biker16

people ride the Waterfront line? People riding the Red, blue or green lines would transfer at Tower City to the tram, it would take a clockwise loop through downtown, if the route is successful you can add another route any trams would be 100% comparable with existing RTA rail. the irony is that the shaker rapids were using PCC streetcars before the Bredas, there is no reasn why streetcars could not be run on the lines again. It is about getting people onto rail, and out of buses and cars. how can we continue to propose light rail proposal that are too costly to be seriously considered? if it takes 50 million to connect the tram line to the existing network, and only 5-10 million to build a maintenance facility, what advantage is it to a connect the starter system to the existing network? will it reduce operating costs? think about it, if the route requires 5 trains at 2.5 million a piece, it is still less expensive to build a maintenance shack, than to connect the two systems together. I would love to connect the two systems together but if that connect blows the budget and means nothing is built, do not build the connection.

I would never, try to use heavy duty light rail for a downtown loop. the Issue Is that we have for last few decades been over spec'ing the LRT alternatives to project like the the EC, where the obvious and most cost effective choice would have been a urban Circulator light rail system, that would be easier to maintain. As an urban Circulator, operating in a Road ROW you would not need or want Breda light rail cars, operating in a road corridor, it too wide, too expensive and not maneuverable enough to fit in a Road ROW. for A Down town loop all you need is a streetcar type system like what Cincy is doing. the bluff may or may not have to be conquered. lets take a step back, this would be a Starter system, while it would be nice to connect the system to the larger rail facility off of East 55th. in the beginning it may be best not to do so in phase 1 and to do it at a later date. Instead build a streetcar maintenance facility along the line the one proposed in New Haven would measure 150ft x 150ft, would be built at a cost much less than a direct connection to the end of the waterfront line. As an urban circulator you would not normally run trains from the waterfront line onto the Downtown loop. http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/TrafficParking/pdfs/2011-0120_NH%20Streetcar%20Final%20Report_Complete.pdf Another option could be to run a track through the flats up St Clair or main avenue, although I have dobuts about the grade of those hills. max grade for a Tram is 9%

http://noaca.org/presentations/oh1pt6billshort.pdf NOACA has been working to resuscitate the project.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/21/BAPS1NOFAV.DTL VEiw HSR as a independent network, but as a integral part of a greatly improved national or regional rail system.

I just don't get it. why does RTA have to add so many bells and whistles to a Starter LRT extension? why do they need to reconfigure the corridor? street running on a road as uncongested as Harvard and Northfield are, is possible and wise. why is double tracking needed. Northfield LRT is a 4.1 km extension and $187.79 million 45.8 milion/KM Harvard LRT is 5 km extension $144.85 million 28.97 million/KM Cincinnati streetcar is a 6.6km all new system that costs 95 million, 14.39 per KM Maintenance costs are also much higher than Newer LRT systems, Cincy's cost are 2.5 million per year. If built as a minimum needs LRT system the cost of the Harvard LRT option would be 72 million single tracked Northfield would be 59 million

I look inot more date on light rail and the inherent issues with cost estimation of portiential light rail project I feel it should be the concept reduces the costs of LRT construction. the precedent for estimated costs of construction of a Cleveland 5 km loop like I proposed would be Cincinnati, they have estimated 95 million for a 4 mile loop. would put a Cleveland loop at 73.6 million at Cincy's 23.75 million per mile. but wait there's more... the FTA has a program Urban Circulator Grants designated for urban bus and streetcar projects. Through the Urban Circulator Program grants, FTA will invest in a limited number of projects that fulfill the six livability principles that serve as the foundation for the DOT-HUD-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities: 1 Provide more transportation choices 2 Promote equitable, affordable housing 3 Enhance economic competitiveness 4 Support existing communities 5 Coordinate policies and leverage investment 6 Value communities and neighborhoods Cincy Received 25 million for their streetcar, Cleveland could do the Same. 73millon -25 million 48 million would be the difference. I think it would be worth it to stimulate the development along the route.

