Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't give you more cred, but your expertise is evident once again!
However, I don't understand the comments that I've highlighted above from your post. Could you please elaborate and explain why the lower platforms on the Red Line are so negative? Are you saying that RTA will have to add steps down from the existing Red Line platforms to a new lower level, and certainly extended, boarding platform to accommodate the narrower new cars?
Admittedly, I don't understand how the new trains can serve both high and low platforms, so maybe the high Red Line platforms must be lowered, but this wasn't mentioned in the post. The NEO-trans blog said the following:
<<Schipper also noted that the new trains are skinnier than what GCRTA currently has. Since federal regulations limit the horizontal gap between train doorways and station platforms to no more than four inches, the Red Line stations have to be modified. There also cannot be a vertical gap of more than two inches. GCRTA had considered continuing the costly and inefficient practice of maintaining two different types of trains for such a small 33-mile, 52-station system — one type of train that serves the Red Line’s high-level platforms and another serving the Blue/Green Lines’ low-level platforms.
But that limited the number of manufacturers who would respond to orders of so few unique railcars. GCRTA issued a request for proposals (RFP), this time for a standardized rail car that could operate on any rail line and offered to widen [no mention of concurrently lowering the Red Line platforms] the platforms at its 18 Red Line stations for $15 million....
So the groups also welcomed news that Schipper had about having standardized railcars so any train could run on any of GCRTA’s three lines. That means being able to run trains from Shaker Heights through downtown to Cleveland Hopkins Airport, or from Windermere to the Waterfront Line for Cleveland Browns games, as Schipper suggested yesterday. Such options could also boost prospects for transit oriented development, transit advocates said.>>
How can the same train concurrently serve both higher and lower platforms??? I don't understand this at all, so you probably are correct that the Red Line boarding platforms must be both extended and lowered.
Also, to your second complaint, why will the modified, lower Red Line platforms be "far less attractive" for visitors traveling from the airport to downtown? Do persons actually care if transit trains are light rail or heavy rail, as long as THE RIDER HAS A SEAT and doesn't have to stand? Or are you referring to the 5 mph lower speed of the new trains compared to the existing Red Line trains? As commented on below, if all Blue and Green lines trains run to the airport, skipping almost all stations west of downtown's rail transit center as express trains, perhaps skipping all stations except the popular West 25th St. station (riders on the Blue and Green Lines who want to stop at other western Red Line stations would have to switch to Red Line "local" trains at Tower City), the new airport express trains likely would provide much faster service between the airport and downtown despite the trains' lower speed.
Do you believe that RTA will run Blue and Green Line trains directly to the airport? Will this possibly increase frequency of trains between downtown and the airport? Will less popular current Red Line stops be skipped by the Blue and Green Line trains, increasing efficiency, and restoring some, all or adding seating capacity between downtown and the airport?
I also wonder when the Waterfront Line reopens, if it would be possible once the new Blue and Green Line trains are in operation, apparently at least several years from now, if a dedicated Waterfront Line train, often with smaller capacity to increase efficiency, could operate between downtown and the Muny Lot terminus. I wouldn't mind standing on the Waterfront Line, especially between Tower City and the Flats.
If the same gauge of tracks are used on all three rapid rail lines, why not convert the Blue and Green Lines to high platforms? Would this be cheaper, or is RTA counting on saving money because light rail trains are cheaper? Would converting the Blue and Green Lines to high platforms require building stations on the Blue and Green Lines that don't currently exist?
The overall realities are that RTA needs new rapid cars ASAP and it can't afford customized cars, nor apparently converting the Blue and Green Lines to heavy rail. So, the new cars will be better than the consequences of delaying the purchase of new cars with no viable, alternative solution. Unfortunately, the recent inflation likely has made the delays in replacing the rapid cars already very costly.
My understanding from the blogger is the new cars, in universally serving the whole Rapid network, will require lowered platforms on the Red Line. How low? I'm not sure.
I also know for a fact -- and just by looking at these new cars -- is that their interior is narrower than Red Line cars, which makes sense because these new cars are LRTs; much closer to conventional street/trolley cars than the more subway-type HRTs RTA currently runs on the Red Line. I know this also because the blog notes that Red Line platforms will also need to be extended, as well as lowered, to meet the doors of these narrower cars. These new cars appear to be even narrower than the current Blue/Green Line LRTs run on the Shaker lines.
Given all this, as well as your correct observation of the much less seating new cars, wouldn't you think all these aspects would make riding a royal pain for luggage-toting Airport travelers? We know the Airport Rapid is one of the major plus points for Cleveland for business, conventions, and big events nationally and internationally. We also know the Airport Rapid was key in allowing Cleveland to catch the eyes of both the Democratic and Republican National Committees in 2016 -- obviously, the RNC won the race to Cleveland and the City won universally positive from delegates and national/international reporters ... including for our quality mass transit (see: Airport Rapid).
