I'd hope we all have learned from their mistake.

 

A mistake is when someone makes a decision that ignores available information and present circumstances to cause harm to more people than benefit. So the only mistake by the Van Sweringens I see was to engage in housing discrimination against anyone who was not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. But their land-use design choice was a preference of lifestyle, especially of the times. I can certainly understand, given that context, why those choices were made. Cities were crowded, polluted places and this land use was a response to that which the wealthy could afford to choose while still keeping a fast route to downtown. One's personal preference in the context of their circumstances and available knowledge is never a mistake. Even today however, I understand the attraction of having some rail stations with single-use residential surrounding them. I welcome a variety of land use styles around rail lines for prospective customers to choose from, even if the dominant supply should be higher density/mixed use.

 

I'm sure 100 years from now, your great grandchildren will consider us fools for the actions we consider smart today. I only hope they try to put themselves in the shoes of people who made the decisions to have some empathy for why those decisions were made. Perhaps they will recognize that, if they lived today, they would have made the exact same choices, just as my grandparents did 100 years ago.

I'd hope we all have learned from their mistake.

 

A mistake is when someone makes a decision that ignores available information and present circumstances to cause harm to more people than benefit. So the only mistake by the Van Sweringens I see was to engage in housing discrimination against anyone who was not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. But their land-use design choice was a preference of lifestyle, especially of the times. I can certainly understand, given that context, why those choices were made. Cities were crowded, polluted places and this land use was a response to that which the wealthy could afford to choose while still keeping a fast route to downtown. One's personal preference in the context of their circumstances and available knowledge is never a mistake. Even today however, I understand the attraction of having some rail stations with single-use residential surrounding them. I welcome a variety of land use styles around rail lines for prospective customers to choose from, even if the dominant supply should be higher density/mixed use.

 

I'm sure 100 years from now, your great grandchildren will consider us fools for the actions we consider smart today. I only hope they try to put themselves in the shoes of people who made the decisions to have some empathy for why those decisions were made. Perhaps they will recognize that, if they lived today, they would have made the exact same choices, just as my grandparents did 100 years ago.

 

While of course I disagree with the negative spin on sprawl, otherwise a spot on analysis.  Even then, those with resources chose to have the option to avoid the tight quarters of ciities and the accompanying discomforts and inconveniences.  Improvements in transportation and communication made this possible.  Moreso today.

 

I often comment to people in  the Maple Heights Facebook group that Maple was to the fifties and sixties what Twinsburg was to the eighties, Strongsville to the nineties, and Brunswick since.  Earlier yet, you get Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, and Lakewood.  It's all "sprawl" and it's been going on since it was feasible.  Trains started it, freeways did for it what Henry Ford did for cars.

 

This is relevant to this thread because a city that can embrace sprawl rather than fighting this rather clear preference of at least a significant plurality, using communications and transportation to bring the region together the way radios, phones, trains, and freeways did for America, has a way better chance to thrive than one that sulks around lamenting its past and cursing those who weren't so fond of "density".

^The difference between sprawl of the early days vs. today is the region was still gaining population. Why should there be a need for sprawl when the population in NEO is stagnate or in decline?  Your reasoning is flawed. 

^The difference between sprawl of the early days vs. today is the region was still gaining population. Why should there be a need for sprawl when the population in NEO is stagnate or in decline?  Your reasoning is flawed. 

 

Because overcrowding wasn't the only driving force.

 

Like many other innovations or cultural changes (private cars, TVs, microwave ovens, computers, etc..), moving to lower density places became increasing available to the less and less affluent. 

^The difference between sprawl of the early days vs. today is the region was still gaining population. Why should there be a need for sprawl when the population in NEO is stagnate or in decline?  Your reasoning is flawed.

 

People want newer houses that have the amenities they desire. Central air, attached garages, large master bedroom with bathroom, large updated kitchen, etc. Today, crime and schools play a big part of it as well. Back then there were even more factors such as pollution and just a generally bad life in the city at the time. Most saw the opportunity to live in a clean, green city and own there own house as moving up in life and providing a better life for their family. And they were at the time. Cities were a much different place.

 

Cities had no competition other than other central cities at the time. You cant build a crappy city and expect people to stay when they have other options. Its interesting because cities that built better neighborhoods still have those stronger neighborhoods today. They did face some decline but rebounded much faster and never got to the point that most of our neighborhoods reached. Their worst neighborhoods that saw the most decline are the neighborhoods that resemble our declining neighborhoods.

 

Cleveland Heights is a good example. The better built, more attractive parts of the city have remained relativly stable while more generic sections are struggling to a degree. The same thing goes for most suburbs these days, but most lack the better housing stock Cleveland Heights has in sections, so when their time comes, they will probably be hurt much more.

^The difference between sprawl of the early days vs. today is the region was still gaining population. Why should there be a need for sprawl when the population in NEO is stagnate or in decline?  Your reasoning is flawed. 

 

Because overcrowding wasn't the only driving force.

 

Like many other innovations or cultural changes (private cars, TVs, microwave ovens, computers, etc..), moving to lower density places became increasing available to the less and less affluent. 

 

I get that.  I'm just wondering why you still think sprawl is acceptable for a region that isn't growing population wise. 

All decisions are made in the context of their times, like the wealthy wanting to move from crowded, noisy, polluted cities to the bucolic, park-like settings of Shaker Heights because they could, while still being just 20 minutes from their downtown offices by electric, rapid transit. Allowing mixed-use and density to come into Shaker along the rail lines was seen only as allowing the noise and clutter of the city to infiltrate their peaceful surroundings. Today, pollution controls, de-industrialization, the investment in neighborhoods and infrastructure has caused many areas of the big bad city to become cleaner, more modern and more attractive than suburban areas.

