Although in retrospect, bringing more high-density transit (like the Blue/Green lines) into University Circle makes a lot of sense today because of UC's growth and ever-present need for massive parking garages. Each of those huge decks costs 10s of millions of dollars. How many aren't needed if UC was more accessible by rail (or even BRT!) from more directions? My biggest problem with the HealthLine is that it was routed east of UC via Euclid to parallel an underperforming rail line to a dying city. If it was to be routed east of UC, it should have been sent up the hill to either Cleveland Heights (Severance Center?) or to Shaker Square. And its never too late to do that!

 

Let me back away from earlier comments agreeing with this... I'm actually glad RTA is not running BRT into the Heights, mainly b/c I disagree strongly with the concept of a bus used to compete with rail.  Yes, I know the current East Side Red Line is flawed b/c it misses the East downtown and Midtown areas – which is what Dual Hub was designed to fix.  But we’ve learned to live with this flaw and RTA decided that the HL would focus on what I thought Dual Hub was designed to mainly due: bridge the Midtown area directly connecting downtown with UC.  I really don’t like the idea of HL stretch buses rumbling up nice residential streets like Euclid Heights; or clogging up busy Coventry… (which is why even CTS’ plans was for a subway through that tight ara) One of the few things I AGREE with the Calabrese administration is the decision to reduce Rapid-bus overlap and, instead, cause outer/suburban buses to terminate at Red Line stations – both East and West – which both decreases bus/fuel miles and strengthens the Rapid… Yes, I know CTS spoiled riders with a lot of express buses competing with the Rapid  (they’d just built in 1955), -- I know of no other rail-based system that does that -- but it was foolish imho, and it finally fell upon Calabrese to undo that spoiled-rider setup, mainly motivated, of course, to save $$ on expensive diesel fuel.

 

And again, flawed though both the HL and Red Line are, they are serving a positive service, with the Windermere Rapid, particularly, growing/spurring growth in the University Circle – and there’s even signs that the ‘dying city’ (East Cleve, of course), starting to get it with some development close to UC Uptown … development that happens to be well served by transit.

 

^The health line didn't attract $4.2B.  As has been discussed in the HL thread, $4.2B is how much was built along its route; for a vast majority of that, causal inferences are specious, IMHO.

 

I don't mean to be too quick to dismiss TIF; it's possible that it could generate some money, but I don't we can look to Portland as financing model.  The market there is just so, so different, with high ridership by people willing to pay a [significant] premium to live near transit options and lots of demand for new development.  And before the streetcar, there was ample evidence from decades of MAX to suggest some serious property value benefits. I just don't see any of those factors in Cleveland, at least not in nearly the same magnitude.

 

I'm definitely not anti-streetcar.  I agree with some of your thoughts, especially as they emphasize the relatively affordability of streetcar development vis a vis light/heavy rail, especially grade separated.  I just think Cincinnati offers more realistic expectations for funding, and it's 93% governmental, from what I can gather: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/streetcar_cost.cfm

whether the HL did create 4.2 billion or not TIF would have been able to capture a the increases in property tax revenue. instead of nothing.

 

In KC, their street car plan is based upon the creation of special improvement district (SID) to fund the Streetcar. similar to what has been crated in Gordon Square, Ohio City and downtown, i expect if UCI doesn't have a SID yet it will as development outside of Non profit institutions takes hold.

 

why are Clevelanders so negative about their own potential? like Tuscon, KC or Cincinnati have so much more development potential than Cleveland does.

 

If We had TIF in effect for Gordon Square, Ohio City or Tremont how much money do you think we could have raised over the last 15 years?

 

 

^I think you're using "TIF" a little too casually. The "I" in TIF refers to the increment of taxable value created by the infrastructure improvement, the idea being that the city is just accelerating the spending of the taxes the improvements will themselves cause to be collected, so the whole thing is revenue neutral.  I think you're just describing the city committing itself to reallocating some portion of future property tax collections from a particular area to fund a project, at the expense of the city's general fund (and maybe it's school district). I suppose that could be structured as a TIF, but politically and economically, that's no different from just saying we should pay for the project out of the general fund or through a general revenue bond. I'm not against that at all, but I think the TIF concept in that context just obscures the underlying political obstacles without solving them. And FWIW, most of that development along the HL created zero new property taxes because it was the Cleveland Clinic, the CMA, and other non-profits with property tax exemptions.

 

I'm not trying to be negative; I agree Cincinnati is a good model, and as a pointed out, its financing is almost entirely conventional: tax revenue, federal and regional grants.  I don't know much about KC's proposal, but I'm definitely open minded.  Of course the other big issue is that I don't think there is any consensus among UO posters, let along public officials, what the next big transit improvements should be.

 

ADDENDUM: Wow, KC's proposed funding process is really wild: looks like there is a mail-in ballot measure in the next few weeks whether to assess special property and sales taxes within the immediate area the streetcar will serve, and only residents of the area are eligible to vote.  The area is KC's CBD, so there are only a few thousand residents (of whom only about 600 have requested ballots), and obviously most of the property owners in such an area don't live there, so won't get a vote. This is actually the antithesis of the typocal BID/SID model, in that the tail (the residents) are wagging the dog (property taxes on CBD).  I don't know if this would even be legal in Ohio, and it would sure tick off businesses, but it is pretty innovative.  Even if the ballot measure passes, looks like KC still needs to secure a $25M federal grant to make its plan happen though.

Obviously we wont be seeing a subway system soon, so a thought just came to my mind about creating an elevated rail system through unserviced neighborhood for both east and west but my question about it is how much would that particularly cost and would it be easier to execute than a subway. I think an elevated system over neighborhoods such as Gordon square and Tremont, etc. and allow people to see what's happening would be cool because while Cleveland has blight there are beautiful neighborhoods that people especially tourist can't see and experience because of how the red line is so low in elevation. Also I feel like it would give Cleveland a different type of feel if that existed but it's just a thought.

