They call rail+ something like what San Francisco has, so is that virtually a streetcar?

 

It's Rapid+ which really has no equal anywhere, even though it combines a number of existing technologies to extend the reach of our Rapid system here, hence the "+". All Aboard Ohio came up with the idea for a vehicle that runs on rails -- it can operate on high-speed dedicated track like what we have in Cleveland or it can operate in the streets or it can operate under diesel power without overhead wires where service frequency is less. It would look very much the like the RiverLINE train above but also have the ability to be powered by electricity, as the RiverLINE's cars do in Europe.

Sounds amazing and very innovative but with the leadership we have I feel as though it's a pipe dream

Get your leaders to hear you or get new leaders. You are not victims.

RTA looks to the northeast for possible rail, bus line extension

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on September 03, 2013 at 6:34 PM, updated September 03, 2013 at 6:41 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The public will have a chance to weigh in next week on a study that looks at whether to extend bus or rail service, or a combination of the two, to the Lake County line or beyond.

 

Planners will sketch out their early findings for a northeasterly push by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority at three community meetings. The alternatives include:

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/rta_looks_northeastward_for_po.html#incart_river#incart_m-rpt-2

 

I was rather surprised to see such an extensive article about this project -- that after all isn't a highway -- in the PD... I'm also gratified that Mike Polensek is on board with a rail extension.  Advocates for rail need someone as pushy and noisy as Mike P. here.  One of the biggest impediments to rail expansion in this region is precisely the lack of prominent friends of rail transit, which is the opposite of big highway projects (i.e. the lockstep unanimity across party lines to get the OC built, no matter what).  Prominent pols in this city and state tend to go silent when rail proposals arise with rare exceptions: ie. Mike White and, then, Voinovich re the Waterfront Line (and you see, it got built), as opposed to Dual Hub -- where the same Mike White and commish Tim Hagan turned against it, ... and it died.  Ted Strickland was the rare Ohio guv who strongly backed the cross-state 3-C Amtrak proposal.  Unfortunately, he was outmanned by regressive Republican state legislators leading to the election of the current governor who literally killed it ...

 

It would be great if advocates of the Red Line extension can other pols, in addition to Polensek on board ... someone like, say, the Mayor maybe.  Who's home district includes some of the highest % of transit-dependent constituents in, not just the county, ... but the State.  And yet, I have yet to here him speak up for transit the way he has highway (OC) and big box (W. 117, Steelyards) projects.

 

... but then again, Jane Campbell, who grew up in extraordinary rapid-transit friendly Shaker Heights, didn't speak up for rail either... Let’s hope Mike Polensek’s large megaphone, re this project, can turn the tide.

 

I note, on RTA's website dedicated to extension discussion, there are only photos of the Health Line. 

I note, on RTA's website dedicated to extension discussion, there are only photos of the Health Line. 

 

RTA has no intention of expanding the rail system. RTA execs have told their planners not to recommend rail in their alternatives analyses. And one RTA planner actually kicked a colleague in the leg when he said he would support a streetcar project. Don't get mad at me for disclosing these actions, RTA. I'm sure you can defend them. Otherwise, why else would you do them? So the only reason why RTA does an alternatives analysis is because its wants federal funds to expand BRT. If you want to see the rail system in your city expand, you need to move to a new city. I've already started sending out resumes to other cities.

I note, on RTA's website dedicated to extension discussion, there are only photos of the Health Line. 

 

RTA has no intention of expanding the rail system. RTA execs have told their planners not to recommend rail in their alternatives analyses. And one RTA planner actually kicked a colleague in the leg when he said he would support a streetcar project. Don't get mad at me for disclosing these actions, RTA. I'm sure you can defend them. Otherwise, why else would you do them? So the only reason why RTA does an alternatives analysis is because its wants federal funds to expand BRT. If you want to see the rail system in your city expand, you need to move to a new city. I've already started sending out resumes to other cities.

I've heard a lot of horrible things about RTA from RTA staff (low level, not higher ups), and this lack of vision is one of them. Pretty much all stems from an old guard control over the agency that has a very outdated view of the world and is too afraid of change.

