Yes, there are states that allow gas tax revenues to be used for transit, including those that have constitutional restrictions like Ohio's that prohibit spending gas tax revenues on anything other than highways. We don't have to look far -- Michigan. That state up north found an old law that said railroads are a public highway, so rail was an eligible recipient of gas tax revenues. They don't use much of the gas tax for rail/transit -- only a couple of percentage points.

 

BTW, Ohio doesn't have an old law like that, but we do have about 5% of gasoline consumption in Ohio that doesn't come from vehicles using the roads (ie: landscaping equipment, off-road recreational vehicles, etc.). That translates to about $40 million per year in state gas tax revenues which could leverage about $200 million in federal transportation funds.

Wish they would have included more of my comments on the need for funding for systemwide repairs to bus/rail equipment/infrastructure as well as multi-county expansion. But I'm glad they included my compliments to GCRTA staff for being able to keep the Breda cars running beyond their useful life. This crisis in an opportunity for all of us who believe in public transportation to go on the offensive....

 

RTA Searching for Money to Replace Aging Rail Cars

http://wcpn.ideastream.org/news/rta-searching-money-replace-aging-rail-cars

Here's another piece from Tim Kovach:

 

That ‘Cleveland rail shutdown’ looks more likely by the day

 

By Tim Kovach | November 3, 2015 - 9:26 AM | Cleveland, Transportation

 

WCPN has a story today from Nick Castele on the untenable fiscal position in which the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) finds itself. All Aboard Ohio, the rail advocacy organization, recently ran a post arguing that GCRTA’s rail cars are rapidly approaching the end of their useful life, and the system faces an “unavoidable” rail shutdown sometime after 2020 without a substantial infusion of capital.

 

Castele interviewed GCRTA’s General Manager Joe Calabrese, who confirmed much of All Abroad Ohio’s account, though the agency has sought to downplay the hysteria around the issue. According to Calabrese, GCRTA needs to raise $280 million in capital funds by 2025 to replace 65-70 of its aging rail cars. He emphasized that GCRTA “can’t get there alone. It’s going to take a more major investment.”

 

What Calabrese failed to discuss is what happens if that influx of funding doesn’t materialize. As I have discussed on a number of occasions, I’m not sure it would be possible for the State of Ohio to care less about public transit if it tried. The state provided just $7.3 million in general funds for transit in its latest budget, down 83.5% from 2000. So, at that rate, Ohio won’t scrape together $280 million for all transit funding throughout the entire state for another 38.4 years.

 

http://timkovach.com/wp/2015/11/03/that-cleveland-rail-shutdown-looks-more-likely-by-the-day/

Something of a side question: How much of an old railcar is reusable/recyclable?  I see old ones just sitting on abandoned tracks sometimes, but I don't always know if that's because there's nothing salvageable there or if there's another reason they aren't broken up and melted down (if needed).  It's obviously a lot of metal.

Something of a side question: How much of an old railcar is reusable/recyclable?  I see old ones just sitting on abandoned tracks sometimes, but I don't always know if that's because there's nothing salvageable there or if there's another reason they aren't broken up and melted down (if needed).  It's obviously a lot of metal.

 

Depends on what the manufacturer still makes or how applicable it is to the new fleet. In many cases, railcar manufacturers utilize "designed obsolescence" so that a new fleet must be acquired after a couple of decades. The two manufacturers of Cleveland's rail fleet stopped making replacement parts for those fleets several years ago, so GCRTA either has to cannibalize it own fleet or make its own replacement part in-house. It's doing both, but the cannibalization will take its toll as the fleet shrinks from its current roster of 68 cars (40 Red Line, 28 Blue/Green lines). Each year there will be fewer Blue/Green line rail cars available during winter or for special events like St. Patrick's Day or Browns games. As more cars are retired, it will then be felt during rush hours where GCRTA needs 13 or 14 cars in service (not including those cycling through Central Rail for routine maintenance/inspection). It will mean that one of the light-rail lines, probably the Green Line, cannot offer its current rush-hour frequency. Then as more cars are retired, GCRTA may have to replace one of the light-rail lines entirely with buses. Then as more cars are retired, the other light rail line will follow.