^I think you're using "TIF" a little too casually. The "I" in TIF refers to the increment of taxable value created by the infrastructure improvement, the idea being that the city is just accelerating the spending of the taxes the improvements will themselves cause to be collected, so the whole thing is revenue neutral.  I think you're just describing the city committing itself to reallocating some portion of future property tax collections from a particular area to fund a project, at the expense of the city's general fund (and maybe it's school district). I suppose that could be structured as a TIF, but politically and economically, that's no different from just saying we should pay for the project out of the general fund or through a general revenue bond. I'm not against that at all, but I think the TIF concept in that context just obscures the underlying political obstacles without solving them. And FWIW, most of that development along the HL created zero new property taxes because it was the Cleveland Clinic, the CMA, and other non-profits with property tax exemptions.

you raise a number of good points, The current carrot for redevelopment has been using tax abatement to attract development dollars.  even with tax abatement the city still captures the income tax revenue form the new resident or business.  With a TIF you can exempt any school tax from the TIF, limiting it only to non-School revenue.

 

You can also use TIF and tax abatement together and Start the tax at zero and in increased valuation after X number of years goes toward the TIF. it would not  be the same as the 15 year Tax abatement today but maybe, 3 years full tax abatement then TIF every year after.  Either the way we need to capture the added revenue from the investment in infrastructure.

 

For the HL, any increase in  non institutional development in UC would be part of the TIF, and anything is better than nothing, I would not mind asking the major institutions in the city to Agree to a form of support for transit line because it is in their best interest to support transit especially the warm and fuzzy kind we are advocating.  It is also worth noting that UCI is almost entirely funded by institutions like CC, UH and CWRU, they volunteer to fund it they did not require a tax to make them do so.  Even in a SID it is not unheard of for Non profits to contribute even though they are tax exempt.  I am not saying they will but it never hurts to ask.

 

you should note that the UCI has pushed hard for the park and ride the UC option for the Blue Line.

 

I'm not trying to be negative; I agree Cincinnati is a good model, and as a pointed out, its financing is almost entirely conventional: tax revenue, federal and regional grants.  I don't know much about KC's proposal, but I'm definitely open minded.  Of course the other big issue is that I don't think there is any consensus among UO posters, let along public officials, what the next big transit improvements should be.

 

I think RTA is leading From behind, I can't blame them they have aging rail infrastructure that consumes 40% of their budget, yet only attracts 20-23% of their riders.  (from the mouth of Joe Calabreeze.) 

 

It is time for the municipalities of our area to embrace walkablity and transit, realize the limitation of Growing areas like Ohio City downtown and UC with car oriented development only.

 

 

 

ADDENDUM: Wow, KC's proposed funding process is really wild: looks like there is a mail-in ballot measure in the next few weeks whether to assess special property and sales taxes within the immediate area the streetcar will serve, and only residents of the area are eligible to vote.  The area is KC's CBD, so there are only a few thousand residents (of whom only about 600 have requested ballots), and obviously most of the property owners in such an area don't live there, so won't get a vote. This is actually the antithesis of the typocal BID/SID model, in that the tail (the residents) are wagging the dog (property taxes on CBD).  I don't know if this would even be legal in Ohio, and it would sure tick off businesses, but it is pretty innovative.  Even if the ballot measure passes, looks like KC still needs to secure a $25M federal grant to make its plan happen though.

 

Would you support a similar initiative in downtown cleveland? compare KC to Cleveland 2000 residents in KC vs 10,000 in downtown cleveland.

 

the $25 million is a federal Urban Circulator Grant, which has been used to great effect to establish streetcar systems in US cities.

 

Obviously we wont be seeing a subway system soon, so a thought just came to my mind about creating an elevated rail system through unserviced neighborhood for both east and west but my question about it is how much would that particularly cost and would it be easier to execute than a subway. I think an elevated system over neighborhoods such as Gordon square and Tremont, etc. and allow people to see what's happening would be cool because while Cleveland has blight there are beautiful neighborhoods that people especially tourist can't see and experience because of how the red line is so low in elevation. Also I feel like it would give Cleveland a different type of feel if that existed but it's just a thought.

 

Subways are about 250-500 million a mile

Streetcars 10-25 million a mile

Light rail 25-50 million a mile

Elevated rail (estimated) 40-120 million a mile.

 

for $100 million you get

.2 -.4miles of subway

4-10miles of streetcar

2-4 miles of light rail

.8-2.5 miles of elevated rail.

 

 

 

 

^^If there was a specific transit plan I really liked, I think I could support a KC-style funding mechanism in Cleveland, though it would drive downtown office building owners, businesses owners, and apartment building owners bananas, and may even risk the viability of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance.  I'm not even sure that sort of plan would be legal in Ohio, given the mismatch between economic interests, and I may look around for other examples.  It was challenged in MO, but was upheld.

 

Also, remember that UH and CC did voluntarily chip in for the HealthLine, that's why it's called the "HealthLine" :)

 

I can definitely imagine TIFs playing some limited role in funding, so again, i don't mean to dismiss them. I just think people see to much magic in that mechanism for our market, as compared to others, where transit itself shows up so conspicuously in market values, so they really are revenue neutral.

Obviously we wont be seeing a subway system soon, so a thought just came to my mind about creating an elevated rail system through unserviced neighborhood for both east and west but my question about it is how much would that particularly cost and would it be easier to execute than a subway. I think an elevated system over neighborhoods such as Gordon square and Tremont, etc. and allow people to see what's happening would be cool because while Cleveland has blight there are beautiful neighborhoods that people especially tourist can't see and experience because of how the red line is so low in elevation. Also I feel like it would give Cleveland a different type of feel if that existed but it's just a thought.

 

Subways are about 250-500 million a mile

Streetcars 10-25 million a mile

Light rail 25-50 million a mile

Elevated rail (estimated) 40-120 million a mile.

 

for $100 million you get

.2 -.4miles of subway

4-10miles of streetcar

2-4 miles of light rail

.8-2.5 miles of elevated rail.

