Cross post to historical photo thread. 
 

 

 

 

On 7/21/2021 at 9:42 AM, KJP said:

 

So what ?Mayor seemed the most in favor of public transit?

2 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So what ?Mayor seemed the most in favor of public transit?

 

Do you care? If so, did you accept that invitation to participate?

This is the WaPo BRT story Scott Suttell references in Crain's Cleveland.  There isn't much that will be news to Clevelanders, except maybe how BRT lines are proliferating in the US; but it's still nice to see the gold-standard recognition the Health Line gets.  The author doesn't emphasize enough the importance of dedicated right of way.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/07/23/bus-routes-public-transit-brt/

Too bad GCRTA has ruined the HealthLine by making it as slow as the #6 bus before. On-board fare collection is the main culprit. Someday GCRTA will embrace smart cards...

34 minutes ago, KJP said:

Too bad GCRTA has ruined the HealthLine by making it as slow as the #6 bus before. On-board fare collection is the main culprit. Someday GCRTA will embrace smart cards...

It's absolutely shameful that in 2021 RTA doesn't have this tech.  

23 minutes ago, KJP said:

Too bad GCRTA has ruined the HealthLine by making it as slow as the #6 bus before. On-board fare collection is the main culprit. Someday GCRTA will embrace smart cards...

Agree wholeheartedly.  It also hurt the system in a broader scope as routes that once went downtown either all day (9X and 9F) or just during peak periods (7F, 7AF, multiple 32 and 28F) stopped going downtown.  The riders on those lines lost one-seat rides and were forced to transfer to continue their trips downtown.  Those were all long trips to begin with, but then adding in the forced transfer and more stops that the HealthLine makes ends up adding considerably to travel time.  Those other routes ended up losing riders significantly (and in some cases no longer exist).  The so-called "gain" of HealthLine riders as compared to the 6/6A was a numbers game as the overall number of riders taking the trip downtown was actually reduced from the days when all of those routes went downtown.  Even pre-pandemic, I think the HealthLine's ridership reached the point where it was lower than what it was on the 6/6A. 

 

As for the development along Euclid Avenue, much of it was in the works LONG before the the HealthLine (or Dual-Hub Corridor) was even dreamed of.  The Plain Dealer ran an article a few years ago about Dealer Tire's new headquarters near E 79th and Euclid.  The key to that happening was a large parking garage being provided by the developer and it specifically stated that few people who worked at Dealer Tire were going to use the HealthLine.  That article also stated that development along the line was going much slower that anticipated.  Even RTA had trouble unloading property it used for HealthLine construction.  

I'd love to see some form of smart card! The time it takes to get a ticket adds up. Even for rail, which doesn't slow the train down, it still takes up my time every time I want to ride. 

 

I would imagine they could make it work like EZpass, where you carry a balance on your card that then automatically refills once it runs empty. 

 

My only concern is that RTA would start tracking people and selling information to third parties like seemingly every company does nowadays. Hopefully they would promise not to do that. 

Smart cards would be lovely but on the subject of the HealthLine, it needs to be returned to the ticketing system that was originally intended except with non-police random ticket checks, and a decriminalized fine for fare evasion.

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by mu2010

On 7/24/2021 at 2:54 PM, KJP said:

 

Do you care? If so, did you accept that invitation to participate?

Your snappiness on here in completely unnecessary sometimes. While you provide invaluable information to this site your snappiness at times isn’t justifiable. If I didn’t care I wouldn’t had asked in the first place. I inquired about it because I missed the date due to me not knowing about it. Also if I did know about it I couldn’t make it no matter how much I wanted to go. Not everyone works a traditional 9-5 job and can make these events. I work 12-9 most days so making events like this isn’t possible so I use this site as information to fill me in. So yes I do care I wouldn’t be on this site checking in on various topics about Cleveland everyday if I didn’t I could be doing other things with my life. So if you weren’t going to answer the question you could’ve saved the response. 