I'd hope we all have learned from their mistake.

 

A mistake is when someone makes a decision that ignores available information and present circumstances to cause harm to more people than benefit. So the only mistake by the Van Sweringens I see was to engage in housing discrimination against anyone who was not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. But their land-use design choice was a preference of lifestyle, especially of the times. I can certainly understand, given that context, why those choices were made. Cities were crowded, polluted places and this land use was a response to that which the wealthy could afford to choose while still keeping a fast route to downtown. One's personal preference in the context of their circumstances and available knowledge is never a mistake. Even today however, I understand the attraction of having some rail stations with single-use residential surrounding them. I welcome a variety of land use styles around rail lines for prospective customers to choose from, even if the dominant supply should be higher density/mixed use.

 

I'm sure 100 years from now, your great grandchildren will consider us fools for the actions we consider smart today. I only hope they try to put themselves in the shoes of people who made the decisions to have some empathy for why those decisions were made. Perhaps they will recognize that, if they lived today, they would have made the exact same choices, just as my grandparents did 100 years ago.

 

No KJP we all are capable of mistakes through ignorance. Just because you didn't know doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Look back at how we behaved in our 20s, no sane person will not admit they made mistakes of ignorance in their 20s.

 

I don't believe The Vans excluded retail on purpose I just don't believe it was part of their business plan for shaker heights.

If you understood history a little better, you would realize that the decisions regarding land use along the Shaker lines were very appropriate then. And many are still appropriate today for the types of land use desired by their target market. You may not like that type of land use, but they aren't marketing it to you. Have some empathy for others' preferences. They may be wrong for you, but that doesn't make them wrong for others.

If you understood history a little better, you would realize that the decisions regarding land use along the Shaker lines were very appropriate then. And many are still appropriate today for the types of land use desired by their target market. You may not like that type of land use, but they aren't marketing it to you. Have some empathy for others' preferences. They may be wrong for you, but that doesn't make them wrong for others.

 

Then you tell that to the planning department of the city of Shaker heights.

 

I am sure in the 60s and 70s when they installed those wonderful modern Facades over 688 Euclid, the Schofield Building and many other beautiful old buildings, they to thought their decisions to do so were correct.

 

in the 1960s this was very appropriate

 

in 2012 this is now appropriate

 

which one renovation is the right renovation?  was it a mistake to replace the original facade in the 1960-70s?

 

 

 

If you understood history a little better, you would realize that the decisions regarding land use along the Shaker lines were very appropriate then. And many are still appropriate today for the types of land use desired by their target market. You may not like that type of land use, but they aren't marketing it to you. Have some empathy for others' preferences. They may be wrong for you, but that doesn't make them wrong for others.

 

Amen to this part.  Hindsight is famous for being 20-20.  Likewise, decisions should not be judged on the basis of things which those making them simply did not know.  Or for that matter, based upon innovations which were not in place, or even predictable, when the decisions were made.

 

That said, I think you just answered your own earlier question.  Sprawl in a declining population region is acceptable because it’s a decision that people make, for their own reasons.  Not everyone makes this decision of course, otherwise there would not be the growth in select urbanist neighborhoods that we see.  But enough people do that in a free society, it’s pretty much self justifying. 

 

Even the “sustainability” argument is quite debatable.  It could have been said that increasing density in 19th century cities was “unsustainable” as well.  To the degree that it was, it was simply not sustained.  No coercive measures were required.  I suspect that the aspects of modern sprawl that are truly “unsustainable” will simply not be sustained, without dramatic upheaval.  Other changes will render other aspects sustainable. 

 

But the idea that most of us like to have a little bit of elbow room, to separate ourselves from others at times of our choosing, seems to be very ingrained in our cultural psyche.

 

Personally, I suspect mass transit (note that I do not use the word "public" in this case) becomes more relevant when it reacts to aggregate preferences rather than trying to mold them. 

Then you tell that to the planning department of the city of Shaker heights.

 

Nah. I'll drive by my grandfather's house where my dad grew up on South Park Boulevard at Warrensville Road, across from the Rapid station. It's an English tudor mansion which is the easternmost house on South Park before arriving Warrensville. I understand the rationale of my grandfather choosing that location. If you'd like me to explain further, I'd be happy to.

 

I am sure in the 60s and 70s when they installed those wonderful modern Facades over 688 Euclid, the Schofield Building and many other beautiful old buildings, they to thought their decisions to do so were correct.

 

which one renovation is the right renovation?  was it a mistake to replace the original facade in the 1960-70s?

 

I consider it a bit arrogant for anyone to believe something is "right" when it comes to human-generated designs. There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion and widely held beliefs. Those constantly change. So right now, at this tiny moment in history, the prevailing opinion is that removing those modernized facades and restoring the original  facade is desirable and attractive. Tastes and preferences constantly change. In 50 years, we may regret removing the modernized facades. I can't see that now, but crazy things happen with our tastes through the course of time. I'm sure that our architectural and land use preferences of today will be seen by future generations as ugly or foolish. That's why I say have some empathy for past decisions and understand the context in which they were made. You may not agree with them, but you may find them interesting and understand the foundations on which subsequent decisions were and are being made. It may also make your messages sound less preachy or admonishing to audiences of today. And that can't but help you win them over more.

Then you tell that to the planning department of the city of Shaker heights.

 

Nah. I'll drive by my grandfather's house where my dad grew up on South Park Boulevard at Warrensville Road, across from the Rapid station. It's an English tudor mansion which is the easternmost house on South Park before arriving Warrensville. I understand the rationale of my grandfather choosing that location. If you'd like me to explain further, I'd be happy to.

