^Glad you enjoyed your trip here, but next time try to hit University Circle.

 

Some genius already suggested that in the comment of his article. :P

Cost of building the 3.54-mile Cincinnati Streetcar is $95 million without the cost of relocating utilities. I don't have the details on what their stations cost, but something in the neighborhood of a half-million dollars per station is possible. They plan 18 stations, so it could mean about $9 million. That could drop the model cost to $86 million. Then drop the streetcar maintenance/storage facility, which will be added back in later. I'm dropping it now because it should not figure into developing a per-mile formula cost figure. My guesstimate on the facility is $20 million. So now the base cost is down to $66 million. That works out to about $18.6 million per mile.

 

A possible streetcar route for Cleveland could circle Public Square, head east on Euclid to Mayfield, then via the new Circle Drive to Euclid and close the loop back to the Euclid/Mayfield intersection. That measures 5.73 miles. Multiply that by the $18.6 million per mile and you get $106.5 million, then add the $20 million maintenance facility back in and the cost could be about $126.5 million.

 

I think a streetcar conversion could be had for less money than that. But I just don't know the costs for various elements of the Cincinnati Streetcar or even what elements are included (such as will all streets be repaved just within the footprint of the streetcar tracks, or from curb-to-curb, or from sidewalk to sidewalk).

 

So that's a total guesstimate.

 

And this assumes that this is even possible. GCRTA has a full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration over the receipt of FTA New Starts funding which requires that the assets acquired with that funding be used for a certain period of time or the FTA has to be refunded the non-depreciated value of that asset. Those assets can include the pavement along Euclid Avenue.

 

FYI......

 

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/

 

So if an upgrade to streetcars was needed, I think our BRT infrastructure works perfectly, and was probably designed to do so.

 

 

A gold star to the designers if that is indeed correct.

I doubt it's more than a happy accident. The Healthline busses are of similar length/height to a streetcar, so a platform that is designed specifically for a Healthline bus is automatically of similar dimensions to a platform for a streetcar.

 

If we're going to continue discussing this we probably ought to move to the either the Healthline thread or Cleveland Transit ideas for the future thread.

 

the EC station platforms are in fact at 14" high for level boarding for buses and a low floor light rail or streetcar.

 

IMO the stations are not an issue

 

with a Street car upgrade for the Healthline I would not advocate for a 20 meter streetcar ( which BTW are better utilized as urban circulators for short trips. thus tons of room for standees)

 

the officla number for the HL buses are 52 seats+ 48 standees max.  the 29 seats plus a max of ~80 standees for 115 passengers max.

 

the reason you want longer vehicle is because streetcars like buses can be prone to bunching, or buses being caught behind other buses. in a paper written about bunching on Toronto streetcar system it was found that adding frequency to the service does not improve service, example moving from a 4 min interval to a 3 min interval would not reduce congestion.  but by using higher capacity streetcar/trams you can space than out more and reduce bunching and congestion

 

 

toronto decided on longer 30 meter trams to replace their older trams.

A flexity freedom which would be 2.6m meters wide and 31 meters long  or 8'8" wide 101 feet long

 

maximum of 72 seat plus ~118 standees. for total of 190 person per a train, or 190% of the current HL capacity

 

cost about 5 million each 500% the cost of a HL vehicle lasts about 30 years vs 12 year for a bus.

 

because the trams can hold so many people they can reduce the labor cost to operate the system.

 

From an operational POV trams have advantages for a line like the HL.

 

 

 

^Glad you enjoyed your trip here, but next time try to hit University Circle.

 

Some genius already suggested that in the comment of his article. :P

I've been trying not to read comments after articles. Cleveland.com got me started and I don't miss reading them most of the time.

And this assumes that this is even possible. GCRTA has a full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration over the receipt of FTA New Starts funding which requires that the assets acquired with that funding be used for a certain period of time or the FTA has to be refunded the non-depreciated value of that asset. Those assets can include the pavement along Euclid Avenue.

How long might those requirements be? I'm asking because even if we started planning a streetcar route that takes advantage of the Healthline platforms today, we're probably not going to see an alternatives analysis before 2014, we're probably not going to see an environmental impact statement before 2016, we're probably not going to see any grant money from the feds before 2018, we're probably not going to see construction start before 2020, and we're probably not going to see it finished before 2022. That's 8 years from now that it would start. The Healthline vehicles, the pavement, and the platforms would be about 12 years old. At that point the pavement will already be patched, and probably need replaced in many sections. The vehicles should still be running, but they'll be in need of an overhaul. The stations are going to be showing a lot of wear and probably need an overhaul too.

 

It sounds like great timing to me.

And this assumes that this is even possible. GCRTA has a full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration over the receipt of FTA New Starts funding which requires that the assets acquired with that funding be used for a certain period of time or the FTA has to be refunded the non-depreciated value of that asset. Those assets can include the pavement along Euclid Avenue.

How long might those requirements be? I'm asking because even if we started planning a streetcar route that takes advantage of the Healthline platforms today, we're probably not going to see an alternatives analysis before 2014, we're probably not going to see an environmental impact statement before 2016, we're probably not going to see any grant money from the feds before 2018, we're probably not going to see construction start before 2020, and we're probably not going to see it finished before 2022. That's 8 years from now that it would start. The Healthline vehicles, the pavement, and the platforms would be about 12 years old. At that point the pavement will already be patched, and probably need replaced in many sections. The vehicles should still be running, but they'll be in need of an overhaul. The stations are going to be showing a lot of wear and probably need an overhaul too.

