With all the recent talk of keeping buses out of the middle of Public Square and, now, a potential outlet store adjacent to Burke Lakefront Airport, a thought occurred: why not terminate RTA's far NE bus lines, like the # 39 buses from Lake Shore Blvd, Euclid, Bratenahl and the like at the 2 outer Waterfront Line Rapid stops?  Looking at Google Earth, there's a partial cloverleaf ramps to/from the Shoreway that feed Muny Lot directly to Marginal Road which both feeds into the Lot but goes right by the WFL's South Harbor terminal and continues to the North Coast Station at E. 9th.  There is an existing bus shelter at South Harbor and one could easily be built facing away from the North Coast station's Eastbound/outbound platform toward Marginal Road.  Bus riders disembarking at North Coast can follow the route of rail passengers up through the station and right to East 9th street which puts you directly at the Federal building, North Point, City Hall and Erieview buildings -- other buildings, hotels and complexes are a short walk from there... If riders wanted to travel to Public Square/Tower City/Gateway or the Warehouse District ... there's the Rapid, of course.  But as folks have noted (largely in trashing the Waterfront Line) downtown is very compact and walking most places is quick.  Aside from WFL trains, there are the free Trolley routes as well.  After the #39s deposited/picked up passengers at these 2 Rapid stations, they could loop back to the Shoreway via E. 9th or turn around at the Amtrak Lot, and double back via Marginal Road to the Shoreway.  Why not?

 

Yeah, I know -- as spoiled Clevelanders, 39 bus riders would scream about their sudden lack of direct bus circulation but, really as I noted, the transit facilities for getting them around downtown -- as well as their feet, are readily available per such a plan.  And the beauty of this plan is that, aside from the very cheap cost of say 1 additional bus shelter at the North Coast/E. 9th Rapid station (even if it's needed at all), there would be no additional costs; all the facilities are in place NOW.  Bus fuel would be saved and the 39 buses would be eliminated from downtown streets.  As it is, all the #39 buses travel into the center of town and partially loop Public Square -- they probably are slated to travel through the middle of the Square via Superior which is a source for discussion and disagreement.

 

... this like what I said in the Lakefront thread re locating the proposed outlet stores to Muny Lot instead of next to Burke, ... makes too much sense.

KJP,

 

Thanks for the 2035 plan, now lets quietly put that on the shelf, and not discuss it. ;)

 

One of the things that I kind of really like about your proposal, is that it almost creates what looks like an "Urban Growth Boundary". Not a heavy-handed legal line in the sand, but almost a competitive advantage urban growth boundary. In that, we are considering extending the rapid transit system to reach further throughout the region, and if you are able to locate your home or business near this, you'll have efficient, easy way to get around, and for customers to get to your doors. This could provide corridors to in-fill the county population, as opposed to draining it into the sprawl. 2035 is a long time from now, almost 20 years, every resident and business will have a chance to consider relocating, and perhaps with the future transit system being planned. Since you might be relocating, you don't have to worry about whats best for your current street, but whats best for how you want the city to be.

 

I also like the potential for the network effect. If you only have 2 major rapid corridors, as we currently do, you have a section of the region that your Rapid RTA Map can get you to, but big part of the region that you can't get to. With more lines, in different directions, and reaching further, you've encapsulated the extent to where people might be going. (Still the last mile problem, but atleast your an order-of-magnitude closer). More people will be making more connections, thus the potential for doubling your throughput, and thus the value of transit-served existing stations are more valuable. (i.e. Getting to Ohio City isn't just possible from areas served by Red/Blue/Green, but now Purple, Yellow, and Orange regions too.) Maybe bus routes will also be more effective use of people's time, as they can feed into a fast rapid backbone.

 

One of the valuable things about multi-stop transit, is that land-use that is "on the way" is more valuable. Definitely land near existing/new transit stations will be prime locations for a spike in walkable urban places, and higher density / mixed use development. So, a vision like this could help encourage cities/NOACA in their land use planning, or vice versa, or feedback loop. (i.e. Clifton/Detroit from here to here is prime for increased density, and transit can support Detroit/Clifton area)

 

2035 is a long way a way, and transportation technology (AI / autonomous) will certainly add some interesting changes. But, perhaps with self-driving fleets, this could signal less private car ownership, and less need to land use devoted to car parking. Thus allowing using land use towards productive things (commerce, housing), making car-oriented suburbs able to rethink their layout / urban form, since you don't need to locate your store behind 200 feet of parking. Families can go from 2 cars to 1 car, to no privately owned car. So while, autonomous taxi fleets could be an option, where they pick you up at your origin and take you directly to your destination, this is probably a lower total-cost-of-ownership than private vehicle (autonomous/shared 50c / mile vs private 100c/mile). The potentially yet-more-efficient route would be for last-mile autonomous vehicles to feed you into the more efficient per passenger, higher density longer-haul rapid network to get you across town, and then you can hop into another last-mile autonomous vehicle to get to your destination.

