the irony of bus vs Tram vs light Rail vs heavy Rail vs Commuter Rail is that they are a system they work together. 

 

Future IMO is a system unlike  the past where the absence of government subsidies created a fragmented but complete system in the early 20th century, to meet the development patterns of the period.  We have a distorted marketplace with perverse incentives for Roads and poor land use patterns.  Some how someway we have to reach these disparate population that Are isolated by poor planning and land use.

 

leverage any development of Inner-regional rail into Inter-regional rail into interstate Rail. 

 

The goal to facilitate Mode shift from Automobile to Public Transit.

 

you have to have a layered system with buses, trams, Light Rail, heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, inner Regional rail, Inter Regional, etc.  with the goal of reliable transportation system for those who chose to walk or cannot drive. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

MTS, I'm only talking about Philly's Regional Rail, not the subways or trolleys.  The Pennsylvania RR built a single unified electrified system that included intercity railroads and local commuter rail... The Shaker Rapid was built as light rail, but it didn't have to be.  The Vans could have built it as a heavy-type commuter rail line much like the Chestnut Hill lines (or even more similarly Metra Electric's/IC South Chicago commuter line which goes down the middle of 71st Street like our Rapid goes down Shaker and Van Aken boulevards).... Instead the Vans built 2, nonconforming railroads -- the Shaker & East Cleveland rapid lines and the CUT electric, engine-changing system  -- that shared the same ROW into Tower City.  There was a lot of duplication of infrastructure that could have been avoided; not to mention the fact that a form of the east-west rapid/commuter rail would have been in operation in 1930.

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.

 

This gets back to conversation we've had before.  Is the agency's mission providing transportation to those without other options, or competing with other modes.

 

They are mutually exclusive more often than not, so if one says "both", then what percentage each?

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.

 

 

 

MTS, I'm only talking about Philly's Regional Rail, not the subways or trolleys.  The Pennsylvania RR built a single unified electrified system that included intercity railroads and local commuter rail... The Shaker Rapid was built as light rail, but it didn't have to be.  The Vans could have built it as a heavy-type commuter rail line much like the Chestnut Hill lines (or even more similarly Metra Electric's/IC South Chicago commuter line which goes down the middle of 71st Street like our Rapid goes down Shaker and Van Aken boulevards).... Instead the Vans built 2, nonconforming railroads -- the Shaker & East Cleveland rapid lines and the CUT electric, engine-changing system  -- that shared the same ROW into Tower City.  There was a lot of duplication of infrastructure that could have been avoided; not to mention the fact that a form of the east-west rapid/commuter rail would have been in operation in 1930.

 

Didn't the first 10 years or so of SH rapid transit use on-street mixed streetcar trackage downtown?  I think the original approach to SH may even have been up Cedar than south on Coventry to Shaker Blvd.  I think the Van's choice of "light rail" (streetcars) for its initial rapid line made perfect sense at the time.  I guess they could have converted when CUT came on line, but what economies would there really have been?  I imagine separate trackage was valuable for operational reasons and wasn't just a redundancy.

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.

 

This gets back to conversation we've had before.  Is the agency's mission providing transportation to those without other options, or competing with other modes.

 

They are mutually exclusive more often than not, so if one says "both", then what percentage each?

 

It's for those without options, first and foremost.  Especially at its basest level, which we're only a couple steps above here.  Ideally it would also provide an alternative to those who may have other options.  That level of service would be more expensive, obviously.  I don't know that they're mutually exclusive, as the latter could probably encompass the former.

 

Either mission requires occasional empty or near empty buses.  The route has to be there whether it's busy all the time or not, because if it isn't consistently there, it can't be relied upon and that results in zero users.

Instead the Vans built 2, nonconforming railroads -- the Shaker & East Cleveland rapid lines and the CUT electric, engine-changing system  -- that shared the same ROW into Tower City.  There was a lot of duplication of infrastructure that could have been avoided; not to mention the fact that a form of the east-west rapid/commuter rail would have been in operation in 1930.

 

Can we get a refresher on the different infrastructure of light rail vs. commuter rail.  Commuter rail is heavier, which I expect means you need different support for the rails.  Also I expect that light rail is typically electric, powered by overhead catenary lines, whereas a commuter rail would be a diesel-electric hybrid.  Is the rail spacing different?  Other distinctions?  I seem to recall that commuter rail requires a higher floor than light rail -- is that so?  Why?  I'm asking to better understand what would be required to convert our system to a uniform type of car. 

 

Are there legal/political factors related to operating beside freight rail lines that would keep us from moving away from commuter rail?  Would light rail tracks need to be spaced further or further separated (concrete divider) from freight tracks?

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.

 

This gets back to conversation we've had before.  Is the agency's mission providing transportation to those without other options, or competing with other modes.

 

They are mutually exclusive more often than not, so if one says "both", then what percentage each?

 

you raise a great question, what is the goal of public transportation?

 

this is ODOT's goal

 

ODOT Strategic Plan

Ohio’s transportation system is essential to keeping and creating jobs. With a mission to provide easy movement of people and goods from place to place, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for maintaining one of the largest transportation networks in the nation. Guided by ethical principles and accountability, ODOT works to improve safety, enhance travel and advance economic development. As a $2.8 billion enterprise, the department wisely invests in its core services of snow and ice removal, annual construction program and highway maintenance operations.

 

thing I think that are missing from Public transportation is Economic Development.  being an organization that is funded by sales or property taxes it should be doing as much as possible to improve its revenue stream.

 

compare ODOT's to GCRTA's

 

    This is the time to "Re: imagine" the RTA.