Edited July 28, 20213 yr by MyPhoneDead

@MyPhoneDeadYep, you're right. I don't remember why I responded like that. I must've taken a bad day out on the first convenient target. Sorry.

 

And now for the reason I visited this thread....

 

 

On 7/28/2021 at 8:23 AM, LifeLongClevelander said:

Agree wholeheartedly.  It also hurt the system in a broader scope as routes that once went downtown either all day (9X and 9F) or just during peak periods (7F, 7AF, multiple 32 and 28F) stopped going downtown.  The riders on those lines lost one-seat rides and were forced to transfer to continue their trips downtown.  Those were all long trips to begin with, but then adding in the forced transfer and more stops that the HealthLine makes ends up adding considerably to travel time.  Those other routes ended up losing riders significantly (and in some cases no longer exist).  The so-called "gain" of HealthLine riders as compared to the 6/6A was a numbers game as the overall number of riders taking the trip downtown was actually reduced from the days when all of those routes went downtown.  Even pre-pandemic, I think the HealthLine's ridership reached the point where it was lower than what it was on the 6/6A. 

 

As for the development along Euclid Avenue, much of it was in the works LONG before the the HealthLine (or Dual-Hub Corridor) was even dreamed of.  The Plain Dealer ran an article a few years ago about Dealer Tire's new headquarters near E 79th and Euclid.  The key to that happening was a large parking garage being provided by the developer and it specifically stated that few people who worked at Dealer Tire were going to use the HealthLine.  That article also stated that development along the line was going much slower that anticipated.  Even RTA had trouble unloading property it used for HealthLine construction.  

 

Yeah, I would always let the 6 go by on purpose and grab the 9 when I was at Case.   While I have always said that every line doesn't need to go downtown, I didn't mean they should feed into something like that.   I've also always said that "BRT" is a misnomer without dedicated lanes, signal priority, and limited stops.    But this makes it a laughable oxymoron.

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Yeah, I would always let the 6 go by on purpose and grab the 9 when I was at Case.   While I have always said that every line doesn't need to go downtown, I didn't mean they should feed into something like that.   I've also always said that "BRT" is a misnomer without dedicated lanes, signal priority, and limited stops.    But this makes it a laughable oxymoron.

Back in the days before the HealthLine, having essentially one Express or Flyer route to provide service downtown made sense.   There was no reason to run multiple express routes downtown when they would be lightly patronized outside of the peak periods.  It also makes sense not to penalize riders with having to endure the multitude of stops and extended running time that the local 6/6A would make if one was heading downtown or CSU.  When I rode the 9X and 9F, it was a normal occurrence for our bus to pass at least 4, maybe 6 of the 6/6A buses between Mayfield Road and East 55th or East 30th.  The express and flyer services were premium services and were charged as such in the fares. 

 

Back in the streetcar days, the privately operated system in Philadelphia had the name Philadelphia Rapid Transit. This system later became Philadelphia Transportation Company (owned by National City Lines, the outfit that was a big reason behind the killing of local streetcar systems) and later became SEPTA.  Philadelphia Rapid Transit had the slowest operating operating speed of any system in North America.  Even on RTA, the other two "bus rapid transit" routes aren't even officially grouped with the HealthLine.  They are grouped with the other bus lines for official purposes. 

 

Tagging the HealthLine as "bus rapid transit" is really not much more than a marketing gimmick.  It isn't "rapid" if the run time is the same as its predecessor bus route.  It certainly isn't "rapid" if a rider has to add in time to get off of one bus, wait and then board another bus.  Slapping "rapid" on a name means nothing.  People have seen it as such and have made the choice to not use it and the system as a result.

Edited August 8, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

Doesn't BRT have some connotations with federal funding? I know I can google it but figure someone on here would have a better answer on here. 

 

At the moment they're calling the Metrohealth Lines BRT and lolll (maybe in the future w/dedicated lanes as they've discussed) but I beat the busses (by like 20+ minutes) biking into work every time. 

