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.

 

OK and why wouldn't they in THIS time period?  Having good public access to Beachwood stores, restaurants will only be a benefit to them.

 

But as I've said before the city has to concentrate on the city.

shaker messed up a TOD opportunity when they rebuilt shaker towne centre as a strip center. what was there before was up to the sidewalk and the other side of the street is up to the sidewalk. you couldve had the stores up to the sidewalk and parking on top, underground, and in back. im thinkin maybe a 3-story building with room for apartments or multiple story retail. there could even be an underground connection to the lee road rapid station. in the middle you could have it sort of like a small mall almost, like a better version of university square. youve got all the transit there with the 14, 40, and blue line. i wouldve replicated the building at the corner of van aken/lee on the other corner as well. theres some interesting plans they had for that area on clevelandmemory.

 

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.

 

so youre basically saying "lets move all the poor people out to the burbs so the yuppies can all live in the city and not have to deal with them"

 

 

It is the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, not the Cleveland.

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.

 

How about the far more important fact that by building affordable housing in the burbs, folks living there would have increased access to jobs at said retail outlets.

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.

 

327, I like where your head is on this topic.

so youre basically saying "lets move all the poor people out to the burbs so the yuppies can all live in the city and not have to deal with them"

 

Not exactly.  I've also advocated for more lower-end housing downtown. Those dependent on public housing should have as much choice within the county as others do.  They shouldn't all be shoehorned into downtown, Ohio City and the near east.  That concentration hurts the people and the areas involved.  Take that Bohn tower on E13th, move it somewhere near Parmatown or Great Northern.  Downtown shouldn't have any more or less CMHA than any other commercial area in the county.  To equalize the situation, yes there would be some initial movement outward. 

extend the train all the way to randall. 

 

Or Akron, or Warren/Youngstown

 

Lets be serious..

it's laying the groundwork for what should be the best suburban TOD in the region since Shaker Square.

 

Amen and a half.  The strip center really bites.  This intersection has a lot of potential and I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

 

Chagrin has nothing but severely car-oriented office buildings/parks.  I think the better bet is planning to go south to the mall site. 

This week's Crains has an orgy of a special section devoted to the I-271 Corridor. It all makes me throw up a bit in my mouth (although I begrudgingly accept that it is an important component of our regional business attraction efforts; See Northern Virigina, VA-267 Technology Corridor), but there was an interesting nugget from Tom Sudow, vp of business attraction for Team NEO.  In reference to Chagrin Highlands, he notes that "A lack of public transportation can work against an employer."

 

Umm, hellloo BLUE Line extension! If the region's largest chamber of commerce were to get behind such a project, it seems it would provide a huge jump start to reconsidering this plan. Maybe someone (ehhm KJP?) could get in touch with Mr. Sudow and alert him to the very realistic solution to the lack of public transit at Chagrin Highlands.

 

EDIT: Blue is indeed what I meant.  -1 for typing out posts on a smartphone.

This week's Crains has an orgy of a special section devoted to the I-271 Corridor. It all makes me throw up a bit in my mouth (although I begrudgingly accept that it is an important component of our regional businnes attraction efforst; See Northern Virigina, VA-267 Technology Corridor), but there was an interesting nugget from Tom Sudow, vp of businness attraction for Team NEO.  In reference to Chagrin Highlands, he notes that "A lack of publi transportation can work against an employer."

 

Umm, hellloo Green Line extension! If the region's largest chamber of commerce were to get behind such a project, it seems it would provide a huge jump start to reconsidering such a plan. Maybe someone (ehhm KJP?) could get in touch with Mr. Sudow and alert him to the very realistic solution to the lack of public transit at Chagrin Highlands.

 

Honestly, I don't want the green line to go there.  I want the company's there to relocated downtown.  I want it to make it harder for the outer boros to hire.  I want a strong downtown. 

 

I know that sounds A$$ backwards as the green line goes right past my front door and I'm an advocate for rail expansion.