Perhaps they're concerned about the larger long-term investment necessary to fund a rail expansion? RTA isn't exactly flush with cash, are they? Don't get me wrong, I would prefer rail/streetcar/subway to BRT any day, but I know that was the reason that the HealthLine became BRT - money.

RTA has no intention of expanding the rail system. RTA execs have told their planners not to recommend rail in their alternatives analyses. And one RTA planner actually kicked a colleague in the leg when he said he would support a streetcar project. Don't get mad at me for disclosing these actions, RTA. I'm sure you can defend them. Otherwise, why else would you do them? So the only reason why RTA does an alternatives analysis is because its wants federal funds to expand BRT. If you want to see the rail system in your city expand, you need to move to a new city. I've already started sending out resumes to other cities.

 

I'm not surprised, but this should be looked into.  It's not right that RTA is being dishonest with the public and trying to appear it supports rail when, in reality, it does not.  (I think Joe C's been pretty clear about this)  It's blatant hypocrisy and responsible public persons, like Mike Polansek (who really is interested in rail for his district), should be informed of this.  If this, or any other rail project lacks FTA's merits for funding, then so be it.  But for RTA officials con the public and game the (federal) system is inexcusable.

 

I completely understand some of RTA's reluctance about considering rail. When I started trying to figuring out in the "Cleveland Transit Future" thread of what kind of rail expansions RTA could afford, there wasn't much it could do with its existing finances. It lacks the capacity for many of the things we would like to see. But not all rail is expensive. A few streetcar routes sponsored by others and financed by TIFs are very doable. And the existing rail system needs to do what it was designed to do -- be the core of a regional system that was fed by lighter-density rail and bus services -- including streetcars and the Rapid+ concept operating over under-utilized freight lines. Those Rapid+ trains can be done with relatively little capital and operating cost, possibly less than BRT. But what bothers me is when Joe C says rail costs $150 per mile and too expensive to be considered, he feeds ignorance of those who look to him for answers and undermines the very process necessary for getting unbiased answers and exploring new ideas for GCRTA to reach beyond its stagnant tax base.

I note, on RTA's website dedicated to extension discussion, there are only photos of the Health Line. 

 

RTA has no intention of expanding the rail system. RTA execs have told their planners not to recommend rail in their alternatives analyses. And one RTA planner actually kicked a colleague in the leg when he said he would support a streetcar project. Don't get mad at me for disclosing these actions, RTA. I'm sure you can defend them. Otherwise, why else would you do them? So the only reason why RTA does an alternatives analysis is because its wants federal funds to expand BRT. If you want to see the rail system in your city expand, you need to move to a new city. I've already started sending out resumes to other cities.

I've heard a lot of horrible things about RTA from RTA staff (low level, not higher ups), and this lack of vision is one of them. Pretty much all stems from an old guard control over the agency that has a very outdated view of the world and is too afraid of change.

 

I've been saying this for years...at the strategic level they have always believed they have a captive audience and can do what they see fit.  Early examples include the full absorption of Maple Heights Transit and boosting their short term numbers during the early 80s with unruly CPSD teens.  I suspect there have been others.

 

To be fair, they are willing to make small changes which are pointed out to them and don't really cost money.  Some timelocked bureacracies won't even do that. 

 

I suspect that part of the reason Cimperman doesn't hate rail as much as decentralization of the system.  The downtown focus suits him just fine.

BTW, I strongly encourage anyone attending the public input meetings (starting tonight!) to read the Baseline Conditions Report first. It's a 10+mb report, at:

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/sites/default/files//documents/Baseline_Conditions_Report_v4_082813.pdf

^From the report, ridership on the 6/Healthline had a very impressive ridership increase:  3.1m to 4.6m from 2008 to 2012, a 52% increase, though the St. Clair route lost 20% from 2.3m to 1.9m in the same period.

^From the report, ridership on the 6/Healthline had a very impressive ridership increase:  3.1m to 4.6m from 2008 to 2012, a 52% increase, though the St. Clair route lost 20% from 2.3m to 1.9m in the same period.

During that time RTA cut back on the other routes up Euclid and forced riders to transfer to the HL causing part of the increase in HL ridership.

^Oh, that's unfortunate. Thank for providing context.

