^ I think that's the best, most realistic plan for an actual Cleveland subway I've heard. I could actually see that happening 10-20 years from now, assuming continued growth along Euclid and the Healthline becoming even more popular.

^^ and ^, I sincerely hope that is how Euclid gets its subway, although 20 years from now is a bit longer than I'd like to wait.  :-D

 

Attached is a proposal - we've been talking about a downtown loop and how disconnected the east and west sides are, so I'm proposing a second loop (Yellow Line) to link the lakeshore, Asiatown, CSU, Gateway, Tri-C, Tremont, Ohio City, and the Flats.

 

Clockwise from Dead Man's Curve to Tremont would be elevated rail similar to this in one of our sister cities, Taipei, Taiwan:

<img src="http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/442249/442249,1273165450,1/stock-photo-taipei-rapid-transit-system-mrt-mass-rapid-transit-neihu-brown-line-taiwan-52497346.jpg" />

 

This would take advantage of the medians along Is -90, -77, and -490.  Building over Carnegie maybe a challenge, but Carnegie looks wide enough to accommodate a central median.  I have no qualms building over the 90 and 77 spaghetti junction from Gateway South to Tri-C.  From Scranton to Detroit Ave, this route may be able to take advantage of the tunnel underneath West 25.  If not, W. 25 is also rather wide and could probably accommodate a Yellow Line ROW.  The biggest challenge would probably be refitting the Main Ave Bridge to accommodate a rapid deck underneath, as well as incorporating stations into them, to connect the West and East Banks of the Flats.

 

The dotted yellow line is an alternate routing to connect Lorain EcoVillage, Gordon Square, Edgewater, and Wendy Park.  However, I don't think this would have the density of traffic that W. 25 would, and W. 65 does not seem wide enough to accommodate a rapid ROW.  I prefer the W. 25 routing because I think it better connects the points of interest on both sides of the river.

 

Other notes to the map:

 

- Dark Blue downtown loop is clockwise, Red downtown loop is counterclockwise.  This is to agree with previous opinions that someone flying into Hopkins and going to the Medical Mart would find it more convenient to debark at NCTC than at Tower City.

 

- Light blue and "SC" are streetcars.  The Lorain streetcar runs from Kamm's Corners to "Gateway South."  A separate Carnegie streetcar runs the rest of the way from there to UC.  The Clifton Streetcar would run along the improved West Shoreway blvd.  I didn't extend the St. Clair and Superior streetcars further east because I don't know if neighborhoods east of E. 55 are strong enough to sustain them.

 

- Orange is a Detroit-Euclid line.  I was rather saddened that there would not be a rapid stop on Euclid and E. 9th, but it's only one block away from "Gateway North," so I guess I can live with that if we don't have to spend any more $$$ to dig a new tunnel.  The trouble to the west is whether Detroit Ave. is wide enough to accommodate this line.  From W 117 West Blvd to Gordon Square, this would require removing street parking, and even then the road might not be wide enough.  After W 117 West Blvd, the line would jump onto the N&S ROW with the Westshore commuter rail.  To the east, I would extend the line from UC to Shaker Square or out to John Carroll via Fairmount Blvd.

 

- Green and Brown lines: connect downtown to the zoo.  The Green Line would then go on to Parma.  The Brown Line exists because it made too much sense to connect the zoo with the Aquarium.  Why wouldn't you do it?  Although the note says to the Brown Line heads to Strongsville (along Pearl Road), I don't know if there'd be enough ridership from Strongsville, Middleburg Hts, and Parma Hts to pull this off.

 

If nothing else, I'd really like to push for the Yellow Line loop just because I think it really would help tie the city together.

 

EDIT: Now includes a streetcar and rapid line (purple) to connect Slavic Village with downtown.  The Slavic Village rapid uses existing Conrail lines, but skirts the borders of Slavic Village, so I don't know how much traffic and TOD those stations would get (especially the station on Union Ave.; an alternate site on E. 79th doesn't look much better).  I would've preferred running it along Broadway, had it been possible.

^Nice work dontgiveupthefight... If we could build half of your proposals, we'd be in 7th Heaven.... But that's not unusal.  Most transit systems have "dream" proposals, but only end up building portions of them -- Chicago once had an extensive subway system planned (50s, 60s?) that would have given that city NYC-type convenience, but very little of it was built... But we should NEVER stop dreaming or planning.