The only entity that could cover a $500 million premium is the federal government and that's exactly what it should do for any QUALIFIED carrier. That would put the insurance issue to rest for good. the government does this for nuclear power plants and Airlines. I do believe this should help reduce the costs of new starts, rail service. eliminating dumb rules is a benefit for all rail projects. in addition I strongly believe that FRA needs to alter its focus from survival toward prevention, using advanced technology, to avoid collisions.

FRA Developing Technical Criteria for Non-Compliant Passenger Rail Equipment www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/TR_RSAC_Report_final_2.pdf I remain perplexed about the exclusive focus on survivability of crashes and not on the prevention of crashes, with PTC, and other technologies. imagine the airline industry being regulated to focus only on survivability of crashes and nnot how it is now on the prevention of crashes.

MAP-21 makes several key reforms: For the first time, establishes national policy goals and performance measures for the federal surface transportation program, such as addressing congestion, improving access to multiple travel options, supporting domestic manufacturing and reducing impacts on the environment and adjacent communities; Consolidates programs and streamlines project delivery, while maintaining existing funding levels; Holds states accountable for the safe upkeep of our roads and bridges; Maintains local control over a share of funds and ensures access to funding for safer walking and bicycling; Includes emergency provisions to allow transit agencies to avoid service cuts and fare hikes; Extends the commuter benefit for transit users, commensurate with parking benefits for drivers; Helps communities make plans to meet the growing demand for walkable neighborhoods with access to jobs, services and public transportation; Ensures that federal funds support streets that are safe and complete for everyone who uses them, whether motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users or transit riders. comparison between senate and House http://t4america.org/blog/2012/03/15/comparing-the-senate-and-house-transportation-bills-side-by-side/

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-02a.htm BTW go Cincy!

I think it was actually about a year ago. Anyways, I love Moe's, but I've always enjoyed Pedro Pedros, so I'm okay as long as we have one of those options near campus. I will miss Moe's, I had a bad expericence at Pedros Pedros before, will never go back.

http://tobysmesa.com/locations

I hope you don't regret that wish -- I'm afraid that we're going to get it. The feds are cutting their transportation budget. The state is cutting its transportation budget. Cities and counties are going to be left to fund their own projects. I don't see large piles of cash building up in any cities. You think the potholes are big now -- just wait. And hopefully I'm wrong about all that... With this being the case, USDOT should allow state DOTs to toll interstates to fund their maintenance. their was amendment to do this in the MAP21 Senate transportation bill that never made it to a vote, that would have done just that. right now there is a pilot program that allows 3 interstate to be converted to tollways, it make sense because not all users travel between cities offten as others. using an EZ-pass system can save heavy road users time and money. freeing up more money for local road, pedestrian and transit projects.

I hope you don't regret that wish -- I'm afraid that we're going to get it. The feds are cutting their transportation budget. The state is cutting its transportation budget. Cities and counties are going to be left to fund their own projects. I don't see large piles of cash building up in any cities. You think the potholes are big now -- just wait. And hopefully I'm wrong about all that... you know what would help? if the gas tax dollars captured in those areas are returned to those areas. I think that would give Cuyahoga country an extra 100 million per year to invest on roads and bridges. My personal belief is that Gas taxes should be used primarily on non federal highways, and that a Tolls should be the primary method to fund interstates between urban areas. I would keep urban areas free of tolls, but place toll gates btween Exurban areas and urban areas where they would not create congestion issues.

