KJP

I don't know about eminent domain "never" happening downtown. If the city had some money to play with, it might go after a downtown parking lot or two. A more likely prospect is a joint city-port authority effort in going after some parking lots. The port authority has eminent domain power, but I don't know if it applies to development projects or just the port. They do have some resources the city doesn't have, however. Still, there has to be a "public purpose" aspect to the eminent domain action. So if the land acquisition is purely an effort to develop a site, the eminent domain argument won't fly. If it's to remove blight, increase property values and support the school system, then eniment domain may make go somewhere. KJP

It'll be a cold day in hell when Columbus gets one of our Rapid lines! KJP

Here's my map. Most of this is based on what I posted before, except a crazy idea I've had to replace I-71 between West 150th and West 25th with a boulevard, a relocated Red Line, and high-density mixed uses. I would send I-71 north to I-90, since a lot of traffic leaves the interstate at West 150th and West 130th/Bellaire, with lighter traffic northeast of there. A 40-mph boulevard would remain, as would much commuter traffic, I presume. The trucks would be directed north to I-90, however. KJP __________________

Why would NS abandon that track when freight traffic on it has increased from less than one train a day three years ago, to more than 10 per day today? KJP

^ Which was posted at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2738.msg26153#msg26153 KJP

Read the article again. They're planning 300 high-end residences, or 72 percent of the total.... "The 416 units of housing will consist of 81 public housing units, 35 affordable housing units and 300 market rate units." That's what "market-rate" means. Sometimes people hear about this project, that a public housing entity is pursuing it, and automatically assume it's going to be another public housing project. That's not what CMHA is doing anymore. They realize the folly in building warehouses for poor people and instead need to mix them into a built environment where they can break the cycle of poverty.... KJP

It must be a cold day in hell KJP

I think this is quite a bit more serious than paying for more gas to put in your car. Sept. 11, 2001 isn't even an appetizer compared the economic hardship that Peak Oil will bring. And, yes, people will die, either from resource wars (U.S. v China?) or from starvation as most fertilizers are oil based. Oil is a tremendous energy carrier that no technology is ready to replace. According to the Department of Energy, if a Manhattan Project-scale effort to develop alternatives were started today, we'd be at least 10 years from replacing oil as an energy carrier...assuming an alternative can be found. We aren't 10 years from running out of oil, but we are likely 10 years or less from reaching Peak Oil. And, just like dehydration of the human body, it won't take much of an oil shortfall to cause serious economic problems, especially in such an oil-dependant nation like the U.S. where too many people are already overburdened with debt. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the 1970s, but I remember keeping the thermostat at chilly levels in our house, fist fights at gas stations, and even a riot that spread from a gas station in Philadelphia. This time around, it's structurally induced shortage, not a politically induced one that's temporary. The point of all this is, think of all the products with plastic in them and what their costs might be if crude oil doubles in price, or what the availability of flying will be the average traveler, or the availability of food to people all over the world. These don't have any meaningful alternatives, while our current, auto-dominated transportation system does have them (which also includes non-transportation solutions like smarter land use and telecommuting). America has 4 percent of the world's population but uses 25 percent of the world's oil. We have the ability to drastically cut our oil use within a decade to buy more time to aggressively pursue renewable energies that are potent enough to replace oil. Pardon my abruptness, but if we wait until Peak Oil arrives to decide on and implement a Plan B, a lot of people on this planet are screwed. KJP

Don't let me stop you! Hey, if that daredevil can get dressed up like Spiderman and climb the exterior of skyscrapers, then any pursuit is possible....as long as getting arrested is the least dangerous outcome.

