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

 

Hmm, that's curious. It's been discussed for 2 or 3 years, at least. 

 

327 raises a point.  If RTA doesn't even choose the Red Line extension as it's LPA, then it's hard to criticize the lack of local external funding sources.  As Angie Schmidt points out, at some point we have to look at what are priorities are locally.  And we should really look with jaundiced eye if RTA choose not to proceed with the Red Line extension because it thinks it won't be funded.  When it comes to rail expansion, Cleveland too often is it's own worst enemy.  We can make external funding excuses til the cows come home, but unless we really want to expand rail and, say, lobby pols and powerful local corporate stakeholders to increase state and local public, and private funding sources, then the Rapid will never be expanded...

 

... The Opportunity Corridor, an unneeded, expensive and problematic highway/roadway (creating more auto traffic and potentially endangering pedestrians which is why another $150K is being/has been raised to "study" potential OC/pedestrian traffic problems in University Circle), overcame tremendous obstacles to become reality ... initially it had been relegated to the dust bin of large local public works projects.... But local officials insisted that this terrible roadway be included as part of the very necessary rebuild of the badly-deteriorating Inner Belt bridge; local public and private power brokers ponied up the funding while simultaneously lobbying conservatives like John Kasich and, boom, the taxpayers of Cleveland, and Ohio, are getting this (West Side) commuter-oriented, transit-injurious roadway down their collective throats...

 

... if only this kind of emphasis, drive and creative funding angles could be perused for Cleveland's very valuable mass transit system ...     

The alternatives analysis was delayed by more than a year by NOACA because it was updating its regional travel data. The Red Line/Healthline extension study had to wait for the new data because if the study had used the old data, the FTA probably wouldn't have accepted its findings.

 

And I agree with you. There's only a shortage of funding for transit if you don't get the funding you've asked for.

My list a few posts earlier has $500 million in upfront local contribution to capital projects. But if that could be increased to $1 billion, 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 rail overhead electric catenary poles/wires for $80M (50% share or $40M -- more likely, and will save millions/year in operating costs)

+ Extend Red Line to Euclid for $1.2 billion (50% share or $600M

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

+ I-480/I-271 transitway North Olmsted-Mayfield for $125 million (50% share or $62.5M)

+ Construct BRT lite on West 25th/Pearl to I-480 transitway for $25 million (50% share or $12.5M)

 

 

New York's MTA is using marketing and media to get out in front of the public about their infrastructure problems and what they're doing to address it. I'd bet people's frustration with RTA would decrease upon seeing the problems that exist, what is being done to rectify them, and what still needs to be addressed.

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/28938/new-yorks-subway-has-a-great-idea-for-metro/

BTW, I should have checked GCRTA's federal funding capacity before posting those lists of what GCRTA could buy with $500 million or $1 billion in a lump sum from a non-federal source. The total amount of things that GCRTA could buy is limited by the amount of federal funds it could tap over a period of time. At present, GCRTA gets about $45 million per year in State Of Good Repair (SOGR) federal funds from three different programs (Urban Formula, SOGR Formula and Bus/Bus Facilities) which can be had at a 20 percent local, 80 percent federal matching basis. These funds are awarded to metro areas using a formula based on population, transit ridership, and size of transit system. SOGR funds are available in blocks of up to four years, so if GCRTA has a large capital expenditure (such as replacing rail cars), it can apply for the entire four-year total it is eligible to receive and get it in a single block of funds as large as about $180 million. So unless GCRTA wants to ignore all other capital needs (except for the $2.4 million in annual federal Bus/Bus Facilities funds) for five years, it will have to provide more than 20 percent in a nonfederal share to replace its rail cars. GCRTA can also get other federal capital funds such as New Start funds for new services such as the new Cleveland State Line on Clifton Boulevard or the proposed Red Line/HealthLine extension but are usually awarded on a 50/50 federal/nonfederal matching basis. These number may change somewhat depending on Congress includes in or omits from the pending surface transportation program reauthorization that may pass by year's end.