 

Say you have a 10 mile trip:

private vehicle: 100c / mile = $10

autonomous/shared: 50c / mile = $5

last-mile-feed-to-rapid: 1mile@50c, 8mile@20c, 1mile@50c = .50 + 1.60 + .50 = $2.60

 

So, in my head (these numbers are rightfully dubious, but the premise ought to hold), there is a need for longer distance, high throughput rapid transit. Also, as transport establishes a per-use-price, people might save on that last-mile fee, and just walk/bike it in good weather, or use transit during taxi surge-pricing. (Compared to you already pay monthly car loan, already pay insurance, already have fuel in the tank, just have to put your seatbelt on and go ~ feels free for that one use vs hitting Uber/TeslaFleet/Google button for last mile).

 

Regarding financing, I think you'll see backlash and lack of appetite for something that doesn't provide a benefit, they won't see themselves using, but natural support for something valuable. The purple line alone is worth it for me to advocate.

Whatever happen to NEORail? Well since no public agency will make the necessary steps to expand rail in this region, why don't we the people fundraise and do it ourselves as a non profit organization. First line is too lease the old Nickle Plate Road to Lorain. Then buy the old stainless steel Red Line cars for cheap, send them to Brookeville Rail equipment and manufacturing company in Pennsylvania for1-1.5 for total rebuild as well DMU power. All stations will be Lorain, Avon West, Avon East, Crocker Park, Columbia Rd, Rocker River, Lakewood West, Lakewood East, W Blvd. Tower City. We should demand RTA to build a Red Line station over the Flats near the Warf after the trestle bridge. Next is to reform bus routes more like a grid instead of sending all buses to downtown Cleveland.Some buses that don't go downtown should be routed to the Rapids as a feeder route Bus stops should be more space out. 5/6 blocks in length. Most of the Rapid Park  in Ride perking spots should be develop to TOD with enough parking for transit users. W. Park should be moved closer to Lorain Ave. Parking should be closer too. Security. Red Line should return to turnstiles' with transit cop at each Red Line station and CCTV. If someone jumps, you can send a cop to the train on the next station this goes as well on the Health Line. All rapid equipment should have low/ high  platform boarding like Muni or Septa Silverliner V  The biggest one of them all is the Downtown subway/ Busway( Seattle). Phase 1 will be Huron and superior trunk subways E 13st. Cut n Cover construction. Red Line from the west turns towards Superior after getting off the viaduct Stops at W 3 , W 9 buses, E9, E12. Red Line from the East goes through Huron E 9, Euclid Playhouse Sq. Buses coming west would use the bridge subway and bus from  East heads down a bus ramp at E18. Phase 2 is to connect the tunnels through E13. You will have the Chinese or Spaniards built the tunnel because they are able to build on the cheap. RTA should buy up the parking lots in Downtown and use it as venture capture to fund it's regional system and pay for these expansion and including a increase of 50% in parking fares in location.

For the Red Line Rapid+ to Lorain, the designs for the stations shouldn't exceeded $50k-200k since it will only be high platform with basic shelter with stairs and a ramp for ADA. RTA spend useless amount of money overbuilding thier stations. Music Star Commuter rail was build for only $45m. That's sad that auto centric Nashville have a commuter rail before us

Whatever happen to NEORail? Well since no public agency will make the necessary steps to expand rail in this region, why don't we the people fundraise and do it ourselves as a non profit organization. First line is too lease the old Nickle Plate Road to Lorain. Then buy the old stainless steel Red Line cars for cheap, send them to Brookeville Rail equipment and manufacturing company in Pennsylvania for1-1.5 for total rebuild as well DMU power. All stations will be Lorain, Avon West, Avon East, Crocker Park, Columbia Rd, Rocker River, Lakewood West, Lakewood East, W Blvd. Tower City. We should demand RTA to build a Red Line station over the Flats near the Warf after the trestle bridge. Next is to reform bus routes more like a grid instead of sending all buses to downtown Cleveland.Some buses that don't go downtown should be routed to the Rapids as a feeder route Bus stops should be more space out. 5/6 blocks in length. Most of the Rapid Park  in Ride perking spots should be develop to TOD with enough parking for transit users. W. Park should be moved closer to Lorain Ave. Parking should be closer too. Security. Red Line should return to turnstiles' with transit cop at each Red Line station and CCTV. If someone jumps, you can send a cop to the train on the next station this goes as well on the Health Line. All rapid equipment should have low/ high  platform boarding like Muni or Septa Silverliner V  The biggest one of them all is the Downtown subway/ Busway( Seattle). Phase 1 will be Huron and superior trunk subways E 13st. Cut n Cover construction. Red Line from the west turns towards Superior after getting off the viaduct Stops at W 3 , W 9 buses, E9, E12. Red Line from the East goes through Huron E 9, Euclid Playhouse Sq. Buses coming west would use the bridge subway and bus from  East heads down a bus ramp at E18. Phase 2 is to connect the tunnels through E13. You will have the Chinese or Spaniards built the tunnel because they are able to build on the cheap. RTA should buy up the parking lots in Downtown and use it as venture capture to fund it's regional system and pay for these expansion and including a increase of 50% in parking fares in location.