Thank you!  Yes, it's sad that a lot of transit proposals don't make it, but I'll live.  I know my least realistic plan definitely wouldn't be considered - taking the UC - Shaker LRT and expanding it to an outer loop that connects Kinsman, Slavic Village, and the Zoo with considerations to extend to West Park and Lakewood!  :yap:

 

The Cleveland 2025 plan is something I can get behind, really, especially if the Euclid line can be pulled through to the west side to meet with the Westshore commuter rail (and eventually replace the BRT with LRT or a real subway! :clap: ).  So I'd pair down my additional requests to these three:

 

- Ohio City loop - we have the highway medians, W. 25th tunnel, and lakeshore tracks already.  It would connect so many destination neighborhoods (Tremont, Ohio City, both banks of the Flats, lakefront, Asiatown, Gateway, and connection to Slavic Village) that I really do think ridership on it would be high and a boost to the local economy.

 

- Slavic Village rapid - the rail lines already exist, although a few new connections would have to be built, in addition to the stations.  Thus, this would probably be the cheapest of the new lines to build.  "Phase I" (because there probably won't be a phase II) would only need to go as far south as Harvard/Holy Name, unless there is reason to believe that ridership would increase if it were pulled farther south.

 

- Streetcar/BRT from Downtown/Flats to the zoo.  We'll worry about pulling the line to Parma or making it LRT only if the ridership warrants it.

 

I'll miss the Lorain Ave. streetcar, though...

 

EDIT: I just realized that it'd be about a 10-story transfer between the stations on E. 34th - a ridiculously tall escalator! - perhaps it'd make for sense to route the loop under the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge.  Also, I had been under the impression that there was a short tunnel running underneath W. 25th in Ohio City.  Is that true or am I mistaken?

 

A reroute of the loop over Lorain-Carnegie means I'd have to rethink about how to connect Tremont and Slavic Village to transit.  EcoCityCleveland's East 9th to Broadway/Slavic Village LRT route makes more sense than using the heavy rail line to the east. 

 

Perhaps this reassessment would then free up resources to look at Lorain west of W. 25th!  :-D

 

<img src="http://64.19.142.12/www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/images_rail/e9_rail.jpg" />

My suggestions, in order of priority, for future major capital improvement projects are:

 

1. get GCRTA, the port authority, affected municipalities to team up on planning and incentivizing the densification of areas around stations and attempt to diversify land uses at each station so that uses at each station don't offer the same services (grocery store at one station, movie theater at another, apparel district at a third, entertainment district at a fourth, but with housing, medical facilities and schools at most if not all of them)....

 

2. identify which areas have the highest residential and employment densities in Greater Cleveland. I think we'll find these are Lakewood, Cleveland's Edgewater, Cleveland's Glenville, Cleveland's Clark-Metro, Cleveland Heights, north-central Parma and possibly some others I'm overlooking (I'm not including small geographic areas of density like downtown Rocky River or downtown Berea). Then link them up with rail transit or BRT. This needs to be planned and funded as part of a systematic vision, rather than one route at a time.

 

3. I would start all intercounty transit with bus services, such as by beefing up Akron Metro's North Coast Express service to provide off-peak service, preferably hourly, between downtown Akron and downtown Cleveland. And I would add rush-hour express (including reverse commute schedules) bus services between Cleveland and Lorain. Beef up the buses and stations and schedules, then use the growing ridership to leverage rail where there is organizational capacity to pursue it and sustain it.

^ that's a sound approach... For example, AAO's latest newspaper (which is excellent) notes that Lorain County has no transit service into downtown Cleveland at all (which I didn't realize), and that they crawl first (commuter buses covering this service) before running (the West Shore commuter rail line).... makes sense.

Thanks for the compliment on the newletter. If anyone else wants to receive the Ohio Passenger Rail News, join at allaboardohio.org

An AAO article (reflecting the UO thread) goes into great detail about Akron Metro RTA's plan for commuter rail, in part using the extant CVSR route.  I'd like to think this could pose interesting possibilities for RTA, namely by providing some more umph for getting CVSR extended into Tower City.  I see ex-RTA guy Richard Enty is heading up the planning, which can only be good news for the Akron program.  Has there been any communication with Gilbert/Rock Gaming to set aside space for a CVSR terminal?  It's a little embarassing that little brother Akron is more aggressive in developing commuter rail than C-Town (we are pushing the West Shore project), but if it leads to getting CVSR into downtown, who cares?