 

But I also contend that the light-rail lines, especially the Green Line, need more riders with more offices and traffic generators downtown, a more stable Shaker Square, plus stronger ridership anchors at the east ends of the rail lines. The Blue Line is getting that anchor. The Green Line still needs one. Sadly, GCRTA selling its right of way between the east/west lanes of Shaker Boulevard blocks an extension to a strong anchor like Beachwood Place. The alternative is to develop around the Warrensville, Belvoir and/or Green road stops. And one of the light-rail lines must go to University Circle, which is the largest commuter destination in Cleveland from the eastern suburbs.

 

Many of these "vision/restructuring issues" won't ever appear on a politician's radar unless there's a crisis attached to it. The railcar situation can actually be an opportunity.

What really still bothers me is the Statehouse blatantly ignoring ODOT's transit needs study.  For all of the griping about ODOT (the vast majority of negatives about the Department are because of political policy decisions), it is a very fact based organization at most levels. Most people would argue its partial to road projects by looking at the funding.

 

So for the Statehouse to pretend the study doesn't exist is infuriating frankly. Not to mention it not only shows the needs of large cities but transit for small towns (elderly and poor) who also have no other means of travel.

 

It seems most likely that this study will get buried unfortunately :|

Passing Issue 1 was a big step in the right direction.  Our state legislature has some balance in its future.

This:

 

Angie Schmitt  7 hours ago

"My comment on this is blaming the state: yes. But also, regional leaders in NE Ohio deserve blame. Because NE Ohio has gotten money from the state for transportation projects when we've asked for it. We got $10 million for a pedestrian bridge (Thanks, GCP!) and we got $260 some million for the Opportunity Corridor, plus another huge boatload for two innerbelt bridges. Our leaders, the real power brokers, haven't pushed for this because they don't care. Incredibly shortsighted and irresponsible. More than 30,000 rides a day on this rail system. Even though we don't appreciate it, it is a gem."

 

 

 

But I also contend that the light-rail lines, especially the Green Line, need more riders with more offices and traffic generators downtown, a more stable Shaker Square, plus stronger ridership anchors at the east ends of the rail lines. The Blue Line is getting that anchor. The Green Line still needs one. Sadly, GCRTA selling its right of way between the east/west lanes of Shaker Boulevard blocks an extension to a strong anchor like Beachwood Place. The alternative is to develop around the Warrensville, Belvoir and/or Green road stops. And one of the light-rail lines must go to University Circle, which is the largest commuter destination in Cleveland from the eastern suburbs.

 

The Blue Line already has Chagrin-Lee-Avalon (Shaker Towne Center or whatever you want to call it).  It's not necessarily a ped-friendly area, but it does have a lot of retail and trip generators, and is a major bus/rail transfer station.  The Blue Line also a number of apartment clusters which generate rail traffic.  The Green Line has none of this, with the exception of the giant parking lot a Green Rd which is a regional draw for downtown, rush hour commuters.

^ Yeah, Shaker Towne Center is not really at all "oriented" toward transit. I used to take the Rapid out there to go to Heinen's before the one downtown opened, and it was quite an unpleasant trek getting form the station to the shopping plaza, especially in the winter (I hope Heinen's appreciated my irrational loyalty). Hopefully with the new station coming online that connection can be improved.

^The new Lee Road station is now in use, though not fully completed -- there are still barricades, the elevators don't appear to be in operation and finishing  touches, like roofing and lighting, aren't complete.... It is, however, pretty impressive compared to its predecessors and esp in context with the most beautiful, TOD/transit friendly aspect of the whole neighborhood: the Roaring 20s, Tudor-style Kingsbury mix-use building on the Lee-Van Aken corner where the shops appear to have had an upgrade/makeover in recent years.  Too bad all 4 corners don't have Kingsbury-like developments on them...