  I see many issues with your ideas. First, which old Red Line cars are you talking about? The Airporter cars that CTS purchased from Pullman-Standard, with a few preserved examples at the Northern Ohio Railway Museum and ORM, have all been scrapped. Furthermore, urban transit cars are not in compliance with FRA standards per 049 CFR. What is needed is an FRA compliant dual mode Diesel/Electric Multiple Unit car that can board at low platforms. High platforms on a freight rail line are problematic, in that the platform would conflict with the railroad clearance diagram, unless the platform is set back away from the track and a gauntlet track or a double ended siding is installed. A gauntlet track arrangement is like a siding with the rails overlapping the main track, not separated as a separate track. There is no place for a Red Line station over the Flats, and the bridge RTA uses is a "viaduct", not a "trestle". I strongly suggest that you review KJP's postings here and on the All Aboard Ohio website as to what can and can't be done

I'm talking about the Toyku Cars that that are at the Brookpark yards. I see cynicism in you post. 

Tokyu Cars that are in Brookpark Yards can be used by using the carbodies and overhauling the railcars.FRA allows freight and passenger rail with a waiver ala Riverline( NJT) or TriWest DMU service in the outskirts of Portland, which by the way have high platform. Red Line station in the flats on the viaduct after going over the trestle bridge is possible by realigning the tracks. Side platforms with stairs and elevator shafts heading down to a stationhouse near new development. Nothing is never impossible.

Tokyu Cars that are in Brookpark Yards can be used by using the carbodies and overhauling the railcars.FRA allows freight and passenger rail with a waiver ala Riverline( NJT) or TriWest DMU service in the outskirts of Portland, which by the way have high platform. Red Line station in the flats on the viaduct after going over the trestle bridge is possible by realigning the tracks. Side platforms with stairs and elevator shafts heading down to a stationhouse near new development. Nothing is never impossible.

 

The Tokyu (and Breda) cars in the Brookpark Yards are being scrapped for usable parts and the rest is being sold off to scrap dealers. GCRTA hopes to hang on to its Tokyu fleet for another 10 years so it can spread the railcar replacement over two federal formula capital funding periods (each are four years long). The next one begins in 2019, I believe. I'm hoping the Breda fleet can be replaced by the end of that formula period, ending in 2023. Then the Toyku cars following by 2027 -- assuming federal funds/formulas aren't slashed further by then.

 

RiverLine has a waiver because it has a temporal separation with freight traffic. What is your plan for the 3-6 daily NS freight trains scheduled during daylight hours between Cleveland and Vermilion via Lakewood and Lorain? If you plan to reroute them, better plan to add some track capacity along the NS Chicago Line via Elyria and Berea.

 

Which one of GCRTA's $600 million total in unfunded capital/state-of-good-repair projects do you want to postpone to build the station on the viaduct? Constructing an elevator/stairwell tower costs up to $10 million each.

 

Nothing is impossible but rarely are things as simple as they first seem. Furthermore, everything has a price. And so far, this region and especially the State of Ohio is unwilling to pay the price.

Yes, I would have the City of Cleveland built the station since it will be serving them. They could recoup that funding with TIF. The Tokyu cars as you say are being sold to scrapped dealers, why don't they sell to a non profit org. These cars can be rebuilt. As Vivarail did with the D stock London Underground they turn those rapid cars to dmu.

You can buy the line outright or have NS move thier 3-6 trains to nights. It's not that hard

Yes, it is that hard. NS freight customers dictate the train schedules. Buying the rail line will cost upwards of $1 million per mile -- assuming NS wants to sell.

 

TIF funding works if there is a development with sufficient revenues to produce a TIF spinoff. Rents in Cleveland aren't that high. Most TIFs generate only a few hundred thousand dollars per year here in Cleveland.

 

Find a non-profit organization that has hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend and you might have the beginnings of something. There was a nonprofit, Lakeshore Electric Railway, that tried to startup a lakefront trolley line a few years ago. They had the railcars from the old Trolleyville USA (Olmsted Falls) collection that RTA kept at Tower City for a year and then was stored in Cleveland port warehouses for another year. But the group couldn't raise enough money to build a new storage/maintenance structure on the Waterfront Line so the Trolleyville USA collection was sold off to private collectors scattered around the nation.

 

Then there was the developers of the Stonebridge complex who wanted to start up a trolley line starting on their old Superior Viaduct and running across the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge to connect with RTA. They couldn't raise the funds for the trolley -- even though they had already bought a couple of Pittsburgh PCC trolley cars, one of which still sits next the viaduct. So the record of these rail-based nonprofit and philanthropic efforts locally isn't that good.

The NS line won't cost 1 million per mile. Eminent Domain can be used if state and local government wanted too. Schedules can be work around. The reason that those non profits fail is because we have a anti rail boss that didn't support those organization. Joe and Noaca got to go.

If there's no funding coming from the state, then local( municipalities) and county have to step up the funding. My belove county of Lorain is about to step up it's funding for it's transit referendum this November, we should have RTA run the system, Akron should do the same. TIF and TOD should be implemented along the Rapids corridor. How about RTA sell air rights over thier tracks from TC to the Interbelt . MTR Hong Kong is a company that RTA should look up too

 

KJP from all the proposal that RTA and yourself have brought to the table, how many they have implemented so far. That organization don't have a vision of what it wants to be. Don't say they don't have money? How about putting turnstiles back on the Red line and adding volunteer ticket enforcement. I see RTA cops up and down on the platforms but not in the trains. How about a fare that is reasonable that it could run its trains and buses but not be a burden to low income individuals. I don't think a $3.50 fare is a burden or $8 All day pass is not burden. If you want a reduce fare at $2.50 for county residents then it should be implement like Phoenix Metro. Have a ID and current utility bill of residence and go to the customer service at Tower City or Airport or your local social benefit building and they will provide you with a reduce card that will be able to reduce fares when you buy it at farebox or the machines and the card would last 6 moths. RTA should also capture these crowds that happen during major events(  playoff games, parades, Brown games and RNC). Why not charge a peak fare? $4 single ride and $9 All day pass. 5 ride pass at $15 for that event day.  The system will  not overloaded ala parade and you  can capture some revenue that wouldn't get from off peak fare.