 

    "Re:" — In English, this abbreviation is short for "regarding" and draws special attention to a particular subject matter. RTA’s 2010-2020 Strategic Plan is "regarding" many different topics important to the citizens of Cuyahoga County — and beyond. The plan is a guide for RTA — to refocus, restructure, renovate, reallocate and reenergize in difficult economic times. This summary of the overall plan provides a snapshot of RTA’s strategy to redefine its path in our region. This plan is about the opportunities that lie ahead in safe, reliable and revolutionized modes of transportation.

 

 

the transit agency seems to cast a smaller net, and limits their vision to scraping by, and away from growth, which is the key to it's long term  survival.

 

I genuinely feel the GCRTA needs to be given better guidance on what the county, cities and state need from them, and be much better able to express the benefits of Public transportation to the community.

 

public organizations have issues establishing vision for themselves, RTA IMO is no exception.

 

 

^IMO you're exaggerating the shortcomings of RTA's "visioning" and underestimating its operational challenges.  "Economic development" may or may not be a legit purpose of public transit, but it doesn't change RTA's operating environment.  There is a real financial challenge here that Jerry alludes too often that is entirely out of RTA's control, unless you want to address employee compensation.  In brief, any expansion of service not covered by sponsorship or grants means cutting service elsewhere or reducing employee salary/benefits. It stinks, but any ire is best directed at (1) the federal and state governments who have let gas taxes decline in real terms for many, many years, (2) the state government which provides no operational support to RTA, and (3) count residents who, if they have high enough incomes to afford a car, overwhelmingly choose to drive (see, in part, #1).

^gee, a transit post that actually makes sense.

Can we get a refresher on the different infrastructure of light rail vs. commuter rail. 

 

The different types of rail modes vary with how substantial the right of way construction is, types of vehicles, spacing of stations, and length of route. There is often much gray area between modes, as some systems have features of two or more modes.

 

Streetcar -- regulated by the Federal Transit Administration, has the lightest-weight rails, sharp curves, low speeds, no dedicated right of way (ie: shared with other types of vehicles), electric propulsion, vehicles are some of the lightest rail cars, station stops are designated by a sign or maybe a shelter, stops are 1-3 street blocks apart, route is usually no more than 10 miles and often much less. Primary purpose is as a pedestrian accelerator and tool for urban densification.

 

 

 

Light rail -- regulated by the Federal Transit Administration, as lightweight rails, can operate as a streetcar or in a dedicated right of way (including elevated or subway), electric propulsion is most common but diesel light-rail is gaining interest, rail cars are more substantial but can offer low-floor or high-floor vehicles, station stops can be elaborate as a heavy-rail station or nearly as basic as a streetcar's, station stops are a half-mile to a mile apart, routes are typically 10-15 miles long. Primary purpose is for linking commuters in outlying neighborhoods and suburbs to one or more central business districts.

 

 

 

Heavy rail -- heavier rail transit regulated by the Federal Transit Administration, operates in a dedicated right of way (almost all elevated or subway lines built before 1980 are heavy rail), electric propulsion, rail cars are larger/longer/wider with high floors, offers the highest passenger carrying capacity of all rail modes, stations stops typically have high platforms and off-vehicle fare collection, stations are usually 1-2 miles apart, routes are typically 15-25 miles long. Primary purpose is for linking commuters in outlying neighborhoods and suburbs to one or more central business districts on high traffic corridors.

 

 

 

Commuter rail -- heavy railroad trains regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration, can be self-propelled rail cars like heavier versions of heavy-rail transit or locomotive-hauled trains like intercity passenger trains, typically uses diesel propulsion but sometimes electricity, station stops can be as basic as a platform and shelter or as elaborate as Grand Central Terminal (entirely a commuter rail station today), stations are typically 2-5 miles apart, routes are typically 20-60 miles long. Primary purpose is to move commuters from bedroom communities in suburbs and distant towns to a central business district.

 

 

 

Intercity rail -- heavy railroad trains regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration, can be self-propelled rail cars or locomotive-hauled trains, typically uses diesel propulsion in USA but sometimes electricity such as on the Northeast Corridor, station stops can be as basic as a platform and shelter or as elaborate as Chicago Union Station, stations are typically 10-50 miles apart, routes are typically 200-500 miles long but can be thousands of miles long. Primary purpose is to move students, business travelers, tourists and other visitors between towns and cities.

 

 

 

But, to show how there can be a lot of gray area, here is an Amtrak intercity train that carries mostly commuters on a short route between Sacramento and San Jose, running like a streetcar down the middle of a street in Oakland, California!

 

^gee, a transit post that actually makes sense.

 

Because it generalizes, uses a critique to demonstrate rationality, and relies on stereotypes. Being creative and taking risks is sometimes seen as irrational, but it's the only way to move an agenda forward and grow. It's a big reason why Northeast Ohio doesn't grow. Yes, labor is a transit agency's biggest expense, and RTA has made a lot of progress in this regard. But it's not the only option, and RTA knows it because they're dabbling in some of the same ideas to reduce vehicle-service hours while still providing the same level of service. And if they can do this systemwide, or at least on some of the busiest routes, RTA can afford expansion -- possibly even major expansion. And BTW, middle- to upper-class residents do choose commuter rail or streetcars when it is available. To afford it, you need: A) a consistent source of local revenue such as a sales tax; B) station-area development with a value-capture mechanism to provide revenue for transit; C) a significant cost-savings project or program to sustain a low-interest debt instrument; D) a federal grant or loan, if you want to take the time and expense to go through the costly, decade-long environmental assessments.

