The last option is a bit of a surprise consider how far west it is and misses serving all of Euclid.

I'm not sure why this is a surprise. If the study suggests a Red Line extension, they could extend to 185th with only one branch line crossing, minimal demolition, avoid the NS switching yard between Chardon and E222nd and still have the ability to extend further. Also regardless of bus or rail extension, if you're going to go halfway to the county line with frequent service and then make people transfer there, 185th makes as much sense as anywhere else as it's probably the densest neighborhood in that area and RTA already has a handful of routes that either terminate there or pass through.

 

Euclid Square Mall is a little bit of a surprise, unless RTA is considering moving the Park & Ride.

 

While I'm hoping for a Lake County extension, I have low hopes.

 

I'm still expecting that this whole thing will result in slightly better/more frequent bus service.

What surprises me about the East 185th termination point is that the study's geographic area of scope on the north/east side is the Lake Erie shoreline and the Lake County line. So I expected a termination point in that area to be the Lake Shore Shopping Center or maybe at the easternmost end of the high-rise apartment buildings (ie: North Pointe) in the area of East 260th and Lake Shore.

 

I think the Euclid Square Mall terminal point is the park and ride. Not sure though.

 

Consultants who are bidding on the alternatives analysis believe Laketran may get involved and extend the study area into Lake County.

I'd guess Laketran is curious, I know they asked about UC when they did a survey earlier this year, but I don't know if they're willing to consider putting up funds toward studying. (I honestly assumed that a part of the reason they included that question on their survey was because I've been annoyingly persistant in asking them about service to the area.)

 

If they just said E 185th, that might mean 185th and Euclid, or it might mean Euclid Hospital.

 

I had hoped they'd consider something on Lakeshore as well.

Euclid Mall is next to Lincoln Electric, which is growing by gangbusters.  There is also another industrial park on the other side of the mall, but I don't think anyone has set up shop there yet.

 

Lakeshore Blvd would be a good candidate for BRT, but I don't know how it would be an extension of the healthline, maybe a spur of it?  I don't see how the Red Line could come anywhere near E.185th and LSB

There are two vacated track spaces next to the CSX mainline that travels north from the Red Line's Superior station. Those track spaces were used by more than 30 daily passenger trains coming in/out of Cleveland Union Terminal bound from/to Buffalo and points east. In the 1990s, GCRTA's long-range plan had a branch of the Red Line routed over the former CUT track spaces to North Collinwood and then turning east either along the CSX mainline or Lakeshore Blvd.

Would you need a large facility in order to have end of the line station? 

Euclid Mall is next to Lincoln Electric, which is growing by gangbusters.  There is also another industrial park on the other side of the mall, but I don't think anyone has set up shop there yet.

 

Lakeshore Blvd would be a good candidate for BRT, but I don't know how it would be an extension of the healthline, maybe a spur of it?  I don't see how the Red Line could come anywhere near E.185th and LSB

 

I'm not sure Lincoln is fertile ground for RTA.  They have "bonus day" at the end of the year and people's checks typically run into the five figures.  The car dealers look forward to this almost as much as the Executive Den.

Would you need a large facility in order to have end of the line station? 

 

Not at all. This is the end of the RiverLine in Trenton, NJ. This service runs on regular freight train tracks that have freight trains using them in the overnight hours. It also runs next to freight train tracks that are active during the day, like the NS line does from Windermere to Willoughby. As you can see, this is a very small station, but is across the street from the much larger Amtrak/NJT/SEPTA station....

 

 

I'm not sure Lincoln is fertile ground for RTA.  They have "bonus day" at the end of the year and people's checks typically run into the five figures.  The car dealers look forward to this almost as much as the Executive Den.

 

Probably not. Only that the rail lines go past Lincoln Electric. And if the E.D. is getting these guys' money, then so is the no-neck clan....

Just to clarify, before things get too far "off track", the study area actually identifies the following three terminus points -- the County Line, Euclid Square Mall, and E 222 & Lakeshore Blvd, NOT E 185 & Lakeshore Blvd. Accessways proposed to take BRT north from Euclid Ave are either E 140 or E 222. See the attached map for a fuller description of the study area and potential routings.

^Thanks for the info! Any of the options shown could be an improvement over the current options. Now we get to speculate about the actual options that will be considered for a few days.