While I agree with many of your comments, I consider it a shame that the CSX rail line from the downtown lakefront east to Collinwood has seen its rail traffic drop from 40-50 a day to, at most, 3 daily (and two of them are nighttime Amtrak trains). This rail line is built and maintained to 79 mph standards. The ease of adding a commuter service to this route would be obscenely easy and inexpensive. The real trick of this route is to get through CSX's Collinwood Yard, where its intermodal business is booming. CSX does maintain mainline tracks for nonstop trains through the yard, which Amtrak uses. If the commuter service could use one of those as a dedicated track, then they could at least get to Euclid, where I think suburban folks would rather park their cars than in Collinwood. Beyond Euclid, things get more complicated, since the CSX line narrows to only two main tracks and freight traffic gets heavy again, at least 50 trains daily. A passenger-only track would have to built/rebuilt. Fortunately, when this route was New York Central's, it was four tracks wide, so there is right of way to add the passenger-only track, costing perhaps a shade over $1 million per mile. You know your way around Cleveland's rail scene (do I know you?), but remember that some commuter rail services can be very similar to light rail, with closely spaced stations in urban areas and high-speed running in open country. You mentioned the New Jersey River Line, but I'm partial to Ottawa's O-Train (http://www.octranspo.com/train_menue.htm). It rides a lot more smoothly than the River Line's trains do, plus is more spacious and comfortable. I don't have a problem with a Rapid becoming a streetcar downtown. It hasn't hurt ridership in Portland, San Diego, Baltimore or other cities that are Cleveland's size. My favored routing for a downtown loop is to turn south on a pedestrian-only East 17th Street, extended to Carnegie (with East 18th made into a four-lane roadway from the Lakefront Boulevard to the Inner Belt). Depending on the final form of the Inner Belt/Central Interchange, I'd have the downtown loop turn southeast from Carnegie/East 17th on a new boulevard and descend into a subway about a half-mile before joining the existing Rapid near where East 9th/Ontario/Broadway/Orange all come together. As for the Rapids coming out of the Central Rail Facility and clogging the line to Tower City (especially during rush hours), I've often wondered why RTA never tripled-track that segment. There is more than enough track space (even the old Erie RR bridge over NS/ex-NKP could be used). And, as for signal prioritization for buses on key routes, look for that on the 326 Route in the near future. One of things that killed the streetcars is that they got mired in car traffic. This turns the tables and I suspect the highway lobby is unaware of it. Add these one insignificant route at a time until all the key routes have been upgraded, and the highway lobby wonders how it all sneaked up on them. That's enough musing for now. It's late.... KJP

Please mark your calendars for the following public meetings for the Ohio Hub: Youngstown – Thursday, April 21st -- time and location TBD Cleveland – Thursday, May 5th – 2:30 to 4:30 pm (Business and community leaders) and 5:30 to 7:30 pm (general public), tentatively at NOACA There will be no public meeting in Dayton during this round of public outreach. I’ll let you know as soon as locations are confirmed. Our objective is to wrap up all meetings and have a final report to distribute by May 31st. (We’ll have a shorter fact sheet version that recaps the highlights.) Thanks for all your help to support these efforts.

*NEWS RELEASE* March 23, 2005 Coalition urges Governor Taft to invest in Ohio jobs and protect the environment Labor and environmental alliance pushes for full funding of Ohio Hub proposal Columbus, OH - Political paths intersected today as members of Ohio's labor unions and environmental organizations called on Governor Taft to fully fund the economic impact study for the Ohio Hub proposal and to secure state and federal funds to expedite the regional train system. "The choice between good jobs and the environment is a false one," said Dave Caldwell of the United Steelworkers of America and Central Ohio AFL-CIO President. "In a state where we've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, we need to find real solutions to put Ohioans back to work, protect the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- the Ohio Hub would do all three." Preliminary estimates indicate that the construction and operation of the Ohio Hub will create 6,600 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent rail operating jobs. An additional 6,000 jobs would be created from other hub related services such as restaurants, office buildings and retail according to a report prepared by the Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. and HNTB, Inc. in October 2004 for the Ohio Rail Development Commission and the Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania Departments of Transportation. In addition, estimates also show that the Ohio Hub will increase property values by $1 billion and increase annual tax revenues by $28 million according to Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. "Studies show that children who live within 250 yards of a road with 20,000 or more vehicles per day are eight times more likely to get leukemia and six times more likely to get other cancers," said Marilyn Wall of the Sierra Club Ohio Chapter. "If Governor Taft truly has the economic and health interests of Ohio working families at heart, he will fully fund the hub proposal." The Blue Green Alliance is a coalition of Ohio unions and environmental groups whose goal is to build a stronger, more secure future for Ohio by working together to achieve a strong economy, a cleaner environment, and a safer world. The Blue Green Alliance represents 635,000 Ohioans and coalition members include the Ohio AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, United Steelworkers of America, the Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio League of Conservation Voters, the Ohio Environmental Council, Policy Matters Ohio, Ohio Public Interest Research Group, and the Apollo Alliance. Good Jobs * Clean Environment * Safer World For More Information: Jennifer Kuhlman, USWA (319) 230-5418 Ellen Hawkey, Sierra Club (614) 461-0734 Maurice Henderson, USWA (412) 562-2281 Kent Darr, Ohio AFL-CIO (614) 224-8271 ###