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

Doesn't BRT have some connotations with federal funding? I know I can google it but figure someone on here would have a better answer on here. 

 

At the moment they're calling the Metrohealth Lines BRT and lolll (maybe in the future w/dedicated lanes as they've discussed) but I beat the busses (by like 20+ minutes) biking into work every time. 

 

West 25th is a future BRT

Just now, KJP said:

 

West 25th is a future BRT

 

I'm aware. It's weird that once they rebranded it to the MetroHealth line it got BRT branding in their materials (online and paper [which makes more sense, to save costs])- it doesn't sound like it'll be true dedicated rush hour lanes until 2025?

 

FWIW CSU line is considered BRT too (which definitely makes sense in Lakewood, but any further out, eh.).

 

I know this is your subject matter so not trying to act like an expert; feel free to chip away hah.

Unfortunately I've not seen any plans or concepts of what they intend to build/change. But I expect it would be a BRT-lite like Clifton -- enhanced transit waiting environments, directional/dedicated bus lane in rush hours, coordination with CDCs on promoting transit-supportive development, etc.

Webinar featuring India Birdsong, GM/CEO of RTA:

 

 

One thing that really stuck out to me about the census was Shaker Heights. Shaker’s population grew nearly 4% from 2010 to 2020, and it grew in every single racial and ethnic group measured.* Very few communities in the county can say this. Shaker also has clearly the best public transit rail connectivity of any suburb.  Any thoughts on how we can use this info to reignite discussion on rapid route extension, particularly as the city and county sit on millions of dollars they are trying to use (and I would also point out that, although it hasn’t been talked about much, individual suburbs got tons of money too; Cleveland Heights and Lakewood are each getting more than $40 million.)? @KJP

 

*technically the category “black alone” fell slightly but the drop is almost certainly due to a change in how multiracial people are counted as opposed to an actual drop.

I have to stop wasting so much time on youtube. I don't know if this has been posted elsewhere (sorry if so), but a fascinating look at the RTA by  Torontonians--

 

 

2 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

I have to stop wasting so much time on youtube. I don't know if this has been posted elsewhere (sorry if so), but a fascinating look at the RTA by  Torontonians--

 

 

I don't have time to watch the entire thing.   Was the waterfront line running?  Or did they have to use the "temporary" stop all the way over on Erieside?  

On 8/14/2021 at 12:04 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Webinar featuring India Birdsong, GM/CEO of RTA:

 

 

Remember this webinar is over lunch tomorrow (Wednesday)

On 8/14/2021 at 12:04 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Webinar featuring India Birdsong, GM/CEO of RTA:

 

 

 

This was a good session.  India Birdsong is clearly a delight and I'm glad she's running RTA.  Like most transit execs in this country, she's in a tough spot.  We have to fix the politics before we could ever get first-world transit systems.

 

Back to today's session: I asked about TOD.  Ms. Birdsong's eyes lit up - clearly community development is important to her.  She mentioned that her background is in planning.  She pointed to the E79th corridor as a recent area of station investment.  Since there will (hopefully) be development related to Opportunity Corridor, she wants to make sure that the existing rail stations are also both supportive of and benefiting from those developments.  She also discussed community partnerships for art development things.  (To be fair to her, the moderator had watered-down my TOD specific question to be more along the lines of neighborhood investments near transit stations.)

 

She also discussed the importance of RTA being involved in development discussions earlier in the process. Mentioned an example from a previous city where the transit org was brought in late and they weren't even going to be able to fit a bus on the street because of dimensions.

 

They did not get to my question on how they intend to fix (specifically speed up) the HealthLine.  

 

I wish this session had been an hour instead of 30 minutes.  That said, I'm so glad these things are on Zoom so that it is easy to join them without having to travel to in-person sessions.

 

 

29 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

If the changes involve spending money, they are going to need more ridership.

