Cross-posting this on a few threads

 

Cleveland Connects is hosting a panel discussion on transportation issues on Monday, Nov 24. It's free but you need to register

http://www.ideastream.org/clevelandconnects/getting-around

In this installment of Cleveland Connects, we examine Northeast Ohio’s transportation infrastructure and how it should be shaped to create more livable communities and to promote more sustainable economic growth. Cars will always be part of the mix, and the planned Opportunity Corridor should improve cross-town traffic patterns, but young people today also want to ride their bikes to work or rely more on public transportation. What is the right mix of transportation options? Should the Rapid be expanded? Is it simply a matter of building more bike lanes? Coming up with the right answers will be critical to the region’s ability to grow and prosper and to capitalize on national attention during the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Transportation town hall focuses on bikes, peds and public transit

 

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

 

on November 25, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated November 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The transportation experience in America is changing, but the way we build transportation is stuck somewhere back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when the country was creating a massive interstate highway system.

 

That's according to the keynote speaker at a town hall Monday night in Cleveland that examined Northeast Ohio's transportation networks and how they might be shaped to create more livable communities.

 

"If you want your kids to stay in the area, you are going to build neighborhoods where people can get around both inside and outside of their cars," said Beth Osborne, former acting U.S. assistant secretary of transportation and now a vice president of the advocacy group Transportation for America.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/transportation_forum_talks_int.html

 

Yonah Freemark

August 28th, 2014 |  32 Comments

 

» A new station on Boston’s Orange Line prepares for opening, but infill stations of its type are all too rare.

 

Want to know a secret? One of the best ways to increase transit ridership at a reasonable price requires little additional service. It requires no new line extensions. And it can be done to maximize the value of existing urban neighborhoods.

 

This magic solution comes in the form of the infill station–a new stop constructed along an existing line, between two existing stations. Next week, Boston’s MBTA transit agency plans to open a new stop, Assembly Station, along the Orange Line in Somerville, a dense inner-ring suburb just to the northwest of downtown Boston.

 

Assembly is the latest in a series of recent infill stations in the U.S. located along older heavy rail lines whose other stations were generally constructed decades ago. Washington, D.C.’s NoMa Metro Station opened in 2004; the San Francisco region’s West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station followed in 2011. In Boston, new stations have been constructed along the upgraded commuter rail-becoming-regional rail Fairmount Corridor. And Chicago has had success with the opening of two infill stations in 2012, the Morgan Station in the city’s West Loop and the Oakton-Skokie Station in the northern suburbs.

 

Yet those expansions are exceptions to the rule. Two infill stations are currently planned in Northern Virginia, at Potomac Yard along the Metro in Alexandria and at Potomac Shores along the VRE commuter line, and one new station is under construction along the Green Line in Chicago.

 

But few other cities or transit systems are even considering the possibility of investing in infill stops, even as line extensions are proliferating around the country. That’s a big disappointment.

Where would put GCRTA's next infill station? And is there a value-capture mechanism that can be used to help build and sustain it? Joe Calabrese says GCRTA cannot afford to maintain what it has now, let alone more infrastructure.

The context missing from that piece about the new MBTA station is that it was planned in coordination with a massive retail and residential project, and the developer paid for much of the station's construction. It wasn't the construction of the new station per se that is driving ridership.

The context missing from that piece about the new MBTA station is that it was planned in coordination with a massive retail and residential project, and the developer paid for much of the station's construction. It wasn't the construction of the new station per se that is driving ridership.

 

In other words, it's reacting to events rather than creating them. Much like E. 120th, though moving a stop is not exactly infill.

 

That makes tons of sense.  Infill as a way to jump start an area does not.  You spend money to effectively degrade service for those who would never use the new stop.

W. 85st at madison/franklin seems like the best spot to me....but I would wait a bit.  A bit of a run down mixed use area...some old industrial, retail on Madison not too far from Detroit and Lorain...On franklin...  on the edge of Detroit shoreway and down from OC....

 

Franklin is a decent bikeway towards downtown.

 

that puts the stations 1/2 a mile apart...65th, 85th, w blvd. 

 

there is an old drugstore at the corner of 85th and Madison that would be a good site for TOD...ground floor retail, underground or lvl 2 parking 4-6 floors of apartments condos.  There are already some new townhomes on Franklin and an industrial building converted to lofts.

 

The near west side is so close to being "together"  only have to get to 117th.  We are pretty much to 76th north of Detroit 44th north of lorain.  Lorain is starting to push down.

 

 

So, with all these projects in northern Ohio City and with the possibility of big chunks of land becoming available in the future (Max Hayes, Hillside behind Riverview Tower, Scranton Peninsula), I got to thinking about possible rail transit solutions for near west side.  Obviously, infrastructure cost is our obstacle.  This is why I propose some ideas to make use of existing ROW and infrastructure, specifically Route 2.  Ideally, we could build along Detroit Ave but this seems to be a non-starter as Detroit is not wide enough to accommodate a dedicated rail ROW and auto traffic.  With the recent changes to the Shoreway, this signals to me that we are at least reconsidering total deference to fast moving auto traffic on Route 2.  This plan considers the possibility of adding a rail ROW either on Route 2 or on the grassy lawn immediately south of the existing lanes.

 

The black boxes with white text are the distances (in miles) between stops.

 

Option 1

This option begins at Tower City, uses the 2nd level and the Detroit-Superior Bridge and rises to an at grade ride immediately after west 25th and continues along the southern edge of Route 2 to the Max Hayes site, which is a possible huge development area.  The route continues to the site of the huge NRP project that has the possibility to expand on adjacent land, including the renovation of the Westinghouse tower.  It then continues to Edgewater Park, stopping at the tunnel connecting between Battery park and the beach.  The next stop is at Lake Ave and Desmond Ave - this site is flanked by large swaths of industrial land that could yield a potential redevelopment site and the Edgewater Neighborhood, a stable area.  The terminus is the West Blvd. red line stop where one can transfer lines.

 

Option 2

This option is the "shoot for the stars" option.  Here, we begin at Tower City, head through Scranton Penninsula where Forest City hopefully one day will build a mega development.  It then continues along the hillside behind Riverview Tower where, once the land is stabilized, could spur another mega development along the hillside.  This route then continues on the same path as option 1.

 

I know nothing substantial about transportation planning so let me know what you think.  Once again, this plan is created with the desire to reduce infrastructure costs by utilizing existing ROWs namely along Route 2 and the existing freight tracks.

W. 85st at madison/franklin seems like the best spot to me....but I would wait a bit.  A bit of a run down mixed use area...some old industrial, retail on Madison not too far from Detroit and Lorain...On franklin...  on the edge of Detroit shoreway and down from OC....