(ie: walking paths, terraced gardens, ski slopes, water slides, hang-gliding ramps, incline railways......). BTW, I hope everyone realized that list of items was intended to get more progressively more radical and unpractical as I went along. But based on MGD's response, perhaps I should have put incline railways after terraced gardens! Actually, I think terraced gardens could look pretty stunning from the Red Line, and be practical in stabilizing the hillside. KJP

The Red Line is rail line, with trains powered from overhead electric wires, and running every 15 minutes from Hopkins International Airport to East Cleveland via Tower City Center in downtown. The Silver Line will be a busway. The Silver Line just had its groundbreaking last fall, with construction taking about 2 years. It will be dedicated bus-only lanes down Euclid Avenue (with rapid transit-style stations), from Public Square to East Cleveland via the Midtown Corridor and the University Circle. Cost is $168 million to $200 million (depending on what "fringe costs" one wants to include in that figure) and will rebuild Euclid Avenue from the sewers on up. KJP

Even without the double track, there are two 3-mile-long passing sidings, one from Wagar Road to Dover Center, and another siding from SR83 to Lake Breeze Road(I think?), that will permit 30-minute headways between trains. Coming in from Lorain, these trains could either make a "left-turn" near the West Boulevard Rapid station on a new connecting track to reach the NS mainline to a downtown lakefront station (will require the Lakefront Bypass for freight). Or, depending on the commuter rail vehicle chose, they could switch over to the Red Line at West 90th (where the Red Line goes over an abandoned railroad siding) and go into Tower City. They might even continue to University Circle, since a number of University Hospital employees live in the West Shore communities. Even if the commuter trains didn't use the Red Line, passengers would be able to transfer at one of three locations: West Boulevard Rapid, Euclid Busway at East 55th, and Red Line at East 79th. Each of those station would need rebuilt neighborhoods around them to make transferring passengers feel comfortable in those environments. KJP