Don't build the E 79 and Campus Stations, there nothing around those stations and if the communities and organization want a station there getting a 50 feet station like  105

The NS line won't cost 1 million per mile. Eminent Domain can be used if state and local government wanted too. Schedules can be work around. The reason that those non profits fail is because we have a anti rail boss that didn't support those organization. Joe and Noaca got to go.

 

Show me when eminent domain has been used against a railroad. I can only think of one and that was 25 years ago for a New England railroad in very bad condition. And eminent domain doesn't mean you take a property for free. A public agency has to pay a fair and reasonable value for it. Based on recent negotiated purchases by public agencies of railroad corridors, $1 million per mile or higher was the going rate.

 

If there's no funding coming from the state, then local( municipalities) and county have to step up the funding. My belove county of Lorain is about to step up it's funding for it's transit referendum this November, we should have RTA run the system, Akron should do the same. TIF and TOD should be implemented along the Rapids corridor. How about RTA sell air rights over thier tracks from TC to the Interbelt . MTR Hong Kong is a company that RTA should look up too

 

 

Your beloved Lorain County will have a sales tax issue on the ballot for county government and transit. IF voters approve it, the transit funding share is less than $5 million per year. That would pay for five bus routes with a bus every 30 minutes for 14 hours a day. Amazingly, that's an increase over the pathetic "system" the county has now. I hope voters support this small but important levy.

 

Don't build the E 79 and Campus Stations, there nothing around those stations and if the communities and organization want a station there getting a 50 feet station like  105

 

Too late. They're going to be rebuilt. The public hearings on RTA's plan to close both stations showed strong local support for rebuilding the stations in their current locations. All Aboard Ohio opposed rebuilding them at their current locations for the reason you stated, but withdrew its opposition when RTA and the city agreed to undertake a land-use development plan for the East 79th station-area.

 

 

I don't believe that Cleveland would honor the land-use plan like they are honoring the buses through Public Swp

I don't believe that Cleveland would honor the land-use plan like they are honoring the buses through Public Swp

 

Only if a land use plan is enforced with zoning does a city or the private sector honor a plan. Otherwise it's just a guide. No matter -- the community spoke up strongly in support of keeping the East 34th and East 79th stations open. If a community group argued for a new infill station and secured the funding to pay for it, I'm sure RTA would follow suit. They're a political sailboat and they will go whichever way the wind and current is going.

Best place for an infill station on Red Line IMO would be 85th and Madison.

Best place for an infill station on Red Line IMO would be 85th and Madison.

 

Not bad. I'm partial to a Red Line station at Fulton and a Red/Blue/Green Line station at the new East 9th Extension. Both would probably have to be built in response to some real estate developments.

Best place for an infill station on Red Line IMO would be 85th and Madison.

 

Not bad. I'm partial to a Red Line station at Fulton and a Red/Blue/Green Line station at the new East 9th Extension. Both would probably have to be built in response to some real estate developments.

 

I like the W. 85 infill station idea.  It is just a block from both Detroit and Madison, 2 main corridors that  could use a boost-- the Cudell neighborhood has solid density and is showing some signs of recovery, but has a ways to go... a Red Line station at W.85 could be huge.

 

But while I do believe there should be another station between W. 25 and W. 65, Fulton Rd. seems out of the way and fairly desolate.  It would seem a station somewhere near either W. 41 or 44 would be better that could tap into the dense housing and retail rehab and infill going on along Lorain, esp near W. 41st (but will likely continue westward to W. 44th and beyond.

 

I'm likely a lone-wolf on this, but I'd love to see a new station at Lakeview Rd. in East Cleveland (maybe soon to be just NE Cleveland).  When RTA wisely relocated E. 120 to Mayfield Rd. in Little Italy, it created a wide gap between the new stop and Superior and in the middle of a residential area in serious decay that could use a kick... Unfortunately it appears the powers that be have turned over land along Lakeview adjacent to such a station to industrial uses... Again, yet another wasted Cleveland rail opportunity.  Par for the course in this town...

 

Interestingly, according to the late local transit historian Harry Christiansen, the Van Sweringens originally planned for station stops at Little Italy and Lakeview for their unfinished East Cleveland rapid line -- which of course, was built and became the Red Line...

Fulton is definitely desolate. That's why I like it. It's a blank slate -- or nearly so. There's a couple of large old brick buildings nearby that could be candidates for renovation and conversion to housing or mixed use. Once upon a time, back when Norman Krumholz was Cleveland planning director, he tried to get developers interested in building high-rise apartment buildings between West 41st and West 44th streets, above the Red Line and I-90, complete with a new station below. Obviously it never went anywhere. Unless something could be built over I-90, the proximity of I-90 is why I don't like the West 41/44 site for an infill station.