 

I am sure in the 60s and 70s when they installed those wonderful modern Facades over 688 Euclid, the Schofield Building and many other beautiful old buildings, they to thought their decisions to do so were correct.

 

which one renovation is the right renovation?  was it a mistake to replace the original facade in the 1960-70s?

 

I consider it a bit arrogant for anyone to believe something is "right" when it comes to human-generated designs. There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion and widely held beliefs. Those constantly change. So right now, at this tiny moment in history, the prevailing opinion is that removing those modernized facades and restoring the original  facade is desirable and attractive. Tastes and preferences constantly change. In 50 years, we may regret removing the modernized facades. I can't see that now, but crazy things happen with our tastes through the course of time. I'm sure that our architectural and land use preferences of today will be seen by future generations as ugly or foolish. That's why I say have some empathy for past decisions and understand the context in which they were made. You may not agree with them, but you may find them interesting and understand the foundations on which subsequent decisions were and are being made. It may also make your messages sound less preachy or admonishing to audiences of today. And that can't but help you win them over more.

 

Science and engineering has right and wrong answers, though engineering will sometimes have several.  I think this is at the root of why planners and designers sometimes feel the same way about their fields of expertise. 

 

But there aren’t.  Indeed, the way we look at sixties and seventies architecture design reflects the way they looked at Art Deco and its ilk.  Dated and old fashioned.  There was actually a plan during the 1970s to “modernize” the Empire State Building.  Thank God it never happened, it would have been the historical equivalent of vandalism.

 

I think this is at the core of the preservationist movement, at least it as far as I subscribe to same.  While certainly each and every era had its mistakes (building based airship docks and multipurpose sports stadiums come to mind), to simply throw out each era’s trends as outdated risks disconnection with where we have been and how we got there.  That’s dangerous.

 

Sometimes change can happen on the fly.  It's interesting that Shaker Square as we know it today, which I believe at one time was in Shaker Heights, was an afterthought.  The Van Sweringens originally banned apartment buildings in Shaker, and the Square was an empty circle with a junction for the Shaker and Moreland (now Van Aken) Rapid lines ... KJP has posted photos of this.  Then somebody in their organization got the bright idea to develop an apartment district there, and by 1923 the 1st section of the grand Moreland Courts (aka MyTwoSense manor) was built... It's also interesting to note that the Vans themselves suddenly leaped into the apartment development business with Moreland Courts, the Castle, the Manor, Sedgwick, the Gables and many of the other high-quality, architecture apartment buildings clustered around the Square, South Woodland, Drexmore and Van Aken near Lee Rd.

 

Maybe the Vans are a bad example because they seemed to fly by the seat of their pants when it came to empire building... But they do show that even in the short period of time in the conception of Shaker Heights, development tastes shifted from building a strictly commuter-style bedroom community with substantial-to-mansion single-family detached homes to incorporating a substantial apartment district with all the urban features we associate with ideal transit + TOD today. 

 

The important point to E Rocc is that urban sprawl is never a desirable or chosen community aspect, but that it stems from the absence of planning and haphazard growth as opposed to any sort of planned development.  And whether Shaker Heights, and the Square, are viewed from a detached single-family housing or high-grade apartment POV, there’s little debate as to Shaker’s high quality of living and compactness (see non-sprawl) that have been directly and indirectly influenced by the presence of desirable (rail) mass transit. 

 

Sometimes change can happen on the fly.  It's interesting that Shaker Square as we know it today, which I believe at one time was in Shaker Heights, was an afterthought.  The Van Sweringens originally banned apartment buildings in Shaker, and the Square was an empty circle with a junction for the Shaker and Moreland (now Van Aken) Rapid lines ... KJP has posted photos of this.  Then somebody in their organization got the bright idea to develop an apartment district there, and by 1923 the 1st section of the grant Moreland Courts (aka MyTwoSense manor) was built... It's also interesting to note that the Vans themselves suddenly leaped into the apartment development business with Moreland Courts, the Castle, the Manor, Sedgwick, the Gables and many of the other high-quality, architecture apartment buildings clustered around the Square, South Woodland, Drexmore and Van Aken near Lee Rd.

 

Maybe the Vans are a bad example because they seemed to fly by the seat of their pants when it came to empire building... But they do show that even in the short period of time in the conception of Shaker Heights, development tastes shifted from building a strictly commuter-style bedroom community with substantial-to-mansion single-family detached homes to incorporating a substantial apartment district with all the urban features we associate with ideal transit + TOD today. 

 

The important point to E Rocc is that urban sprawl is never a desirable or chosen community aspect, but that it stems from the absence of planning and haphazard growth as opposed to any sort of planned development.  And whether Shaker Heights, and the Square, are viewed from a detached single-family housing or high-grade apartment POV, there’s little debate as to Shaker’s high quality of living and compactness (see non-sprawl) that have been directly and indirectly influenced by the presence of desirable (rail) mass transit. 

 

 

They may be a bad example of your point, but they’re a pretty good example of mine.  I’ve been saying for awhile that denser neighborhoods aren’t typically pre-planned, but spring up more or less from scratch and grow block by block.  Someone saw an opportunity the Vans didn’t, made it happen, and it worked. 

 

Sprawl is indeed chosen.  What it isn’t is something chosen by the powers that be or the planners.  They are the ones who look at things in a more collective sense.  Their priorities are going to be different, and sometimes they seem to include a desire for a need for more planning.  I’m not trying to be snide or even imply malicious intent.  It’s kind of like “the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy”.

