biker16

the Paris RER was developed from Traditional commuter rail services into Paris, and offered a way to provide better service into Paris from it's suburbs, and helped reduce congestion on the Paris metro. Paris RER lines Line name Opened Last extension Stations served Length Average Interstation Journeys made (per annum) (A) Line A 1977 1994 46 108.5 km / 67.5 miles 2,411 m 272,800,000 (B) Line B 1977 1981 47 80.0 km / 49.8 miles 1,739 m 165,100,000 © Line C 1979 2000 84 185.6 km / 115.5 miles 2,184 m 140,000,000 (D) Line D 1987 1995 59 190.0 km / 118.1 miles 2,807 m 145,000,000 (E) Line E 1999 2003 21 52.3 km / 32.5 miles 2,615 m 60,000,000 The RER contains 257 stations, 33 of which are within the city of Paris, and runs over 587 km (365 mi) of track, including 76.5 km (47.5 mi) underground. Each line passes through the city almost exclusively underground and on dedicated tracks.

WYE WYE WYE?

yes, they can pay a higher percentage of the costs. it wouldn't be easy but it can be done.

I have been thinking about this image It was released with the Ohio Hub project and summarized the common corridors between the Ohio hub and the Defunct NEOrail proposal from 12 years ago. When NEOrail was being developed it never took into account the OHIO hub plan, High speed Rail, it was state of the art study of tech available in the mid 1990s. view all the Documents on NEO Rail here Ohio Hub HERE Fast forward to toady, and developments in technolgy and the push for Higher and high speed Rail in the US. I looked at 4 examples of where We are going with rail in the North america California California's development of 220MPH HSR which include the electrification of Caltrain in the Bay area and Metrolink in LA. the reduce costs of getting HSR service into those metropolitan areas by 10s of billions of dollars. this work on the "bookends" will increase frequency and speed and move both services to Rapid transit standards. New York State Empire corridor study is the most recent example of mordern thinking on HSR, The use of Class 7 standards for up to 125mph train travel and an average speed of 101MPH over the express corridors from buffalo to Albany, while relying on Existing regional rail from Albany to NYC. Toronto GO transit electrification of it commuter Rail network, to increase capacity and frequency of that network, making it possible to move their commuter rial network to a Rapid transit network. Chicago Crossrail Chicago and south of the lake passenger rial corridor represent new thinking for building HSR and HrSR rail it seeks to establish passenger rial only corridors in urban areas that can avoid traditional obsticals to reducing travel time on passenger rail routes in urban areas, primarily Freight rail congestion, and and speed restrictions on freight traffic ( coal trains for example AFAIK have speed restrictions of 35MPH) by moving all passenger rail traffic to dedicated ROW with the option for future electrification, makes it easier to build out HSR and HrSR. all of these examples have a similar theme: [*]Dedicated Passenger Rail ROW [*]Electrification [*]Shared ROW used for both HrSR, HSR Regional, Commuter services. what does this mean? Looking forward to potential HSR, HrSR and regional systems for Northeast Ohio how can we shape the routes of those services to Maximize the benefits for this region. Look at the NEO Rail combined Cost and ridership in 2001 dollars $2.537 billion (3.323b in today's dollars) for complete Tier 3 system build out. ridership estimates of 8,167,100 per day. Ohio Hub Capital costs for 110mph system $4.762 in 2007 dollars between 400-600 million of Ohio hub cost were to be spent in NEO. ridership 9.34 million per year in 2025 NEO Station Annual Ridership CBD 1,155,742 Airport 160,169 SE station 65,575 NE station 154,435 Elyria 219,573 Total NEO regional ridership 1,755,494 Midwest 220Mph HSR Rail Network to Chicago Borchure here travel time 2:15 to Union Station in Chicago Annual Ridership to Cleveland. 4-6 million estiomated cost of 2-3 billion to build HSR coordor from Chicago in NEO. Total ridership for all systems commuter, Regional, and HSR 15-17 million riders per year. Estimated Costs in NEO NEO rail 3.32 billion Ohio HUB (110MPH) 400-600million HSR 150MPH 2-3 billion Total costs 5.72-6.92 billion The Ohio Hub plan noted the difficulties of having only 4 track station to handle Ohio hub Services and NEOrail services which would likely forces a minimum 6-8 track station for blended Services in Downtown Cleveland. Whats missing? What NEO rail missed. NEOrail never considered the Ohio hub plan. NEOrail never considered the growth of university Circle, independence, and other areas and the decline of Downtown Cleveland. NEOrail never considered the increases in fuel prices and the trend toward transit and away from driving. What I am proposing? Is a Northeast Ohio Regional Express Rail network, or NEO-RER It would develop a Class-7 electrified 125MPH core urban railway , that would carry commuter, regional and High speed passenger rail traffic through north East Ohio, with a Local class 4-5 railway to access local commuter markets where ROW isn't shared with regional or HSR traffic. this would results in 156 miles of commuter Rail routes. with a combined total of 200 miles of dedicated passenger ROW from Lake county to Lorain county, and as far south as Canton. with primary stations in Downtown Cleveland, University circle, and Ohio City. more to come.

