The traffic isn't re-routed to side streets, just the original lanes change course.  There may be some new headaches with the intersections on Chagrin and Warrensville (which may be what you are referring to)  but I'm sure the traffic signals will be coordinated accordingly.

 

Yeah that's kind of what I was getting at.  And I think people will "create" their own new ways around this intersection, making for new headaches in the area.  The Sussex neighborhood is still pretty quiet at the moment, but I wouldn't bank on that remaining like that with a newly configured Warrensville-Chagrin intersection!

RTA Board Actions from 1/17 Meeting

CLEVELAND -- The Board of Trustees of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) met for a Planning and Development Committee meeting and a full Board Meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2012.  All Board agenda items were approved. 

 

The presentation on the locally preferred alternative for the Blue Line Extension Alternative Analysis Study was moved to the full Board and will be voted on at the March 20 Board Meeting.  Two public hearings will be held on January 31 and February 2 to discuss the recommendations made in the study.   The final plans will go before the NOACA Transportation Committee and NOACA Governing Board for approval. 

The next scheduled Board Committee meetings will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.  The next full meeting of the RTA Board of Trustees will be held on Tuesday, February 21, 2012.  All meetings are held in the RTA Board Room, 1240 West Sixth Street, Cleveland, OH  44113 and are open to the public.

 

http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1694

is the "preferred alternative" a bus connection or a rail extension?

^Good question.... I THINK the idea is that whatever alternative RTA chooses will be the "preferred alternative"  which could either be rail or bus... I could be wrong and you may be right.  Someone more knowledgeable of this process than I can weigh in ...

If you mean, "what is a locally preferred alternative"? That is the option preferred by the project's sponsor following an alternatives analysis, and which the sponsor seeks concurrence from the relevant federal agency or agencies (in this case, the US Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration) for the project to advance to the next stage of planning, which is preliminary engineering and environmental impact analysis (on natural and built environments). If after the conclusion of that phase, the FTA determines that the project is being designed in such a way with appropriate levels of mitigation, it may earn a Finding Of No Significant Impact (yes, they call it a FONSI) and then it may receive federal funding for final engineering and construction.

 

If you mean, what is the LPA that GCRTA will select, that's what we'll find out March 20 after the two public hearings. But I can tell you what the consultant will recommend to GCRTA based on its findings after conducting the federally compliant Alternatives Analysis:

 

> a short extension of the Blue Line (1,300 or so feet) to get to the east side of Warrensville Road, just south of Chagrin Boulevard.

> a new station-intermodal transit center (ITC) at that location, placed in the new rail alignment.

> new park-n-ride lots at Harvard and Richmond near I-271 (possibly at Tri-C) and at Northfield-Miles near I-480 (numerous potential sites).

> express buses (called UCX for University Circle Express) that will operate from the park-n-rides on Northfield and Harvard to the ITC and then continue down Van Aken and down to University Circle.

 

The reason why this baseline alternative involving buses was recommended is because of what the FTA will fund and not fund. The FTA measures such decisions on "cost per hours of user benefit" (for both transit users and drivers across the NOACA region). The cost per hour of user benefit needs to be below $20. The baseline including the short extension and new station is just below that; the closest rail extension alternative was about $35 or so.

 

If the community still wishes to pursue a rail extension, it would probably have to do so without federal funds.

^that clears it up... thanks.

If you mean, "what is a locally preferred alternative"? That is the option preferred by the project's sponsor following an alternatives analysis, and which the sponsor seeks concurrence from the relevant federal agency or agencies (in this case, the US Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration) for the project to advance to the next stage of planning, which is preliminary engineering and environmental impact analysis (on natural and built environments). If after the conclusion of that phase, the FTA determines that the project is being designed in such a way with appropriate levels of mitigation, it may earn a Finding Of No Significant Impact (yes, they call it a FONSI) and then it may receive federal funding for final engineering and construction.

 

If you mean, what is the LPA that GCRTA will select, that's what we'll find out March 20 after the two public hearings. But I can tell you what the consultant will recommend to GCRTA based on its findings after conducting the federally compliant Alternatives Analysis:

 

> a short extension of the Blue Line (1,300 or so feet) to get to the east side of Warrensville Road, just south of Chagrin Boulevard.

> a new station-intermodal transit center (ITC) at that location, placed in the new rail alignment.

> new park-n-ride lots at Harvard and Richmond near I-271 (possibly at Tri-C) and at Northfield-Miles near I-480 (numerous potential sites).

> express buses (called UCX for University Circle Express) that will operate from the park-n-rides on Northfield and Harvard to the ITC and then continue down Van Aken and down to University Circle.

 

The reason why this baseline alternative involving buses was recommended is because of what the FTA will fund and not fund. The FTA measures such decisions on "cost per hours of user benefit" (for both transit users and drivers across the NOACA region). The cost per hour of user benefit needs to be below $20. The baseline including the short extension and new station is just below that; the closest rail extension alternative was about $35 or so.

 

If the community still wishes to pursue a rail extension, it would probably have to do so without federal funds.

 

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the implications of what you're saying they're going to recommend, but my gut reaction to that is that none of that is worth it.  I don't understand the point in creating a bigger mess through that intersection by adding rail tracks to the equation to only extend the Blue Line a quarter of a mile.  Nor do I like the idea of linking up with I-271 like that.  I don't really like the idea of bending over backwards for exurban residents and businesses.

I think people would use the train to get to solon and Vice versa. The traffic at that I480, I271, OH-422 is a huge bottleneck.  Also Northfield is Route 8, which goes all the way to Akron. I don't know if the Blue Line cars would be the most suitable to travel that far of a distance, but the thought is interesting. Maybe an express train that had a few stops could be scheduled for commuters.

 

think of public transport as a tool box, there are certain tools for certain jobs, due to the speed and ROW restrictions it wold not be appropriate to use light rail to connect Cleveland to Akron.

 

the blue line trains are limited to 40-45mph.

 

what I proposed for an extension would be dedicated express trains that could travel in dedicated ROW and operate in Light rail ROW as well.  this would enable 50+ mph travel in dedicated express ROWs. 

 

To me It unlies the importance of making smart decisions when it comes to choosing the next generation rial vehicles for Northeast Ohio.  I think we would want the flexibility in the RTA fleet to allow th system to expand outside of the current system and expand to areas inside of the existing network.

These are from the presentation that will likely be given at the public meetings......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any option having a cost per hour of user benefit greater than $20 will NOT be funded by the Federal Transit Administration. That means that only the baseline alternative may be advanced to preliminary engineering.

