6 hours ago, Geowizical said:

1) I've never seen a busier RTA than Saturday going to and leaving the Crew game. I really underestimated how many people would use it! Plus, everyone on the train got a good kick out of casually rolling past the absolute hell of a traffic jam in the Flats trying to leave a game lol

I got on the red line at Ohio City around 3:45 to go downtown. It was crowded with people going to the game, some families going to the Tower City Easter event, and a number of people heading to the protest with their signs. 

 

The station and train were more packed than I've ever seen them. The Ohio City station was particularly smelly on Saturday, so I felt bad that it would be a lot of people's impression of the RTA. RTA employees were pretty nice directing everyone in Tower City despite the crowd, though. Hope that makes up for other unpleasant experiences a bit.

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Keelung to Cuyahoga

1 minute ago, Keelung to Cuyahoga said:

I got on the red line at Ohio City around 3:45 to go downtown. It was crowded with people going to the game, some families going to the Tower City Easter event, and a number of people heading to the protest with their signs. 

 

The station and train were more packed than I've ever seen them. The Ohio City station was particularly smelly on Saturday, so I felt bad that it would be a lot of people's impression of the RTA. RTA employees were pretty nice directing everyone in Tower City despite the crowd. Hope that makes up for other unpleasant experiences a bit.

I also rode around on Saturday, but I just went to the museums. It always makes me happy to see the trains full. I'm guessing this will be another good ridership week with Yankee and Red Sox fans in town who aren't scared of public transit. A lot of the East Coast fans seem to ride when they're in town. A few years ago I saw 25-30 Phillies fans get off the healthline at E9th before a game. Can't say I've ever seen more than 4 or 5 Guardians fans do that

 

 

The Ohio City stop is usually where we board whenever I've gotten people to ride the rapid for the first time. Every. Single. Person. Makes a comment about the smell. It smells like an old urinal in there. And half of them comment on how the stairs wobble or feel like they're about to collapse. 

 

Like you said, it's a horrible first impression and just reinforces what people who don't ride public transit often think about it. If RTA wants to grow rapid ridership, the Ohio City station is one of the 2 or 3 most important stops for generating ridership without building new lines or adding 2000 TOD units at park n rides. It's a shame that it is one of the worst stations right now with no real talk of improvements in the pipeline. 

Yep. I'd pour a jug of bleach on the stairs and in the elevator at 6 a.m. every other day followed by a bucket of salt water on the stairs on days when it's 32 degrees or warmer. After about a week, the smell would probably go away.

💥 Big railcar story scheduled to post at NEOtrans at 5:30 a.m. 💥

GCRTA seeks more railcars; program over budget

By Ken Prendergast / May 8, 2025

There’s good news and bad news when it comes to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s (GCRTA) new railcar program. And the good news is the result of trying to keep the bad news from getting worse.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/08/gcrta-seeks-more-railcars-program-over-budget/

4 hours ago, KJP said:

GCRTA seeks more railcars; program over budget

By Ken Prendergast / May 8, 2025

There’s good news and bad news when it comes to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s (GCRTA) new railcar program. And the good news is the result of trying to keep the bad news from getting worse.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/05/08/gcrta-seeks-more-railcars-program-over-budget/

by this summer, GCRTA’s board will likely vote on exercising the final option of ordering more light-rail trains

RTA, please don't delay -- vote to exercise the option. Keep the momentum going.

I have a question about this rail cars. Say the RTA wants to move away from Pantographs and move to 3rd rail, are these cars capable of it?

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I have a question about this rail cars. Say the RTA wants to move away from Pantographs and move to 3rd rail, are these cars capable of it?

I’m curious - what’s driving this question?Third rail is not an option on a system that isn’t fully grade separated - you don’t want a person to be exposed to high voltage at ground level. (Technically there are some “hidden third rail” systems for streetcars, but they are not common and they add considerable cost.) In theory the Red line could be third rail, but there’s no good reason to replace existing catenary with third rail. Especially with the section from Tower City to east of the East 55th rail yard where the tracks are shared - you’d still need the catenary there (assuming one wants the Shaker Lines to directly serve Tower City).

As a counter example, I think it would be great if the Long Island Railroad switched from the existing third rail to catenary - this would enable compatibility with the other passenger trains and would allow higher top speed.