Even though Elevated rail cost more than light rail or streetcars I still think it is an investment that is worth it because of the points I mentioned earlier of being able to see and easily access Cleveland booming neighborhoods. Also you can use the rail cars that you have now on the elevated routes instead of spending Millions per car on streetcars and light rail. I feel an elevated route would be a much more exciting experience than streetcars (I wouldn't mind having either one) but elevated rail gives a different experience while riding.

Obviously we wont be seeing a subway system soon, so a thought just came to my mind about creating an elevated rail system through unserviced neighborhood for both east and west but my question about it is how much would that particularly cost and would it be easier to execute than a subway. I think an elevated system over neighborhoods such as Gordon square and Tremont, etc. and allow people to see what's happening would be cool because while Cleveland has blight there are beautiful neighborhoods that people especially tourist can't see and experience because of how the red line is so low in elevation. Also I feel like it would give Cleveland a different type of feel if that existed but it's just a thought.

 

Subways are about 250-500 million a mile

Streetcars 10-25 million a mile

Light rail 25-50 million a mile

Elevated rail (estimated) 40-120 million a mile.

 

for $100 million you get

.2 -.4miles of subway

4-10miles of streetcar

2-4 miles of light rail

.8-2.5 miles of elevated rail.

Even though Elevated rail cost more than light rail or streetcars I still think it is an investment that is worth it because of the points I mentioned earlier of being able to see and easily access Cleveland booming neighborhoods. Also you can use the rail cars that you have now on the elevated routes instead of spending Millions per car on streetcars and light rail. I feel an elevated route would be a much more exciting experience than streetcars (I wouldn't mind having either one) but elevated rail gives a different experience while riding.

 

Honolulu is buildng the nation's 2nd elevated Rapid line

 

http://www.honolulutransit.org/

 

20 miles, 20 sations  40 minutes end to end.

Subways are about 250-500 million a mile

Streetcars 10-25 million a mile

Light rail 25-50 million a mile

Elevated rail (estimated) 40-120 million a mile.

 

for $100 million you get

.2 -.4miles of subway

4-10miles of streetcar

2-4 miles of light rail

.8-2.5 miles of elevated rail.

 

Those are only construction costs.  What are operating costs over 20 years? 

 

One benefit of a subway is all-weather operation.  No slowdowns for snow would be a nice advantage in Cleveland.  (I would not expect the savings from lack of snow-removal to be significant enough to justify subway over surface rail, unless the costs of the inconvenience were really huge, which I doubt.)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (and I only noticed it now) but the new head of NOACA "a little-known but powerful agency that sets the transportation agenda in Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, Geauga and Lake counties" comes from  public transit background (Chicago and Cleveland RTA)

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/post_17.html

Yep. She's a terrific transit leader. But she also has to answer to a constituency that is spread over multiple counties, many of whom have little interest in transit. And they all pay dues to NOACA.

Here's one.  Picture a cable car running from the East 9th St Pier south to Superior, then west on Superior to West 6th, north on West 6th to St Clair, west on St Clair and down the hill to West 10th, and finally to West 10th and Main.

Here's one.  Picture a cable car running from the East 9th St Pier south to Superior, then west on Superior to West 6th, north on West 6th to St Clair, west on St Clair and down the hill to West 10th, and finally to West 10th and Main.

 

A cable car?  Really?

Cable cars were tried in Cleveland in the 1800s but snow and ice kept clogging the slot and jamming the cable.

Besides, cable cars have higher personnel costs because you need a driver and someone to collect fares, plus the maintenance is higher than just about any other form of transportation.

How much thought has been given to reducing the number of green and blue line stops?

 

After shaker Square stops are placed 1/4 mile apart and could provide and opportunity to improve speed though the dedicated ROW.

 

I propose removing these green line stops:

Dexmore

Attleboro

Courtland

 

And these Blue line stops:

Southington

Ashby

Avalon

Lynnfield

 

 

The idea is if any extension become possible it is important to maximize the speed through the dedicated ROW.

 

 

How much thought has been given to reducing the number of green and blue line stops?

 

After shaker Square stops are placed 1/4 mile apart and could provide and opportunity to improve speed though the dedicated ROW.

 

I propose removing these green line stops:

Dexmore

Attleboro

Courtland

 

And these Blue line stops:

Southington

Ashby

Avalon

Lynnfield

 

 

The idea is if any extension become possible it is important to maximize the speed through the dedicated ROW.

 

 

Not going to happen. Shaker Heights would never allow it to even be discussed. Shaker Heights is laid out specifically so that all its roads flow toward those stations making it into a low density transit oriented development. Sure it's not the high density urban environment that a lot of people on this site might like, but it's a perfect illustration to surburbanites of how transit can be something other than crappy busses through scary neighborhoods. Why would anyone agree to mess with that?

 

Now if you want wanted to suggest having an express route that skips most of the stations, that's a bit more realisitic. I think a lot of people that have ridden those lines would be willing to consider that, but in order to make it work you'd either have to build a third set of tracks on each line, or convince RTA to allow trains to switch over to pass (which seems highly unlikely.)

Express routes be unavoidable when/if they extend the line, but timing out the passes with the local trains could get tricky.

How much thought has been given to reducing the number of green and blue line stops?

 

After shaker Square stops are placed 1/4 mile apart and could provide and opportunity to improve speed though the dedicated ROW.

 

I propose removing these green line stops:

Dexmore

Attleboro

Courtland

 

And these Blue line stops:

Southington

Ashby

Avalon

Lynnfield

 

 

The idea is if any extension become possible it is important to maximize the speed through the dedicated ROW.

 

 

Humm, eliminate stations in my 'hood!  I don't think so.

 

Based on what you posted, there seems to be a new stop on the Green line, Drexmore.  Can you show you indicate the location of this station on a map?  If you're going to eliminate station, make sure you know where they are located!

Why those stops?

Do you know the ridership at each of those stops?

If not why were these stops selected?

What financial costs could be achieved by eliminating these stops?

What "speed differntial" could be achieved by eliminating these stops?

