We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

 

Your constant digs about the RTA are getting really old. 

Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system...?

 

Yes

 

but it should be?

 

No. People can choose to live in large lot sprawl-burbs or near high quality, frequent transit.  They typically can't choose both.  That's not to be punitive, that's just the reality of geometry and budgets, even if we greatly increased transit spending.

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

 

Your constant digs about the RTA are getting really old. 

 

I think he makes a valid point, and RTA's anti-rail policies are what's getting old.  If everyone stopped talking about it, it would still be a problem, but we'd be even further away from a solution.  This is a growth corridor and it's within Cuyahoga County.  RTA should at least be looking at extending rail service there.  I realize we have more pressing priorities for rail expansion, but at some point we do need southbound rail service.  How can we expect this area of the metro to develop in a transit oriented way if transit is barely offered there?

^ I understood his point yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

^ I understood his point yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

 

So what are you saying: you're satisfied with RTA and it's approach?  Apparently so, since you'd rather spend your time attacking someone who is hard on RTA when they appear retrogressive and helpful to expanding transit options .... And for the record, until today, I've not negatively commented specifically about RTA's decision to study only BRT down W. 25.  I have commented that RTA has had an anti-rail attitude, and W. 25 corridor is just the latest... So perhaps you, yourself, are an anti-rail individual who just likes to sit back and take pot shots at those of us who desire progress (which is a big reason why Ohio urban transit is the backward-looking mess it is) ... and perhaps you're too lazy to notice, I've praised RTA on many occasions (like with the new Little Italy-UC station)... when they deserve it.  Either way, people like you add nothing to intelligent discussion, so ...

^^^Absolutely, 327.  One would be crazy to think that a shrinking city like Cleveland (shrinking much more slowly these days, thankfully), is going to build rail lines to every point on the compass.  But when you already have a very good rail transit system, given the city's size and density (and one with an envied airport connection as well as an off-street, grade-separated entry into downtown), it's simply foolish to rule out rail options out of hand and not even study it ... like what has been done along the crowded, underserved W. 25 corridor.

^ I understood his point yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

 

So what are you saying: you're satisfied with RTA and it's approach?  Apparently so, since you'd rather spend your time attacking someone who is hard on RTA when they appear retrogressive and helpful to expanding transit options .... And for the record, until today, I've not negatively commented specifically about RTA's decision to study only BRT down W. 25.  I have commented that RTA has had an anti-rail attitude, and W. 25 corridor is just the latest... So perhaps you, yourself, are an anti-rail individual who just likes to sit back and take pot shots at those of us who desire progress (which is a big reason why Ohio urban transit is the backward-looking mess it is) ... and perhaps you're too lazy to notice, I've praised RTA on many occasions (like with the new Little Italy-UC station)... when they deserve it.  Either way, people like you add nothing to intelligent discussion, so ...

 

Oh please....So when someone calls out your CONSTANT bashing your first reaction is to go off the deep end? Grow up.  One positive comment doesn't make up for the hundreds and hundreds of meaningless rants you go on weekly.  If you really cared about "intelligent discussions" you would be writing about the lack of funding and resources dedicated to the RTA, not Joe C's anti-rail crew.   

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

 

Your constant digs about the RTA are getting really old. 

 

I think he makes a valid point, and RTA's anti-rail policies are what's getting old.  If everyone stopped talking about it, it would still be a problem, but we'd be even further away from a solution.  This is a growth corridor and it's within Cuyahoga County.  RTA should at least be looking at extending rail service there.  I realize we have more pressing priorities for rail expansion, but at some point we do need southbound rail service.  How can we expect this area of the metro to develop in a transit oriented way if transit is barely offered there?

 

I'd love to see rail everywhere, but the reality is that it only comes close to being cost-effective when there is, either at present or during some foreseeable future, sufficient population and/or employment density to justify it.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find that even in Parma or Independence, and Broadview Heights is quite a bit less dense than that.  Better bus service, perhaps including a handful of circumferential/circular routes to bring places like UC into a 2-ride trip for most RTA customers, is probably the best thing I could recommend even aspiring to in the short- to medium-term.

The most successful rail systems weren't built in response to density, but as one of the tools to create and sustain density. In fact, many rail lines were financed and built by real estate developers into undeveloped areas.

 

Sadly, today we in America tend to build rail only as means to skim off the worst traffic congestion in order to sustain our otherwise car-dependent lifestyles. We don't do it to promote jobs access for all and local business development by keeping more of our limited incomes in our own communities rather than exporting it to other states or nations. How much of that $9,000+ that you spend per year on driving do you think stays in Northeast Ohio? What would you buy if you could save that $9,000 per year? Better housing? Eating out/going out on the town more often? What's the best way to capture that value so it can be invested in rail transportation?

^ I understood his point yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

 

So what are you saying: you're satisfied with RTA and it's approach?  Apparently so, since you'd rather spend your time attacking someone who is hard on RTA when they appear retrogressive and helpful to expanding transit options .... And for the record, until today, I've not negatively commented specifically about RTA's decision to study only BRT down W. 25.  I have commented that RTA has had an anti-rail attitude, and W. 25 corridor is just the latest... So perhaps you, yourself, are an anti-rail individual who just likes to sit back and take pot shots at those of us who desire progress (which is a big reason why Ohio urban transit is the backward-looking mess it is) ... and perhaps you're too lazy to notice, I've praised RTA on many occasions (like with the new Little Italy-UC station)... when they deserve it.  Either way, people like you add nothing to intelligent discussion, so ...