 

How do you create wealth, be it for a person or a region? Either by reducing costs or producing revenue. Northeast Ohio grew because of a transportation. We could get goods to East Coast markets quickly by stagecoach, but it was low-volume and expensive. The Erie Canal greatly reduced the cost and raised the shipping capacity, even though it was slow, and made development of Northeast Ohio's economy possible. How do we reduce the cost of transportation (and thus the cost of living) in NE Ohio?

 

Note that Cleveland's transportation costs per household are more expensive than Chicago's, New York's, San Francisco's, or Los Angeles'. See Page 4 at:  http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf Reducing transportation costs by expanding public transportation, biking and improving land use will put more money into Cleveland's economy. So how do we expand public transportation? Again, by saving money first by reducing vehicle-service hours and then by capturing the value that results from the expansion.

 

Maybe you can suggest another way to boost Cleveland's economy, but that would be for another thread. If you can suggest ways to boost the transit system, then let's hear them.

Yikes. Well we already have A, I'm skeptical B can actually generate much revenue in a market that seems generally indifferent to transit (and it's not something RTA can itself do anyway), I don't really understand what you mean by C, and I worry that D is going to be increasingly difficult if not impossible given congressional politics. But if innovation can bring real cost savings to pay the capital and operating expenses to finance service expansion without cutting existing service, I'm definitely interested. I'd love to learn more. At this point though, I think our best bet for pursuing transit as econ development will be through someone other than RTA.  There's no shame in that.  The MTA isn't financing the 7 line extension, for example. I think it's all the city of NY (or quasi public affiliates). And isn't the city of Cincy planning and building the streetcar there?  I have plenty of criticism for RTA in regards to existing operations, I just have trouble faulting them for the current lack of service expansion given the climate they have to operate in.

Might I suggest a.........Wiremobile?

Yikes. Well we already have A,

 

And something we shouldn't take for granted. Having a full cent for transit is huge, and gives RTA the opportunity to issue very attractive bonds.

 

I'm skeptical B can actually generate much revenue in a market that seems generally indifferent to transit (and it's not something RTA can itself do anyway),

 

You are right to be skeptical, because unless it's a big project (like Intesa), or a large TIF district (like Flats East Bank), or a collection of big projects/TIFs, it won't generate much revenue. Yes, RTA cannot do any of this by itself. It can instigate it or be a partner in it.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by C,

 

Yes, I was a bit vague, even though I didn't need to be. We're doing a study to look at how to get more value out of the existing transit system. We targeted the top-10 highest ridership bus routes and the two light-rail lines in Shaker Heights to see how much vehicle-service-hour costs we could save by having traffic signal prioritization and off-vehicle fare payment. Turns out the savings were massive -- about $20 million per year. If you include converting the GCRTA bus fleet to natural gas, you might save another $4 million to $6 million per year. The capital cost to convert the fleet is significant, and there are limited federal funds to help with these costs.

 

So if you use the entire $25 million or so to debt-finance transit agency capital improvements, Greater Cleveland could afford up to $500 million in capital construction thanks to interest rates being so low. That's especially true with federal transportation loan programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/) or Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1770.shtml).

 

and I worry that D is going to be increasingly difficult if not impossible given congressional politics.

 

Grants are difficult to get here for expansion because we lack the highway traffic of other cities. But low-interest loans are doable. For example, a commuter rail system could be funded by a federal RRIF loan, for which there is up to $35 billion available. But you do have to do all the environmental assessments to get a RRIF loan.

 

But if innovation can bring real cost savings to pay the capital and operating expenses to finance service expansion without cutting existing service, I'm definitely interested. I'd love to learn more. At this point though, I think our best bet for pursuing transit as econ development will be through someone other than RTA. 

 

Nothing wrong with that, and I certainly agree with it. The Federal Transit Administration scrutiny of transit agency accounting is brutal, and sometimes agency employees don't want to bother taking risks or be subjected to more stringent FTA audits by undertaking self-financed expansion projects. Some transit agency employees frankly don't know how. They are used to routines, and more routines, and more. Doing something different scares the hell out of some of them. They can run a transit service pattern because it is a routine. But doing something new or, gasp, entrepreneurial, is just not their cup of tea.

Might I suggest a.........Wiremobile?

 

Dude. No.

the issues KJP has stated are not all under RTA control.

 

I will point to the make up of RTA's board of Trustees as source of the dysfunction in the agency

 

Board of Trustees Composition

 

In 1974, legislation enacted by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners and the City of Cleveland created RTA with a 10-member Board of Trustees serving overlapping three-year terms.

 

Appointments are as follows:

 

City of Cleveland — Four members are appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland, and approved by City Council. All appointees must reside in Cleveland.

 

Suburbs — Three members are elected by the Mayors and City Managers of municipal corporations, other than Cleveland, within Cuyahoga County.

 

County — Three members are appointed by the Cuyahoga County Executive, and approved by the Cuyahoga County Council. At least one of these three appointees must be a resident of the City of Cleveland.

 

they are all appointed and while ~70% of county residents reside outside the city of Cleveland the board is made up of 50% of City of Cleveland appointees and or residents.

 

furthermore the What percentage of the board Rides transit? 

 

There are also other benefits to being on the RTA board in the form of healthcare, pension and salary that make the position attractive to non-professionals.

 

what i'd like to see is a RTA board with more Urban planners, and transportation planners on it.  I'd like to see maybe the head of NOACA or NOACA proxy, head of county economic development, and possibly a representative from ODOT on the board.  to provide a Counter to the bureaucratic NO men.

 

Aside from the Board.

 

the transit agency spends ~70 % of it's budget on labor costs.

 

The idea that bus drivers make ~40k a year and train operators make ~60k a year, makes the labor savings from moving the Healthline to a Light rail/Streetcar system impossible. 