 

Drexmore won't go anywhere, because it was the last station to be created.  It was created because Cleveland wanted to make a turn around loop in the middle of the square.  the compromise was to create Drexmore and to give those visiting the Eastern end of the extended shaker square shops, easy access as it was mid point between Coventry and SS.  When the line was rebuilt, that station was going to be eliminated, since the "turn around/lay over track" was moved to it's current location between Van Aken and Coventry.  But riders and SS fought to keep it.

 

RTA could reintroduce express trains on the Blue Line.

 

How much thought has been given to reducing the number of green and blue line stops?

 

After shaker Square stops are placed 1/4 mile apart and could provide and opportunity to improve speed though the dedicated ROW.

 

I propose removing these green line stops:

Drexmore Southington

Attleboro

Courtland

 

And these Blue line stops:

Southington

Ashby

Avalon

Lynnfield

 

 

The idea is if any extension become possible it is important to maximize the speed through the dedicated ROW.

 

 

Humm, eliminate stations in my 'hood!  I don't think so.

 

Based on what you posted, there seems to be a new stop on the Green line, Drexmore.  Can you show you indicate the location of this station on a map?  If you're going to eliminate station, make sure you know where they are located!

Why those stops?

Do you know the ridership at each of those stops?

If not why were these stops selected?

What financial costs could be achieved by eliminating these stops?

What "speed differntial" could be achieved by eliminating these stops?

 

Drexmore won't go anywhere, because it was the last station to be created.  It was created because Cleveland wanted to make a turn around loop in the middle of the square.  the compromise was to create Drexmore and to give those visiting the Eastern end of the extended shaker square shops, easy access as it was mid point between Coventry and SS.  When the line was rebuilt, that station was going to be eliminated, since the "turn around/lay over track" was moved to it's current location between Van Aken and Coventry.  But riders and SS fought to keep it.

 

RTA could reintroduce express trains on the Blue Line.

 

wow, such passion. oyou know I have zero power over the GCRTA

 

to  answer your question of why these stops , because they are between major higher volume roads. like Lee and Coventry.

 

For a light Rail system to have stops spaced every 1/4 mile is inefficient, Although I understand why they are spaced this way it does not help the people at the end of any expansion of the line.

 

as you mentioned express service could be added to route,  and detailed ridership studies need to be conducted to determine what should happen.  the issue of adding newer rolling stock and the needed improvements to each station to accommodate any new rolling stock and meet ADA compliance.

 

If you say there is enough ridership to keep the stops fine, but a similar situation is taking place in Pittsburgh where stops are being removed to increase service quality. 

 

If the goal is a better system for everyone removing some stops has to be examined to keep it competitive with driving, and to attract more riders to the system.

 

What about removing one of the East 79th street station? Its extremely low density and is served by both the Red and Green/Blue lines.

Reducing Shaker Heights LRT stations?  No way it'll happen.  Shaker's promotional material has always touted that every resident is within 1/2 mile of a Rapid station.  (btw, the stations are generally 1/3 mile apart, not 1/4 mile).  Plus, this close station spacing is not uncommon to the outer/residential ends of urbanized/close-in suburban routes of traditional commuter railroads, of which the Shaker lines mimic, albeit with LRT equipment (compare commuter rail routes such as Philly's 2 Chestnut Hill lines, Chicago's South Chicago Metra Electric line, or several of New York's LIRR routes, such as Long Beach or Far Rockaway, ... to name a few).    If Shaker Hts. was powerful enough to stare down powerful (and woefully misguided and mean) Albert S. Porter who wanted to shove a freeway down its gut, you think, today, they're going to allow Rapid stations to be closed purportedly for speed?  .... The better proposal would be to get priority traffic lights to speed trains along Van Aken and Shaker Blvds....

 

I also think that something should be done with traffic lights to help along trains through Shaker Square.  A few years ago when the traffic lights were rebuilt, they seriously slow trains which often must stop in the middle of the square waiting for traffic.  Obviously, we never want trains to go any more than about 10-15 mph through this extremely pedestrian-friendly retail/residential area, but the traffic signals now make the trains tortoise-like.

 

What about removing one of the East 79th street station? Its extremely low density and is served by both the Red and Green/Blue lines.

 

This is not a dumb idea.  I suspect politically, however, it's a non-starter.  This is one of the poorest areas in NEO and, hence, probably most transit-dependent, so closing either one of these stations will raise the ire of the local city council-persons.  Also, the configuration of the rail lines plus the recent RTA cuts also militates against it.  The recent severe RTA cuts removed bus service on Woodland Ave (formerly served by the deleted No. 12 bus), so the Red Line Rapid stop at E. 79 is a life line for many in the area... The busy, 24/7 No. 14 Kinsman bus does run near the elevated Blue/Green stop at E. 79th.  However, this area is a little more populated than immediately around the Red Line stop (and some new houses have even been built in recent years around Kinsman), with its crumbling, soon-to-be-razed factory ruins... Also, consider, that residents often ride from these stops outbound, to shopping and jobs, at/near the ends of all 3 routes... again, without cars, these rail lines are vital to residents, even in this lightly populated area. 

 

What about removing one of the East 79th street station? Its extremely low density and is served by both the Red and Green/Blue lines.

 

it should be a an option on the blue/green line east 79th because it is 1 mile from east 55th and 3/4 mile from buckeye station and is a 5 minute walk from the housing projects on kinsman, although the area around it is a wasteland it is in a transit friendly area.

Reducing Shaker Heights LRT stations?  No way it'll happen.  Shaker's promotional material has always touted that every resident is within 1/2 mile of a Rapid station.  (btw, the stations are generally 1/3 mile apart, not 1/4 mile).  Plus, this close station spacing is not uncommon to the outer/residential ends of urbanized/close-in suburban routes of traditional commuter railroads, of which the Shaker lines mimic, albeit with LRT equipment (compare commuter rail routes such as Philly's 2 Chestnut Hill lines, Chicago's South Chicago Metra Electric line, or several of New York's LIRR routes, such as Long Beach or Far Rockaway, ... to name a few).    If Shaker Hts. was powerful enough to stare down powerful (and woefully misguided and mean) Albert S. Porter who wanted to shove a freeway down its gut, you think, today, they're going to allow Rapid stations to be closed purportedly for speed?  .... The better proposal would be to get priority traffic lights to speed trains along Van Aken and Shaker Blvds....