The "Baseline" proposal doesn't make sense to me... When did direct bus service to University Circle become a main focus? (kind of like how Shaker Square access helped muddle the Dual Hub)  Why run competing bus service against the Van Aken Rapid -- unless, once again, some party has the fantasy of converting the Rapid to BRT (if this express buss runs along Van Aken through Shaker Square, what's the point of the Rapid?  Bus riders from Chagrin Highlands and/or N. Randall can merely ride through and transfer at Shaker Square if they want to go dontown... right? ... I thought the focus was to best access the newly-developing TOD at Van Aken/Warrensville (hooray for Shaker as being the one party that gets it!); not running competing bus service against rail... The "do nothing" option makes more sense than the "Baseline", because either way, more people will be attracted to the Rapid to access the newly minted TOD... er, that is unless we decide to phase out rail for buses... just one more example that Cleveland so doesn't get TOD and urban transit.

The "Baseline" proposal doesn't make sense to me... When did direct bus service to University Circle become a main focus? (kind of like how Shaker Square access helped muddle the Dual Hub)  Why run competing bus service against the Van Aken Rapid -- unless, once again, some party has the fantasy of converting the Rapid to BRT (if this express buss runs along Van Aken through Shaker Square, what's the point of the Rapid?  Bus riders from Chagrin Highlands and/or N. Randall can merely ride through and transfer at Shaker Square if they want to go dontown... right? ... I thought the focus was to best access the newly-developing TOD at Van Aken/Warrensville (hooray for Shaker as being the one party that gets it!); not running competing bus service against rail... The "do nothing" option makes more sense than the "Baseline", because either way, more people will be attracted to the Rapid to access the newly minted TOD... er, that is unless we decide to phase out rail for buses... just one more example that Cleveland so doesn't get TOD and urban transit.

 

I'm sure it would absorb some of the current Blue Line/48 transfer riders, but I doubt this route would really cannibalize the Blue Line all that much, and to the extent it did, it would be providing much better service to the UC commuters.  It would also mean improved bus frequency between Shaker Square and UC, which would be pretty swell.

 

I definitely don't love everything about the plan though.  Why not broaden the UC distribution of the new route to include the Clinic?  I also wonder how keen Shaker residents will be to have RTA buses barreling down Van Aiken.  Personally, I would have no problem with it given the limited stops.

I've seen the entire presentation, thought about it for about a week and even put together a counter-proposal to GCRTA's consultants to explain my feelings about it. The feedback I've received has caused me to slowly change my early reactions.

 

The way it was described to me was that this can actually help get rail extended in the future, such as to Chagrin Highlands or, less likely, to North Randall. The baseline option extends the Blue Line to the other side of the Chagrin/Warrensville intersection and provides a large park-n-ride lot at the end of both express bus routes. Since rail is likely to be extended to only one lot at some point in the future, I will count only that lot as an expense saved from the future cost of a Blue Line extension. And the total cost saved is about $30 million. That reduces the cost of the Blue Line extension to Chagrin Highlands to $115 million (in 2012 dollars), and should make it more palatable for the FTA to fund it. But palatable enough? That may depend on future land uses on the Harvard route option....

 

So it was further described to me that the park-n-ride lot should help provide a stronger magnet for transit-supportive development, and create land-use conditions that are more favorable to a future rail extension. If so, that would raise the score the FTA uses to measure the cost-effectiveness of major transit projects. Problem is, I don't buy that a park-n-ride lot would influence land-use patterns. There is no evidence of that happening elsewhere in Greater Cleveland. And there are no bus station stops planned between the Shaker Intermodal Transit Center at Warrensville and the southeast end of the bus routes to create a route identity like what exists along BRT-lite section of the HealthLine east of East 105th.

 

If GCRTA pursues this bus route to Chagrin Highlands AND it adds an intermediate stop in that area, such as at Harvard/Green, I think GCRTA should acquire property or otherwise instigate a land use deal with incentives in partnership with the cities of Cleveland and Beachwood to encourage a transit-supportive development here. I wouldn't trust developers to find TOD religion just because there's an express bus stop here. GCRTA is going to have nudge things if it wants to encourage a development paradigm different than the "setback city" that's there now. Without a different paradigm, the FTA is unlikely to support a light-rail extension out to this parking-lot prairie.

 

The bus route paralleling the Blue Line initially concerned me too, despite that the frequency of Blue/Green Lines rail service is proposed to be improved slightly during peak travel periods, from 12 minutes to 10 minutes east of Shaker Square and from 6 minutes to 5 minutes west of Shaker Square. However the only portion where the bus and the train would compete with each other is between Warrensville-Shaker Square since the bus would make no stops enroute on Van Aken. There is some travel between these points now, but almost all of the travel on the Blue Line is to/from downtown.

 

In University Circle, the proposed bus route does not penetrate enough of the district's employment areas. Routing the bus only as far north/west as Euclid/MLK is insufficient. I can easily walk that from the Red Line. If they want to make this express bus service worthwhile, then it needs to be differentiated from what the Red Line can offer. That means extending to where more people work, such as over to the Cleveland Clinic "intermodal center" at East 93rd and Euclid.

 

One thing that intrigues me is the preferred site of the North Randall park-n-ride. It's is proposed to be at the Syms warehouse property, but could be darn near anywhere in the area. The Syms site is clearly the best. Why? It's easily accessible to/from both US422 (via Miles) and I-480 (via Northfield). And while the park-n-ride lot would initially be at the north end of the property in the existing parking lot, the south end of the property where the warehouse is located is next to Norfolk Southern's Randall Secondary, now leased by Cleveland Commercial Railroad. This rail line has been rated as one of the region's most promising for commuter rail. So the warehouse could be demolished and the park-n-ride expanded southward within the same property to serve commuter trains, too. If we can't have a Blue Line extension to this park-n-ride, would it be OK to be able to take a train from Aurora or Solon and transfer to an express bus to University Circle?

 

I think this is the best that can be achieved at this time, and it *could* lead to more positive things in the future. At least that's how I'm leaning right now.

 

RTA sets public meetings on Jan. 31 and Feb. 2 to discuss the Blue Line Extension Study.

 

It's your chance to hear things first-hand.

 

http://www.riderta.com/nu_notices-community.asp

Thanks Jerry, I'd like to attend but probably will not be able to (I'll sure try, though...)