This week's Crains has an orgy of a special section devoted to the I-271 Corridor. It all makes me throw up a bit in my mouth (although I begrudgingly accept that it is an important component of our regional businnes attraction efforst; See Northern Virigina, VA-267 Technology Corridor), but there was an interesting nugget from Tom Sudow, vp of businness attraction for Team NEO.  In reference to Chagrin Highlands, he notes that "A lack of publi transportation can work against an employer."

 

Umm, hellloo Green Line extension! If the region's largest chamber of commerce were to get behind such a project, it seems it would provide a huge jump start to reconsidering such a plan. Maybe someone (ehhm KJP?) could get in touch with Mr. Sudow and alert him to the very realistic solution to the lack of public transit at Chagrin Highlands.

 

Honestly, I don't want the green line to go there.  I want the company's there to relocated downtown.  I want it to make it harder for the outer boros to hire.  I want a strong downtown. 

 

I know that sounds A$$ backwards as the green line goes right past my front door and I'm an advocate for rail expansion.

 

I think we can have a healthy downtown and businesses that chose to locate outside of the CBD.  Look at Eaton, they snubbed downtown yes, but not because it's downtown Cleveland. It the whole concept of a headquarters campus environment that they embraced and it wouldn't make a difference if they had been headquartered in DT Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, or DC.  While it may sting, at least they found the environment they were looking for in suburban Cleveland and not suburban DC or Atlanta.

 

Green line to Chagrin Highlands would remove another obstacle (real or perceived) for employees of Eaton, UH, DDR, and whoever else locates there to at least live in the city, go to restaurants in the city, find their entertainment options in the city, and not stay captive to their artificial suburban nodes.

 

Besides, maybe kids growing up in Orange, Beachwood, Pepper Pike, etc might have a different opinion of their hometown if they had an easy & convenient transportation link to Cleveland's assets. Another, small way to fight the brain drain.

This week's Crains has an orgy of a special section devoted to the I-271 Corridor. It all makes me throw up a bit in my mouth (although I begrudgingly accept that it is an important component of our regional businnes attraction efforst; See Northern Virigina, VA-267 Technology Corridor), but there was an interesting nugget from Tom Sudow, vp of businness attraction for Team NEO.  In reference to Chagrin Highlands, he notes that "A lack of publi transportation can work against an employer."

 

Umm, hellloo Green Line extension! If the region's largest chamber of commerce were to get behind such a project, it seems it would provide a huge jump start to reconsidering such a plan. Maybe someone (ehhm KJP?) could get in touch with Mr. Sudow and alert him to the very realistic solution to the lack of public transit at Chagrin Highlands.

 

Honestly, I don't want the green line to go there.  I want the company's there to relocated downtown.  I want it to make it harder for the outer boros to hire.  I want a strong downtown. 

 

I know that sounds A$$ backwards as the green line goes right past my front door and I'm an advocate for rail expansion.

 

I think we can have a healthy downtown and businesses that chose to locate outside of the CBD.  Look at Eaton, they snubbed downtown yes, but not because it's downtown Cleveland. It the whole concept of a headquarters campus environment that they embraced and it wouldn't make a difference if they had been headquartered in DT Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, or DC.  While it may sting, at least they found the environment they were looking for in suburban Cleveland and not suburban DC or Atlanta.

 

Green line to Chagrin Highlands would remove another obstacle (real or perceived) for employees of Eaton, UH, DDR, and whoever else locates there to at least live in the city, go to restaurants in the city, find their entertainment options in the city, and not stay captive to their artificial suburban nodes.

 

Besides, maybe kids growing up in Orange, Beachwood, Pepper Pike, etc might have a different opinion of their hometown if they had an easy & convenient transportation link to Cleveland's assets. Another, small way to fight the brain drain.

I got and understand all that, that is how I feel.

 

Also, it should be the Blue Line to expand if anything, the green line is too far away.

^Don't you guys mean the [glow=blue,2,300]Blue[/glow] Line?

 

Edit: Dangit, you beat me by nine seconds!