 

Oh please....So when someone calls out your CONSTANT bashing your first reaction is to go off the deep end? Grow up.  One positive comment doesn't make up for the hundreds and hundreds of meaningless rants you go on weekly.  If you really cared about "intelligent discussions" you would be writing about the lack of funding and resources dedicated to the RTA, not Joe C's anti-rail crew.   

 

Maybe you don't read to well, but I have, indeed, commented on the lack of funding by the state... and applauded Joe C for his activism on increasing Ohio's public transit budget.  So it seems like you're the one who needs to "grow up" ... and learn how to read, as well; thanks.

We all can agree that lack of state and federal funding is a problem for RTA, but I would rate anti-rail local leadership as a bigger one.  RTA will not ever obtain federal rail funding that it chooses not to apply for.  We have no business crying poor at a time when passenger rail is getting built in Detroit.  That city is bankrupt and hollowed out, yet somehow they're getting a brand new rail line right up Woodward.  We can't keep letting RTA leadership pass the buck on its own bad decisions.  The possibility of southbound rail for Cleveland was willfully cast aside.  Someone should be held accountable for that.

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

 

Your memory is worse than your attempt at constructing a creative flame. 

^^I bet we'll have laid more rail than Detroit this decade when it ends.  And spent more capital dollars on rail too.  And all without millions in private philanthropy.

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable.  Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

 

You're right about that.  It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies.

 

Your constant digs about the RTA are getting really old. 

 

I think he makes a valid point, and RTA's anti-rail policies are what's getting old.  If everyone stopped talking about it, it would still be a problem, but we'd be even further away from a solution.  This is a growth corridor and it's within Cuyahoga County.  RTA should at least be looking at extending rail service there.  I realize we have more pressing priorities for rail expansion, but at some point we do need southbound rail service.  How can we expect this area of the metro to develop in a transit oriented way if transit is barely offered there?

 

The fact is, if you live south of approximately I-480, RTA is largely irrevelant except as a transporter of last resort.

Maybe you don't read to well, but I have, indeed, commented on the lack of funding by the state... and applauded Joe C for his activism on increasing Ohio's public transit budget.  So it seems like you're the one who needs to "grow up" ... and learn how to read, as well; thanks.

 

 

Zoolander, the irony of your reply is priceless.  Please learn the proper use of "to" and "too" before attacking someone else's reading and writing skills.  Thanks much. 

^^I bet we'll have laid more rail than Detroit this decade when it ends.  And spent more capital dollars on rail too.  And all without millions in private philanthropy.

 

Hope you're right about that.  We first have to get these private individuals to buy into transit.  The same Dan Gilbert who owns the Horeshoe casino that sits on a rail terminal but has shown no interest in rail expansion here is the same Dan Gilbert who is the chief financier of the M-1 LRT in freeway-crazy Detroit... go figure.  In reality, the problem here is bigger than 1 man, like Joe Calabrese, as there's an anti-rail mentality that permeates Cleveland... I'm not sure what the root of this is; perhaps the decades long derivative effect of the 50s subway failure and Al Porter's subsequent actions that institutionalized highway growth and sprawl while simultaneously hindering rail growth... I'm not certain of this, but it could be the cause. 

 

As has been noted by others, businesses, like the Aloft Hotel, for one, do every thing they can NOT to promote the Waterfront Rapid rail line whose station stop sits about a hundred feet from their hotel.  Aloft guests are much more prone to bitch about the noise of the Rapid trains and the ringing of the Main Avenue crossing gates than they are to actually, like, riding the trains themselves... Likewise, if you look at the promotional web info about the new exciting new FEB Phase II apartments about to open across the parking lot, you'll be hard pressed to any mention at all of the Rapid.  In other cities developers would be drooling at the prospect of owning or building next to a rapid transit station, but here in Cleveland ...?

 

Entrepreneurs and financiers will not advance a penny toward transit here until the collective mentality toward transit is changed.  Otherwise, look for more BRT proposals, Opportunity Corridors, non-Convention Center-NCTC connections, surface parking, strip development sprawl, etc, etc, etc...

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

... and btw, I also disagree with your last (tacit) point that capital money spent toward maintenance is somehow comparable to expansion.  It is not.  RTA must make most of the repairs you just highlighted to merely be able to run the rail network and run it safely, or it cannot rut it at all.  Other money is for station rebuilding where, in some cases, if RTA does not come into ADA compliance, the station must close, like the 2 E. 79s and 34th Street.  If closure of rail lines because of costs is an option in Cleveland that people are comfortable with, ... especially in a town with, still, severe economic problems but, also, where we're seeing some TOD development and fairly robust ridership growth, then this city, and this State, has far worse issues than even I can contemplate.

 

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

Which community has an anti-rail mindset, specifically?  As opposed to a general skepticism towards public transportation.