Thanks for the correction on the East 222nd-Lakeshore terminal point. I still think it needs to go to East 260th where the high-rises are, and the Red Line option needs to go to the county line (with the goal of eastward extension into Lake County if/when Laketran decides to participate) that because there's no need for any transit to end in the Euclid Square Mall area. All one needs to do is look at GCRTA's transit propensity map (http://www.riderta.com/images/stratplan/FigA_TransitPropensity_2550x1650.jpg) or its real estate values map (http://freepdfhosting.com/659293e743.pdf) which demonstrates residential/commercial densities very well.

 

Both maps tell me that the NS corridor and Euclid Avenue are dead zones east of Noble. I can see extending the HealthLine east on Euclid to Noble to save on the expense of three transit routes (28, 37, 41) that can be combined into one between Windermere and Noble. But unless the preferred transit option goes east into Lake County, its not worth advancing into preliminary engineering. A BRT extension north to Lakeshore Boulevard seems problematic as most of the commuting in that area is to downtown, and I don't see commuters wanting to go south to East Cleveland before turning west to downtown on a slow bus. They have a fast bus now on the East Shoreway (39F). And I don't see people using a park-n-ride somewhere along Lakeshore to go to University Circle unless the bus somehow saved them tons of travel time.

 

So if Lake County doesn't get involved in this study and extend the scope eastward to where the residents are (and where the available light-industrial & warehousing jobs are for reverse commutes), I'm afraid I don't understand the need for it.

^From my annecdotal experience riding the 28, Euclid Ave dies (ridership wise) east of Nottingham/185th not Noble. St Clair's ridership also dies around Nottingham on the 1. Lakeshore's ridership dies down just east of 222nd on the 39F/39/30.

 

I think my opinion is going to depend on the details of the options explored. If the options on extending the HL involve simply extending the route and having it stop every quarter mile, then I agree with Ken there's no need for a study to tell them this isn't going to draw significant ridership. I suppose if they're looking for advice on what routes can be consolidated and how best to do it, but want to keep their options open then it's not a waste of time/money, but then my hopes were gotten up for nothing. If they can reduce the number of stops on some of the roads being studied so that the HL can save time for commuters, it might be an improvement, but I'm still assuming at best we're getting slightly modified bus routes to consolidate a couple routes and improve service on the newly consolidated line, and am satisfied with that.

 

(Obviously I'd prefer to see the Red line extended, but I refuse to get my hopes up about that happening.)

 

 

Im loving the Euclid attention.  Would love to visit Mom and take rapid transit downtown

^From my annecdotal experience riding the 28, Euclid Ave dies (ridership wise) east of Nottingham/185th not Noble. St Clair's ridership also dies around Nottingham on the 1. Lakeshore's ridership dies down just east of 222nd on the 39F/39/30.

 

I think my opinion is going to depend on the details of the options explored. If the options on extending the HL involve simply extending the route and having it stop every quarter mile, then I agree with Ken there's no need for a study to tell them this isn't going to draw significant ridership. I suppose if they're looking for advice on what routes can be consolidated and how best to do it, but want to keep their options open then it's not a waste of time/money, but then my hopes were gotten up for nothing. If they can reduce the number of stops on some of the roads being studied so that the HL can save time for commuters, it might be an improvement, but I'm still assuming at best we're getting slightly modified bus routes to consolidate a couple routes and improve service on the newly consolidated line, and am satisfied with that.

 

(Obviously I'd prefer to see the Red line extended, but I refuse to get my hopes up about that happening.)

 

 

 

Extending the HealthLine to Noble would allow for the replacement of three bus routes with one route and would probably result in lower operating costs. East of Noble to Nottingham, there is only one bus route (#28). Yes, it is well-used. But would upgrading it as a BRT or BRT-lite increase ridership and/or reduce operating costs? If not, don't bother. That's one of the questions this alternatives analysis will answer.

I really do like the idea of using Noble as an endpoint of the HL, but I want something more ambitious. Damn reality, always getting in the way.

Lakeshore's ridership dies down just east of 222nd on the 39F/39/30.

 

Personally, I've still seen heavy usage on the #0/39/39F all the way out to Shoregate. If anything, I'd say the extension of the #30 out that way has increased ridership.