We deserve more, why stop at redstributing the funding while still maintaining a centralized distribution mechanism, I don't trust Columbus to do the right thing the power of this state is designed to marginalize urban areas, which provide the 75% of the state's GDP, but are routinely underfunded by politicos in Columbus. If you want proof to how effective, the judicial route can be, look at school funding. where do we start? While there may have been some informal discussions, I think the first thing to do is to bring all the various groups together in one place to discuss a course of action and go from there. Groups representing the disabled, minorities, urban interests and seniors are a start. In any event, we have realize this will be a hard fight. BTW, like what you had to say in your previous message, Biker16! Let's remember that the highway boys want something---an increase in funding---and we have to be there to demand more than just more roads. We could end up working with them for an equitable solution IF we show strength and make them realize that they won't get what they want without compromise. Just the prospect of serious, organized opposition should make them think twice and they should realize that those who have nothing will have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking a strong stance on this issue. I can only speak for myself, but I have been to ODOT HQ and watched our local politician kiss the gold ring, while being completely ignored by ODOT. I feel the time for demanding them to listen is over, now we must make them listen, the best way to do so is to... defund, restructure and redirect. Seeing Matt Zone and Bob Brown beg ODOT to do what they promised to do, only to be blindsided by the Innerbelt bridge, I was outraged, how dare they. the system is irreparably broken. Defund, Restructure and Redirect We are non longer asking. My problem is my voice is not strong enough to get these disparate political interests to coalesces on this ballot initiative. We need the support of: Mayors of the 5 largest cities in the state Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Dayton. County governments of the those 5 metros. County executive, Fitzgerald. State Representatives and senator of these major metro areas. most importantly a deep pocketed funding source, to help fund the initial petition drive, grant from non-profit foundations. you have to build enough grassroots support for it, to make opposition to it futile, this involves shame and embarrassment of the opposition, redistribution of wealth, inequality towards the 8%of Ohioans who do not drive. the cronyism of ODOT, etc... Local control is the key

where do we start?

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/about/training/ballotconsiderations.html A ballot initiative would cost $1.50 x valid signatures or $610,000 expect to spend 1.5-10 million dolalrs on getting the message out. this would be a 2-11 million dollar endeavor. I think the call to arms needs to be the state gas tax itself, the lack of accountability of ODOT, the need for local control of transportation funds. ODOT needs to become an advisory board for local transportation issues, not the heavy handed group of thugs in protected position. defund the bastards. the nature of the Gas tax in OHio is unfair, where the populous counties subsidize the rural counties. It is a classic case of redistribution of wealth. We would put forth an ballot issues that would create A new formula for distrubution of gas tax revenue based upon population and the areas economic strength, our top 5 MSAs generate 75% of the States GDP, our transportation funding needs to represent that. A restructured less centralized ODOT, that is accountable to local counties and municipality, not the Governor. the at the state level the role of ODOT would be to facilitate and mange projects that are outside the jurisdiction of the local offices and to coordinate local branches of ODOT. local ODOT leaders would be appointed by the counties that make up that distrit, and no longer appointed by the governor. A transportation funding mechanism to provide consistent funding for transit operations, from gas tax and or toll revenue. either way to mandate a place at the table for transit agencies, out side of the scope of political interference in Columbus, make it local, make it regional. the question I cannot answer is who are our allies in this and who are our enemies. this will help determine how to raise the money needed to put this on the ballot.

Bad Transit Condemns Much of Ohio’s Growing Urban Poor to Dependency

And shortly thereafter the charter bus operators got the state legislature to pass a law prohibiting transit agencies from operating such services. And are the charter bus operators providing such services today? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. really? OMG i need to move out of this state.

Since the IX Center is private property (or at least I think it is), they can prevent RTA buses from operating to its front doors. But that does not prevent RTA from operating via IX Center Drive which is a public street. Instead, I suspect RTA does not think it can generate sufficient ridership by detouring RTA's #86 route via IX Center Drive. There are also issues relating to RTA having to coordinate a regular RTA route with an irregular schedule of IX Center events. As for a special shuttle bus from the Red Line station, I'm not sure RTA is allowed to do that as it may constitute a charter bus service. I believe itt's the same reason transit authorities cannot operate special bus services to sporting events. RTA used to operate shuttle services to Jacob's field when the Indians were hot. while I was in Chicago CTA was running shuttle buses from the loop to the auto show at McCormick center. I think the issue is the parking revenue that the IX center would not have, because of bus service, similar to why you don;t have a public transit option for Cedar point, they want to maintain that revenue. much like the Eaton corp campus the parking lot for the IX center is so large that it discourages people from walking to the IX center from the street. well at least we know the MedMart would have these issues.