 

Franklin is a decent bikeway towards downtown.

 

that puts the stations 1/2 a mile apart...65th, 85th, w blvd. 

 

there is an old drugstore at the corner of 85th and Madison that would be a good site for TOD...ground floor retail, underground or lvl 2 parking 4-6 floors of apartments condos.  There are already some new townhomes on Franklin and an industrial building converted to lofts.

 

The near west side is so close to being "together"  only have to get to 117th.  We are pretty much to 76th north of Detroit 44th north of lorain.  Lorain is starting to push down.

 

Half a mile apart seems kind of tight for a medium-heavy rail system like the Red Line.

 

Half a mile apart seems kind of tight for a medium-heavy rail system like the Red Line.

 

I agree.  Half-mile spacing was the standard for very high-density, pre-automobile cities in the late 19th, early  20th Century.  Cities with older systems like NYC, Philly  and Chicago adopted this standard.  However, in most cases these routes were supplemented with express service skipping many  of these stations, or where there was/is no express service, cities like Chicago simply started eliminating stations, esp in the inner city when population declined there.  Toronto, whose core is dense, decided to build a throw-back system in the  1950s with the every  1/2 station spacing, esp  on its Bloor-Danforth line.  Unfortunately, without any express service, TTC subway rides are maddeningly slow  even though,  obviously, Toronto has  always  had great passenger numbers.  TTC has tried A-B skip stop service, which Chicago and Philly have also used on their non-express lines (ie Philly's Market-Frankford el).

 

For a medium density city like Cleveland, strict 1/2 mile spacing overall doesn't make sense,  even though there  are some unusually dense parts town (or otherwise planned in advance areas) it does work: ie  University Circle area, where the E.105, UC and (new) UC/Little Italy stops are about 1/2 mile apart.  Also of course, the Shaker Heights LRT lines (which were largely designed and built 100 years ago) are 1/3 mile apart, generally, and the Waterfront Line stations are between 1/2 and 1/3 mile apart based on the density of service there.

 

I  do believe, as both I and others have noted, that infill and/or relocated stations at places like E. 89-Woodland, W. 44 and W. 85 could be workable, but in each case there would need to be some coordinated plan for TOD growth in tandem with these  new stations.

 

Yonah Freemark

August 28th, 2014 |  32 Comments

 

» A new station on Boston’s Orange Line prepares for opening, but infill stations of its type are all too rare.

 

Want to know a secret? One of the best ways to increase transit ridership at a reasonable price requires little additional service. It requires no new line extensions. And it can be done to maximize the value of existing urban neighborhoods.

 

This magic solution comes in the form of the infill station–a new stop constructed along an existing line, between two existing stations. Next week, Boston’s MBTA transit agency plans to open a new stop, Assembly Station, along the Orange Line in Somerville, a dense inner-ring suburb just to the northwest of downtown Boston.

 

Assembly is the latest in a series of recent infill stations in the U.S. located along older heavy rail lines whose other stations were generally constructed decades ago. Washington, D.C.’s NoMa Metro Station opened in 2004; the San Francisco region’s West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station followed in 2011. In Boston, new stations have been constructed along the upgraded commuter rail-becoming-regional rail Fairmount Corridor. And Chicago has had success with the opening of two infill stations in 2012, the Morgan Station in the city’s West Loop and the Oakton-Skokie Station in the northern suburbs.

 

Yet those expansions are exceptions to the rule. Two infill stations are currently planned in Northern Virginia, at Potomac Yard along the Metro in Alexandria and at Potomac Shores along the VRE commuter line, and one new station is under construction along the Green Line in Chicago.

 

But few other cities or transit systems are even considering the possibility of investing in infill stops, even as line extensions are proliferating around the country. That’s a big disappointment.

 

It's interesting that a number of Cleveland people state that people don't ride the Rapid here because stations are often in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  Well, this planned Boston T Orange Line infill station is in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  In fact, the new Green Line extension to Somerville, where work is about to commence, has this characteristic.  In fact, many Boston stations on the various routes travel next to railroad lines and are in "ditches."  And yet Boston has one of the highest rider counts in the country.  What gives?  What makes Boston so different than Cleveland?

]

It's interesting that a number of Cleveland people state that people don't ride the Rapid here because stations are often in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  Well, this planned Boston T Orange Line infill station is in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  In fact, the new Green Line extension to Somerville, where work is about to commence, has this characteristic.  In fact, many Boston stations on the various routes travel next to railroad lines and are in "ditches."  And yet Boston has one of the highest rider counts in the country.  What gives?  What makes Boston so different than Cleveland?

 

Land use surrounding the ditch? Just spit ballin'

 

Land use surrounding the ditch? Just spit ballin'

 

Give that man a cee-gar! By the same reasoning of fears toward using a ditch-placed station, fewer should be interested in using a subway station. But more do. Why? How many residential units, businesses, schools, civic uses etc. were developed around that subway station?

]

It's interesting that a number of Cleveland people state that people don't ride the Rapid here because stations are often in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  Well, this planned Boston T Orange Line infill station is in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  In fact, the new Green Line extension to Somerville, where work is about to commence, has this characteristic.  In fact, many Boston stations on the various routes travel next to railroad lines and are in "ditches."  And yet Boston has one of the highest rider counts in the country.  What gives?  What makes Boston so different than Cleveland?

 

Land use surrounding the ditch? Just spit ballin'

 

Which, in turn, is supported by a much different regional economy, stronger city center (which makes location a primary amenity), and terrible traffic, all of which themselves further contribute to transit ridership.

Traffic and strong urban center is also a function of land use which is a function of its development around high density transportation modes -- walking and transit. When the car and the freeway came, Boston refused to succumb to the Norm Bel Geddes/Paul Hoffman model of eviscerating its density so people could drive and park their cars anywhere and everywhere they wanted. And they've continued this practice despite the temptation to reactive transportation policy (ie: resorting to wider highways to reduce congestion which disperses and destroys your city thus only increases congestion by creating more car dependence). It surprised me how many freeways into Boston weren't more than 2-3 lanes in each direction

]

It's interesting that a number of Cleveland people state that people don't ride the Rapid here because stations are often in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  Well, this planned Boston T Orange Line infill station is in a "ditch" next to a railroad line.  In fact, the new Green Line extension to Somerville, where work is about to commence, has this characteristic.  In fact, many Boston stations on the various routes travel next to railroad lines and are in "ditches."  And yet Boston has one of the highest rider counts in the country.  What gives?  What makes Boston so different than Cleveland?

 

Land use surrounding the ditch? Just spit ballin'

 

Which, in turn, is supported by a much different regional economy, stronger city center (which makes location a primary amenity), and terrible traffic, all of which themselves further contribute to transit ridership.