 

...  And yet, maybe some positive change for the area is afoot with the fairly recent appointment of a new Shaker Hts Devel. Corp chair, Nick Fedor.  See: http://www.cleveland.com/shaker-heights/index.ssf/2015/03/shaker_heights_development_cor_1.html

 

This:

 

Angie Schmitt  7 hours ago

"My comment on this is blaming the state: yes. But also, regional leaders in NE Ohio deserve blame. Because NE Ohio has gotten money from the state for transportation projects when we've asked for it. We got $10 million for a pedestrian bridge (Thanks, GCP!) and we got $260 some million for the Opportunity Corridor, plus another huge boatload for two innerbelt bridges. Our leaders, the real power brokers, haven't pushed for this because they don't care. Incredibly shortsighted and irresponsible. More than 30,000 rides a day on this rail system. Even though we don't appreciate it, it is a gem."

 

Cannot emphasize this enough.  Local leadership needs to get behind our rail system if we expect anything good to happen.  To this point, no such luck.  Where are the mayors and councils of Cleveland, of Shaker, of Lakewood?  What about the county council?  What about the board members of RTA?  Speak up!

I'm not convinced that just because local leaders could convince the state to spend Turnpike tolls and gas tax money on some projects that they could have just as easily convinced the state to spend general fund money on massive transit capital costs.  But that said, I definitely agree with the overall point. Our county has been awash in discretionary funds of its own in recent years due to the casino and sales tax hike. Maybe unfair to portray it this way if they didn't know about the issue, but the county government chose a convention center hotel over new trains. It chose $4M for a new chandelier at PHS. It's choosing new Public Square. It's choosing a lakefront bridge.

 

I certainly don't think everything else needs to grind to a halt while this issue is hanging out there, but KJP is right that there needs to be a public discussions so we can have some sense what priority-setting there really is.

^ True, but to be fair, there's never really been an outcry about this stuff for the local leaders to hear. Until recently, most people never even knew about the problem with the rail cars. Hell, people that work at RTA didn't even fully know the problems. Joe C has himself admitted that he could be a better advocate when it comes to transit funding. That's why we as citizens and supporters of transit need to organize to get the message out there so that it becomes a priority in the minds of our political and business leaders.

^It's hard to know what's going on behind the scenes, so tough to say what county leaders know. FWIW, most of RTA's board members are appointees of the County and county's various mayors/city managers.  If county officials don't know about this, it points to a major problem with Joe C or the board.

 

The alternative possibility is that RTA and local leadership has been thinking more about this than they can publicly let on and are optimistic they'll be able to get a lot of money from someone. It seems impossible that Joe C and his board hasn't been thinking about this. Some of this depends on how long the current vehicles can really be stretched. RTA has been assuming till 2025, which means there still may be time, but KJP's investigation suggests RTA is being optimistic there, at least for the LRT.

I don't just mean the immediate railcar crisis, I mean leadership has been silent in a much broader sense.  Besides, we shouldn't have to guess where people stand on this.  It's the lead-ers who should be lead-ing the outcry, especially if they're the ones to whom critical inside information is available.  In some ways, this is the whole point of having people in charge.

 

It's a shame that the last rail expansion, the waterfront line, was so ill-conceived.  It's also a shame that the red line cars now feature new "rapid transit" maps that include the bus lines on Euclid and Clifton.  "Pay no heed to the distinct advantages of rail!"

Well, perhaps that's the issue here-- the sense of urgency. Does Joe C. actually think that the Breda cars can last until 2025? Or is that just what he is saying publicly? He pretty strongly rebuked KJP's assertion that the light rail system faces an imminent shut down. But the AAO piece wasn't just pulled out of thin air. People very familiar with the Breda cars also agree that their time is quickly running out.

 

But Ohio's miniscule transit funding has been an issue for a number of years.  To his limited credit, Joe C has talked about it for years, most notably regarding rising diesel fuel prices for buses although I haven't heard him talk so much about state funding for Rapid infrastructure maintenance.  But the point is, it goes far beyond Calabrese... Where's the mayor?  City Council?  GCP???? As Angie Schmidt notes, the Rapid is very underappreciated local asset.

 

... and what's galling and paradoxical, is all the hoopla to clean up/fix up the Rapid for the RNC, where Republicans, led by most notably our guv-turned-(failing) presidential candidate, are the prime culprits for urban transit starvation ... and highway overspending and construction.

 

It's also a shame that the red line cars now feature new "rapid transit" maps that include the bus lines on Euclid and Clifton.  "Pay no heed to the distinct advantages of rail!"