OK, here is what I would do to improve Cleveland transportation after the Silver Line is done and the Red Line stations are all rebuilt... Administrative changes - 1. develop a regional land use/transportation plan backed with zoning so that the plan has the force of law; 2. get the city of Cleveland and as many suburbs as possible to pass a transit-supportive zoning classification; 3. get RTA to create a TOD Department with staffing and resources funded out of RTA's budget, real estate revenues, and external grants; 4. get NE Ohio communities to create an infrastructure/brownfields/redevelopment fund, initially financed by cost savings from the sharing of certain municipal services and later augmented by revenues from joint development districts; 5. allocate funding (be it public or private) to the newly merged land conservancy districts surrounding Greater Cleveland so they can dramatically expand their land acquisitions, thereby creating a de facto urban growth boundary (and to permit more locally grown foods, but that's another issue). These land use tools (and others I'm surely overlooking) are essential, because no matter what we do to promote smarter transportation investments and smarter growth in Cuyahoga County, their value will be diminished and possibly rendered obsolete one day if we don't pursue them in the context of a broader, regional strategy that reins in sprawl. With these tools in place, the next steps should be (although some can and probably should be pursued now): Near-term projects: 1. create signal prioritization for buses on city streets (and for the Rapids where they run in the middle of boulevards); 2. consolidate parking lots at and near Rapid stations and park-n-rides into structured decks. Rezone land within a half-mile with TOD zoning and redevelop accordingly; 3. create more pleasant transit waiting areas, especially at key transit stops and intersections where multiple transit routes converge (waiting areas should have real-time arrival information for the next bus or train, news/weather/sports ticker, etc). And, at the busier transit locations, have a "Bus Stop Shop" that RTA can lease out to private operators to sell coffee, soft drinks, bottled water, snacks, transit passes, newspapers, magazines, ATMs, package/mail drops and, of course, offer WiFi. 4. bring MetroCars or some other rental car by-the-hour service to several locations throughout Greater Cleveland (and more bicycle rentals, too!); 5. create more dedicated bike lanes on city streets (for the cost of new striping and signage!) and, where possible, bike-only rights of way (eg: Lakefront Bikeway, Canal Corridor Bikeway, etc.). Long-term projects (aside from those already in serious planning stages): 1. build the Lakefront Bypass for freight train traffic (see EcoCity Cleveland's website, under the Blue Project section). This will avail four, freight-free railroad rights of way out of downtown for diesel-powered light-rail transit service and restrict local freight access to nighttime hours. The four routes are downtown to: Lorain, Hopkins Airport, Aurora, and Euclid. Designate and develop TOD sites; 2. extend the Waterfront Line as a downtown loop (including a fare-free, loop-only train)and restructure the origins or destinations of existing rapid services within the existing system; 3. build "Heritage Trolley" from Ohio City to Chinatown using lower level of Detroit-Superior Veterans Memorial Bridge; 4. create circumferential busway in the centers of I-480/I-271 with rapid transit-style station at key crossroads that host bus routes but do not have freeway interchanges; 5. build busway from intersection of Ridge/Denison to downtown with new bus route from downtown to Parmatown via Ridge Road. Designate Ridge Road as TOD corridor with appropriate rezoning and redevelop accordingly; 6. build the Ohio Hub system while we're at it! So many more projects, so little time.... KJP

My guess is that, if a large building is to placed at the edge of the hillside, CMHA (or whomever) would have to pour some deep concrete caissons, perhaps to bedrock (200+ feet down) if the building is large enough. The reason is that most hillsides above rivers in Northeast Ohio are supported by shale, which isn't very sturdy. For example, single family condos built next atop the edges of the Rocky River valley had to be placed on new caissons (I don't know how deep). A condo project in Fairview Park, overlooking the valley, was among those built in this manner. And while the homes sit soundly on the caissons, their decks don't. They've been sliding bit by bit, closer to the valley. One day, Mother Nature will win, as she always does. We'll see what stabilization efforts are required for the Ohio City project, but it shouldn't affect the appearance of the hillside below it. Although, as I write this, I don't know if CMHA has any plans for the hillside (ie: walking paths, terraced gardens, ski slopes, water slides, hang-gliding ramps, incline railways......). KJP

I think Litt is acknowledging that ODOT's basic mission isn't to do these kinds of things, but to keep the traffic flowing. ODOT tends to do more than the basics when pushed by municipalities, since they control the land use. So, at the end of the day, this really isn't about ODOT at all. Rather, it's about the folks at 601 Lakeside Avenue. KJP

Sell the old bridge for scrap. Should be worth something. When steel rails from railroad tracks are sold for scrap, I believe the price used to be 10 cents on the dollar. Perhaps with the market higher ODOT could get more for the old bridge. By the way, with the ice on the cables, I wonder if a heating element could be put along the top of them? I'll bet they wouldn't need much more than a wire, like what is placed on a roof just above a gutter. How much might that cost to operate and maintain? Could you imagine what the bridge would look like at night if those heating elements were actually illuminated? And, I was about to say Boston gets about the same amount of snow as Cleveland, but I thought I'd better look it up. According to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Cleveland gets 63.3 inches per year while Boston gets 41.3. Yet, Boston's greatest seasonal snowfall was 107.6 inches in 1995-96, whereas Cleveland's was 101.1 in the same year. This season, Boston has gotten 86 inches of snow whereas Cleveland received 95 (so far!). KJP