 

Besides CVSR, is there any interest in developing the main N-S route through Hudson, where Akron Metro RTA has the proposed terminal of its branch line?

 

Just curious...

A representative of CVSR attempted to approach Gilbert/Rock Gaming but there was little interest there in pursuing it. Then CVSR pulled in the reins of attempts to expand CVSR to downtown Cleveland, for a number of reasons not the least of which is the decline in National Park Service funding. CVSR is going to have a difficult time trying to run as many trains as they are now, and the recent federal capital improvement money ($3.2 million) they got through the NPS a month ago may be the last of it for a while. So expansion is a tough thing to even think about right now.

 

BTW, there is very little political interest in commuter rail in Akron right now. That could change, however.

That's a shame.  Lack of cooperation, lack of progressive attitude dooms us again.. Oh well, looks like we'll be in the commuter rail Dark Ages for some time... at least until West Shore can be built a decade or so from now.

That's a shame.  Lack of cooperation, lack of progressive attitude dooms us again.. Oh well, looks like we'll be in the commuter rail Dark Ages for some time... at least until West Shore can be built a decade or so from now.

 

If the new Lorain County Transit Alliance is able to get its legs under it and get a dedicated source of funding for transit in Lorain County, then commuter rail will move forward. Lorain County is the only Greater Cleveland collar county other than Geauga which lacks a dedicated funding source for transit. It's a shame considering Lorain County has 300,000 people.

I beleive the Future of transit in Ohio, has to start with reforming the state laws governing Regional transit agencys.

 

restrictions on:

transit agency's range  We should allow RTAs to be compromised of more than one county, and policy that does not penalized inter county collaboration between RTAs. We plan highways though multi-county agencys but transit is a limited to being one county at a time. limiting range and economies of scale, making transit more expensive than it has to be.

 

Allow transit agencies to seek alternative forms Funding, other than taxes, TIFs and outright land ownership to subsidize transit expansion.  RTA should be recieving revenue from developments that it has created, like tower city

 

reform the state transportation funding mechanism, so that gas tax funding can be used for transit, just liek roads have secure state funding source transit needs reliable state funding sources.

 

 

 

DYK, that by law, state gas tax revenue is divided equally between all counties in ohio. So while Cuyahoga county has ~10% of the state's population  it receives only 1.13% or 1/88th of state gas tax revenues, and we wonder why Ohio hates Cities, it is because it is in the Ohio constitution.  My hope would be to gather grass roots support along issues of transportation fairness, to reform the state's transportation policy, so that we no longer have Cities subsidizing Rural development, when >70% of Ohioans live in cities.

 

I would like to share the gas tax numbers with the voters and put a amendment on the ballot to make sure a minimum of 90% of gas taxes collected in each county comes back to that county, and liberating the gas tax revenue to be used for more than Roads, but also for Transit and other nodes of transport.

 

state Transit issues are a result of anti urban policies from Columbus.

Strongly agree with your points biker16.  I would like to see urbanists get more politically active in Ohio because even the cities rarely elect representation with an urbanist viewpoint.  It just isn't mainstream and it needs to be.  Urbanists need to show up at ward meetings en masse, get to know people, start running for precinct committee seats.  A gradual and foundational approach.  We're all busy with school and career and family but time needs to be made.

 

Guess how long it's been since Ohio held a constitutional convention?  100 years exactly.  Prior to 1912 they were somewhat more frequent.  In 1912 the leading issue of the day was the progressive charge toward prohibition, and much of our current constitution resulted from attempts to placate this movement, which was decidedly anti-urban.  The cities opposed prohibition and were painted as havens of filth.  They won the compromise of home rule, which ironically doomed them as it encouraged the incorporation of all the petty suburban fiefdoms we're struggling with today.  I think after 100 years it's definitely time to re-engineer the system.     

Strongly agree with your points biker16.  I would like to see urbanists get more politically active in Ohio because even the cities rarely elect representation with an urbanist viewpoint.  It just isn't mainstream and it needs to be.  Urbanists need to show up at ward meetings en masse, get to know people, start running for precinct committee seats.  A gradual and foundational approach.  We're all busy with school and career and family but time needs to be made.