 

I don't doubt those aspects help Boston, but it's also a mentality Boston has that we haven't had, though we're slowly developing it.  We have, in recent years, rediscovered our Rapid system and are building TOD around a couple of stations (and yeah, I know some may squawk, but nuCLEus is absolutely TOD at the Tower City rail head). I'm not sure about the promising apartment complex at the Ohio City rapid; haven't heard about it in about a year... But things are looking up... But Boston could build a rail line into farmland and they would develop around it... We too often have looked at our rail stations as trains in a ditch... Boston?  ... an opportunity.

I don't think the "ditch" concept keeps people from riding the Red Line.  What I suspect it does it makes it less suitable (than light rail) for immediate vicinity development.

 

Boston is different in part because it had a stronger "machine" that didn't want its subjects dispersing. 

I don't think the "ditch" concept keeps people from riding the Red Line.  What I suspect it does it makes it less suitable (than light rail) for immediate vicinity development.

 

Boston is different in part because it had a stronger "machine" that didn't want its subjects dispersing. 

 

I don't know what you mean by a Boston "machine."  In fact, from that first quarter mile streetcar-subway that opened in 1897, rapid transit was a hit in Boston.  After the city built it and leased it to a private streetcar operator, Boston Elevated a private corporation (you should appreciate this E.Rocc) was founded to build subways and elevated lines in the City... And of course, Boston never was "Porter-ed" like Cleveland was (as in subway killer Albert S. Porter).  And of course Porter's scope was much wider than killing the subway: he advocated the death of downtown and mass transit, facilitated sprawl and suburban flight with the massive freeway network, etc.... And even though Porter's been dead for decades, the Cleveland is still trying to shake his negative influence on transit and development... We've come a long way with the revitalization of downtown and the development in TOD and emphasis on urban pedestrian districts...

 

But the Opportunity Corridor boondoggle and freeways sprawl districts like Highland Hills, Avon Lake/Westlake, Medina-Strongsville-Brunswick, etc., shows that Porterism isn't entirely dead.

The "machine" is the mythological, political boogey-man contrived and sustained by arch-conservatives to categorize and over-simplify an urban political power structure that supposedly exploits its "subjects." It has existed in some situations, such as Tammany Hall in NYC in the 1800s or Kwame Kilpatrick in Detroit a few years ago which makes it easier to explain and despise something that's typically much more complex, but conservatives don't understand because they have no experience or personal contact with urban life and politics.

 

I think you will find what Boston has is pride and a recognition that a city is an organic creature, something European cities learned centuries ago. They discovered that cities outlive their countries, so they identify more with them. And cities have the same features as a living organism except the potential for immortality. The city is considered more important  Not surprisingly, Boston is one of North America's oldest big cities and is, in fact, one of its most European in its physical form. The only thing Boston lacks vis a vis European cities is a tiny medieval core. Citizens who identify more with their city than their country are willing make sacrifices for the health of their city.

 

So to bring this back around to mass transit, Bostonians recognize that public transportation is an indispensable part of a healthy city. So if you want your city to be healthier and more vibrant, you seek more infrastructure for walking and transit and less for cars.

The "machine" is the mythological, political boogey-man contrived and sustained by arch-conservatives to categorize and over-simplify an urban political power structure that supposedly exploits its "subjects." It has existed in some situations, such as Tammany Hall in NYC in the 1800s or Kwame Kilpatrick in Detroit a few years ago which makes it easier to explain and despise something that's typically much more complex, but conservatives don't understand because they have no experience or personal contact with urban life and politics.

 

Or the Daleys in Chicago, or in this case, the Curley machine in Boston.

 

The big city machines were the one power base with a lot to lose when suburbanization started.

 

Nevertheless, it could be said Boston is more "sprawled" than Cleveland, consisting of 14% of its MSA, compared to 19% for Cleveland.

Or the Daleys in Chicago, or in this case, the Curley machine in Boston.

 

The big city machines were the one power base with a lot to lose when suburbanization started.

 

Nevertheless, it could be said Boston is more "sprawled" than Cleveland, consisting of 14% of its MSA, compared to 19% for Cleveland.

 

FYI, that's not a very useful measure of sprawl in Boston's case.  Even pre-auto, most of the population in what is now the Boston MSA lived outside of the city of Boston, which is geographically small.  As of 2010, the average Boston area household lived in a neighborhood with almost 8,000 people per square mile, compared to less than 4,000 in the Cleveland area. (see the rankings by weighted density here: http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2012/09/the-50-densest-american-metropolitan-areas-by-weighted-density.html).  Also, the density for the average Boston area resident has actually been increasing slightly, not collapsing like in the Cleveland area.

Yet we continue to hear from conservative groups like Reason and Cato that these urban machines are not only still alive but exist in all major cities and are forcing people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do if they resided under a system where they had more free will....or something like that.

 

BTW, Boston proper is only 48 square miles. Cleveland is 77. Yet Boston has 618,000 residents (12,200 persons/sq mile) vs Cleveland's 397,000 residents (5,100 persons/sq mile). Cross the Charles River from downtown Boston and you're in Cambridge which, like many of Boston's inner-ring "suburbs" is at least as dense as Boston. Cambridge's population per square mile is 16,422, Chelsea's is 16,037 and Somerville's is 18,405. All are heavily served by transit although I do not know which came first in those inner-ring suburbs -- the density or the transit. In some East Coast and European cities, they were actually denser as walking cities and sprawled as nearly-as-dense transit cities. This transit sprawl was not as dense or as mixed as the walking city, but far more dense and mixed than the car-dependent sprawl.

 

Even Cleveland, which like most cities did not see electric streetcars until shortly after they were invented in 1888, became less dense after the conversion of its horse-drawn streetcars to electricity and was expanded outward. Its density fell from 16,000 ppsm to 12,000 and stayed there until the 1950s when highway sprawl enabled white-flight from the great northern migration of southern African Americans.

 

Or the Daleys in Chicago, or in this case, the Curley machine in Boston.

 

The big city machines were the one power base with a lot to lose when suburbanization started.

 

Nevertheless, it could be said Boston is more "sprawled" than Cleveland, consisting of 14% of its MSA, compared to 19% for Cleveland.

