8 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

Also, they were promoting the TOD report that NOACA put together:

https://www.noaca.org/regional-planning/transportation-planning/transit-planning-tod/transit-oriented-development-tod

isn’t there a difference between TOD and TSD (transit served decelopement)?

 

The  Tower City redevelopment in 1990 would be considered TOD while, say, the new Markey Square development at Lorain/W25 would be TSD.

59 minutes ago, CLENYC said:

isn’t there a difference between TOD and TSD (transit served decelopement)?

 

The  Tower City redevelopment in 1990 would be considered TOD while, say, the new Markey Square development at Lorain/W25 would be TSD.

 

I'd say that's a fair description.

How about some improved transit where there's already development -- completing the downtown loop?!?

6 hours ago, KJP said:

And I'm pretty sure there's no developer yet for the West Blvd/Cudell TOD. Westown CDC is very interested in moving forward on finding money for narrowing the Detroit Avenue right of way, realigning the intersection of Berea Road, getting rid of the speed-turn lane on West Blvd at Detroit, etc. to improve pedestrian safety and create more room for development. But funding may be hard to come by for a while.

 

 

Great to hear of Westtown's interest in this.  

Redirected from the general RTA thread....

 

23 hours ago, jawn said:

http://www.riderta.com/service-alerts/waterfront-line-construction?s=09

The WFL having such low ridership that the RTA isn't even bothering with a replacement bus is simultaneously depressing, comical, and unsurprising.

 

 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

Redirected from the general RTA thread....

 

 

 

Downtown Loop far and away the most useful of those options, and likely the least expensive (although the bridge over the RR and up the bluffs to the east side of downtown will be expensive). 

11 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Downtown Loop far and away the most useful of those options, and likely the least expensive (although the bridge over the RR and up the bluffs to the east side of downtown will be expensive). 

 

Except the rail bridge could be built as part of the extension of East 18th over to the Shoreway. Cost sharing between the two projects and the ability to leverage multimodal funding could be beneficial to each.

20 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Except the rail bridge could be built as part of the extension of East 18th over to the Shoreway. Cost sharing between the two projects and the ability to leverage multimodal funding could be beneficial to each.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing. (Of course, entirely thanks to you previously suggesting it.)
 

Since we’re chatting about it, I do have one big comment on a downtown loop - I think running it on E17 (or E18) from St Clair to Euclid Ave would be a big mistake. It’s just too far from the E9 office district. I think it is absolutely critical to be closer. It either needs to run on E12 from St Clair to Chester OR run under/on Huron to hit the E9 / Prospect / Huron intersection. Or preferably both, even if in phases. Let’s not make the same mistake of previous Cleveland transit projects of being just a little too far from where people want to go. 

Has anyone here watched this video? At the end she talks about the flaws of street car loops. Mostly that in a lot of cases it can be quicker to walk or take a bus instead of the street car. 

 

I'm new to Cleveland so I don't know how big of a deal this would be. Anyone care to weigh in? 

 

 

Would it be quicker to transfer to a bus or walk from the train stop rather than just stay on the train that gets you much closer to your destination? Are the streetcars in this study in dedicated, traffic-free rights of way with signal pre-emption? Many are not, which is why they're slow and unreliable.

 

Consider the east-sider who doesn't want to deal with parking around CSU. Right now, it's a 1-hour trip from the area around John Carroll University to CSU by Rapid+bus/walk.  If you live within walking distance of one of the east-side bus routes (Cedar, Kinsman, Mayfield etc), it's a 60- to 90-minute one-way trip with at least one transfer.

 

Perhaps CSU could use the money for its next new parking garage and instead use it to help pay the local share of the downtown rail loop?

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Would it be quicker to transfer to a bus or walk from the train stop rather than just stay on the train that gets you much closer to your destination? Are the streetcars in this study in dedicated, traffic-free rights of way with signal pre-emption? Many are not, which is why they're slow and unreliable.

 

Consider the east-sider who doesn't want to deal with parking around CSU. Right now, it's a 1-hour trip from the area around John Carroll University to CSU by Rapid+bus/walk.  If you live within walking distance of one of the east-side bus routes (Cedar, Kinsman, Mayfield etc), it's a 60- to 90-minute one-way trip with at least one transfer.

 

Perhaps CSU could use the money for its next new parking garage and instead use it to help pay the local share of the downtown rail loop?

Good idea re: CSU.  I would run it mostly up E 17th and convert E17 to pedestrian/deliveries only to reduce delays from traffic.

 

I don't really think it's that far of a walk from CSU to E.9th.  Maybe ten minutes.  I could use to walk more anyway.