Sorry Mr global moderator sir. the key points of the article is that it represents to the political reality of HSR, we are trying to go from basiaclly 0-250 mph directly , this is very risky proposition that if it does not pan out we will be left with nothing but tens of miles of 250mph rail in the middle of no where. the refocusing of the HSR in California is to make it it more incremental to minimize risk and produce benefits in a shorter time period that can be built upon. I will use the Eurostar as an example of what a reasoned approach to 250mph HSR should look like. 1994: the channel tunnel opens Trains traveled 68 mile distance between the tunnel they used 4 different voltages 25,000 volt AC, 3000v DC 1500v DC, and 600V DC thru 3rd rail. 2003: first leg of high speed 1 opened on a 43 mile stretch between the tunnel and Kent, it reduced travel time by 21 minutes. 2007: the most costly part of the project opens shaving another 20 minutes of travel time. it bored 21 miles of tunnels to reach central london. it is always those final 20-30 miles that drive of the cost of HSR, building in and around cities is a costly endeavor. he total cost of the projects 9 billion dollars not including the channel tunnel itself but the idea of building the market first with slower speed rail to prove the market, then make investments to increase speeds after the market has been proven. Start with electrified freight lines with a maximum speed of 110-125 mph, then build 250 mph segments as the funding allows, incrementally decreasing travel time, while you are operating revenue service. this prevents the issues of political interference leading to a half finished project. even it is not fully built out it still is running making money and providing an alternative to other modes of transport. California has decided to: invest in the most congested urban corridors. no longer plan for the creation of New +150mph segments in urban areas due to the extreme risk for cost escalation. and to use existing urban corridor invest in what is needed to increase speeds on existing segments. begin to electrify existing corridors in anticipation of future HSR. I don;t think this is a Failure for HSR but the beginning a long process to upgrade the rail network to make True HSR possible. to put it in perspective the Wolverine service upgrades in Michigan will shave 20 mins of the travel time from trips, the same time saved from building the first leg of HS1 in the UK.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-train-plan-20120220,0,2256852.story

did you forget about the enormous sports club on thegarage across St Clair from the galleria?

what data would you like to see? Talking with Howard he says the actual revenue from the gas tax is hard to get. there is a precedent for a recalculation of the distribution of the tax revenue was the creation of federal minimums for distribution of federal gas tax money, they set a minimum of 90% of all gas tax revenue raised in a a state must be returned to that state. A similar program suld eb set up in ohio to prevent the continued aste of money on rural project that encourage sprawl.

or maybe a call to action. The findings from research provides the basis for a call to action. If no one knows what the numbers are vs. what they could/should be, then it's pretty hard to say there's a problem. All Aboard Ohio can't do the research because it would be tainted. But if academia compiles the research, then it is more credible. Better still: have CSU (an urban university) partner with a rural university (like Bowling Green) to do the research so it doesn't seem like the findings are biased to favor an urban agenda. politics is rarely shaped by truth and statistics, it is the issues that motivate people towards change that are successful. Finding wedge issues that motivate urbanites to challenge to the status Quo, is what is needed. basing it on sound data while important to me and you is a moot point, we we need to motivate the apathetic towards action. te politics of today is more open to looking an equity issues in Ohio with the innerbelt bridge demonstrating the motivation of ODOT to redistribute our Wealth to other parts of the state. The gall of the TRAC commission to Rate projects based upon economic development, when 75% of Ohio GDP is in it's top 5 Urban areas. not the the Exurban and rural areas that scored higher than projects in urban areas. the basic flaws in ODOT are systemic in my option, and the only solution is a complete rethinking of it's purpose and the basic laws funding the department. the means the gas tax, We cannot rely on the general assembly to fix ODOT. A strong grass roots effort to re-purpose the organization meeting the needs of the all Ohioans is needed. It is not right revenues form the turnpike should be used in southern Ohio when all of the revenue and all the negatives associated with the roads are borne by residents of the north.