There were 30 people at Monday's meeting in East Cleveland. After the presentation in a nice theater-style auditorium, they went into an adjacent hallway for a look at maps and charts and 1-on-1 with the vendors and staff. A second meeting is tonight at WRHS, and then Thursday in Euclid. I hope you can make a presentation. If you can't, please visit the project Web site and make your feelings known.

Some suggestions All Aboard Ohio may make.......

 

dark red=existing Red Line;

bright red=1-mile extension of Red Line to new transit hub/redevelopment district;

dark purple=Phase 1 DMU rail service on NS RR;

light purple=Phase 2 DMU rail service on NS RR;

yellow=Collinwood BRT-lite

white=existing HealthLine

Other bus routes not shown

 

Overview map:

 

Zoom of Red Line extension and Collinwood BRT-Lite:

 

 

What could operate on the Purple Line shown on the maps above....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cchz30AWOgQ

 

^I love the idea of extending the Red Line one stop further to Coit (or Shaw or Noble.) I also like the idea of a more frequent route to the north from there that could be formed by a merging of the 30 and 37. But, if you're going to do that, why not push it a little further east on either Lakeshore or Waterloo to Villaview to 185th and end at Euclid Hospital? Then you'd give riders on the 39F a way to transfer onto it so they can get down to the Red Line?

 

Jerry, I'll be at the meeting on Thursday in Euclid. If you're there I'll say hi.

^I love the idea of extending the Red Line one stop further to Coit (or Shaw or Noble.) I also like the idea of a more frequent route to the north from there that could be formed by a merging of the 30 and 37. But, if you're going to do that, why not push it a little further east on either Lakeshore or Waterloo to Villaview to 185th and end at Euclid Hospital? Then you'd give riders on the 39F a way to transfer onto it so they can get down to the Red Line?

 

 

Thanks. The line shown represents infrastructure improvements, not so much where the buses should actually go. In our write-up, we refer only to a BRT-lite coming north on East 152nd to "North Collinwood."

 

I also agree the buses need to go at least to Euclid Hospital. BTW, note that the existing conditions found that the highest concentration of workers homes (based on age, etc) was along Lake Shore Boulevard in the northeast part of Euclid.

Some suggestions All Aboard Ohio may make.......

 

dark red=existing Red Line;

bright red=1-mile extension of Red Line to new transit hub/redevelopment district;

dark purple=Phase 1 DMU rail service on NS RR;

light purple=Phase 2 DMU rail service on NS RR;

yellow=Collinwood BRT-lite

white=existing HealthLine

Other bus routes not shown

 

Overview map:

 

 

Is that really a rail line all the way out to Willoughby? Man, I live in Lake County and I would ride that thing aaall the time if it was there. That's pretty much a pipe dream, though, right?

Is that really a rail line all the way out to Willoughby? Man, I live in Lake County and I would ride that thing aaall the time if it was there. That's pretty much a pipe dream, though, right?

 

Sure, it is a pipe dream if we act as if it is a pipe dream. Or, if we so choose, it is a realistic possibility if we pursue it as such. Creation of built environments is an act of will. You get out of it what you put into it. So is this rail service worth fighting for?

Is that really a rail line all the way out to Willoughby? Man, I live in Lake County and I would ride that thing aaall the time if it was there. That's pretty much a pipe dream, though, right?

 

Sure, it is a pipe dream if we act as if it is a pipe dream. Or, if we so choose, it is a realistic possibility if we pursue it as such. Creation of built environments is an act of will. You get out of it what you put into it. So is this rail service worth fighting for?

 

I like that thinking. I'm new to this stuff but if that is the proposal somewhere I'd come speak out in support for it in meetings or etc...I get so tired of needing to drive everywhere.

Note that GCRTA's rail operating costs per hour are something like $250 -- far above the national average for a heavy rail and a light rail system, and GCRTA's heavy rail system is operated more like a light rail system with unstaffed stations, 2-car trains, etc. Typical operating costs for light rail are about $200 per hour with some as low as $160 per hour (ie: Calgary). This will be used as a reason not to expand the rail system.

Why are GCRTA's costs for operating rail higher than the national average?  What contributes to this? 

Why are GCRTA's costs for operating rail higher than the national average?  What contributes to this? 