 

And the JCU to CSU route should be less than 45 minutes, an hour is ridiculous when you can drive it in 25-30 minutes.  More frequent service on Cedar should help.

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Good idea re: CSU.  I would run it mostly up E 17th and convert E17 to pedestrian/deliveries only to reduce delays from traffic.

 

I don't really think it's that far of a walk from CSU to E.9th.  Maybe ten minutes.  I could use to walk more anyway.

 

And the JCU to CSU route should be less than 45 minutes, an hour is ridiculous when you can drive it in 25-30 minutes.  More frequent service on Cedar should help.

 

 

Direct service from Cedar and Mayfield would help. Until the Great Recession, RTA used to offer 5-minute headways during rush hours for the 32 and 9 into downtown, operating express down Chester. It was a fast trip to downtown.

BTW.....

 

Join the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) as we discuss the Regional Transit Plan, its strategies, and recommendations for the future of transit. Watch the pre-recorded webinar on Tuesday, October 27, and use the public comment portal to give input. The webinar and portal will be available until November 27. 

 

Also, join us on Oct. 27 at 2:30 p.m. for a Live Q&A discussion on the Regional Transit Plan.

 

The pre-recorded webinar will feature Grace Gallucci, Executive Director-CEO of NOACA, and Ken Sislak and Peter Lawson Jones, consultants from AECOM as they discuss the development of a coordinated vision plan regarding public transit investments for Northeast Ohio.

 

The webinar can be accessed through NOACA's eNEO2050 website along with a public comment portal to submit comments and questions. The webinar can be found at the following link beginning October 27. 

 

https://www.eneo2050.com/regional-strategic-transit-plan

 

 

For more information visit the eNEO2050 website at www.eNEO2050.com or contact us at 216-241-2414.

 

Please forward this note and attached flyer to your contacts to help us spread the word.

On 10/22/2020 at 2:01 PM, KJP said:

 

Direct service from Cedar and Mayfield would help. Until the Great Recession, RTA used to offer 5-minute headways during rush hours for the 32 and 9 into downtown, operating express down Chester. It was a fast trip to downtown.

The "timing" of the Great Recession was only part of the reasoning for the service cutbacks of the #9, #32 and #7.  A huge reason for the cutbacks was the opening of the HeathLine.  RTA regularly boasted about the increase in ridership of the HealthLine as compared to the predecessor #6/6A route.  Yes, ridership was increased, but the HealthLine became the only method of getting downtown via the Euclid Avenue corridor.  Riders from the other routes, if they wanted to continue downtown, had no choice to transfer to the HealthLine.  The Great Recession basically coincided with the opening of the new line.  

Unfortunately, the time it takes to transfer, even if a HealthLine bus is at the point of transfer, adds time.  Also, the HealthLine has far more stops than the former express and flyer versions of those other routes.  Some stops from the #6/6A were merged and moved, but there are still quite a few on the route.  At one time, I was a daily rider of the #9F and 9X.  It was normal for the #9F/9X buses to pass multiple buses on #6/6A, especially between Mayfield-Euclid and E.30th-Euclid. Passing at least 3 or 4 was common. The only intermediate stops from University Circle to E.30th were E.105th, Cleveland Clinic, E.79th and E.55th.  The main reason for the vast majority of the express and flyer route riders was to get to CSU and downtown.  I stopped riding the #9X/9F before it was re-routed to go downtown.  I can imagine the trip being significantly quicker by avoiding Euclid Avenue.

I do think two runs each in the morning and evening rush hours of the #9 lasted until about 2012 or so. I recall seeing signs for that route on St. Clair while I was waiting for the #239.  Unfortunately, only offering 2 trips didn't leave much flexibility should somebody need to change their hours.  Miss that last bus and one had to endure a long, local bus and at least one transfer.

On 10/22/2020 at 10:10 AM, KJP said:

Perhaps CSU could use the money for its next new parking garage and instead use it to help pay the local share of the downtown rail loop?

Maybe CSU should end its sponsorship of the CSU Line on Clifton and use that money to help the local share of a downtown rail loop, too.  

Does anybody know what the ridership numbers are for the CSU Line?

15 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

The "timing" of the Great Recession was only part of the reasoning for the service cutbacks of the #9, #32 and #7.  A huge reason for the cutbacks was the opening of the HeathLine.  RTA regularly boasted about the increase in ridership of the HealthLine as compared to the predecessor #6/6A route.  Yes, ridership was increased, but the HealthLine became the only method of getting downtown via the Euclid Avenue corridor.  Riders from the other routes, if they wanted to continue downtown, had no choice to transfer to the HealthLine.  The Great Recession basically coincided with the opening of the new line.  