 

It is also the labor costs of bus drivers that directly lead to the end of the neighborhood Circulators.  union rules Forbid the contracting out of that service to lower cost operators like RTA does with Paratransit.  while it isn't cost effective to service some areas with a $400,000 53' bus with 40k per  year driver, it may be cost effective to service that area with a $100,000 Ford E450 shuttle with a $25k per year driver.

 

Transit agencies like RTA and ODOT are reactive to the needs of the community they are not good at being proactive and leading communities to transit.

 

These are the problems IMHO.

 

 

 

 

 

Solutions:

 

Eliminate the legal transit monopoly in the county to facilitate Local private transit operators to Fill in the gaps in transit coverage. this would include the creation of Special Improvement Districts in Downtown and University Circle to operate fixed guide way Trams or Streetcars. RTA would participate but not control.  See KC streetcar Authority

 

Involve other local governments and organization in Transit funding and planning. this puts Skin in the game for these groups, it would allow RTA to provide grants to municipalities to improve local  Door to door transit access at lower cost than RTA could, let them control that access and mandates they pay a local match 10-30% of the cost of the service, RTA benefits by being able to count those users as RTA customers, which aids in federal funding.

 

Use the Port Authority to acquire land for TOD, ROW for service expansion, and Coordination with a countywide transportation plan to include everything from Air, Freight rail, inner-regional and inter-regional passenger Rail. 

why the Port? because these are things that RTA and other transit agencies cannot do, in addition the Cleveland port authority has a economic development mandate that RTA, and the other disparate agencies that regulate transportation (minus roads) do not.

 

Basically the Port can Acquire the Nickel Plate through the West shore suburbs, allow RTA to connect it to their existing ROW to operate both light rail to Westlake and commuter rail out to Lorain and using temporal separation to operate Freight trains at night. 

the port would charge a fee to all users of the line to repay the bonds needed to acquire it and maintain it, and contract out the maintenance of the line to either RTA or a private company.

 

For the RTA it can use the Port to acquire TOD land, lease it to a private developer and create a TIF to recoup the operating and Capital cost of the service expansion. these are things the economic development arm of the port has experience with and things that RTA cannot do. 

 

 

BTW Port Authority NY+NJ

 

http://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/strategic-plan.pdf

 

Mission statement

 

To enhance the region's competitiveness and prosperity

by providing transportation services that efficiently move

people and goods within the region and facilitate access

to the nation and the world."

 

 

it makes sense, does it not?

 

one entity, controls the Cleveland airport System, rail network and Waterway operations.

 

 

Might I suggest a.........Wiremobile?

 

Dude. No.

 

What if Ontario paid for half? It would be a new man-made wonder of the modern world.

Great stuff, biker16.

Instead the Vans built 2, nonconforming railroads -- the Shaker & East Cleveland rapid lines and the CUT electric, engine-changing system  -- that shared the same ROW into Tower City.  There was a lot of duplication of infrastructure that could have been avoided; not to mention the fact that a form of the east-west rapid/commuter rail would have been in operation in 1930.

 

Can we get a refresher on the different infrastructure of light rail vs. commuter rail.  Commuter rail is heavier, which I expect means you need different support for the rails.  Also I expect that light rail is typically electric, powered by overhead catenary lines, whereas a commuter rail would be a diesel-electric hybrid.  Is the rail spacing different?  Other distinctions?  I seem to recall that commuter rail requires a higher floor than light rail -- is that so?  Why?  I'm asking to better understand what would be required to convert our system to a uniform type of car. 

 

Are there legal/political factors related to operating beside freight rail lines that would keep us from moving away from commuter rail?  Would light rail tracks need to be spaced further or further separated (concrete divider) from freight tracks?

 

I will say this, the Redline cars are good at what they do they are fast (up to 70mph), roomy (10'4" wide) and durable (they are wearing out well, stainless steel is easy to maintain)

 

with an off the shelf light rail car you lose Speed (55mph), Space (8'8" wide)current shaker train are 9'4' wide, and durability ( light rail is less durable than heavy rail).

 

the option of developing a Unique Design, that can meet the needs of speed and width will drastically increase the costs of the replacement trains, and still have compromised design that doesn't service the needs of the light rail system or the heavy rail system. 

 

My issue is the lose of capability to operate commuter rail on the existing Redline ROW if the system is converted to Light rail.

 

My recommendation would be to replace the blue green and health lines with a standardized off the shelf light rail rolling stock and look to replace the redline cars with a joint commuter rial and heavy rail train, with all electric and Diesel/electric dual mode trains.

I've thought about this and today I made this map.  I know it will NEVER happen, but If I was building Cleveland subway system this would be it.

 

I'll go into greater detail, by regions (NE, NW, SE, SW), later.

 

Here are some notes

• The Detroit - Superior Bridge would be rehabilitated for transit use.
  
• The Lorain - Carnegie bridge would be rehabilitated for transit use.
  
• The Red Line would be express, from Univ. Circle - Cedar to BrookPark.  This would necessitate adding two tracks and rehabbing certain stations into dual island platforms.
  
• Lines were selected to connect all of Cleveland.
  
• West 25 street from Main Street to Pearl/State, would have four tracks, two local (Parma lines) and two express (Heights line)
  

 

The Lines

• St Clair:  Settler Landing Euclid Sq. Mall (three track line) during rush hours the center track would be used as "express".  Morning Rush, express westbound/Evening Rush, Express eastbound
  
• Detroit - Superior:  Lakewood to Euclid (four track line) two local and two express tracks.  On the Westside the line would be express from Public Square to West Blvd. 98 Street.  The Shaker Blue line would run local from Public Sq. to 98, then divert to Clifton Blvd. at grade.
  