2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I have a question about this rail cars. Say the RTA wants to move away from Pantographs and move to 3rd rail, are these cars capable of it?

Why would they? In addition to the points Brian made, GCRTA has been spending and continues to spend millions of federal dollars on a rehabilitation of the Red Line catenaries. In addition to the fully depreciated costs of the existing catenary infrastructure -- all of which would have to be removed -- GCRTA would have to refund to the feds the funding it received for the catenary rehab. We're talking an expense of about $5 million per track-mile, or at least $350 million, to replace the existing power delivery system with a new one.

Re the number of trains being bought and what frequency that would allow, does anyone know what availability is expected from the new rolling stock? 75%, 90% or something else?

Do you mean what percent of the new trains should be available for service while the rest is in for maintenance/inspection? Not all will be in service, even if they are available for service. That will be true even during rush hours as some will be be held for crush crowds like large sporting events, concerts, parades, etc.

From what I've been able to see, there isn't a industry standard for this. Each transit agency has its own operating rules and preferences.

Is it true that if even one of the new trains is running on a line, the old trains can no longer be used? I.e. the surviving old cars can not be used to supplement frequencies?

14 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Is it true that if even one of the new trains is running on a line, the old trains can no longer be used? I.e. the surviving old cars can not be used to supplement frequencies?

Correct. That even includes the low-platform Blue/Green lines because their mini-high platforms have to be extended to reach the new, narrower trains' doorways without more than a 3-inch horizontal gap (and a max 5/8-inch gap). So each rail line or section of a rail line will be taken out of service to retrofit the platforms enmasse over a couple of weeks. Then the new trains will begin service over that line/section (when I say section, I mean the Red Line from Tower City's Red Line platforms westward or east of East 55th). The trick will be the Waterfront Line and the portion between Tower City and East 55th. Those will have to be done last. The Waterfront Line will be blocked by the widened Red Line platforms at Tower City (unless they will bypass it via the temporary Tower City station). Until East 34th and East 55th platforms are widened, they will not have ADA access.

Consider these train widths (max horizontal gap is 3 inches/7.62 cm) --

Red Line train (Tokyu car): 10.33 feet (3.15 meters)

Blue/Green Line line (Breda car): 9.3 feet (2.835 meters)

New Siemens S-200: 8.7 feet (2.65 meters)

And train floor heights (max vertical gap is 5/8 inches/1.5875 cm) --

Red Line train (Tokyu car): 42 inches (106.68 cm)

Blue/Green Line line (Breda car): 40 inches (101.6 cm)

New Siemens S-200: 41 inches (104.14)

6 hours ago, KJP said:

Do you mean what percent of the new trains should be available for service while the rest is in for maintenance/inspection? Not all will be in service, even if they are available for service. That will be true even during rush hours as some will be be held for crush crowds like large sporting events, concerts, parades, etc.

From what I've been able to see, there isn't a industry standard for this. Each transit agency has its own operating rules and preferences.

I guess both, because there must have been kind of economic calculation/estimation on how many trains would be needed for a certain service level.

This looks interesting and it’s the same day as the bridge tour - two for one! Maybe we should make posters of our reroute suggestions and extensions to call attention to them.

https://www.riderta.com/50years

APTA released their Q1 2025 transit ridership numbers a week ago.

GCRTA saw a ridership increase of +1.32% YTD from March 2024.

This table has the actual GCRTA numbers from APTA and then my back of napkin estimates for end-of-year 2025 (italics) should the trends hold quarter-to-quarter:

Slight declines in heavy rail and light rail ridership were made up for by increases in bus and paratransit ridership. Will be interesting to see if rail ridership increases substantially once all of RTA's improvements come online in the next couple of years. Keep in mind that growth rate is naturally flattening as we recover from the pandemic. Increases were high in the initial post-pandemic recovery but they are steadying out.

https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/ridership-report/

On 5/13/2025 at 8:11 AM, KJP said:

Correct. That even includes the low-platform Blue/Green lines because their mini-high platforms have to be extended to reach the new, narrower trains' doorways without more than a 3-inch horizontal gap (and a max 5/8-inch gap). So each rail line or section of a rail line will be taken out of service to retrofit the platforms enmasse over a couple of weeks. Then the new trains will begin service over that line/section (when I say section, I mean the Red Line from Tower City's Red Line platforms westward or east of East 55th). The trick will be the Waterfront Line and the portion between Tower City and East 55th. Those will have to be done last. The Waterfront Line will be blocked by the widened Red Line platforms at Tower City (unless they will bypass it via the temporary Tower City station). Until East 34th and East 55th platforms are widened, they will not have ADA access.