I thought it was the Green because of it's proiximity to 271?  The Blue ends at a place (Warr Rd/VA/Northfield/Chagrin) where extending it would logistically be tougher.  Maybe not.

I thought it was the Green because of it's proiximity to 271?  The Blue ends at a place (Warr Rd/VA/Northfield/Chagrin) where extending it would logistically be tougher.  Maybe not.

 

Via Northfield and Harvard.  IIRC, the green line can't be extended to 271 due to Beachwood land useage/zoning or something like that.

I thought it was the Green because of it's proiximity to 271?  The Blue ends at a place (Warr Rd/VA/Northfield/Chagrin) where extending it would logistically be tougher.  Maybe not.

 

In the early 80s, there was a plan to extend the Green Line straight out the median of Shaker 1.5 miles to I-271/Pepper Pike (which was part of the Van Sweringen's plan back int the late 1920s) but RTA got cold feet and backed out when anti-transit folks started yelping, and MTS is correct, Beachwood has now rezoned the area and converted it to park land, so it's not even doable now.

 

In the 1990s, a new plan developed to extend the Blue Line from Van Aken terminal out Northfield and then turning Eastward just south of Harvard, and running out to just past the current Tri-C East campus to that new strip shopping center (Harvard Square or whatever it is) @ I-271.  This plan (as most rapid transit planned extensions) died for a combo of opposition, disinterest and any kind of push from RTA... Some rekindling of the idea for this project recently arose as Shaker Heights has received (Stimulus?) planning $ from the Feds to reconfigure the horrible Van Aken/Chagrin/Warrensville/Northefield intersection into a TOD-friendly place and extend the Blue Line a couple thousand feet thru the intersection to a  new terminal in Northfield's median ... theoretically, therefore, making this the 1st leg of the previously-planned Highlands extension.

The Green Line extension was killed by two interests: city interests led by Norm Krumholz said transit should be improved first for the transit-dependent and rail shouldn't be extended at all except in rare circumstances. The other interest group was Shaker and Beachwood residents who didn't want the traffic from direct-access ramps from I-271 to a park-n-ride. They feared the traffic would find its way on to Shaker and other local streets. You are correct that recent developments complicate the extension today, including the replacement of I-271's two long bridges (one southbound, one northbound) over Shaker Boulevard and its median with four short bridges and a filled-in Shaker median. The Green Line would have ended in the traffic circle with Gates Mills Blvd.

 

The Blue Line extension to Highland Hills was killed by the RTA board which asked if developers (namely the Jacobs Group) at Highland Hills were interested in developing the area with Transit Oriented Development design principles. Developers showed little interest, so RTA's board said it wouldn't make sense to extend a high-density transit line into an area of office campuses with extreme setbacks and acres of surface parking which are the antithesis of pedstrianism. And you can't have high usage of transit without pedestrian-friendly settings (e.g.: RTA's existing rail system).

 

It might make more sense to extend the Blue Line down Northfield to Randall Park Mall which could be demolished, redeveloped with mixed use or otherwise modified into a TOD.

Thanks for the background.  I'm primarily a Red Line west sider, but have recently used the Blue and Green for various family real estate needs out in Mentor and Solon.  The RTA rail yard alone makes me want to take the trains east now. I recently took a Blue instead of Green out of TC, so I got off at 55th and watched the yard for awhile and missed the Green as I somehow entered a zombie like state...what a geek.

Thanks for the background.  I'm primarily a Red Line west sider, but have recently used the Blue and Green for various family real estate needs out in Mentor and Solon.  The RTA rail yard alone makes me want to take the trains east now. I recently took a Blue instead of Green out of TC, so I got off at 55th and watched the yard for awhile and missed the Green as I somehow entered a zombie like state...what a geek.

 

Not as fun as when they stored trains at van aken/warrensville or the shaker trains used the loops to turn around.

