Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RTA's website says the Healthline is proof of payment. I have noticed everybody filtering to the front to pay, but I myself have always just kept the ticket in my pocket and sat down.
You must ride the Healthline when it has many passengers. The first time that I rode the Healthline post-pandemic, I tried that and the driver annoyingly demanded that I come show her my ticket. It's an inefficient, embarrassing method of verifying payment IMO.
You must ride the Healthline when it has many passengers. The first time that I rode the Healthline post-pandemic, I tried that and the driver annoyingly demanded that I come show her my ticket. It's an inefficient, embarrassing method of verifying payment IMO.
Yeah it's always been fairly crowded when I am on it.
The fact that we don't know if the RTA website is wrong or if the passengers and drivers are making a mistake is embarrassing. Fully agree!
Yeah it's always been fairly crowded when I am on it.
The fact that we don't know if the RTA website is wrong or if the passengers and drivers are making a mistake is embarrassing. Fully agree!
The last time I took the Health line (over a year ago) we had to insert RTA passes just like any other bus. When it started, I remember just boarding and going. Like 5% of the time I'd be asked by a transit cop to produce a pass while on the bus already.
imo now is the time to make such a bold move. I'd also love to see a light rail line on the west side right down Detroit or Lorain. And of course the Waterfront line back inservice and extended to Euclid. Would really do wonders for the city imo.
As far as the Health Line goes though, there would be no point in doing anything as long as it isn't prioritized with signals and the fare collection is still done one by one at the front of the bus. Takes forever.
HealthLine into light rail, through PS, along W Superior, under D-S Bridge (again), out westbound on Detroit Ave.
HealthLine into light rail, through PS, along W Superior, under D-S Bridge (again), out westbound on Detroit Ave.
$$ issue of course.
I agree with your 'running under the D-S Bridge' part... however, on an LRT line along Euclid, I would drop the line into a tunnel just east of E.17th and the Lumen apts. From there westbound, the line would dogleg west under Huron with a subway station (under Huron) somewhere btw Playhouse Sq. and the 5-points intersection at E. 9th (which would serve the old banking corridor as well as PHS). From there, the line would continue westbound to the still-existing, grade-separated junction with the existing Red-Blue-Green trunkline under the Huron-Ontario intersection...
Trains would then proceed into Tower City as trains currently do BUT head into the old, unused (except during RTA TC track rehabs/shutdowns) still-extant Shaker Rapid terminal. The idea being there would simply be too much train congestion and backups for all 4 lines using the existing station. From there, trains would head west through the edge of the existing parking structure, then bend around, north, along the hillside to the lower level of the D-S bridge (just west of the W. 9th St intersection), and proceed west to the station at W. 25th. Trains could terminate there or proceed westbound along Detroit rising to the surface, heading over to under the Shoreway (then rising in the median section), etc...
... as for running east of PHS, I would reconfigure Euclid while preserving most of the existing rail-ready Healthline stations (all you need to do is lengthen platforms to accommodate at least 2-car trains). I would create a small grassy median for trains similar to Shaker Blvd and, also, would eliminate at least 1/4 of the existing current BRT stations --> LRT trains do not need to stop at every other corner; you need speed. 1/3 to 1/2 mile btw stations should be the goal for the surface LRT.
Sure, this is all fantasy-land and unlikely to happen anytime soon and just a comment/suggestion by outgoing board member Val McCall... still, though, at least an RTA/public official SAID IT so the idea is out there... Let's keep people talking.
I agree with your 'running under the D-S Bridge' part... however, on an LRT line along Euclid, I would drop the line into a tunnel just east of E.17th and the Lumen apts. From there westbound, the line would dogleg west under Huron with a subway station (under Huron) somewhere btw Playhouse Sq. and the 5-points intersection at E. 9th (which would serve the old banking corridor as well as PHS). From there, the line would continue westbound to the still-existing, grade-separated junction with the existing Red-Blue-Green trunkline under the Huron-Ontario intersection...
Trains would then proceed into Tower City as trains currently do BUT head into the old, unused (except during RTA TC track rehabs/shutdowns) still-extant Shaker Rapid terminal. The idea being there would simply be too much train congestion and backups for all 4 lines using the existing station. From there, trains would head west through the edge of the existing parking structure, then bend around, north, along the hillside to the lower level of the D-S bridge (just west of the W. 9th St intersection), and proceed west to the station at W. 25th. Trains could terminate there or proceed westbound along Detroit rising to the surface, heading over to under the Shoreway (then rising in the median section), etc...
... as for running east of PHS, I would reconfigure Euclid while preserving most of the existing rail-ready Healthline stations (all you need to do is lengthen platforms to accommodate at least 2-car trains). I would create a small grassy median for trains similar to Shaker Blvd and, also, would eliminate at least 1/4 of the existing current BRT stations --> LRT trains do not need to stop at every other corner; you need speed. 1/3 to 1/2 mile btw stations should be the goal for the surface LRT.
