Did anyone notice in one of the accompanying graphics that the dedicated bike lanes are only from Adelbert to E. 22nd? I guess I hadn't caught this before. I think it's a real shame to terminate the lanes so early, as it misses opportunities to connect the vast majority of downtown workers to easy bicycle access to work and the vast majority of downtown residents to easy bicycle access home. Granted, people could keep biking down Euclid in the absence of a dedicated lane, but I would imagine this would be pretty hairy with the decrease in auto lanes; they could also transfer over to a lower-traffic east-west corridor, but E. 22nd is not exactly the most bicycle-friendly place to do so. Glad they're investing in the lanes, but it seems rather disconnected not to have them adjacent throughout the entire project.

I give up.

Sorry, but what's the one thing you see a lot of forumers do if they know they're going to be visiting any of Ohio's major cities? They ask for advice for where to go, where to avoid, potential construction delays, you name it. When you have this kind of resource that's locally-based and as close to real-time as you can get, why WOULDN'T you use it? That said, if some admittedly annoying construction on Euclid Avenue is all it takes for you to say "it's not a good time to visit Cleveland"... God knows I've encountered some awful construction in other cities and I've somehow managed to otherwise enjoy my trip.

 

Getting back to your post, the building in the first shot is the 668 Euclid (aka Atrium) Building. It was on the list of sites for the new County administration center, but was passed over. The owners (the Goldberg family who own AmTrust Bank) are putting the site up for auction - once it sells and the ECP is closer to completion, the building could be 1. rehabbed or 2. demo'd for new construction. The other building (the former Dollar Bank building) was slated for rehab into 5 funky/modern condos but the financing for that fell through. Again - once the construction of ECP is finished, it's likely that the condo project could be revived.

after my 1 page response got deleted...

 

1.  There should be better signage.  I can't believe how many people have no idea what is going on, when it is going to be finished, etc.  I also think posting dates is important.  yes, many things have come up that cause delays and reworks, BUT this is a main stretch of downtown and I think we have to hold our leaders and project managers to an interim timeline (not a "as long as the buses are running by Dec. 31, 2008, the project was on time").  it blows my mind that the crews are not working 2 shifts, or some saturday and sundays during the best weather of the year.  i know there is a cost, but there is also a cost to have a street torn up.

 

2.  Bike Lanes.  I think at e22 there is potential to connect to north/south routes and to other east/west routes into downtown (payne, chester, frankfort).  dedicated bike lanes would require at least 10 feet, almost 1 traffic lane, and with wider sidewalks and well established sidewalk fronting buildings downtown, it would have been very difficult to accomplish, imo.

 

i also am disappointed that there aren't dedicated bike signals.  i like it when the bikes get an early green (2 or 3 seconds) so that they clear an intersection before cars trying to turn right, etc.   and that there isn't colored concrete to help denote the bike lanes.

 

[edit] added photo examples:

 

 

 

 

I know I sound like a broken record, but has anyone taken their idea or the great ideas listed in this thread and called, written or faxed RTA?

 

We here, are about making change for the best and the long run, correct?

I know I sound like a broken record, but has anyone taken their idea or the great ideas listed in this thread and called, written or faxed RTA?

 

i have, multiple times.  email, web form, contacted citizens advisory board member who raised issue, direct emails to ECP project manager (with no replies).   still nothing, and i started a year ago.

 

realize that when i post an idea, suggestion or complaint on UO, it is b/c the normal channels have not worked and that i hope that one of the casual readers or guest will be in a position to make something happen, and have that "ah-ha" moment.  i don't want credit for ideas, i just want things to be transparent, our agencies to be responsive to citizen input, and for cleveland to challenge the existing and make sure we are building for the future.

I know I sound like a broken record, but has anyone taken their idea or the great ideas listed in this thread and called, written or faxed RTA?

 

i have, multiple times.  email, web form, contacted citizens advisory board member who raised issue, direct emails to ECP project manager (with no replies).   still nothing, and i started a year ago.

 

realize that when i post an idea, suggestion or complaint on UO, it is b/c the normal channels have not worked and that i hope that one of the casual readers or guest will be in a position to make something happen, and have that "ah-ha" moment.  i don't want credit for ideas, i just want things to be transparent, our agencies to be responsive to citizen input, and for Cleveland to challenge the existing and make sure we are building for the future.

Bravo!  Bravo!