 

... I understand the thinking behind the Baseline idea, but I still believe it's flawed because:

 

- it's Univ. Circle bus line serves/competes with with an existing rail line,

 

- Van Aken is not a major truck or large bus corridor; you have some very expensive homes in this area and pavement challenges (like much of Cleveland in this in climate area), so heavy buses certainly won't help the situation.

 

- Shaker Square itself is a great intimate, high density, narrow street, heavy-traffic-but-traffic-calmed area.  Squeezing No. 48 and (light-frequency) No. 11 buses through there is tight enough.  Adding this high-frequency bus line through there will only cause traffic headaches, as well as probable headaches/danger to pedestrians, at in the small square area.

 

- Flawed thinking rapid rail transit spawns, supports high-density TOD (of the type planned here by Shaker), NOT BUSES... BRT or otherwise.

 

- the planned Baseline bus route would be slowed/calmed by the reconfiguration of the street grid at the TOD, whereby through Van Aken-to-Northfield routing will be eliminated; thus tending to defeat the efficiency of the planned bus (as well as the aforementioned Shaker Square bottleneck) anyway.

 

- The Baseline can potentially shift the original focus from boosting and serving the planned TOD/intersection reconfig near the SE corner of Shaker Heights – to sending BUSES to/from U. Circle to the freeway  Outerbelt…

 

 

I'd be disappointed if rail was not extended but could live with the short (across-the-intersection) extension of the Blue Line interfacing with a bus TERMINAL serving buses to North Randall and/or the Highlands.... This new new through-bus idea in the Baseline is just a very bad idea.

^That said, I think planners are missing a very important aspect of expanded rail -- the mode-mixing potential: that is, you could expect a significant number of outerbelt freeway drivers, from the edges of Cuyahoga County and beyond, to park their cars at Blue Line extension stations located near freeway interchanges... Evidence that this would be the case is on the West Side Red Line at Triskett, Puritas/W.150 and (especially) Brookpark...

 

Also, it doesn't seem the cost of rail is/should be prohibitively expensive, even taking into account the building of new ROW and extension of trolley or catenary: the planned route would be totally at grade with no bridges or tunnels... I don't doubt the cost/benefit analysis of the Feds, but it seems to militate unfairly to Cleveland... Pittsburgh's just about to open a $550M, 1.2 mile river tunnel, subway-elevated extension to it's North Shore (on a rail system that's smaller and carries less people than our Rapid), and yet we've got to jump through hoops and meet strict passenger projection criteria to extend a surface line a few miles.  I know part of it is that Pitssburgh wisely planned tight, high-density TOD at the end of their rail extension while we tend to leave our rail lines to twist in the wind (ie, the Waterfront Line plus all the empty lots next to many Red Line stops, esp on the West Side).

 

 

- it's Univ. Circle bus line serves/competes with with an existing rail line,

 

Other than travel between the stations at Warrensville and Shaker Square (and no points in between), where? How?

 

- Van Aken is not a major truck or large bus corridor; you have some very expensive homes in this area and pavement challenges (like much of Cleveland in this in climate area), so heavy buses certainly won't help the situation.

 

I guess I have a different appraisal of these homes, which I consider not so luxurious. I checked the county auditor's site to see how much the homes along Van Aken have been selling for, and all except one have sold in the $70,000 to $220,000 range. The exception was a house that sold for $325,000, and that's a bargain for a "luxury" house. But you are absolutely right that running buses up and down Van Aken will cause its pavement to deteriorate faster.

 

- Shaker Square itself is a great intimate, high density, narrow street, heavy-traffic-but-traffic-calmed area.  Squeezing No. 48 and (light-frequency) No. 11 buses through there is tight enough.  Adding this high-frequency bus line through there will only cause traffic headaches, as well as probable headaches/danger to pedestrians, at in the small square area.

 

I've never really noticed anything out of the ordinary while watching buses pass through the square. But to each their own.

 

- Flawed thinking rapid rail transit spawns, supports high-density TOD (of the type planned here by Shaker), NOT BUSES... BRT or otherwise.

 

OK, here's where I completely disagree with you. Development in Cleveland was stagnant in the first decade of the 21st century, but one place where it's been happening in recent years is along the Euclid Corridor, and the BRT has a lot to do with the location decision-making of developers/investors, and the physical forms those investments have taken.

 

- the planned Baseline bus route would be slowed/calmed by the reconfiguration of the street grid at the TOD, whereby through Van Aken-to-Northfield routing will be eliminated; thus tending to defeat the efficiency of the planned bus (as well as the aforementioned Shaker Square bottleneck) anyway.

 

A through-lane from Chagrin into the Shaker ITC is included. Access to Van Aken may be slowed by the street grid, depending on the timing of traffic lights vs. the current timing at the six-way intersection. GCRTA proposes signal preemption for buses and trains through this and possibly other areas but I don't have a lot of faith based on the Euclid BRT experience. That may have more to do with Cleveland's poor record of maintenance of the traffic signals.

 

- The Baseline can potentially shift the original focus from boosting and serving the planned TOD/intersection reconfig near the SE corner of Shaker Heights – to sending BUSES to/from U. Circle to the freeway  Outerbelt…

 

Sounds like it already has.

 

I'd be disappointed if rail was not extended but could live with the short (across-the-intersection) extension of the Blue Line interfacing with a bus TERMINAL serving buses to North Randall and/or the Highlands.... This new new through-bus idea in the Baseline is just a very bad idea.

 

That option is what I would have one of the biggest concerns with. In that scenario, motorists would use the park-n-ride to take a bus to the train? That's two transfers! If you're talking about running existing bus routes and services into the Shaker ITC, I don't know if that provides enough benefits for the FTA to give the other parts of the baseline (ie: the Blue Line extension to the Shaker ITC) a cost-effectiveness rating that warrants federal funding. I suspect it doesn't, but it's worth asking that question.

^ Fair points, a couple clarifications:

 

Bus/Rail competition... I'm not talking about people living along Van Aken -- people living beyond the planned rail terminal at the Van Aken-Northfield TOD may be motivated to take the bus (and thus bypassing the new Blue Line terminal) rather than riding feeder buses or driving into the terminal.  Doncha think this kinda defeats the purpose of spending millions to extend/relocate the terminal to make it more attractive to these further-out drivers/bus riders?

 

---

The homes on Van Aken aren't near the value of those on Shaker Blvd, of course.  But there are a number of valuable, architect-designed classics on the north side of the street; not to mention some very attractive, high-end apartments/condos along the street; esp the Van Sweringen-era Tudors west of Lee Road along with semi-luxury buildings btw Lynnefield and Farnsleigh.