Shaker Heights has the $11.5 million needed to realign the dangerous six-legged Warrensville/Van Aken intersection

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

January 19, 2010, 8:26AM

 

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio — The final pieces of the $11.5 million funding puzzle have been put into place to realign one of the most confusing and dangerous interchanges in Cuyahoga County.

 

 

Construction is scheduled to begin in about two years on the intersection of Van Aken and Chagrin boulevards and Warrensville Center and Northfield roads. It will take that long to complete planning and engineering studies and acquire any needed property, said Joyce Braverman, the city's planning director.

 

more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/shaker_heights_has_the_115_mil.html

 

"As the city moves forward to fix the roads, 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,"

 

I was expecting this portion to be completed sooner and am shocked at the price tag to extend the tracks maybe 800ft.  But crossing the insane intersection diagonally is no walk in the park. The track extension construction should be interesting for motorists passing through the intersection.

"As the city moves forward to fix the roads, 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,"

 

I was expecting this portion to be completed sooner and am shocked at the price tag to extend the tracks maybe 800ft.  But crossing the insane intersection diagonally is no walk in the park. The track extension construction should be interesting for motorists passing through the intersection.

JeTDoG broke down where the price tag came from here.

Even if the Blue Line isn't extended, this is great news for TOD in that area.  Won't be pedestrian paradise by any stretch, but should be tons better than it is now.

The graphic seems to show a tunnel for the Rapid, is that correct?

That's what I had initially thought, too. But it will be an at-grade crossing.

You would think for $40 million we could put it underground.  Can't be more than 1200 ft.  I thought subways were $100 million per mile so $25 million would be enough?

Even if the Blue Line isn't extended, this is great news for TOD in that area.  Won't be pedestrian paradise by any stretch, but should be tons better than it is now.

 

The only way for TOD to work in this plan is for the Blue Line to be extended.  If you look at the map, above, Van Aken will be removed from around the tracks beyond Farnsliegh (going east), so if it's not extended, it will end in no-man's land and will not reach the dense development on the other side of Warrensville-- around the current Northfield origin/leg in the vicinity of BP... It may be only 800-feet, but we can't let RTA weasel out of this expansion.  I too don't quite understand why it can't be tunneled under the intersection but, so be it.  It makes sense for the TOD to extend and someday, ... probably way in the future, it could set up (revival of the) expansion to Chagrin Highlands and/or N. Randall...

 

I don't quite understand why rail signaling ($11.5M) is slated to be so high for such a short extension when, I believe, the current signal zone for the Blue Line begins/ends (heading west) at the rail signal just west of Lynnfield, 1/3 a mile a way.  Wouldn't train drivers go by visual rules, as they do around Shaker Square and, I believe, most of the Waterfront Line?  Especially for a grade-level track extension going through a traffic signal-protected intersection, why is this projected...

 

... perhaps JetDog, who quoted it, can explain.

 

Geez, do I have post every transit news article??  :-D

 

RTA may consider adding a bus/rapid transit line on Northfield Road from Shaker Heights to North Randall

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

February 08, 2010, 6:00AM

 

The transit line is one option RTA is exploring as part of a plan to extend its Blue Line from where it ends at the Warrensville-Van Aken station in Shaker Heights.

 

"The biggest redevelopment opportunity is not in my city but on Northfield between Emery and Miles roads" in North Randall, said Brad Sellers, director of economic development in Warrensville Heights. "It is doable and an option."

 

It's the second time RTA has looked at extending the Blue Line.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/rta_may_consider_adding_a_busr.html

Enough with the BRT!  No more BRT! 

 

For Pete's sake, now they're talking about "extending" actual rail lines with this crap.  Get these psychos out of office.  Where is the constituency for BRT?  Nobody wants it.  We all want rail.  We don't want another dime spent on BRT studies. 

If they are going to extend the blue line across that horrendous intersection, then why not go ahead and expand the rail line to North Randall? From the sound of the article, it seems like RTA will be seeking input on whether or not to use rail, bus/rapid transit, buses with limited stops, or streetcars; so, at least this isn't set in stone.