 

Sprawl is the result of aggregate decisions of individuals and/or small groups.  People have their own reasons for participating in it, but participate they do, in numbers which cannot be ignored and should not be disdained.  We’ve been over those reasons in the appropriate thread(s).  What’s relevant here is that making transit work on a more decentralized basis may not be as efficient, and it may not conform to the criteria the current experts favor, but it’s more likely to guarantee its importance and relevance moving forward.  Otherwise, you’re like World War I generals  (other than Billy Mitchell, that is) trying to fight World War II.

 

^E Rocc I totally disagree.  I don’t really agree that cities even choose to sprawl but, rather, they just accept it as inevitable.  But sprawl absolutely is NOT the result of planning.  Sprawl is the result of a city’s failure to plan.

^E Rocc I totally disagree.  I don’t really agree that cities even choose to sprawl but, rather, they just accept it as inevitable.  But sprawl absolutely is NOT the result of planning.  Sprawl is the result of a city’s failure to plan.

 

That's not really disagreement.  Of course cities don't choose to sprawl.  For one thing, most sprawl takes place outside of a city's actual boundaries.  Nor is it really a result of failure to plan, or even of the plans themselves.  It's just a lot more robust of a process than anything that can be brought to bear against it. 

 

Nor do I think it's seen as inevitable, at least not by planners.  Particularly transit planners.  Instead, there is a focus on centralization.  That's counter to the megatrend that is "sprawl" and makes transit less relevant.

 

If there's one lesson that's repeated throughout American history, it's that people will find a way to do what they prefer despite the wishes and efforts of the government.  Prohibition (and the corresponding ban on pot) is probably the most profound example, but there are many.

The government absolutely endorsed sprawl.  I suggest reading about the department of transportation during the wilson and eisenhower administrations.  Look at the players involved.

The government absolutely endorsed sprawl.  I suggest reading about the department of transportation during the wilson and eisenhower administrations.  Look at the players involved.

 

The Feds did, yes.

 

Part of the reason was atomic survivability.  Part was keeping people gainfully employed.  But part was following a trend that was already beginning.

 

Whether or not you wish to fight it or serve it is the central question when planning transit.

Part of it was the fact that automotive industry executives ran DOT.

^btw, I think the Green Line extension ship has sailed.  Beachwood pretty much put the kibosh on that one with its city park infill.  Richmond Road once had a bridge over the ROW, similar to those at Green and Warrensville, but Beachwood filled it in with an earthen embankment rather than deal with the expense of a new bridge and concomitant bridge repair costs.  And now the Maltz Museum dominates the space, where as offices had once been eyed for that location at one time, so Green Line expansion probably isn't practical anymore... too bad.

 

You have to start thinking out side the trench. ;)

^Excellent work.  Have you ever run the current numbers assuming a Red Line conversion to light rail and re-alignment to HL route between downtown and UC?

^^It's a worthwhile study, but in some cases the numbers are skewed based on parking passengers.  Brookpark, for example, probably has one of the lowest number of worker who live within 2 miles of the station, yet it is IIRC the 2nd busiest station outside Tower City.  There are a lot of riders who travel in via the 2 interstates there and come from a great distance.  Puritas is similar in this sense as is Green Road on the LRT.

Paired Analysis

workers that Live 2 miles (short drive or bus ride.) from a Stop and work 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from a Stop

 

Baseline

23,505Workers

 

Red Line today

 

After redline Extension within Cuyahoga county

 

30,054 workers

 

After Redline Extension to Lake county

 

33,968 workers

 

Access: <2 miles from Home  <.5 miles from work

Red Line Today 23,505

Red Line Extension (Cuyahoga) 30,054

Red Line Extension (Lake) 33,968

 

^Excellent work.  Have you ever run the current numbers assuming a Red Line conversion to light rail and re-alignment to HL route between downtown and UC?

 

as clvldr has noted it difficult to extrapolate access in propensity to ride.

 

issues with moving the redline are

speed

central rail

expansion opportunities.

 

I'd keep the redline exactly where it is, that high speed corridor becomes more and more valuable if service between westshore suburbs and UC becomes a reality. Also adding more ridership to the Euclid corridor will only make it worse.  The option of moving from a single vehicle LRT. To a multiple unit train that requires major changes to the stations on the corridor. Finding a balance between frequency and capacity. 

 

^^It's a worthwhile study, but in some cases the numbers are skewed based on parking passengers.  Brookpark, for example, probably has one of the lowest number of worker who live within 2 miles of the station, yet it is IIRC the 2nd busiest station outside Tower City.  There are a lot of riders who travel in via the 2 interstates there and come from a great distance.  Puritas is similar in this sense as is Green Road on the LRT.

 

it difficult to model with this software and I don't have the time to use GIS, because this data is so complex. Imagine every census block group connected to every census block group.

 

I realize the limitations what I am trying to do is to provide a common set of rules to evaluate prospectiive routes

Part of it was the fact that automotive industry executives ran DOT.

 

But how much of that was effect, rather than cause?

What A Modern Streetcar network in Cleveland could look like

 

 

hyper local, fundamentally based on people walking to transit, and people walking from transit to where they work, play or pray.

 

1/4 mile or 5 minute walk

 

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 185,010 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 172,636 93.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 12,374 6.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 37,164 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 24,790 66.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 12,374 33.3%

 

 

1/2 mile or 10 minute walk.

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 210,924 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 187,695 89.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 23,229 11.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 62,707 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 39,478 63.0%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 23,229 37.0%

 

workers that Live 1 miles (20 min walk) from a Stop and work 1/4 mile (5 minute walk) from a Stop

 

32,280 workers.

 

workers that Live 2 miles (20 min walk) from a Stop and work 1/4 mile (5 minute walk) from a Stop

 

52,226 workers.