 

Guess how long it's been since Ohio held a constitutional convention?  100 years exactly.  Prior to 1912 they were somewhat more frequent.  In 1912 the leading issue of the day was the progressive charge toward prohibition, and much of our current constitution resulted from attempts to placate this movement, which was decidedly anti-urban.  The cities opposed prohibition and were painted as havens of filth.  They won the compromise of home rule, which ironically doomed them as it encouraged the incorporation of all the petty suburban fiefdoms we're struggling with today.  I think after 100 years it's definitely time to re-engineer the system.   

 

I am taking a transportation planning class at levin, with Steve Litt and taught by Howard Meier head of NOACA.

 

Home rule is not conducive to planning nor sustainable development. it create too many freerider issues that we have today.

 

I am coming around to the Cincinnati conservative way of thinking about ballot amendments. package ballot amendment that angers people and sneak some other non relating language into the amendment.  example: the gay marriage amendment passed a few years back, that also banned common law marriage. 

 

I want to frame this a as a fairness issue.

the top 10 counties in Ohio have 52% of the state's population, or over 6 million people.

 

yet by law those counties only receive 11% of gas tax revenue.

 

It basic redistribution of wealth.  :clap:

 

then Top 5 MSA in Ohio, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron and Dayton, have A GDP of 352 million dollars, of the state's 471 million dollars of GDP or 75% of the state's GDP comes from it's 5 largest MSAs. This is holding our state back.

:shoot:

 

I would put on the ballot that 90% of all gas tax revenue taken our of the county must come back to the county.  I would also allow gas tax revenue to be spent on transit and other forms of transport, other than roads.  Providing a secure source of funding for transit in Ohio.

 

 

 

I would put on the ballot that 90% of all gas tax revenue taken our of the county must come back to the county.  I would also allow gas tax revenue to be spent on transit and other forms of transport, other than roads.  Providing a secure source of funding for transit in Ohio.

 

That's definitely not a Cincinnati conservative way of thinking!

 

And you do not want to manage your city's government by the ballot box. Ask California how well that is working.

I would put on the ballot that 90% of all gas tax revenue taken our of the county must come back to the county.  I would also allow gas tax revenue to be spent on transit and other forms of transport, other than roads.  Providing a secure source of funding for transit in Ohio.

 

That's definitely not a Cincinnati conservative way of thinking!

 

And you do not want to manage your city's government by the ballot box. Ask California how well that is working.

 

well unless you will be able to convince the Ohio assembly to do the right thing.

 

A Constitutional amendment would be needed to change the gas tax.  Either way something has to wake the Urban municipalities to how much they are being screwed, by state policies.

 

 

That's a shame.  Lack of cooperation, lack of progressive attitude dooms us again.. Oh well, looks like we'll be in the commuter rail Dark Ages for some time... at least until West Shore can be built a decade or so from now.

 

If the new Lorain County Transit Alliance is able to get its legs under it and get a dedicated source of funding for transit in Lorain County, then commuter rail will move forward. Lorain County is the only Greater Cleveland collar county other than Geauga which lacks a dedicated funding source for transit. It's a shame considering Lorain County has 300,000 people.

 

Bring back Betty Blair!  If she's around, it'll get done.

She's still around, but not as a Lorain County Commissioner.

DYK, that by law, state gas tax revenue is divided equally between all counties in ohio. So while Cuyahoga county has ~10% of the state's population  it receives only 1.13% or 1/88th of state gas tax revenues, and we wonder why Ohio hates Cities, it is because it is in the Ohio constitution.  My hope would be to gather grass roots support along issues of transportation fairness, to reform the state's transportation policy, so that we no longer have Cities subsidizing Rural development, when >70% of Ohioans live in cities.

 

This is partially correct, however, municipalities and townships (can elect to, if a greater number) receive a share of the revenue proportional to the number of vehicle registrations.  The actual distribution of gas tax revenue is fairly complicated, see an explanation at link below.  Based on the data from 2009, each county received 2.4 million in an equal allocation, but after cities and townships were factored in, all entities in Cuyahoga received 40 million, compared to 4.5 million total for all Geauga county entities - see table 4 in PDF link.