Unfortunately, the time it takes to transfer, even if a HealthLine bus is at the point of transfer, adds time.  Also, the HealthLine has far more stops than the former express and flyer versions of those other routes.  Some stops from the #6/6A were merged and moved, but there are still quite a few on the route.  At one time, I was a daily rider of the #9F and 9X.  It was normal for the #9F/9X buses to pass multiple buses on #6/6A, especially between Mayfield-Euclid and E.30th-Euclid. Passing at least 3 or 4 was common. The only intermediate stops from University Circle to E.30th were E.105th, Cleveland Clinic, E.79th and E.55th.  The main reason for the vast majority of the express and flyer route riders was to get to CSU and downtown.  I stopped riding the #9X/9F before it was re-routed to go downtown.  I can imagine the trip being significantly quicker by avoiding Euclid Avenue.

I do think two runs each in the morning and evening rush hours of the #9 lasted until about 2012 or so. I recall seeing signs for that route on St. Clair while I was waiting for the #239.  Unfortunately, only offering 2 trips didn't leave much flexibility should somebody need to change their hours.  Miss that last bus and one had to endure a long, local bus and at least one transfer.

 

Pre-HL, I always wondered why they could not route 7/9/28/32 express service down Chester or Carnegie.  Stopping only at the few points intersecting other lines (E.105, E.79, E.55, CSU).  I would not mind making that transfer so much if the HL were truly as reliable, frequent and fast as it was planned to be, but, largely for reasons beyond GCRTA's control, that was never to be.

 

Redirected from the Van Aken District thread.....

 

44 minutes ago, MrR said:

People walk or bike they paths all day everyday (as does my family)... I worked in the median In my highschool environmental class cutting the stems down on invasive species (the deer eat only the stems) - and learning about some of the endangered species of plants that thrive there because it is a very unique man made (protected) wetland. Not to mention there’s a sledding hill, a gazebo with picnic tables, and a giant retention pod... the chances that the green line extends to Richmond is probably zero. There’s no demand for it to extend another block or two  and green road has a massive parking lot anyways. The last time I saw it full was for the cavs championship parade, and shaker heights fireworks (which were canceled nearly a decade ago)

 

The goal wouldn't be to extend the Green Line to Richmond. The goal would be to extend it to the nearest ridership anchor like Legacy Village/Beachwood Place area. The Green Line isn't worth keeping without a strong ridership anchor at the east end. The park-n-ride lot at Green Road generates only two trips a day -- one to work downtown and one from work downtown. Commuting downtown isn't like it was, not with most Heights commutes heading to the office parks along the I-271 corridor after I-271 was widened in the early 1990s. People aren't taking the Rapid to shop downtown anymore either. Most of that is along I-271 too. Private capital follows public capital.

 

So if the Green Line can't be extended east to the nearest, largest ridership generator via Richmond Road then it should follow a different route. Perhaps north from the Warrensville station, via John Carroll University, to Legacy Village and Beachwood Place. Perhaps it could go via University Square at Warrensville and Cedar, or perhaps it could be routed more directly via Belvior but miss the ridership generator at University Square. An alternatives analysis would clarify a preferred routing.

 

But I would keep the Green Line route to the park-n-ride at Green Road. This could remain a rush-hour-only service, since there is already a commuter parking lot in place and there isn't room for one on a routing to Legacy Village/Beachwood Place via JCU unless part of Beachwood Place's parking lot next to Cedar can be developed as a park-n-ride lot/deck.

Interesting idea on running the Green line up Warrensville or Belvoir. Rough measurements on google maps show the current medians are less than half as wide as Shaker west of Warrensville (about 21ft compared to 58ft) so I'm guessing lanes would have to be removed if the tracks were to have their own row. I don't see that being a problem on Belvoir, as the section south of Shaker already essentially works with one lane each direction. Warrensville would be tougher being the main N/S route on the east side. A Belvoir/Cedar station would only be an 8min walk from Target and 12 from Whole Foods, not terribly long. If it were to run in the traffic lanes, definitely go down Warrensville.

 

Personally, I like the idea of having a separate line running the length of Warrensville from Southgate and then intersecting the Redline in EC.

 

Remember that the median of Fairmount Boulevard used to have a two-tracked rail transit line as far east as Canterbury Road. That's a median of 25 feet. That's a pretty typical width for a rail transit line right of way.

Here's some Green Line extension options. But unless a preferred option can be financed by a corridor-wide TIF or a general tax increase, it ain't gonna happen....

I would have thought that a large station at 271 would be a requirement for any green line extension.

Admittedly, I am an intellectual midget, transit-wise, compared to most on this thread. 

 

Nonetheless, I would love to see an expansion of rapid transit to inner-ring suburbs. I know many of us on here treat suburb as a four letter word, but some people simply can't afford good neighborhoods in the city, but would still like to live within 20 minutes of downtown. 