 

It sounds like great timing to me.

Those healthline buses are only 4 years old and reaching the time for an overhaul. Since it runs so frequently with so much foot traffic the bus is taking a beating and racking up major mileage also there are only about 15 maybe less depending on if some are in running condition. RTA has this "problem" of sending all the mechanics parts to Triskett station instead of splitting them equally and that delays the process of fixing the bus. Long story short I dont think these buses will make it to 12 years.

Cost of building the 3.54-mile Cincinnati Streetcar is $95 million without the cost of relocating utilities. I don't have the details on what their stations cost, but something in the neighborhood of a half-million dollars per station is possible. They plan 18 stations, so it could mean about $9 million. That could drop the model cost to $86 million. Then drop the streetcar maintenance/storage facility, which will be added back in later. I'm dropping it now because it should not figure into developing a per-mile formula cost figure. My guesstimate on the facility is $20 million. So now the base cost is down to $66 million. That works out to about $18.6 million per mile.

 

A possible streetcar route for Cleveland could circle Public Square, head east on Euclid to Mayfield, then via the new Circle Drive to Euclid and close the loop back to the Euclid/Mayfield intersection. That measures 5.73 miles. Multiply that by the $18.6 million per mile and you get $106.5 million, then add the $20 million maintenance facility back in and the cost could be about $126.5 million.

 

I think a streetcar conversion could be had for less money than that. But I just don't know the costs for various elements of the Cincinnati Streetcar or even what elements are included (such as will all streets be repaved just within the footprint of the streetcar tracks, or from curb-to-curb, or from sidewalk to sidewalk).

 

So that's a total guesstimate.

 

And this assumes that this is even possible. GCRTA has a full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration over the receipt of FTA New Starts funding which requires that the assets acquired with that funding be used for a certain period of time or the FTA has to be refunded the non-depreciated value of that asset. Those assets can include the pavement along Euclid Avenue.

 

FYI......

 

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/

 

this lovely phrase called "route miles" Equals 12 route miles for the health line.  there is are also cost benefits by using only on corridor you can share poles for both eastbound and westbound and not duplicate utilities for two corridors

 

Example:

Portland's streetcar

 

vs this

 

LR 55 could reduce track laying costs by over 50%.

 

HL route

 

Public Square

 

 

UC loop.

 

 

for costs I would put it at 5-10 million per route mile

 

or 60-120 million dollars

 

16 vehicles replacing 23 HL vehicles @ 5 million per vehicle  maybe 4.5 million if the the blue and green line vehicles are replaced also, bringing the order up to 40 vehicles.

 

$80 million

 

a light maintenance facility to store the trams $20 million, heavy maintenance can be done at east 55th st, and parts transported by truck and trains by rail to the heavy facility.

 

my estimate $160-220 million  for the conversion.

 

benefits... 

reduced operating costs

higher quality of service

reduction in long term expenses. 

trams can last up to 45 years the rail and infrastructure can last 50+ years, while the current EC vehicles have a life of 12 years of 500,000 miles ever come first, and the road itself has a life of 30 years max.

 

^ Great post

I'm sold.

I'm sold.

 

if they can get the cost per mile below 10 million for streetcar in road ROW you can see alot of opportunities for rail expansion.

 

 

 

 

^Nice job, Biker; very convincing.  One tweak I might make, is looping the streetcars to the north of Mayfield to the to-be-extended Circle Drive back to Euclid at E. 118th.  Otherwise, this proposal rocks.  Given the cited short life of HL buses, RTA should seriously explore this tram proposal NOW.  Imagine what it’s going to be like as growth continues downtown, University Circle and points in between.  Not only are HL buses going to wear out quickly (some already are, according to the above poster), they are struggling to provide capacity from both anecdotal evidence as well as my own empirical evidence.

^ I think they are dangerously full. I think they could possibly get in trouble for how packed they are at times.

^Nice job, Biker; very convincing.  One tweak I might make, is looping the streetcars to the north of Mayfield to the to-be-extended Circle Drive back to Euclid at E. 118th.  Otherwise, this proposal rocks.  Given the cited short life of HL buses, RTA should seriously explore this tram proposal NOW.  Imagine what it’s going to be like as growth continues downtown, University Circle and points in between.  Not only are HL buses going to wear out quickly (some already are, according to the above poster), they are struggling to provide capacity from both anecdotal evidence as well as my own empirical evidence.

 

 

that makes sense, I just did not want to make the plan any more complex than it has to be since the road does not exist yet.

 

We've really got to light the fire under RTA for this.  The fact that a key aspect of infrastructure is already, mostly built (stations) and that replacement costs for shorter-term buses is so much higher than trams, (along with the higher capacity and greater chance to draw more riders/create TOD) really makes this project a no-brainer.

We've really got to light the fire under RTA for this.  The fact that a key aspect of infrastructure is already, mostly built (stations) and that replacement costs for shorter-term buses is so much higher than trams, (along with the higher capacity and greater chance to draw more riders/create TOD) really makes this project a no-brainer.

 

I am with you 100%, but...understanding the federal and state funding situation you cannot expect any action soon.

 

plus to move to Light rail after years of selling BRT is a tough pill for RTA brass.

Cost of building the 3.54-mile Cincinnati Streetcar is $95 million without the cost of relocating utilities. I don't have the details on what their stations cost, but something in the neighborhood of a half-million dollars per station is possible. They plan 18 stations, so it could mean about $9 million. That could drop the model cost to $86 million. Then drop the streetcar maintenance/storage facility, which will be added back in later. I'm dropping it now because it should not figure into developing a per-mile formula cost figure. My guesstimate on the facility is $20 million. So now the base cost is down to $66 million. That works out to about $18.6 million per mile.