 

2010 data

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/tax_analysis/tax_data_series/motor_fuel/mv23/mv23cy10.stm

 

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/communications/publications/documents/motor_vehicle_fuel_tax.pdf

 

The % breakdown in presented on the web (and not the pdf) for the previous year:

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/tax_analysis/tax_data_series/motor_fuel/mv23/mv23cy09.stm

DYK, that by law, state gas tax revenue is divided equally between all counties in ohio. So while Cuyahoga county has ~10% of the state's population  it receives only 1.13% or 1/88th of state gas tax revenues, and we wonder why Ohio hates Cities, it is because it is in the Ohio constitution.  My hope would be to gather grass roots support along issues of transportation fairness, to reform the state's transportation policy, so that we no longer have Cities subsidizing Rural development, when >70% of Ohioans live in cities.

 

This is partially correct, however, municipalities and townships (can elect to, if a greater number) receive a share of the revenue proportional to the number of vehicle registrations.  The actual distribution of gas tax revenue is fairly complicated, see an explanation at link below.  Based on the data from 2009, each county received 2.4 million in an equal allocation, but after cities and townships were factored in, all entities in Cuyahoga received 40 million, compared to 4.5 million total for all Geauga county entities - see table 4 in PDF link.

 

2010 data

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/tax_analysis/tax_data_series/motor_fuel/mv23/mv23cy10.stm

 

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/communications/publications/documents/motor_vehicle_fuel_tax.pdf

 

The % breakdown in presented on the web (and not the pdf) for the previous year:

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/tax_analysis/tax_data_series/motor_fuel/mv23/mv23cy09.stm

 

 

thank  you very much I will porcess these numbers later it still does not sound fair to me that Medina gets 7 million and Cuyhoga gets 40 millon.

 

while Vinton county gets 3.7 million, for it's 16,000 people or 225 per person.

 

Cuyhoga gets $30 per person.

 

well below the the state average of 160$ per person.

 

if the county recived back 90% of the state average of $160 per person or $144 per person it would add up to $187 million per year, now that is a good chunk of money.

ODOT spends more than $3 billion per year. Cuyahoga has more than 10 percent of the state's population. We should be getting at least $300 million.

 

Oh, and to keep this thread on topic, 8.5 percent of Ohio households have no car. If ODOT spent 8.5 percent of its budget on public transit, it would be spending more than $250 million per year on transit. Instead it provides less than 10 percent of that.

ODOT spends more than $3 billion per year. Cuyahoga has more than 10 percent of the state's population. We should be getting at least $300 million.

 

Oh, and to keep this thread on topic, 8.5 percent of Ohio households have no car. If ODOT spent 8.5 percent of its budget on public transit, it would be spending more than $250 million per year on transit. Instead it provides less than 10 percent of that.

 

so the facts. Cuyahoga county deserves at least $144 person of state gas tax revenue.  Yet only receives $30 per resident or 18.75% of it's share in gas tax revenue or only  .  while rural areas like receive Vinton county, received $225 per person or 140% of its share of revenue.

 

 

Sounds like a good research project for CSU!

Sounds like a good research project for CSU!

 

or maybe a call to action.

there is a reaosn I run my mouth here. not everywhere else. 

 

the actual set aside for counties and municipalities from the gas tax is 583,898,755.

 

If the tax was distributed by population  Cuyhoga County would receive 65,910,000 dollars an increase of 25 million dollars.  or %60 increase in funding.

 

839,580,660 is the revenue for highway maintenance, how that money is is distributed i don't know.

 

 

Sounds like a good research project for CSU!

 

or maybe a call to action.

 

The findings from research provides the basis for a call to action. If no one knows what the numbers are vs. what they could/should be, then it's pretty hard to say there's a problem. All Aboard Ohio can't do the research because it would be tainted. But if academia compiles the research, then it is more credible. Better still: have CSU (an urban university) partner with a rural university (like Bowling Green) to do the research so it doesn't seem like the findings are biased to favor an urban agenda.

Hey Biker, is that a undergrad or grad class?

Pretty interesting point, Biker. I'd expect it to be a little lower than Vinton County because of the massive difference in population density, but it's certainly more distorted than it should be. And nobody can argue that Cuyahoga County doesn't need it. Roads in Cleveland and suburbs alike are in dire need of major resurfacing.

 

Would love to see more data on that.

Sounds like a good research project for CSU!

 

or maybe a call to action.

 

The findings from research provides the basis for a call to action. If no one knows what the numbers are vs. what they could/should be, then it's pretty hard to say there's a problem. All Aboard Ohio can't do the research because it would be tainted. But if academia compiles the research, then it is more credible. Better still: have CSU (an urban university) partner with a rural university (like Bowling Green) to do the research so it doesn't seem like the findings are biased to favor an urban agenda.