Sure, this is all fantasy-land and unlikely to happen anytime soon and just a comment/suggestion by outgoing board member Val McCall... still, though, at least an RTA/public official SAID IT so the idea is out there... Let's keep people talking.
The tunneling under Euclid Avenue and subsequently routing described, would be 1) too costly; 2) again, would not serve the general downtown area well; 3) adding just 1 additional station on the southern side of dwtn, under Huron; why isolate rail again under TC?
I would keep it surface, turn it north maybe E17-E18, or to E9, to Superior Avenue, westbound on Superior Avenue, through PS, out W Superior, under D-S Bridge, into the west side along Detroit, maybe even make it a terminus at W98, or run it west through Lakewood on the existing (?) rail lines.
Downtown CLE needs more rail access, and cutting a HL turned LR back to TC at PS, limits, again, rail access for a broader part of downtown.
Flank the Superior part with LR with the proposed bike lane/median project and continue the median/BLs out to E 55 as planned.
Loop the WFL south to meet with and share part of the HL-LR in downtown and continue it south to a connection to its original lines.
Fantasy for sure, but at least McCall said it...as she's leaving her position with RTA...why didn't she mention or push for it before? Last time I heard her doing anything constructive was realizing how trash strewn the Red Line-Airport route was in 2016...and got it cleaned up before the RNC that year.
You must ride the Healthline when it has many passengers. The first time that I rode the Healthline post-pandemic, I tried that and the driver annoyingly demanded that I come show her my ticket. It's an inefficient, embarrassing method of verifying payment IMO.
It defeats the whole purpose of the once BRT Silver Rated HealthLine as it has slowed service and lost ridership.
The tunneling under Euclid Avenue and subsequently routing described, would be 1) too costly; 2) again, would not serve the general downtown area well; 3) adding just 1 additional station on the southern side of dwtn, under Huron; why isolate rail again under TC?
I would keep it surface, turn it north maybe E17-E18, or to E9, to Superior Avenue, westbound on Superior Avenue, through PS, out W Superior, under D-S Bridge, into the west side along Detroit, maybe even make it a terminus at W98, or run it west through Lakewood on the existing (?) rail lines.
Downtown CLE needs more rail access, and cutting a HL turned LR back to TC at PS, limits, again, rail access for a broader part of downtown.
Flank the Superior part with LR with the proposed bike lane/median project and continue the median/BLs out to E 55 as planned.
Loop the WFL south to meet with and share part of the HL-LR in downtown and continue it south to a connection to its original lines.
Fantasy for sure, but at least McCall said it...as she's leaving her position with RTA...why didn't she mention or push for it before? Last time I heard her doing anything constructive was realizing how trash strewn the Red Line-Airport route was in 2016...and got it cleaned up before the RNC that year.
I hear you about the expense of a tunnel. (hell, look what happened 60+ years ago even when voters APPROVED subway tunnel spending)... But heck, this is fantasy stuff anyway...
I just feel, if we're going to make the tremendous expense of converting the Healthline BRT to rail, why go half-ass? The goal is speeding (relatively) passengers into/through the downtown core. Why have a quick trip down Euclid on rail only to get clogged up in traffic for a slow trip from, say, E. 17 into/through the city and THEN drop the trains into the D-S Bridge subway --> another BIG expense? For a surface LRT through downtown, why do it when the current BRT, with POP fare paying and traffic light-tripping, could provide the same experience? To me it's: do it right or don't do it at all.
As for McCall, sure she probably should have voiced this sooner than on her way out the door... In fairness to her, though, you're always going to get rail extension talk/proposals whenever positive excitement about rail is generated... and let's face it, the announcement of a universal rail car decision is the best news RTA has had in years. I remember how excited folks were when we extended the Waterfront Line in 1996... it was just a 2.2-mile extension, but in light of the fact CTS/RTA had not extended rail since the airport line in 1968 -- 28 years prior! ...yeah, it was a big deal. And there was excited talk of commuter rail, rapid extensions, etc.... but then Ron Tober left and we got... ugh, Joe Calabrese for 18 loooong years of transit lethargy and destruction.
I hear you about the expense of a tunnel. (hell, look what happened 60+ years ago even when voters APPROVED subway tunnel spending)... But heck, this is fantasy stuff anyway...
I just feel, if we're going to make the tremendous expense of converting the Healthline BRT to rail, why go half-ass? The goal is speeding (relatively) passengers into/through the downtown core. Why have a quick trip down Euclid on rail only to get clogged up in traffic for a slow trip from, say, E. 17 into/through the city and THEN drop the trains into the D-S Bridge subway --> another BIG expense? For a surface LRT through downtown, why do it when the current BRT, with POP fare paying and traffic light-tripping, could provide the same experience? To me it's: do it right or don't do it at all.