I disagree. Cleveland's Rapid has one of the fewest stops-per-mile of any rapid transit system a little more than 1 stop each mile. Even though Cleveland has moderate to lower density compared to some other major cities, there are still a number of neighborhoods that are passed by, by the Rapid-- more the Red Line than the older Blue and Green lines (including the Waterfront line) which have stations more convenient to the neighborhoods the lines traverse. The Red Line zooms by a number of neighborhoods that are developing or are ripe for TOD, like Buckeye-Woodland, W. 41-44 and W. 85. The move to relocate E. 120 to Little Italy is an example of moving a station to where people and retail are. Any rapid transit system that runs along a RR ROW, esp the kind of windy-twisty route the Red Line follows, is bound to hit the edges of built up neighborhoods, or miss them entirely. But there are a number of points along the Red Line, namely those mentioned above, that are accessible to people and development... ... and the good news is, E.Rocc, is that the Red Line would lose very little speed as a result adding these few station-stops (maybe 1 or 1.5 extra minutes), given the speed boarding/un-boarding the POP fare collection system. Based on stations 6,000 feet apart, acceleration/deceleration of 3.2fps/s (3.5km/hr/sec) and a top speed of 73.3 fps (50mph), you add about 23 seconds to the time between stations by making a complete stop in between, an increase of about 20%. Add the time actually stopped, and it’s fair to talk about an addition of approximately 2 minutes of travel time, per new stop. I’m skeptical of the overall impact of POP on stopped time. We’re still talking about people getting off or arriving at the very last second, taking their time. Four new stations between TC and the airport (now 26 min) and three between TC and UC (now 14 min). You’re effectively slowing down the Red Line 33% in order to make it mimic light rail. IMO we’re better off reducing stations, if anything, and making each station a mini hub for its region. Reduce the number of bus lines going all the way downtown in favor of increased intra-neighborhood service. If you’re crossing town, use the Red Line. Development doesn’t happen radially around here, it happens in clusters. Something like this serves and might even help trigger your TOD. I Like your analysis. Question: why is the redline slower than it was 20 years ago? same trains, same stations, same rail, but up to 8 minute slower than it was 20 years ago. You have to define the type of system the Redline is: is it commuter rail? Regional rapid Transit? city of Cleveland's Rapid transit system? My view is, adding 4 minutes of travel time between the airport and downtown wont make much of a difference for those people riding in from brookpark, but will increase ridership and spur TOD around these infill stations, which would primarily be Walk-up station not massive park and rides like Brookpark, Triskett and Puritas. the Travel time on the Green line in the Twin cites is 40 minutes to travel ~10 miles, yet is expected to Yield 40,000 riders per day. it slow but has great connectivity to its users and where they want to go. this is more mportant than speed.

Unless each train station in the entire system has a token booth and a no paid zone and paid fare zone, this will not work on the Shaker Rapid. As I always say, there is room for improvement, but historical, from downtown going East, you pay upon boarding the Shaker Rapid. from the Eastern terminals going West, you pay upon exiting. Back in the day, all stations from Shaker Square westbound, were considered "express" and the stations east of Shaker Square were "local" and there were two different fares. [i remember when the fare was local -25¢/express-35¢ and then it jump to 60/75¢ when I entered Shaker] If you boarded a train at Lee Road and exited at Coventry, that was considered a "local" fare. If you boarded a train at Lee Road and exited at 116, that was considered an "express" fare. Eastbound, you paid when you boarded so, if you boarded a train at any "express" stop you paid the express fair, regardless of where you were going to exit. If you boarded at any station east of Shaker Square you paid the "local" fare. Due to the Shaker Rapids layout, only the stations stations west of Shaker Square can be modified to provide a place to have turnstiles and where a toll booth clerk can watch both the eastbound and westbound platforms. Im not sure how the fare payment system can be modified to mimic the HL on the Shaker Rapid and be effective, so that RTA does not lose revenue. Every other light rail system I have ever been on uses proof-of-payment, exactly like the Red Line. There's no reason that can't be implemented on the Blue/Green Lines. I doubt that there would be significant revenue loss from that. What systems? Are they NEW BUILD systems not a light rail system that is half express half street car. I don't think P-O-P will work on the Shaker Rapid or RTA would have already implemented this on Shaker portion of the system. The problem isn't POP, it can work on the healthline it can work on the blue and green line The problem is the fare machines. Think about it. Every Healthline station has a fare machine to take payment. That required alot of stuff to do, power, data and the machines them selves. Now take the cost of retrofitting both platforms at each blue and green line station with data, power and a fare machine just to make POP work on the route. The solution is that each train would have a fare machine onboard and swipe and tap locations at every door on the train. It is much cheaper to fit fare machines to 20 trains than >60 machines for every station.