Consider these train widths (max horizontal gap is 3 inches/7.62 cm) --

Red Line train (Tokyu car): 10.33 feet (3.15 meters)

Blue/Green Line line (Breda car): 9.3 feet (2.835 meters)

New Siemens S-200: 8.7 feet (2.65 meters)

And train floor heights (max vertical gap is 5/8 inches/1.5875 cm) --

Red Line train (Tokyu car): 42 inches (106.68 cm)

Blue/Green Line line (Breda car): 40 inches (101.6 cm)

New Siemens S-200: 41 inches (104.14)

The much more narrow cars makes me even more confused why they didn't change the orientation of the seats to go along the wall to make the aisle way wider.

Were there no new light rail car products that would fit the existing station architecture? Was there a particular advantage associated with the narrower (Siemans) rail cars?

3 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Were there no new light rail car products that would fit the existing station architecture? Was there a particular advantage associated with the narrower (Siemans) rail cars?

From what I understand, the Red and Green/Blue line trains are different widths so at least one set of stations needs to be modified to accommodate one set of rail cars across all lines.

The advantage of using one set of rail cars is obviously that there's more flexibility across the system. And it's probably easier to extend narrower platforms than shrink wider ones.

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Were there no new light rail car products that would fit the existing station architecture? Was there a particular advantage associated with the narrower (Siemans) rail cars?

Some thoughts on rail car selection: first of all, I am extremely happy that RTA decided to consolidate their rail fleet into the standard light rail vehicles they selected. I think this was the best option for the system. Nearly every rail system has some level of customization of the rail vehicles they order. That said, sometimes these are nearly off-the-shelf vehicles with minor customizations for a given system. Other times they’re fully customized vehicle specific to a system and they lock that system in. Many monorails and people-movers have suffered this fate - supplier obsolesces the vehicles, and then a system can no longer be maintained.

One of the things @KJP figured out and that RTA eventually learned during the procurement process was that no vendors are selling heavy rail vehicles that can be split into individual cars-they are always married pairs. RTA’s maintenance facility is not big enough to handle married pairs. This means that RTA would’ve had to either make a massive investment to expand the facility OR convince a vendor to sell them a customized single vehicle HRV, and no vendor was interested in a fully customized order that small. HRV was not an option. So it needed to be an LRV. The advantage of using the Siemens S200 is that it is basically the same vehicle in use in San Fran and Calgary, both which are much larger systems. St Louis has more recently ordered the S200 as a replacement vehicle for Metrolinx. With multiple systems using the same vehicle, it is MUCH less likely they will be obsolesced. It will be much easier for RTA to maintain these vehicles. While there are some sacrifices that are being made (e.g. narrower vehicles, lower theoretical capacity than new HRV’s, etc), having a standard vehicle like other systems is much better. Also having one vehicle type for the whole system is much better - it is easier to maintain one type of spare than two, operators don’t have to learn different vehicle types, etc.

I think it’s great that it is an easy, manual process for the S200 to go from steps to level boarding (using step covers). Even better, as @NorthShore64 has pointed out, all the Red Line high level boarding is center platform and the Shaker line low platforms are all on the outside, so RTA won’t necessarily have to use the step covers - level boarding / high platforms in the center, steps / low platforms on the outside.

Pretty much my only quibble, as @Cleburger has pointed out multiple times, is that some of the seats should have been arranged parallels to the vehicle instead of perpendicular in order to increase the standing capacity of the vehicle AND make it easier to move around the vehicle when less crowded.

To answer your original question, I’m not aware of any standard LRVs that are as wide as the existing Red Line vehicles. And if they were, all the Shaker Platforms would have to be rebuilt.