 

C'man E.Rocc, you know good & well what the definition of sprawl is and that Boston's is nowhere near Cleveland's.  You know that sprawl is spreading wide area land-use  growth in a region that's shrinking population-wise.  You also know sprawl is linked to automobile/road/freeway growth linked to single-use (i.e. cul-de-sacs), unwalkable is the opposite of smart-growth, that is dense development around (an) urbanized core(s), with multi-use development and often linked to mass transit hubs and promote walk-ability.  You also know that Boston, with its massive network of rail rapid transit, commuter rail and regional Amtrak, fits the classic definition of smart growth than more all but a few American Cities, and that Cleveland, aside from much of the city and some close-in suburbs, like Shaker, Cleveland Hts and Lakewood, has been more prone to typical freeway-influenced sprawl.

 

You're not dumb; you know this, so why the rhetorical B.S.? 

I'll be moving from Columbus to Rocky River in the next few months, and ideally, I'd like to see an effective transit option to get the airport, downtown and beyond: sporting events, museums. I've found a study that says that before extending rail service to western Lakewood, Rocky River, Bay Village, Avon, ..., that RTA has established the CSU BRT line, running from the western shore suburbs to Tower City, to CSU, which is a phase, to gauge the ridership.

 

So, assuming the CSU BRT is effective, and it get's ridership, what would a potential rendering of a West Shore / Red Line variant look like? i.e. Which right-of-way, and where would you establish rapid stations?

 

Looking at old maps, I suppose one could revive the old Rocky River station from Nickel Plate Road, in the Old River district on Depot St.

Hi peterdietz, welcome to Greater Cleveland and to UrbanOhio! I was one of the instigators of political and business leaders to get interest in conducting requisite planning for the West Shore Corridor commuter rail. Yes, we have a discussion thread for that!

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1916.0.html

 

But the short answers are:

1. The alternatives analysis found that the start-up costs for a limited-frequency commuter rail service were too high and didn't meet the cost-effectiveness standards of the Federal Transit Administration. So if a limited-frequency (about 5-6 weekday round trips) service was desired, it would have to be funded from local/state sources. The fact that we had to scrape together nickels and dimes just to get the alternatives analysis funded (the first step in any federally compliant project development process) was not a good sign that the West Shore region was eager to take on the funding of the West Shore Corridor. Lorain County is the second-most populous county in Ohio with no dedicated funding source for transit and Greater Cleveland RTA can barely afford to run what they have now, let alone a new commuter rail service that would parallel existing bus routes.

 

2. The Cleveland State Line BRT on Clifton is a stand-alone service that repackaged and rebranded an existing bus route with a streetscape and enhanced transit waiting environments. If it added to GCRTA's operating costs, it was a minimal increase. And it was not envisioned to be a precursor to a rail expansion. It was sought by civic interests in the Edgewater/Cudell neighborhoods of Cleveland to tap federal funds to turn Clifton into a grand boulevard and extend that design concept onto the West Shoreway past Edgewater Park to better link neighborhoods south of the highway and tracks to the park. So while the Clifton BRT was a $20 million project, the redesign of the West Shoreway is a $50 million project. But they are birds of the same feather flocking together to enhance transit connectivity east-west and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity north-south, and do so in a more visually appealing way.

 

I continue to be involved in Lorain County to find a dedicated funding source for public transportation, and to increase state funding for public transportation. And at some point, as federal funds become increasingly difficult to tap, we need to have a conversation in Cuyahoga County in how we're going to increase funding for public transit here. The reaction is to increase the transit sales tax, but that's not necessarily the most appropriate solution. Instead, it may be a basket of resources with diversified revenue streams including real estate value recapture, employer purchase of service agreements, and greater adoption of Complete Street concepts on more of our major thoroughfares. Those are just a few off the top of my head. But my point is saying this is that if we want transit expansion, we cannot afford to do it with our existing transit resources.

Eliminate the existing section east of Warrensville. So could you please generate the data? It doesn't show where John Carroll's enrollment comes from, does it? Of course it could shift as the result of this, to the apartments at Shaker Square and to the Legacy Village/Beachwood Place area.

 

only for this segment. Ken's route

1/2 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 10,127 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 9,754 96.3%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 373 3.7%

 

Living in the Selection Area 7,007 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 6,634 94.7%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 373 5.3%

 

1 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 15,042 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 13,941 92.7%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 1,101 7.3%

 

Living in the Selection Area 16,213 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 15,112 93.2%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 1,101 6.8%

 

My preferred route shaker to Richmond

1/2 mile buffer

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 7,033 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 6,862 97.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 171 2.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 4,896 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 4,725 96.5%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 171 3.5%

 

 

 

1 mile buffer

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 19,695 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 18,704 95.0%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 991 5.0%

 

Living in the Selection Area 12,290 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 11,299 91.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 991 8.1%

 

Your route  better than mine.

 

but a route on Warrensville and Cedar would perform even better.

 

1/2 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 10,226 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 9,834 96.2%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 392 3.8%

 

Living in the Selection Area 7,726 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 7,334 94.9%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 392 5.1%

 

1 mile

Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs)

2011

Count Share

Employed in the Selection Area 14,621 100.0%

Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 13,390 91.6%

Employed and Living in the Selection Area 1,231 8.4%

 

Living in the Selection Area 18,627 100.0%

Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside 17,396 93.4%

Living and Employed in the Selection Area 1,231 6.6%

 

I still like my route better. the question is the balance between Access which is what this data tries to express vs will people use it.  That becomes alot more subjective.

 

 

 

The summary of each route option, using the data and analysis from above, is:

 

1. Shaker-Richmond - 2.5 new route-miles - probably least expensive to build & operate - least new ridership potential

2. Warrensville-JCU-Belvior-Cedar - 3.6 new route-miles to LaPlace/4.3 new route-miles to Acacia Park Dr - probably in the middle cost-wise to build & operate - medium new ridership potential

3. Warrensville-Cedar - 3.8 new route-miles to LaPlace/4.5 new route-miles to Acacia Park Dr - probably most expensive to build & operate - most new ridership potential

 

I'll be moving from Columbus to Rocky River in the next few months, and ideally, I'd like to see an effective transit option to get the airport, downtown and beyond: sporting events, museums. I've found a study that says that before extending rail service to western Lakewood, Rocky River, Bay Village, Avon, ..., that RTA has established the CSU BRT line, running from the western shore suburbs to Tower City, to CSU, which is a phase, to gauge the ridership.

 

So, assuming the CSU BRT is effective, and it get's ridership, what would a potential rendering of a West Shore / Red Line variant look like? i.e. Which right-of-way, and where would you establish rapid stations?

 

Looking at old maps, I suppose one could revive the old Rocky River station from Nickel Plate Road, in the Old River district on Depot St.

 

One or more of the CSU line(s) should get you downtown, and then the HealthLine to University Circle.