 

A possible streetcar route for Cleveland could circle Public Square, head east on Euclid to Mayfield, then via the new Circle Drive to Euclid and close the loop back to the Euclid/Mayfield intersection. That measures 5.73 miles. Multiply that by the $18.6 million per mile and you get $106.5 million, then add the $20 million maintenance facility back in and the cost could be about $126.5 million.

 

I think a streetcar conversion could be had for less money than that. But I just don't know the costs for various elements of the Cincinnati Streetcar or even what elements are included (such as will all streets be repaved just within the footprint of the streetcar tracks, or from curb-to-curb, or from sidewalk to sidewalk).

 

So that's a total guesstimate.

 

And this assumes that this is even possible. GCRTA has a full-funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration over the receipt of FTA New Starts funding which requires that the assets acquired with that funding be used for a certain period of time or the FTA has to be refunded the non-depreciated value of that asset. Those assets can include the pavement along Euclid Avenue.

 

FYI......

 

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/

 

this lovely phrase called "route miles" Equals 12 route miles for the health line.  there is are also cost benefits by using only on corridor you can share poles for both eastbound and westbound and not duplicate utilities for two corridors

 

Example:

Portland's streetcar

 

vs this

 

LR 55 could reduce track laying costs by over 50%.

 

HL route

 

Public Square

 

 

UC loop.

 

 

for costs I would put it at 5-10 million per route mile

 

or 60-120 million dollars

 

16 vehicles replacing 23 HL vehicles @ 5 million per vehicle  maybe 4.5 million if the the blue and green line vehicles are replaced also, bringing the order up to 40 vehicles.

 

$80 million

 

a light maintenance facility to store the trams $20 million, heavy maintenance can be done at east 55th st, and parts transported by truck and trains by rail to the heavy facility.

 

my estimate $160-220 million  for the conversion.

 

benefits... 

reduced operating costs

higher quality of service

reduction in long term expenses. 

trams can last up to 45 years the rail and infrastructure can last 50+ years, while the current EC vehicles have a life of 12 years of 500,000 miles ever come first, and the road itself has a life of 30 years max.

 

 

I wanted to correct the Quoted price per vehicle from 5 million to $4.1 million

 

reducing the estimated costs from $80 million to $65.6 million.

 

reducing system costs from $160-220 million to 145.6- 205.6 million.

 

these vehicle would be identical to the Metrolinx Bombardier LRT in toronto.

 

2.65m (8'8') wide  600VDC power 31m (101feet) long

 

190 passengers.

 

^ Makes it even better! Unfortunately, as much as we want this, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

^That's all the more reason to, at least, start talking about it now; start engaging RTA, now.  So that we can gin up interest, and present facts (like the short life span of HL buses viz streetcars; the already-built stations that can serve the rail cars, etc.)... And we must not let Calabrese deep-6 electrical power as he did for the HL buses.  Keep in mind, had the buses been electrically powered, not only (I'll bet) would the buses have longer lives (smaller, lighter, quieter, less busy electrical engines vs. the gas-powered, internal combustion engines of the existing buses), the conversion to rail would be much easier with the electric system in place -- not to mention how cool it would be to convert from bus-to-rail, which is the reverse of what happened 60 years ago in this country.

The issue at the time was that GCRTA was going to get a little bit of something built or nothing at all. The Euclid Corridor project was funded by the feds at a time of extreme congressional hostility as several House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee chairs in a row bullied the Federal Transit Administration into rewriting the project scoring criteria for fixed guideway projects. GCRTA and Rep. Stepanie Tubbs Jones worked together on "value engineering" down the Euclid Corridor project to a low enough price tag that would allow the FTA to fund it. In the year that the Euclid Corridor got its first construction grant, it was the only new "New Starts" fixed guideway project added. The other projects that were funded included projects the FTA had previously committed some funds to and were trying to round out the total investments in those projects.

 

All new "New starts" projects to be funded by the FTA under this hostile House leadership would have to meet a rigorous cost-effectiveness test. There was little interest in economic development in the scoring process at the time. All the House leadership wanted was to move more vehicles, move them faster and for less money. Ironically to this day, highways still do not have to meet either a cost-effectiveness test, nor have a demonstrated ability to produce net economic gains for an affected region.

 

We got the most transit investment we could get at the time.

The issue at the time was that GCRTA was going to get a little bit of something built or nothing at all. The Euclid Corridor project was funded by the feds at a time of extreme congressional hostility as several House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee chairs in a row bullied the Federal Transit Administration into rewriting the project scoring criteria for fixed guideway projects. GCRTA and Rep. Stepanie Tubbs Jones worked together on "value engineering" down the Euclid Corridor project to a low enough price tag that would allow the FTA to fund it. In the year that the Euclid Corridor got its first construction grant, it was the only new "New Starts" fixed guideway project added. The other projects that were funded included projects the FTA had previously committed some funds to and were trying to round out the total investments in those projects.

 

All new "New starts" projects to be funded by the FTA under this hostile House leadership would have to meet a rigorous cost-effectiveness test. There was little interest in economic development in the scoring process at the time. All the House leadership wanted was to move more vehicles, move them faster and for less money. Ironically to this day, highways still do not have to meet either a cost-effectiveness test, nor have a demonstrated ability to produce net economic gains for an affected region.