Some rail fans are very upset that the Red Line will no longer be heavy rail, but I have not heard a compelling argument that outweighs what I’ve laid out above. I am very appreciative of the Siemens team putting the effort into convincing RTA after RTA initially decided to separately order new HRV for Red and LRV for Shaker lines (before they learned about the married-pair thing). It helped that only one vendor bid on that original vehicle replacement proposal, and it was a vendor that was not able to meet build-American requirements of IIJA (infrastructure bill) funding.

And from an optics perspective - the Red Line is consistently one of the bottom two ridership heavy rail systems in the US (along with Puerto Rico). It will become a mid-tier Light Rail system for ridership. Hooray?

31 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

And from an optics perspective - the Red Line is consistently one of the bottom two ridership heavy rail systems in the US (along with Puerto Rico). It will become a mid-tier Light Rail system for ridership. Hooray?

I mentioned it above a few months ago, but I think this is a bigger deal than people on here think. 99% of Americans and Northeast Ohioans have no idea what it means to be light rail or heavy rail, and I don't think it influences anyone's decision to ride or not. All people in Cleveland know is that "no one rides it" and someone told them it's last or 2nd to last in ridership.

The red line in its current old, dirty, and smelly state gets the same ridership numbers as all 3 Pittsburgh lines combined. Add the low blue/green numbers to that and we're at around 4 million annual riders as is.

With new trains and routes I would think we would add some more. Now none of the current excuses are legitimate. We're middle of the pack ridership wise with all 3 lines categorized as light rail so the "no one rides it" excuse dies, and numbers would be able to be published showing us above peer cities in ridership numbers. People may feel more comfortable riding when they think there will be more people on board, instead of thinking they will be alone with a homeless person.

Do something like free rides on Sundays or mail every house in Cuyahoga County 2 free day passes in the first months the new trains are running with some daytrip ideas. Get as many people on board as possible initially and boost the ridership numbers even more.

Does that turn into anything more? I'm not sure. But everyone who rides transit for the first time and realizes it can be a nice experience is another advocate for expanding it. Most people in the region have never been on it, and a surprising amount don't even know Cleveland has rail.

Edited May 28May 28 by PlanCleveland

20 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Some thoughts on rail car selection: first of all, I am extremely happy that RTA decided to consolidate their rail fleet into the standard light rail vehicles they selected. I think this was the best option for the system.

When a newly created GCRTA (consolidating Cleveland’s rail system under one owner) was considering replacing its rail fleets, there was near if not total unanimity among GCRTA staff in the late 1970s to make it an all-light-rail system. But the GM at the time (Ronis) said Cleveland deserves to be among the Chicagos, Phillys, Bostons of the world and have a heavy-rail system. So having a two-mode rail system was about vanity, not practicality.

Can someone explain to me like I’m 5 what exactly the difference is between heavy and light rail?

25 minutes ago, JB said:

Can someone explain to me like I’m 5 what exactly the difference is between heavy and light rail?

The difference is based on the extent and construction of right of way features for each system. Admittedly, sometimes they get so blurred, it's hard to tell them apart. But at their extreme, a heavy-rail system will typically have a grade-separated (no level crossings) right of way with stations having high-level platforms to offer faster boarding/alighting on/from the trains. They are also usually powered from an electric third rail. Cleveland's heavy rail system is rare in that regard in that it draws power from the overhead lines. Operationally, a heavy rail system will usually have longer trains and greater frequencies than the light rail system. But much of that operational characteristic is offered by the built-in capacity of the right of way.

Light-rail systems can operate in streets or on dedicated rights of way but will still usually have grade crossings with streets. Because of this, they usually draw their power from overhead lines, have low-level platforms are even board from sidewalks or streets. The trains are shorter and tend to have less scheduled frequency. But some light rail systems do have high level platforms and grade-separated rights of way and that's when the difference between the two systems start to blur. In Chicago, the outer parts of the heavy-rail El system have street crossings. In Pittsburgh, Buffalo and other cities, portions of their light-rail systems operate in a subway while other portions are operate as a streetcar.

28 minutes ago, JB said:

Can someone explain to me like I’m 5 what exactly the difference is between heavy and light rail?

Heavy rail is a bigger train that can carry lots of people. It’s strong and fast, but it costs a lot of money to build because it needs special tracks—sometimes underground like a subway, or up high on bridges.