 

So here's what $500 million in upfront local contribution to capital projects might do (8-year plan):

 

+ Address GCRTA's $254M state-of-good-repair backlog of bus and rail capital needs (50% share or $127M)

+ Replace GCRTA's railcar fleet for $280M (50% share or $140M)

+ Extend Red Line to Noble Road, Phase1 for $300 million (50% share or $150M)

+ Construct I-480/271 transitway (10 stations) from Great Northern to Mayfield for $100M (50% share or $50M)

+ Construct BRT-lite on East 152nd/Lake Shore to Shoregate for $20 million (50% share or $10M)

+ Construct BRT-lite on West 25th/Pearl to I-480 transitway for $20 million (50% share or $10M)

+ Construct Multi-modal transportation center Phase 2 for $40 million (20% share or $8M)

+ Extend CVSR to downtown Cleveland for $25 million (20% share or $5M)

 

Talk about a regionally balanced plan!

 

EDIT: note that GCRTA's Overhead Catenary System (OCS) and Tower City track rebuild costs are accounted for in the backlog of rail/bus capital needs. They were double-counted in prior versions.

Glad to see Valarie McCall, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's Chief of Government & International Affairs, also the American Public Transportation Association's board chairperson, touring the Cincinnati Streetcar last week. Hopefully she'll be inspired by what she sees and wants to replicate the vision in Cleveland...

 

Dwight A Ferrell ‏@DwightAFerrell  Dec 11

@FTA Carolyn Flowers, Marisol Simon and @APTA_info Chair Valarie McCall touring

@Cincy_Streetcar

@cincinnatimetro pic.twitter.com/s9Hj2iYoZQ

As promised before the holidays, I would scan some old reports about the Northwest Freeway rapid transit proposal. It wasn't the way I remembered it -- in fact there were three proposals:

 

1. 1963 CTS Rapid Transit Extension via the Northwest Freeway (rail extension west from the Tristkett station to Clague Road in freeway median).

2. 1965 CTS Bus Rapid Transit including/instead of reversable median lanes via the Northwest Freeway (BRT from downtown on CUT railroad right of way to near West 50th, then in freeway median to Clague Road).

3. 1966 CTS BRT via Northwest Freeway (BRT in median west from Parma Freeway interchange at West 58th to Clague Road).

 

1963 CTS rail Rapid Transit Extension

 

CTS-NWfreeway-map-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-intro-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-costs-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-conclusion-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations1-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations2-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations3-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations4-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations5-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-stations6-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-WoosterStation-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-DetroitStation-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-ClagueStation-1963s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

1965 CTS Bus Rapid Transit including/instead of reversable median lanes via the Northwest Freeway

 

CTS-NWfreeway-map-1965s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-intro-1965s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-description1-1965s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-description2-1965s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-NWfreeway-riders1-1965s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

1966 CTS BRT via Northwest Freeway

 

CTS-NWfreeway-map-1966s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

First time I've seen this, so more later, most likely....

they also tried to bring back this 1-90 model in the 80s.  They billed it as Cleveland version of Chicago's red line South.  IIRC, there was also commuter rail discussion for this as well.

Wow, very interesting! Would have been cool to see this come to fruition. I didn't even realize that bus rapid transit existed as a concept in the mid 60s.

First time I've seen this, so more later, most likely....

 

If you like that, you're going to love the report I'm going to post next. :)

KJP - if the red line to Euclid was selected, along with the costs of construction, would they also add in money for additional cars?  (my real quesion: would a Red line exentension be a back door way to get desperately needed money for train car maintenance and upkeep?)

 

Punch[/member] No, GCRTA has enough heavy rail cars for a Red Line extension to Euclid.

Here ya go... CTS wanted a rapid transit line to the rapidly growing southeast side, where the Northern Ohio Traction & Light operated a double-track electrified 80 mph line to Akron but had to operate over streetcar tracks on crowded city streets (mostly Broadway and Pittsburgh avenues) into the heart of the city. Even with that, NOT&L offered a 1-hour trip for hourly expresses between Cleveland and Akron, with locals on the half-hour taking 15-20 minutes longer. Forced by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, utilities were forced to divest of their electric railways and real estate development components to foster more rural electrification. Even on the last day of service in 1931, NOT&L trains were full but in bankruptcy.