 

Note the darker blues on the West 25th corridor. That's what we call a good start. That whole section from MetroHealth down to the downtown Old Brooklyn should be a much stronger corridor of several nodes. It's got Villa Hispana's El Centro at Clark. It's got MetroHealth Medical Center (hospital north, administration/senior south). Its got the MetroParks Zoo. So between an enclave for one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in Cleveland, a health care cluster and a magnet for environmental sciences and studies, that should be a dynamic growth corridor. Can a streetcar help make it happen?

 

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward? Or maybe from UC into the neighborhoods north and south, such as along 93rd (south) and 105th (north)? Or maybe from UC up Cedar Hill to Coventry? Or down to Shaker Square? Hey, let's just put a streetcar wherever there's a 24-hour bus line!

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

^Interesting and certainly worhtwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward? Or maybe from UC into the neighborhoods north and south, such as along 93rd (south) and 105th (north)? Or maybe from UC up Cedar Hill to Coventry? Or down to Shaker Square? Hey, let's just put a streetcar wherever there's a 24-hour bus line!

Does the density exist outside of the stretch between the RedLine and Superior? For that short section the 10 is packed tight, but north of Superior the bus is just full.

 

Since we're in the ideas for the future thread I'll just throw out that in my opinion RTA's next "trolley" bus ought to circulate around University Circle. UH, CC, and Case already run circulator busses, if RTA ran one, they could each run less of their own and if it connected with the red line could help attract even more rail riders.

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward? Or maybe from UC into the neighborhoods north and south, such as along 93rd (south) and 105th (north)? Or maybe from UC up Cedar Hill to Coventry? Or down to Shaker Square? Hey, let's just put a streetcar wherever there's a 24-hour bus line!

Does the density exist outside of the stretch between the RedLine and Superior? For that short section the 10 is packed tight, but north of Superior the bus is just full.

 

Since we're in the ideas for the future thread I'll just throw out that in my opinion RTA's next "trolley" bus ought to circulate around University Circle. UH, CC, and Case already run circulator busses, if RTA ran one, they could each run less of their own and if it connected with the red line could help attract even more rail riders.

 

This makes a ton of sense, the moreso the more seamlessly you can make the transition between the Red Line and perhaps a Shaker Line moved into the area.

 

The challenge is combining speed and convenience.  More stops boosts the latter at the expense of the former.

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

 

Running a streetcar into Shaker Sq., an area served by the frequent high speed Blue/Green lines doesn't seem palatable to me... But it is weird that this densely populated significant apartment area has no 24-hour transit service.  Once the Rapid and the 11 shut down, at around 12:30p, that's it until around 5a.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

 

Running a streetcar into Shaker Sq., an area served by the frequent high speed Blue/Green lines doesn't seem palatable to me... But it is weird that this densely populated significant apartment area has no 24-hour transit service.  Once the Rapid and the 11 shut down, at around 12:30p, that's it until around 5a.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

 

I think it's more the rule than the exception to not have 24-hour transit service, is it not? Most densely populated areas down here in DC don't even have 24-hour service.

Running a streetcar into Shaker Sq., an area served by the frequent high speed Blue/Green lines doesn't seem palatable to me... But it is weird that this densely populated significant apartment area has no 24-hour transit service.  Once the Rapid and the 11 shut down, at around 12:30p, that's it until around 5a.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

The 48 runs 24 hours between Marymount and UC via Shaker Square.

Has anyone ever made a map of transit in Cleveland by 24 hour status or by headway?  If I still had GIS it would be an interesting project.

Note the darker blues on the West 25th corridor. That's what we call a good start. That whole section from MetroHealth down to the downtown Old Brooklyn should be a much stronger corridor of several nodes. It's got Villa Hispana's El Centro at Clark. It's got MetroHealth Medical Center (hospital north, administration/senior south). Its got the MetroParks Zoo. So between an enclave for one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in Cleveland, a health care cluster and a magnet for environmental sciences and studies, that should be a dynamic growth corridor. Can a streetcar help make it happen?

 

The U shaped route pays for itself.

 

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward?

 

Payne is the heart of Asiatown not Superior, I have asked development people and they agree there would be more potential development on Payne than on superior.

 

Payne has more Potential to be Transformed into a pedestrian centered corridor than superior IMO.

 

The spacing is better with St Clair, Payne and Euclid.

 

Issues with Peak congestion on superior around the inner-belt Ramps

 

Superior would have to be a Transit priority network would have to terminate in east Cleveland in order to maintain Ridership, that would be an extra 5 miles. in comparison to the 1 (St Clair) the 3 (superior) has less ridership roughly 80% the ridership of the 1.

 

Payne as a Connector not transit priority means it would not have to run 24/7 it would not need to run at 10 min frequencies all day, and its operating costs would not be As high as a Higher intensity transit Corridor like Euclid is, and could be entirely funded within a Transportation Improvement District and TIF.

 

I think choosing Payne over superior sounds strange at first but when you look at under utilized parcels Payne has more potential.

 

Or maybe from UC into the neighborhoods north and south, such as along 93rd (south) and 105th (north)?

 

The 10 is a critical north south route that should be extended to independence.

 

It would be my first choice for a non-radial streetcar. 

 

^Interesting and certainly worthwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

 

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT.

 

my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown

 

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

 

I think you have a point about the connection from SS to UC, that would be best Accomplished thru an extension of the Blue line into UC.

 

How to connect Coventry to UC is a different issue there is a large commute shed there with pockets of high density residential surrounded by low density residential.  The funding model for streetcar is based on Value capture, or using the proceeds from property tax from new development surrounding these lines to fund those lines, whilw there is an opportunity for increased development within the Coventry area, I don't know how much development would be allowed to happen in the area. Would Cleveland Hts. allow or even if its possible for those high value low density neighborhoods to be converted into higher density neighborhoods?