 

Thank you... Just 2 days ago, after a nice meal and shopping in dense, gleaming Uptown, we were (somewhat happily) stuck evening rush hour traffic along Euclid stretching from Uptown all the way into Stokes Blvd and the Clinic... it was stop 'n go,  often with nobody moving ... including a couple Health Line buses: the future of Cleveland transit in many local eyes..  Some Rapid Transit I said as I looked at my friend and derisively laughed.  Yeah, right...

^ Thus the need for a Red Line extension and LRT reroute to UC to alleviate car congestion there!

I no longer use the term "bus rapid transit" because it just plain isn't.  And I'm increasingly upset by the false equivalence RTA is suggesting.

Another official response from Calabrese to the rail car issues raised by KJP: http://www.riderta.com/news/nov-6-2015-statement-rta-gm-joe-calabrese-about-rail-funding

 

Fairly obnoxious in tone, even if I sympathize somewhat with his defensiveness. The tone is fairly dismissive and distracts from whatever substance there is. And there isn't much in there. Just repeats that RTA thinks its fleet should last until 2025 and that RTA will need financial help to buy new rail cars. I guess it's comforting, though, for Calabrese to be very explicit that there are no plans to step back from rail as a mode.

 

The end of the statement is sort of ridiculous though. He cites some other transit systems with even older cars, but I have no idea what that's supposed to prove. The age of the rail fleet in Boston, for example, is treated as a scandal in local and state government, and is held up as an example of political and managerial ineptitude. Not sure that's the comparison RTA should be highlighting.

 

It may very well be that RTA knows the state will end up coming through, and sees this as fear-mongering, but I don't care. It's a real issue with a huge price tag that has garnered very little public discussion. Big kudos to KJP to shining a big light on it.

Many of those same individuals who are upset that RTA sold its early 1900s streetcars, are now questioning the maintainability of our 1985 railcars!

 

I sure hope he's not referring to me or All Aboard Ohio, because if he is, that's incredibly wrong and downright offensive. Nor should I or AAO be lumped in with those folks anymore than Joe should be lumped in with those who wish to rip out the rails and replace trains with BRT. He's not that guy. And we're not those "individuals."

 

Worse, this isn't just about the railcar fleet. To relegate this debate only to the rail fleet does a disservice to the public transit rider, those who want to be transit riders and Northeast Ohio overall where a community conversation is overdue about a new vision for public transportation, including funding, service area, service delivery and organizational issues. All Aboard Ohio is concerned that GCRTA has heard only our concerns about the railcar fleet and that it has gone on the defensive about this issue, rather than use it as an opportunity to go on the offensive to advance its case for a comprehensive, multi-county transportation solution. A lot has changed since GCRTA was formed 40 years ago but very little has changed with GCRTA's organizational and funding models -- except that it has shrank and become less relevant. We will continue to reach out to more stakeholders and audiences to communicate the need for updating how our caretakers and deliverers of public transportation fund and provide service in Northeast Ohio.

^ I think Strap and K said it better than I could.

 

Rather than getting defensive about their commitment to rail, they should have used this as an opportunity to initiate real change at the state level. Instead the tone was basically "Don't worry. Everything will be aaallll right."

Here's AAO's response:

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/11/06/restructure-rebuild-expand-neo-transit/

Calabrese's churlish response is unbecoming of Greater Cleveland's transit chief.  In particular he notes:

 

"The truth is that more than 45 percent of RTA’s capital budget is allotted to rail, yet rail serves only 19 percent of RTA’s customers. If for this reason only, logic may suggest that RTA rail services should be abandoned. ... But RTA has no such plan."

 

Given that this has been a constant quote/theme of Joe's, it makes one tend to believe his first 2 sentences and not his last.

 

AAO's response is much more civil and enlightened and they deserve applause for shedding a light on this serious problem ... and the area's transit future in general.  It's a conversation Cleveland's officials need to be having.  It's just too bad the major local media, especially the PD, is not covering it.

Capital budget isn't total budget.  I wonder what percent of RTA's total budget is allotted to rail.