Light rail is a smaller train that carries fewer people. It’s better for cities where not many people ride trains. It’s also cheaper to build because it can run on regular ground, like cars on a road.

Edited May 29May 29 by MyPhoneDead

BTW, the light-rail system that I considered most like heavy rail was in Los Angeles. Each rail car is long, hinged in the middle, and operates in three-car sets. So it looks like a six-car train at first glance. The mostly operate on dedicated rights of way, with the Green Line (now called the C Line) operated most like a heavy-rail metro infrastructure-wise but its trains are usually only two cars and don't run as frequently as the Blue Line (A line) or run with three-car trains. But I was most impressed with the Expo Line (E Line) to Santa Monica which has three-car trains, dedicated right of way, fast running, nice mix of riders which was pretty heavy, and lots of development along its line.

Just a little update that the rails on the eastbound-running side (south side) of the Van Aken platform have been removed for platform relocation and minor earthwork is underway around where the new station building will be is also visible (06/07):

Also, notice: the Blue/Green line E 79th station officially closes tomorrow for 12-14 months for construction of the new station!!

Maybe someday they'll reopen the West 117th station.

It looks like they've removed the work area speed limit from the station, as I saw a Red Line train sail across the bridge over West 117th at about 55 mph.

I hope the homeless don't come back to the station, whenever it reopens.

6 hours ago, KJP said:

Maybe someday they'll reopen the West 117th station.

It looks like they've removed the work area speed limit from the station, as I saw a Red Line train sail across the bridge over West 117th at about 55 mph.

I hope the homeless don't come back to the station, whenever it reopens.

Have we heard anything as to when it will open again? We're coming up on a year of being closed.

1 hour ago, Zagapi said:

Have we heard anything as to when it will open again? We're coming up on a year of being closed.

Which begs the question, how are all those people getting to their self-storage lockers if they can't take the train? 😐

7 hours ago, KJP said:

Maybe someday they'll reopen the West 117th station.

It looks like they've removed the work area speed limit from the station, as I saw a Red Line train sail across the bridge over West 117th at about 55 mph.

I hope the homeless don't come back to the station, whenever it reopens.

The only way that doesn't happen is if the station is controlled access.

Seriously, if the problem is half as bad as you regular riders make it out to be, increasing fare-paying ridership is going to require a return to only allowing fare paying riders into the stations, as it was during the 1980s.

33 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

The only way that doesn't happen is if the station is controlled access.

Seriously, if the problem is half as bad as you regular riders make it out to be, increasing fare-paying ridership is going to require a return to only allowing fare paying riders into the stations, as it was during the 1980s.

The homeless people (more so the panhandlers and aggressive bums instead of the ones just trying to make it and prefer to be left alone) will still be there at the station even if you convert it to controlled access. They would just sit right outside the access point. You see it plenty in DC, where it can be pretty unnerving just getting through the checkpoint at some places because of it. Union Station is a good example, except you don't feel to uncomfortable because there are so many other riders swiping in with you that it's a "safety by numbers" kind of thing.

17 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

The homeless people (more so the panhandlers and aggressive bums instead of the ones just trying to make it and prefer to be left alone) will still be there at the station even if you convert it to controlled access. They would just sit right outside the access point. You see it plenty in DC, where it can be pretty unnerving just getting through the checkpoint at some places because of it. Union Station is a good example, except you don't feel to uncomfortable because there are so many other riders swiping in with you that it's a "safety by numbers" kind of thing.

It takes money and hard work to deal with the homeless, but it can be done. Provide housing. Provide services. Show up, follow up. It's not easy or cheap, but it's been done.

Sadly, it's easier and cheaper to let them live on the street, arrest them when they get aggressive, otherwise -- out of sight, out of mind.

21 hours ago, Zagapi said:

Have we heard anything as to when it will open again? We're coming up on a year of being closed.

I remember a post on Reddit claiming the work could be complete by November (?), but I'm not sure how recent that information is. I'm hoping it will be complete by end of year because I will be walking 30 minutes to the next station until then.

Edited Tuesday at 03:29 PM3 days by sonisharri

@sonisharri Yep, November....

https://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/W117

I know that the new cars have been ordered, so (luckily) there is no turning back now.