 

Having said that - I always have this thought in mind, with Tower City as the spoke and 3 new rapid lines extending into the inner ring suburbs. 

1. West - A rapid (or trolley) line with stops at: Edgewater and West Blvd, Clifton and 117th, Clifton and Warren, Clifton @ Celeste Park, and Lake and Wagar. (I know that the CSU bus almost replicates this route)
2. Southwest. A rapid line with stops at: Detroit and 25th, 25th and Woodbridge (Metro), Pearl and Broadview, Pearl and Ridge, Ridge and Ridgewood. 
3. Southeast. A rapid line with stops at: Miller Pl. dead-end in Tremont, Fleet and Washington Pk Blvd., Garfield Rd. and E. 49, and Rockside and Brecksville Rd

I just think so many inner ring suburbs would become instantly more attractive with a well-cared-for transit system. It would be good for density, and another notch toward regionalization 

3. Several years ago, there was a plan for a southeast rapid line running through Maple Hts, Bedford and other SE communities on existing but unused rail tracks. Not sure what happened to that idea. It was probably opposed by Norm Krumholz and other anti-rail folks.

12 minutes ago, skiwest said:

3. Several years ago, there was a plan for a southeast rapid line running through Maple Hts, Bedford and other SE communities on existing but unused rail tracks. Not sure what happened to that idea. It was probably opposed by Norm Krumholz and other anti-rail folks.

 

That was the NEO Rail plan that was halted in 2002. The tracks are used but not heavily as far out as Solon, but have trees growing up through the tracks out to Aurora. The tracks used to go all the way to Youngstown and beyond. Cleveland's last commuter train used these tracks between Cleveland and Youngstown until 1977. 

 

The most promising commuter rail route using existing tracks was from Lorain, through downtown, to Solon/Aurora. It had start-up costs projected at $300 million back then and would require an operating subsidy for which there is no source then as now. A parking tax downtown, redirected from Browns stadium, could pay for much of the operating cost of this new service. To read more about it, see:

 

Executive Summary:

http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NEORail-Executive-Summmary-2002.pdf

 

Ridership, capital and operating costs:

http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NEORailRidershipCosts-2002.pdf

 

Hypothetical schedules:

http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NEORail_Hypothetical_Schedules-2002.pdf

I had a streetcar loop idea that i'm sure has been discussed before.  

 

1) Extend the Red Line eastward 1.25 miles to Noble Road and develop this hunk of land 

 

 

2) a large streetcar loop would start on w6 and go east down St. Clair, turn right down woodworth/noble, intersect with the new redline terminus, turn right down euclid, pass windermere, turn right down superior, intersect with the superior redline station, go west down superior through public square and turn down w6 to connect the loop. 

 

This could be a good way to connect the near east side to the redline, provide the three major norther e/w avenues (St. Clair, Superior, Euclid) with a major transit line and spur development down St. Clair - especially if they are looking to pour a ton of money into the lakefront park.

 

Plus, get an extra mile of redline that would more completely serve east cleveland

 

 

Edited January 27, 20214 yr by Whipjacka

If you check out the Red Line extension study, you'll see that there is a hybrid alternative that, in the interim, would extensd rail to the Noble Road area which would be significantly redeveloped with industries and warehouses and jobs. Maybe Cuyahoga County should have taken on this project and developed it, although Budish probably would have wanted to put the jail there.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

Maybe Cuyahoga County should have taken on this project and developed it, although Budish probably would have wanted to put the jail there.

 

But then again, Budish could be onto something here:   Prisoner transport trains to the new Justice Center and Courts Tower on the riverfront.  A siding could take the train directly into a secure station under the courts tower.   It could also be an additional source of funding for rail upgrades, and provides a safer and more predictable scheduling to make sure they arrive on time for their hearings.   Bailiffs could schedule them on trains based on a timetable.   

 

It wouldn't be the first time trains were used for this purpose.  In searching I found this photo, of prisoners on their way to Alcatraz, via train, then barge!  

 

 

And Dr. Richard Kimble was being transported to death row via train.

 

Edited February 4, 20214 yr by skiwest

A blast from the past. In early November 1997, a year after I moved into my current Lakewood condo, this commuter rail demonstration ran from West 110th in Cleveland to Lorain and back on the first day, then had a day of static display downtown at the Amtrak station, then a day later with heavy snow falling, ran from the Cleveland Amtrak station to Painesville and back.

 

 

NOACA Virtual Public Meeting eNEO2050 Long Range Plan
 

https://www.eneo2050.com/virtual-public-meetings

 

Join us on May 3, 2021 at 6:00 PM to hear about the Draft Plan developed for An Equitable Future for Northeast Ohio. (Public meeting held on Zoom.)