That doesn't mean talking to the people who are currently riding, it means talking to the people who could, but aren't.

20 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

If the changes involve spending money, they are going to need more ridership.

That doesn't mean talking to the people who are currently riding, it means talking to the people who could, but aren't.

 

Fares and riders bring very little revenue. Some suggestions in the report: cut back RTA's bloated police force and hire transit ambassadors/fare-checkers instead, redirect parking taxes from Browns stadium to transit, and expand proof-of-payment/contactless fare collection systemwide to greatly speed up service and reduce operating costs. That could raise up to $100 million per year for the transit agency, negating the need for a transit tax hike.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Fares and riders bring very little revenue. Some suggestions in the report: cut back RTA's bloated police force and hire transit ambassadors/fare-checkers instead, redirect parking taxes from Browns stadium to transit, and expand proof-of-payment/contactless fare collection systemwide to greatly speed up service and reduce operating costs. That could raise up to $100 million per year for the transit agency, negating the need for a transit tax hike.

 

Perhaps.   But wider usage inevitably means wider political support, which makes those changes more doable.

12 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Fares and riders bring very little revenue. Some suggestions in the report: cut back RTA's bloated police force and hire transit ambassadors/fare-checkers instead, redirect parking taxes from Browns stadium to transit, and expand proof-of-payment/contactless fare collection systemwide to greatly speed up service and reduce operating costs. That could raise up to $100 million per year for the transit agency, negating the need for a transit tax hike.

 

9 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Perhaps.   But wider usage inevitably means wider political support, which makes those changes more doable.

This has been my point regarding the cuts instituted under NextGen.  It has been stated that park-n-ride highway routes, due to their mostly freeway runs and limited stops are "money losers" by having less opportunities to exchange passengers in the same manner as local routes.  If they don't bring in that much revenue, then the impact on the bottom line in the bigger picture shouldn't be as big of a consideration as it is.  The loss of riders from the park-n-ride services ends up being a complete loss of those riders.  Of course, many riders start/end their commute at the parking lot and their work destination is near to where the highway coach drops them off/picks them up.  That isn't the case with all riders.  Some will transfer to another bus to finish their commute.  Drive those passengers away and they won't bother using any other transit services either as they will drive to their ultimate destination and be done with it.

 

On the bigger picture, overall ridership suffers.  A few hundred daily riders here, several hundred or a thousand daily riders there adds up.  Each commuter amounts to 2 rides a day.  Multiply those numbers by about 250 days.  Not much of a stretch to see losses amounting to hundreds of thousands a year, if not much more.  Repeat these service cuts and route eliminations multiple times.  Money invested in improvements and new equipment ends up being wasted or vastly under utilized.  A system with free-falling ridership will be perceived negatively by politicians.  It will make getting that support on any level all the harder. 

22 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Perhaps.   But wider usage inevitably means wider political support, which makes those changes more doable.

 

I hate when I agree with you. 

Which Ohio community will be the first to follow suit -- Kansas City requiring all new transit buses to be electric, hope to have fully electric fleet by 2030.

 

https://www.kcmo.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1700/625

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Which Ohio community will be the first to follow suit -- Kansas City requiring all new transit buses to be electric, hope to have fully electric fleet by 2030.

 

https://www.kcmo.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1700/625

I’m all for electric buses, but they really should be trolley buses with catenary. It makes no sense to add the weight of batteries to the buses on a fixed route. And the transit authorities that are using battery buses are struggling w range issues. 
 

Dayton is the model with its trolley bus system!

11 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Which Ohio community will be the first to follow suit -- Kansas City requiring all new transit buses to be electric, hope to have fully electric fleet by 2030.

 

https://www.kcmo.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1700/625

Laketran is well on its way to achieving this.  They just retired 12 transit coaches dating from 2009.  They replaced those 12 with 17 new buses this summer.  10 of them are electric buses and 7 are diesels.  Two of the battery charging stations are at the park-n-ride lots on Lakeland Blvd (across from Lubrizol) and at Lakeland Community College.  Other charging stations are in the works.  They have another 4 that should be up for retirement around next year.  Don't know how those will be powered.  