 

There is no good way I'm aware of to take RTA from Rocky River to the airport.  There used to be north-south lines running with varying frequency through the West Shore suburbs, but most are gone now.  If you really wanted to you could transfer to the Red Line from the CSU lines downtown, or if you're near the 26 or the Westgate Transit Center, then possibly one of the other lines, but it would be at least a 75 minute trip, possibly longer.

peterdietz[/member] While this thread is for ideas on how to improve transit (like a new direct route from Rocky River to the Airport!), I will note that a couple of transit routes from the south side of Rocky River to the Red Line exist: the #25 (to the West 117th station) and the #49 (to the West Park station). These two routes depart from the Westgate Transit Center each hour starting with the #25 at 4:29am and with the #49 at 5:44am. The #49 runs daily (starting an hour later) but the #25 runs only on weekdays.

Hi peterdietz, welcome to Greater Cleveland and to UrbanOhio! I was one of the instigators of political and business leaders to get interest in conducting requisite planning for the West Shore Corridor commuter rail. Yes, we have a discussion thread for that!

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1916.0.html

 

But the short answers are:

1. The alternatives analysis found that the start-up costs for a limited-frequency commuter rail service were too high and didn't meet the cost-effectiveness standards of the Federal Transit Administration. So if a limited-frequency (about 5-6 weekday round trips) service was desired, it would have to be funded from local/state sources. The fact that we had to scrape together nickels and dimes just to get the alternatives analysis funded (the first step in any federally compliant project development process) was not a good sign that the West Shore region was eager to take on the funding of the West Shore Corridor. Lorain County is the second-most populous county in Ohio with no dedicated funding source for transit and Greater Cleveland RTA can barely afford to run what they have now, let alone a new commuter rail service that would parallel existing bus routes.

 

2. The Cleveland State Line BRT on Clifton is a stand-alone service that repackaged and rebranded an existing bus route with a streetscape and enhanced transit waiting environments. If it added to GCRTA's operating costs, it was a minimal increase. And it was not envisioned to be a precursor to a rail expansion. It was sought by civic interests in the Edgewater/Cudell neighborhoods of Cleveland to tap federal funds to turn Clifton into a grand boulevard and extend that design concept onto the West Shoreway past Edgewater Park to better link neighborhoods south of the highway and tracks to the park. So while the Clifton BRT was a $20 million project, the redesign of the West Shoreway is a $50 million project. But they are birds of the same feather flocking together to enhance transit connectivity east-west and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity north-south, and do so in a more visually appealing way.

 

I continue to be involved in Lorain County to find a dedicated funding source for public transportation, and to increase state funding for public transportation. And at some point, as federal funds become increasingly difficult to tap, we need to have a conversation in Cuyahoga County in how we're going to increase funding for public transit here. The reaction is to increase the transit sales tax, but that's not necessarily the most appropriate solution. Instead, it may be a basket of resources with diversified revenue streams including real estate value recapture, employer purchase of service agreements, and greater adoption of Complete Street concepts on more of our major thoroughfares. Those are just a few off the top of my head. But my point is saying this is that if we want transit expansion, we cannot afford to do it with our existing transit resources.

 

I missed this when posted over a month ago... It's good stuff to know and, hopefully, a starting point to educate local pols about As and Bs of transit funding circa 2015.  Apparently they either don't get it or, sadly, it's just not important enough for them to take it seriously... To the contrary, though, I've read and heard, hear and there, folks in Lorain county griping about the I-90 commute into downtown, traffic-wise, and screaming why there aren't sufficient express buses into the County to connect with RTA... From a quick glance at the RTA map, all western bus lines end inside the Cuyahoga County line... IIRC, that means the only bus into Lorain County from Cuyahoga is the shuttle from Hopkins to Oberlin College, no?

 

It would be nice if there were more strong progressive transit voices like the lady who retired a few years ago, Ms. (Betty?) Blair...

IIRC, that means the only bus into Lorain County from Cuyahoga is the shuttle from Hopkins to Oberlin College, no?

 

That is correct. http://www.airportoberlinshuttle.com/regularshuttle.html

 

 

It would be nice if there were more strong progressive transit voices like the lady who retired a few years ago, Ms. (Betty?) Blair...

 

There are. Former state rep Matt Lundy is now a Lorain County Commission and incumbent commissioner Ted Kalo became chair of the NOACA board in January. And Betty is still very active even though she's not a commissioner anymore.

 

You or others may be interested in attending a Lorain County transit forum at 6 p.m. Thursday (March 5) at the Lorain County administration building in downtown Elyria:

http://www.eventbrite.com/e/march-5-2015-lorain-county-public-transportation-forum-tickets-15746877334

 

Yes, it was posted over month ago, and yes I'm not in the loop on the ups and downs in funding or # of lines an area had or has. To plan a trip I would either use Google Map transit directions, or maybe an RTA map. By the way, I have just made the move from Columbus to RR. (Probably the coldest time to move ever, ugh). I used to have free time a few months ago, and I have amateur experience with a transit simulation game, Cities in Motion 2, which is fun, and makes you idealistic about how sweet and integrated you could make everything. i.e. your transit lines become profit generators, which funds further expansion of your transit lines, and eventually you have NYC subways throughout the entire region. Yeah...

 

Cost effectiveness is probably the name of the game for all transit lines. Another goal would be to have interconnectedness. i.e. That CLE+ idea, if you could imagine linking Akron and Cleveland, so someone in either downtown could quickly/easily get to the other downtown. And do the same for the whole NOACA zone, maybe. And further, you could expand coverage. Ensure that 90%+ of population is covered by atleast something within walking distance, or 90% of urban areas are covered. And then, expanding to have more desirable options, such as West Shore Commuter Rail, or just fortifying (expanding, increasing frequency) of successful routes.

 

For my myopic view of things, if some type of commuter rail were added, such as a Cedar Point train, that hit Lorain, West Shore suburbs, Lakewood, and branched off of existing Red Line, that would work. I could take that in, transfer to red to go to airport, or head downtown, or to the East side museums. 70+ minutes to get to the airport is too much, I'd drive/have someone drive/taxi. Sorry for pushing this potentially off topic, and for bringing things up that are out probably out of funding reach. But, from what I've noticed on these forums, there have been some exciting improvements, TOD focus for things like Little Italy, perhaps also fortifying the Ohio City area. It's probably best to focus on having great destinations, covered with great transit, and then encouraging people, hey, instead of dealing with parking at Ohio City, or having to drive after having drinks at Ohio City, why not <X>.

, if you could imagine linking Akron and Cleveland, so someone in either downtown could quickly/easily get to the other downtown.

 

That doesn't really happen, and it's symptomatic.  While I think Metro RTA and GCRTA may actually meet up somewhere in Oakwood, it's out of the way. 