 

politics is rarely shaped by truth and statistics,  it is the issues that motivate people towards change that are successful.    Finding wedge issues that motivate urbanites to challenge to the status Quo, is what is needed.  basing it on sound data while important to me and you is a moot point, we we need to motivate the apathetic towards action. 

 

te politics of today is more open to looking an equity issues in Ohio with the innerbelt bridge demonstrating the motivation of ODOT to redistribute our Wealth to other parts of the state. 

 

The gall of the TRAC commission to Rate projects based upon economic development, when 75% of Ohio GDP is in it's top 5 Urban areas. not the the Exurban and rural areas that scored higher than projects in urban areas.  the basic flaws in ODOT are systemic in my option, and the only solution is a complete rethinking of it's purpose and the basic laws funding the department.  the means the gas tax, We cannot rely on the general assembly to fix ODOT.  A strong grass roots effort to re-purpose the organization meeting the needs of the all Ohioans is needed.

 

It is not right revenues form the turnpike should be used in southern Ohio when all of the revenue and all the negatives associated with the roads are borne by residents of the north.

Pretty interesting point, Biker. I'd expect it to be a little lower than Vinton County because of the massive difference in population density, but it's certainly more distorted than it should be. And nobody can argue that Cuyahoga County doesn't need it. Roads in Cleveland and suburbs alike are in dire need of major resurfacing.

 

Would love to see more data on that.

 

what data would you like to see? 

 

Talking with Howard he says the actual revenue from the gas tax is hard to get.

 

there is a precedent for a recalculation of the distribution of the tax revenue was the creation of federal minimums for distribution of federal gas tax money,

 

they set a minimum of 90% of all gas tax revenue raised in a a state must be returned to that state. 

 

 

A similar program suld eb set up in ohio to prevent the continued aste of money on rural project that encourage sprawl.

A thought exercise: since much of Cleveland does not have the density to make subways cost-effective, what are people's thoughts on street-level light rail?  Let's say we had the option of converting our busiest bus routes into surface-level light rail, funding, NOACA protestations, ODOT, etc. aside.  If I recall correctly, they would be:

 

- Detroit-Superior

- Euclid

- Lorain-Carnegie

- W. 25-Pearl

- E. 9th-Broadway.

 

I'm thinking that such a plan would mean taking two lanes (one lane and one parking row, or Euclid's BRT) away from the streets to put the rail ROWs in.  Any existing buildings, houses, or business establishments would not be torn down.  Considering the traffic lanes taken away and the number of street-level crossings that the light rail lines would encounter, would the logistics make the negatives outweigh the positives? (and we should think of alternative routes instead?)  Or would a cost-benefit analysis say that these lanes along these major roads can be eliminated in favor of light rail?

 

I'm thinking that Euclid's could be justified, although a subway is preferable. :evil:  Detroit maybe up to the Red Line West Blvd station, which would then jump to the N&S tracks (although light rail and heavy rail are different kind of tracks, so...).  I know there was a study done for W. 25-Pearl to Parma where nothing happened, although I don't know too much about how Lorain-Carnegie and E. 9th-Broadway would be affected.

:wtf:

What about the the (old idea, been around for a while) of the Duel-Mode Electric Trolley busses for the above routes to feed the Rapids? Some with Limited stops for faster service, and traffic signal priority. Simple modern wiring. Use wind, solar to help power the TB system. Use Detroit-Superior subway deck for buses and any future light rail or streetcar service. Anyone have some comments?

I didn't want the healthline moved to detroit.  I want the healthline turned into a streetcar.  I understand why that is extremely unlikely to occur at this point.

 

so barring that  I want a new streetcar down detroit or Lorain.  NOT down St. Clair or superior.

 

 

No more buses....FIXED infrastructure

 

 

 

 

I didn't want the healthline moved to detroit.  I want the healthline turned into a streetcar.  I understand why that is extremely unlikely to occur at this point.

 

so barring that  I want a new streetcar down detroit or Lorain.  NOT down St. Clair or superior.

 

 

No more buses....FIXED infrastructure

My Mistake, But St.Clair and Superior run straight into downtown so it would serve better to have a streetcar down those streets to serve Downtown which goes East not West so I think more people would have the opportunity to ride it like how the healthline has boomed. (I wish I could see east side vs.west side ridership numbers to back up my statement.)