Infill stations, hmm..... I did Quick excersize to answer a Question I had. could infill stations gnerate ridership and increase access to the system? I added 7 new stations. based on on the ground access issues to nearby stations. Puritas and West 160th st West 85th st west 41st st Flats east bank/ Carter Rd (on the viaduct) Carnegie and Ontario East 30th St and Broadway Kinsman Ave Buckeye and Woodland. Closing of 2 stations East 34th (replaced by East 30th) East 79th (replaced by Kinsman and Buckeye.) I also wanted to find out what would happen if the West Park and Triskett stations were relocated to the roads and not in the center of a parking lot. moving the west park station 700 feet to front Lorain and the Tristkett station 900 feet to front Triskett. I also included before and after with the eastern Redline extension. 4 data points for Job/workers access half mile 1 mile 2 miles live <2 miles & work <.5 mile Infill stations would increase access to jobs withing a 10 min walk by 10% and workers by 22%. compared to the east extensions 6% and 21% If RTA could add infill stations and extend the Redline east you would see an 18% increase increase in access to jobs and 45% increase in access to workers.

you cannot operate "robot" trains with at grade intersections, it has to be Completely grade separated.

This type of thinking can make it possible to extend the Blue line to university Circle. Are you at all familiar with the Shaker Square area? yes, I am. Thus the use of a streetcar hybrid makes sense there, while conventional LRT doesn't. mini vehcle specs top speed of 50Mph minimum curve radius of 18m vs 25m today maximum gradient of 8.% change the specs and you can relax the infrastructure required for the vehicle to operate

our 6 mile red line extension looks to cost about a 1 billion dollars too.

For the record that DMU is not light rail, it is commuter rail. I want to highlight the differences. operates every 30 minutes 32 mile route 9 stations only operates on weekdays operates between 7am to~7pm Ridership of 2,400 per day In contrast: The Green line in the Twin cities peak frequencies of 10 minutes 18 stations 9.8 mile route operates weekdays and weekends operates between 4am to~3am Ridership of 40,000 per day by 2030 the intresting thing about honolulu is the system is completley automated, with POP and Driver-less trains, once built should be really inexpensive to operate.

So the multi-lined section, with the most service of all, will have heaters but not the area with less service? AFAIK they have a simple formula for all bus and rails stations, if greater than X number of people use A stop, it would/should get a heater. GCRTA uses something similar when determining where shelters go. what he said.

on a simlar note City lab: Austin Wants to Build a Light Rail-Streetcar Hybrid This type of thinking can make it possible to extend the Blue line to university Circle.

It Downtown, either go around it, under it over it, or through it. they went througt it, the other alternatvies would have drastically increased cost and resulted in a shortened Line. I think the proper choice was made. agreed, can't let perfect be the enemy of good. This route is shared with exsiting hiawatha Line, which they use heated stops in the winter. the point I want to makes is that if you have frequent service ( and they do) you aren't expected to spend much time at the station, use the money for something important like more trains.

:speech:

:box: :ohsnap: Some people have no problem cursing old plans for roads, becuase they are outdated and no longer relevant, yet have different standard for old rail plans, that are equally out of touch with today reality. For Cleveland simply having rail service from Amtrak and GCRTA makes us less hungry for better service and service expansion. For a history of said division look at the transit ideas for the future. thread.

Calm down man, it really isnt that deep. this helps make the case for ODOT pouring money into a redline extension, and into the 300 million needed to refit the rail system.

RTA should seek $300 million in Turnpike money for this. 1 billion dollars project 500 million from a federal New starts grant. 300 million from Turnpike funds 55 million City of Cleveland 15 million East cleveland 35 million Euclid 55 million RTA 40 million County

here is link to the presentation we have been referring to. http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2014-05-13RedLineHL.pdf

And visually demonstrating. Here's a few important charts...... The verdict is that DMU are more expensive to run frequency, and the increased capital costs of Electrified Rail is more that justified by the operational cost savings. running at 7.5 minute headways it make sense to electrify, and the DMU can't perform as well as electrified trains which adds costs. the big question can this be used to get RTA to start thinking about new fleet, and some major upgrades to the system.

seeks to identify best practices in regards to procurement, development and operation. http://modernstreetcar.org/ Most of issues are operational issues signal preemption, POP proof of payment, and Traffic enforcement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/arts/design/imagining-a-streetcar-line-along-the-waterfront.html?_r=0

There is a website called www.Clevelandstreetcar.org they propose a Cleveland Streetcar system that replaces 15-16 bus route in downwotn with two streetcar routes on the Broadway and Pearl Road corridors. this would reduce the number of buses in Downtown Cleveland from 1007 buses per day to 439 buses per day Excluding the healthline. http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/ They also propose a Downtown Circulation loop, The Central Loop is designed to move people to and from major downtown destinations like the Medical Mart and Horseshoe Casino to the 95% of downtown hotels within a 5 minute walk of the Loop. In addition the Loop serves to distribute riders of future streetcar routes throughout Downtown Cleveland. Modeled after Chicago’s historic loop all streetcars would run on the loop and serve as a circulation system. Giving all streetcar riders a one seat ride to all major destinations in downtown Cleveland. http://www.clevelandstreetcar.org/where-should-it-go/downtown-loop/

video of 4 generation of Toronto Streetcar. the last one is my favorite.