 

Interesting idea about Lakeview in East Cleveland. Definitely a newly opened gap between stations.

You get to the point of having a station every twenty blocks and it's not a "rapid" anymore.  Especially with heavy rail.

 

I'd go with even fewer stations, each one a hub.  Definitely get rid of 34th and 79th.  People speak for those, but do they actually use them?

^East 34th is a total waste of money and points to serious flaws in federal funding formulae. The East 79th station, though, or one nearby, could be a centerpiece of planning related to the Opportunity Corridor, as KJP has shown. Seems shortsighted that its reconstruction is being pushed through unrelated to that process.

^East 34th is a total waste of money and points to serious flaws in federal funding formulae. The East 79th station, though, or one nearby, could be a centerpiece of planning related to the Opportunity Corridor, as KJP has shown. Seems shortsighted that its reconstruction is being pushed through unrelated to that process.

 

Unfortunately too often that is our governments.  Everything has to be done via formula and books, stifling any chance of thinking outside the box.  Multiply this by 3 in this case, with the City of Cleveland, RTA and State of Ohio.  It's too bad Cleveland Clinic isn't a more progressive member of our community and spearheading the charge for these changes to help their employees who don't live in Avon Lake get to work.

You get to the point of having a station every twenty blocks and it's not a "rapid" anymore.  Especially with heavy rail.

 

I'd go with even fewer stations, each one a hub.  Definitely get rid of 34th and 79th.  People speak for those, but do they actually use them?

 

Actually the traditional distance between stations for older HRT rapid transit systems, like the big 4 (NYC, Chicago, Philly and Boston) is a station every half mile, often less.  The faster boarding of HRT systems seems to offset the closer station spacing.  Express trackage obviously can also.  In Philly, for example, the Market-Frankford line west to 69th street is incredibly fast with this close station spacing-- it's actually about .3-.5 miles for most of the route, but it covers the 5.1 mile run (from 15th street/City Hall to 69th street) about 13-14 minutes, which is pretty fast, esp given the density of traffic.... In fairness, though, there's partial local/express trackage, as the subway-surface trolleys run as outer tracks from 15th to 30th streets while the MFL runs non stop on the inner tracks non-stop -- the distance of 1 mile. 

 

Chicago's CTA, in the 40s and 50s, eliminated a lot of stations where the distance was a couple blocks, but on some lines they're still pretty close together: ie the Brown Line and Howard/Red Line, especially on the far North Side of town -- at least on the latter, the Purple Line through Evanston does run express during rush hours.  But at other times the Red Line is pretty slow for such a huge city as Chicago -- even with the scenic elevated views. 

 

But it's not always the oldest systems.... Toronto's subway -- the 1st section of which opened 1 year before our Red Line (1955) -- followed the 1/3 - 1/2 mile spacing (with no express service).  The Spadina branch, which is a couple decades newer, has more wide spacing like our Red Line... Of course KJP might point out that Toronto and Cleveland are at opposite poles ridership-wise, with Cleveland's haul being relatively light, while Toronto moves among the most passengers in North America behind only NYC, D.C. and Montreal, IIRC.

 

Have RTA ever consider air rights over thier facilities or trackage like the open cut between W 25-W65

Have RTA ever consider air rights over thier facilities or trackage like the open cut between W 25-W65

 

Not that I'm aware of. There hasn't been a need for it.

I was chatting with my neighbor this morning, and found out that we both work in the same building (different companies). I was talking about how great biking and the 55 bus is, and they're like no, not interested, stop talking. I continued talking, and they interrupted me saying they have free parking, and I realized, that a person with free parking has probably close to zero interest in ever bothering to think about transit.

 

If I were an employer, instead of giving each employee a reserved parking space, I'd be tempted to instead offer some type of savings account, say $100/mo, and the employee can then be free to do whatever they wanted with that money. Either use the $100 to buy a monthly garage pass at the building, spend it on a garage 5 blocks away for $50/month, monthly transit pass, or for downtown residents to walk or bike, and keep the cash.

 

According to the internet, this is called "Parking Cash Out". And the most likely outcome is that some percentage of employees will carpool with each other, splitting the cash out. Other outcomes are increased transit, walking, biking.

 

The thing I'm curious about is, is there anything on the books for Ohio or Cleveland that requires or encourages companies to provide a "parking cash out"? It looks like its one of those potential win-wins for employers and employees. Lower cost for employer (to provide less cash than cost of parking, thus can hire more people), more money for employee (if they carpool), and less emissions/traffic with more potential riders.

 

I'd have to imagine that this ought to be on the minds of companies considering relocating to downtown. Your office park in the burbs has ample parking, but the first question when you relocate to downtown is parking, so you gobble up 150 spaces, and provide that to your employees. But, why not have a flexible "parking cash out" option when your planning your move.

Sounds reasonable to me.  There could also be be a tax-incentive offered to employers for this benefit, all while hiking the actual parking tax to increase revenue for transit.

I was chatting with my neighbor this morning, and found out that we both work in the same building (different companies). I was talking about how great biking and the 55 bus is, and they're like no, not interested, stop talking. I continued talking, and they interrupted me saying they have free parking, and I realized, that a person with free parking has probably close to zero interest in ever bothering to think about transit.