 

I also think that something should be done with traffic lights to help along trains through Shaker Square.  A few years ago when the traffic lights were rebuilt, they seriously slow trains which often must stop in the middle of the square waiting for traffic.  Obviously, we never want trains to go any more than about 10-15 mph through this extremely pedestrian-friendly retail/residential area, but the traffic signals now make the trains tortoise-like.

 

points taken I will never mention this again, ;)

 

steps like better signalization, low floor vehicles (faster loading), proof of payment system (faster boarding). would be better investments.

steps like better signalization, low floor vehicles (faster loading), proof of payment system (faster boarding). would be better investments.

 

Exactly! The number of stations is woven into the city's design.

 

As for East 79th station, if I was head of CMHA and charged with choosing a site for a mixed-income TOD, this is probably the first place I'd want to put it. Where else is there a nearly blank slate with infrastructure already in place for a neighborhood? There may be some environmental issues with lead paint left in the soil, but this was a residential area -- not a polluted factory site needing millions for cleanup like many other vacant lands along RTA rail lines.

How much does it cost to run a bus route per hour. I have seen the Shoregate route run pretty late, and it is almost always 0 to 2 people. How much are we wasting by running that line so late?

I have seen the Shoregate route run pretty late, and it is almost always 0 to 2 people. How much are we wasting by running that line so late?

The 30 is packed when it leaves Windermere between 7 and 9pm and generally close to full when it leaves Windermere up to about 10 or 11 at night (I rarely ride it later than that) but empties out along the way. I'll agree the ridership looks pretty low in the other direction (Though I haven't riden in that direction in the evening). I honestly never noticed it runs till after midnight till now.

steps like better signalization, low floor vehicles (faster loading), proof of payment system (faster boarding). would be better investments.

 

Exactly! The number of stations is woven into the city's design.

 

As for East 79th station, if I was head of CMHA and charged with choosing a site for a mixed-income TOD, this is probably the first place I'd want to put it. Where else is there a nearly blank slate with infrastructure already in place for a neighborhood? There may be some environmental issues with lead paint left in the soil, but this was a residential area -- not a polluted factory site needing millions for cleanup like many other vacant lands along RTA rail lines.

 

exactly!

 

My internal debate is how much infrastructure to supply to the forgotten triangle and other abandoned areas of town.

 

 

 

How much does it cost to run a bus route per hour.

 

Average cost per hour of service is $133, according to RTA's 2011 annual report

Redirected from another thread......

 

If approved by more than 2/3 of Los Angeles County voters, and polling suggests it would be, this extended revenue stream, together with the federal TIFIA program enhancement, could enable Metro to borrow funds at historically low interest rates and build the full Measure R 12-project transit program in 10 years rather than 30 years.

 

Amazing and awesome.

 

could say the state of ohio or the county of Cuyahoga do the same thing?

 

 

Actually, Cuyahoga County/GCRTA could do it -- if there was a ready-to-go capital improvement plan for the region that was ready to go as in California. Perhaps GCRTA's collection of unfunded capital improvement projects (see: http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/) could form the basis of that program, as well as other recent projects that started or are about start a federally compliant planning process, including:

 

EXISTING PROJECTS (NOT YET UNDERWAY):

> Airport Tunnel

> Brookpark Rapid Station

> Mayfield Rapid Station

> Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station

> Red Line S-Curve

> University Circle Rapid Station

> Transit Waiting Environments

> Transit Oriented Development

FUTURE PROJECTS STILL IN PLANNING

> Blue Line Corridor Extension

> West Shore Corridor Improvement Project

> Red Line/HealthLine Extension

> Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Extension to Tower City Center

 

How's that for a projects list? GCRTA freed up $14 million just by refinancing its existing debt because of its improved credit rating. I assumed they issued debt for that work, but for what term? If it's only for 5-10 years, imagine what they could do by issuing a 30-year, low-interest bond!

Redirected from another thread......

 

If approved by more than 2/3 of Los Angeles County voters, and polling suggests it would be, this extended revenue stream, together with the federal TIFIA program enhancement, could enable Metro to borrow funds at historically low interest rates and build the full Measure R 12-project transit program in 10 years rather than 30 years.

 

Amazing and awesome.

 

could say the state of ohio or the county of Cuyahoga do the same thing?

 

 

Actually, Cuyahoga County/GCRTA could do it -- if there was a ready-to-go capital improvement plan for the region that was ready to go as in California. Perhaps GCRTA's collection of unfunded capital improvement projects (see: http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/) could form the basis of that program, as well as other recent projects that started or are about start a federally compliant planning process, including:

 

EXISTING PROJECTS (NOT YET UNDERWAY):

> Airport Tunnel

> Brookpark Rapid Station

> Mayfield Rapid Station

> Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station

> Red Line S-Curve

> University Circle Rapid Station

> Transit Waiting Environments

> Transit Oriented Development

FUTURE PROJECTS STILL IN PLANNING

> Blue Line Corridor Extension

> West Shore Corridor Improvement Project

> Red Line/HealthLine Extension

> Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Extension to Tower City Center

 

How's that for a projects list? GCRTA freed up $14 million just by refinancing its existing debt because of its improved credit rating. I assumed they issued debt for that work, but for what term? If it's only for 5-10 years, imagine what they could do by issuing a 30-year, low-interest bond!

 

This is what the national infrastructure bank was supposed to be, leveraging a smalll amount of government funds to offer reduced rate loans for infrastructure.

 

this IMO would be a boon for public transit, if we can find ways to leverage the value added by TOD.

Joe C is a pay-as-you-go kind of guy and GCRTA's debt levels are pretty high right now. But they might look at using TIFIA to refinance some of their existing debt and then devote a little more of their operating revenues to capital instead of preventative maintenance -- especially if some of the capital projects can reduce their maintenance budget.