• Lorain - Carnegie Line: University Cedar to Cuyahoga County Fair Grounds (four track) two local and two express.
  
• Harvard - Denison-Puritas line:  Chagrin Highland/Tri C to Cuyahoga County Fair Grounds (two tracks) local
  
• Broadway Line:  West 3rd Lakefront - Southgate USA (three tracks) during rush hours the center track would be used as "express.  Morning Rush, express westbound/Evening Rush, Express eastbound
  
• Parma Line 1 (Pearl):  Main Street West Bank to Pleasant Valley (local)
  
• Parma Line 2 (Broadview): Main Street West Bank to Pleasant Valley (Local)
  
• Cleveland Heights Parma Line 3 (State): Mayfield-Warrensville to Pleasant Valley (Local - CH to West 25 and State/Pearl to Pleasant Valley)  (Express West 25 to State/Pearl
  
• Shaker Blue line:  Chagrin Highlands/Tri C to Lakewood.  Trains would use Detroit Superior Bridge then run local from Public Sq. to 98 street. (Detroit line runs express)  At 98 street trains would diverts north to Clifton and run at grade.
  
• Shaker Green Line:  271 to East 55.  Runs under lakeside to east 55.  (this may change)
  

 

I will say this, the Redline cars are good at what they do they are fast (up to 70mph), roomy (10'4" wide) and durable (they are wearing out well, stainless steel is easy to maintain)

 

with an off the shelf light rail car you lose Speed (55mph), Space (8'8" wide)current shaker train are 9'4' wide, and durability ( light rail is less durable than heavy rail).

 

the option of developing a Unique Design, that can meet the needs of speed and width will drastically increase the costs of the replacement trains, and still have compromised design that doesn't service the needs of the light rail system or the heavy rail system. 

 

My issue is the lose of capability to operate commuter rail on the existing Redline ROW if the system is converted to Light rail.

 

My recommendation would be to replace the blue green and health lines with a standardized off the shelf light rail rolling stock and look to replace the redline cars with a joint commuter rail and heavy rail train, with all electric and Diesel/electric dual mode trains.

 

I tend to agree.  As someone who rides both systems, transferring at Tower City, you notice the stark difference in size.  Even the largest light rail cars can't come close to matching the size and comfort of our current Red Line trains... and KJP hipped us to the fact that our Red Line cars are bigger than most heavy rail cars, esp on older systems like Philly -- where ours are much larger than the Blue Line (Market Street el) cars....

 

... As for the Van Sweringens, the Shaker ROW from Tower City to Shaker Square was built to railroad standards and could easily, I'm sure, handle heavy commuter rail cars... It just seems strange to me that, given this, they didn't decide to convert the Shaker system to electric commuter cars so they could run on the CUT electric system rather than creating a side-by-side separate system... Note that CUT only ran for 23 years (closed in 1953 after the advent of cleaner diesel passenger trains replacing the sooty coal-power trains which would have clouded the Union Terminal underground station and blackened the Vans new Terminal Tower.  With a east-west system in place, along with the underground terminal access, we could have easily strung wires over ROWs to places like Euclid/Mentor, Rocky River and Berea (from Lindale, where CUT power ended, originally)...

 

... but hey, it's not a perfect world and the Vans weren't perfect.  It's probably asking to much they have been master transportation experts in addition all they gave Cleveland as a legacy.  I sometimes imagine what Cleveland would have been like had they not been born (or if they had and decided to go into, say, the dry cleaning business)... No model bedroom suburb (Shaker) and many other burbs that grew on their planned grid (like Beachwood, Pepper Pike and much of Gates Mills); no model TOD, dense/mixed use neighborhood along the Rapid (Shaker Square), no amazing central mixed use city-in-city office/retail/transportation complex (Tower City), that for over 4 decades, contained the tallest office tower outside Manhattan (Terminal Tower); and, of course, no Rapid system at all (including our pioneering and still pretty rare Airport rapid transit line)-- and while some medium-size cities have caught and surpassed us in recent decades, our Rapid is still the envy of a lot of cities, including larger neighbor Detroit (even though, given their egos, they never like admitting this fact).

 

And of course, given the foundation the Vans built, transit wise, we still have an amazing capacity to create commuter rail lines (probably diesel-powered, or dual action), perhaps partially utilizing the existing Rapid tracks, and RR ROW's fanning out from our central underground transit terminal... That is, unless we let developers like Dan Gilbert seal them off and close off our opportunities forever.

In case some of our younger people did not know about 10 years ago the counties of Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, summit, Ashtabula, Medina, and stark, studied the creation of a regional commuter rail system.

 

This was called NEORail.

 

Link to NEOrail Study Documents

 

I have read the planning documents with new Eyes, and it is interesting to see how future they envisioned turned out to be today.

 

A couple of thoughts:

 

the decision to use a lakefront station in the original study was driven by 2 issues,

[*]Forest City was not supportive of the idea

[*]the planned Federal court house tower obstructed the the ability to construct a station on the Former CUT coach yards

 

 

The rolling stock envisioned for the fleet was Push pull Diesel-Electric locomotives with up to 4 passenger cars there were 3 consequences to this decision.

[*]Longer trains because it is inefficient to operate a push pull system with 1 -2 cars, this required longer platforms and more sophisticated operations important in areas like the west shore with 60-70 grade level crossings. 

[*]Zero compatibility with GCRTA's existing heavy rail station Tower City, required a new Station to be built

[*] finally it creates the need to develop parallel ROW to existing Transit ROWs in some situations.

 

Although DMUs were looked at in 2001 there weren't any DMU then that could meet FRA crash Regulations, today things have changed and FRA will allow exemptions for DMUs and there are even FRA compatible DMUs today.