Detroit would actually be perfect for BRT/Streetcar.  Have it come over the bridge down superior to Public Square,  then you have an easy transfer to the Healthline.

Detroit would actually be perfect for BRT/Streetcar.  Have it come over the bridge down superior to Public Square,  then you have an easy transfer to the Healthline.

That makes sense though but I'm bias to the East Side though because I'm an East Side resident  :-P

Detroit runs straight into downtown and isn't paralleled buy Euclid with the Healthline.  It also has a dedicated ROW under the D/S bridge and I assume some sort of way to get down into the RTA rail terminal at Tower city.

 

That and drive down detroit....solid pretty much all the way to and through rocky river.

 

Lorain a little less so.

 

Then drive down St. Clair and Superior...both of which are used as "highways" for downtwon access from the heights......look at the density of what is there compared to detroit rd.

 

As far as I know there are 3 routes with the long buses.  Healthline, 22 (Loain), 26 (detroit)   

 

22 and 26 are straining capacity as is.  improve them into a streetcar.

 

 

 

 

Hell just make the healthline continue down west superior and then detroit avenue into lakewood. One really long east to west trip.

KJP, do you have a sense what the exact concern is in Pittsburgh?  Is it on the operating cost side or is it that there's no more capital funding to keep the bus fleet up to date?

From downtown, the 26 runs west out Detroit Avenue to the west end of Lakewood (and some trips to Westgate) -- see: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.msg109589.html#msg109589

 

From downtown, the 22 runs across the Detroit-Superior bridge, turns south on West 25th, then goes west on Lorain Avenue to the West Park Rapid station -- see:  http://www.riderta.com/pdf/22.pdf

 

As for ridership data per route, see my old posting at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.msg109589.html#msg109589

 

A few things have changed since 2004, namely that the top route (the #326) has been split into their old east/west routes of the #3 (Superior) and the #26 (Detroit). It is possible that their ridership was also pretty evenly split. If so, then the top two routes after the #6 (now the HealthLine) are the #22/Lorain and the #1/St. Clair.

So the #3 isn't a top route? (Darn)

Detroit runs straight into downtown and isn't paralleled buy Euclid with the Healthline.  It also has a dedicated ROW under the D/S bridge and I assume some sort of way to get down into the RTA rail terminal at Tower city.

 

That and drive down detroit....solid pretty much all the way to and through rocky river.

 

Lorain a little less so.

 

Then drive down St. Clair and Superior...both of which are used as "highways" for downtwon access from the heights......look at the density of what is there compared to detroit rd.

 

As far as I know there are 3 routes with the long buses.  Healthline, 22 (Loain), 26 (detroit)   

 

22 and 26 are straining capacity as is.  improve them into a streetcar.

If the 22 and 26 are straining why does RTA rotate the 40 footers and the 60 footers why not just run the 60 footers all day the have 17 of them it's not like a shortage is in existence. Speaking of strain's instead of running a streetcar down St.Clair why not just run articulated buses down St.Clair since the #1 is a top route, and an articulated bus throughout the #10 route during peak hours to alleviate congestion some?

KJP, do you have a sense what the exact concern is in Pittsburgh?  Is it on the operating cost side or is it that there's no more capital funding to keep the bus fleet up to date?

 

My understanding is that it's operating cost concern, although many citizens see $523.4 million going to build the North Shore Connector while their bus routes are being cut and believe that some of that capital funding should have been used as operating funding to keep their bus routes running. We had the same concerns expressed here in Cleveland as RTA spent $200 million in capital dollars for the HealthLine while other bus routes were cut. Many do not know or care that the transit authority cannot use the federal/state/local capital dollars for local operating costs of existing bus routes. Only state and federal legislators can change the spending laws under which transit authorities must operate.

Detroit runs straight into downtown and isn't paralleled buy Euclid with the Healthline.  It also has a dedicated ROW under the D/S bridge and I assume some sort of way to get down into the RTA rail terminal at Tower city.

 

That and drive down detroit....solid pretty much all the way to and through rocky river.

 

Lorain a little less so.

 

Then drive down St. Clair and Superior...both of which are used as "highways" for downtwon access from the heights......look at the density of what is there compared to detroit rd.

 

As far as I know there are 3 routes with the long buses.  Healthline, 22 (Loain), 26 (detroit)   

 

22 and 26 are straining capacity as is.  improve them into a streetcar.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not recall a connection to Tower City.  When street cars used the ROW then never entered Union Terminal, they entered into loops on Public Square.