 

Here is some data that's food for thought....

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2012-5-15%20QMR1stQ2012.pdf

 

Funding for the two Red Line projects is available now, in part, because of GCRTA's improved financial picture. It is also a re-prioritization decision by GCRTA to use slightly more operating funds for capital projects (namely the two Red Line projects) and a little less for preventative maintenance. Yet GCRTA notes on Page 5 at the above link that they could devote more to capital expansion and still stay within its budget plan...

 

"At a projected 89.1%, the ratio of Capital Maintenance Outlay to Capitol Expansion Outlay remains just inside the 75-90% range outline in the Board Policy goal and is slightly above the budgeted level of 83.3% for FY2012."

There are a lot of projects, both exhisting and future projects. What about doing a lot of traffic light synchronizing to get the present Shaker rail lines moving faster? Get a "Feeder" bus system (easy to use, frequent) and map reserected to feed all rapid lines. (Red,Green, Blue). We have a lot of people using the rapids. They need to be repeat customers. They could do the traffic signals on heavy bus lines.

 

NYT: For Transit Relief, Congested Atlanta Ponders a Penny Tax

 

ATLANTA — Commuters battling traffic in the Bay Area or New York might protest, but Atlanta-area traffic seems to be uniquely awful.

National Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

 

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

 

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

 

For more than a decade, Atlanta has been among the fastest-growing regions in the country, but the road and rail system in a state that ranks 49th in per capita transportation spending just could not keep up.

 

Hourlong commutes are common, and more than 80 percent of commuters drive alone. Only 5 percent make use of the region’s limited train and bus systems, according to research by the Brookings Institution.

 

This month, Atlanta-area voters are being asked to approve an ambitious fix that would raise $8.5 billion by adding a penny to the sales tax for 10 years.

 

The proposal, which bundles 157 projects in 10 counties, is part of a July 31 referendum that will allow voters across the state to decide whether they want a new tax for transportation specific to their region. Voters in the Savannah area, for example, will decide on a $1.6 billion regional package of road and transit improvements, of which $229 million would be spent in Savannah.

 

The complex regional voting scheme could bring in more than $18.6 billion in new tax money, plus additional federal money, making it one of the largest packages of its kind in the country, transportation experts said.

 

I would like to see the artificial barriers of county and municipal boundaries removed and replaced by an agency that encompass the entire functional region.

 

form cleveland to Akron to Lorain to lake county, to Medina, an agency that can connect these areas together.

 

 

Here's an idea of mine.......

 

Independent (non-RTA) 2.25-mile, single-track streetcar (probably modern rather than replica heritage) from Cleveland Clinic-Cole at East 105th (possible extension west to East 93rd/Taussig) up Cedar Hill and Euclid Heights Boulevard to Coventry-South (possible extension to Coventry-North at Mayfield). Two streetcar vehicles, one of which would be a reserve. Could operate on 15-minute headways from 6 a.m. to midnight, possibly operating overnight with less-frequent trips. Primary markets are Cleveland Heights residents commuting to CWRU, Clinic, UH, to CSU and downtown via HealthLine and Red Line, plus transfers from Red Line to Clinic and Cleveland Heights. Almost all of the right of way is existing public right of way except at extreme endpoints, so property acquisition costs would be very small. I'm considering an elevated rail/trail bridge over the Cedar/Carnegie/Stearn intersection to also link the Heights Bike Trails with the Harrison Dillard Bikeway. It would also allow highway funds to be tapped for this expensive component. Station-area development sites could help finance the construction/operation of the streetcar....

 

 

 

 

Traffic generators.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The right of way, today.....

 

 

 

The right of way, yesterday (same location, both viewed from the railroad overpass of Cedar).....

 

 

 

 

Was the Heights Theater in 1941, today the Centrum.....

 

 

 

Westbound streetcar making the turn from Mayfield south on Coventry.....

 

 

More pictures and maps to come, including a possible rail/trail bridge over the busy intersection of Cedar/Carnegie/Stearns.

I like your Plan KJP.

 

UC is ground Zero for potential transit expansion.

As a More concrete proposal to my rebuttal to the rebuilding of the high level Main avenue bridge.

 

West Shore Light Rail

 

 

This would be a Light Rail conversion of the Nickle Plate Railway From west 98th street Redline ROW to the Basset road in West lake and a transition to Streetcar mixed traffic operation to Crocker Park Mixed use development, which BTW which is an amazing TOD without the transit. 

 

the line Would operate in Temporal Separation where you could continue to operate Freight trains at night , and light rail trains during the Day with an option for Diesel Commuter Rail to Lorain to share ROW potentially all the way into Tower City and on to University Circle.

 

station locations:

West 117th

Downtown Lakewood: at Belle Ave.

Downtown Rocky River: Lake and Depot Street

Westlake: Colombia Park and Ride

Westlake: Crocker Rd

Crocker park: Market and main

Crocker park: Union and Main

 

the route would entail the electrification of 10.4 route miles of ROW with existing high quality welded rail.  the installation of 1 mile of sidings at Station locations. installation 10 turnouts for each station location Plus a connection to redline ROW.

Estimated 20-25 million dollars per mile, $228-285 million

 

the installation of 3 miles of Streetcar ROW

cost 18-25 million per mile

54-75 million total.

 

5 Rail ROW stations estimated Cost 5-10 million each, two curb side stations 2-5 million dollars each.

27-60 million

 

 

Total

$309-420 million

 

Travel time

31 minutes Crocker Park to tower City.

 

 

 

^Great idea!

 

^^The Coventry streetcar idea is a good one, too.  I just would prefer it to be double-track throughout.

I like the C-C-C trolley idea.  Especially if you can tie it seamlessly into the Rapid, perhaps through the 79th street station as well as the UC station.  As a regular user of the latter in another lifetime, I can assure you it's not in the least bit central to anything happening at Case. 