 

the use a DMUs could allow for commuter trains to Share platforms, Signaling and even electrical power with the RTA Red line.

 

this would allow for the up to 125 trains that were envisioned to enter the north coast transportation center to continue east on to University Circle via Redline ROW and trains from Akron lake county and Aurora to terminate at the West Side Market.

 

I want To formally encourage the NEOSCC to resurrect the commuter Study and update it with more modern data, with the potential to share Redline ROW. into tower city.

 

 

 

Another lost items from the server crash. However my cost estimates and means for paying for it were lost too. This is the easiest part to replace as it was not lost from flickr's server......

 

I was in Toronto earlier this summer and used their public transit system for the first time in quite a while.

 

The one thing I would love for RTA (and other transit authorities) to mimic is the concept of a "shared day pass." For the price of 1; 2 adults and a number of children under 18 can use the same fare card when traveling together on a specific day.

 

I thought this was a novel idea. I've always said that taking a family or group of friends to an event via mass transit can add up quickly. Think about 5 people purchasing a day pass at 25 dollars. At that price point, the lots that are $10 or $15 downtown seem much more economical. But if your family (or group of friends) can buy just one day pass and use it together, you've made taking public transit by far the most viable option.

I was in Toronto earlier this summer and used their public transit system for the first time in quite a while.

 

The one thing I would love for RTA (and other transit authorities) to mimic is the concept of a "shared day pass." For the price of 1; 2 adults and a number of children under 18 can use the same fare card when traveling together on a specific day.

 

I thought this was a novel idea. I've always said that taking a family or group of friends to an event via mass transit can add up quickly. Think about 5 people purchasing a day pass at 25 dollars. At that price point, the lots that are $10 or $15 downtown seem much more economical. But if your family (or group of friends) can buy just one day pass and use it together, you've made taking public transit by far the most viable option.

 

Their day pass costs about $10, ours cost $5. So it evens out for two adults. Plus the multiple people on one pass only works for the weekend if I remember correctly.

 

It is a problem though. For our rail, which is often times less convenient, buying multiple day passes for a group makes it more expensive as well.

Here's a wild idea I like.......

 

https://www.facebook.com/clevelandskylift

 

I think it should be a continuous linear route by diving southward across the old river channel to Flats West Bank/Nautica before crossing back over the river and serve more transit stops and residential access points so that we Clevelanders can use it too. And hopefully they're thinking of using larger gondola cars.

Here's a wild idea I like.......

 

https://www.facebook.com/clevelandskylift

 

I think it should be a continuous linear route by diving southward across the old river channel to Flats West Bank/Nautica before crossing back over the river and serve more transit stops and residential access points so that we Clevelanders can use it too. And hopefully they're thinking of using larger gondola cars.

 

I'm the sharktank panel and I think it's stupid.

It looks like a fairly solid map. I'm not sure the edgewater connection is doable. If they can get a good spot to connect to ohio city or tremont then i think this may be viable.

Looks like it mostly goes where the Waterfront Line goes.

I'm pretty sure the FAA would shut down anything like this in the flight path for Burke.

 

If I wanted to build a Skylift in Cleveland I'd start with W7th and University in Tremont above the Innerbelt and Lorain/Carnegie bridges to the backside of Tower City.

Keith, on another board, noted that some of us think Joe C is anti-rail, while others have objected to this characterization...

 

... Well can somebody explain how Joe C has been silent on rail expansion plans, notably the very-worthy West Shore commuter rail plan; in-part purportedly because RTA doesn't want to finance transit in substantially-growing Lorain County which doesn't want to tax itself to pay for any mass transit, while at the same time being ALL FOR running buses from the same Lorain County along the Opportunity Corridor highway (which he adamantly supports) to University Circle?  ... Seems Keith made the right call...

Keith, on another board, noted that some of us think Joe C is anti-rail, while others have objected to this characterization...

 

... Well can somebody explain how Joe C has been silent on rail expansion plans, notably the very-worthy West Shore commuter rail plan; in-part purportedly because RTA doesn't want to finance transit in substantially-growing Lorain County which doesn't want to tax itself to pay for any mass transit, while at the same time being ALL FOR running buses from the same Lorain County along the Opportunity Corridor highway (which he adamantly supports) to University Circle?  ... Seems Keith made the right call...

 

As a Cuyahoga county resident I don't want to worry about LC transit issues.  Legally, RTA can't operate there in the manner we want.  I agree JC support of the OC, is ass backwards, but tells me he's possibly in bed with legislators.  IE.  you play nice with the OC, we'll give more money.

I've seen an expansion plan, which I don't think I've seen on here, that showed about 10(I think, it's been awhile) new BRT and BRT lite routes. 0 rail. That to me is a huge disappointment, as I personally am not a fan of BRT and feel it is overrated. And it shows that is also they can think about. 

I've seen an expansion plan, which I don't think I've seen on here, that showed about 10(I think, it's been awhile) new BRT and BRT lite routes. 0 rail. That to me is a huge disappointment, as I personally am not a fan of BRT and feel it is overrated. And it shows that is also they can think about. 

 

Post this plan and what is "BRT lite"? 

I've seen an expansion plan, which I don't think I've seen on here, that showed about 10(I think, it's been awhile) new BRT and BRT lite routes. 0 rail. That to me is a huge disappointment, as I personally am not a fan of BRT and feel it is overrated. And it shows that is also they can think about. 

 

Post this plan and what is "BRT lite"? 

I don't know about any expansion plan, but I have friends who work at RTA and from my talks with them the agency seems pretty pleased with BRT, so I wouldn't be surprised if what ClevelandOhio said was true. As for BRT "lite," that's what the Enhance Clifton project is considered.