 

With the Blue Line extension you have Regional Transit interest with the need for access to UC from the Southeast of our Region, the same Argument cannot be made for a circulator from Coventry to UC as easily.

 

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

 

Running a streetcar into Shaker Sq., an area served by the frequent high speed Blue/Green lines doesn't seem palatable to me... But it is weird that this densely populated significant apartment area has no 24-hour transit service.  Once the Rapid and the 11 shut down, at around 12:30p, that's it until around 5a.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

 

I think that there is demand for connectivity between UC and SS. understand that the type of rider who would never ride a bus route would ride a train to the same destination.

 

Holistically, the opportunity for a streetcar to make transit more efficient must be weigh against the need to provide economic development, whatever happens the streetcar cannot hurt Bus Service, and provides a opportunity to redesign the entire transit system.

 

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/basics-should-we-redesign-our-bus-network-and-how.html

 

Has anyone ever made a map of transit in Cleveland by 24 hour status or by headway?  If I still had GIS it would be an interesting project.

 

I made a chart a few months back that categorized line that ran <15 min headway.

 

what you are asking for is a Frequency Map. 

^Interesting and certainly worthwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT.

my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown

 

Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic.  Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development. 

 

^ I feel that a University Circle, Coventry, Cedar Fairmount, and possibly Shaker square route makes the most sense. Not only would they serve dense populations, as well as tourist destinations, job centers, etc, they would run through areas where development is more likely to occur since there is already something to build off of, and in this case, a lot to build off of. Running a line through solid areas makes far more sense than running it through highly declining/struggling areas with lower density.

 

I think you have a point about the connection from SS to UC, that would be best Accomplished thru an extension of the Blue line into UC.

 

How to connect Coventry to UC is a different issue there is a large commute shed there with pockets of high density residential surrounded by low density residential.  The funding model for streetcar is based on Value capture, or using the proceeds from property tax from new development surrounding these lines to fund those lines, whilw there is an opportunity for increased development within the Coventry area, I don't know how much development would be allowed to happen in the area. Would Cleveland Hts. allow or even if its possible for those high value low density neighborhoods to be converted into higher density neighborhoods?

 

With the Blue Line extension you have Regional Transit interest with the need for access to UC from the Southeast of our Region, the same Argument cannot be made for a circulator from Coventry to UC as easily.

 

 

The high density pockets are decently large and are home to a population that tends to either work in, go to school in, or hang out in University Circle. Coventry and Cedar Fairmount are also places that many people who live and work in University Circle like to visit. I think there is more development potential than what one would expect. Cedar Fairmount has a lot of room to expand on the western end of the neighborhood and smaller possibilities spread out elsewhere across the neighborhood. Coventry has less room, but still has infill that could happen on several lots. The route could also have the potential to drastically change the coventry triangle north of Mayfield. This area is already seeing demolitions take place and could use many more. The gas stations could also be relocated creating the potential to create a truly urban Mayfield/Coventry intersection. Costs could remain somewhat low by using the greenspace on Cedar Hill and then the Euclid Heights Blvd median.

^Interesting and certainly worthwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT.

my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown

 

Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic.  Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development.

 

I have to disagree. What is the benefit of using the bridge? It would be extremely costly to build the streetcar ramps to get the trains down under the bridge and then back to the surface. And what for? Just to cross a relatively short span? Also the ramps are extremely ugly and take up a lot of space. The bridge could be useful if we were to build a complete subway system, but for a surface level system, detouring to under the bridge makes no sense other than being able to say "we used the bridge!"

^Answer: too much surface traffic.  This will be especially true if Cleveland gets it right w/r to Public Square and Superior was well as Ontario... All that bus and auto traffic is going to have to go somewhere.  And then there's the God-awful traffic light at the west end of the bridge (at W. 25)... So even with a tram system, why create more traffic with a system we're building to lure people from their cars?  And why does the ramp have to be "ugly". 

 

So using your/Biker's logic, we're going to spend millions to reconfigure/widen the bridge and create more traffic jams on and around it, when there's an unused deck below that used to carry streetcars ... for the very same reasons I'm talking about.  And btw, the ramps need not be the 4-track ramps of the old system.  Doesn't make sense to me, ... but OK... Also, Boston, Toronto, LA and others have narrower, 2-track LRT subway-to-street-level ramps that are not that intrusive while, in some cases, enclosed by ornamental/decorative balustrades.

I have to disagree. What is the benefit of using the bridge? It would be extremely costly to build the streetcar ramps to get the trains down under the bridge and then back to the surface. And what for? Just to cross a relatively short span? Also the ramps are extremely ugly and take up a lot of space. The bridge could be useful if we were to build a complete subway system, but for a surface level system, detouring to under the bridge makes no sense other than being able to say "we used the bridge!"

 

I think some will ride this streetcar if for no other reason than it would use the lower level of the bridge. BTW, the ramps are still there, only filled in. I don't know what it would cost to reactivate them as no geotechnical analysis has been done nor any cost estimates developed. This has to be balanced with any possible costs of retrofitting the upper deck to install rails into roadway deck, or possibly add another layer of pavement or slab to the deck if it is found that carving trenches into the roadway deck to install rails into would weaken the roadway deck -- especially for the extra weight. The current weight limit for trucks is 80,000 pounds per vehicle. Some streetcars weigh less than this when empty, but most of them weigh more (ie: DC's streetcar weighs 64,000 pounds empty but 89,000 pounds at max load while Toronto's Flexity weighs 106,000 pounds empty). Restoring the ramps should produce limited impacts on traffic as the number of vehicles approaching and using this bridge are 16,000 per day -- far less than the 1930 peak of 70,400 cars, trucks and buses per day -- one of the nation's busiest bridges at that time. As for the ramps being ugly? Well, we can debate that until we're blue in the face.