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

Which community has an anti-rail mindset, specifically?  As opposed to a general skepticism towards public transportation.

 

You raise a good point... I was wrong.  It can't be the whole community, because more and more citizens are riding rail (Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership); and a developer here and there (Ari Maron, for one) are actually motivated to build TOD -- hopefully Intesa will be the next TOD...

 

... better stated would be too many leaders in our community are either anti rail or, more commonly, just plain indifferent to it; and that's a problem.

^Which leaders? 

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

Which community has an anti-rail mindset, specifically?  As opposed to a general skepticism towards public transportation.

 

You raise a good point... I was wrong.  It can't be the whole community, because more and more citizens are riding rail (Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership); and a developer here and there (Ari Maron, for one) are actually motivated to build TOD -- hopefully Intesa will be the next TOD...

 

... better stated would be too many leaders in our community are either anti rail or, more commonly, just plain indifferent to it; and that's a problem.

 

Who are these anti-rail community leaders that you speak of?  Give us some names.  I think a lot of people on this forum would like to know..

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

Which community has an anti-rail mindset, specifically?  As opposed to a general skepticism towards public transportation.

 

You raise a good point... I was wrong.  It can't be the whole community, because more and more citizens are riding rail (Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership); and a developer here and there (Ari Maron, for one) are actually motivated to build TOD -- hopefully Intesa will be the next TOD...

 

... better stated would be too many leaders in our community are either anti rail or, more commonly, just plain indifferent to it; and that's a problem.

 

Not only that, but the people who are skeptical of public transportation are less skeptical of rail.

^^OK, I'll turn it around on you: name me the leaders who have spoken out in favor of rail or really advocated for rail like, say, when the OC advocated and pushed for the roadway saying transit/TOD would be key but then, after the OC was green-lighted, would have allowed for 2 Rapid stations in the area to close (the 2 E. 79s) while, at the same time, ODOT would only fork over about $1M for the expansion of E. 105 to accommodate the OC there -- which official called them out (other than the much-despised Angie Schmidt?

 

- who spoke up to include a connection to the NCTC to the new convention center when the Rapid goes right by there?

 

- which was the last Cleveland mayor to speak up for transit expansion (rail or bus)?  Can you name him (or her)?  Can you tell me what they said?

 

- Has Mr. Calabrese ever spoke out or advocated a rail expansion plan (actually, the answer is: yes; he's behind, publically at least, a plan to possibly extend the Red Line into Euclid), so I guess he's not on the list, huh?

 

I could go on, but you tell me... (hint: there are some 'leaders' who have, but the list ain't that long)

^I think you missed my point.  You keep arguing how "anti-rail" RTA is, ignoring that it spends a large share of its capital budget (and maybe operating budget) maintaining and replacing our aging, legacy rail lines. The S curve, the airport tunnel, the crossings in Shaker Square, the Mayfield overpass: it's essentially newly laid rail. Just maintaining all this rail is a small miracle in a shrinking county, with a shrinking RTA funding base.

 

No, you missed my point ... entirely.  Where did I mention RTA in my post, other than to say the problem is bigger than Joe C?  My post stated the community has an anti-rail mindset, and that it goes beyond 1-man (or agency in this case).  I addressed you statement about "without private philanthropy," noting that private philanthropy has been the route some cities are going with the shrinking public dollar, esp in a stingy state like Ohio toward transit; but that unfortunately you're not going to rail expansion, not even with private dollars, unless this community changes its mindset.  Please reread my post.

 

Which community has an anti-rail mindset, specifically?  As opposed to a general skepticism towards public transportation.

 

You raise a good point... I was wrong.  It can't be the whole community, because more and more citizens are riding rail (Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership); and a developer here and there (Ari Maron, for one) are actually motivated to build TOD -- hopefully Intesa will be the next TOD...

 

... better stated would be too many leaders in our community are either anti rail or, more commonly, just plain indifferent to it; and that's a problem.

 

Not only that, but the people who are skeptical of public transportation are less skeptical of rail.

 

With regard to riding public, I would absolutely agree... With regard to (many) who hold the purse strings are in are actually position to advance a rail expansion agenda, I'm less inclined to agree...

 

... I come back to Dan Gilbert (who I tend to like, btw)... We have some 50-odd-miles of a working passenger railroad into Cuyahoga county: the CVSR, that some people have discussed extending into downtown Cleveland, but it's kind of languished in recent years because of, as I understand it, cost issues and the headache of dealing with track rights and insurance issues with freight rail carriers who own the last 8 miles of rail into downtown (from the current CVSR Valley View terminal)... And yet, Gilbert, who could have some 60 miles of casino customers cruising into TC -- right to the basement of friggin' his casino -- from as far away as Canton, has said nothing... And with his money, he could finance the CVSR-to-Tower City extension himself, as he's practically doing with the M-1 LRT in Detroit... at the very least, he could be a part of a P3 (public-private partnership) team to develop this project... It's being done in Detroit with M-1 and it's being done in Denver, with its massive FasTracks project, in a very, very big way.

 

But Dan's just one example; there are others.