^Some of this bus service has likely been restored since 2012, but I think it's a pretty safe assumption rail service has been consuming an increasing share of the operating budget.  I was actually sympathetic to that part of Calabrese's statement. Given how much RTA has decimated bus service, calling him "anti-rail" seems absurd to me. "Anti-expansion" is far more apt, and I don't fault him for that.

 

http://www.tcf.org/blog/detail/magic-disappearing-bus

 

Unless someone has the info already collected, I'm going to see if I can find a break down of RTA's current operating budget.

If the damage done to city streets by RTA buses were allocated to RTA's budget (including the provision of preventative measures like bus pads at bus stops, etc), I think we would see a very different accounting of capital costs. Of course, that's assuming RTA could afford it. And maybe that's how we can better sell a region-wide funding increase for transit -- by giving municipalities financial assistance to resurface street and roads that serve as bus routes.

Interesting blog from 2014 on land use and public transportation comparisons between Toronto and Cleveland/most other US cities....

 

http://hardystevensoninsights.com/2014/01/30/torontos-elites-and-scarboroughs-transit-victims/

We're not alone, but the state and federal governments are unwilling to help us. So we may have to help ourselves....

 

The $102 Billion Backlog Facing US Urban Rail Systems

http://www.rpa.org/article/102-billion-backlog-facing-urban-rail-systems

Christof Spieler, "Selling the Vision for Better Transit"

 

We're not alone, but the state and federal governments are unwilling to help us. So we may have to help ourselves....

 

The $102 Billion Backlog Facing US Urban Rail Systems

http://www.rpa.org/article/102-billion-backlog-facing-urban-rail-systems

 

I know a few years ago there was dire talk of Chicago's L shutting down due to the lack of CTA funding repair ... It says a lot that the Report's 2 photos of deterioration are of RTA's Rapid system.  That 1st Red Line photo must have been after severe flooding.  I can't imagine those tracks were even usable at that point... As for that horrible crumbling shot of the Lee Rd, Blue Line station, it would be nice if an "after" shot could be included of the nearly-completed handsome new station that is replacing it.

I found an interesting quote from Leonard Ronis (RTA's first GM) in an interview with the PD in 1977. 38 years later, it's time to seriously have that discussion...

 

Great find!!!!

I found an interesting quote from Leonard Ronis (RTA's first GM) in an interview with the PD in 1977. 38 years later, it's time to seriously have that discussion...

 

 

... and this is at a time when there were about 1.7M people living in Cuyahoga County.  Too bad, in nearly 40 years, county leaders haven't come together to move forward on this... and, worse, that the transit agency (LCT) in a populous, commuter county like Lorain doesn't even have any bus routes into downtown Cleveland.  Ohio continues to be so byzantine and factional.  At the very least Cuyahoga, with GCRTA, is one of the few counties to have it's transit act together despite the financial woes it's now facing.  As long as this state remains dominated by its Republican, anti-transit, every-man-for-himself mentality, I don't see a multi-county (truly) regional transit authority materializing anytime soon... I hope I'm wrong, but ...

I can tell you that Joe C is out there stumping for it. Ronis may have been ahead of his time, but GCRTA was set up to be multi county. It may have the legal authority to partner or even merge with transit agencies in surrounding counties.

 

Want to see balkanization? Why does Medina County have TWO transit agencies? And neither apparently wants to have anything to do with the other...

^KJP, I wonder that thing about Medina County all the time!  And why can't either one have some type of service in conjunction with RTA?  I would love so much for a ParknRide somewhere in Medina that the local bus can take you too.  Everyone in my neighborhood that I know, works within Cuyahoga County, if not downtown. 

Get your neighbors to write to their county commissioners, especially Tim Smith:  http://www.co.medina.oh.us/commiss/commiss.htm

 

The message? Urge them to provide additional, dedicated county funding for transit, and get Medina County's two transit agencies to merge or at least partner with GCRTA to more transit within Medina County and enhanced transportation to Cuyahoga County, especially the airport and downtown.

A tremendous piece of research we need in order to significantly boost transit funding in NE Ohio and statewide....