You should know that others are starting to get on the bandwagon, and none too soon. I won't name names, but they are people in the kinds of positions to influence needed change. Whether ODOT will listen is another matter, but at least Craig Hebebrand does appear to be listening. I have had some requests for the graphics I included in the Inner Belt presentation I produced earlier this year (the full presentation is available for download at http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Inner%20Belt%20presentation.pdf [737K]). I am making the graphics available here for anyone who wants to have them and hopefully use them to make the case. This project is too important to leave them as proprietary. Also, I will repost my comments on the Inner Belt/Central Interchange realignment. And, I remind readers that if total project costs exceed $700 million, the opened-up land from a redesign of the Central Interchange has a market value of at least $150 million, which ODOT could sell. They already own most of the land for the interchange redesign, as proposed by Paul Alsenas and me. Here are the graphics..... Cleveland CBD today, with the economic "dead zone" just south of downtown (click once on larger pictures and scroll right).... 1930s.... 1950s.... 1960s.... Overhead view (per CCPC).... Development concept (per Ohio Corridors Campaign).... Boston Charles River Bridge for I-95.... Aomori Bay bridge in Japan.... Cincinnati Fort Washington Way recessed alignment.... Cincinnati 'The Banks' neighborhood concept availed by Fort Washington Way project.... More of 'The Banks' in Cincy.... Columbus High Street cap over I-670.... There are those at ODOT and its consulting firms working on this project who still believe that, if you add enough lanes, looping ramps and other capacity enhancements, that roads can be "de-congested" and make traffic steadily flow at the posted speed limits. I take an opposing view -- that no matter what is done, there will always be traffic congestion. So let's redesign this highway facility to enliven its urban surroundings by opening up land for redevelopment. Less traffic-intensive land use design, not added highway capacity, provides lasting impacts on reducing vehicle-miles traveled. ODOT's reasoning for wanting to keep the Inner Belt on the same alignment and for having the Central Interchange take up the same amount of space is for purposes of traffic flow. It appears that ODOT is concerned about shrinking the land area for the Central Interchange and replacing the looping/cloverleafing eastbound ramps from I-90 to Ontario and East 9th streets into downtown. They apparently believe that if these ramps are shortened and made to exit directly onto Ontario and East 9th without a loop, traffic would back up farther onto the Central Viaduct over the Cuyahoga Valley. Four features of the plan I suggested would address that: 1. My direct exit ramps to Ontario and East 9th would be two or three lanes wide, compared with the existing (and ODOT's proposed) one-lane loop ramps; 2. A new, direct access ramp to East 14th/East 18th would be provided to take the pressure off the exits at Ontario and East 9th; 3. New, one-way pairs of 4- to 6-lane wide, parallel streets (Marginal Roads) would be built on each side of the Inner Belt where the Central Interchange now sits, and would further absorb traffic, especially if interactive traffic signals were installed at key intersections; 4. A massive amount of downtown land would be opened up for new development, including possibly thousands of new residences within walking distance or a short transit ride from workplaces and leisure activities, eliminating the need for many car trips into downtown. Even if a single downtown residence is not built as a result of this plan (unlikely), the features in items #1, #2 and #3 should be able to absorb most weekday commuter traffic in a manner similar to the looping ramps. And, while I do think the market is there for downtown housing, it will take time to build it. So that's another reason for building the ramps in the manner I suggested in items #1 and #2. Admittedly, some traffic will continue to back up onto the Central Viaduct, but the span would be 10 lanes wide as opposed to the current 8-lane configuration. I'd like to see some computer modeling of the traffic data, that takes into the account all of the above, including what the model would show if varying levels of downtown housing where added and what percentages of their residents could be downtown workers based on market data. If the University Access Boulevard (aka Corridor of Opportunity) is built, this will take more traffic out of the Central Interchange. But, I have some misgivings about that project, unless it includes putting the Red Line down the median of it as I demonstrated with graphics in another string. But, that's another issue.... In my plan, ODOT probably also has concerns about the radius of the curves from I-77 to/from I-90 east. Yes, they would have to be at least as "tight" as they are now, particularly if I-77 is kept on its same general alignment just south of the Inner Belt. The section of I-77 closest to the Central Interchange could be shifted slightly south, abutting Orange Avenue, to flatten the ramps' curves. But, these ramp curves aren't the same as Dead Man's Curve, which is on a through section of an Interstate. Instead, they're at the ending point of an Interstate -- for which the design standard is less. Furthermore, there's so little traffic on Orange and Woodland avenues just south of the Central Interchange that I-77 could even stop just short of downtown and have its traffic come from or empty onto those roads as the traffic leaves or enters downtown, or is I-90-East originating/emanating. The city does this after sporting events, sending outbound traffic on city streets to enter I-77 at East 30th. Granted, I don't expect ODOT to shorten I-77 just south of the Central Interchange, but I do think there is value in using Orange and Woodland avenues to absorb some of I-77's traffic under my proposed configuration, including a pair of new entrance/exit ramps midway between the Central Interchange and East 30th to account for the loss of the higher-capacity ramps linking I-77 and Ontario and East 9th (one existing ramp is a "flyover", from Ontario, and the other is a loop, to East 9th). There is a way to do all this, if ODOT thinks in terms not only of moving vehicles, but of redesigning its infrastructure in a way that respects its surroundings and creates spaces and places that can actually remove vehicles from the highway. What exists now is a rural/suburban interchange design in a urban setting. Every time I travel on city streets through the Central Interchange area, I can't help but see what a massive, blighted wasteland this area is, especially being right next to a major city's downtown. All I can do is to keep suggesting new ways of thinking, so that this Inner Belt project doesn't become an equally massive, wasted opportunity for the community. KJP