Dan Gilbert is your best example? Name your other anti rail boogeymen.

Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership

 

This is simply not true. RTA's rail ridership in 2014 was no higher than in 1996 (the earliest year of data in the on-line APTA archives).  Red Line ridership was up 20% over that span, which is great, but light rail ridership dropped by 28%, wiping out all the Red Line gains.  We probably have one of the the worst performing rail system in the country in terms of ridership, ridership/per route mile, ridership per service hour, ridership growth, you name it.

 

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/RidershipArchives.aspx

Cleveland has one of the fastest growing rail ridership

 

This is simply not true. RTA's rail ridership in 2014 was no higher than in 1996 (the earliest year of data in the on-line APTA archives).  Red Line ridership was up 20% over that span, which is great, but light rail ridership dropped by 28%, wiping out all the Red Line gains.  We probably have one of the the worst performing rail system in the country in terms of ridership, ridership/per route mile, ridership per service hour, ridership growth, you name it.

 

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/RidershipArchives.aspx

 

Greater Cleveland RTA among leading gainers in U.S. for heavy and light rail use

 

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on January 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Use of public transit is up nationally, with Greater Cleveland among the leading gainers in heavy and light rail ridership, according to findings of a national advocacy group for public transportation.

 

Ridership on RTA's rail Red Line was up 5.7 percent in the 2013 third quarter compared with a year earlier. The July-September period is the most recent for which the American Public Transportation Association has complete counts.

 

The Cleveland gain in heavy rail use trailed only the rate of increase in Miami, where heavy rail ridership rose 11.1 percent, due mostly to an increase in the number of trains deployed during peak hours; and Los Angeles, with a 7.5 percent increase for the quarter.

 

Ridership on Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's light rail Blue, Green and Waterfront lines increased 4.6 percent in the third quarter, compared with a nationwide gain of 3.1 percent.

 

RTA has compiled its year-end figures, too. The agency said customers took 49.2 million trips on RTA last year, up 2 percent from 2012.

 

"We have increased service while other cities have been forced to cut, our fares have remained the same, parking rates continue to rise and people are making economic choices to drive to a rail station, park for free and ride the rapid," spokeswoman Mary Shaffer said Thursday. Train intervals of seven to 15 minutes during peak commuting times are very convenient, she said.

 

"People are starting to realize there is additional value-added to riding," Shaffer said. "You can do things you can't do while driving, like reading, sleeping, texting and relaxing."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/greater_cleveland_rta_among_le.html

 

 

Dan Gilbert is your best example? Name your other anti rail boogeymen.

 

Okaaaaay, so, you can't/won't name any pro-transit "leaders".  So that means, I guess you're saying Cleveland is pro-rail expansion ... right?

Unlike you I haven't made any claims....who are the boogeymen?

^^^Here's the full story. Ridership is indexed to 1996 levels.

 

I recall a decade or so ago that Summit-Cuyahoga had the most commuting between two counties in Ohio. Now it's not even the most in Northeast Ohio...

 

New #ACSdata on commuting flows released by the @uscensusbureau. Here's Cuyahoga County and its neighbors. http://t.co/eLnvcsIR1r

 

And there's no intercounty transity between Lorain and Cuyahoga.

As of 2013, I became one of those Lorain to Cuyahoga commuters when my job moved from Avon to the airport area.

 

There's really about no transit in Lorain County to speak of.  Hourly service between Lorain and Elyria, and an hourly East Elyria loop, M-F daytime only.  No evening or weekend service, and not even paratransit service in eastern Lorain County (Avon Lake, Avon, N Ridgeville).

As of 2013, I became one of those Lorain to Cuyahoga commuters when my job moved from Avon to the airport area.

 

There's really about no transit in Lorain County to speak of.  Hourly service between Lorain and Elyria, and an hourly East Elyria loop, M-F daytime only.  No evening or weekend service, and not even paratransit service in eastern Lorain County (Avon Lake, Avon, N Ridgeville).

 

That's because Lorain County is either the most populous or second-most populous county in Ohio with no dedicated transit funding source for transit. Until they pass a local tax or dedicate some other revenue stream for transit, Lorain County's only transit service will remain a cosmetic feature for feel-good political purposes.

Forgot about the Red Line/HealthLine extension....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9832.msg769503#msg769503

Cleveland is Ohio's most transit-oriented city. Compared to Ohio's two other largest cities, the buses and trains in Cleveland carry more riders than the transit systems in Columbus and Cincinnati -- combined.

 

But the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority remains largely unchanged since it began 40 years ago in 1975. It's governance is virtually unchanged. It's funding resources remain largely unchanged as the sales tax, albeit eroding, continues to provide most of the operating and capital funding. State and federal funds are also eroding. Not surprisingly, it's route network remains much the same if not smaller and more skeletal, still focused on Public Square downtown.

 

After 40 years of service erosion, as the county's tax base has eroded, state funding has virtually been eliminated, Cleveland is now competing for declining federal funds with more transit systems that have enlarged and added rail systems since the 1970s that are now aging too. So the 40th anniversary of GCRTA is as good a time as any to pull back and take a hard look at the everything about transit in Greater Cleveland -- including the transit systems in Cuyahoga's collar counties of Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit.