 

I also think that BRT is overrated and was really surprised how often I was asked about it during the APA National Convention in Chicago back in April. Every time Cleveland was mentioned it seemed that the Health Line came up and other planners seemed impressed, but they seemed wildly misinformed about the projects actual implementation.

MTS, I don't have the plan, I saw it on a presentation a year or so ago. If I had it I would have posted it.

As a Cuyahoga county resident I don't want to worry about LC transit issues.  Legally, RTA can't operate there in the manner we want.  I agree JC support of the OC, is ass backwards, but tells me he's possibly in bed with legislators.  IE.  you play nice with the OC, we'll give more money.

 

My point isn't so much about Lorain County as it is to highlight that Joe C's expansion plans are all bus, all the time.  While I'm not expecting a city and county losing population to run heavy or even light rail to all corners, I do think there are reasonable rail expansion possibilities that are being ignored, particularly since WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING RAPID RAIL SYSTEM, the only one in the State ... As an example of Joe C's attitude toward rail, I don't think anyone is expecting anything but Health Line/BRT expansion out Euclid to the border from the Stokes/Windermere station, and that RTA is not interested in any rail expansion, even if it's KJP's legit idea of diesel commuter rail over the existing NS tracks beyond Windermere.

 

... oh, I did overlook one aspect:  Joe C is for one rail expansion project ... the .3 mile Blue Line extension to the other side of the Chagrin-Warrensville intersection...

 

... I guess we should rejoice in Joe's embrace of TOD.  I suspect that's about the most interest in rail we're going to get from him.

I'm pretty sure the FAA would shut down anything like this in the flight path for Burke.

 

If I wanted to build a Skylift in Cleveland I'd start with W7th and University in Tremont above the Innerbelt and Lorain/Carnegie bridges to the backside of Tower City.

 

I always here people on this forum say the reason Cleveland apartments don't have balconies is because of wind.  Wouldn't that make this idea somewhat risky?

I'm pretty sure the FAA would shut down anything like this in the flight path for Burke.

 

If I wanted to build a Skylift in Cleveland I'd start with W7th and University in Tremont above the Innerbelt and Lorain/Carnegie bridges to the backside of Tower City.

 

I always here people on this forum say the reason Cleveland apartments don't have balconies is because of wind.  Wouldn't that make this idea somewhat risky?

 

I think that's just an excuse. The main reason is probably because the lack of new build development that other cities have seen. We are seeing a lot of conversions where historic tax credits would prohibit the addition of balconies. Once we start to see more new construction I bet balconies will become more common place.

^^Gondolas aren't that affected by wind. Their typical environment is near the top of mountains. A little more wind at higher speeds than typically seen in Cleveland. There usually are anemometers at crucial/high points and can automatically slow down the cable. I would guesstimate the upper level winds to keep the gondolas from running would be around 50mph. For safety, there would simply be delays until the wind died down to under 40mph.  Its typically a $5-10 million proposition to set one of these up. But maybe because its way out of the way and going up a mountain. Perhaps in a flatish environment with plenty of workers and cranes available in a city that can actually produce the towers maybe the price is halved.

I'm pretty sure the FAA would shut down anything like this in the flight path for Burke.

 

 

I'm sure they would too. Good thing this is not.

Bringing back something that was lost in the server crash........

 

PURPOSE AND NEED: To reduce the region's per-capita transportation costs which exceed the national average (SOURCE: CNT), improve access to available urban and suburban jobs of which fewer than 20 percent are within a 90-minute transit trip (SOURCE: Brookings), to provide non-highway alternatives to specific congested roadways, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support transit-oriented development opportunities.

 

To serve the above purpose and need, and to support GCRTA's detailed and conceptual planning for improving Cleveland arterials with Complete Streets, the following improvements and expansions are proposed:

 

By 2020, replace and expand existing, aging rail fleet with standardized dual (electric-diesel) propulsion rail fleet = $1.2 billion (Denton A train, Minneapolis LRV)

 

RAPID+ EXTENSIONS (diesel powered, FRA compliant, freight-rail segregated)

Westlake/County Line-West Boulevard -- 11.5 miles -- CAPITAL $73 million (RE: Austin MetroRail + NS ROW acquisition + Red Line interlocking) -- OPERATING $20 million/yr. (assumes 30 minutes peak, hourly off-peak)

Solon/SOM-Warrensville -- 8.0 miles -- CAPITAL $220 million (RE: GCRTA Blue Line/Northfield + Austin MetroRail) -- OPERATING $17.5 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak)

Willoughby/Erie-Windermere -- 12.3 miles -- CAPITAL $200 million (RE: Denton, TX A-Train) -- OPERATING $21.4 million/yr. (assumes 30 minutes peak, hourly off-peak)

Collinwood-North Coast -- 6.75 miles -- CAPITAL $25 million (RE: Austin MetroRail) -- OPERATING $12 million (assumes 20 minutes peak, hourly off-peak)

 

Downtown Cleveland extension of Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR -- 9.5 miles -- CAPITAL $25 million (RE: CVSR + inflation) -- OPERATING $1 million/yr. (assumes northward extension of existing service levels)

 

LIGHT-RAIL EXTENSION

Beachwood Place-Green Line extension -- 2.4 miles -- CAPITAL $116 million (RE: Blue Line Ext-Harvard) -- OPERATING $5.25 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak)

 

STREETCARS (Capital $$ includes rolling stock)

Detroit Avenue Streetcar -- 3.5 miles -- CAPITAL $155 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $4 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 15-20 minutes off-peak)

Market District Streetcar -- 0.75 miles -- CAPITAL $27.4 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $1 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 15-20 minutes off peak)