 

19 minutes ago, Dblcut3 said:

I've somehow never heard of the plan to bring the blue line down towards North Randall before. It makes much more sense to me than the Green Line extension out towards Pepper Pike that people keep asking for. It's definitely a shame, because I think the whole RTA system would get a lot more riders if it had an extension out past the city and inner suburbs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan I saw from a quick Google search would have been to connect it down to a park and ride off of I-480 in North Randall. Honestly, that would have been a great project, and it may have even been used by people like me who visit Columbus from the Youngstown area but would rather not have the stress of driving and parking in Downtown. It would have been so cool to take the train from there to University Circle, Downtown, Ohio City, etc. But hey, I shouldn't have ever expected something like that to actually happen in Northeast Ohio! 😁

 

The Blue Line extension study from a decade ago showed higher ridership potential to Harvard/I-271. But that was before Amazon's North Randall Fulfillment Center was built -- or Pinecrest -- each of which offers a comparable level of jobs. But Amazon doesn't get visitors or residents like Pinecrest.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/bluelineextension

On 3/20/2021 at 1:01 PM, KJP said:

A blast from the past. In early November 1997, a year after I moved into my current Lakewood condo, this commuter rail demonstration ran from West 110th in Cleveland to Lorain and back on the first day, then had a day of static display downtown at the Amtrak station, then a day later with heavy snow falling, ran from the Cleveland Amtrak station to Painesville and back.

 

 

 

So what happened? RTA--at least back then--had the initiative--proved the concept, created the video to sell commuter rail, which would have done wonders for Cleveland. But no service was started--why not?

7 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

So what happened? RTA--at least back then--had the initiative--proved the concept, created the video to sell commuter rail, which would have done wonders for Cleveland. But no service was started--why not?

Joe Calabrese dug in his heals. that's what happened.  He was notoriously anti-rail.  In 2009, the HealthLine was still fairly new and he was enamored with Bus Rapid Transit.  Don't know exactly when planning was going on for the Clifton Blvd reconstruction, but the bus rapid transit was part of that project and it opened in 2014.  In his mind, why would he bother with commuter rail when his "solution" was to just add another bus rapid transit route.  Also remember that Calabrese's grand plan to extend the Blue Line was to link another bus rapid transit operation to "extend" that line.  He also liked to turn through routes into glorified feeder shuttle services (like the Mayfield, Wilson Mills and Cedar lines for the HealthLine), so the BRT "extension" for the Blue Line would be another one of his feeder shuttles.

 

The commuter rail demonstration was probably no more than a way to placate commuter rail advocates.  He never had any intention of having RTA involved with it.   

 

The best thing to happen to RTA was for Joe Calabrese to leave the system.  In a normal world, his record of drastic, sustained rider loses would have cost him his job.  In his case, he was rewarded with contract extensions, pay raises and bonuses.  He headed RTA for 18 1/2 years.  If it weren't for the scandal with Dixon, he would have ran it for 20 years.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

The Blue Line extension study from a decade ago showed higher ridership potential to Harvard/I-271. But that was before Amazon's North Randall Fulfillment Center was built -- or Pinecrest -- each of which offers a comparable level of jobs. But Amazon doesn't get visitors or residents like Pinecrest.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/bluelineextension

Extending the Blue Line to I-271 and Harvard could serve THREE major ride generators:  Pinecrest, University Hospital Ahuja Medical Center (which is expanding and has room for much more growth) and a convenient park-n-ride lot with nearby freeway access.  Having access like that would make it a very attractive alternative to the heavy congestion on I-480 for people who would use that route to get downtown. 

49 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Extending the Blue Line to I-271 and Harvard could serve THREE major ride generators:  Pinecrest, University Hospital Ahuja Medical Center (which is expanding and has room for much more growth) and a convenient park-n-ride lot with nearby freeway access.  Having access like that would make it a very attractive alternative to the heavy congestion on I-480 for people who would use that route to get downtown. 

And Tri-C East, plus new ToD along currently under-developed Harvard between Northfield and Richmond roads. 

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Joe Calabrese dug in his heals. that's what happened.  He was notoriously anti-rail.  In 2009, the HealthLine was still fairly new and he was enamored with Bus Rapid Transit.  Don't know exactly when planning was going on for the Clifton Blvd reconstruction, but the bus rapid transit was part of that project and it opened in 2014.  In his mind, why would he bother with commuter rail when his "solution" was to just add another bus rapid transit route.  Also remember that Calabrese's grand plan to extend the Blue Line was to link another bus rapid transit operation to "extend" that line.  He also liked to turn through routes into glorified feeder shuttle services (like the Mayfield, Wilson Mills and Cedar lines for the HealthLine), so the BRT "extension" for the Blue Line would be another one of his feeder shuttles.

