nothing

Randall Park Mall could be the new "Park and Ride"...

Randall Park Mall is certainly big enough to rebuild it into a city without tearing anything down (see the mall converted into housing/mixed use on Orlando's north side) -- and have a park-and-ride. Imagine running the Blue Line THROUGH the mall with stops at both ends, then terminating the Blue Line at the former E-L rail line to connect with commuter trains to Solon, Aurora and downtown, or intercity trains to Youngstown, Pittsburgh, Toledo and Detroit. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

Dream about living at Randall Park Mall?  I'd hate to know what your nightmares are like.    ;)

Stop it. :) I'm sure other housing conversions, such as the West Tech Lofts (can you imagine trying to convince a grad from there to go back to school to live?), would seem as strange. You should see the mall that was converted to mixed use in Orlando. It was pretty cool. There's another mall down south where a similar conversion was done, but I can't remember the name of it.

^All we need is another million or two residents in Cuyahoga County and we can do it ;)!

 

Randall is an exurban (and fiscal) mess-I'd rather spend the money improving transit in the City of Cleveland or more populated inner ring.

I just see it all as part of a network approach to improving mobility for all, and redesigning land use as part of a future that requires us to live more sustainably. Randall Park Mall is one of the physically largest single sources of blight in Northeast Ohio. Redeveloping it will have significant impacts beyond North Randall -- as will the Warrensville TOD (futile attempt to bring this discussion back toward its main subject).

Randall Park seems like one of our best opportunities for TOD.  The area is down but not out, it isn't ravaged like E79th.  It already has substantial traffic.  Having not seen this mall conversion concept, I would lean toward leveling it and putting up residential hi-rises.  Removing the entire mall complex would alleviate some of the retail glut in that area and give the remaining plazas more of a chance.

 

As one option, I wouldn't mind seeing a major CMHA development get moved to the mall site from the downtown area.  Take down Lakeview and Riverview, quantum leap for Ohio City, piss off Beachwood and Solon.  Smiles all around.  It would be an improvement for many of the CMHA residents too, as they would have increased access to semi-modern retail.

Randall Park seems like one of our best opportunities for TOD.  The area is down but not out, it isn't ravaged like E79th.  It already has substantial traffic.  Having not seen this mall conversion concept, I would lean toward leveling it and putting up residential hi-rises.  Removing the entire mall complex would alleviate some of the retail glut in that area and give the remaining plazas more of a chance.

 

I strongly disagree.  The biggest change and challenge is to change the way people think about the worst area's in the city so to build TOD from Kinsman to Woodland would do wonders for the neighborhood and the perception. 

 

Then there is the need to add a stop at Fulton on the Westside and continue to improve at 65, 98 and 117 Street.

 

The problem is the RedLine doesn't go thru the heart of neighborhoods so new lines are needed.

 

Randall Park seems like one of our best opportunities for TOD.  The area is down but not out, it isn't ravaged like E79th.  It already has substantial traffic.  Having not seen this mall conversion concept, I would lean toward leveling it and putting up residential hi-rises.  Removing the entire mall complex would alleviate some of the retail glut in that area and give the remaining plazas more of a chance.

 

As one option, I wouldn't mind seeing a major CMHA development get moved to the mall site from the downtown area.  Take down Lakeview and Riverview, quantum leap for Ohio City, piss off Beachwood and Solon.  Smiles all around.  It would be an improvement for many of the CMHA residents too, as they would have increased access to semi-modern retail.

 

OK...[pounce mode] Why would we relocated residents OUTSIDE of the border of Cleveland?  How about better manage and screening of CMHA tenants? Moving the people or building wont make a change [/pounce mode]

 

 

NOW LETS GET BACK TO THE BLUE LINE DISCUSSION NOT WHAT RTA OVERALL NEEDS AS THERE IS A SEPERATE THREAD FOR THAT.

 

My "Randall Park Estates" is something we could do with the blue line extension.  I don't think it would work without the rail service.  Extending the blue line there would be a major boost to any redevelopment there.  It seems like such a logical end point for the line. 

 

As for why we might relocate projects outside city limits, it's addition by subtraction.  The projects ringing downtown are the wrong use for that real estate and they hold the city back.  If we're going to have residential where the river meets the lake, it might as well impress visitors and generate tax revenue.  The "C" in CMHA doesn't stand for Cleveland.  I think growth for downtown and adjacent neighborhoods has been, and will be, moderated by the presence of so much concentrated poverty.  Spread it out, or at least scatter the concentrations a bit more.  Randall Park-- with a blue line extension-- is one such opportunity.   

I've always liked the Blue line as it was my first experience with RTA and I'm sure many people coming from the outer suburbs and neighboring counties, its their first experience with public transit. (How else are you going to get to an Indians' game without paying an arm and a leg for parking?) The intersection in question is a total mess and its way beyond time someone did something with it. I'm just a little cautious in my optimism as a half mile extension in anticipation of a future extension while budgets are tight is going to be taken out of context and criticised by ignorant people just like the waterfront line has been recently. (Or have I been reading the Plain Dealer too much?)

I've always liked the Blue line as it was my first experience with RTA and I'm sure many people coming from the outer suburbs and neighboring counties, its their first experience with public transit. (How else are you going to get to an Indians' game without paying an arm and a leg for parking?) The intersection in question is a total mess and its way beyond time someone did something with it. I'm just a little cautious in my optimism as a half mile extension in anticipation of a future extension while budgets are tight is going to be taken out of context and criticised by ignorant people just like the waterfront line has been recently. (Or have I been reading the Plain Dealer too much?)

 

You're reading the Plain Dealer way too much.

^^I agree people will see this mini extension as a waste of money, but that doesn't really temper my optimism or excitement for the project.  Even without a future further extension (which doesn't really get me very excited anyway), it's laying the groundwork for what should be the best suburban TOD in the region since Shaker Square.  And unlike Randall, there are existing residential neighborhoods, office buildings and even retail property owners within a very short walking radius of this project, so there's no need to create a whole new mini-city from scratch.

I've always thought it would make much more sense to extend the Blue Line down Chagrin, not Van Aken. With all the shopping and offices on Chagrin, I can see such a line getting a lot more use than one down Van Aken. I know, I know -- Beachwood probably hasn't wanted it in the past. I wonder if that would still be the case, however...

I too always thought Chagrin would make way more sense... though it looks as if it would be immensly more difficult to make happen (physically speaking).

I've always thought it would make much more sense to extend the Blue Line down Chagrin, not Van Aken. With all the shopping and offices on Chagrin, I can see such a line getting a lot more use than one down Van Aken. I know, I know -- Beachwood probably hasn't wanted it in the past. I wonder if that would still be the case, however...

 

That sounds good.  I can't see Beachwood getting behind it, but they ought to.