 

----

BRT and TOD -- note, I specified "high density" development... Hey, I'll be the 1st to applaud the growth along Euclid that has followed the Health Line.  But it's not the kind of super dense, station-focused type of development you see along rapid rail lines.  Euclid's growth in the CSU/Midtown area is more parallel to that along lower Woodward Ave (Detroit) north of Grand Circus park and south of New Center, which is a busy bus/car corridor.  It's less like Silver Spring, Ballston, or Crystal City (D.C. Metro), to name a few ... or even Shaker Square, the TOD pockets along Van Aken, Flats East Bank or UC Uptown, here in Cleveland...

 

----

Access to University Circle?  Aside from transferring to the #48 bus at Shaker Square, a lot of people can (and will in the future), just stay on inbound Blue/Green trains and transfer at the new E. 55 station (which is now a pleasant, easy-to-use transfer point with a climate-controlled waiting area, if needed), for a relatively fast, all-rail route to U. Circle, even though they have to back-track, geographically, a bit.

 

---

Bus interference in Shaker Square.  As one who lives not far from the Square, and frequents it often, trust me, a new, relatively high-frequency bus like, like that planned in the Baseline, can potentially cause traffic problems in the square.  During the rush hour period, which is what the Baseline is probably geared to, there is a lot of through auto traffic and peds that share this relatively small, people-friendly space.  Also, the traffic signals have been reset recently, which slows traffic even further -- which I like! (the problem is that it has totally kneecapped trains and has added 1-3 mins on each Blue/Green train run... more on that, later...

 

^btw, just drove down Van Aken today... There are very nice homes on BOTH sides of the street, it's just that some of the older classics are on the North Side.  To even classify Van Aken as an "average" residential street is unfair, it's much more than that. (not saying you do, KJP, but others do).

There are a few gems scattered on Van Aken (as mentioned mostly on the north/northeast side of the street).  But for the most part those homes are pretty "blah" (at least as far as residential architecture in the Heights goes) and I've never really gotten the impression that that area and the homes were in demand by the wealthy or even upper-middle class.

There are a few gems scattered on Van Aken (as mentioned mostly on the north/northeast side of the street).  But for the most part those homes are pretty "blah" (at least as far as residential architecture in the Heights goes) and I've never really gotten the impression that that area and the homes were in demand by the wealthy or even upper-middle class.

 

Those are upper middle class homes.

There are a few gems scattered on Van Aken (as mentioned mostly on the north/northeast side of the street).  But for the most part those homes are pretty "blah" (at least as far as residential architecture in the Heights goes) and I've never really gotten the impression that that area and the homes were in demand by the wealthy or even upper-middle class.

 

Those are upper middle class homes.

 

Whatever, they're boring.

MTS is correct... Clevelander17, I don't know what "blah" means.  Van Aken homes are equal to, or better than, most of those of upper middle class West Side burbs like Bay, Rocky River or Westlake... Most are post World War II, esp south of the street, but are very large in size, and many occupy substantial lots -- esp those on corners, like those at the Onaway and Kenmore Rapid stops.  Van Aken houses may seem "average" contrasted to the classic Shaker Heights, World War I era Tudors, Georgians, and Flemish styled homes along S. Woodland and to the north (or south, if your talking streets like Parkland and Aldersyde.  It's all a matter of context.  As much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of it is racial (of which I am NOT accusing you, Clevelander 17) -- the bulk of the Van Aken homes on the south side of the street are owned by African Americans -- but they are professional African Americans....

 

And of course as I noted above, one has to love the historic TOD clusters along (and near) Van Aken, including some more modern pieces, including the upscale Sussex Court townhomes and Avalon Station condos (even though the latter has had some sales issues in the down RE economy)...

 

Anyway, back to the topic of the Blue Line extension -- I still strongly believe that Van Aken Blvd. is important enough, residential, that you don't want to increase heavy large-vehicle traffic on it such as the proposed bus of the Baseline proposal, ESPECIALLY SINCE you have an excellent rapid rail line, speed-wise, capacity-wise and coverage-wise.

MTS is correct... Clevelander17, I don't know what "blah" means.  Van Aken homes are equal to, or better than, most of those of upper middle class West Side burbs like Bay, Rocky River or Westlake... Most are post World War II, esp south of the street, but are very large in size, and many occupy substantial lots -- esp those on corners, like those at the Onaway and Kenmore Rapid stops.  Van Aken houses may seem "average" contrasted to the classic Shaker Heights, World War I era Tudors, Georgians, and Flemish styled homes along S. Woodland and to the north (or south, if your talking streets like Parkland and Aldersyde.  It's all a matter of context.  As much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of it is racial (of which I am NOT accusing you, Clevelander 17) -- the bulk of the Van Aken homes on the south side of the street are owned by African Americans -- but they are professional African Americans....

 

And of course as I noted above, one has to love the historic TOD clusters along (and near) Van Aken, including some more modern pieces, including the upscale Sussex Court townhomes and Avalon Station condos (even though the latter has had some sales issues in the down RE economy)...

 

Anyway, back to the topic of the Blue Line extension -- I still strongly believe that Van Aken Blvd. is important enough, residential, that you don't want to increase heavy large-vehicle traffic on it such as the proposed bus of the Baseline proposal, ESPECIALLY SINCE you have an excellent rapid rail line, speed-wise, capacity-wise and coverage-wise.

 

Fair enough.  The more modern homes in that area simply don't do it for me, but truthfully neither does most of the architecture I've seen of the west side (except for parts of Lakewood and Rocky River).

 

As for that road as a bus route...I guess I never really thought about it, but yeah, I don't think it makes sense on a number of levels to add bus traffic to Van Aken.

The problem with adding bus traffic to a road that hasn't had it is that GCRTA (and other transit agencies) look at the paved streets as a way to add transit without having to pay for right of way maintenance expenses. That's one of the biggest downsides of adding fixed guideway transit (rail, BRT etc) is that the transit authority has to maintain it. So when they see an opportunity to add transit capacity without adding right of way operating costs, it sounds unavoidably enticing to them.

 

So All Aboard Ohio is going to throw a new angle at this issue. We are going to suggest that new bus transit routes over county- or municipally-maintained streets require the transit agency to provide a financial contribution so that it allows the local government to increase the pavement resurfacing cycle. This does two things:

 

1. creates a more level playing field for constructing rail and dedicated BRT lanes as compared to simply running new bus routes down existing streets. There is an old precedent for this. Back in the days of street railways (streetcars, interurbans etc), the electric railroads were responsible for maintaining the condition of street pavement between the rails. Their lack of attention (and money) to maintenance was another reason why county engineers wanted street railways removed from roads under their jurisdiction.