"It's an intriguing idea that supporters say could spur residential and commercial development in southeastern Cuyahoga County..."  Hmmm.  Why isn't it just an idea?  Why and "intriguing" idea?  ... guess PD's Karen Farkas wants you to know which way her windmill is tilting...

 

It never ceases to amaze me how this city begs and searches for reasons not to extend rail.  You have the end station of a high-capacity LRT directly serving TOD's like Shaker Sq; Tower City (and the future Flats East Bank development) and connecting to HRT directly to inside the international airport -- a situation most cities would kill for.  You also have a very worthwhile proposal of Shaker Hts (sans RTA) to build the 800-yeard extension of the Blue Line thru the redesigned intersection to develop much needed TOD for the area (I still wonder how such a short extension – somehow with rail signals, is $40M, and the entire Waterfront Line of 2.2 miles, in downtown no less, was around $60M)… How can a proposal to extend BRT a mere 3 miles where you'd have to transfer to rail, anyway, make any sense? ... unless.... the ultimate plan is to REPLACE the light rail line, entirely, with BRT.  We have RTA shouting down what Farkas earlier reported: BRT possibility on Buckeye Road... We've also, in the past, had proposals to connect the Woodhill/Shaker intersection with a direct freeway spur to I-490... Connect the dots... crazy? ... I say, like a fox!.. Only in Cleveland would such a ridiculous scenario even be discussed.

 

Then again, the KJP report about how a great transit GM like Ron Tober was forced out, based on his "expensive" rail proposals, and how a conservative like Joe C. was brought in to kill all such projects and hold costs down was enlightening -- and disturbing.

 

is the rail extension plan dead or is this BRT crap just an alternative?

is the rail extension plan dead or is this BRT crap just an alternative?

 

If it's part of an alternative analysis program then, OK.  I believe Alternative Analysis is what FTA requires of all transit capital project applications... this one, though, doesn't seem to fit that mode because the rail expansion is just 800 feet (I mistakenly said yards, earlier), and would only directly serve an area just SE of the intersection -- and of course have better ingress/egress for park 'n riders from points beyond... The BRT would be designed to serve 3 miles beyond the terminal, so I'm not seeing how it could be a direct alternative to what's been proposed by Shaker.  It would be nice, and make sense, if this rail was planned for the corridor to "stimulate" growth in dying North Randall and struggling Warrensville Hts, but ...

It's part of a federally required alternatives analysis that will look at no-build, BRT and LRT. You have to have a no-build option to show a baseline of information and what are the consequences of making no transit investment.

so, if its part of the alt. analysis, its not so crazy. BRT is always thrown in there as an alt these days. what would be crazy is if RTA was pushing it behind the scenes so that the analysis favored it. but if not, its just part of the funding game. sounds like the PD though liked the idea and is trying to push it on their end.

"Enhanced" bus services or "Transportation System Management" used to be thrown into an Alternatives Analysis in the past.

ah, the good ol' days.

It's part of a federally required alternatives analysis that will look at no-build, BRT and LRT. You have to have a no-build option to show a baseline of information and what are the consequences of making no transit investment.

I understand throwing the no-build option into the mix, but why are they throwing the BRT option in? If they have to pick 3 options and hope that the feds go with the middle one, then the options should be do nothing, build LRT, or build a subway. Think big! There are places where BRT makes sense, but this isn't one of them.

 

I want to know why RTA hates rail so much that they would even consider extending a rail line with a fancy bus route. I'm just dumfounded by the stupidity of this idea.

 

Geez, do I have post every transit news article??   :-D

Yes. Most of us have stopped reading the PD.

There needs to be some recognition at RTA of how poorly BRT has been received.  Ridership doesn't tell the story, since ridership was already high on the 6.  But the system really hasn't gone over well.  I have yet to meet anyone who isn't disappointed in the end product.  This goes for buses, stations, landscaping, all of it.  Poorly done.  Don't do it again.