The Calgary example shown in the blog post is far too spartan. Cleveland simply does not have the need to cram in standing riders outside of games. I see no reason the cars couldn't be fitted with a different seating arrangement. Perhaps traditional forward facing on one side, and longitudinal on the other side, to get the best of both worlds.
I don't really like facing sideways, but it does have some advantages. There's the stated additional standing room, and easier room for luggage and strollers. It's also easier for groups of 3/5/7 to sit together or at least facing each other. Riding as a family of 3 we always end up with one parent sitting in a row on their own.
It sounds like the car's speed and acceleration are a slight upgrade for the blue/green line, and a slight downgrade for the red line. This trade off may be worth it to allow for standardizing the system.
Standardizing is a real big positive since it can allow for longer routes with no transfers. Airport to First Energy, Van Aken to Ohio City, etc.
I could see at most 6 potential lines, all passing through Tower City, but none of them terminating there:
Airport to Windermere (current route)
Airport to Waterfront
Airport to Van Aken
Airport to Green
Waterfront to Van Aken
Waterfront to Green
I'm discounting some possibilities like "Van Aken to Windermere" as unrealistic, but maybe if WR's climate change population boom ever comes to fruition, they would at least be technically possible.
I'm discounting some possibilities like "Van Aken to Windermere" as unrealistic, but maybe if WR's climate change population boom ever comes to fruition, they would at least be technically possible.
I know you weren't trying to blame me for IMO the inevitable climate change migration population boom that will greatly diminish the quality of life in Ohio, but it's important to emphasize that this catastrophe is America's, and more generally mankind's. Unfortunately, Republicans generally are bona fide climate change science deniers, feeding at the trough of fossil fuel industry interests, and Democrats pay lip service to climate change and never to my knowledge, actually explain in detail the bleak future our politicians are imposing on our nation by their inaction.
Despairing humor is something that science-minded, conservative Ohioans experience too often, but this month has been off-the-chart.
Gov. DeWine embarrassed himself and our state by signing a law that declared natural gas as a source of "green energy." More sadly, the purpose of that ridiculousness was to force open our state parks and forests to drilling interests.
<<DeWine, Ohio Republicans redefine natural gas as ‘green energy’ in service to fossil fuel industry>>
I wouldn't be surprised if next DeWine and his Republicans cohorts turn their eyes to metropark systems as a tribute offering to their fossil fuel sponsors.
Our state's quality of life will be greatly diminished before the climate change migration begins in earnest.
This would be fantastic! I’ve been thinking this is a no-brainer for a while. Glad to see it’s finally taking shape. I kind of thought turning the Tower City fountain into a mini park might have been foreshadowing for this.
Former County Engineer Albert Porter is painted as the villain, opposing the will of the voters to build a downtown heavy rail subway loop. I'm certain the Prof shares this view of Porter given his many disparaging references about Porter.
The WEWS story is based on the research of CSU history professor Mark Souther (is this you, Prof?). It appears other persons besides Porter helped block the subway plan:
<<In the 1940s–1950s, Cleveland, Ohio, transit officials and a varied coalition of allies sought to construct a subway to distribute riders throughout downtown. Through two unsuccessful campaigns in the 1950s, the subway planning debate highlights the gradual erosion of downtown’s preeminence and corresponding rise of suburbia. It also sheds light on interest-based rifts within the downtown business establishment and across the social landscape of metropolitan Cleveland. More than transit history, the author argues, the mid-century Cleveland subway battles afford a close look at friction between influential leaders and ordinary citizens as well as competing place-based visions of the metropolitan future.>>
Former County Engineer Albert Porter is painted as the villain, opposing the will of the voters to build a downtown heavy rail subway loop. I'm certain the Prof shares this view of Porter given his many disparaging references about Porter.
The WEWS story is based on the research of CSU history professor Mark Souther (is this you, Prof?). It appears other persons besides Porter helped block the subway plan:
<<In the 1940s–1950s, Cleveland, Ohio, transit officials and a varied coalition of allies sought to construct a subway to distribute riders throughout downtown. Through two unsuccessful campaigns in the 1950s, the subway planning debate highlights the gradual erosion of downtown’s preeminence and corresponding rise of suburbia. It also sheds light on interest-based rifts within the downtown business establishment and across the social landscape of metropolitan Cleveland. More than transit history, the author argues, the mid-century Cleveland subway battles afford a close look at friction between influential leaders and ordinary citizens as well as competing place-based visions of the metropolitan future.>>
This was a nice report by Channel 5; an important educational piece since most younger locals think Cleveland's only subway chance was under the D-S/Vet Memorial Bridge. Prof. Souther is an absolute expert on the subject and continues to post interesting tidbits about the 1950s subway debacle... including the Part 2 proposal to extend the future Red Line up Euclid to Univ. Circle.