 

We got the most transit investment we could get at the time.

 

I think the idea of maintaining and improving existing service levels while reducing labor costs is a reason why trams will become more common.

I think the idea of maintaining and improving existing service levels while reducing labor costs is a reason why trams will become more common.

I think it'll take a change of power at the state level to get better funding, combined with more visionary leadership at RTA, and an increase in the price of diesel/gasoline that increases ridership while simultaneously increasing the cost of operating busses. The labor savings while significant are balanced by the labor costs of maintaining the tracks.

 

While transit operating funding is as tight as it currently is at the state level, I imagine it would be a big challenge politically to pull off another major transit project. While most of us know that operating and capital expenses are very different things, the public doesn't and would throw a fit if service isn't improved/increased before a major expansion gets underway.

 

As long as using diesel in busses is less expensive than using electricity AND paying for the maintenance of the tracks RTA is going to be hesitant to switch to trams. Sure we know that the maintenance of the roads isn't free, but it doesn't come directly from RTA's budget, so they have no incentive to consider that expense when determining the more cost effective mode of transportation.

 

Finally I think it would take better leadership at RTA. I think that Calabrezze is doing fine at running RTA, but I think he's done a poor job of lobbying the state legislature, and looking into ways to make it better. Probably if he spent more time lobbying and looking at future improvements we'd have a worse current system, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs and I think it looks like Calabrezze has been playing it safe.

I think the idea of maintaining and improving existing service levels while reducing labor costs is a reason why trams will become more common.

I think it'll take a change of power at the state level to get better funding, combined with more visionary leadership at RTA, and an increase in the price of diesel/gasoline that increases ridership while simultaneously increasing the cost of operating busses. The labor savings while significant are balanced by the labor costs of maintaining the tracks.

 

While transit operating funding is as tight as it currently is at the state level, I imagine it would be a big challenge politically to pull off another major transit project. While most of us know that operating and capital expenses are very different things, the public doesn't and would throw a fit if service isn't improved/increased before a major expansion gets underway.

 

As long as using diesel in busses is less expensive than using electricity AND paying for the maintenance of the tracks RTA is going to be hesitant to switch to trams. Sure we know that the maintenance of the roads isn't free, but it doesn't come directly from RTA's budget, so they have no incentive to consider that expense when determining the more cost effective mode of transportation.

 

Finally I think it would take better leadership at RTA. I think that Calabrezze is doing fine at running RTA, but I think he's done a poor job of lobbying the state legislature, and looking into ways to make it better. Probably if he spent more time lobbying and looking at future improvements we'd have a worse current system, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs and I think it looks like Calabrezze has been playing it safe.

 

but the operating costs of electric trams is lower than that of buses. that includes maintenance or rail and ROW. which for a streetcar are very difference from a traditional ties and rail system.  the issues RTA is having with their rail system is IMO related to the age of the system and the need to make investments in replacing the old stuff to reduce the maintenance cost.  the rail and the trains are system, lack of investment in one directly affects the other.  bad rails wear out trains faster, bad train wear out the rails faster, etc, etc.

 

Electrification has benefits beyond operating costs. 

 

the issue is that we cannot expect RTA or any other transit agency to petition Columbus on their own, you need the mayors of Cuyahoga county and county governments them selves to advocate on behalf of transit, and again until a secure source of funding is found for transit in Ohio like a gas tax or another form of taxation other than locally based taxes, Transit will contiue to ride the back of the bus.

 

now is the time to plan big, and capture the imagination of community.  then we can petition Columbus for funds.

 

 

Long term, the trams are cheaper than the current buses.  Biker has clearly laid out why, in terms of replacement costs... I'd also add, the rising cost of fuel.  Also, the trams are cheaper because they can move so many more people with 1 run as opposed to HL buses.  And as your claim about pavement, even though I'm no expert, I don't buy it.  Laying fixed track in concrete and preventing any auto or truck traffic to ride on them, mean that the rail is lower cost to maintain than the concrete with its constant expansion and contraction cracking due to Cleveland's extremes of heat and cold...

 

... and as to KJP's comments: it's no longer a matter of debating the smartness (or lack thereof) of the HL, it's done.  I don't think it's a waste at all; it's good in many ways.  Conversion to tram, which it is set up to do relatively cheaply, can make it BETTER. Given the replacement costs facing HL buses, there should be some way to get this conversion in as an improvement and not a "new start" under the current regs... and if that's not the case, we should be making the case for modifying them.

I think the idea of maintaining and improving existing service levels while reducing labor costs is a reason why trams will become more common.

I think it'll take a change of power at the state level to get better funding, combined with more visionary leadership at RTA, and an increase in the price of diesel/gasoline that increases ridership while simultaneously increasing the cost of operating busses. The labor savings while significant are balanced by the labor costs of maintaining the tracks.

 

While transit operating funding is as tight as it currently is at the state level, I imagine it would be a big challenge politically to pull off another major transit project. While most of us know that operating and capital expenses are very different things, the public doesn't and would throw a fit if service isn't improved/increased before a major expansion gets underway.

 

As long as using diesel in busses is less expensive than using electricity AND paying for the maintenance of the tracks RTA is going to be hesitant to switch to trams. Sure we know that the maintenance of the roads isn't free, but it doesn't come directly from RTA's budget, so they have no incentive to consider that expense when determining the more cost effective mode of transportation.