 

Who have you emailed (with email address), I'd be more than happy to email.  A barage of emails to multiple folks may provide the "ah-ha" moment we seek.  Once they realize that there are concerned citizens who want to make a difference, the issue(s) must be addressed.

I happen to be on Euclid at this very moment, the construction sucks; its not a good time to visit Cleveland. The windows of our hotel are filthy from the dust (and mapquest directions arn't worth a darn).

 

 

more like not a good time to be around euclid avenue. this time i avoided it like the plague and was fine. last summer i was at the arcade hyatt and right in the middle of it too. ugh. who said it's more disruptive than subway construction? i'd agree. at least as. sad thing is any small business on euc needs people now more than ever.

 

"A barage of emails to multiple folks may provide the "ah-ha" moment we seek."

 

a la Andy Dufrain's persistence in getting additional library funds in Shawshank Redemption.

it blows my mind that the crews are not working 2 shifts, or some saturday and sundays during the best weather of the year.  i know there is a cost, but there is also a cost to have a street torn up.

 

They've been working the past few Saturdays outside my apartment around E12th (somewhat to my chagrin, those buzz saws are loud at 8am).

 

They've been working the past few Saturdays outside my apartment around E12th (somewhat to my chagrin, those buzz saws are loud at 8am).

 

Look at the bright side...you don't need an alarm clock!    :wink:

Sorry, but what's the one thing you see a lot of forumers do if they know they're going to be visiting any of Ohio's major cities? They ask for advice for where to go, where to avoid, potential construction delays, you name it. When you have this kind of resource that's locally-based and as close to real-time as you can get, why WOULDN'T you use it? That said, if some admittedly annoying construction on Euclid Avenue is all it takes for you to say "it's not a good time to visit Cleveland"... God knows I've encountered some awful construction in other cities and I've somehow managed to otherwise enjoy my trip.

 

Actually--although I didn't ask for information directly--I did utilize Urban Ohio. Checked into one of the hotels you recommended to montecarloss just couple weeks ago (despite the Euclid construction) and made sure to include some of the items recommended in the other Cleveland travel threads.

 

Was my complaint a little to exaggerated? Perhaps, but staying on Euclid wasn't the best idea right now. It was a beautiful hotel and a wonderful trip in the end (well, I'm still here, just in Westlake), so no worries.

 

By the way, I picked up a copy of your book at Parmatown Mall; it has been excellent so far! I wish every city had an Images of America book just dedicated to buildings/architecture.

Ink, what you said earlier and now are two different things.  In addition, there are many more hotels around downtown that have multiple entrances and are on street unaffected by ECP construction.

 

And telling us that you're currently in Westlake is not going to win us over!  :wink:

 

 

I give up.

 

I think I understand what you're saying. Someone who is staying at the Holiday Inn Express gets the same sad view you did. They see the dust and, worse, the condition of the buildings across the street (tall grass on the roof of the former Dollar Bank building? Moss on the sidewalk canopy, boarded-up windows and graffiti on the former Atrium Building? Visitors don't care why they're in such bad shape or if there's any plans pending for them (there aren't). They just see a horrible looking scene and wonder what other decay could be seen from the upper reaches of other buildings. And, Ink is one of those visitors who knows that Euclid Avenue was once the city's premier street. You cannot simply delete that knowledge from your mind and replace it with the rationalization that there are other viable, active streets in the city. Not when you see how far Euclid has fallen. I believe it will come back to some extent. But the only guarantee is that, tomorrow, Euclid will still look just as sad and we Clevelanders will still have to either apologize for it or issue instructions to visitors to "look the other way."

jpop, the article you posted was already posted in the dedicated "Cleveland Industrial Design District" thread. :-)

 

Was my complaint a little to exaggerated? Perhaps, but staying on Euclid wasn't the best idea right now."

 

See - that's completely different, and for the most part, I agree with you (though staying on Euclid puts you in stumbling distance from the fun spots on East 4th). When you make a broad generalization that's absurd or inaccurate (i.e. "stay away from Cleveland because of Euclid Avenue), people are gonna jump down your throat.  When you make a specific complaint, chances are we'll be agreeing right along with you.

 

And thank you very very much for picking up a copy of my book - I appreciate it :-)

 

 

A few random Pictures along the corridor and from above to enjoy.

 

Art on the sidewalk near UC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the large building, 4th pic from top? Is it being renovated? Demoed?