 

The commuter rail demonstration was probably no more than a way to placate commuter rail advocates.  He never had any intention of having RTA involved with it.   

 

The best thing to happen to RTA was for Joe Calabrese to leave the system.  In a normal world, his record of drastic, sustained rider loses would have cost him his job.  In his case, he was rewarded with contract extensions, pay raises and bonuses.  He headed RTA for 18 1/2 years.  If it weren't for the scandal with Dixon, he would have ran it for 20 years.

 

Thanks for that background, though I think the demonstration may have been in earnest--Tober, the previous CEO was in the video so it looked like the video was made before Calabrese came to power. Is the new CEO any better though? I heard she's not any different than Calabrese when it comes to rail or making any real improvements. 

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

Thanks for that background, though I think the demonstration may have been in earnest--Tober, the previous CEO was in the video so it looked like the video was made before Calabrese came to power. Is the new CEO any better though? I heard she's not any different than Calabrese when it comes to rail or making any real improvements. 

I missed the date of November 1997 in the comments above.  RTA, especially under the leadership of Tober, could have seriously been considering commuter rail.  Before Ronald Tober, RTA operated a diesel-powered Leyland rail bus on and beyond the system out to Mentor.  When the current Tokyu Red Line rapid transit cars were delivered in 1984-1985, they had "MENTOR" included in the destination signs.  They had forward-thinking pro-rail management at that time.  RTA's Central Rail yard was designed to be able to handle at least double the number of rapid transit cars that were purchased in 1981-1985.  The original size of the Breda light rail fleet was 48 units and the Tokyu heavy rail fleet was 60 cars.  There were even intentions of keeping some of the older Airporters around for the Red Line and PCC cars on the Blue/Green Lines.  That facility was designed to easily handle a significant rapid transit system expansion.

 

The jury is still out on Birdsong, however as it was mentioned previously by Mr. Prendergast a while back, she expressed a desire to have the Van Aken development to allow for provisions for a potential Blue Line extension.  If Calabrese were still around, that would never happened.  I wouldn't have been surprised to hear Calabrese going out of his way to make potential rail expansion more difficult.  The decision to purchase one type of rapid transit car to serve all rail lines is also promising.

Itd be cool if the red line went out to erie st in Willoughby 

^ i thought it was kucinich who killed the commuter plan because of perceived noise issues in lakewood? i didn't think rta was too involved. and probably they shouldn't be, commuter srvice is usually another agency.

 

rta can concentrate on rapid extensions. or at the very least, plan for them and maintain the rows for the future.

7 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

Itd be cool if the red line went out to erie st in Willoughby 

To me, that makes sense since it is a vibrant downtown-ish area with plenty of restaurants and a start on some density.  I'd love to take Laketran out there and catch a train to the airport when I have to take a trip.

15 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

So what happened? RTA--at least back then--had the initiative--proved the concept, created the video to sell commuter rail, which would have done wonders for Cleveland. But no service was started--why not?

 

Based on Federal Transit Administration project scoring criteria, none of the five proposed commuter rail routes would have scored higher than marginally feasible. The highest rated was Lorain-downtown-Aurora and would have cost $300 million to build and something like $15 million to $20 million per year to operate. It would have required a tax increase of some kind. There wasn't any political interest in that.

 

15 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Extending the Blue Line to I-271 and Harvard could serve THREE major ride generators:  Pinecrest, University Hospital Ahuja Medical Center (which is expanding and has room for much more growth) and a convenient park-n-ride lot with nearby freeway access.  Having access like that would make it a very attractive alternative to the heavy congestion on I-480 for people who would use that route to get downtown. 

 

All of those except Pinecrest were included in the Blue Line extension evaluation.

 

RTA is still not interested in expansion although the new GM India Birdsong is more interested than the old hats hanging around -- Floun'say Carver, Mike Schipper, etc. -- who argue that the region's declining density is a reason against rail investment. Transit investments can either respond to land use changes or be used with other tools in the planning tool box to increase density. But since GCRTA spends most of its time reacting to and putting out fires rather than leading an incentivized growth/development plan, it guarantees GCRTA's worsening irrelevance.

6 hours ago, KJP said:

RTA is still not interested in expansion although the new GM India Birdsong is more interested than the old hats hanging around -- Floun'say Carver, Mike Schipper, etc. -- who argue that the region's declining density is a reason against rail investment. Transit investments can either respond to land use changes or be used with other tools in the planning tool box to increase density. But since GCRTA spends most of its time reacting to and putting out fires rather than leading an incentivized growth/development plan, it guarantees GCRTA's worsening irrelevance.