 

2. Today, with declining gas tax revenues due to higher road costs, slightly higher vehicle fuel economy and declining driving, road budgets are getting stretched to the max. Transit may actually come to the rescue here, with contributions to local governments for accelerating pavement maintenance cycles on roads with new transit routes.

 

3. This could also encourage communities to want more transit service.

http://allaboardohio.org/2012/01/30/aao-responds-to-recommendation-for-blue-line-corridor-extension-plan/

 

AAO responds to recommendation for Blue Line Corridor extension plan

 

For Immediate Release

Jan. 30, 2012

 

Ken Prendergast

Executive Director

All Aboard Ohio

[email protected]

(216) 288-4883

 

On Jan. 31 and Feb. 2, public meetings will be held to update citizens on progress of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's (GCRTA) Blue Line Corridor Extension Alternatives Analysis (details at: http://www.riderta.com/nu_notices-community.asp).

 

After two years of Alternatives Analysis planning and input from the public meetings, the Blue Line Corridor Extension consulting team will present to the GCRTA's Board of Trustees its recommended Locally Preferred Alternative. A copy of the Blue Line Corridor Extension presentation is available here: http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2012-1-17-BlueLineAnalysis.pdf

 

If the U.S. Department of Transportation concurs with the GCRTA Board's recommendation, the project could then proceed into preliminary engineering, then final engineering and ultimately construction, presuming that Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and local funding shares are available at each step.

 

As Ohio’s only statewide, citizen-based nonprofit organization representing rail and transit consumers, All Aboard Ohio takes great interest in the process and proposed outcomes of project-based planning efforts such as the Blue Line Extension Alternatives Analysis. All Aboard Ohio’s preferences and goals for such endeavors are that they:

 

•  Are within the capacity of the sponsoring organization(s) and partners to undertake, realize and sustain.

•  Supply long-term transportation choices that offer the potential to stimulate or sustain compact, mixed land uses which offer low-mileage lifestyles that increasing numbers of Ohioans demand.

•  Produce economic development, environmental enhancement and greater access to opportunities and services that inspire stakeholders in other geographic areas to replicate well-designed rail/transit investments for their citizens’ own benefit.

 

All Aboard Ohio supports the recommended Blue Line Corridor Extension LPA, with minor adjustments as suggested below (in BOLD CAPS), because we believe that components of the LPA will meet our preferences and goals upon service start-up, while other components will reduce barriers and create conditions more favorable to support future expansions of higher-level transit within the funding constraints of GCRTA, FTA and others.

 

1. The 1,300-foot-long Blue Line route extension to a new Shaker Intermodal Transit Center (ITC) will enable a significant Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at the intersection of Warrensville Road and Chagrin Boulevard. A fully built-out TOD should provide a significant transit ridership anchor at the current east end of the Blue Line.

 

SUGGESTION-1: remove the adjoining BP gas station on Chagrin to provide a turning lane for an exit route from the Shaker ITC for eastbound #5 Chagrin buses. Its removal would also create a safer, more pleasant pedestrian-oriented setting as well as avail a new parcel for future, transit-supportive development.

 

2. University Circle Express (UCX) bus service would provide a transit service which does not now exist – a fast, one-seat ride from the southeast “belt” highways to University Circle. It does not compete with the Blue Line which serves a different purpose and market – rapid transit to downtown. All Aboard Ohio’s continued support of the UCX is contingent upon UCX buses not making any additional scheduled service stops along existing rail lines.

 

SUGGESTION-2: adding transit buses to Van Aken and other busy residential streets may cause safety and pavement quality concerns. Thus, as part of the branding of the UCX service, buses could be painted in vivid colors to make them more noticeable, such as with bright yellow fronts. Also, Van Aken and other streets could be resurfaced shortly before the start-up of service after which GCRTA may offer financial assistance, if needed, to Shaker Heights to accelerate its resurfacing cycle.

 

SUGGESTION-3: broaden the UCX’s University Circle distribution/collection area to include the Cleveland Clinic, such as extending the route west on Euclid to the Cleveland Clinic Intermodal Facility at East 93rd Street.

 

3. Increased rush-hour frequency of Blue/Green Lines rail service from 12 minutes to 10 minutes east of Shaker Square and from 6 minutes to 5 minutes west of Shaker Square is supported by All Aboard Ohio as long as it does not degrade the revenue-to-cost ratio of the Blue and Green Lines.

 

4. The recommended LPA lays the foundation for future rail transit expansions and improvements within the constraints of GCRTA and FTA funding. The most cost-effective rail extension to the “belt” highways was the Harvard option at nearly $145 million. Construction of one park-n-ride and the Shaker ITC extension are, in total, projected to reduce the capital cost of the Harvard rail option by more than 20 percent.

 

However, the Chagrin Highlands lacks higher density land-use patterns necessary to support a higher density transportation mode like light-rail. All Aboard Ohio does not believe the provision of a park-n-ride lot will change this as no park-n-ride lot elsewhere in Greater Cleveland has done so either.

 

SUGGESTION-4: in addition to the limited number of intermediate bus station stops proposed between the Shaker ITC and the southeast end of the UCX routes, add other design elements and enhancements to create a route identity like what exists along the BRT-lite section of the HealthLine east of East 105th such as a different style of light poles, ADA-compliant crosswalks, UCX banners on utility poles, etc.

 

SUGGESTION-5: using public sector incentives, encourage a transit-supportive development example(s) at an intermediate bus stop (such as at Harvard/Green or near Northfield/Ellacott) to provide a land use paradigm different than the large setbacks prevalent now. Without a different paradigm, the FTA is unlikely to support a light-rail extension out to this extremely low density, pedestrian-unfriendly area.

 

All Aboard Ohio strongly supports GCRTA’s preferred site for the North Randall park-n-ride, the vacant Syms warehouse property, for the following short- and long-term reasons.

 

REASON #1: In the short-term, this site works best because it is easily accessible to/from both US422 (via Miles) and I-480 (via Northfield). The UCX bus park-n-ride lot would probably be at the north end of the property, using an existing parking lot.