One thing that has always baffled me is why the City passed on DeLeuw's initial more simple subway plan (a line diverging from the current Blue/Green/Red trunk line up E.14th St, looping for 1 station at Playhouse Square, then heading west under Huron for a second station at 5-points (Huron-Prospect-E. 9th) then proceeding under Huron to the still extant subway turnout (under the Huron-Ontario St intersection) at the Rapid's east portal into Terminal Tower.
This would be fantastic! I’ve been thinking this is a no-brainer for a while. Glad to see it’s finally taking shape. I kind of thought turning the Tower City fountain into a mini park might have been foreshadowing for this.
I would like to see this too, not sure it could financially sustain itself though, even with Govt subsidy. There is another interesting prospect to this. If they can get the CVSR all the way to downtown Cleveland somehow, then it would not be too much of a stretch to get a heavy rail line all the way from Cleveland to Akron and most of the way to Canton. The CVSR used to run south of Akron, almost down to Canton. The problem with the CVSR is that it goes through ~22 miles of the national park where there will be zero TOD. The good think is that it does come close to downtown Akron (Northside lofts, and there could be additional residential near there.) But then the CVSR can continue south towards Canton. There could be park and ride options down there, going north to Akron, Rockside Road, downtown Cleveland. Once in downtown Cleveland, you could take the Red line to the Airport or CCF or University Circle. Not too shaby, hits some big employment centers, downtowns, medical central.
Albert S. Porter. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I remember Paul Harvey talking about him after Porter wrote that infamous letter to a 12 year-old girl.
^I believe limited commuter rail over the CVSR can work, but VERY limited -- 4 or 5 weekday, 1-way trips: in to Tower City in the morning, out in the evening, and maybe a mid-day short turn shuttle between TC and Valley View.
You're right, there is not much TOD potential ... but there's some. Valley View, which right now is a bunch of hotels, office campuses and fast-food joints is one. Akron Northside (AN) is another. A.N. has a nice, large mixed-use apt mid/high rise adjacent to the terminal containing a nice little food/shopping market hall/arcade similar to a mini Van Aken District --> and there's a footprint potential for similar development at A.N.
Peninsula also has some more, albeit limited, TOD potential. Aside from Akron Northside, Peninsula is the only station stop with bars, restaurants, and commercial development immediately adjacent to the station and even with CVSR in its current truncated state, Peninsula is a popular hop-off station for train travelers because of this, and the little town is quaint and historic (it also is, I believe, the only mid-line station with an already-built 2nd-track siding which can allow opposite direction trains to pass). Of course, more such sidings can easily be installed at certain stations, notably Valley View.
I also believe a number of drivers would park at the Brecksville stop -- whose parking would need to be expanded -- as Brecksville is the largest population base along the line behind Cleveland and Akron.
Another beauty of CVSR is it already has a working train maintenance-construction plant with an ample train yard south of Valley View. Also, even though the CVSR route will have several surface crossings in the Industrial Flats and will have to contend (somewhat) with the open/shut lift bridge over the Cuyahoga River (with proper scheduling, both these issues can be minimized if not eliminated), the entire line is nearly freight-free; passenger trains would have near total control of scheduling.
And, of course, implementing commuter rail here could really jump-start interest in developing several more -- and more effective -- such rail lines throughout the region. Lord knows Greater Cleveland has tons of lightly used/unused rusting rail corridors where commuter rail can and should be executed.
Albert S. Porter. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I remember Paul Harvey talking about him after Porter wrote that infamous letter to a 12 year-old girl.
Porter ended up pleading guilty to 19 counts of theft after his employee 2% salary kickback scheme was exposed.
Porter was a total sleaze, and his treatment of this young girl, along with his criminal activity, only solidified it. Yes WR, Porter is the worst 'villan' in modern Cleveland history when it comes to stunting the City's growth -- and his subway killing badly damaged downtown, which is only recently somewhat recovered -- and we barely hung on to our magnificent Playhouse Square.
But my attitude is we need to largely forget about Porter and move on. Yes, recognize he's a part of Cleveland history; a very bad part, but move on. We Clevelanders tend to dwell on guys like him as a weird psychological barrier to progress. Al Porter's been dead for nearly 50 years. Relegate him to the dust bin of history and, if anything, use him, in contrast to leaders (to varying degrees) like Voinovich, Mike White (RTA guy) Ron Tober, our current County Executive Chris Ronayne, (yes) Frank Jackson, Dan Gilbert, NOACA's Grace Gallucci, and, (I'm hopeful) Justin Bibb... These are the folks who, again weren't and aren't perfect, but who have moved Cleveland forward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WEWS revisits Cleveland's lost subway loop