I do not recall a connection to Tower City.  When street cars used the ROW then never entered Union Terminal, they entered into loops on Public Square.

 

True, but Cleveland Union Terminal was designed by the Van Sweringens so the Detroit-Superior subway could feed into CUT's interurban stations. See how close the sets of tracks for the streetcar/interurban subway were to the Cleveland Union Terminal railroad tracks in 1930, and this was before the CTS Rapid/GCRTA Red Line was built between the two sets of tracks in 1955....

 

 

 

This was the original plan for the east end of the Detroit-Superior bridge in 1915, which was to be the linchpin in a planned city-wide subway system, the bond issue for which city voters rejected in 1920:

 

 

So here's my proposal for running a rail line on the subway deck today:

 

 

It requires relocating or installing some sort of cantilevered supported network under or over the street deck:

Oh, and if GCRTA could come up with a way to pay the operating costs of a streetcar/LRT using the subway deck of the Detroit-Superior Bridge, it may not need to worry about the local share of funding to build the streetcar/LRT. The reason is that the present value of constructing an equivalent subway deck could be used as the local funding share for leveraging a federal New Starts construction grant. So let's say it would cost $100 million to provide a streetcar/LRT bridge structure offering the same overhead clearance of river traffic, that $100 million could be used to leverage a federal construction grant of similar size. Of course, Cleveland would have to compete with other cities making actual financial contributions to address more significant traffic, economic growth and air quality issues that what we face. But it does put an actual rail expansion and economic development project out there for possible development.

I do not recall a connection to Tower City.  When street cars used the ROW then never entered Union Terminal, they entered into loops on Public Square.

 

True, but Cleveland Union Terminal was designed by the Van Sweringens so the Detroit-Superior subway could feed into CUT's interurban stations. See how close the sets of tracks for the streetcar/interurban subway were to the Cleveland Union Terminal railroad tracks in 1930, and this was before the CTS Rapid/GCRTA Red Line was built between the two sets of tracks in 1955....

 

 

 

This was the original plan for the east end of the Detroit-Superior bridge in 1915, which was to be the linchpin in a planned city-wide subway system, the bond issue for which city voters rejected in 1920:

 

 

So here's my proposal for running a rail line on the subway deck today:

 

 

It requires relocating or installing some sort of cantilevered supported network under or over the street deck:

 

With the exception of the ballroom addition to the "Cleveland"/"Sheraton"/"Renassiance" hotel, the corner is still the same .  You can stand on the corner of Superior, Prospect/W 6th and look down and see the Shaker Rapid turn around.

With the exception of the ballroom addition to the "Cleveland"/"Sheraton"/"Renassiance" hotel, the corner is still the same .  You can stand on the corner of Superior, Prospect/W 6th and look down and see the Shaker Rapid turn around.

 

And the construction of the Lausche State Office Building, and the construction of the Red Line, and the removal of the Cleveland Union Terminal railroad tracks and their 90 daily passenger trains, and the removal of the four-track streetcar/subway ramp and their thousands of daily streetcars, and the relocation of the Main Post Office in 1982 to Orange Avenue with the subsequent renovation of the old Post Office into the MK Ferguson Plaza. Yep, no other changes here. ;)

 

Plus, the Shaker Rapid hasn't turned around down there since 1981. Or are you in a time warp, MTS?

With the exception of the ballroom addition to the "Cleveland"/"Sheraton"/"Renassiance" hotel, the corner is still the same .  You can stand on the corner of Superior, Prospect/W 6th and look down and see the Shaker Rapid turn around.

 

And the construction of the Lausche State Office Building, and the construction of the Red Line, and the removal of the Cleveland Union Terminal railroad tracks and their 90 daily passenger trains, and the removal of the four-track streetcar/subway ramp and their thousands of daily streetcars, and the relocation of the Main Post Office in 1982 to Orange Avenue with the subsequent renovation of the old Post Office into the MK Ferguson Plaza. Yep, no other changes here. ;)

 

I said the corner Boo!  LOL  I'll give you the state office building, but the remaining buildings themselves (physically) have not changed.

KJP, any idea how expensive those airport automated trams cost?  Would it ever be cost effective to run something like that under the bridge?  One on the west side, and one on the east, maybe a second east side one at Tower City?