 

Meanwhile, while MRTA has extended its relevant line to Northfield Park (literally on the county line), GCRTA has not done the same with its infrequent Broadway-Alexander run.  It still turns about a half mile short and when I leave late for work, I see people trudging down Northfield Road, apparently to work.

 

If Hard Rock is even merely apathetic towards transit, it's still a natural spot to connect the systems and it's not being used.

This was tweeted this morning, as bad winter weather exposed the fault lines in Boston:

@TransportNation: Boston transit needs to spend $6.7B to repair, modernize its system: http://bit.ly/1aL93P8

 

Bad winter weather has also exposed fault lines in Cleveland. Which ones? My guesstimate on the repair, modernization needs for GCRTA's rail system?

 

$250 million to replace the light-rail and heavy-rail fleets with a single, standardized car;

$200 million to replace the overhead electrical wires with constant tension lines, replace catenary poles;

$100 million to upgrade the electrical power supply system from 600-volt DC to a modern 750-volt DC;

$50 million to rebuild retaining walls, structural supports at Tower City Center and elsewhere along rail system;

$20 million to expand ATS cab-signaling to Blue/Green lines east of Shaker Square, add interactive signals at road-crossings;

$25 million miscellaneous contingencies

-------------

$645 million total estimated cost to rebuild, modernize EXISTING rail system -- yep, 2/3 of $1 billion.

 

The plus side is that all of these will allow the rail system to operate at far less operating cost, enhance service reliability and reduce trip times for passengers.

 

To increase the utility of the rail system, construct these expansions:

> Red Line extension to Euclid: $950 million

> Green Line extension to Beachwood Place: $200 million

> Blue Line extension to University Circle: $170 million

> Waterfront II/downtown loop: $150 million

> Blue Line extension to Highland Hills: $150 million

> CVSR extension to downtown Cleveland: $30 million

> I-480/271 busway: $50 million

> West 25th/Pearl BRT: $25 million

 

Total rail expansion: $1.7 billion (will also require additional and ongoing operating support)

 

TOTAL REBUILD AND EXPANSION: $2.37 billion

 

For existing station-areas (1/4-mile radius), add $100 million revolving loan fund for developments on environmentally compromised lands and $10 million grant loan program for environmental assessments and cleanup.

 

Double the above program for proposed station-areas (another $100 million revolving loan fund for developments on environmentally compromised lands and $10 million grant loan program for environmental assessments and cleanup).

 

Again, these are just to make the existing rail system more relevant and reliable. It doesn't include commuter rail, streetcars or other things that would make Greater Cleveland a more livable, connected, accessible place.

This was tweeted this morning, as bad winter weather exposed the fault lines in Boston:

@TransportNation: Boston transit needs to spend $6.7B to repair, modernize its system: http://bit.ly/1aL93P8

 

Bad winter weather has also exposed fault lines in Cleveland. Which ones? My guesstimate on the repair, modernization needs for GCRTA's rail system? Probably $500 million.

 

$250 million to replace the light-rail and heavy-rail fleets with a single, standardized car;

$200 million to replace the overhead electrical wires with constant tension lines, replace catenary poles;

$100 million to upgrade the electrical power supply system from 600-volt DC to a modern 750-volt DC;

$50 million to rebuild retaining walls, structural supports at Tower City Center and elsewhere along rail system;

$20 million to expand ATS cab-signaling to Blue/Green lines east of Shaker Square, add interactive signals at road-crossings;

$50 million miscellaneous contingencies

-------------

$670 million total estimated cost to rebuild, modernize EXISTING rail system -- yep, 2/3 of $1 billion.

 

The plus side is that all of these will allow the rail system to operate at far less operating cost, enhance service reliability and reduce trip times for passengers.

 

To increase the utility of the rail system, construct these expansions:

> Red Line extension to Euclid: $1 billion

> Green Line extension to Beachwood Place: $200 million

> Blue Line extension to University Circle: $200 million

> Waterfront II/downtown loop: $150 million

> Blue Line extension to Highland Hills: $150 million

 

Total rail expansion: $1.7 billion (will also require additional and ongoing operating support)

 

TOTAL REBUILD AND EXPANSION: $2.37 billion

 

Again, these are just to make the existing rail system more relevant and reliable. It doesn't include commuter rail, streetcars or other things that would make Greater Cleveland a more livable, connected, accessible place.

 

I'm not sure how it would impact your costs, but the Blue Line to UC would be a diversion not an extension and it would reduce rail usage between the diversion point and TC by as much as 50%

Doesn't impact the costs. And if we're losing 50% of riders by not going downtown (which I don't think we are losing that much), then we're trading that % drop for a net % increase by going to UC instead.

Doesn't impact the costs. And if we're losing 50% of riders by not going downtown (which I don't think we are losing that much), then we're trading that % drop for a net % increase by going to UC instead.

 

If anything I suspect ridership increases and I was projecting less maintenance costs on the light rail line to downtown.

BTW, if you think $2.37 billion is a lot to ask for, consider that Toronto is in the midst of a $50 billion rail expansion program. You saw Boston's repair tab. Even conservative Phoenix is considering this:

 

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  1m1 minute ago

#Phoenix council to weigh $30 billion transportation plan that would double a city sales tax: http://bit.ly/18jSTu1 

BTW, if you think $2.37 billion is a lot to ask for, consider that Toronto is in the midst of a $50 billion rail expansion program. You saw Boston's repair tab. Even conservative Phoenix is considering this:

 

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  1m1 minute ago

#Phoenix council to weigh $30 billion transportation plan that would double a city sales tax: http://bit.ly/18jSTu1 

 

The ballot measure in Phoenix passed out of council. It will now go to voters, who will be asked to approve a 0.7% sales tax increase to replace the existing 0.4% transit sales tax set to expire in 2020 to pay for $30B in transit upgrades (replacement, improvement, and expansion). Phoenix is moving forward with transit in a big way.

BTW, if you think $2.37 billion is a lot to ask for, consider that Toronto is in the midst of a $50 billion rail expansion program. You saw Boston's repair tab. Even conservative Phoenix is considering this:

 

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  1m1 minute ago

#Phoenix council to weigh $30 billion transportation plan that would double a city sales tax: http://bit.ly/18jSTu1 

 

If you could come up with enough poltical will to do that, you could probably take it to the next level and expand your rail network south, potentially even hooking up with Summit County's.

We all know GCRTA's rail system is old and GCRTA doesn't have enough money to modernize it. Nor can they abandon it or they'll have to give back hundreds of millions in federal funds for infrastructure improvements. So, what to do....

 

How about some creative financing?