I understand throwing the no-build option into the mix, but why are they throwing the BRT option in? If they have to pick 3 options and hope that the feds go with the middle one, then the options should be do nothing, build LRT, or build a subway. Think big! There are places where BRT makes sense, but this isn't one of them.

 

 

The feds don't pick the outcome of an alternatives analysis, the locals do. In fact, the outcome of an AA is called a "Locally Preferred Alternative." A corridor study steering committee, the RTA board and NOACA's board choose the LPA. But the LPA has to meet federal criteria in order to receive federal funding.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who isn't disappointed in the end product. This goes for buses, stations, landscaping, all of it.

 

I have. And some are nationally respected transportation leaders who have led some  tremendous public transit projects on the East Coast, Minnesota and Pacific Northwest. They thought the HealthLine was very well thought out and conceived.

 

 

There needs to be some recognition at RTA of how poorly BRT has been received. Ridership doesn't tell the story, since ridership was already high on the 6. But the system really hasn't gone over well. I have yet to meet anyone who isn't disappointed in the end product. This goes for buses, stations, landscaping, all of it. Poorly done. Don't do it again.

Yes, but when evaluating the healthline RTA seems primarily focused on comparing the ridership of the healthline with the ridership of the 6 while the 6 was under construction. By that standard, of course the healthline is a success. But by any reasonable standard, it is just a bigger bus, and most people in Cleveland view it that way.

 

There's already a train right there, just extend it, please don't even study the idea of giving us another big bus broken in half and duct taped back together as an alternative!

I have. And some are nationally respected transportation leaders who have led some  tremendous public transit projects on the East Coast, Minnesota and Pacific Northwest. They thought the HealthLine was very well thought out and conceived.

 

Yet until they can get those traffic lights to behave like they were meant to, it's poorly implemented.

 

I think having the lights set to just turn red at random intervals would be better than the way it is now.  It's like someone purposely implemented an inefficient light timing scheme after promising us exactly the opposite.

I have yet to meet anyone who isn't disappointed in the end product.  This goes for buses, stations, landscaping, all of it. 

 

I have. And some are nationally respected transportation leaders who have led some  tremendous public transit projects on the East Coast, Minnesota and Pacific Northwest. They thought the HealthLine was very well thought out and conceived.

 

Ha!  Transit directors think transit directors do a good job.  Astonishing.  Not exactly the sort of focus group I would convene for this purpose.  I'm guessing this is how Joe C won his 2007 award too... it's not like anyone passed out surveys at the bus stop. 

 

I don't know about Minnesota, but the east coast and northwest are places that serve their populations with trains and not BRT.  Their people aren't clamoring for BRT any more than Joe C's are.  I realize there are other examples of BRT nationwide, but how many of these transit directors would actually want it in place of a trolley on their city's main street?  Their actions tell me the answer is zero. 

That's funny. I don't remember saying they were transit directors.... They weren't even employees of any transit agencies.

 

And to get back to the topic at hand.... I do like the idea of a rail extension in this corridor because rail already exists. If it can be shown that a rail extension will result in the efficient utilization of existing rail equipment, employees, service hours, etc., then I welcome this. I would suspect that employee utilization and labor costs won't be very efficient with an added mode (BRT) here. The reason is that buses and their employees will probably be laying over at the relocated Warrensville stop -- as will the rail vehicles and employees. So now we would have two different groups of employees and vehicles laying over? Doesn't sound very efficient to me. The operating costs of BRT would have to be quite a bit less than rail to offset the added cost of having two incompatible systems connecting.

 

That doesn't even get into the forcing of transfers on passengers, which typically results in losing one-third of your ridership. So there is a possibility of reduced ridership/revenue with having two incompatible systems. A potential benefit of this transit extension is to create a large park-n-ride facility (hopefully designed with TOD into the former mall) at North Randall and running some rush-hour LRT expresses to/from downtown (just like they used to on the Shaker Rapids!). Even without the expresses, an LRT extension offers a one-seat ride from this park-n-ride to downtown. By forcing a mid-route transfer with BRT, the ridership will certainly be less.