An abandoned warehouse a few blocks east of East 55th. I don't have a name though.

looking at it from the west:

 

What is the large building, 4th pic from top? Is it being renovated? Demoed?

 

they tore off the front of the building for the ECP.  i believe they are still hoping that someone will buy the building and add a new front.  but, if that doesn't happen, i'd imagine it would eventually be torn down.  imo, right now it is cheaper for RTA to hold the property than to demo it.

^so you are saying that RTA owns the property?

cool pics musky that helps thx a lot!

 

does this one below mean that they are done with the left/south side of the street and have yet to do the right/north side?  :?  or is that side done already?

 

Both sides were done before Ingenuity.

They need to redo the median though. There is temporary asphalt in place now.

^so you are saying that RTA owns the property?

 

as far as i can tell, RTA owns this property and is holding it as part of their TOD available properties.

 

PARCEL ID      118-06-026 (25 and 27 as well)

OWNERS NAME GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRA 

ADDRESS        06611 EUCLID AVE

CITY              CLEVELAND 

ZIP                44103

 

^so you are saying that RTA owns the property?

 

as far as i can tell, RTA owns this property and is holding it as part of their TOD available properties.

 

PARCEL ID      118-06-026 (25 and 27 as well)

OWNERS NAME GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRA 

ADDRESS        06611 EUCLID AVE

CITY              CLEVELAND 

ZIP                44103

 

 

Thanks (I didn't need you to prove it to me with the property lookup, I was just trying to get a confirm from your post)

^so you are saying that RTA owns the property?

 

as far as i can tell, RTA owns this property and is holding it as part of their TOD available properties.

 

PARCEL ID       118-06-026 (25 and 27 as well)

OWNERS NAME GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRA 

ADDRESS         06611 EUCLID AVE

CITY               CLEVELAND 

ZIP                 44103

 

 

Yeah, an article posted here confirms that:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1977.msg167900;topicseen#msg167900

the comments posted on the PD article are completely justified.

 

this comment is exactly on point

 

I've lived my entire life in the Cleveland area, and grew up in Cleveland itself (the city, not the suburbs). I fail to see how the Euclid Corridor project is going to revitalize downtown. Euclid Avenue is already one of the easiest streets to travel via public transportation in the city. There are already about half a dozen bus lines running down Euclid Avenue, not to mention the trolleys, and the Rapid, which while it doesn't actually run down Euclid Avenue, covers pretty much the same route as the Euclid Avenue busses.

 

RTA would help the Cleveland area a lot more by spending their money on adding bus service to places in the Cleveland area that don't currently have it (instead of duplicating existing service on Euclid Avenue). Why not expand the existing Rapid lines farther out into Cuyahoga County on the west side or out to the Lake County border on the east side? What about improving service in parts of the city that have inadequate service? I lived for 3 1/2 years in a condo complex in Euclid on the Richmond Heights border where the nearest bus stop was over a mile away, and many people in the complex complained about the lack of bus service. There was a bus line serving that area for a long time, but RTA discontinued it about 15 years ago, and wouldn't even respond to my requests to ask if they've considered putting bus service up there. Yet, they will spend millions of dollars to duplicate transit service along Euclid Avenue.

 

Secondly, RTA would do well spending more money on improving the quality of their bus service overall. I ride the bus back and forth to work downtown every day, and at least once a week without fail, either a bus is late, doesn't show up at all, or breaks down. How is it that RTA has millions of dollars for the Euclid Corridor project, but can't afford to keep their existing transit service running on time, or afford to properly maintain their busses?

 

The new transit along Euclid Avenue is just going to pull existing riders off other Euclid Avenue transit, rather than pull new riders onto the system. RTA needs to get their priorities straight and improve and increase service where it's really needed. 

 

most people think the exact same way aas me about the ECP because they see reality. its not some amazing project that will tranform our economy or transit system and create jobs. its not going to increase ridership, theres already a bunch of bus lines down euclid and the people who took those routes will just take the silver line now. will the BRT be better than regular buses? marginally. this is still another example of how cleveland missed the boat and still doesnt get it. its a pet project to stuff RTA's and city leader's pockets more than likely.