 

Finally I think it would take better leadership at RTA. I think that Calabrezze is doing fine at running RTA, but I think he's done a poor job of lobbying the state legislature, and looking into ways to make it better. Probably if he spent more time lobbying and looking at future improvements we'd have a worse current system, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs and I think it looks like Calabrezze has been playing it safe.

 

Actually, I give Calabrese points as an outspoken and eloquent lobbiest/advocate for transit, esp as it applies to transit subsidy.  He's obviously been a good money manager for the agency during difficult times... My issue with him is his lack of vision and drive for expanding the system, esp rail, to create new markets and maximize the agency's prime asset: rail transit, esp the Red Line.... and in accord with this, he also has not done as much as he can to promote/encourage TOD around rail stations, imho.

Long term, the trams are cheaper than the current buses.  Biker has clearly laid out why, in terms of replacement costs... I'd also add, the rising cost of fuel.  Also, the trams are cheaper because they can move so many more people with 1 run as opposed to HL buses.  And as your claim about pavement, even though I'm no expert, I don't buy it.  Laying fixed track in concrete and preventing any auto or truck traffic to ride on them, mean that the rail is lower cost to maintain than the concrete with its constant expansion and contraction cracking due to Cleveland's extremes of heat and cold...

 

 

LR55 rails are designed for heavy vehicle traffic as well as streetcar to light rail traffic.  It would not be a problem to run buses on the LRT lanes to LR55 is special because the rail are not fastened to the ground they are glued in  the trough which allows for it to give.

 

 

<<I think that Calabrezze is doing fine at running RTA, but I think he's done a poor job of lobbying the state legislature, and looking into ways to make it better.>

 

There were times, especially during budget season, when Joe Calabrese spent significant time lobbying in Columbus. He is a past president of OPTA, and is very committed to making sure state legislators know how important transit is. The problem is Ohio's formulas. People generally agree that we need an increase in the gas tax to give transit a dedicated source, but a recession, like the one we had, is no time to raise taxes. As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

 

I'm not knocking the work that Mr. Calabrezze is doing in his lobbying efforts, but I don't see things getting better for a very long time, if ever. 

 

Also, not everyone agrees that increasing the gas tax to provide more money for transit is a bad idea during a recession.  Accepting the current transportation funding formula, which spends money on bad choices, and waiting for better days does not make any sense. 

 

RTA should continue to push for more funding, even if that means raising taxes.  Do not wait Mr. Calabrezze, keep pushing for changes in the funding formula.  I'm willing to pay more for gas to have a better transit system, and I am not alone!  (If gas prices were higher, as in Europe, perhaps we would have a higher percentage of the population calling for better transit.)

Also, not everyone agrees that increasing the gas tax to provide more money for transit is a bad idea during a recession.

 

Even among Democrats in Columbus, they thought it was a bad idea.

 

Accepting the current transportation funding formula, which spends money on bad choices, and waiting for better days does not make any sense. 

 

Again, it does in Columbus! This is why All Aboard Ohio moved its office out of the state capital. We decided it's best to focus limited resources in places having the greatest chance of success.

:wtf:

 

I haven't heard anything about the synchronized traffic light problem along Euclid Ave. Has anything been fixed yet?

:wtf:

 

I haven't heard anything about the synchronized traffic light problem along Euclid Ave. Has anything been fixed yet?

 

this underscores another obstacle to improving service the cities themselves, the city of cleveland traffic engineers don't not want buses clogging up traffic with more aggressive signalization, IMO there is no reason the HL can't move through downtown at a faster pace than it does now.  it makes sense to me that a bus with 60-70 people should have priority over 20 cars with 25 people. 

Anyone else notice that a large number of trees on Euclid between 18th and Public Square are dying.  I assume it's from the high heat and drought, but I thought they installed an underground irrigation system as part of the corridor.  Guess that's not working too well.  I hope someone is looking into this; hate to see the taxpayer have to foot the bill for new trees, when we paid the contractors to install a working irrigation system.

As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

 

I'm not knocking the work that Mr. Calabrezze is doing in his lobbying efforts, but I don't see things getting better for a very long time, if ever. 

 

Also, not everyone agrees that increasing the gas tax to provide more money for transit is a bad idea during a recession.  Accepting the current transportation funding formula, which spends money on bad choices, and waiting for better days does not make any sense. 

 

RTA should continue to push for more funding, even if that means raising taxes.  Do not wait Mr. Calabrezze, keep pushing for changes in the funding formula.  I'm willing to pay more for gas to have a better transit system, and I am not alone!  (If gas prices were higher, as in Europe, perhaps we would have a higher percentage of the population calling for better transit.)

 

Ohio because we are %90+ urbanized  but that population is evenly distributed around the 8 MSA there is a division and dilution of power at the state level because of this.

 

some of you seem to think we have a transit problem in Ohio, but in truth we have a urban policy problem in Ohio.

 

 

why doesn't northeast ohio have a unifed transit agency?  state Law, prohibits it.

 

why can't we use gas tax revenue for transit?  because state law prohibits it.

 

I emplore the good people here to take a larger view of urban issues in ohio and relize that they are related.

 

a good first step is http://votersfirstohio.com/  "

 

Voters First is led by a coalition of nonpartisan groups and people from across Ohio.  It was created to take the power over drawing our congressional and legislative districts out of the hands of the politicians and put it in the hands of the people."

if passed it would redraw district in 2014 not 2021.  beginning to take apart the machinery that has made suburban districts combine with a rural district and not represent the basic concept that suburban is really urban.  it should undo the divisive machinery in Columbus.