Birdsong being open to a possible expansion of the Blue Line is at least a glimmer of hope for the future.  For that future to hold any promise, the leftovers from Calabrese's tenure must leave.  Unfortunately, so many have become entrenched in positions of power and influence during Calabrese's 18 1/2 years, it will take years for them to leave the system and even more years for the damage to be corrected from the mis-management, waste, fraud, abuse, incompetence and indifference. 

 

Even now, there are questionable decisions that are in motion to further alienate the rider base.  In 2020, RTA purchased 12 new 45-foot MCI highway coaches for park-n-ride service from lots in Westlake, North Olmsted and Strongsville.  These coaches joined a group of 12 older 45-foot highway coaches and permitted the retirement of the remaining 2001 highway coaches, mostly 40-foot versions.  The service from those suburbs was at least popular as each lot had sizable expansions over the years and RTA switched to longer buses to handle more passengers.  This summer, RTA is going to implement their Next Gen plan.  Only the Strongsville highway service will remain.  The North Olmsted and Westlake direct, virtually non-stop service via the interstates will be discontinued.  RTA will still provide service from the park-n-ride facilities, but the buses will run on city streets.  

 

Prediction:  The riders using the highway service will turn away from RTA.   They will not be interested in commutes that will take at least two or three times as long.  When RTA decided to stop operating the highway service from the Euclid park-n-ride facility in 2016 and operate service to downtown via city streets, hardly anybody used it.  The 300-car lot in Euclid has 90% of the lot closed off for use.  Even before the pandemic, a "busy" day at the Euclid lot (after the service downgrade) would have 8 cars parked in it.  Granted, while the Euclid park-n-ride service was not as well patronized as the 3 west side operations, but that was due to RTA's poor management.  Security was severely lacking.  Cars were stolen or broken into.  There weren't enough security cameras and those that were in place needed new covers to replace the clouded-over ones.  Patrols were infrequent and many times the homeless would use it for a place to sleep, even in good weather.  It was also the first route to lose highway coaches when there were shortages.  There were even times when highway coaches intended for that service were used on non-highway routes and the regular, run-down, uncomfortable city buses were used highway service. 

 

RTA says "other uses" will be found for the highway coaches.  How?  Where?  A 45-foot highway coach is not well-suited for regular stop-and-go city service.  One narrow front door does not allow for easy loading and unloading.  Though they are equipped with wheelchair lifts, they are not meant for city-type service either.  These buses that a cost about $630k apiece will either sit or be sold (at a discount) to other systems that will know how to properly use them.  More waste of tax dollars by RTA.    

The operating expenses for park-n-ride buses on highways are extremely high, as measured by cost-per-hour of revenue service. The only Cleveland transit operation that is more costly is the demand response / paratransit.

In the end, approximately $8 million in new buses will be a wasted purchase.  The park-n-ride facilities in North Olmsted and Westlake will become practically empty parking lots with very nice layover facilities for operators.  A further erosion in the ridership base as more RTA passengers will turn to their cars.  Just another decision making RTA more and more irrelevant in the minds of the public.  When RTA ultimately comes asking for an increase in the county's sales tax or property-type tax, the irrelevance will be reflected in the results.   The board of trustees already knows it is on thin ice in the minds of the public.  They backed off in seeking that tax-based revenue increase a couple of years ago as it would have gone down in flames just like its buses that caught fire due to overheating brakes.  The point is quickly coming where the only people riding RTA will be the ones that have no other choice.  

It is also interesting to note that Laketran, a system that operates park-n-ride highway service downtown, found a way to generate more revenue and serve reverse commuters.  Approximately 2 years ago, they re-routed their highway coaches on the return trip back to the Painesville garage.  Instead of returning empty after the end of the trip downtown, they started providing service to Mentor's Tyler Blvd area.  No extra equipment or drivers were required and it only added a little bit more time on that return trip.  Long before the Tyler Blvd service started, Laketran's timetables included times on their schedules for reverse commuting stops.  I'm sure that there are companies in North Olmsted, Westlake or other western suburbs where employees could benefit from reverse-commuting type service.

 

Why is it that a much smaller transit agency in the same area can come up with innovative solutions but RTA cannot?  

Because GCRTA is awful in that regard. About 25 years ago a group of us tried to get GCRTA to install bike racks on buses. We called it the rack and roll program to capture the excitement from the newly opened rock and roll Hall of fame. GCRTA rebuffed our efforts saying that no one would use the bike racks. So we went to transit agencies in Lake Portage Summit and Lorain counties and got them all to add the bike racks. It was a success. Then we went back to GCRTA, showed them the numbers from the collar counties, and they agreed to add them on a trial basis. It was so successful that they agreed to permanently add them to all buses. Because it's GCRTA...