 

cleveland has a well used bus system. ask people who take the bus whether they would rather take light rail/streetcar/subway as opposed to a bus and 9/10 times they'd say yes. not to mention the disadvantages of this new project such as having to cross a main avenue because stations are in the middle of the street and the fact that stations are spread farther apart. ever had to run to catch a bus? i have, and i sure as hell wouldnt want to run out in the middle of euclid ave to flag down a BRT.

 

how does it cost $400 million for this? $400 million for a glorified bus, new stations, and improved streetscape. ok. would it really be more expensive to extend the rapid line? why didnt RTA put modern streetcars along euclid instead? it was too expensive........right?

 

Portland Streetcar, started with a 4.8-mile (7.7 km) loop of single track that opened on July 20, 2001, running from the campus of Portland State University (PSU), north through the Pearl District west to NW 23rd Avenue and then back to PSU on adjacent streets. Most of the US$57 million used to build it came from local sources, and only $5 million came from the U.S. federal government.

 

hmm

 

$400 million to build a bus rapid transit?

 

 

not entirely on spot there, of the 400 million,

 

$82.2 million from the Federal Transit Administration

 

$50 million from the State of Ohio

 

$17.6 million from GCRTA

 

$8 million from the City of Cleveland

 

$10 million from NOACA

 

$0.6 million from FTA Rail Mode

 

Total: $168.4 million project

 

168 Million for 9.8 Miles, or 17 Million a mile (is the 9.8 miles one way?, then divide by two)

 

Portland 57 for 4.8 miles or 11.8 a mile (one way and portland's is one way, so don't divide by two)

Ctown, the more you post the more it seems like you're one to complain without knowing all the facts. When you come on here and blast this glorified bus line for costing 400 mill, when in reality as, Pope has pointed out, costs less that 170 mill, you lose credibility. Its fine to complain about a big public project like this, but know the facts. I think the city would be a lot better off if people like you and those that frequently spew negativity on the cleveland.com forum would just know and research all the facts or the majority of them before instantly going negative.

and i want my own PUT, but we won't be getting it.

 

(personal unicorn transit)

the $400 million figure is what ive heard and what was said on here. go do a search on these forums. blame whoever gave me the wrong information when i asked what it cost

 

$400 million appears to be the figure of total investment into the corridor

 

so it costs $168.4 million for the ECP, assuming that isnt just funding and is the actual cost of all construction. you still havent proven ANYTHING to make me lose credibility for my statements. how many posts have i read on here when ive brought up the idea of modern streetcars like portland only to be told that it "costs too much money and BRT is the cheaper alternative". well, looking at the figures it appears that a streetcar line costs LESS PER MILE than running BRT down euclid. how does this happen? pope's figures (which i thank him for providing) merely proved my point once again. $57 million for a 4.8 mile streetcar system VS $168 for a 9.8 mile BRT.

 

keep in mind, portland also only got $5 million from the federal gov where cleveland got $82 million from FTA and $50 from the state of ohio. portland was able to build an initial streetcar line almost all through local sources. only a small percentage of the ECP cost was funded by RTA, the city of cleveland, or other local sources. i thought RTA didnt have any money to pay for this kind of stuff, yet they have a couple hundred million to replace a street that already had exisiting transit service

 

here is the st louis metrolink

 

The capital cost to build the initial phase of MetroLink was $465 million. Of that amount, $348 million was supplied by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).[3]

 

Construction on the St. Clair County MetroLink extension from the 5th & Missouri station to the College station in Belleville began in 1998 and opened in May 2001. The extension added eight new stations and seven park-ride lots. The total project cost was $339.2 million, with the FTA and St. Clair County Transit District sharing the burden at 72% ($243.9 million) and 28% ($95.2 million), respectively. Local funding was provided by the St. Clair County Transit District as a result of a 1/2 cent sales tax passed in November 1993.[3]

 

In May 2003, a 3.5-mile extension from Southwestern Illinois College to Shiloh-Scott station opened. This $75 million project was funded by a $60 million grant from the Illinois FIRST (Fund for Infrastructure, Roads, Schools, and Transit) Program and $15 million from the St. Clair County Transit District.[3]

 

until someone on this forum shows me stone cold proof that RTA asked the FTA for money to be used on a rapid transit line extension (or new line) the figures im seeing for recent rapid transit construction and funding suggest to me RTA is not doing all it can and the excuses about money, federal funding are just that......excuses.

 

do we not have existing tracks that we can use and simply build stations?