 

second step would be my idea for a ballot amendment to rewrite the constitution of Ohio to allow gas tax revenue to be distributed based on population and administered in a way that keeps cleveland from subsidizing development in rural counties.  allows gas tax revenue to be used for more than roads, and ODOTs powers to be redistributed to local regional authorities, not run from Columbus.

 

finally set up a dedicated funding source though a state wide property tax to strengthen regional connections through the creation of intercity and commuter rail networks. a state wide tax of $45 per year per person would raise 500 million dollars in transit funding per year.

 

I'd pay $45 per year for high speed rail service and commuter rail service, I think alot of Ohioans would feel the same way.

 

of course a new infrastructure bank and reform of federal transportation funding would help alot. either way these investments will have to be made sooner or later.

Anyone else notice that a large number of trees on Euclid between 18th and Public Square are dying.  I assume it's from the high heat and drought, but I thought they installed an underground irrigation system as part of the corridor.  Guess that's not working too well.  I hope someone is looking into this; hate to see the taxpayer have to foot the bill for new trees, when we paid the contractors to install a working irrigation system.

 

 

It alot more complex than trees, from what i have seen. the pavement system was designed to allow water through the pavers and into a retention system near the trees.  It look like during the winter the water in the retention system froze nd led to the pavers being heaved and the retention system collapsing causing a depression in the sidewalk.

 

I do think we are often too quick to blame and not patient enough to understand that our personal timetable is not what governments or business operate under.  IMO the priority is to repair the safety hazard first and the trees come second.

 

also we are in a drought.

Small part of a nice write-up at http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/July/HellendrungHealthLine:

 

"The resulting $200 million, 6.8-mile (11 km) Euclid Corridor Transportation Project catalyzed a powerful transformation along the avenue. Since the BRT line opened in 2008, the corridor has attracted $5.8 billion in investment—$3.3 billion for new construction and $2.5 billion for building rehab, together totaling more than 110 projects. Disproving naysayers and exceeding the expectations of supporters, the project has generated the economic growth that many thought could only be achieved with rail—and at a fraction of the cost."

The project has generated the economic growth that many thought could only be achieved with rail—and at a fraction of the cost."

 

I think Biker may take issue with that statement!

<<I think that Calabrezze is doing fine at running RTA, but I think he's done a poor job of lobbying the state legislature, and looking into ways to make it better.>

 

There were times, especially during budget season, when Joe Calabrese spent significant time lobbying in Columbus. He is a past president of OPTA, and is very committed to making sure state legislators know how important transit is. The problem is Ohio's formulas. People generally agree that we need an increase in the gas tax to give transit a dedicated source, but a recession, like the one we had, is no time to raise taxes. As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

 

I think Joe Calabrese has to keep at it in Columbus, but the only way there will be a change in the gas tax that favors transit will be through a) a statewide referendum that would be put before the voters to ask for such a change (no easy task). This will encounter stiff opposition from highway contractors and others who do not like transit ants coming to their picnic. They like things the way they are and have at least $4 million in their warchest to make sure we keep on having to drive everywhere, or b) an external event or effort that forces change. This could take the form of either an energy crisis that drives up gas prices to stratospheric levels permanently (can't count on that) or a legal challenge to the current system on behalf of disenfranchised minorities and/or disabled people who are shut out of society by a system that discriminates against them.

 

I would suggest that Mr. Calabrese...and the leaders of all transit operators and MPO's look at unconventional ways to make transit stronger on Northern Ohio. Transit is a driver of economic development and all new transit projects should at least partially be financed thru tax increment financing. Also, the state government in Ohio is led by suburban Republicans who are not interested in helping "those people" in urban areas (minorities, liberal urban whites, etc) because they tend to vote Democratic. Republicans are not going to do anything to help THEM. No, it's time to face the facts and start to develop a northern Ohio regional transportation and development authority to do for NE Ohio what the state won't.

 

I was with All Aboard Ohio as its president when we came to the realization that maintaining a Columbus office would not further our goals. We decided we had to focus our very limited resources in the place where they would do the most good: NE Ohio. Again, transit operators should continue to bring their issues up at the state capitol, but must also realize the realities there and develop an alternative strategy to achieve their goals without state support. The state is being led by some very ideologically driven hardheads. We have to realize that and act accordingly.

As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

 

I'm not knocking the work that Mr. Calabrezze is doing in his lobbying efforts, but I don't see things getting better for a very long time, if ever. 

 

Also, not everyone agrees that increasing the gas tax to provide more money for transit is a bad idea during a recession.  Accepting the current transportation funding formula, which spends money on bad choices, and waiting for better days does not make any sense. 

 

RTA should continue to push for more funding, even if that means raising taxes.  Do not wait Mr. Calabrezze, keep pushing for changes in the funding formula.  I'm willing to pay more for gas to have a better transit system, and I am not alone!  (If gas prices were higher, as in Europe, perhaps we would have a higher percentage of the population calling for better transit.)

 

Ohio because we are %90+ urbanized  but that population is evenly distributed around the 8 MSA there is a division and dilution of power at the state level because of this.

 

some of you seem to think we have a transit problem in Ohio, but in truth we have a urban policy problem in Ohio.

 

 

why doesn't northeast ohio have a unifed transit agency?  state Law, prohibits it.

 

why can't we use gas tax revenue for transit?  because state law prohibits it.

 

I emplore the good people here to take a larger view of urban issues in ohio and relize that they are related.