Downtown circulator -- 1.75 miles -- CAPITAL $90 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $2 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 15-20 minutes off-peak)

Slavic Village Streetcar -- 4.5 miles -- CAPITAL $200 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $5 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 15-20 minutes off-peak)

Square-Circle Loop Streetcar -- 7.0 miles -- CAPITAL $300 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $4 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes in one direction only)

Collinwood-Windermere Streetcar -- 5.75 miles -- CAPITAL $240 million (RE: APTA) -- OPERATING $6.5 million/yr. (assumes 10 minutes peak, 15-20 minutes off-peak)

 

Rapid and Rapid+ rail system increases from 37 miles 71 miles

Streetcar system miles would grow from 0 to 17.5 miles

 

TOTAL CAPITAL $2.85 billion

Assumed: half of equipment purchases to paid for by federal government (or $600 million)

Leaves $2.25 billion to be locally financed

 

A 20-year, $2.25 billion bond issue at 2.5% would require about $144 million per year

 

TOTAL NEW OPERATING COSTS $88.5 million per year

 

A 1-cent county-wide sale tax would generate about $182 million per year

The current sin tax that is about to expire generates about $25 million per year

TOTAL REVENUES FROM THESE SOURCES ARE ABOUT $207 million per year

 

TOTAL FINANCIAL NEEDS ARE ABOUT $232 MILLION PER YEAR

 

ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SOURCES COULD COME FROM:

Replacing multiple bus routes with higher capacity streetcars could save $15 million per year

Replacing park-n-ride bus routes (GCRTA and Laketran) with Rapid+ could save $2 million to $4 million per year

Leasing parking in Cleveland could generate about $92 million up front and $3 million per year

Tax Increment Financing & Transportation Improvement Districts could provide additional millions per year

Advertising, sponsorships and other revenues could provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

And if the state and federal governments ever get their acts together, significant additional funding could come from them too.

 

Map showing some of the above.....

 

I like it the Feds should pick 50% of the total capital cost, using every other civilized state as a mode the. State of Ohio should pick up 25% and the rest should be local. With CMAQ, and other NOACA grants possibly picking up the rest.

 

A couple of thoughts:

RTA should spinoff the rail system as part of a regional rail authority.

RTA should cede 15% or 15 cents of its sales tax revenue to this new authority.

Cuyahoga county should seek a $.25 sales tax increase dedicated to this regional rail authority.

Collar counties $.25-.5 sales tax.

 

Now all you need is a visionary leader to push this.  :clap:

I don't trust that the feds will be able to fund this or any new efforts. Besides, the feds' policies still consider transit only as a mode to support the highway system so cities with worse traffic have a better chance of winning funds. The new FTA funding awards do put greater emphasis on economic development in distressed areas, but the traffic scoring elements are still influential.

 

And the State of Ohio? Wanted: new Guv.

 

I like the other aspects of bringing additional funding into this, as well as making this the responsibility of a super-regional transit agency such as NEOtrans as a planning/funding/development agency, with NEOrail and NEObus as the operating entities.

I don't trust that the feds will be able to fund this or any new efforts. Besides, the feds' policies still consider transit only as a mode to support the highway system so cities with worse traffic have a better chance of winning funds. The new FTA funding awards do put greater emphasis on economic development in distressed areas, but the traffic scoring elements are still influential.

 

And the State of Ohio? Wanted: new Guv.

 

I like the other aspects of bringing additional funding into this, as well as making this the responsibility of a super-regional transit agency such as NEOtrans as a planning/funding/development agency, with NEOrail and NEObus as the operating entities.

 

don't be so glum

 

A blanket .25% increase in sales tax in 17 Northeast Ohio counties would raise

118 million per year (based on 2011 tax records)

add GCRTA contribution of .15%

you 145 million in revenue.

 

The 50% match is standard in New starts projects like this one would be, that would include all capital costs. 

 

look to Portland and look to Charlotte light Rail projects.

 

 

I don't trust that the feds will be able to fund this or any new efforts. Besides, the feds' policies still consider transit only as a mode to support the highway system so cities with worse traffic have a better chance of winning funds. The new FTA funding awards do put greater emphasis on economic development in distressed areas, but the traffic scoring elements are still influential.

 

And the State of Ohio? Wanted: new Guv.

 

I like the other aspects of bringing additional funding into this, as well as making this the responsibility of a super-regional transit agency such as NEOtrans as a planning/funding/development agency, with NEOrail and NEObus as the operating entities.

 

Well, you put a good idea out there. Now you (and anyone who is interested) needs to do the hard work of building support for the proposal and, again, find a leader who will support it publicly. Yes, federal policy isn't what it should be and Kasich is an idiot, but every project or idea has its problems and detractors. Now go get 'em!

 

don't be so glum

 

A blanket .25% increase in sales tax in 17 Northeast Ohio counties would raise

118 million per year (based on 2011 tax records)

add GCRTA contribution of .15%

you 145 million in revenue.

 

The 50% match is standard in New starts projects like this one would be, that would include all capital costs. 

 

look to Portland and look to Charlotte light Rail projects.

 

 

 

If I was being glum, I wouldn't have proposed anything. Fact is, there are more transit mouths to feed and less federal money to feed them. Plus, an additional transit tax would be a tough sell in Cuyahoga County but possible IF we can demonstrate the growing needs (sharply rising costs of driving, aging population, younger people less interested in driving, etc). I think it would be extremely difficult in other NE Ohio counties.

More on Cleveland SkyLift. So this is the dude from LeanDog, very cool. Love this forward thinking.

Software entrepreneur has his eye on the sky with plans for lakefront skylift

KARIN CONNELLY | FRIDAY, AUGUST 09, 2013

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/skylift080913.aspx