 

A Long Ride to Work: Job Access and Public Transportation in Northeast Ohio

11.23.15

 

Introduction

The daily commute is more than just an individual’s journey to work; it also represents opportunities that that person can access. Research finds that poor job accessibility tends to significantly increase the duration of joblessness among lower-paid displaced workers, especially for minorities, females, and the elderly. 1 Longer commute distances have also been found to negatively impact the economic mobility of low-income households from one generation to the next, a finding that resonates here in northeast Ohio, which has among the lowest upward-mobility rates in the country. 2 For many workers who rely on public transportation to get to work, then, buses and trains connect them not only to a job, but also to a livelihood—and play a role in positioning these workers and their children for future success in life.

 

A recent Brookings report found that the Cleveland metro area experienced the largest drop (27 percent) in the number of jobs near the average resident from 2000 to 2012 among the 96 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States. 3 This finding holds whether constricting the analysis to the city, suburbs, or entire metro and is even more pronounced in areas of high poverty (where the drop was 35 percent). The story for the Akron MSA is not much better: It ranked 84th and experienced a 14 percent drop in jobs located near the average resident. These dynamics result from a complex mix of factors including job loss, job relocation within the region, and the suburbanization of poverty.

 

MORE:

https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/a-look-behind-the-numbers/albtn-20151123-a-long-ride-to-work-job-access-and-public-transportation-in-northeast-ohio.aspx

^Interesting... The news re NEO is difficult, but not all bad, as these caught my eye:

 

- The Downtown—University Circle—Ohio City corridor is also the largest by far of any employment center in the region, and, in terms of job density, is unparalleled in the entire State of Ohio despite much economic hardship over the years.

 

- While the metro areas to date that have established TOD funds are strong markets like Minneapolis, Boston, Denver, and Seattle, parts of Northeast Ohio such as the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County boast comparable public transportation systems in terms of coverage and service frequency.

 

- Though a weak market, Northeast Ohio is home to strong CDFIs and philanthropic institutions that are necessary to make such outside-the-box solutions work.

Turns out that earlier this fall, the Fund for Our Economic Future (the Fund) also released "The Geography of Jobs: The increasing distance between jobs and workers and why it matters for future growth," a synthesis of existing research on job sprawl and job access in Northeast Ohio. The main findings include:

 

+ Job growth over the past 20 years occurred predominantly in suburbs and the conversion of rural areas, continuing a long-term trend since the 1950s.

+ Outward job growth affects all Northeast Ohio residents regardless of where they live.

+ Outward job growth disproportionately affects the 200,000 residents living in economically distressed neighborhoods. Commuters by transit in Northeast Ohio spend almost two hours more per day to get to the nearest job hub, versus those who commute by car.

 

Website:

https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/forefront/ff-v6n03/ff-20151123-v6n03-job-accessibility-neo.aspx

 

Report:

http://www.thefundneo.org/sites/default/files/content-media/Geography%20of%20Jobs%20draft_092915.pdf

Also this from Crains:

 

Improving public transportation could bolster Northeast Ohio's economy, Cleveland Fed study shows

 

Improving the public transportation network in Northeast Ohio could bolster the economy by creating better access between jobs and employers to enrich the labor force, according to new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

 

In a study released Monday, Nov. 23 dubbed “A Long Ride to Work: Job Access and Public Transportation in Northeast Ohio,” authors Brett Barkley and Alexandre Gomes-Pereira point out that the largest share of the regional workforce — those with only high school diplomas — have the lowest level of job access, and access overall varies widely. In outlying counties, for example, less than 10% of regional jobs can be access by public transportation in 90 minutes or fewer.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20151123/NEWS/151129901?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

 

Wonder what GCRTA's and Cleveland Public Power's electrical systems might fetch?

 

NSW Govt in Australia leases its electrical grid to yield $10B for rail & other infrastructure improvements.

https://t.co/BHfkQfk5kr

Wonder what GCRTA's and Cleveland Public Power's electrical systems might fetch?

 

NSW Govt in Australia leases its electrical grid to yield $10B for rail & other infrastructure improvements.

https://t.co/BHfkQfk5kr

 

To answer my own question above, I asked around and some feel that Cleveland Public Power's overhead and underground transmission lines and conduits could fetch a long-term lease amount of perhaps $500 million. GCRTA also has received a proposal from a large firm to lease its electrical systems for an unknown amount. But let's just stick with the $500 million figure for now. What could be done with that?