 

... you beat me to the punch.  Is this a comparison of our Heavy Rail to average Light Rail?  If so, why compare apples to oranges?  I can't imagine out Heavy Rail operation, with the short 2-car trains and unmanned  stations (except TC) being more than the national avg.  And if we're looking at LRT, why not compare only the Blue/Green/WFL lines to the national average?

I don't have national average figures for heavy rail, only for light rail. And on that score BOTH our light rail and heavy rail systems are above the national average for light rail.

KJP do you have any insights into why these costs are higher here and what can be done to correct this imbalance? 

KJP do you have any insights into why these costs are higher here and what can be done to correct this imbalance? 

 

No, I wish I did. The only thing I can figure is that some of the work rules at Central Rail (East 55th) contribute to this. For example, a Rapid operator who drives the trains out on the mainline tracks cannot operate trains into the rail yard at Central Rail. Instead, they change operators to a Yard Hostler-type employee who then moves the rail car around the yard, and also into the maintenance facility. But I do not know how many "Yard Hostler" employees there are. Another factor may be that RTA's rail division employees may be paid more than the bus division? I do not know how RTA employee salaries compare with other similarly sized transit systems.

 

But wages and work rules are the first place to look for cost savings since this is the source of most of GCRTA's operating expenses. Another reason why this is the likely cause is because All Aboard Ohio's Cleveland Coordinator asked Joe Calabrese the other day what can be done to reduce the per-hour operating cost of the rail system. Joe's response? "Nothing." That tells me its contractual wage/work rule issue.

Wow, thanks KJP.  That sounds like an unfortunate situation.

This poor work rules/added operating costs situation is surprising given the fact that RTA has been relatively fiscally healthy in the last year or so, allowing for the addition of services, including the extension of certain bus routes and the increase of service frequency on certain routes, like the HL, No. 26 and Waterfront line.

This poor work rules/added operating costs situation is surprising given the fact that RTA has been relatively fiscally healthy in the last year or so, allowing for the addition of services, including the extension of certain bus routes and the increase of service frequency on certain routes, like the HL, No. 26 and Waterfront line.

 

This isn't a suddenly new situation. Thus RTA can design and budget a transit system accordingly. And RTA deserves credit for an innovative labor deal it got last year http://allaboardohio.org/2012/04/18/cleveland-rta-innovates-new-labor-deal/.

 

That's a good start and helped reduce labor costs from nearly 75 percent of total annual operating costs to the low-60s. If they can get it lower, then it could help reduce the cost of expansions particularly on the rail side.

Why are GCRTA's costs for operating rail higher than the national average?  What contributes to this?

 

stay tuned.

KJP do you have any insights into why these costs are higher here and what can be done to correct this imbalance? 

 

No, I wish I did. The only thing I can figure is that some of the work rules at Central Rail (East 55th) contribute to this. For example, a Rapid operator who drives the trains out on the mainline tracks cannot operate trains into the rail yard at Central Rail. Instead, they change operators to a Yard Hostler-type employee who then moves the rail car around the yard, and also into the maintenance facility. But I do not know how many "Yard Hostler" employees there are. Another factor may be that RTA's rail division employees may be paid more than the bus division? I do not know how RTA employee salaries compare with other similarly sized transit systems.

 

But wages and work rules are the first place to look for cost savings since this is the source of most of GCRTA's operating expenses. Another reason why this is the likely cause is because All Aboard Ohio's Cleveland Coordinator asked Joe Calabrese the other day what can be done to reduce the per-hour operating cost of the rail system. Joe's response? "Nothing." That tells me its contractual wage/work rule issue.

 

No shock.  Highly restrictive "work rules" designed to maximize headcount (thereby maximizing union membership and dues collection) were a staple of the automotive industry and its primary suppliers until they found themselves faced with foreign competition.  It's still an issue with many public sector unions, which is why there's been an effort to rein them in. 

Wasnt it stated on here that it costs something like $60,000 a year to hire someone to sit at a rail station and collect tickets/help customers?

Wasnt it stated on here that it costs something like $60,000 a year to hire someone to sit at a rail station and collect tickets/help customers?

