Anybody know where I could read the 1972-74 Cleveland area mass transit study?

Reason I'm interested is I'm reading this retrospective article by Norman Krumholz in which he's sharply critical of a major regional rail plan and a downtown subway. (Pictured below are two relevant abstracts as the articled paywalled).

My general thinking is that Krumholz may have crucially missed how the rail system itself would buttress Cleveland's downtown and keep it from declining further.

Given that BART, which if we're being honest is kinda a C- planning wise, managed to reenforce SF's downtown, and help ensure it would be a colossus, my general inclination is a regional rail system focused on downtown Cleveland may have done much the same.

Especially given the fact downtown Cleveland probably had a lot more jobs than it does now back in the 60s and 70s. Also given that the near downtown segment for the Cleveland Red Line is pretty garbage maybe a subway would have led to higher ridership.

And a Cleveland with even half or 3/4ths of SF’s downtown jobs is a Cleveland with a lot more money for services and easier transit commutes for the most vulnerable.

Arguments against my position (in a rough order of how convincing I find them): that the Bay Area’s mountainous and waterborne geography helps SF substantially compared to Cleveland, that the temporary bus benefits were a more certain value than the speculative CBD centrality 1/2

That differences in economic industries help SF far more than Cleveland, and Bay Area voters are more liberal than Cleveland ones and more willing to take a train. 2/2

Good news @bensh__ hasn't found the report, but seems to have found an article that has a map! There's a dumb downtown loop, but most of the map looks like the busiest bus corridors to this day? Though it's a bit tough to tell because no roads are listed.

https://twitter.com/bensh__/status/1338716793150566400?s=20

To add some comparison here's @humantransit's high frequency alternative. (The current rail lines are labeled R, B, and G.) http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/jw/HighFrequencyAlternativeFactsheet.pdf

The western branch seems to follow the freeway alignment instead of the superior extant rail one which is unfortunate, and the Southwest Branch seems to be farther west than where the real density is.

But in the east, the two extant rail ROWs it follows either are one of the systems most frequent bus routes in Walker's redesign, the 28 along Euclid, or a freight alignment that seems to split the different between a couple frequent SE routes.

Overall would anybody say this planning is worse than BART's? It at least uses standard gauge, which should make procurement/freight repurposing easier.

So I've got to disagree with Krumholz here. I think this rail system probably would have worked out decently well for Cleveland. I would have changed some things, but its errors seem a lot more fixable than BART's