 

a good first step is http://votersfirstohio.com/  "

 

Voters First is led by a coalition of nonpartisan groups and people from across Ohio.  It was created to take the power over drawing our congressional and legislative districts out of the hands of the politicians and put it in the hands of the people."

if passed it would redraw district in 2014 not 2021.  beginning to take apart the machinery that has made suburban districts combine with a rural district and not represent the basic concept that suburban is really urban.  it should undo the divisive machinery in Columbus.

 

second step would be my idea for a ballot amendment to rewrite the constitution of Ohio to allow gas tax revenue to be distributed based on population and administered in a way that keeps cleveland from subsidizing development in rural counties.  allows gas tax revenue to be used for more than roads, and ODOTs powers to be redistributed to local regional authorities, not run from Columbus.

 

finally set up a dedicated funding source though a state wide property tax to strengthen regional connections through the creation of intercity and commuter rail networks. a state wide tax of $45 per year per person would raise 500 million dollars in transit funding per year.

 

I'd pay $45 per year for high speed rail service and commuter rail service, I think alot of Ohioans would feel the same way.

 

of course a new infrastructure bank and reform of federal transportation funding would help alot. either way these investments will have to be made sooner or later.

 

Yes...we should support this. Gerrymandering that creates uncompetitive districts is an evil we need to get rid of.

The project has generated the economic growth that many thought could only be achieved with rail—and at a fraction of the cost."

 

I think Biker may take issue with that statement!

 

I and a lot of other people are beginning too question why the costs quoted for rail not just light rail seem excessive in the US vs the Rest of the world.

 

We have gotten into a situation where we started building light rail systems as a substitute for heavy, and the costs began to spiral out of control. 

 

rememeber light rial began as Streetcars and interurbans that primaraly operated in road ROWs, but has become more and more dedicated ROWs

 

most interurban and streetcars could not go past 50mph,  with the use of dedicated ROWs light rail began to increase speeds, to up to 70 mph.

 

with increased speeds you had to replace the simple and cheap Overhead wiring with a Cantentary system and upgrade the  tracks,

 

Also since the new "light Rail" trains were so powerful you had to upgrade the power infrastructure to to handle the greater acceleration of these now much heavier trains.

 

So today basically every cleveland light rail proposal is for super light rail.

 

since our super light rail trains are unfit for street running any extension involve costs involved with a super light rail car.

 

issue with the current light rail cars.

Poor driver visibility

too wide  9'3" vs the max considered for street running of 8'8"  most street cars are less ~8' the PCC streetcar was 8'4" the current health line buses are 8'4"

other niceties like a fully enclosed coupler, skirts for trucks

turning Radius buses are 13-14 meters modern light rail is 11-25 meters.  I am not sure what the specs on the breda's are but they don't look to be that stringent

 

 

change the rolling stock and you could drastically reduce the cost of line extensions.

 

 

As things get better, the issue will be raised again.

 

I'm not knocking the work that Mr. Calabrezze is doing in his lobbying efforts, but I don't see things getting better for a very long time, if ever. 

 

Also, not everyone agrees that increasing the gas tax to provide more money for transit is a bad idea during a recession.  Accepting the current transportation funding formula, which spends money on bad choices, and waiting for better days does not make any sense. 

 

RTA should continue to push for more funding, even if that means raising taxes.  Do not wait Mr. Calabrezze, keep pushing for changes in the funding formula.  I'm willing to pay more for gas to have a better transit system, and I am not alone!  (If gas prices were higher, as in Europe, perhaps we would have a higher percentage of the population calling for better transit.)

 

Ohio because we are %90+ urbanized  but that population is evenly distributed around the 8 MSA there is a division and dilution of power at the state level because of this.

 

some of you seem to think we have a transit problem in Ohio, but in truth we have a urban policy problem in Ohio.

 

 

why doesn't northeast ohio have a unifed transit agency?  state Law, prohibits it.

 

why can't we use gas tax revenue for transit?  because state law prohibits it.

 

I emplore the good people here to take a larger view of urban issues in ohio and relize that they are related.

 

a good first step is http://votersfirstohio.com/  "

 

Voters First is led by a coalition of nonpartisan groups and people from across Ohio.  It was created to take the power over drawing our congressional and legislative districts out of the hands of the politicians and put it in the hands of the people."

if passed it would redraw district in 2014 not 2021.  beginning to take apart the machinery that has made suburban districts combine with a rural district and not represent the basic concept that suburban is really urban.  it should undo the divisive machinery in Columbus.

 

second step would be my idea for a ballot amendment to rewrite the constitution of Ohio to allow gas tax revenue to be distributed based on population and administered in a way that keeps cleveland from subsidizing development in rural counties.  allows gas tax revenue to be used for more than roads, and ODOTs powers to be redistributed to local regional authorities, not run from Columbus.

 

finally set up a dedicated funding source though a state wide property tax to strengthen regional connections through the creation of intercity and commuter rail networks. a state wide tax of $45 per year per person would raise 500 million dollars in transit funding per year.

 

I'd pay $45 per year for high speed rail service and commuter rail service, I think alot of Ohioans would feel the same way.

 

of course a new infrastructure bank and reform of federal transportation funding would help alot. either way these investments will have to be made sooner or later.

 

Yes...we should support this. Gerrymandering that creates uncompetitive districts is an evil we need to get rid of.

 

the death of the moderate politician in Ohio means that every election could bring swings to the left or to the right, and hurt the ability of government to affect long term change.

Too bad the Euclid Corridor advanced through planning in sn era before streetcar projects became popular to consider again.