 

Yep. It's why they don't do it anymore, except at Tower City. But how does this, and the work rules compare with other cities? Our rail systems raw costs are higher than the national average. I want to know why.

Wasnt it stated on here that it costs something like $60,000 a year to hire someone to sit at a rail station and collect tickets/help customers?

 

Yep. It's why they don't do it anymore, except at Tower City. But how does this, and the work rules compare with other cities? Our rail systems raw costs are higher than the national average. I want to know why.

 

That wage makes no sense. It takes no skill to do that job. It should be minimum wage to $10 an hour.

Wasnt it stated on here that it costs something like $60,000 a year to hire someone to sit at a rail station and collect tickets/help customers?

 

That doesn't sound like much to me if that is the cost of hiring the employee and not their salary.  Factoring in the overhead, that probably means they were paid a salary of about $30,000.

The $60,000 figure includes everything -- wages, withholdings, employer-paid health care, retirement, etc that comes with a union job. Believe me, I think we should have more of these benefits in more jobs in this country, but this is all a subject for another thread. I want to see what the cost components are of the rail system and how they compare with other transit rail systems and our own bus services. I want the context. Only then can we find out how these are used by GCRTA to opt out of rail expansions like a Red Line extension or a new DMU service (which has no local precedence and thus an opportunity to start anew with its own cost structure).

 

And if GCRTA is unwilling to do this, then maybe we start a campaign for Euclid or other cities to opt out of GCRTA, or we go to the state to change laws addressing transit labor contracts. The only thing that matters is to provide transportation services. We are not helpless.

 

 

I would guess that more detailed cost data is foia-able. It's a really interesting question you raise, KJP. 

KJP do you have any insights into why these costs are higher here and what can be done to correct this imbalance? 

 

No, I wish I did. The only thing I can figure is that some of the work rules at Central Rail (East 55th) contribute to this. For example, a Rapid operator who drives the trains out on the mainline tracks cannot operate trains into the rail yard at Central Rail. Instead, they change operators to a Yard Hostler-type employee who then moves the rail car around the yard, and also into the maintenance facility. But I do not know how many "Yard Hostler" employees there are. Another factor may be that RTA's rail division employees may be paid more than the bus division? I do not know how RTA employee salaries compare with other similarly sized transit systems.

 

But wages and work rules are the first place to look for cost savings since this is the source of most of GCRTA's operating expenses. Another reason why this is the likely cause is because All Aboard Ohio's Cleveland Coordinator asked Joe Calabrese the other day what can be done to reduce the per-hour operating cost of the rail system. Joe's response? "Nothing." That tells me its contractual wage/work rule issue.

 

No shock.  Highly restrictive "work rules" designed to maximize headcount (thereby maximizing union membership and dues collection) were a staple of the automotive industry and its primary suppliers until they found themselves faced with foreign competition.  It's still an issue with many public sector unions, which is why there's been an effort to rein them in. 

 

It isn't labor cost.

 

The operating cost isn't much higher than other systems.

 

Stay tuned.

News Herald had a piece about the possible expansion. And the comments are right about what I expected. 

 

RTA looking for feedback on possible expansion into Euclid, Lake County

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is looking for public input on a possible extension of routes into Euclid and Lake County. At a public open house on Tuesday night, RTA representatives and project managers presented a study that showed options for the future of RTA's service.

 

Three main proposals, which could be mixed and matched depending on public opinions and suggestions, would included possible stops in Euclid and even across the border into Lake County to reach more people. RTA is thinking of extending the rapid transit Red Line; the HealthLine, a bus-rapid transit system; and/or a Rapid Plus, which is similar to a light rail or street car, along Lake Shore Boulevard, Euclid Avenue and/or St. Clair Avenue.

 

One possible terminal on the route could be at Euclid Square Mall. "We want to improve service in a very important area for very important customers," said Joseph Calabrese, CEO and general manager of RTA. The main goal of the study is to concentrate on what area is in the most need and what people of the area would like to see, whether it be rapid, bus or streetcar.

 

 

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20130912/rta-looking-for-feedback-on-possible-expansion-into-euclid-lake-county

 

The operating cost isn't much higher than other systems.

 

 

You told me it was.

 

News Herald had a piece about the possible expansion. And the comments are right about what I expected. 