 

We used to literally walk from CWRU to Coventry when I was living on campus, albeit in an era when Case's on campus social opportunities were minimal.

 

Also, how in the hell do you build an expensive heavy rail transit system, go right past the Cleveland Clinic, and not build a station remotely convenient to same? 

Also, how in the hell do you build an expensive heavy rail transit system, go right past the Cleveland Clinic, and not build a station remotely convenient to same?  [/color]

 

While the Clinic is older than the Rapid, I don't think it was a very large employer until after they started building the Rapid in the late 1920s and finished it in 1955. I'm pretty sure University Hospitals was a larger employer than the Clinic in that era.

 

But you're right that the Red Line was built in the wrong location, even in 1920s-1950s Cleveland. The Van Swerigen brothers did a lot of brilliant things, but their routing for the east-west rapid was a head-scratcher. Building rapid transit along freight railroads through aging, heavily industrialized areas does not produce ridership, but they were ultimately trying to provide a core route for other Rapid lines to feed into. This would be a fast route between downtown, the densely developed East Cleveland, up to the hill to Cleveland Heights, and/or northeast to the newly growing Euclid. This remained the vision for Cleveland Transit System after it started in 1941. CTS wanted a cheap way to build a rapid transit line (the nation's first in the post-war era), so they used the right of way the Van Sweringens started building before the Depression hit.

 

Here is a photo from 1930, looking northeast from what is today the Salvation Army warehouse next to RTA's UC-Cedar station. The two tracks of the New York Central RR (left) and the two tracks of the Nickel Plate RR (right) were move outward and augmented by the two passenger-only tracks of the Van Swerigen's Cleveland Union Terminal RR (middle two tracks), and the unfinished right of way for the east-west rapid transit line (at far-right). Little did the photographer (or anyone else) know when this photo was taken that those strategically piled railroad ties and rails set down for building the Rapid would never be used, although the catenary wire supports would be used, albeit not until 25 years after this moment. This is why predicting the future is fraught with danger...

 

 

 

Just behind the photographer of the above picture, and 21 years later, famed railroad photographer Herbert H. Harwood snapped this picture. This is the unbuilt Cedar Glen station in 1951 -- the year that the Cleveland Transit System got a $29.5 million federal Reconstruction Finance Corp. loan to build the east-west Rapid. Construction would not start for another two years however, with service on the first segment starting in 1955. Back then, this station and other unbuilt features for the Rapid were a constant reminder for Greater Clevelanders of how their city had stagnated since before World War II and the Great Depression (including no new tall downtown buildings since 1930). So one of the rally cries was to "finish the Rapid!" It should have been, "Finish the Rapid but put it down Euclid Avenue!"

 

I do love all the old pictures....

 

It does seem like all the planning ignored the southern city and suburbs, which is still pretty much underserved.  Though I suppose that could be because Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, Brecksville et al had their own bus companies before 1975.  Maple in particular strongly resisted full merger with RTA, largely out of a concern that their non downtown oriented service would be cut. 

I do love all the old pictures....

 

It does seem like all the planning ignored the southern city and suburbs, which is still pretty much underserved.  Though I suppose that could be because Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, Brecksville et al had their own bus companies before 1975.  Maple in particular strongly resisted full merger with RTA, largely out of a concern that their non downtown oriented service would be cut. 

 

In the 1950s-60s, CTS planned a rapid transit line out to North Randall next to the Erie RR tracks which paralleled Miles Avenue. The Erie RR had the region's last commuter rail service until 1977. In the 1950s, the area from Lee eastward was a rapidly growing area with no highways direct to downtown (and still doesn't).

"The Van Swerigen brothers did a lot of brilliant things, but their routing for the east-west rapid was a head-scratcher. Building rapid transit along freight railroads through aging, heavily industrialized areas does not produce ridership, but they were ultimately trying to provide a core route for other Rapid lines to feed into."  - KJP

 

In fairness to the Vans, the east side Rapid line they started in the 1920s was not designed to be the primary rail transit line to the East Side.  Their plans included a Euclid Ave. subway, and the evidence of this is the Huron Road 2-track, grade-separated  turnout/connector to the current Rapid hub inside the East approach to Tower City.  They no doubt started building the East Cleveland rapid route along the ROW because it was the cheapest and easiest to start up -- they owned the ROW from East Cleveland to Lakewood next to their Nickel Plate RR.  The most recent attempt to revive the Euclid subway was Dual Hub in the 1990s, which would have used the Huron subway to connect to the existing Rapid at Tower City, and is evidence that the Vans wanted to divert the busy Euclid corridor traffic into their railroad palace on Public Square.

 

Then I wish their construction on the Euclid subway had advanced as far as the construction did on what would become the east side Red Line. They acquired all that property, leveled the land, built all those bridges, erected all the catenary supports and acquired the ballast, ties and rails. Wonder what sort of progress they could have made for that same amount of money on the Euclid subway? Perhaps they could have finished the Huron subway? If they had, the costs of finishing that project in the 1950s, or modernizing it in the 2000s for the cost building the HealthLine, is very intriguing to me. If I could only go back and time and tell them to do it differently....

^Hard know, for sure, what the Vans plans exactly were because of their reclusive secrecy.  We do know that the Vans were cash poor and had very little of their own money to invest, as they leveraged most of their RR empire which, of course, came crashing down when the banks called their notes shortly after the 1929 crash. So outside of their rail ROWs on the East and West side (along with the built/operating Shaker lines), there was little to nothing they invested in transit-wise.  IIRC their interlocking companies took control of the old Cleveland Railways, the private operator of the streetcar network, but neither CR or the Vans had the kind of capital at the ready to build something as substantial as a Euclid subway.  But they nevertheless planned for it while waiting to spend OPM (other people's money) to finish it once they were able to finagle it... I have no doubt that the Huron Subway  connector was built because it was within the giant Union Terminals footprint in the 1920s... I also sometimes wonder why the Vans did things the way they did (like running/building 2 local separate electric passenger RRs (the CUT and the Shaker & east-west Rapids) rather than build a unified, Philly-like local/regional/inner city operation.  Oh well, we'll never know for sure... 