 

If I were an employer, instead of giving each employee a reserved parking space, I'd be tempted to instead offer some type of savings account, say $100/mo, and the employee can then be free to do whatever they wanted with that money. Either use the $100 to buy a monthly garage pass at the building, spend it on a garage 5 blocks away for $50/month, monthly transit pass, or for downtown residents to walk or bike, and keep the cash.

 

According to the internet, this is called "Parking Cash Out". And the most likely outcome is that some percentage of employees will carpool with each other, splitting the cash out. Other outcomes are increased transit, walking, biking.

 

The thing I'm curious about is, is there anything on the books for Ohio or Cleveland that requires or encourages companies to provide a "parking cash out"? It looks like its one of those potential win-wins for employers and employees. Lower cost for employer (to provide less cash than cost of parking, thus can hire more people), more money for employee (if they carpool), and less emissions/traffic with more potential riders.

 

I'd have to imagine that this ought to be on the minds of companies considering relocating to downtown. Your office park in the burbs has ample parking, but the first question when you relocate to downtown is parking, so you gobble up 150 spaces, and provide that to your employees. But, why not have a flexible "parking cash out" option when your planning your move.

 

You know companies get a federal tax break by paying part or all of their employers monthly transit fares...

This is the kind of technology I would love to see using existing RTA Rapid lines to the end of their wires, then drop the pantograph, switch over to diesel or battery propulsion, and transfer over to an underutilized railroad line to reach the outer commuter hinterlands. This is what I called "Rapid+" in deference to the regional tourism effort "Cleveland+" referring to Cleveland and its NE Ohio hinterlands....

 

Thursday, September 01, 2016

DB to convert DMUs to bi-mode hybrid trains

Written by  Keith Fender

 

GERMAN Rail (DB) has announced it is working with technical universities in Chemnitz and Dresden to develop bi-mode (diesel and electric) trains with lithium-ion battery storage. Between 2017 and 2021 DB intends to convert 13 existing Siemens class 642 Desiro Classic DMUs to hybrid bi-mode configuration.

 

The first train should be ready for testing by September 2017 with Federal Railway Authority (EBA) approval envisaged by early 2018. The trains will be used by DB RegioNetz Verkehrs (Erzgebirgsbahn) on the Erzgebirge Diesel Network in Saxony.

 

The rebuild programme - named EcoTrain by DB - will cost €15m, with DB providing two thirds of the budget and the balance coming from the German federal government.

 

MORE:

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/db-to-convert-dmus-to-bi-mode-hybrid-trains.html

^Back to the future (as in 1985 with the British Leyland DMU which, although not dual powered, did switch from NS tracks from Mentor to RTA's tracks to enter the then Shaker (Blue-Green) Terminal Tower station... This is still a smart way to go with all the lightly used RR ROW's radiating from Cleveland.

 

I'm probably, though, one of the lone holdouts who believes the NS tracks and/or ROW, from the Red Line's West Blvd/Cudell station west through downtown Lakewood and perhaps at least to Rocky River, should be a fully electrified, rapid transit service.  Why?  Because the area it would serve has Chicago-like density and includes the long, energetic downtown Lakewood walking district. 

 

 

 

NICTD Please?

 

http://www.mysouthshoreline.com/

 

Back in the late 70s, early-80s when the Grim Reaper was poised to euthanize the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend railroad, the State of Indiana dove in to save the famed electric interurban line by creating Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) to fund it and keep it alive.  Since that time, the NICTD has fully assumed the South Shore Line's operations and is greatly improving service, including installing new catenary, adding new bi-level cars, extensively  double tracking service (including all 25 miles from Gary to Michigan City), etc, to the extent that demand for the line is has risen considerably.  The Chicago Tribune recently wrote that demand for housing along Lake Michigan's south shore is way up and that the South Shore Line is a key reason why... NICTD is even planning a 9-mile extension from Hammond to  Munster, IN. 

 

Why not Northern Ohio?  Why couldn't our beloved state government create a several county district to allow expansion of RTA services, esp commuter rail, into these areas?  Why wait for these foot-dragging counties to act?  This is especially true of Lorain County, where the I-90 corridor was one of the few in the Cleveland metro area that actually grew per the 2010 census...

 

... just a thought.

 

Board members include representatives from the 4 northern Indiana counties served by the South Shore Line along with an appointee by the Governor of Indiana. 

The 25 miles of double-track construction from Gary to Michigan City isn't yet fully funded (at $200 million). But it probably will be as FTA rated the project highly and NICTD has the nonfederal share.

 

And the reason why Northern Ohio hasn't done anything is because the state didn't save the South Shore line. The counties of Northern Indiana asked the state to intervene to save it from abandonment in 1976. And the state doesn't fund NICTD. The state serves as the coordinator of and banker for these four counties, holding NICTD's financial accounts. So if you scroll the many pages of the State of Indiana budget, you will see NICTD and its dollar amounts listed in there. And the counties made it happen, not the state.

 

Here's what Indiana has.....