 

Rail car fleet

 

As we all know (or at least some in GCRTA's headquarters know), the rail fleet is need of replacement. In the case of the light-rail Breda fleet for the Shaker (Blue/Green/Waterfront) lines, the need is desperate. The Breda cars were acquired in 1980-81 and were due to last 30 years. They didn't get their mid-life overhaul until they were 25 years old. And even then, that would buy them only another 10-12 years. If you hadn't looked at the calendar lately (and a few folks in key positions apparently haven't), the Breda cars aren't going to make it much longer. GCRTA is cannibalizing the light-rail fleet to keep the rest of it running. No one makes parts for these cars anymore. Ever notice that the scrolling destination signs have disappeared from the ends of train cars? The reason is that no makes parts for them anymore, so GCRTA replaced them with colored LEDs. And that's just the destination signs. Think about the trains' motors and the lack of available replacement parts for them... In recent months, four more cars were taken out of service so they could become spare-part donors. Of greater concern are the floors of the Breda cars, ALL of which demand regular attention.

 

The Red Line cars, built by Tokyu in 1984-85, are in better shape. They underwent their mid-life mechanical overhauls a couple years ago and are getting their interior, cosmetic refurbishments now. Because the shells of these cars are made of stainless steel, they could theoretically last forever as long as the interior buildouts are maintained and/or replaced as needed. But that also assumes an unlimited maintenance budget, which GCRTA doesn't have.

 

So, how to pay for the estimated $240 million price tag to replace about 45 cars of the rail fleet, which once amounted to 108 cars? One clue may exist in GCRTA's own documents. Did you know GCRTA doesn't own its rail fleet?? I just noticed that GCRTA is leasing its existing heavy-rail and light-rail cars (see page 7: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/budget/2013/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf)

 

So why not finance or lease a new, standardized rail car that can serve both high-level and low-level platforms like the 215 new Siemens cars that San Francisco just ordered for its Muni system...

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/morning-roundup/2015/01/siemens-light-rail-san-francisco-muni.html

 

 

Leasing about 45 new rail cars might cost about $2.4 million per month or $28.8 million per year over 10 years. A substantial up-front payment, such as from a federal rail modernization grant (assuming GCRTA can get it when it wants to get it), could substantially reduce this amount. I don't know enough about leasing to estimate it, but even if a federal grant cuts GCRTA's lease payments in half, there appears to be a much less expensive option than leasing....

 

If GCRTA issues a $120 million, 30-year, 2% bond (which would increase its debt level far above what it normally carries), this could pay half of the cost of purchasing the rail car fleet. The other half would come from a federal rail modernization grant, again assuming GCRTA can get one when it wants to get one. The cost to GCRTA would be about $5.4 million per year.

 

BTW, not only would new trains require less maintenance, but having a single rail car also means simpler rail car maintenance at East 55th, not having to operate two separate stations at Tower City Center, East 34th and East 55th while offering faster loading/unloading for large passenger loads and especially for ADA customers and offering higher operating speeds (Breda cars are limited to 45 mph while their predecessor PCC cars were allowed to run at 55 mph), as well as being able to offer more flexible services such as a Green Road-Hopkins Airport through trains, or perhaps a Warrensville-University Circle through service with a reversing move at East 55th.

 

But perhaps the biggest economic benefit, which leads us into the next section, is that new trains would likely feature regenerative braking. This means that every time a train uses its brakes, it becomes its own electrical generating plant and feeds electricity back into the overhead catenary wires. The cost savings from this could be substantial -- so much so that GCRTA might actually generate a small profit from selling excess power back into the grid.

 

++++++++

 

Overhead electrical catenary system

 

Another element of the rail system that needs modernization is the overhead wires and supports, called a catenary system. Except for the 1990s-built Waterfront Line, the entire rail system uses fixed-termination catenary wires, which means the wires are attached at their ends to a fixed point. This also means they have to be manually tightened or loosened by "linemen" whenever the temperature changes. In Cleveland, this happens A LOT. When temperatures fall, the wires tighten up and risk breaking or separating if they aren't loosened at various points along the 40-mile rail system -- a system that has more than 100 miles of tracks and overhead wires. When temperatures rise, the wires loosen and sag, and risk getting snagged and tangled by a train's pantograph (the arm that extends upward from a train to contact with the overhead wire and collect electricity). And as we all know, the temperatures can swing widely and quickly in Cleveland, requiring constant and expensive maintenance.

 

The modern alternative to the fixed-termination catenary is the constant-tension catenary which uses a system of pulleys and weights at various locations along a rail corridor. When temperatures fall, the wires tighten through the pulleys and lift the weights upward. When temps rise, the wires loosen through the pulleys and drop the weights downward.

 

As you might expect, the cost to replace GCRTA's electrical catenary system will be expensive. If the support poles are replaced along with the wires and hardware, the cost can be upwards of $2 million per mile. And some of GCRTA's catenary poles are quite old. Here is how old each section of catenary is:

 

1929 - Red Line - Ohio City-Superior Ave in East Cleveland (some supports were replaced at/near stations starting in the 1950s)

1954 - Red Line - West 117th-Ohio City and Superior-Windermere plus some replacements of old supports at/near stations.

1957 - Red Line - West Park-West 117th

1967 - Red Line - Airport-West Park

1979 - Blue/Green Lines - East 55th to east end of lines

1989 - All Lines - Tower City Center station area

1995 - Blue/Green/Waterfront Lines - Tower City Center-South Harbor

 

At right is the future Red Line, looking east at Adelbert Road in 1930. Note the two styles of catenary supports that were built for the Rapid transit line just before the Great Depression halted its construction for another 25 years.

 

All pre-1970 catenary supports should probably be replaced, including their concrete foundations. We're talking about 18-19 route-miles worth of catenary supports, or at least $36 million. Add to that new catenary wires and hardware for at least for some 80 track-miles (don't know how much track is at Central Rail at East 55th).

 

A new way to pay for replacing and maintaining catenary systems is to contract them out. GCRTA already buys electricity from First Energy. But what if First Energy or another company like GE or Siemens not only provided the electricity but also the catenary system itself? So for the cost GCRTA is already paying in utilities and keeping a staff of linemen to laboriously maintain the catenary wires, GCRTA could instead contract out its catenaries including the replacement of infrastructure. I have no idea what this might cost but the savings GCRTA would reap would help pay for it. And if GCRTA had new rail cars with regenerative braking, the fiscal benefits might be so substantial that it sweetens the deal for a contractor. Imagine if the power actually came from an off-shore wind farm? All kinds of cool things are possible here.