 

There were actually two busy railroads to southeast that offered popular passenger services into the 1950s, but suffered from competition by the new Ohio Turnpike. The Erie Railroad to North Randall, Aurora, Warren, Youngstown and Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) to Bedford, Hudson (split to Akron), Ravenna (split to Alliance), Niles, Youngstown and Pittsburgh were equally busy. Both offered commuter rail services into the 1960s, with Erie's lasting to 1977. Although in about 1950, PRR was the busier of the two, real estate developers were pushing for an electrified commuter rail service on the Erie like Illinois Central's Chicago-Homewood line. CTS approach Erie RR (whose headquarters were in Cleveland's Midland Building) about the idea in the late 1950s. Erie agreed that Cleveland's southeast side could support rapid transit, but said its slow ore trains from the Riverbed Docks and busy freight train operations to nearly 50 shippers along the route precluded frequent passenger services.

 

So another route was considered. In the era before alternatives analyses were required, CTS looked at the PRR corridor to Maple Heights in 1960....

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-map-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-intro1-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-intro2-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope1-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

FYI: in the second photo in the graphic below, that's the CTS Rapid station under construction in about 1953 at Superior in East Cleveland. This was part of the East Cleveland railroad station with boarding platforms visible in the background for the two-track Nickel Plate RR and the two-track New York Central RR passenger line. There was another two-track New York Central Belt Line freight line beyond. This was Cleveland's northeast suburban railroad station:

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope2-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope3-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Don't know which station pedestrian tunnel is shown here (possibly Windermere) but the railroad overpass by the new CTS Rapid (Red Line) is east of Kinsman:

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope4-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope5-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope6-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

The West 25th station extending north from Lorain Avenue is shown in an example here:

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope7-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope8-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope9-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope10-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Left large (click to expand) to see in greater detail:

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-stationexamples-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-scope11-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-costs-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-riders-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-summary-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-Station1-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-Station2-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-Station3-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-Station4-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

More from the report in the next posting -- showing aerials of the proposed route. Trying to break this up a bit....

Southeast Rapid Transit Extension report continued -- Cleveland Transit System 1960

 

Aerials with proposed route alignment shown:

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route1-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route2-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route3-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route4-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route5-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route6-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route7-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route8-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route9-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route10-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route11-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route12-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route13-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route14-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route15-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route16-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

CTS-SERapidTransitExt-route17-1960s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Hope you enjoyed this visual trip back in time!

The CTS planners sure loved the idea of park and ride lots, huh?

 

Great stuff though. Thanks for posting, KJP. I look forward to reading through that when I have some time.

Americans forgot how to design cities and transit after nearly 20 years of Depression and world war.

The CTS planners sure loved the idea of park and ride lots, huh?

 

Great stuff though. Thanks for posting, KJP. I look forward to reading through that when I have some time.

 

My understanding is that the original concept for the first CTS Rapid segment depended heavily on bus transfers and that automobiles and parking were not major components... But that obviously quickly changed and giant lots were built at stations in the late 1950s, especially near the ends of the line.  By the time the NW and SE branches were planned in the 60s (as KJP's excellent exhibits demonstrate), it appears park 'n ride with, essentially a self-feeder system-- became the rage for CTS.  Back then, though, it appears that TOD was a foreign concept.  You could tell what CTS' priories were by just looking at it's stations.  Stations in built up urban areas like Ohio City, Detroit-Shoreway and Slavic Village, were cheap wooden platforms with narrow stairwells... The current, soon-to-be replaced E. 79th Street station is one of the last of that breed.  More elaborate stations served suburbanites, W. 117, like University Circle and Windermere which had large concrete canopy-covered bus loops and (excepting U. Circle) had large parking lots.

It's not just here... Park n' Ride is a huge deal on commuter rail lines such as Long Island and Metro-North in NY, METRA in Chicago, etc, with people paying hundreds a month for spaces.