IIRC about a decade ago, RTA tried combining the old No. 6 with the 28 bus routes, with the result being one long bus route from Euclid (down Euclid Ave) into downtown Cleveland.  This idea failed, apparently because RTA realized that the high-frequency, short-commute 6 was not compatible with the longer commute, less-dense 28.  So RTA reverted back to the old 6 (now the Health Line, of course) and the still-existing 28, extending from the Stokes-Windermere Red Line Rapid terminal out to Euclid, as it always has.  The point being that, a new plan to extend the Health Line out Euclid simply wouldn't make sense. The concept of central East Cleveland-based rail head (Stokes-Windermere) with radial feeder bus routes, like the 28, is well engrained in the commuter culture of the far Northeast Side…

 

Extending rapid rail service out to Euclid (or beyond) is the only thing that makes sense.  And let’s,  for once, go for the gold: extend the current Red Line as a full, heavy rail route the 6 or 7 miles to near the Lake County line.  If a similar size declining (in population) Rust Belt city like St. Louis can extend its rail system a twisting 9 miles (fully grade separated, with subway tunnels, elevated sections, along freeway and RR rights of way), why can’t we extend the Red Line a shorter distance along an open, existing RR ROW and where, possibly (with some negotiation) even use the RR tracks themselves, thereby causing little-to-no right of way building?  The St. Louis Metrolink 9 mile extension to Shrewsbury opened in 2006; St. Louis has 47 total miles of rail to Cleveland’s 32, just so you know. 

 

IIRC about a decade ago, RTA tried combining the old No. 6 with the 28 bus routes, with the result being one long bus route from Euclid (down Euclid Ave) into downtown Cleveland.  This idea failed, apparently because RTA realized that the high-frequency, short-commute 6 was not compatible with the longer commute, less-dense 28.  So RTA reverted back to the old 6 (now the Health Line, of course)

 

Is the 6 considered to have been replaced by the Health Line?

 

When I was up at UC, more savvy riders would often let the 6 go by in favor of the 9, which typically took half the time to get downtown due to the former making many more stops.

…

Extending rapid rail service out to Euclid (or beyond) is the only thing that makes sense.  ...

Former Congressman Latourette had said that the RTA passenger cars would have to be physically separated from the heavy rail line to protect people in case of a collision.  Walls would be built.  Is that true?  How is that being accomodated in any of these plans?

Lakeshore's ridership dies down just east of 222nd on the 39F/39/30.

 

Personally, I've still seen heavy usage on the #0/39/39F all the way out to Shoregate. If anything, I'd say the extension of the #30 out that way has increased ridership.

That's occasionally true, but I can typically get a seat after everyone gets off at Dave's and can often get a seat to myself after the highrises near 260th in the afternoon and evening (and I've seen similar numbers of riders during morning rush hour).

 

I've been thinking about the possibilities a lot for the last few days, and frankly if they just pushed the 30 out to Shoregate during the busier hours (instead of just evenings and weekends) and timed it to pass St Clair around the same time as the 1 and arrive at Windermere a couple minutes before the Healthline leaves it could probably solve some of the same goals as the options the study is looking into as far as improving the ride to Windermere. You could combine that with pushing the HL out a couple stops to Noble to shorten the 28, 37, and 41 and save some funds.

 

For that matter, it would upset a few people, but if you had a bus running much more frequently between Euclid and Lakeshore, you could consider merging the 30 with the 37 as they run fairly paralel between Euclid and Lakeshore. I'm guessing that'll be explored in the study when they consider the option that basically runs up the 30 route, but upon further thought, it might make more sense to at least consider running the Healthline on the 37's current route north of Euclid and then push it a couple blocks east at the end from 185th to 222nd. You could then reduce frequency on the 30 and have it meet the new extension of the HL in N. Collinwood; You could end the 37, 41 and 28 somewhere around Taylor, Coit and Euclid.

 

Edit: To make it easier for me to visualize and so I can zoom in and look at the neighborhoods in question, I drew all of the potential options from JeTDoG's map onto a Google Map. (The green line on it is the 37 as mentioned in the last paragraph.) https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203308980444636244129.0004d2b8a91a1f1bc76c9&msa=0&ll=41.571279,-81.532974&spn=0.136644,0.329247

I think we should work out all the health lines problems before extending it! Maybe even shorten the route ending in University Circle!

I think we should work out all the health lines problems before extending it! Maybe even shorten the route ending in University Circle!

Or split it in two and have one line between UC and downtown and another between UC and Euclid.

Is the 6 considered to have been replaced by the Health Line?

 

When I was up at UC, more savvy riders would often let the 6 go by in favor of the 9, which typically took half the time to get downtown due to the former making many more stops.

 

Yes, the #6 was replaced by the HealthLine which makes fewer stops. The #9 goes all the way downtown during rush hours only (but only three buses in each direction). The #7 (Euclid Hts-Monticello) and the #32 (Cedar) no longer go downtown at all. Their riders must transfer to the Red Line at University Circle or to the HealthLine at Euclid/East 89th.