 

How should public transportation -- the overseeing agency, its funding, service area, routes, etc. -- in Northeast Ohio look 40 years from now?

 

First, I think we must ask ourselves a fundamental question about our public transportation system -- do we want it to catalyze change or to respond to change?

 

Sure, we want it to do a little bit of both. But by how much? I want you to weigh that answer as if it was on a scale and assign it a 10/90, 30/70, 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 etc share. If we ask this of the public, it changes profoundly if/how we redesign our public transportation system.

 

Second, and somewhat related to the first question, should our public transportation system be offered foremost as a social service agency and safety net to ensure mobility for the least fortunate among us, with only construction/major repairs contracted out to private operators? Or should it be operated more like a public utility that competes for customers, yet must have its services accessible to all? Or should it be reduced to only an infrastructure ownership, public financing and transit planning agency that contracts out all services to the private sector?

 

Third, should Cuyahoga County continue to have its own transit agency that provides public transportation between origins and destinations only within its county lines? Same for the collar counties around Cuyahoga, which can't legally (per state law) transport people between two places within (intra-county) Cuyahoga County, but can transport between (inter-county) Cuyahoga and Lake, or Cuyahoga and Summit, etc.? OR... Should there be a multi-county transit agency for Greater Cleveland or even all of Northeast Ohio? If so, should this multi-county organization replace the county-based systems or should it be an overlay system in addition to GCRTA, Laketran, Akron Metro etc.?

 

Voter-approved county sales taxes are the primary funding resources for GCRTA and the collar-county transit systems. Should this continue to be the dominant (about 70%) funding source for transit capital and operations? How you answered the first question above will probably have a big influence on the funding source, since a stagnant metropolitan region like Greater Cleveland can't easily compete with growing regions for federal funding -- especially for transformative capital projects. That means such projects would have to be funded and sustained significantly by locally generated resources, such as your proposed new transit funding mechanism.

 

But if you think transit should not be used to catalyze changes to the region's population shifts and economic well-being, and instead respond to those changes, perhaps you are content with sales tax as a funding resource? Or maybe a new, replacement funding mechanism that produces the same operating and capital money now but has a chance to grow in the future?

 

Or maybe you believe in a hybrid system in which those most directly benefiting from living/working near transit near pay for services and improvements, and create a feedback loop for further enhancements such as tax-increment financing districts along transit routes and paid parking at stations to capture revenue from those living/working outside of the TIF district?

 

One thing is clear -- there are many ways to proceed in terms of mission, goals, organizational setup, intra-county system only, inter-county system only, hybrid, combination with economic development function, infrastructure ownership included or not, service delivery, service types, vehicles/modes, route design, schedules, charge fares or operate open-access, and so much more?

 

So many things to consider. But it will start with an organized effort to get it rolling. That should start with a meeting (likely a series of meetings) comprised of stakeholder groups. I propose we hold the first one this fall, and we call it "NEOtrans".

First: 50/50 - I have no scientific basis for that number.

 

Second: Realistically there is no reason it can't be both.  RTA is only going to survive, however, if it puts itself in a position to appeal to people who don't have to use public transportation.  It cannot remain a Krumholz era soup kitchen on wheels.

 

Also, can we really argue that we haven't hit a point that demands some level of privatization?  If not, how bad to things have to get?  Relying exclusively on the public sector for meaningful mass transit has been a nightmare and I don't expect it to get any better.  I haven't studied the mechanics of how privatized mass transit systems work but I can't bring myself to believe they can be any worse than the funding (or lack thereof) structure and operation we have now.  Waiting for the public sector to get its ducks in a row seems like a futile cause.

 

Third: It would be nice to be connected to Akron somehow.

Second: Realistically there is no reason it can't be both.  RTA is only going to survive, however, if it puts itself in a position to appeal to people who don't have to use public transportation.  It cannot remain a Krumholz era soup kitchen on wheels.

 

The study for W.25 corridor seems to be all about catering specifically toward people who can't afford cars.

 

Second: Realistically there is no reason it can't be both.  RTA is only going to survive, however, if it puts itself in a position to appeal to people who don't have to use public transportation. It cannot remain a Krumholz era soup kitchen on wheels.

 

 

:clap:

It probably would be a good idea to frame the geographical region.  Should it not be Northern Ohio?

 

Most of the RTAs are doing well and are starting to look to branch out from their own territory and see what can be done with coordinating with neighboring RTAs, this is the case with SARTA, PARTA, and METRO starting meetings soon to discuss.  I think there does need to be an overlay for the Northern Ohio region for a clearinghouse for coordination of these transit agencies, but I also think it should be more so for the various regional planning agencies of NOACA, AMATs, et al. 

 

  A focus may be in coordinating bulk purchasing for all the transit agencies buses, fuel, and whatever else to reduce the overall price and giving smaller agencies better buying power. But I also think there needs to be an agency that help to manage rail assets of all of Northern Ohio.  I know METRO is sitting on a various rail lines.  Not sure if this is normal for these agencies.  But taking a 10,000 ft view of the region and how to spend the money for inter-county transportation would make more sense than waiting for guidance from Columbus.  The agency should have taxing authority for the counties that are involved to add a minimal sales tax for the region.  I think it would may be best to have an opt in for all the counties and agencies that want to participate.