Glad you liked the maps & stuff. Think about this... A national industry survey outfit last year did an inventory of all light-rail construction contracts expected to be let in 2005. The total was $19 BILLION. Some in the Federal Transit Administration have said that, since they aren't able to satisfy the funding demand for all the light-rail projects around the country, the FTA should tighten the requirements for awarding rail grants. In the same breath, these dorks want to relax other requirements to make transit funding available for new high-occupancy vehicle lanes on highways. Seems they feel the local demand is in error, and that we should stick our heads back up our tailpipes. Whatever happened to the public policy rule that all politics is local? Gee, how about increasing the total funding for transit to satisfy the demand? I know where they can stick it.... KJP

In the past 85 years, there have been a number of plans for building subways in Cleveland, two of which involved public votes. The ultimate outcome hasn't been totally in vain, as they resulted in what is today called the Euclid Corridor Improvement Project (aka Euclid Transitway, RTA Silver Line, etc). But, back in the day, some impressive plans were put forward. A good place to start is the construction of the Detroit-Superior High Level Bridge (today, the Veterans Memorial Bridge), which was completed in 1918. On its lower level was Cleveland's first subway and, as it turns out, its only subway. The subway had two stations, one at West 25th/Detroit (still mostly intact) and the other at West 9th. This is what the east entrance to the subway looked like in 1947, seven years before the tracks were ripped out and replaced with a futile attempt by County Engineer Albert Porter of paving the lower deck for cars to relieve traffic congestion on the upper deck. The idea came to a crashing halt as cars kept hitting the support piers holding up the upper deck. The lower deck was soon sealed, but the current county Engineer Bob Klaiber, often holds tours of it as visitors tend to leave wondering how it could be re-used.... ________________ The Detroit-Superior subway was built to be the linchpin of a plan for linking planned subways on the east and west sides of the city. The plan was released in 1919, the same year voters passed a franchise to the Van Swerigen brothers to build a new Union Terminal on Public Square, for uniting railroads, interurban lines and proposed rapid transit routes into a single, massive station. This was separate from the 1919 subway plan, which was to be voted on the following year. The initial phase of the $15 million subway plan included extending the existing subway east on Superior to East 9th Street, with two other subways extending out from Public Square under Euclid Avenue to East 22nd Street and under Ontario to near the Central Market (where Jacobs Field is today). Future extensions included extending the Detroit Avenue subway west to West 85th Street, the West 25th Street subway south beyond Lorain Avenue, the Euclid Avenue subway east to University Circle and have a subway spur turning south at East 40th Street. Beyond the subway portions, streetcar lines would be converted to rapid transit routes, with elevated tracks or below street level operations in an open cut (scroll right)... ________________ The subway plan was turned down by city voters in 1920, who said it should have been a county tax proposal. Other factors included labor shortages, high-interest rates after World War I, a large city debt, and the high cost of construction materials. With the Cleveland Union Terminal project proceeding, the