 

State of Indiana Public Mass Transportation Fund

The Public Mass Transportation Fund (PMTF) is

a fund authorized by the legislature to receive

revenue from the State’s General Fund.. These

funds are allocated on a calendar year basis using

a performance-based formula to eligible municipal

corporations (as defined by I.C. 36-1-2-10).

 

Operating expenses, passenger trips, total vehicle

miles, and locally derived income data are utilized

to compute the formula allocations.

In 2012, INDOT allocated $42.5 million in PMTF to

66 transit systems in Indiana.

 

Awards are limited to an amount equal to 100

percent of the project’s Locally Derived Income

or the system’s total allocation, whichever is less.

Locally Derived Income (LDI) is used to measure

local financial commitment and is defined as

follows:

 

1) System revenues including fares, charter,

advertising, and all other auxiliary and nontransportation

revenues;

2) Taxes levied by, or on behalf of, a transit

system; and

3) Local cash grants and reimbursements

including general fund receipts; property,

local option income, license, excise, and

intangible taxes; bank building and loan

funds; local bonding funds; and other locally

derived assistance.

 

LDI does not include contra-expenses such as

expense refunds from motor fuel tax, or in-kind

volunteer services.

______

 

Electric Rail Service Fund

The Electric Rail Service Fund (ERSF) is a special

state fund generated from property tax on a railroad

company’s distributable property that provides

service with a commuter transportation district

established under I.C. 8-5-15. These funds are only

available to commuter transportation districts that

have substantially all of their service performed by

electrical powered railroads. Qualifying commuter

transportation districts must receive equal shares of

this fund. Currently, all funds go to the Northern

Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD),

the only entity eligible for these funds at the

present time.

In 2012, INDOT allocated $177,578 in ERSF funds

to NICTD.

__________

 

Commuter Rail Service Fund- Sales Tax

The Commuter Rail Service Fund (CRSF) is distributed to

commuter transportation districts established under I.C.

8-5-15 to be used for maintenance, improvement, and

operations of commuter rail service. This fund receives

0.123 percent of the state’s general sales and use tax

revenue.

In 2012, INDOT allocated at total of $8,367,466 from

General Sales and Use Tax to NICTD

________

 

Commuter Rail Service Fund – Situs Tax

Collections from the indefinite-situs tax on distributable

property of railroad car companies (I.C. 6-1.1-8 35) also

contribute to the Commuter Rail Service Fund. These

funds must be used for debt financing for long term

capital needs.

In 2012, INDOT allocated $5,947,731 from IndefiniteSitus

Tax to NICTD

Currently, all CRSF monies go to the Northern Indiana

Commuter Transportation District, the only entity

eligible for these funds at the present time.

 

SOURCE: http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Transit_2012PublicTransitReport.pdf

^Technicalities aside, the more important point is Indiana got it done -- whether it be these individual counties themselves or in tandem with the state, the failing South Shore was bailed out and saved with South Shore's profitable freight service separated and run by a private/semi-private corporation.... However these Indiana counties did it, NEO and RTA should move to follow suit for even expanded commuter bus service let alone commuter rail lines.  It's been way too easy to do nothing --- RTA + NEO public officials have thrown up their hands in hopeless exasperation without seriously taking the necessary steps toward a solution.  Indeed, nothing positive is happening in Greater Cleveland regarding transit funding these days.  Not only have there just been a fare increase along with round of serious service cuts, more cuts are on the way with the RTA's (and other agencies') of Medicaid taxing monies next year.  Meanwhile Blue/Green Line cars are falling apart and RTA apparently barely has enough to cover normal weekly service let alone special events.  (and from what I'm hearing, even the Browns' home opener the following week is going to present a serious challenge re Blue/Green/Waterfront service).  As far as the public, like me, sees it, nobody is seriously doing anything about any of this -- if they are it's being done behind closed doors, which is a problem in itself.

 

 

^^Doesn't that show quite a bit of operating funds coming from the state? The $8+M in the Commuter Rail Service fund come from "0.123 percent" (presumably meaning percentage points) of the state's general sales tax, no?

Yes, but the amount the state is contributing is by no means the total amount. I seem to recall there are county-derived funds that are deposited into the state-held accounts. However I can't look up those numbers now.

 

And if the source of a political constituency is a "technicality", then yes, having the counties take the lead in getting the state to respond was a "technicality." In reality, it was essential. There is also a big difference involved in quantifying and protecting an existing political constituency (Chicago-bound rail commuters from the four Indiana counties) than quantifying and organizing a new political constituency for inter-county transit. Right now, that constituency is very small although it is likely to grow. But it will probably grow through evolution rather than a big bang, because that's how they usually happen. And when it grows strong enough, it will demand more and better transit service (which is starting, but we're still very early on).

Creating a multi-county public transit system in Northeast Ohio

By Ginger Christ, The Plain Dealer

on October 10, 2016 at 1:26 PM, updated October 11, 2016 at 3:37 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Public transit in Ohio is stalling.

 

From cuts to state funding to budget shortfalls to looming revenue stream problems, transit agencies like the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority have been forced to cut service and raise fares.

 

"What we have in Cleveland is not unusual. I think most people realize it could better," said Joe Calabrese, CEO of RTA.

 

That's why some in the industry see a multi-county public transit system as a possibility for the region.