 

REASON #2: In the long term, the vacant Syms warehouse could be demolished to expand the park-n-ride into the south end of the property, next to Norfolk Southern’s Randall Secondary between Cleveland and Mantua, now leased by Cleveland Commercial Railroad. This rail line has been rated by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency as one of the region’s most promising for commuter rail.

 

REASON #3: All Aboard Ohio envisions that someday a rail commuter from Mantua, Aurora or Solon could make a seamless transfer at this station to a UCX express bus to the west end of Chagrin Highlands, the Shaker TOD and/or University Circle. Or a quick reverse commute to one of the industries in Solon or south of Aurora could be made. Such linkages should increase the cost-effectiveness of both transit services.

 

To see All Aboard Ohio's full, detailed response to the recommended Blue Line Corridor Extension LPA, see: http://freepdfhosting.com/da27f197ff.pdf

 

All Aboard Ohio stands ready to assist GCRTA and its project development team in advancing this project to reality. We do so in order to help create a foundation for additional, higher level public transit service in this corridor for citizens to enjoy in the not-too-distant future.

 

END

What are the chances that both extensions get built?

Not sure. One or more of these probably would have to happen by then....

 

1. transit-supportive land uses occur along both general routings

2. commuter rail is implemented between Cleveland and Solon/Aurora

3. FTA changes its project assessment criteria

^I appreciate AAO's suggestions for modifications to the LPA.  A couple things:

 

-  As I mentioned, before, I tend to disagree with the concept that Blue Line (rail) extension to Chagrin Highlands would not justify the costs, and that the analysis may need to be modified to consider:

 

a) the route stops directly on the large Tri-C East campus.  College students traditionally are high-volume transit users, and the Blue Line, alone, would offer a 1-seat ride from such TOD residential areas as 1) downtown, 2) Shaker Square and the existing TOD at Warrensville/Chagrin which, of course, is going to be greatly strengthened... Also, don't forget the 1-stop transfer, across the Cuyahoga River, from Ohio City via the Red Line -- you can bet a lot of Tri-C East riders from Ohio City would use rail.

 

b) any Blue (or Green) Line extension that interfaces with the Outerbelt freeways (I-271 and 480) will draw considerable long-distant commuters who would be enticed to leave their cars and ride rail directly to downtown, or perhaps, one of the intermediate TOD points such as Shaker Square.

 

c) Planners sould observe the northern portion of the Baltimore Light Rail, which extends about 17 miles north of downtown Baltimore.  It serves a very low density area of many low-rise, suburban-campus office complexes before dead-ending to a sprawling shopping center and mall.  Unlike a potential Blue Line extension to the Highlands, Baltimore's Light Rail does not at all interface with Baltimore's Beltway freeway system, although it significantly penetrates it -- there is no mode-mixer type parking lot to attract circumferential drivers.  Despite this, the Baltimore Light rail has been very successful in attracting riders in its north corridor.  I think LPA planners may not have seriously considered the potential of Outerbelt transfer, rail park 'n ride drivers who, more than likely, would consider a rail option rather than the planned bus option (or any bus option, including one directly into downtown Cleveland).  Planners should look to the success of such lots on the West Side Red Line, such as Brookpark and W. 150/Puritas.

 

 

d) get more of a commitment to the Aurora-Mantua commuter rail route.  I'm glad AAO has mentioned the potential of this route -- it would be nice if somehow planners could be committed to seriously study implementation of this rail line, esp given the fact that it is one of the few growth corridors in NEO.

 

Hopefully the planners will consider some of these points.

 

I legitimately wonder how many students at Tri-C East actually commute from as far west as Ohio City.  Heck, I wonder if there are many that even commute from anywhere west of E. 55th.

I think Tri-C East is heavy into the "Corporate College" aspect too, which might have a wider draw. 

 

Regarding transit-supportive land uses, I don't think we're likely to see those prior to transit existence.  Besides, Greater Cleveland just doesn't do that sort of thing.  We're so anti-density that we build suburbs right in the city core.  But the Chagrin Highlands area needs rail service regardless of its design philosophy.  And the city needs Chagrin Highlands to be on its rail system, which must extend into growth areas to remain relevant. 

Building rail out to Chagrin Highlands today means GCRTA spending $145 million without a federal funding contribution.

I understand FTA the funding formula, I'm just suggesting we may have been conservative in terms of ridership potential, particularly re Outerbelt drivers and density growth potential of the Highlands itself...  Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board in terms of our calculations.... But if we must go without FTA funding, then we could try and be creative.  As they say, if there's a will there's a way... RTA got the Waterfront Line built for approx $70M without Federal funding because they were on a short turnaround with the City Bicentennial in 1996, and RTA had no time for an alternative analysis (or whatever it's called)... We somehow got it done; and remember, this is Cleveland, THE most anti-rail, rail city in America.

 

Also, how did Baltimore get a similar line done out to an area of similar light density and even greater sprawl (and no community college served, either)?

I think Tri-C East is heavy into the "Corporate College" aspect too, which might have a wider draw. 

 

Regarding transit-supportive land uses, I don't think we're likely to see those prior to transit existence.  Besides, Greater Cleveland just doesn't do that sort of thing.  We're so anti-density that we build suburbs right in the city core.  But the Chagrin Highlands area needs rail service regardless of its design philosophy.  And the city needs Chagrin Highlands to be on its rail system, which must extend into growth areas to remain relevant. 

 

I agree totally... What you say is sad, but true, our political/planning leaders are totally clueless in terms of TOD (save, perhaps, Shaker Heights); we have zero plans for TOD for our rail lines -- we do everything to hurt rail service and TOD, not enhance it (sprawl like Steelyards and the W. 117 big boxes (which have all but killed the prospects for a major retailer downtown based on proximity), and of course, we built the Waterfront Line and then walked away from it...

 

... The ONLY hope lies in progressive developers, like Ari Maron & family.  Consider that each of their highly-successful, mixed use projects: E. 4th, United Bank/Ohio City, and U.Circle, Uptown, are ALL adjacent to rapid transit stations... Wolstein/Fishman are developing the TOD in the Flats near the Flats East Bank Waterfront Line station.  Point being, these individual developers have vision.  I don't see any plan from Frank Jackson and the like toward TOD (oh yeah, he's pushing for the Opportunity Corridor, paralleling the Red Line, the West Shoreway project, Steelyards and the W. 117 big boxes (as City Council President),... I just wish he threw his weight behind serious TOD.... UCI's Chris Ronayne, a moving force behind Flats East Bank (as Jane Campbell's planning guy)  AND Uptown, gets it...