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m all for electric buses, but they really should be trolley buses with catenary. It makes no sense to add the weight of batteries to the buses on a fixed route. And the transit authorities that are using battery buses are struggling w range issues. 
 

Dayton is the model with its trolley bus system!

Dayton had the advantage as they started running its trolley bus system when they started to discontinue its streetcar operation.  Cleveland did the same thing.  They were able to use the existing infrastructure (overhead wires and substations) from the streetcar system.  In the case of Cleveland and many other systems, the trolley bus operations were merely temporary, basically to get the most out of the distribution and supporting equipment.  Cleveland's trolleybus operation ran from 1936 to 1963.  Dayton had the foresight to not dismantle and scrap its system.  Most of the other systems did the same thing that Cleveland did--tear down the wires and get rid of the substations.  With Dayton, when their trolley buses that replaced the streetcars wore out, they ordered new ones.  They have operated multiple generations of trolley buses.

 

One thing about most, if not all current trolley buses--they have "off wire" capabilities.  This enables them to continue operations should there be detours or downed wires.  They could have batteries or small diesel generators to power the trolley buses when the wires aren't available.  Philadelphia's SEPTA operation actually "abuses" this feature.  The off-wire capabilities are intended to be used short distances and not regularly.  They do this all too often and it wears out the off-wire equipment.     

Cleveland Transit System sold off the catenary wires, substations and properties in the absence of local subsidies and to maintain the illusion that it was a self-sustaining transit agency. When it was clear it couldn't disembowel itself much longer without doing more significant harm to the system, that's when the demand for a countywide sales tax and a regional transit authority came along. But we lost a lot before 1975. Since pro-sprawl policies couldn't be stopped, and if RTA was set up as a multi-county agency, it could have captured revenue from the soon-to-be sprawl into the collar counties to prevent its post-2000 death spiral.

6 hours ago, KJP said:

Cleveland Transit System sold off the catenary wires, substations and properties in the absence of local subsidies and to maintain the illusion that it was a self-sustaining transit agency. When it was clear it couldn't disembowel itself much longer without doing more significant harm to the system, that's when the demand for a countywide sales tax and a regional transit authority came along. But we lost a lot before 1975. Since pro-sprawl policies couldn't be stopped, and if RTA was set up as a multi-county agency, it could have captured revenue from the soon-to-be sprawl into the collar counties to prevent its post-2000 death spiral.

I have heard where the sale of "harvested" overhead wires and other electrical equipment was the only way that CTS sustained itself as well.  The Shaker Rapid purchased power for its operation from CTS.  When that opportunity came to an end, it was forced to build a substation at the Van Aken yard.  Up until the mid-1960's, CTS regularly purchased new buses annually.  CTS skipped purchasing them in 1966 and 1968.  The group purchased in 1969 were as basic as they could be and unpopular with riders (the 3000-series had hard fiberglass seats).  Start skipping regular annual bus purchases and the upkeep of equipment only escalates in cost and reliability suffers.  The same thing has happened to RTA multiple times with the situation getting so bad that used buses needed to be acquired from other systems.  This only accelerates the death spiral.  

 

Unfortunately, I believe that forming a multi-county transit agency won't be the saving grace for RTA.  I don't think that other agencies will want to become lesser entities under what would be the dominance that would come from RTA's leadership.  They will point to what RTA did to dismantle the suburban operations it assimilated in 1975 to avoid that happening to them.

Agreed. RTA should've been a multicounty service from the outset and funded by the counties they served. That ship has since sailed.

On 9/3/2021 at 6:09 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m all for electric buses, but they really should be trolley buses with catenary. It makes no sense to add the weight of batteries to the buses on a fixed route. And the transit authorities that are using battery buses are struggling w range issues.