 

I think the city would be a lot better off if people like you and those that frequently spew negativity on the cleveland.com forum would just know and research all the facts or the majority of them before instantly going negative.

 

theres a different between "spewing negativy" and wanting more than half assed solutions in a city that DESERVES MORE

 

i think the city would be better off without cant do mentality leaders who are only out for themselves and not thinking on a grander scale for cleveland

 

There's nothing "half assed" about this project. This BRT line will be the premier BRT line in the nation. BRT is just one option that includes subway, lightrail, and streetcars that could have been implemented along this route.

 

BRT is half assed to begin with. see the last sentence of your post. its a half assed solution instead of building a subway, light rail, or streetcar line. like you said, subway lightrail and streetcars that could have been implemented along this route.

 

ks, re-read my post. i was asking, not telling.

There's nothing "half assed" about this project. This BRT line will be the premier BRT line in the nation. BRT is just one option that includes subway, lightrail, and streetcars that could have been implemented along this route.

do we not have existing tracks that we can use and simply build stations?

 

It's not that easy to just slap some stations up and add service..

 

Where exactly are these existing tracks that are available for RTA extension?

^ I went to j-school, so I could be way off on the math, but the route would technically be about 20 miles because the BRT goes two directions, so it would be $8.4 million per mile in Cleveland and about $12 million in Portland. Also, don't forget that this whole project includes resurfacing Euclid Avenue for standard vehicular traffic. I'm not sure what the average city street costs per mile, but that could also be factored into this project's cost.

 

But, come on, look at the numbers. The federal government and state are paying for most of this. 

"until someone on this forum shows me stone cold proof that RTA asked the FTA for money to be used on a rapid transit line extension (or new line) the figures im seeing for recent rapid transit construction and funding suggest to me RTA is not doing all it can and the excuses about money, federal funding are just that......excuses."

 

Sweetcheeks, the onus is not on anyone on this forum for finding that information, it's on you. Out of curiosity, did you attend Cleveland Public Schools?

and if nothing else, it should be a lesson to those who want rail - you're going to have to work hard to bring home the $$$, whether it is local, state or fed. 

 

since we aren't a growing region it is harder to make the argument that a rail line extension relieves highway congestion or significantly improves air quality.

 

since we have a relatively poor center city, it is hard to look away from significant funding into the core of the city from the state and feds.

 

i'd rather a rail line be built as well.  but if it is successful, then maybe there will be more momentum to expand the blue line out east, or the green line out west, or the red line south, etc.

 

what bothers me most, is that rail isn't being included in even the proposals (see shoreway conversion).  imo, you've got to at least put it in the plan (like the the lakefront plan did with an eastward rail extension)

^ I went to j-school, so I could be way off on the math, but the route would technically be about 20 miles because the BRT goes two directions, so it would be $8.4 million per mile in Cleveland and about $12 million in Portland. Also, don't forget that this whole project includes resurfacing Euclid Avenue for standard vehicular traffic. I'm not sure what the average city street costs per mile, but that could also be factored into this project's cost.

 

1) Yeah, that's why I had the "if so, divide by two comment". The portland street is one direction if I recall (from some video KJP or someone posted.

2) In relation to infrastructure improvements I don't think the portland one involved so much infrastructure upgrades. Hell it (portland's) doesn't even go over city streets for parts of it.

But, come on, look at the numbers. The federal government and state are paying for most of this. 

 

:clap: you just proved my point again

 

the federal government and state paid for most of st louis' METROLINK rapid transit lines

 

hooray for BRT apologists!

 

oh yea, here's something else i found directly from RTA's website

 

·        It is the first BRT project in the nation to be funded from the federal New Starts pot -- a much sought-after pool of money that usually goes to fund rail construction.

 

D'OH

 

RTA never receives any money right? so they just happened to stumble upon this "much sought-after pool of money"

 

 

again.....why couldnt a a rail line be built down euclid? everyone keeps telling me it cant.

 

MayDay- the onus is on you and everyone else who keeps bashing me and telling me a rail line could not be built down euclid avenue. you and others have told me RTA could not get money to support a project like that. as for your other comment, i wont respond to it because it tells me what kind of a person you are and your mentality.

 

"until someone on this forum shows me stone cold proof that RTA asked the FTA for money to be used on a rapid transit line extension (or new line) the figures im seeing for recent rapid transit construction and funding suggest to me RTA is not doing all it can and the excuses about money, federal funding are just that......excuses."