8 hours ago, KJP said:

Because GCRTA is awful in that regard. About 25 years ago a group of us tried to get GCRTA to install bike racks on buses. We called it the rack and roll program to capture the excitement from the newly opened rock and roll Hall of fame. GCRTA rebuffed our efforts saying that no one would use the bike racks. So we went to transit agencies in Lake Portage Summit and Lorain counties and got them all to add the bike racks. It was a success. Then we went back to GCRTA, showed them the numbers from the collar counties, and they agreed to add them on a trial basis. It was so successful that they agreed to permanently add them to all buses. Because it's GCRTA...

Well that is pathetic.  RTA promotes itself as the largest transit system in the state (as it is so).  The leadership should be innovative.  The money that is being paid out to its top executives should have them either coming up with or embracing new ideas instead of rejecting them.  I've seen the numbers that Calabrese pulled in for an annual salary.  His results, despite all of the excuses, were terrible.  What makes things worse is Frank Polivka served as RTA's head of procurement from around 2004 to 2015.  From 1979 to 2003, he served as the first general manager for one of those surrounding transit agencies, Laketran.  His success in starting up a transit agency from nothing and making it an excellent operation should have been a resource for RTA's leaders to get those ideas.  Who knows, innovation from within could have been seen as a threat to others.

 

As for the park-n-ride service being the second biggest money losing operation on RTA, I think that it is that is due to RTA's management of that operation.  The concept must work as many other transit agencies are successful at it.  Laketran's success at that operation grew out of RTA's cast offs.  I also don't trust any numbers that are produced by RTA.  They have shown they cannot keep track of their own finances, plus numbers can be manipulated to slant any sort of story they want to be told.  

Think about the revenue per-mile or per-hour generation from the park-n-ride buses vs in-city, mainline buses. The PnR buses are terrible in that metric. Not just GCRTA but everywhere. Akron Metro RTA's North Coast Express buses between Akron and Cleveland stink in terms of revenue generation and they charge a premium fare for this out-of-jurisdiction service. The only reason why they can afford to keep it up is because when the Cleveland VA Hospital moved from Brecksville to UC, Akron Metro was able to get federal senior/VA grants to pay for the expanded service. The VA Hospital in Brecksville was the northern terminus of Akron Metro west of the Cuyahoga Valley and they interchanged with GCRTA there. Now, they expanded their North Coast Express bus service from a rush-hour-only schedule to an all-day schedule with a dog-leg added to the route to reach UC. Canton's SARTA did the same thing, grabbing some federal senior/VA grants to afford their three buses per weekday service from Canton to Cleveland with a side trip over to the VA. Otherwise, these bus trips would be hard to justify financially to transit agencies.

Based upon what you stated concerning SARTA and Akron Metro, RTA's park-n-ride service doesn't even compare.  The service from Canton and Akron can basically be considered intercity operations, connecting cities with other operations.  RTA's on the other hand, is a service offered within its own "home" territory.  Point-to-point, mileage doesn't differ much from an outlying park-n-ride facility, be it Strongsville, North Olmsted, Westlake and the former operation in Euclid to downtown.  The one huge difference is the speed it takes to travel those points.  In the time it would take to travel in one round trip from one of those facilities to downtown, 2-round trips can be taken via the highway on normal days with time left over, plus the fuel efficiency is higher.

Now, one thing that I have noticed is that RTA does not offer much of a pricing disparity for local or park-n-ride service.  For Laketran, a trip from its closest facility at Lloyd Road, only about 2-3 miles from RTA's Euclid facility, costs $3.75, a dollar more than what RTA charges (to be "fair", that $3.75 would get someone on one of the two trips to Madison).  RTA's local/rapid transit fares are $2.50, so the their park-n-ride service is only 10% more.  In earlier days for RTA, their express, flyer and rapid transit service had a larger percentage difference than today.  To make it better on paper, either RTA should increase the park-n-ride service, seek out funding to offset it or both.  I would also like to know how many riders, especially those using park-n-ride service, have fares paid by their employers.  Has current management even reached out for assistance on the Federal level?

A big factor in RTA's massive drop in ridership can be attributed to the loss of direct, one-seat express services.  Decisions like the further elimination of express services will only add to the decline.  I have seen nothing presented by RTA that makes longer trips desirable.  

By far, the biggest expense for transit agencies is labor. The labor assignments for park and ride buses are very inefficient and the passenger/ revenue volume is very low. How many fares get on a mainline bus on city streets in a crew-member's 8 hour shift vs. the number of fares getting on a park and ride bus in a crew member's 8 hour shift?