 

I completely agree that the added weight of a battery pack large enough to power a bus through a long day would be a lot of extra weight to carry around.  But there are ways around this. 

 

Such as overhead catenary only at the bus stops for recharging, which would allow the bus to carry a smaller battery without having to run new catenary everywhere (something that would be cost-prohibitive in suburban Cleveland today). 

 

Another new technology is capacitive recharging, just like charging a phone by placing it on a pad the buses can be recharged from coils embedded in the ground at bus stops (and possibly at traffic lights).  Safer than a "third rail."

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/abb-sells-first-order-for-15-second-bus-charging

 

And battery technology is improving rapidly, much the way computer microprocessors did in the 1990s, gaining energy density and shrinking in size and weight.  Electric buses are coming and will get better over time.

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

I completely agree that the added weight of a battery pack large enough to power a bus through a long day would be a lot of extra weight to carry around.  But there are ways around this. 

 

Such as overhead catenary only at the bus stops for recharging, which would allow the bus to carry a smaller battery without having to run new catenary everywhere (something that would be cost-prohibitive in suburban Cleveland today). 

 

Another new technology is capacitive recharging, just like charging a phone by placing it on a pad the buses can be recharged from coils embedded in the ground at bus stops (and possibly at traffic lights).  Safer than a "third rail."

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/abb-sells-first-order-for-15-second-bus-charging

 

And battery technology is improving rapidly, much the way computer microprocessors did in the 1990s, gaining energy density and shrinking in size and weight.  Electric buses are coming and will get better over time.

The Laketran charging stations are situated at end-of-run layover points.  Don't know how long a charging cycle takes or how long the charge lasts.  For example, the charging station at the Lakeland Blvd. park-n-ride station can charge two buses at the same time.  That stop is the layover point for Laketran's routes #2 and #3. 

 

Laketran is the first transit system in Ohio to utilize these types of buses.

Odd request from RTA. I suppose as long as the “Warrensville - Van Aken yard rebuild” doesn't screw up a future extension across Warrensville, I’d support this. 
 

 

 

Yep. I would make support for this request conditional upon GCRTA expressing a willingness to secure an easement to/through the Warrensville/Chagrin intersection for a future extension of the Blue Line.

I wasn't expecting this news to come out so soon. All Aboard Aboard will have a statement about it.....

 

 

44 minutes ago, KJP said:

I wasn't expecting this news to come out so soon. All Aboard Aboard will have a statement about it.....

 

 

Hopefully when they're done there will be increased demand from housing down there. 

1 hour ago, KFM44107 said:

Hopefully when they're done there will be increased demand from housing down there. 

And hopefully they will find a way to extend it as well -- complete the loop!

That's ... not a very long lifespan of a bridge, especially for a structure that isn't generally deteriorating from salt intrusions.

This is the bridge over the railroad tracks?

47 minutes ago, bjk said:

This is the bridge over the railroad tracks?

 

@bjkYes. It's this one......

 

 

 

 

 

@seicer I think you will find this video interesting (especially at the 4-minute mark)....

 

 

Fascinating. It's a very similar design to the new Interstate 64 bridge over the Kanawha River near Charleston, WV. It makes me wonder if we sometimes push concrete alternatives above all else for aesthetic or cost savings reasons even though they may not be as durable over the long-term.

 

I keep thinking back to the rise of cable-stayed suspension bridges that utilize a lot of concrete and suspension cables all along the Ohio River, and how they have been more maintenance prone than expected. Looking at inspection reports for many of these bridges, they are deteriorating much quicker than anticipated - especially in comparison to their steel (and truss) counterparts.

 

Interesting video. Hindsight is 20/20, but dang, this seems like a dumb design. I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems like if they just built the bridge straight instead of curving the ends this wouldn't be a problem.

20 minutes ago, jawn said:

 

Interesting video. Hindsight is 20/20, but dang, this seems like a dumb design. I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems like if they just built the bridge straight instead of curving the ends this wouldn't be a problem.