As for McCall, sure she probably should have voiced this sooner than on her way out the door... In fairness to her, though, you're always going to get rail extension talk/proposals whenever positive excitement about rail is generated... and let's face it, the announcement of a universal rail car decision is the best news RTA has had in years. I remember how excited folks were when we extended the Waterfront Line in 1996... it was just a 2.2-mile extension, but in light of the fact CTS/RTA had not extended rail since the airport line in 1968 -- 28 years prior! ...yeah, it was a big deal. And there was excited talk of commuter rail, rapid extensions, etc.... but then Ron Tober left and we got... ugh, Joe Calabrese for 18 loooong years of transit lethargy and destruction.
So transfer to the BRT at E 17/Euclid to go to PS? Anyone heading north of Chester would not use this Euclid fantast LR line.
The goal would also be expanded ''access'' in dowtown; cities with new LR have distanced stations until there's a cluster in the downtown?CBD area. Traffic, in Cleveland? Regardless, LR would be in protected median, with bike paths flanked along its Superior Avenue route. Downtown CLE needs some road diets, especially Superior from E18 or so to the D-S Bridge. As for cost, yes, accessing the D-S would be tall $$, but a subway tunnel providing 1 additional station, then back into the isolated TC Station + D-S bridge costs would be enormous, not worth the cost. TC is not the ideal place for our rail transit single-downtown station hub. No one unfamiliar with CLE would even know there's even any rail transit
While CLE has rail transit, it currently isn't convenient for downtown riders generally and those with destinations in the broader downtown area in particular, especially as development moves north of, eh, Chester, and east of, eh, even E9. Superior Avenue LR would permit much easier access to destinations north and south of Superior Avenue. Having a LR running on Superior Avenue would enhance true TOD development east of E 12th Street, north and south of Superior.
So transfer to the BRT at E 17/Euclid to go to PS? Anyone heading north of Chester would not use this Euclid fantast LR line.
The goal would also be expanded ''access'' in dowtown; cities with new LR have distanced stations until there's a cluster in the downtown?CBD area. Traffic, in Cleveland? Regardless, LR would be in protected median, with bike paths flanked along its Superior Avenue route. Downtown CLE needs some road diets, especially Superior from E18 or so to the D-S Bridge. As for cost, yes, accessing the D-S would be tall $$, but a subway tunnel providing 1 additional station, then back into the isolated TC Station + D-S bridge costs would be enormous, not worth the cost. TC is not the ideal place for our rail transit single-downtown station hub. No one unfamiliar with CLE would even know there's even any rail transit
While CLE has rail transit, it currently isn't convenient for downtown riders generally and those with destinations in the broader downtown area in particular, especially as development moves north of, eh, Chester, and east of, eh, even E9. Superior Avenue LR would permit much easier access to destinations north and south of Superior Avenue. Having a LR running on Superior Avenue would enhance true TOD development east of E 12th Street, north and south of Superior.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree.
To me, at least, it makes no sense to spend the tremendous expense of converting a BRT to Light Rail (rapid transit) only to have it stall out and creep into town along city streets -- ESPECIALLY when you have a rapid transit network already there, with the major downtown station. The Van Sweringens build a ready-made subway connection to the Rapid under Ontario-Huron. Why throw it away?
I don't get your idea that: well, there's little street traffic now, so why not add trains... It doesn't work like that. Quality high-density, grade-separated rail transit sparks growth and creates more traffic -- foot, car, bike, scooter, etc. You don't look at how things are now but project forward. ie- take a look at photos of Toronto's Younge Street before and after photos before and after its game-changing subway was built in 1954 (just 1 year before Cleveland's Red Line opened). The density is night and day. Prior to this, Toronto was seen as a tired, parochial city smaller than Cleveland... boy, that's changed.
Again I repeat: if you don't do it right, don't do it at all. Cleveland's perpetual problem is people here have been conditioned to perpetually thinking small -- we constantly go half azz and build stuff on the cheap... ie, the very discussion we're having is because Cleveland/RTA built on the Cheap --> a non-rail BRT instead of expanding our existing Rapid into a subway through downtown. The goal is not to build a cute, touristy street trolley, but high-speed, high-capacity rail rapid transit. So why compound the problem, spending a ton of money in, again, coming up short of expectations ... because it's too big/expensive? Other cities our size do it, why is it always too expensive for Cleveland?? Answer: because we think small.
I also disagree with your comment that the current Rapid is not convenient to downtown riders generally. Really? It stops in the center of town -- maybe not geographically but central to the region's transit network.. Public Sq is still the living room/crossroads of the city. Also, it's not like downtown is Manhattan. You can comfortably walk from Tower City to just about E. 9th... at least I can - and the Trolley (at least the way it was pre-COVID) and the current Healthline supplement this). Nodes such as E.4th St, Progressive Field, RMFH, the Warehouse Dist, Lower Euclid's bars/restaurants and, of course, Tower City (Jack Casio, hotels, restaurants, offices, apts, etc) itself are within a block or 2. The Waterfront Line, when it's running, services some office buildings, Rock Hall NC Harbor, the Erieview complex, City Hall, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