If you are an executive at RTA, with this purchase you know trains and Cleveland will be together for a long time.

RTA has spent a good chunk of change on this mode of transportation and sent the message that they are serious about rail. Knowing that, do we think that executives are being encouraged to think about expansion or upgrades to the rail system. Really, before this purchase went through I think the system could have gone either way. They could have just as easily said that rail is not working in this city and we are going to focus our limited resources on bus routes.

Knowing that Cleveland is committed to rail do we think there is a good shot for expansion of our rail system?

I know they funded the downtown loop study and are doing a BRT on W25th. Any chance the brt line moves towards rail, or possibly the Euclid corridor upgrades to rail?? The Euclid corridor is in a part of its life cycle where repairs and maintenance may be needed as basic upkeep and this could be a good chance to upgrade to rail.

1 hour ago, 8MPG said:

Any chance the brt line moves towards rail, or possibly the Euclid corridor upgrades to rail?? The Euclid corridor is in a part of its life cycle where repairs and maintenance may be needed as basic upkeep and this could be a good chance to upgrade to rail.

I really think BRT line on Euclid would be vastly improved if it was upgraded to rail, especially if they separate the tracks from the roadway. Whenever I visit and drive that stretch of Euclid between Public Square and Playhouse Square, it is a mess.

1 hour ago, 8MPG said:

do we think there is a good shot for expansion of our rail system?

No. That's a separate question from whether or not we should expand our rail system, but there is zero reason to think that rail expansion is being seriously considered by anyone at RTA. Unless we suddenly get a combination of visionary leadership and philanthropic billionaires it's just not in the cards. The winds could shift at anytime, and maybe they already have (fingers crossed), but there's a lot of inertia to unwind even if that happens.

For what it's worth, I agree that we should be looking at upgrading successful BRT lines, and the Euclid Corridor should absolutely be serviced by rail transit. Over the longer term I'd like to see the W25th BRT upgraded as well.

Edited Thursday at 06:55 PM1 day by Ethan

33 minutes ago, Ethan said:

No. That's a separate question from whether or not we should expand our rail system, but there is zero reason to think that rail expansion is being seriously considered by anyone at RTA. Unless we suddenly get a combination of visionary leadership and philanthropic billionaires it's just not in the cards. The winds could shift at anytime, and maybe they already have (fingers crossed), but there's a lot of inertia to unwind even if that happens.

For what it's worth, I agree that we should be looking at upgrading successful BRT lines, and the Euclid Corridor should absolutely be serviced by rail transit. Over the longer term I'd like to see the W25th BRT upgraded as well.

This could be part of a systemwide strategy.

1. Review and identify long-standing routes with the population density and other factors suitable for BRT

2. Uprgrade identified bus routes to BRT (and acquire properties along the route from the land bank for TOD, work with city/county to incentivize density along BRT routes)

3. Review and identify BRT routes suitable for upgrade to rail/tram service

4. Upgrade identified BRT routes

5. Rinse and repeat.

With the completion of east side projects along Cedar (Ascent/Top of the Hill at Cedar-Fairmount; Lee-Meadowbrook-Cedar project, Taylor Tudors and UH Taylor road development just north of Cedar, University Square renovation (housing between Target and Macy's), and on to Legacy Village and Beachwood Mall) I'd like to see planning begin for a BRT line between Cedar-University station and Beachwood Mall. Planning could begin now, with construction to start after many of these projects near completion and funding is found.

14 hours ago, Foraker said:

With the completion of east side projects along Cedar (Ascent/Top of the Hill at Cedar-Fairmount; Lee-Meadowbrook-Cedar project, Taylor Tudors and UH Taylor road development just north of Cedar, University Square renovation (housing between Target and Macy's), and on to Legacy Village and Beachwood Mall) I'd like to see planning begin for a BRT line between Cedar-University station and Beachwood Mall. Planning could begin now, with construction to start after many of these projects near completion and funding is found.

I think this is a great idea, and it should continue west to the Cleveland Clinic’s campus. It could terminate at East 89th (or in that vicinity). My basic rule of transit route planning: if your transit proposal doesn’t go to a hospital, go back to the drawing board and make it go to a hospital. Even better when you can hit two hospitals.