 

I don't understand why rail expansion joints weren't placed at several locations on the bridge. Or, better yet, it should have been built with a ballasted bridge deck as it is on the elevated portion on the Port of Cleveland property. That would allow the rails to flex atop the ballast and not tug on the bridge deck.

 

AAO urges GCRTA to use Waterfront Line bridge fix as opportunity to fix ridership on entire line

 

SEPT. 8, 2021

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACTS: Stu Nicholson, Executive Director 614-439-8546

Ken Prendergast, Public Affairs Director, 216-288-4883

 

(Cleveland, Ohio, Sept. 8, 2021) – It is with great disappointment that we hear of the need for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) to shut down the light-rail Waterfront Line due to concerns over the stability of its “flyover” bridge at the north end of Flats East Bank. This 25-year-old, 645-foot-long bridge carries Blue/Green line trains from Shaker Heights, the Buckeye neighborhood and the Opportunity Corridor over Front Street and the Norfolk Southern/Amtrak railroad tracks. But the bridge, the longest precast concrete segmental rail bridge in Ohio, shows premature signs of wear and cracking and cannot be repaired. It must be replaced. We believe this is an opportunity to turn lemons into a lasting lemonade.

 

All Aboard Ohio strongly urges GCRTA CEO India Birdsong and the Board of Trustees to demonstrably show its vision and use this opportunity to go beyond just replacing the bridge. Now should be the time that GCRTA uses the contractors and railroad partnerships from this bridge project to plan for and pursue a first step toward fixing the “dead end” Waterfront Line that historically has had trouble attracting ridership.

 

That fix, supported by All Aboard Ohio, the Campus District Inc. and even GCRTA in its Waterfront Phase II Study in the early 2000s, is to extend the Waterfront Line as a Downtown Loop. Combined with a new, standardized rail fleet, the Downtown Loop would bring connectivity to Cuyahoga County’s fastest-growing Census districts and further activate additional development that can help finance the construction and operation of the Loop. The first step is to take the Waterfront Line back south over the railroad tracks at either East 13th or East 18th streets. It can then follow lightly used streets to reach major traffic generators and development sites.

 

“The need to replace the Waterfront Line bridge is so much more than a critically needed repair,” said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Stu Nicholson. “We believe this shutdown time is an opportunity for the GCRTA to show all of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County that it has a long-term vision for how our community can build back better.”

 

What better time than now to start planning, design and possibly even locally-funded construction and take the Waterfront Line to the next level: giving both Clevelanders and visitors a better reason to ride and use it regularly?

 

Both Cleveland State University and St. Vincent Charity Hospital, located along the Waterfront Phase II routing identified in 2000, are in the midst of masterplanning activities for their respective growing campuses. Also, Cross Country Mortgage is already building its new downtown Cleveland headquarters with remote-work housing near the Phase II routing. Creating a connected community along the Downtown Loop that supports a “15-Minute City” where all live-work-play needs are accessible within 15 minutes of each other can also help offset ridership losses from downtown employers engaging in more remote working.

 

“It’s time for GCRTA to begin establishing a vibrant new vision for its rail system with targeted modifications that support low-mileage lifestyles and work to aggressively fulfill that vision by supporting dense, mixed-use developments around its rail stations,” Nicholson said. “GCRTA needs to outline what it wants Greater Cleveland to be and to do its part to help make it happen. We hope this shutdown is used as a bridge to that future.”

 

All Aboard Ohio is Ohio’s only statewide advocacy organization for improved intercity passenger rail and local public transit. Learn more about us at allaboardohio.org or “like” us on Facebook and Twitter.

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2021/09/08/aao-urges-gcrta-to-use-waterfront-line-bridge-fix-as-opportunity-to-fix-entire-line/

 

See also our press release on the Downtown Loop:

http://allaboardohio.org/2020/12/02/aao-asks-cleveland-rta-for-downtown-loop-study/