 

 

^Interesting and certainly worthwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT.

my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown

 

Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic.  Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development.

 

I'd use the lower deck of the bridge but not take it underground into tower city, the streets are where the people are, I'm am curious where it would go after it enters tower city.... I'd bet you'd use the Huron subway right? which happens to bypass alot of downtown. and would cost alot more than what a surface route would and be less effectvie at driving development too.

 

2 options

[*]you exit the Detroit Superior bridge on superior and have the option of taking the route east to public Square, south to the gateway district on prospect or north towards the Warehouse district on W6th street.

[*]or you take it into tower city either go east on the CUT eastern approach, or spend hundreds of millions of dollars avoiding the East 4th entertainment district, in a subway with maybe 2-3 stops in downtown.

 

Which one is most likely to succeed? 

If you wanted to expand the Streetcar system what option makes it the easiest to do so?

how can you build a streetcar system which would cost 200 million dollars to get from west Blvd to west 6th and then add on an Additional 500-700 million dollars for a 1.5-2 mile subway that misses most of downtown?

 

this is about being cheap this is about being effective.

 

Basic comparison

Cleveland Huron subway

stops at

tower City

East 9th st

east 14th

east 18th

 

downtown streetcar loop

http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/downtown-loop/

stops at

tower city

west superior + west 6th st

west St Clair + west 6th st

Ontario + st Clair

east 6th st + St Clair

east 12th st + St Clair

Superior + East 12th

Chester + east 12th

E 17th st + Chester

E 18th st + Euclid

E 14th st + Prospect

East 9th + Prospect

East 4th Street + prospect

 

Huron Subway

jobs within 1/4 mile (5 min walk) 33,987

jobs within 1/2 mile (10 min walk) 84,876

jobs within 3/4 mile (15 min walk) 97,318

 

Downtown Loop

jobs within 1/4 mile (5 min walk) 79,790

jobs within 1/2 mile (10 min walk) 91,657

jobs within 3/4 mile (15 min walk) 99,436

 

From this basic analysis you see that streetcar loop would provide better access to jobs than a Huron subway would.  It would directly connect those jobs to rapid Transit at tower City, and this loop would carry all of the Radial streetcar routes too. meaning that the 6 routes (Pearl, Lorain, Detroit, St Clair, Broadway, Kinsman/central) would feed into the loop much like the loop in Chicago and distribute riders throughout Downtown without a transfer.

 

Travel time savings would be less than <7 mins for the subway, from Tower City to East 18th St. depending on congestion. but if you happen to have a job at Erieview that time savings is wiped out by a longer walk.  simply put when the distances are this short speed becomes less important than convenience.

 

This isn't about being cheap this about making smart decisions that can be built upon, not make decision that can lead to much tougher decisions down the line.

 

 

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward?

 

Payne is the heart of Asiatown not Superior, I have asked development people and they agree there would be more potential development on Payne than on superior.

 

Payne has more Potential to be Transformed into a pedestrian centered corridor than superior IMO.

 

The spacing is better with St Clair, Payne and Euclid.

 

Issues with Peak congestion on superior around the inner-belt Ramps

 

Superior would have to be a Transit priority network would have to terminate in east Cleveland in order to maintain Ridership, that would be an extra 5 miles. in comparison to the 1 (St Clair) the 3 (superior) has less ridership roughly 80% the ridership of the 1.

 

Payne as a Connector not transit priority means it would not have to run 24/7 it would not need to run at 10 min frequencies all day, and its operating costs would not be As high as a Higher intensity transit Corridor like Euclid is, and could be entirely funded within a Transportation Improvement District and TIF.

 

I think choosing Payne over superior sounds strange at first but when you look at under utilized parcels Payne has more potential.

 

Re-read what I said. I said Superior from EAST of Asiatown. I'm fine with a streetcar on Payne east from downtown to say, East 55th, then jog over northward to Superior and continue east. So east of East 55th the distance between east-west streetcar lines on St. Clair, Superior and Euclid would be pretty evenly spaced.

 

2 options

[*]you exit the Detroit Superior bridge on superior and have the option of taking the route east to public Square, south to the gateway district on prospect or north towards the Warehouse district on W6th street.

[*]or you take it into tower city either go east on the CUT eastern approach, or spend hundreds of millions of dollars avoiding the East 4th entertainment district, in a subway with maybe 2-3 stops in downtown.

 

Exactly. Look at the problem Baltimore is having with the planned Red Line. The subway portion through downtown (with only two stops in the CBD when a surface alignment could double that number at lower cost) is driving some big cost increases, and the feds will pay only about a third of the total cost of this line. Thankfully Baltimore is in a state that has decided it's going to invest less in highways and more in transit. I don't see Ohio getting there in a long time, so the funding for anything in Cleveland is going to have to be a mix of local and federal with zero state contributions. Our state government is pretty much leaving cities to fend for themselves.

^Interesting and certainly worthwhile... I would really look at the Euclid and Detroit routes, with the Detroit (and W. 25th combined) routes using the Detroit-Superior bridge subway deck... I think Tower City's old Shaker station should be looked at as the central downtown terminal.

Surface routing would perform better and cost FAR less than going into CUT.

my plane would to distribute the Streetcar through downtown eliminating the need for a Circulator in downtown

 

Not that any of this is going to happen in the near future, but ignoring an extant, unused transit lower deck on the Det-Superior bridge doesn't make sense, esp. since the Campbell adnim wisely narrowed the bridge roadway to widen sidewalks and increase bike traffic.  Also, routing the streetcars off the bridge into the old, open-ended TC/Shaker station makes the most sense... At some point, Biker, this town is going to have to stop planning and building transit on the cheap for, like the HL, we're not going urban impact and development we desire -- forget that phony $5 billion figure of alleged HL-inspired development.