 

Former Congressman Latourette had said that the RTA passenger cars would have to be physically separated from the heavy rail line to protect people in case of a collision.  Walls would be built.  Is that true? 

 

He may have said it, but it's not correct. Someone from Norfolk Southern might even come out and say it at first, but its not operationally or legally defensible. There are plenty of rail transit lines that operate next to busy freight tracks (including here in Cleveland) without the provision of walls or other separators. In fact, some transit services are provided over the same tracks as freight trains as long as there is a temporal separation (ie: transit has exclusive use of the tracks from 6 a.m. to midnight, freight has exclusive use from midnight to 6 a.m.). I don't think that will be the case here as the NS uses its track too much as they have about 20-25 freight trains a day. But that's not enough for NS to justify keeping a second track in place along this route. I submit that NS should sell its second track to GCRTA for it to upgrade and use in providing transit service out to Willoughby. And in the 2.5 miles where the second track no longer exists, GCRTA would restore it to have its own track all the way from Willoughby to Tower City. I estimate this concept, along with seven added stations and the purchase of six diesel-multiple unit trains could cost about $120 million.

Former Congressman Latourette had said that the RTA passenger cars would have to be physically separated from the heavy rail line to protect people in case of a collision.  Walls would be built.  Is that true? 

He may have said it, but it's not correct. Someone from Norfolk Southern might even come out and say it at first, but its not operationally or legally defensible. There are plenty of rail transit lines that operate next to busy freight tracks (including here in Cleveland) without the provision of walls or other separators. In fact, some transit services are provided over the same tracks as freight trains as long as there is a temporal separation. ... 

 

I submit that NS should sell its second track to GCRTA for it to upgrade and use in providing transit service out to Willoughby. And in the 2.5 miles where the second track no longer exists, GCRTA would restore it to have its own track all the way from Willoughby to Tower City. I estimate this concept, along with seven added stations and the purchase of six diesel-multiple unit trains could cost about $120 million.

Thanks for the answer, and nice summary of the plan.

 

The Laketran commuter express bus from Lake County is hard to beat.  My wife used it for several years.  It was seldom delayed: I-90 is a pretty good highway without the congestion of I-77 into downtown or I-271 near Tinker's Creek. 

The Laketran commuter express bus from Lake County is hard to beat.  My wife used it for several years.  It was seldom delayed: I-90 is a pretty good highway without the congestion of I-77 into downtown or I-271 near Tinker's Creek. 

 

You're right. A train routed via University Circle can't beat the bus on I-90. But I don't that's what would drive any rail extension as part of this study. Rather, it is to find a faster, affordable way to get more workers to the growing jobs center of University Circle and, as a lesser goal, to give more center-city residents better access to jobs in Euclid (which I think is not justifiable because Euclid has few entry-level retail or manufacturing jobs while Lake County has more to offer). Someday, UC may have a daytime population as large as downtown Cleveland's. Yet its transportation offerings fall far short of downtown's.

 

Someday, UC may have a daytime population as large as downtown Cleveland's. Yet its transportation offerings fall far short of downtown's.

 

It has more Red Line stops! ;)

This is true, and will soon have newer, better located ones! If the Clinic expands eastward toward the UC-Cedar station (or even southward toward the East 105th station!) and mixes some housing into that expansion, the Red Line suddenly becomes less out of the way.

This is true, and will soon have newer, better located ones! If the Clinic expands eastward toward the UC-Cedar station (or even southward toward the East 105th station!) and mixes some housing into that expansion, the Red Line suddenly becomes less out of the way.

 

 

I wonder if there is anyway Case can make improve its connection as well. Maybe they can demolish one of those older buildings on the southern part of campus and build a new one fronting MLK, and built to allow a pathway through the building.

 

Something similar in function to this(not aesthetically) but with a greenspace and pathways, not a road.

 

 

 

Where is that in the UK, with the street signs posted on the corner of buildings and the motorcycle/scooter rider wearing the required florescent green vest.

Where is that in the UK, with the street signs posted on the corner of buildings and the motorcycle/scooter rider wearing the required florescent green vest.

 

London

The Laketran commuter express bus from Lake County is hard to beat.  My wife used it for several years.  It was seldom delayed: I-90 is a pretty good highway without the congestion of I-77 into downtown or I-271 near Tinker's Creek. 