 

The state of Ohio is so very diverse by region, that this makes the most sense to have a super regional planning agency in order to coordinate and leverage the resources of the regional planning agencies.  An agency that actually cares that there are however many people driving from Stark county to Lake County or Cuyahoga county for work or school has the bigger picture involved in making more informed decisions than those that are just looking at internal cross-county traffic.  By making this Northern Ohio, it will have a better view of rail assets of the region that seem to mainly go E-W across Northern Ohio.

 

 

Second: Realistically there is no reason it can't be both.  RTA is only going to survive, however, if it puts itself in a position to appeal to people who don't have to use public transportation. It cannot remain a Krumholz era soup kitchen on wheels.

 

 

:clap:

 

I'm confused by the phraseology "Soup kitchen on wheels" and RTA as a "social service agency." 

 

In the last 20 years, the main all-new capital projects of RTA have been the Waterfront line, the Health Line, downtown trolleys (and expanding them recently), and the CSU/West Shore BRT -lite (serving Edgewater/Cleveland, Lakewood, Rocky River and Westlake)...  Also, I believe Park 'n Rides in Westlake and Strongsville were either added or greatly expanded during this period...

 

So I guess each of these projects, save the HL portions that serve East Cleveland poorer areas of Midtown, are "soup kitchen/social services" administered to middle-to-upper middle income, even some wealthy, white patrons...

 

Oh, and how could I forget, the recent opening of the relocated $17M Little Italy-U. Circle Red Line stop... Last I looked, the area this new station serves is a long way from poor, or even middle class, for that matter.

 

... meanwhile during this same time, in the poorer African American areas of the East Side and near West Side, RTA eliminated the Bridge Ave (inner city) portion of the #25 bus as well as eliminate, totally, the #12 bus along Larchmere and Woodland Ave, which mostly served low income areas and the CMHA properties -- leaving no direct downtown service at all, leaving many Kinsman/Central residents to walk blocks, nearly a mile in some cases, to reach any sort of transit at all... Also many routes, esp crosstown buses, have been reduced to bare-bones, often hourly, frequencies during the day... not really transit that's easily relied upon, would you say?

 

... double meanwhile, with the coming Opportunity Corridor highway-lite, we have RTA GM Joe Calabrese jumping on board in support promising express buses along the OC from the West Side along the road, while simultaneously nearly allowing the elimination of Rapid stations at E. 34 and the 2 E. 79th Street stops --    The rationale: RTA argued it lacked money to bring these stations into ADA compliance required by the Feds.  These 3 station are remaining and are now scheduled for ADA upgrades, because of a very loud community uproar regarding the potential damage to lower income/working individuals and their institutions --true soup kitchen transit, eh?.

 

So looking over RTA's spending projects over the last 2 decades, I'm puzzled as to how this is "Soup Kitchen/social service" transit.  If anything, it's exactly the opposite... I think we need to be careful the terminology we're throwing around, for this sounds more like a conservative, pejorative transit-speak, rather than anything really constructive.

 

 

Cleveland is Ohio's most transit-oriented city. Compared to Ohio's two other largest cities, the buses and trains in Cleveland carry more riders than the transit systems in Columbus and Cincinnati -- combined.

 

But the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority remains largely unchanged since it began 40 years ago in 1975. It's governance is virtually unchanged. It's funding resources remain largely unchanged as the sales tax, albeit eroding, continues to provide most of the operating and capital funding. State and federal funds are also eroding. Not surprisingly, it's route network remains much the same if not smaller and more skeletal, still focused on Public Square downtown.

 

After 40 years of service erosion, as the county's tax base has eroded, state funding has virtually been eliminated, Cleveland is now competing for declining federal funds with more transit systems that have enlarged and added rail systems since the 1970s that are now aging too. So the 40th anniversary of GCRTA is as good a time as any to pull back and take a hard look at the everything about transit in Greater Cleveland -- including the transit systems in Cuyahoga's collar counties of Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit.

 

How should public transportation -- the overseeing agency, its funding, service area, routes, etc. -- in Northeast Ohio look 40 years from now?

 

First, I think we must ask ourselves a fundamental question about our public transportation system -- do we want it to catalyze change or to respond to change?

 

Sure, we want it to do a little bit of both. But by how much? I want you to weigh that answer as if it was on a scale and assign it a 10/90, 30/70, 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 etc share. If we ask this of the public, it changes profoundly if/how we redesign our public transportation system.

 

Second, and somewhat related to the first question, should our public transportation system be offered foremost as a social service agency and safety net to ensure mobility for the least fortunate among us, with only construction/major repairs contracted out to private operators? Or should it be operated more like a public utility that competes for customers, yet must have its services accessible to all? Or should it be reduced to only an infrastructure ownership, public financing and transit planning agency that contracts out all services to the private sector?