Van Swerigens began building rapid transit infrastructure that would lay the foundation for the future Red Line. The brothers also began planning for a citywide network of rapid transit routes, including subways under Euclid Avenue and St. Clair Avenue. Part of the Union Terminal even included portals for a subway to go under Huron Road to reach Euclid Avenue at Playhouse Square. The portals still exist today. All of the construction and planning work for the rapid transit and subway lines was stopped dead in its tracks by the Great Depression. This was the 1929 rapid transit/subway plan..... ________________ Major construction projects stayed in limbo as materials and labor were needed to win World War II. As the war drew to a close, the following plan was put forth by the Cleveland Transit System to build rapid transit with a downtown subway. This plan became the foundation for the construction of the Red Line, which began in 1952. Here are some maps and planning graphics for the 1944 plan, which also proposed keeping streetcar lines on the outer portions... ________________ A variant of the downtown subway routing was issued by CTS in 1947, and was proposed as a means to keep construction costs down. Part of the reason for the high costs was the existence of a layer of quicksand just below the city surface, that required the construction of slurry wall to keep ground water out of the tunnels. This was the revised plan.... ________________ While construction on the CTS Rapid (Red Line) began in 1952, funded out of a $30 million federal Reconstruction Finance Corporation loan, Cuyahoga County voters approved a $35 million bond issue, funded out of a new 0.5-mill property tax levy, to build a downtown loop subway. The proposed routing would have put 72 percent of the rapid transit system's riders within 800 feet of their downtown destinations, as opposed to only 14 percent at Cleveland Union Terminal (Tower City). This was the proposed routing, plus a graphic of a over-under subway configuration on East 13th Street, owing to the adjacent storm and sanitary sewer lines.... ________________ As the battle over the subway raged between Albert Porter and CTS officials, several other variants of the subway routing were presented and later discarded. I won't get into the details of this fight, as I've discussed them elsewhere on this forum. I can find them if someone wants me to. ________________ In the 1970s, more plans for a subway beneath Euclid Avenue surfaced (pardon the pun). They matured into the Dual Hub Corridor plan, with RTA (CTS's successor after 1974) preferring the following route and design features of the subway portion, as presented in 1993.... ________________ NOACA's board of governors didn't support the rail component because it included the costly subway, with the cheapest rail options projected to cost in excess of $500 million. RTA returned with the busway concept, which was approved by NOACA. Now we have the Euclid Corridor Improvement Project, a $200 million variant of the long-planned subway that never was, and may never be.

OK, so I cheated...I'm using a link to the slideshow at Cleveland.com, which has some decent shots of the parade and some of the 300,000 people who came to see it: http://www.cleveland.com/eventsguide_galleries/ But, as often happens with Cleveland.com/PD's galleries, the photographer doesn't move around much to get more shots from more than just one area. In this case, all were taken from lower Euclid. KJP

I missed it. I hope he puts those thoughts to paper, soon. KJP

I believe it can be done if a tax is to achieve a higher purpose, and not seen as punitive. KJP