 

Sweetcheeks, the onus is not on anyone on this forum for finding that information, it's on you. Out of curiosity, did you attend Cleveland Public Schools?

 

"sweetcheeks".... Hey, thats my term of endearment for you!  :-D

 

Good lord, why are we repeating the same information about this project, when it has a dedicated website AND the Pope, MayDay, KJP and I'm sure a host of other have pointed out that this isn't just a bus line.  Geez! 

 

If you want to know why rail was not built, ask RTA and your elected officials not your fellow forumers here on UO!

 

I know its a long thread but read it and/or go to the ECP website to inform yourself instead of stating incorrect information or b!tchin' about it.  LIke most I would have loved to see a subway but we have BRT, and , it is what it is.  Lets work to make this the best run BRT in the land.

 

Your people are really starting to get my pressure up on this!  :x  The decision has been made for BRT...now keep it movin'.

What does BRT stand for?

Maybe I should start a poll.. "How many more post before this thread is locked"

Maybe I should start a poll.. "How many more post before this thread is locked"

 

No, how many more posts before me and mayday get sick of off topic bantering and have to clean up the kids' shit.

 

However, this discussion is most certainly on topic, and while its about the 14th time we've had the discussion in this thread alone, I see no reason to break out my pruning shears.

Shhhhh!

She might be watching.

If anyone cares to do so, I would encourage you to refer to this message whenever someone asks why the Euclid Corridor is a bus rapid transit and not a rail line -- a question that seems to repeatedly come up but the answers may not always be in the same place. I will attempt to put them here........

 

RTA began seeking in 1985 a continuous planning process in pursuit of federal funds for what was then called the Dual Hub Corridor, so named for the two hubs of downtown and University Circle. Then, as now, the federal planning process proscribed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all major transit projects seeking federal funding require such projects to be subjected to, in order, an alternatives analysis/major investment study, environmental impact analysis on the chosen alternative, preliminary engineering (can be done as part of the EIS), and final engineering. Each step can take 1-3 years depending on the size of the project and the availability of funding to carry them out. And each phase gets progressively more expensive, with an alternatives analysis costing perhaps $1 million to $3 million (depending on how many alternatives are reviewed) to final engineering costing 15-20 percent of the project's estimated cost. For a project like the Euclid Corridor, design/engineering alone could be as much as $40 million.

 

Over the long length of time that it takes for such planning to occur, metrics used by the Federal Transit Administration to rank proposed projects for funding awards can and do change. In the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the FTA's metrics toward rail projects were very favorable. RTA believed it could get the FTA to support local recommendation for building rail transit in the Euclid Corridor. Since all federal transportation funding requests must first go through NOACA, RTA recommended in 1994 that NOACA's board of trustees seek federal funding for a rail transit line with a short subway from CSU to Tower City, with a total projectwide cost of about $600 million.

 

However, the alternatives analysis conducted by RTA didn't support building rail transit in the Euclid Corridor, especially in light of an increasingly less rail-friendly FTA in the mid-1990s. Congress had moved to the conservative right politically, and anti-rail forces mobilized by the late 1990s to influence Congress to put pressure on the FTA and make things more difficult for rail projects to receive funding. FTA's ranking metrics changed at the same time funding for New Starts (typically for rail transit projects) was cut pretty dramatically. FTA also cut back on the federal shares for transit projects -- from nearly 80 percent in the 1980s to 50 percent or less by the early 2000s -- meaning state and local funding burdens got larger. A backlog of unfunded rail projects in search of New Start federal dollars grew longer every year during that time (it's about a 20-year backlog today).

 

So when RTA asked NOACA's board (comprised of public officials from NOACA's five-county region) to support its large request for building rail transit in the Euclid Corridor, a heated debate ensued. Opponents used RTA's own alternatives analysis against it, showing that rail wouldn't generate enough additional riders to justify the exponentially larger cost. The studies showed the chosen rail option would increase ridership by 2.5 million trips per year, compared to a 1.4 million increase in transit trips if the bus rapid transit option was chosen. Operating costs would also be double for the rail option than for the BRT -- again, a cost not supported by rail's small increase in projected ridership.