 

I have to disagree. What is the benefit of using the bridge? It would be extremely costly to build the streetcar ramps to get the trains down under the bridge and then back to the surface. And what for? Just to cross a relatively short span? Also the ramps are extremely ugly and take up a lot of space. The bridge could be useful if we were to build a complete subway system, but for a surface level system, detouring to under the bridge makes no sense other than being able to say "we used the bridge!"

 

If it was cost effective, I'd use the lower level to avoid the intersections of Detroit and West 25th and Superior and Huron. eliminating those intersection can shave 2-4 minutes off of travel time to downtown, I was originally planning to avoid the lower level, but the delays on both ends of the bridge combined with difficulty locating stops make the lower level attractive. plus being able to operate at higher speeds for 1/2 mile is better for service.

 

^Answer: too much surface traffic.  This will be especially true if Cleveland gets it right w/r to Public Square and Superior was well as Ontario... All that bus and auto traffic is going to have to go somewhere.  And then there's the God-awful traffic light at the west end of the bridge (at W. 25)... So even with a tram system, why create more traffic with a system we're building to lure people from their cars?  And why does the ramp have to be "ugly". 

 

So using your/Biker's logic, we're going to spend millions to reconfigure/widen the bridge and create more traffic jams on and around it, when there's an unused deck below that used to carry streetcars ... for the very same reasons I'm talking about.  And btw, the ramps need not be the 4-track ramps of the old system.  Doesn't make sense to me, ... but OK... Also, Boston, Toronto, LA and others have narrower, 2-track LRT subway-to-street-level ramps that are not that intrusive while, in some cases, enclosed by ornamental/decorative balustrades.

 

I don't know if I need to respond to this.

 

generally we don't have a congestion issue in downtown Cleveland. I tried to place the route in the least congested road in downtown.

 

Also, why no streetcar on Superior from Asiatown eastward?

 

Payne is the heart of Asiatown not Superior, I have asked development people and they agree there would be more potential development on Payne than on superior.

 

Payne has more Potential to be Transformed into a pedestrian centered corridor than superior IMO.

 

The spacing is better with St Clair, Payne and Euclid.

 

Issues with Peak congestion on superior around the inner-belt Ramps

 

Superior would have to be a Transit priority network would have to terminate in east Cleveland in order to maintain Ridership, that would be an extra 5 miles. in comparison to the 1 (St Clair) the 3 (superior) has less ridership roughly 80% the ridership of the 1.

 

Payne as a Connector not transit priority means it would not have to run 24/7 it would not need to run at 10 min frequencies all day, and its operating costs would not be As high as a Higher intensity transit Corridor like Euclid is, and could be entirely funded within a Transportation Improvement District and TIF.

 

I think choosing Payne over superior sounds strange at first but when you look at under utilized parcels Payne has more potential.

 

Re-read what I said. I said Superior from EAST of Asiatown. I'm fine with a streetcar on Payne east from downtown to say, East 55th, then jog over northward to Superior and continue east. So east of East 55th the distance between east-west streetcar lines on St. Clair, Superior and Euclid would be pretty evenly spaced.

 

Oh, I see.

 

i don't know I kind like continuing out past east 55th to university circle Via Hough.  taking the scenic route past the VA medical center by Wade Oval and terminating at a inter-modal station in little Italy.

 

2 options

[*]you exit the Detroit Superior bridge on superior and have the option of taking the route east to public Square, south to the gateway district on prospect or north towards the Warehouse district on W6th street.

[*]or you take it into tower city either go east on the CUT eastern approach, or spend hundreds of millions of dollars avoiding the East 4th entertainment district, in a subway with maybe 2-3 stops in downtown.

 

Exactly. Look at the problem Baltimore is having with the planned Red Line. The subway portion through downtown (with only three stops when a surface alignment could double that number at lower cost) is driving some big cost increases, and the feds will pay only about a third of the total cost of this line. Thankfully Baltimore is in a state that has decided it's going to invest less in highways and more in transit. I don't see Ohio getting there in a long time, so the funding for anything in Cleveland is going to have to be a mix of local and federal with zero state contributions. Our state government is pretty much leaving cities to fend for themselves.

 

I agree.

 

its not just the number of stops. Baltimore already has a subway and light rail Downtown, and this new line provides access to other areas of downtown and relives congestion on other lines.

i don't know I kind like continuing out past east 55th to university circle Via Hough.  taking the scenic route past the VA medical center by Wade Oval and terminating at a inter-modal station in little Italy.

I agree with KJP on Superior, but if you want to take a smaller road through the neighborhoods between Asiatown and UC I'd go with Wade Park as it's closer to splitting the difference between Euclid and St Clair, the road is wide enough for dedicated lanes, and traffic is light so eliminating traffic lights in favor of stop signs on the side roads would be less of an issue. (I know Wade Park doesn't continue all the way to E55, but there's literally 1 house that would need to be removed to extend it.) Either route could use some investment along it.

There was a streetcar route, the #3 car line, which ran down Payne, 55th, Lexington, 79th and Hough, with some cars terminating at 105th. Others continued north on 105th to Superior and east to Arlington. As you can see, there also was a streetcar line down Wade Park Avenue as well. It came off Superior at 65th....

 

East Side routes in 1925

 

Cleveland Railway Co. in 1929

 

 

^So pretty much the same western half as the current #38 but stay on Lexington a few blocks longer to go past League Park. I have no idea where to look up ridership numbers, but from my admittedly limited experience the 38 is one of the least used routes I've seen RTA operate. I've never seen more than about 15 people on the bus.