It sure is. As it is in Toronto. But in most of those cities and overseas, there was also a concerted effort to incentivize placing the largest buildings within a 5-minute walk of transit stations. Building the transit line was only half the battle. Encouraging transit-supportive land uses is crucial to maximize the benefit of rail stations, just as we provide stormwater management, tax incentives, government loans, roadway placements and zoning for interchange services near highway ramps. Otherwise, with a park-n-ride lot (aka pedestrian moat) surrounding a rail station, you're virtually guaranteeing you'll get only two transit trips per weekday per rider -- one into work, and one home. Developing shopping, restaurants, theaters, galleries, hotels, workplaces and housing around each station means creating a transit lifestyle -- something that was understood when we had multi-faceted trusts building and operating utilities, real estate and rail transportation until rural interests that lacked electrification went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to force a break-up of these trusts. Much of Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs from 1880-1930 was developed by trusts using rail "promotional" lines into developing areas like Rockport Township and East Cleveland Township. Then along came the rural interests, the U.S. Supreme Court and the expansion of government paving roads everywhere starting in earnest in the 1920s. By the Great Depression and World War II were over, cities like Cleveland forgot how to build cities and transit -- all of which depends on walking. Only recently, such as in the last 20 years, have they been re-learning what had been forgotten.

Then along came the rural interests, the U.S. Supreme Court and the expansion of government paving roads everywhere starting in earnest in the 1920s. By the Great Depression and World War II were over, cities like Cleveland forgot how to build cities and transit -- all of which depends on walking. Only recently, such as in the last 20 years, have they been re-learning what had been forgotten.

 

I would wager that obesity would drop if the type if transit and urban planning revert back to models you've described.  Maybe not by a precipitous amount, but at least a noticeable one. 

I've always questioned Cleveland's quoted total of Downtown jobs that ranges from 100,000 to 130,000 to beat out Cincinnati and Columbus's Downtowns. Those city's CBD's appear to have more large skyscrapers full of office space than Cleveland.

 

Odd claim, I'd have to disagree.

 

Cleveland has three buildings over 600', Cincinnati and Columbus have only one each, and if BP was three feet taller, all three of Ohio's tallest would be here.

 

If that number is inflated it's because agencies that are headquartered downtown have people working all over.  But then again, cleaning people in the towers may work for a contractor based out of Independence.

New York's MTA is using marketing and media to get out in front of the public about their infrastructure problems and what they're doing to address it. I'd bet people's frustration with RTA would decrease upon seeing the problems that exist, what is being done to rectify them, and what still needs to be addressed.

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/28938/new-yorks-subway-has-a-great-idea-for-metro/

 

I asked Joe C if RTA would be willing to consider such an approach to inform the public about RTA's extensive capital improvement needs. His reply was that repeatedly complaining about decayed infrastructure and outdated equipment sends a wrong message. He said a leader demonstrates success with limited resources but can do a better job with more funding. While I agree that taxpayers and other investors will only part with their money if they believe it will be invested wisely, there is a clear message of need for modernization AND expansion that is not being heard by the public.

 

Fine, Joe and I disagree. He is confident he will find the $280 million to replace the rail fleet before attrition whittles the roster to below minimum requirements to serve special events (36 heavy-rail cars, 28 light-rail cars) and then to serve rush hours (18 heavy-rail cars, 13 light-rail cars). RTA has 40 heavy-rail cars left from its original 60. And depending on who you talk to RTA, they have roughly half of the original 1980-81 fleet of 48 light-rail cars. RTA says they have 34 light-rail cars. Because RTA must frequently inspect, repair and otherwise service the old Breda cars, they must keep at least three or four extra light-rail cars above the 28-car minimum for special events. If they can still meet that requirement, it's by the slimmest margin -- a margin that will disappear with time. And because the Breda fleet's carbodies are made of regular steel which is prone to rusting, cracking and failure (unlike the stainless steel Tokyo heavy-rail cars), these cars must be frequently inspected. So even when the light-rail fleet drops from 34 to 28, they will fall below the minimum because at least several of those 28 cars will be always making their scheduled rotations through Central Rail for inspection/maintenance/repairs.

 

Joe is concerned about the railcar fleet, but he won't publicly say what I've been saying -- that the chronology of events to find the money to replace even the light-rail fleet doesn't favor a replacement before the attrition rate prevents RTA from being able to offer full or partial service on both light-rail lines before new cars can be delivered. Here's the chronology:

 

RTA can't buy anything until 2020 -- RTA's federal allotment of state-of-good-repair funds is already spoken for existing RTA capital needs until the end of 2019. RTA can use its entire 4-year capital allotment of federal Urbanized Area Formula grants and State of Good Repair program grants for a major capital expense (such as railcar replacements). For RTA, this is about $135 million over four years or less than half the amount necessary to replace the entire rail fleet. This amount increased very slightly under the new Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 5-year authorization. Also, these funds are available at an 80/20 matching basis (80% federal, 20% local). But unless RTA is going to split the railcar replacement in two orders that are spread four years apart, they may have to commit as much as 50 percent of a local share to replace the entire rail fleet outright. RTA will save money from a new, modern, standardized railcar fleet, so that would figure into their local contribution. Splitting the order may make sense since the heavy-rail replacement isn't as time-critical. And if RTA devoted so much capital investment to replacing the entire rail fleet in one purchase, it would be forced to ignore its existing $254 million backlog in other capital improvement needs for another four years.