 

Just my $0.02.

Question...even if they were thinking of extending the blue line (rail)(which I really doubt is going to happen for a hundred different reasons)...why would you go down Northfield towards North Randall?  I would somehow head up Chagrin (probably a very expensive alternative) or down Northfield and up Harvard to Tri C and 271. 

Oh how I stressed over that term "directors," changed it 2 or 3 times.  Clearly you catch my drift.  These are people who are unlikely to criticize another transit project, due to conflicts of interest.  I'll believe they support the Healthline when they turn around and start advocating the same thing for their own constituency-- BRT down the middle of main street, BRT running parallel to existing rail, BRT instead of extending existing rail.  Meanwhile, the Healthline is so unpopular locally that RTA publications spend more effort defending its costs than those of the WFL... and the WFL is defunct.

The reasons were noted in the article: cost (for Chagrin) and lack of support (for Harvard).

 

The North Randall extension makes sense to me because:

 

> Much of Northfield Road has a median which was intended for a rail extension to Bedford and Akron many decades ago;

> It offers an opportunity to re-purpose Randall Park Mall

> An LRT extension would terminate in an area where a park-n-ride could draw from more populous residential areas as well as from major highways converging from three different directions (SR271 from the south, IR480 from the southeast, and US422 from the east).

> And thinking REALLY long term, if the Ohio Hub PEIS selects the former Erie-Lackawanna right of way for Cleveland - Pittsburgh high-speed rail, the LRT could be extended to serve a station on the former E-L rail corridor.

^Indeed all good points.  Though I am just saying.. JUST SAYING... that the people here in Shaker will not love the notion of connecting their city with Randall Mall.  I see where you are coming from and you are correct.  I'm just saying that if this hits the sun press expect some fire works.  I live on the Green Line so it makes no difference to me either way and I think that expansion would only make that property on Van Aken where it ends into Chagrin/Warrensville that much more attractive for a superb mixed use/mixed income development.  Could be a truly urban/mass transit rebuttel to Legacy Village and Crocker Park both of which I find utterly revolting.

If the redevelopment of North Randall is anything less than a scorched earth redo I'd be hard pressed to convince my fellow southeastsiders to consider leaving their car there for a park-n-ride.

I'll believe they support the Healthline when they turn around and start advocating the same thing for their own constituency-

 

You mean like this? http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/

 

From personal experience, I can confirm KJP is right.  BRT is a current golden boy of transportation planning, drawing big crowds at conferences as well as conferences of its own.  Which isn't to say the HL doesn't have problems.  At multiple presentations where the HL has been held up as a model I've muttered to myself "if only you knew" while thinking about the fare machines, station structure designs, light timing...

 

As for Blue Line extension beyond the immediate 800 feet add-on... is this really a community priority?  Even if 80% federally funded, I can think of several projects I'd rather see get that 20% than this. 

 

If randal park is redeveloped as a high density TOD, where are the residents and business moving there coming from?  Have we seen any developer appetite for this kind of TOD in our region?  Do we want to subsidize more shifting of existing population to new development outside of our core?  Do we really want to spend money for a rail extension, the first mile of which will follow the edge of an enormous green space rather than a double loaded corridor of housing and commercial development?

 

I suppose the availability of federal money could distort the equation enough to make a huge capital outlay worth it save a little on operating expenses, but even that sounds like a stretch to me.  I could understand this project if we were suffering from road congestion and experiencing regional population growth- it would be a neat way to integrate and reclaim 40 year old sprawl.  But at this point, I think the best thing for Randal Park is a wrecking ball and a few thousand saplings- give it the Richfield Coliseum treatment.  Short of that, bulldoze it for an industrial park- I'm sure there are tenants who can't find big enough, clean enough lots with that kind of highway access in other parts of the county.

 

Last note: I wonder if this whole discussion would have been different if instead of "BRT" the article said "improved bus service."  I swear those letters are more trouble than they're worth.