 

Third, should Cuyahoga County continue to have its own transit agency that provides public transportation between origins and destinations only within its county lines? Same for the collar counties around Cuyahoga, which can't legally (per state law) transport people between two places within (intra-county) Cuyahoga County, but can transport between (inter-county) Cuyahoga and Lake, or Cuyahoga and Summit, etc.? OR... Should there be a multi-county transit agency for Greater Cleveland or even all of Northeast Ohio? If so, should this multi-county organization replace the county-based systems or should it be an overlay system in addition to GCRTA, Laketran, Akron Metro etc.?

 

Voter-approved county sales taxes are the primary funding resources for GCRTA and the collar-county transit systems. Should this continue to be the dominant (about 70%) funding source for transit capital and operations? How you answered the first question above will probably have a big influence on the funding source, since a stagnant metropolitan region like Greater Cleveland can't easily compete with growing regions for federal funding -- especially for transformative capital projects. That means such projects would have to be funded and sustained significantly by locally generated resources, such as your proposed new transit funding mechanism.

 

But if you think transit should not be used to catalyze changes to the region's population shifts and economic well-being, and instead respond to those changes, perhaps you are content with sales tax as a funding resource? Or maybe a new, replacement funding mechanism that produces the same operating and capital money now but has a chance to grow in the future?

 

Or maybe you believe in a hybrid system in which those most directly benefiting from living/working near transit near pay for services and improvements, and create a feedback loop for further enhancements such as tax-increment financing districts along transit routes and paid parking at stations to capture revenue from those living/working outside of the TIF district?

 

One thing is clear -- there are many ways to proceed in terms of mission, goals, organizational setup, intra-county system only, inter-county system only, hybrid, combination with economic development function, infrastructure ownership included or not, service delivery, service types, vehicles/modes, route design, schedules, charge fares or operate open-access, and so much more?

 

So many things to consider. But it will start with an organized effort to get it rolling. That should start with a meeting (likely a series of meetings) comprised of stakeholder groups. I propose we hold the first one this fall, and we call it "NEOtrans".

 

1. Catalyze change when it makes sense; for instance, when spurring TOD is a realistic possibility.  Respond to change when that makes sense, for instance, when gas prices spike to 2-3x their historical levels and give people incentives to reduce their dependence on cars and roads.  They are not mutually exclusive approaches.  But since much change is difficult to predict ahead of time, it doesn't make sense to me to put hard numbers on the percentage.  Instead, be ready to do either or both as the opportunities present themselves.

 

2. Markets work.  Use them insofar as possible.  Privatize what you can, but be vigilant about avoiding corruption (e.g., privatized gains and socialized losses).  They will serve both inner cities and suburbs, but differently, which is as it should be, as the needs of each are quite different.  Some cities have multiple agencies but a high degree of cooperation and coordination among them.  Learn from and emulate that insofar as it makes sense here.

 

3. Eliminate the "laws" that prevent regional cooperation.  The rest should work itself out.  There is a market for transport solutions to and from the outer counties, albeit most of it is going to be of the park & ride and reverse commute varieties; outer suburbs won't usually have the population density to support more.

Responding to a question at the regular GCRTA thread....

 

We've spent a lot recently on rail station rebuilds and infrastructure for the bus system.  Those seem like lower priorities. 

 

Can't do the math right now, but if we had not built the 1) STJ transit center, 2) Clifton BRT-lite, and 3) the new Mayfield Rapid station, how close does that get us to keeping the rail lines open?

 

None. The Clifton BRT cost about $20 million. STJ cost $9.6 million. Mayfield station cost $15.6 million. Add them up and that's a shade over $45 million -- a mix of city, RTA and federal funding (formula, TIGER, Stimulus, New Start [which can't be used for replacing old rail cars]). As large as those are, they are still relatively small compared to the $280 million needed to replace the railcar fleet. GCRTA is under federal mandate to comply with ADA, along with other federal mandates. GCRTA still has an entire county to worry about. You don't stop improving the system and cutting services to save a budget. That's been tried many times everywhere, including here, and the only certain outcome is to make transit less available and the community poorer for it.

 

There are some who say we should let the rail lines die -- or at least the Blue and Green lines -- and replace them with buses. There are others who say "over my dead body." I think GCRTA has put the citizens of this county in a position where it must make a decision. If you really want these rail services, then it's time to pay up or shut up. The purchasing power of the existing sales tax is diminishing. A new, additional revenue source is needed.

Thank you for that info.  Are there no federal funds available for this particular need?   

 

Article with embedded links posted at:

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/10/19/cleveland-rail-shutdown-unavoidable/

 

Cleveland rail shutdown unavoidable

October 19, 2015

 

In five years or possibly less, east-siders in Greater Cleveland will be riding substitute buses to work, school or medical appointments. Their trips will take two to three times longer than the trains they used to ride. And they will ride through Shaker Heights and Cleveland next to tracks of the Blue and Green lines rusted from disuse despite tens of millions of dollars (including federal funds) spent to keep tracks, stations and other infrastructure in a state of good repair.

 

 

As the old saying goes, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."

 

I'm curious what an estimate on the red line life expectancy is.  If we lose the rail link to the airport, that will be a major blow.