 

++++++++

 

Tower City station tracks and drainage

 

GCRTA also has major problems with its tracks at Tower City Center. When this facility was rebuilt in 1989, they didn't do it right. There are drainage systems underneath the old Cleveland Union Terminal which date back to the first days of construction in the mid-1920s. These weren't replaced when the renovations to Tower City Center and the new rapid transit station were built. Instead, the metal and ceramic pipes, as well as the concrete drainage conduits were merely cleaned out. All of these must be replaced, as must the track beds through the station.

 

Total cost? About $25 million for all phases. GCRTA only has the funding for the first phase, to replace the westbound track (track 8 ) and the auxiliary track (track 7) through the old Shaker station. Cost for this phase is $6.3 million.

See the March 3, 2015 GCRTA presentation at: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2015-03-03TCtracks.pdf

 

Track 7 will be done first so westbound trains can temporarily use the old Shaker Rapid station just north of the existing Tower City station. Then westbound track (track 8 ) will be replaced. These are the most critical repairs. So westbound trains will use the old Shaker station, including the installation of a temporary high-level platform for Red Line trains. The westbound track will be replaced with what's called slab track, which is what was installed two years ago in the Hopkins Airport station tunnel (see below). When the westbound track is done and when more funding is available, eastbound trains will be routed over it and the eastbound track (track 13) and the center stub-end tracks (10 east/west) will be replaced with slab track as well.

 

Very interesting, KJP[/member] . I wonder, if RTA were to purchase a new rail fleet, ideally one that could run on all lines, how feasible would a driverless fleet be? Seems that could save RTA even more money by reducing labor costs.

Very thorough, thanks KJP.  Can you please take over and run RTA!?  :). Hopefully the powers that be take note of all the work you do and for once make the smart choice to prepare for the future of our rail system.

Not sure if something actually changed or if it was just a mistake in that one capital plan, but more recent capital plans say that RTA owns its rail fleet: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/budget/2014/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/budget/2015/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf

 

Also, there are some pretty significant limits imposed by state law on RTA's bonding authority which could limit its ability to raise something like $120M in one go, but hopefully federal matches and other local/state money would offset the costs substantially, the way they often do for bus purchases (I think).

 

I definitely love the idea of a unified rail fleet though. The efficiency and also the route flexibility.

 

[Edited for typos]

Very thorough, thanks KJP.  Can you please take over and run RTA!?  :). Hopefully the powers that be take note of all the work you do and for once make the smart choice to prepare for the future of our rail system.

 

Thanks but there are people there that know a lot more about this stuff than I do. But they are more constrained by regulations, politics and their own doubts about whether something more aggressive can be accomplished. Regulations are slalom poles, politics a challenge or opportunity, and our personal doubts? Well, those are often the biggest barriers anyone faces in trying to accomplish anything.

 

Also, there are some pretty significant limits imposed by state law on RTA's bonding authority which could limit its ability to raise something like $120M in one go, but hopefully federal matches and other local/state money would offset the costs substantially, the way they often do for bus purchases (I think).

 

I definitely love the idea of a unified rail fleet though. The efficiency and also the route flexibility.

 

That is a very valid concern. A way around that is to have someone else take on the debt and you pay them for it. I believe Amtrak did something similar to that when they acquired the Acela trains in 2000. The purchase was financed by the Export Development Bank of Canada, as the trains were built by Bombardier in Canada. The American counterpart is Export-Import Bank of the United States. Some larger manufacturers like General Electric have their own capital financing operations as well.

Very interesting, KJP[/member] . I wonder, if RTA were to purchase a new rail fleet, ideally one that could run on all lines, how feasible would a driverless fleet be? Seems that could save RTA even more money by reducing labor costs.

Probably not feasible given current safety standards.  There are a LOT of mandatory signaling and fail-safe systems required to go completely driverless and my assumption is that the cost of those systems would be prohibitive in the case of an older system like ours.

Very interesting, KJP[/member] . I wonder, if RTA were to purchase a new rail fleet, ideally one that could run on all lines, how feasible would a driverless fleet be? Seems that could save RTA even more money by reducing labor costs.

Probably not feasible given current safety standards.  There are a LOT of mandatory signaling and fail-safe systems required to go completely driverless and my assumption is that the cost of those systems would be prohibitive in the case of an older system like ours.

 

Right. I can't see it happening. The only completely automated systems in the US are airport trams and people movers (like Detroit and Miami). Some systems like BART, SF Muni, PATCO have automated control, but they have an operator on the train as a fail-safe. The DC Metro used to be automated, but after the 2009 crash, the system runs on manual control now.

Also, there are some pretty significant limits imposed by state law on RTA's bonding authority which could limit its ability to raise something like $120M in one go, but hopefully federal matches and other local/state money would offset the costs substantially, the way they often do for bus purchases (I think).

 

BTW, did you notice that GCRTA has a $100 million bond issue out there?

http://www.riderta.com/news/march-9-special-board-meeting

 

UPDATE: it's merely a refinancing of old bonds.

I know that this wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future, but do you think the HealthLine will ever be replaced with a rail system? Something like the original Dual Hub plan for Euclid Ave. The HealthLine narrows Euclid down to two lanes downtown, and it would be easy to see this become a problem as downtown continues to grow. The DCA just reported that downtown's population grew 70% since 2000, so if this trend continues Euclid could become a traffic nightmare. At what point would the city see replacing the buses with rail as a viable option? Would we see a streetcar like M1 in Detroit? Or even a subway like dual hub? I know this is just dreaming, but could we see this happen if the population continues to grow exponentially?

I know that this wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future, but do you think the HealthLine will ever be replaced with a rail system? Something like the original Dual Hub plan for Euclid Ave. The HealthLine narrows Euclid down to two lanes downtown, and it would be easy to see this become a problem as downtown continues to grow. The DCA just reported that downtown's population grew 70% since 2000, so if this trend continues Euclid could become a traffic nightmare. At what point would the city see replacing the buses with rail as a viable option? Would we see a streetcar like M1 in Detroit? Or even a subway like dual hub? I know this is just dreaming, but could we see this happen if the population continues to grow exponentially?

 

Someday.  The Clinic proposed narrowing Euclid to just bus lanes by its campus.  There were predictions of traffic chaos and even complaints about traffic on Euclid from the reduction in car lanes.  But I haven't seen it.  Euclid is a pain to drive and most people have learned to work around that and generally avoid driving on Euclid.

 

I'd love to see Euclid become bus/bicycle/pedestrian only -- and then convert the Healthline to a streetcar.  I doubt we'll see a subway in our lifetime.  Too expensive.

Attached are revisions to RTA's current Transit Map.

-'Completion' of downtown loop

-New BRT lines/expansion

-Red Line expansion to Euclid

-Green/Blue Lines expanded east

-Blue line expansion to Cedar-University Redline stop via Fairmount/Cedar