 

... and as they say, back to the future.  I really do think that, some day, the Health Line will be converted to light rail and that the downtown portion will be dropped into a subway to connect to the existing Rapid at Tower City, probably using the Vans old Huron Connector tunnels.  Chances are, I won't live to see it, but in my gut I think it's going to happen, because the popularity of the HL will outstrip it's current capacity which, even with much of the corridor still way underdeveloped , seems close to capacity now...

How much does it cost to run a bus route per hour. I have seen the Shoregate route run pretty late, and it is almost always 0 to 2 people. How much are we wasting by running that line so late?

 

If you ask any of the people on that bus, we're not "wasting" a dime, especially if transit is their only option. My personal observations have run contrary to yours, as I was on a #30 bus outbound 11:40pm this past Saturday night, and we were SRO+10 leaving Windermere Rapid Station, with a decent crowd still on the bus when I departed closer to Lakeshore & Neff. This was not an anomaly, as I've been on that bus at other late hours and observed similar loads.

 

Keep in mind, also, that farebox recovery, even for "successful" routes, only averages about 21% nationwide across all routes, modes and systems, per the latest (2010) numbers from the NTD.

^Hard know, for sure, what the Vans plans exactly were because of their reclusive secrecy.  We do know that the Vans were cash poor and had very little of their own money to invest, as they leveraged most of their RR empire which, of course, came crashing down when the banks called their notes shortly after the 1929 crash. So outside of their rail ROWs on the East and West side (along with the built/operating Shaker lines), there was little to nothing they invested in transit-wise.  IIRC their interlocking companies took control of the old Cleveland Railways, the private operator of the streetcar network, but neither CR or the Vans had the kind of capital at the ready to build something as substantial as a Euclid subway.  But they nevertheless planned for it while waiting to spend OPM (other people's money) to finish it once they were able to finagle it... I have no doubt that the Huron Subway  connector was built because it was within the giant Union Terminals footprint in the 1920s... I also sometimes wonder why the Vans did things the way they did (like running/building 2 local separate electric passenger RRs (the CUT and the Shaker & east-west Rapids) rather than build a unified, Philly-like local/regional/inner city operation.  Oh well, we'll never know for sure... 

 

... and as they say, back to the future.  I really do think that, some day, the Health Line will be converted to light rail and that the downtown portion will be dropped into a subway to connect to the existing Rapid at Tower City, probably using the Vans old Huron Connector tunnels.  Chances are, I won't live to see it, but in my gut I think it's going to happen, because the popularity of the HL will outstrip it's current capacity which, even with much of the corridor still way underdeveloped , seems close to capacity now...

 

This statement confused me.  Philly transit system wasn't built this way, it was, like Cleveland, a combination of several regional (Commuter) lines and the city subway/trolley lines.

 

How much does it cost to run a bus route per hour. I have seen the Shoregate route run pretty late, and it is almost always 0 to 2 people. How much are we wasting by running that line so late?

 

If you ask any of the people on that bus, we're not "wasting" a dime, especially if transit is their only option. My personal observations have run contrary to yours, as I was on a #30 bus outbound 11:40pm this past Saturday night, and we were SRO+10 leaving Windermere Rapid Station, with a decent crowd still on the bus when I departed closer to Lakeshore & Neff. This was not an anomaly, as I've been on that bus at other late hours and observed similar loads.

 

Keep in mind, also, that farebox recovery, even for "successful" routes, only averages about 21% nationwide across all routes, modes and systems, per the latest (2010) numbers from the NTD.

 

Also, Shoregate is near the end of the route. At the start of a route that has a strong ridership generator (also called a ridership anchor) at only one end, a bus is usually much fuller, and gets emptier the farther out from the anchor you go. What I've seen is that, when the "weak" end of the line is eliminated, a new "weak" end of the line is created. The reason is the bus is dropping off a couple of passengers every few blocks and doesn't pick up any new riders to replace them (the #55 on Clifton is often like this). So if you cut off the last 1/4th of a route, the new end of the route has just as few passengers on it as the end of the old, longer route. And the result is that the bus route ends up with fewer passengers overall.

 

In the 1920s-50s, streetcar companies and agencies that were under new ownership or political pressure to replace streetcars with buses often took this approach to make the elimination of streetcars more palatable than outright abandonments. Guess what? It worked.

 

So outside of their rail ROWs on the East and West side (along with the built/operating Shaker lines), there was little to nothing they invested in transit-wise. 

 

So we're supposed to overlook that massive investment they did make? I think that was a major project. Think of it in today's terms.... Imagine buying land 100 feet wide and 10 miles long, demolishing homes and businesses in that strip, digging out hillsides or filling in ravines, constructing retaining walls, building double-track bridges over roads and rail lines, constructing or extending road and rail bridges over the transit ROW, then leveling and grading the  alignment, pouring thousands of tons of ballast, pouring foundations for and erecting hundreds of catentary supports,  then buying enough ties and rails and hardware for a 10-mile long transit line.

 

That is a significant expense. In today's dollars, that probably costs $100 million or more per mile. Over 10 miles, I suspect the Vans invested probably $1 billion in today's dollars in what became today's Red Line.

 

So what if they spent that instead on starting the Euclid Avenue subway? How far would they have gotten? I suspect pretty far -- and that's my point. I'll bet they could have built a subway from Cleveland Union Terminal to at least Playhouse Square and possibly to Midtown. If so, could you imagine riding a west side streetcar that descended into the then-existing subway in Ohio City, be routed through the Cleveland Union Terminal traction station that ultimately was used only by the Shaker Rapid, then turn east under Huron and continue beyond Playhouse Square to maybe East 30th or East 40th street?

 

Since this thread is supposed to be about the future, let me redirect this discussion to look at where past investments in infrastructure (regardless of mode) could be utilized or somehow redeployed to benefit transit. We did that with the unfinished Red Line. That was a glaring example that demanded attention. Where are there less obvious past investments we could make new use of today?