 

I know some of the companies downtown offer incentives/credit for taking public transportation.  As with many things, if the business community can continue to support, perhaps some of the most draconian measures can be staved off.

 

Life expectancy on the Red Line cars when built new in 1985 was about 30 years. Typically a mid-life overhaul is done mid-life so the rail cars can operate safely and efficiently for another 15 years -- maybe 20 tops. But instead GCRTA is doing the mid-life overhaul now (Central Rail workers jokingly call this the Red Line cars' "end of life overhaul"). They got their mechanical overhaul in the last couple of years, which I believe was a $22 million project. By March they should be done with the Red Line cars' cosmetic modernization. So the Red Line isn't in any imminent danger of shutdown. Not for another dozen years (although their air conditioning systems could affect that).

 

And theoretically, a railcar built with a stainless steel carbody can be rebuilt countless times over many decades.

 

BTW, the airport is an important ridership anchor but not so much for the flying public. Few of the airport station's riders are using it to get on/off a plane. Instead, most of its 1,000 or so daily boardings are by people who work at the airport, mostly in retail.

Thank you for that info.  Are there no federal funds available for this particular need?   

 

There are, but they are formula funds. You can't use "New Start" federal funds to replace aging rail cars. New Start funds are for new services, like the Cleveland State Line (Clifton) BRT.

 

Rail car replacements are eligible for federal state-of-good-repair funds. These funds are allotted to urban areas by a formula determined by a transit agency's service area, population within that service area and the extent of bus and rail services in that service area. So when Cuyahoga County (GCRTA's only service area) keeps losing population or cuts bus revenue service-miles by 40% (the most of any big city in the nation), GCRTA share of federal state-of-good-repair funding declines (by nearly $7 million per year for GCRTA). A transit agency is allowed to take four year's worth of its state-of-good-repair federal formula funding and use it in a single year for a single, major expense like replacing railcars. But that also means it can improve little else. And GCRTA has nearly $600 million in state-of-good-repair needs -- before replacing rail cars is even counted. GCRTA is able to fund about $338 million of that by 2019 -- leaving $254 million in non-rail car improvements unfunded. And that doesn't count expansion either to address critical jobs-access and economic development needs.

 

According to GCRTA's capital budget for 2015-2019 (http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/budget/2015/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf) GCRTA will have available to it $171 million in federal state-of-good-repair formula funding that's eligible to be used for railcar replacements. This could be had on an 80% federal, 20% nonfederal funding basis. Obviously, that cannot be used for railcar replacements because GCRTA has other immediate needs in its 2015-19 capital timeframe. And further, GCRTA doesn't have the nonfederal funding to spend on railcars, which it would have to do on cost-sharing basis that isn't 80/20. Instead, it would probably have to be 50/50 federal/nonfederal share if GCRTA wants to replace the entire rail fleet sometime before mid-century. And meanwhile, GCRTA won't be able to pay for any other state-of-good-repair needs. A $254 million backlog will quickly grow larger if not addressed sooner.

 

So assuming the GCRTA service area doesn't decrease in population further by 2019 (a poor assumption) or that GCRTA merges with one or more collar-county transit agency (an optimistic assumption), GCRTA is going to have less than that $171 million in eligible federal formula funds available for replacing rail cars in 2020. It needs about $140 million to provide 50% of the cost of replacing rail cars. It might be able to get that, but it also means GCRTA's $254 million state-of-good-repair backlog will remain largely neglected for another four years and will grow significantly larger by 2024.

 

And.... GCRTA doesn't have the local funding share to pay for replacing rail cars. If ODOT, the county or no one else helps out, then GCRTA is going to have to pay the entire nonfederal share from its own sources. The only way GCRTA can get this $140 million is to finance it by issuing 10- to 20-year bonds retired by a new revenue stream of nearly $20 million year year. This could be generated either by cutting services by nearly twice as much as it did in 2009 or by raising fares by 50 cents per trip. Cutting services means cutting the size of the system which means less federal formula funds. And it means many people will lose their jobs because they can't reach them anymore. Raising fares won't be popular either, but at least people will be able to physically reach their jobs.

 

And we're still not addressing expansion in order to reach more employers farther away from the existing GCRTA system. Only 27% of new jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90-minute transit trip of a given household (according to Brookings). One out of four households in Cleveland are without a car (many more households have a car but it has to be shared among more than one wage earner; and many households have a car that isn't reliable or in a safe operating condition). Access to jobs isn't just about education. We can't address poverty in Greater Cleveland until physical access to jobs is addressed.

 

Greater Cleveland transit needs $100 million MORE per year in nonfederal funds.

 

Off my soapbox.

Your article mentions that the LRT cars use Freon which will be illegal next year.  Does this mean they will have no AC going forward?

Your article mentions that the LRT cars use Freon which will be illegal next year.  Does this mean they will have no AC going forward?

 

If nothing changes, yes. But they will have to do more than just deal with the use of Freon. No one makes parts for the old air conditioners that are on GCRTA's trains. And then there's that pesky tiny drain on the AC units. There's a drain pan above the doors so if you're sitting next to the doors or standing below the doors and the train moves abruptly (almost a guarantee that it will), then at best you will get dripped on. At least it's only water.