Laketran's busses are nice and fast, I took one this morning to Downtown and then transferred to the Healthline to get to University Circle. If Laketran ran a bus down 90 to MLK and then made a few stops around UC, they'd probably attract about as many riders as extending the Red Line/Healthline for far less money but would leave bypass Euclid and the Northeast side of East Cleveland (which would improve speed compared to the Healthline but reduce access).

The Laketran commuter express bus from Lake County is hard to beat.  My wife used it for several years.  It was seldom delayed: I-90 is a pretty good highway without the congestion of I-77 into downtown or I-271 near Tinker's Creek. 

Laketran's busses are nice and fast, I took one this morning to Downtown and then transferred to the Healthline to get to University Circle. If Laketran ran a bus down 90 to MLK and then made a few stops around UC, they'd probably attract about as many riders as extending the Red Line/Healthline for far less money but would leave bypass Euclid and the Northeast side of East Cleveland (which would improve speed compared to the Healthline but reduce access).

 

I'm assuming there's federal rules about subsidized agencies operating outside their county.  What are they?

 

I figured that it works the way Maple Heights Transit used to.  You have to either get off or get on in Lake County.

^I don't think it's a Federal rule, but they do have to charge extra when crossing county lines. Currently Laketran charges 3.75 for riders going downtown. (RTA's website says they charge 3.50 when crossing county lines) I don't know who's rule this is, or how much extra they have to charge.

I'm assuming there's federal rules about subsidized agencies operating outside their county.  What are they?

 

I figured that it works the way Maple Heights Transit used to.  You have to either get off or get on in Lake County.

 

It's state law......

 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/306

^Actually, that law seems to give regional transit authorities explicit authority to operate outside of their territorial boundaries (with one proviso).  I'm not terribly familiar with Ohio law, though, so maybe there are restrictions elsewhere.  To wit:

 

306.35 Regional transit authority - powers and duties.

(G) (1) Except as provided in division (G)(2) of this section, may acquire, construct, improve, extend, repair, lease, operate, maintain, or manage transit facilities within or without its territorial boundaries, considered necessary to accomplish the purposes of its organization and make charges for the use of transit facilities.

 

(2) Beginning on July 1, 2011, a regional transit authority shall not extend its service or facilities into a political subdivision outside the territorial boundaries of the authority without giving prior notice to the legislative authority of the political subdivision. The legislative authority shall have thirty days after receiving the notice to comment on the proposal.

Megabus is considering relocating its Cleveland stop here.

Megabus is considering relocating its Cleveland stop here.

 

While this would be great for CSU students, it sucks for passengers needing to be closer to the center of town.  The current location at W. 3rd a block from Tower City and Public Square would seem preferable.

But there's no shelter there, and Megabus sure isn't going to provide it. At least they stop at Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit. As much as that place needs attention, it's still better than boarding out in the elements in Cleveland or, for that matter, Chicago.

 

Also PARTA/KSU, Akron Metro, Canton SARTA and Laketran routes all go past the Tubbs Jones Transit Center. If all those routes stopped there, with Megabus, then we've got something worthwhile.

Megabus is considering relocating its Cleveland stop here.

 

While this would be great for CSU students, it sucks for passengers needing to be closer to the center of town.  The current location at W. 3rd a block from Tower City and Public Square would seem preferable.

Tower City is the hub for the trains, but STJ transit center is convenient to a large portion of the bus routes downtown and is a short trolley ride from public square. Plus I'm guessing MegaBus considered the number of CSU students that ride and that this puts them closer to the innerbelt. In addition, I don't know how many people take greyhound for a portion of their route and megabus for another, but this would be slightly closer to the GH station.

Bleh, keep Megabus on W3. I, along with other passengers, usually drink at Nautical Mermaid while waiting for the 1am bus. Are there any pubs open late by the transit center anyhow?

 

And I usually train to Green Rd when I arrive, then get a lift to my parent's home. What a pain to walk to Tower City with my luggage if the stop moves.

But there's no shelter there, and Megabus sure isn't going to provide it. At least they stop at Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit. As much as that place needs attention, it's still better than boarding out in the elements in Cleveland or, for that matter, Chicago.

 

Also PARTA/KSU, Akron Metro, Canton SARTA and Laketran routes all go past the Tubbs Jones Transit Center. If all those routes stopped there, with Megabus, then we've got something worthwhile.

 

I'll take being at Cleveland's hotels, transit hub, business and retail center over some minimal shelter out in the middle of nowhere any day. 

But there's no shelter there, and Megabus sure isn't going to provide it. At least they stop at Rosa Parks Transit Center in Detroit. As much as that place needs attention, it's still better than boarding out in the elements in Cleveland or, for that matter, Chicago.