 

The cost-effectiveness of RTA's favored rail option could not be supported by the data, or by a regionwide concern at NOACA that too much local, state and federal money would be going to a relatively small geographic area, or by an FTA that was much less supportive of rail transit and a Congress and Bush administration that was generally anti-rail. When faced with those facts, RTA relented and NOACA approved the BRT. Even that was eventually scaled back by RTA to get FTA to approve funding for the BRT -- RTA scrapped the idea of having buses electrically powered from overhead wires to cut capital and operating costs.

 

St. Louis' first light-rail line has been used as example in this thread of what we could have done. I will use as an example of what we couldn't do. St. Louis' first light-rail line got federal funds because it was proposed to use an abandoned freight rail line for most of its 18 miles, including railroad tunnels under downtown for a 4-station subway, and an unused rail bridge over the Mississippi River to East St. Louis. In fact, St. Louis used the equivalent dollar value ($75 million if I remember right) of those rights of way as the local match to leverage a federal grant of $348 million (at a time when FTA was still rail-friendly -- the late 1980s). The end result is that no local or state funds were expended for construction of St. Louis' first light-rail line.

 

So, let's compare St. Louis' proposal to the FTA for its first light rail line to Cleveland RTA's proposal for rail in the Euclid Corridor:

 

St. Louis -- build an 18-mile light rail line for slightly more than $400 million that would increase transit system ridership by 9 million trips per year (it actually increased by 13 million trips), yielding a 75 percent federal funding share and incurring no local/state costs for construction.

Cleveland -- build a 6-mile rail rapid transit line for more than $600 million that would increase transit system ridership by 2.4 million trips per year, and require local/state entities to come up with at least a 50 percent local/state share toward construction costs.

 

Ironically, after the FTA tightened its grips on federal dollars whenever rail transit projects came wanting, St. Louis turned to local and state funds to build later expansions of the rail system. Those requests were approved, buoyed by the success of the first line. Its newest line, the 8.2-mile, $680 million Cross-County Line (including a short subway) that opened last year, was built entirely using local funds. Today, St. Louis' Metrolink light-rail system carries more than 75,000 people a day. RTA's rail system carries half that.

 

RTA's rail proposal for the Euclid Corridor might not have been funded even in the heady rail days at FTA in the 1980s and into the early 1990s. It didn't have enough bang for the buck. Perhaps it could have won more local and federal support if it was packaged with some relatively affordable rail extensions to the suburbs along existing rail corridors (such as along the NS from East Cleveland to Euclid and maybe even to the county line, or replacing NS through Lakewood to Rocky River and possibly beyond). Perhaps that approach would have shown to be more cost-effective. Perhaps not.

 

Fact is, we'll never know because what's done is done, and what I've written here represents the reasons why. Second guess the past all you want, but to keep harping on why there will be no rail transit in the Euclid Corridor is to dismiss all of the factors that influenced the decisions to build bus rapid transit. As Walter Cronkite used to say, "That's the way it is."

"as for your other comment, i wont respond to it because it tells me what kind of a person you are and your mentality."

 

It wasn't a comment, it was a sincere question.

what bothers me most, is that rail isn't being included in even the proposals (see shoreway conversion).  imo, you've got to at least put it in the plan (like the the lakefront plan did with an eastward rail extension)

 

thats because calabrese already wants brt for the west shoreway....even tho it hasnt even been seen yet! argh.

 

also, believe it or not the innerbelt plan also had a rail option very very briefly...then odot's manager craig heberand cut it out in the first round of planning. completely idiotic. why rebuild a whole innercity highway w/o adding some rail or even at least a brt fastlane? that would have said more about cleveland than anything, heck even los angeles would add the rail nowadays. argh again. of course, cleveland has no downstate power anymore and is not in charge of car-crazed odot..... :x

 

They tore out all the trolley tracks that werre on euclid avenue.

 

Could have they just repair the trolley tracks,designed the traffic light  system to let the trolley have the right of way and acquire used trolley cars.

THat would have saved a ton of money

The steel in the rails was in terrible condition, including everything from fractures, fatigue and corrosion. The only thing the rails were good for was scrap.

KJP...thanks for the insightful post.  It seems to be an expansion of information you have provided us in the past on this thread.  I wonder if "certain people" even read them...I imagine they do and simply ignore the facts.

The steel in the rails was in terrible condition, including everything from fractures, fatigue and corrosion. The only thing the rails were good for was scrap.

 

I wonder how much would it cost to replace the 6 miles of track

$600 million!  :-D