I'm trying to get some interest in a TOD tutorial for Cleveland-area community officials, developers, investors, etc. There's a large nonprofit in Washington DC that may be interested in taking it on, but it's still very early.

 

I'd hate to see efforts by the Center For Neighborhood Technology (http://tinyurl.com/6u2dk8t) or the  Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (http://www.neoscc.org/) not be followed up on with action.

 

I hope to see some of you tonight at the first of two public meetings on the Blue Line Corridor Extension AA. You certainly can't blame non-attendance on the weather!! 60 degrees and sunny -- Woo-hoo!

^Excellente!

I went to the public meeting tonight at the STJ Center on Lee Road. There were about 25 people there and one person from the media. Didn't catch what newspaper, though. Most audience questions were about why light-rail couldn't be extended out to I-271 or I-480. I guess they missed the information in the presentation that it wouldn't meet the FTA's pass-fail test. Another person asked why was the rail line being extended only 1,300 feet in the baseline alternative, and shouldn't they just keep the Blue Line at its current terminus. The short answer was that this is the longest rail extension GCRTA could include and still keep a passing grade with the FTA's cost-effective criteria. It would also make the proposed TOD at Chagrin/Warrensville easier to do without two stations so close together, and it would reduce the cost of a future light-rail extension to one of the "belt" highways by about $25 million.

 

One thing I learned is that if a light-rail line is extended someday down Northfield Road, it can't go in the grassy median. The reason is that the sanitary and/or storm sewers are beneath it. So putting the rail line over top of them would require additional strengthening of the conduits/tunnels and would restrict access to the sewers, unless they were jogged over to the side every so often to provide access points. It would be much simpler and less expensive to simply move the alignment of a rail line than move sewers. To accommodate rail, the northbound lanes would be into the median, then the rail line built where the northbound lanes are today. However this is not the case of the BRT, which can be put in the median and have manhole covers wherever they're needed to provide access.

 

And, a rail line or BRT along Warrensville was a nonstarter because it was too heavily developed up to the street and the street right of way was too narrow to have a dedicated right of way for LRTs or BRTs without demolishing lots of buildings. So that's why the Warrensville routing falls way down in the cost-effectiveness ratings.

Sorry, but this was a poorly written piece....

 

RTA will not extend Blue Line in Shaker Heights but plans transit center for area

Published: Wednesday, February 01, 2012, 6:26 AM    Updated: Wednesday, February 01, 2012, 12:01 PM

  By Thomas Jewell, Sun News

 

SHAKER HEIGHTS Greater Cleveland RTA officials will focus on building a new $25 million Intermodal Transit Center off Chagrin Boulevard and Warrensville Center Road before 2020, then revisit the possibility of further light rail extensions.

 

"It’s a major undertaking that needs to be done to make any future rail line extension possible," RTA transit consultant Timothy J. Rosenberger told roughly a dozen people at a Jan. 31 public meeting at the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Community Center.

 

Until then, recommendations for the current Blue Line Corridor extension call for building two new Park-and-Ride lots, one off Harvard and Richmond roads and one on Northfield Road near Interstate 480, and running 20-minute to half-hour bus routes to each.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/shaker-heights/index.ssf/2012/02/rta_will_not_extend_blue_line_1.html

Sorry, but this was a poorly written piece....

No need to apologize as it's obvious you didn't have anything to do with it.

 

Just for fun I looked at the comments and I was happy to see they weren't critical of extending the line. (Though I'm sure they'd be critical had the article mentioned how much it's going to cost.)

Is Shaker Heights on board with the Van Aken express buses?  I'd be surprised if they were. 

 

Also analogyzing the parallel decision to go bus on the the Health line:

"The problem is that light-rail never would have gotten funded," said Michael J. Schipper, RTA Deputy General Manager, noting daily ridership on the Healthline is now up to about 15,000. "We can talk about it forever, but it took 15 years to get funding for the bus line on Euclid."

 

Mr. Schipper doesn't get it.  He doesn't account for the fact that people and developers are more attracted to rail, and that you'd probably get 3 times the HL patronage if it were built as a rail line tied into the existing Rapid network....Given RTA's mentality, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave very conservative passenger projections for a Blue Line rail extension.

They're not allowed by the FTA to fudge ridership numbers. The FTA heavily scrutinizes how these are calculated.

 

I don't doubt the ridership estimates are fair. I doubt RTA's dislike for a single-track rail extensions at the outer edges of its system. They consider it a safety issue, but it's not. Light rail systems in Pittsburgh, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Baltimore made it work, until they could get enough funding to double-track more sections. This is about GCRTA not trusting its train operators to obey operating rules, including not taking a train into opposing traffic on a single-track portion. Even so, the Automatic Train Stop signal system in use on the Red Line and soon to be installed west of Shaker Square will address this situation if installed on the rest of the Shaker lines including a single-track Blue Line extension.

 

If it were, a single-track Blue Line extension to Chagrin Highlands would cost only $55 million more than the baseline alternative and create enough additional benefits to pass the FTA's pass-fail cost effectiveness test. Thus a safe light rail extension is eligible to win funding.

^Was that brought up in the public meeting?

No, but the question needs to be asked. Unfortunately I cannot be at tonight's public meeting, the second of two of these.

One thing still very foggy to me: have the owners of the shopping plazas on either side of the current Blue Line terminus expressed serious interest in a massive redevelopment project?  Not to sound like a downer, but given Cleveland's low office and residential rents, I wonder how willing either owner is really going to be to move away from their current car-oriented retail formula. 

One thing still very foggy to me: have the owners of the shopping plazas on either side of the current Blue Line terminus expressed serious interest in a massive redevelopment project? Not to sound like a downer, but given Cleveland's low office and residential rents, I wonder how willing either owner is really going to be to move away from their current car-oriented retail formula. 

 

Those businesses are served by the nearby community, not those taking the train to Warrensville to shop.  So to me that is a non factor.

It seems like 1 of the issues with the ridership study is that under the best proposed condition, it would still be a 2 seat train ride to University Circle from the new extensions. 

 

I would think that ridership would be significantly enhanced if there was a 1 seat option to both downtown and UC. 

 

Is there any reason that there can't be an improved connection between the blue/green line and the existing red line track nearer to UC?  And is there any reason that the existing light rail cars, which operate on the red line row from e55 to downtown, couldn't operate east to UC?

 

It seems with 2 new stations coming online in UC over the next few years, it would be a big loss to not explore a 1 seat rail connection from the southeast to UC.