 

It could pay the nonfederal share (20% to 50%) of the following projects:

 

+ Tower City station trackbed replacement--Phase2 (20% share or $3M)

+ Address GCRTA's $254M state-of-good-repair backlog of bus and rail capital needs (20% share or $51M)

+ Replace GCRTA's railcar fleet for $280M (20% share or $56M)

+ Modernize GCRTA's outdated overhead electric catenary poles/wires for $80M (20% share or $16M)

+ Extend Red Line to Noble Road, phase 1 for $300M (50% share or $150M

+ Blue Line rerouted to University Circle for $175M (100% share)

+ I-480/I-271 transitway North Olmsted-Mayfield for $100 million (50% share or $50M)

 

If a 50/50 local/federal share was possible for rerouting the Blue Line to UC (or the hospitals contributed!), then things like extending the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR to downtown for up to $25-30 million and providing a local share of $60 million for all three phases of the multi-modal transportation center could be possible.

 

^Interesting... Any news or whispers about the Red Line extension proposal?

^Interesting... Any news or whispers about the Red Line extension proposal?

 

Only that it will never happen absent significant new funding from local or state sources. It will be able eligible for federal New Start funding, but only if a 50% nonfederal match can be found. It would be a huge asset for reducing University Circle traffic and for getting inner city residents to suburban jobs, including via Laketran and RTA bus connections much more quickly, addressing many of the jobs-access concerns raised by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, Fund For Our Economic Future, and Brookings that are holding back our region's economy.

^Interesting... Any news or whispers about the Red Line extension proposal?

 

Only that it will never happen absent significant new funding from local or state sources. It will be able eligible for federal New Start funding, but only if a 50% nonfederal match can be found. It would be a huge asset for reducing University Circle traffic and for getting inner city residents to suburban jobs, including via Laketran and RTA bus connections much more quickly, addressing many of the jobs-access concerns raised by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, Fund For Our Economic Future, and Brookings that are holding back our region's economy.

 

Maybe it's time to raise the heat on our supposedly moderate, Every Man governor-turned-presidential candidate, soon-to-be high-profile RNC host right here in Cleveland.  No one seems to want to press him on the transit mess he's perpetuated in this City and in this State, especially with his high-profile veto of the 3-C's Amtrak that would have help Smart-growth Ohio and created thousands of jobs.  And now, here in Cleveland, comes a golden opportunity to showcase TOD/Smart Growth in one of the major "downtowns" of the State: University Circle... Even though Mr. Kasich's stingy, anti-transit stance dooms this very worthwhile Red Line expansion that would facilitate University Circle's viability even more.  Worse yet, Mr. Kasich's anti-transit philosophy is putting Cleveland's rapid transit operation in jeopardy but adversely affecting RTA's ability to buy new rail cars and retire its old worn out ones.

 

Why is Kasich getting a free pass on these important issues for Cleveland?  Won't somebody question him publicly about it ... or are we just content to not spoiling his little GOP party here next summer?  Where are our priorities?

^Interesting... Any news or whispers about the Red Line extension proposal?

 

Only that it will never happen absent significant new funding from local or state sources. It will be able eligible for federal New Start funding, but only if a 50% nonfederal match can be found. It would be a huge asset for reducing University Circle traffic and for getting inner city residents to suburban jobs, including via Laketran and RTA bus connections much more quickly, addressing many of the jobs-access concerns raised by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, Fund For Our Economic Future, and Brookings that are holding back our region's economy.

 

What actions is RTA taking to seek funds for this project?  Has the Kasich administration been given an opportunity to turn down an extension of the Red Line?  Has any county levy been proposed for it?  RTA is uniquely responsible for making those efforts.  No point in blaming others if the Red Line's own parent organization refuses to submit any proposal or request.

 

It's possible that actual movement toward a meaningful extension of an already-popular rail service might garner some public support.

The Red Line extension plan has not yet been submitted to RTA for staff of board review. But it should be submitted soon.