 

Grace Gallucci, executive director of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), thinks a transit model similar to Chicago's could work in Cleveland.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/10/creating_a_multi-county_public.html

 

Cuyahoga County putting a renewed focus on public transit

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Cuyahoga County Council is upping its efforts to include public transit in the local conversation about funding and transportation.

 

County Council is considering creating a subcommittee on public transit to explore "possible sources for countywide and regional funding for public transportation," said Joseph Nanni, County Council's Chief of Staff.

 

"Council President [Dan] Brady and other members are very concerned about past and potential future cuts to public transit," Nanni said.

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority this year already had to raise fares and cut service 3 percent and faces even deeper cuts in 2018 when it will lose funding from the sales and use tax on Medicaid managed care organizations. At that point, RTA could have to cut service up to 10 percent and lay off 150 people, RTA CEO Joe Calabrese has estimated.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/10/cuyahoga_county_putting_a_renewed_focus.html#incart_river_home

 

While I know that we will want to focus on what routes, services and modes should be offered, right now this is a political/institutional/financial/organizational issue. It will require state action, including the legislature passing a law that charters a new transit organization, be it a merger of existing county-based agencies or the creation of an inter-county transit "umbrella." Either way, any intercounty organization will require state approval. While increased state funding is needed, there's a possibility that the counties will have to come up with the money themselves. How much money? Just to address current backlogs of state-of-good-repair needs, the tab is more than $600 million. If you add in transit expansion projects that the transit agencies have planned but can't move forward on due to lack of funds, that tab is $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

 

Issuing bonds to also leverage federal funds (and some state and private money) means having a dedicated revenue stream for transit that generates a good bond rating. A 20-year, half-cent of additional sales tax for transit in each county served would provide the necessary funds. But what other funding sources (parking tax?), funding mechanisms (TIFs?), service delivery models (competitive bidding of intercounty rail/bus services?) and other ideas could be considered?

 

Yes, the conversation about true regional transportation has finally started in Northeast Ohio. Where will it lead? You can help shape it!

^Indeed, it's a major starting point that these discussions are finally happening.

Some interesting stuff was posted on Twitter this last night. This is probably the best thread for posting it here on UO......

 

@drastamat7

 

playing with LEHD data to better understand who works where and east/west divide in CLE. dots show homes for those who worked downtown in 2015. 1 person = 1 dot. red is less than $15k earnings, yellow is $15k-40k, green greater than $40k

 

 

 

 

@drastamat7

same maps but with those who worked on Clev. Clinic main campus block, 34k workers? 65% those workers lived in Cuyahoga. 22% of that in Cleveland. Top neighborhoods are Old Brooklyn, Downtown, Kamm's, Glenville, & Shaker Square with 300-400 workers each

 

 

 

In contrast to downtown Cleveland, where many downtown workers live, look at Cleveland Clinic. Look at how few CCF workers live within walking distance of the hospital campus. Yet so many live in the high-rise apartments around Mayfield and I-271. That's a long commute to work. I smell an opportunity for residential development around CCF and University Circle. BTW, see my post about all of the publicly owned property available between the East 105th/Quincy rail station and the CCF campus.

 

EDIT: Here's that posting of the map with the publicly owned properties along East 105th....

 

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,30819.msg933554.html#msg933554

Its interesting how quickly the density changes from Edgewater over 117th to the Gold Coast area of Lakewood. Lots of people making that trek across town.

This is why we need more high rises-- professionals love them, especially professionals from other countries.  And we may have a better shot of building them in Fairfax due to less NIMBY opposition.  NIMBYs have vanquished a lot of height in the immediate University area.

Interesting but off-topic, these maps show some changes in neighborhood names.  Corlett is no more, Slavic Village is undivided, Collinwood is now North Shore and Nottingham as opposed to north and south.

 

I know those maps were posted a while ago, but I just noticed something that really surprise me- the density of CC workers in Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts is not especially high.  I always assumed that CC employees were making up a huge portion of the housing market there.  Not so, apparently.

I was in St Louis for work this week and found myself in the Delmar Loop for the first time.   St Louis in general has saved much of it's historic architecture, and the Loop is no exception.  It almost reminded me of a slightly more dense version Madison Ave, or sections of Detroit Ave in Lakewood. 

 

I noted streetcar tracks in the pavement and my friend told me it's actually a project started by a private business owner who also owns many of the buildings in the business district.  It's behind schedule and over budget, but due to open very soon.

 

This got me thinking--with the new project in downtown Lakewood moving forward, wouldn't it be nice to have a Lakewood loop trolley running out Detroit then back on Madison, connecting it to the rapid station on W 117th?  

 

https://fox2now.com/2018/11/07/loop-trolley-in-finals-stages-of-certification/

I think this would be great, especially for the city of Lakewood.  I live on Lake and would absolutely utilize something like this.  Now if only we could find  someone with the means to pay for it and eventually sell it to the city.

 

7 minutes ago, yanni_gogolak said:

 

As much as you and I want to think auto dependency can change, it will not. Most of the country is vehicle dependent. Cleveland is not a unique circumstance.

Again, how are you determining parking without knowing the amount of users of project?

 

Care to cite some data, YG? Here's a citation countering your personal belief...

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/transit-ridership-continues-to-grow-in-central-seattle-while-solo-car-commutes-decline/