 

RTA looking for feedback on possible expansion into Euclid, Lake County

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is looking for public input on a possible extension of routes into Euclid and Lake County. At a public open house on Tuesday night, RTA representatives and project managers presented a study that showed options for the future of RTA's service.

 

Three main proposals, which could be mixed and matched depending on public opinions and suggestions, would included possible stops in Euclid and even across the border into Lake County to reach more people. RTA is thinking of extending the rapid transit Red Line; the HealthLine, a bus-rapid transit system; and/or a Rapid Plus, which is similar to a light rail or street car, along Lake Shore Boulevard, Euclid Avenue and/or St. Clair Avenue.

 

One possible terminal on the route could be at Euclid Square Mall. "We want to improve service in a very important area for very important customers," said Joseph Calabrese, CEO and general manager of RTA. The main goal of the study is to concentrate on what area is in the most need and what people of the area would like to see, whether it be rapid, bus or streetcar.

 

 

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20130912/rta-looking-for-feedback-on-possible-expansion-into-euclid-lake-county

Which would you all prefer, rapid, bus, or streetcar? I find the streetcar intriguing since there isn't one in the area but I find the Rapid much more convenient.

Which would you all prefer, rapid, bus, or streetcar? I find the streetcar intriguing since there isn't one in the area but I find the Rapid much more convenient.

Ideally, a diesel/electric rapid with a new transit center about a mile further up the line (between Shaw and Coit).

Realistically, an express bus would provide most of the benefits at far lower cost, could be running far faster, and could help build transit ridership toward an eventual rail expansion.

 

A streetcar or BRT in this area are the worst possible options IMO. They would cost a fortune, be no faster than a bus, draw similar ridership to a bus (because of the slowness), bunch up like the Healthline, and because of their failure potentially prevent us from getting a streetcar somewhere that is better suited to one (like lakewood).

Streetcars have pretty low operating costs and have higher (in some cases four times higher) seating capacity as BRT. So streetcars don't bunch up like BRT.

Streetcars have pretty low operating costs and have higher (in some cases four times higher) seating capacity as BRT. So streetcars don't bunch up like BRT.

Still not a good solution for this area compared to the alternatives IMO. Streetcars work best in high density areas where stops would be frequent and speed is going to be lower.

And if GCRTA is unwilling to do this, then maybe we start a campaign for Euclid or other cities to opt out of GCRTA,

 

Is that even doable?  Maple Heights only joined RTA grudgingly in the beginning.

 

While I think competition would be the best thing that ever happened to transit in this area, don't the federal subsidies make RTA competition-proof?

 

And if GCRTA is unwilling to do this, then maybe we start a campaign for Euclid or other cities to opt out of GCRTA,

 

Is that even doable?  Maple Heights only joined RTA grudgingly in the beginning.

Basically yes they can drop out but it would be worse for Euclid residents to have no transit than RTA. The only advantage to them dropping out is if they could join Laketran or form their own transit agency.

 

As far as the RedLine/Healthline extension study goes, there was surprisingly good turnout at the public meeting in Euclid. Most of the audience seemed fairly ignorant about the issue but there were a few people with interesting ideas too.

Anyone go to the Euclid meeting?

 

 

The operating cost isn't much higher than other systems.

 

 

You told me it was.

 

operational cost as in moving the trains is average, the maintenance costs both of the rolling stock and the infrastructure is very high, not helped by low ridership.

And if GCRTA is unwilling to do this, then maybe we start a campaign for Euclid or other cities to opt out of GCRTA,

 

Is that even doable?  Maple Heights only joined RTA grudgingly in the beginning.

Basically yes they can drop out but it would be worse for Euclid residents to have no transit than RTA. The only advantage to them dropping out is if they could join Laketran or form their own transit agency.

 

As far as the RedLine/Healthline extension study goes, there was surprisingly good turnout at the public meeting in Euclid. Most of the audience seemed fairly ignorant about the issue but there were a few people with interesting ideas too.

 

what needs to happen is the cities that want rail IE streetcar, need to commit to paying the difference In operating cost vs BRT lite.  that difference could be between 3-6 million per year this could be generated by TIF, SID, or other types of value capture.