 

Also PARTA/KSU, Akron Metro, Canton SARTA and Laketran routes all go past the Tubbs Jones Transit Center. If all those routes stopped there, with Megabus, then we've got something worthwhile.

 

I'll take being at Cleveland's hotels, transit hub, business and retail center over some minimal shelter out in the middle of nowhere any day. 

I think we have different definitions of the "middle of nowhere."

^Plus while not in the center of the city it's certainly not the middle of nowhere.  And the free trolley will take you from the transit center to downtown.  I've dropped relatives off at megabus and sat there with them and waited until the bus came because it was raining or snowing...ok for them but not good for people who took the bus/train down and are forced out into whatever elements are happening until the bus arrives.

 

Plus using the somewhat farther out east side transit center should be seen as a temporary solution.  Hopefully within the next 5 years or less we'll either have the west side transit center or multimodal transit center up and running.  I prefer the ladder, but either would solve this issue.

My preference is to have a Megabus facility that is safe, sheltered and connected. East Side Transit Center offers that without building anything new which we know Megabus won't build.

Question...if the RTA switched to Diesel Electric trains wouldnt the cost of an extension be alot  more feasible because you now wouldn't have to install electric overheads anymore?

Question...if the RTA switched to Diesel Electric trains wouldnt the cost of an extension be alot  more feasible because you now wouldn't have to install electric overheads anymore?

Yes, that's why KJP has been advocating that.

 

If they were willing to single track as well, they could aquire, lease or share existing tracks and they'd just have to construct some sidings for passing, build the stations and buy the vehicles.

Question...if the RTA switched to Diesel Electric trains wouldnt the cost of an extension be alot  more feasible because you now wouldn't have to install electric overheads anymore?

Yes, that's why KJP has been advocating that.

 

If they were willing to single track as well, they could aquire, lease or share existing tracks and they'd just have to construct some sidings for passing, build the stations and buy the vehicles.

Well that sounds vastly simpler than just having electric only trains. Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Let me just say that he's certainly been accused of disliking rail on multiple occasions on UO and the accusations are not entirely without cause.

Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Let me just say that he's certainly been accused of disliking rail on multiple occasions on UO and the accusations are not entirely without cause.

I would think that rail would be more efficient than buses since they can last 30+ years and require less maintenance than buses. With buses the RTA replaces them yearly at 450,000 a piece and the ideal life span is 13 years (depending on work load of course) not to mention cost of fuel and maintenance due to harsh conditions. Rail also transports customers much fastet than bus, with all these benefits its hard to even understand a dislike of rail.

Is Joe not a rail guy or something?

Let me just say that he's certainly been accused of disliking rail on multiple occasions on UO and the accusations are not entirely without cause.

I would think that rail would be more efficient than buses since they can last 30+ years and require less maintenance than buses. With buses the RTA replaces them yearly at 450,000 a piece and the ideal life span is 13 years (depending on work load of course) not to mention cost of fuel and maintenance due to harsh conditions. Rail also transports customers much fastet than bus, with all these benefits its hard to even understand a dislike of rail.

Ugh, fine. Here's the sum up...

 

The problem rail has in transit is that road maintenance & construction comes out of city and state budgets while rail maintenance & construction comes mostly out of RTA's budget. As a result Joe C (and RTA's board to some degree) accepts the reality that it's easier to extend bus routes than rail routes. Perfectly understandable.

 

The problem that some of us have had in the past is that it has appeared that Joe seems to have little interest in pushing for rail and has made a few statements that show he's out of touch on what rail costs and ways to be flexible to reduce costs. In one article that's probably been deleted as a result of the site crash he quoted some outrageous number like $100M per mile for why the Red Line probably wouldn't be extended to Euclid.

 

In the RTA thread, Joe has been defended as having advocated rail options (blue line extension across Chagrin/Warrensville) but the UO perception of him as anti-rail persists. He seems to be open to rail when it's a total no brainer, but he's also seemed a little ignorant (the blue line option studied in the alternatives analysis was double track when many of us would have liked to see a single track option that would have been significantly cheaper.)

 

That leads us back to the Red Line/HealthLine extension. If the alternatives analysis genuinely considers the rail options like a Diesel/Electric single track option and it still looks like doing nothing or just improving bus service is the best option, that's fine. The fear that several of us have is that the analysis will only compare double tracked electric (like the current RedLine) and will show that this would be way too expensive (no argument there, it would be way too expensive for the potential ridership).