 

I would love to see a study of what it would take to convert the HealthLine to streetcar from downtown to the new UC-Mayfield Red Line station and what, if any, revenues enhancements and operating cost savings it might produce? OK, who's got about $50,000 sitting around to conduct such a study?

Too bad the Euclid Corridor advanced through planning in sn era before streetcar projects became popular to consider again.

 

I would love to see a study of what it would take to convert the HealthLine to streetcar from downtown to the new UC-Mayfield Red Line station and what, if any, revenues enhancements and operating cost savings it might produce? OK, who's got about $50,000 sitting around to conduct such a study?

 

I would love to give a European engineering firm a shot at this project, making Cleveland the first place in he western hemisphere to use LR55 rail and possible having our own Mittal steel being the first to produce the rail for North American use.

 

 

Is the cost about $5,209,009 per mile for the LR55 rail? Wouldn't that be more expensive than how Cincinnati is doing it, at the cost of about $4,537,719 per mile?

 

 

 

So average it out to about $5,000,000 per mile, and it would cost about $50 million for to convert the healthline into a streetcar, rail costs only.

With bus operating cost at $146/hr*, it costs about $1,278,960 a year to operate one bus.

 

Streetcar operating cost is $59.40/hr, its costs about $520,344 a year to operate one streetcar.

 

Thats a difference of $758,616 a year per vehicle. At 7 vehicles thats $5,310,312 a year, or $53,103,120 after 10 years.

 

 

*The bus operating cost is for a regular bus, not the articulated brt vehicles the Healthline runs. So either costs could be higher or lower

With bus operating cost at $146/hr*, it costs about $1,278,960 a year to operate one bus.

 

Streetcar operating cost is $59.40/hr, its costs about $520,344 a year to operate one streetcar.

 

Thats a difference of $758,616 a year per vehicle. At 7 vehicles thats $5,310,312 a year, or $53,103,120 after 10 years.

 

 

*The bus operating cost is for a regular bus, not the articulated brt vehicles the Healthline runs. So either costs could be higher or lower

 

Those numbers look good to me.

 

On a related note, today I read on a pro-streetcar site that the biggest hurdle isn't the anti-streetcar lobby, it's keeping costs low for rail projects.

A shout-out to the HealthLine.....

http://americancity.org/daily/entry/do-bus-rapid-transit-right-and-it-wont-get-killed

 

Now if only the City of Cleveland Traffic Commissioner would switch on the HealthLine's signal priority system for which taxpayers gave RTA the money to purchase and install.

Is the cost about $5,209,009 per mile for the LR55 rail? Wouldn't that be more expensive than how Cincinnati is doing it, at the cost of about $4,537,719 per mile?

 

you costs don't include utility relocation.    I "believe" the LR55 cost do.

 

I don't think the costs of LR55 can be acuratly accounted for yet becuase the rails are so expensive because they have to be custom made and without being able to make large quanities of the rail you cannot accuarately estimate the costs.

 

So average it out to about $5,000,000 per mile, and it would cost about $50 million for to convert the healthline into a streetcar, rail costs only.

 

add in a average of 3.2 million a mile for Systems, tractive power, communitcations, etc.

 

so maybe 8.2 million a mile.

 

 

Another advantage of LR55 rail is that it can be used for streetcar, and heavier light rial and even heavy rail rolling stock.

 

So the situation that Portland has with the maxx trains being unable to run on streetcar tracks would not happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One error is that a streetcar was never considered by RTA for Euclid Avenue.......

 

As mayor pushes BRT for Metro, a look at Cleveland and Eugene may shed light on system

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 6:22pm

By William Williams and Craig Runyon

 

It’s a recent Tuesday morning in downtown Cleveland. Business people are arriving to work, coffees in hand. Buses chug along. Pigeons are visible. The energy is palpable — a level somewhere between New York City and of Knoxville.

 

Both vintage buildings and contemporary structures cast shadows on the hustle and bustle at street level as a Tennessee visitor to Ohio’s most misunderstood — and occasionally maligned — city steps upon the boarding deck of the Public Square stop of the HealthLine, Cleveland’s bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/mayor-pushes-brt-metro-look-cleveland-and-eugene-may-shed-light-system?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

WSJ features the HealthLine in their BRT article.

 

LIFE & CULTURESeptember 26, 2012, 6:21 p.m. ET

The Commute of the Future

To Get Riders, Buses Try to Be More Like Trains; Skip Red Lights

By KRIS HUDSON

 

Cleveland

 

City buses that carry people to and from work each day are attempting an identity change: They want to be trains.

 

To woo workday commuters, Cleveland and select cities across the U.S. are trying to replace the image of the gritty, pokey, crowded bus by sending sleeker, more spacious and trainlike buses onto certain commuter routes. They are packing these buses with amenities cribbed from the handbook of other cities' commuter rail and light-rail trains.

 

In part, they hope to attract passengers who don't have to ride the bus to work—people who can afford to own a car and pay for gas and parking, but who will willingly hop a bus. Getting more of these "choice riders," as the public transportation industry calls them, can help fund local transportation and reduce traffic.

 

...

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016191463503384.html

The route chosen for our BRT, and the development plans along most of it, leave little room for "choice riders."  All it really does is connect workplaces to other workplaces.  There's a semblance of a Park n Ride option at Windermere, but "choice riders" aren't likely to leave their cars there all day.  I'm sure there are dozens of Clinic and UH employees living downtown, but what an extravagant thing to build for them.