It seems like 1 of the issues with the ridership study is that under the best proposed condition, it would still be a 2 seat train ride to University Circle from the new extensions. 

 

I would think that ridership would be significantly enhanced if there was a 1 seat option to both downtown and UC. 

 

Is there any reason that there can't be an improved connection between the blue/green line and the existing red line track nearer to UC?  And is there any reason that the existing light rail cars, which operate on the red line row from e55 to downtown, couldn't operate east to UC?

 

It seems with 2 new stations coming online in UC over the next few years, it would be a big loss to not explore a 1 seat rail connection from the southeast to UC.

 

what are you proposing and again what ROW could there be between the Shaker and Cleveland lines?  There is no easy way to build a line from UC to SS.

 

The Shaker trains can run on the Cleveland line, but cannot use the platforms.  If all the platforms were modified - there is a cost.  Where does that money come from?

One thing still very foggy to me: have the owners of the shopping plazas on either side of the current Blue Line terminus expressed serious interest in a massive redevelopment project? Not to sound like a downer, but given Cleveland's low office and residential rents, I wonder how willing either owner is really going to be to move away from their current car-oriented retail formula. 

 

Sorry, I was referring to the the literal topic of this thread (the TOD), not the blue line extension.

One thing still very foggy to me: have the owners of the shopping plazas on either side of the current Blue Line terminus expressed serious interest in a massive redevelopment project?

 

It's probably why they will be removed either by the city or by a developer.

 

It seems like 1 of the issues with the ridership study is that under the best proposed condition, it would still be a 2 seat train ride to University Circle from the new extensions. 

 

If light-rail was the recommended transit service to be extended, then yes, it would require a two-seat ride to UC.

 

I would think that ridership would be significantly enhanced if there was a 1 seat option to both downtown and UC.

 

Is there any reason that there can't be an improved connection between the blue/green line and the existing red line track nearer to UC?  And is there any reason that the existing light rail cars, which operate on the red line row from e55 to downtown, couldn't operate east to UC?

 

It seems with 2 new stations coming online in UC over the next few years, it would be a big loss to not explore a 1 seat rail connection from the southeast to UC.

 

I agree. All Aboard Ohio proposed a new train service from Warrensville on the Blue Line to Windermere on the Red Line. We called this new service the Purple Line. Between Shaker Square and UC, this would be only 1-3 minutes slower than a bus routed directly between the two points. But it would require building a double-track "flyover" connection in the vicinity of Grand Avenue, just west of East 75th. One of the tracks, for trains traveling from Windermere to Warrensville, would need to be grade-separated. Meaning, it would to have go over or under other tracks. That could include restructuring the existing Red Line overpass of an abandoned freight siding track, moving an NS mainline track to the north, and having this Windermere-to-Warrensville track bridge over the Blue/Green line tracks before descending to switch on to them west of the East 79th station. This is likely to be a $30 million+ project.

 

As for the new stations at UC-Cedar and UC-Mayfield, their designs were already accepted by the FTA and are part of their funding grant agreement. To add light-rail stations here would require redesigning the stations to add a low-level platform and amending the contract with the FTA. The FTA usually doesn't take too kindly to those things.

 

Perhaps someday when RTA has to replace its rail fleet, it will acquire a standardized type of train equipment with a dual-floor design like Pittsburgh's. But current RTA staff don't like dual-floor cars because that means large groups of people can exit the car only through one door per station. They see that as a problem when there are large crowds downtown. I don't share their concern, since Pittsburgh is able to make it work on a rail system that is used more heavily than ours.

One thing still very foggy to me: have the owners of the shopping plazas on either side of the current Blue Line terminus expressed serious interest in a massive redevelopment project?

 

It's probably why they will be removed either by the city or by a developer.

 

It seems like 1 of the issues with the ridership study is that under the best proposed condition, it would still be a 2 seat train ride to University Circle from the new extensions. 

 

If light-rail was the recommended transit service to be extended, then yes, it would require a two-seat ride to UC.

 

I would think that ridership would be significantly enhanced if there was a 1 seat option to both downtown and UC.

 

Is there any reason that there can't be an improved connection between the blue/green line and the existing red line track nearer to UC?  And is there any reason that the existing light rail cars, which operate on the red line row from e55 to downtown, couldn't operate east to UC?

 

It seems with 2 new stations coming online in UC over the next few years, it would be a big loss to not explore a 1 seat rail connection from the southeast to UC.

 

I agree. All Aboard Ohio proposed a new train service from Warrensville on the Blue Line to Windermere on the Red Line. We called this new service the Purple Line. Between Shaker Square and UC, this would be only 1-3 minutes slower than a bus routed directly between the two points. But it would require building a double-track "flyover" connection in the vicinity of Grand Avenue, just west of East 75th. One of the tracks, for trains traveling from Windermere to Warrensville, would need to be grade-separated. Meaning, it would to have go over or under other tracks. That could include restructuring the existing Red Line overpass of an abandoned freight siding track, moving an NS mainline track to the north, and having this Windermere-to-Warrensville track bridge over the Blue/Green line tracks before descending to switch on to them west of the East 79th station. This is likely to be a $30 million+ project.

 

As for the new stations at UC-Cedar and UC-Mayfield, their designs were already accepted by the FTA and are part of their funding grant agreement. To add light-rail stations here would require redesigning the stations to add a low-level platform and amending the contract with the FTA. The FTA usually doesn't take too kindly to those things.

 

Perhaps someday when RTA has to replace its rail fleet, it will acquire a standardized type of train equipment with a dual-floor design like Pittsburgh's. But current RTA staff don't like having dual floors because that means large groups of people can exit only through one door per station. They see that as a problem when there are large crowds downtown. I don't share their concern, since Pittsburgh is able to make it work on a rail system that is used more heavily than ours.

 

 

 

And that project to me seems ass backwards.  Having the trains go all the way into the city to come back out to the burbs.  That right there makes no sense when you're trying to provide, fast, reliable mass transit.

 

Id rather see a connection to lakewood from the 98 Street station; a extension south on west 25 or west on Lorain from the West 25 street station before anything like this is built!

Id rather see a connection to lakewood from the 98 Street station; a extension south on west 25 or west on Lorain from the West 25 street station before anything like this is built!

 

So would a few other folks I've spoken to in the last few days. They wondered why these east-side transit projects (Blue Line extension, Red Line/HealthLine extension etc) keep getting proposed. The same people (east-siders, no less!) suggested extending a Red Line branch to Lakewood or a BRT to Parma.