 

RTA could accelerate the process by getting started now -- Since the earliest that RTA could place an order for new railcars is 2020 (the year of Joe C's retirement), RTA would have to get to work soon on procurement that includes researching its own infrastructure constraints and recent orders of railcars made in North America. RTA staff (likely with the assistance of a consultant who has done this sort of thing recently) will write the specs for an RFP. And then procurement means going through the bidding process. So I hope this process starts soon for RTA to be ready for 2020.

 

RTA can't put new railcars into service until about 2025 -- Standard rule of thumb is that it takes five years from placing an order for railcars to them entering revenue service. There is no railcar showroom where dozens of railcars sit on display, ready to run. Railcars are "built to suit" although there is more standardization now than ever before among various cities' rail systems. The manufacturer who wins the bid must then have its own facilities ready, as well as make ready its worldwide suppliers' materials and facilities for manufacturing and assembly of parts, components and sub-assemblies. Fortunately, RTA's order is relatively small -- about 70 cars (San Francisco recently submitted two separate orders a couple of years apart for the same type of light-rail car totaling 215 train cars). As we have seen, there are always glitches in supply lines, labor squabbles, politics, etc. Cincinnati's streetcar order from CAF was delayed by several months. Amtrak's 130-car order (also by CAF) has been delayed by a couple of years! Let's hope that doesn't happen to RTA.

 

So we're probably a decade away from seeing new railcars on RTA tracks. Hopefully those tracks won't be rusted from disuse by then....

University Circle plans to revamp intersections to improve pedestrian safety (photos)

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/01/a_new_plan_aims_to_revamp_univ.html

The Red Line/Healthline Extension Study Final Report is done. Please join GCRTA for the final public meeting where the planning team will discuss the findings and recommendations outlined in the Final Report, and welcome your questions and feedback.

 

 

Details:

 

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016

Time: 6:00-8:00pm

Location: Collinwood Recreation Center

16300 Lake Shore Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44110

 

MORE:

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/redlinehealthlineextension

My reading of the final analysis (feel free to correct) tells us what we could have told RTA in the 1st place: that is that, clearly, the full Red Line extension would have, by far, the greatest impact on this area in terms of ridership (See: ride-attracting ability) and land-use impact.  The sticking point, of course, is the estimated $916M cost -- which, btw, still seems pretty cheap to me for a nearly 6-mile, fully heavy rail expansion.  Consider that the 7-mile HL BRT through the East Side was about $250M (IIRC) whereby the outer 2 miles beyond E.105 are built to far lesser standards (essentially small but fancy bus stops) than the Public Sq.-to-E. 105 segment.

 

Once again here in NEO, we're faced with the usual conundrum that has continued to thwart healthy transit growth in this region: do we open up the wallet and just build the damn rail line which most sensible people feel that we should (or in this case, work double-time to creatively find funding sources, like P3s combined with TIFs) or do we do our usual: build on the cheap strictly to save money but where (like the Health Line), the transit problem isn't fixed despite forking over a substantial sum anyway?

 

The suggestion that this extension could be covered with existing Red Line cars, thus avoiding the huge expense of buying brand new ones, should be a major plus-point for rail extension, and I'm surprised it isn't being mentioned in this report (or elsewhere).  KJP, do you know why this is and, if so, how can this be changed (in addition to noting in the Public Comment section)?  As I've said in the past, just saying it to the few pro-transit geeks/nerds on UO and who support AAO, doesn't go far enough; especially if our public servants, like the Euclid mayor and affected Cleveland councilmen.

 

RTA would probably be more aggressive in seeking a funding solution to build the rail extension if elected officials along the route were more outspoken in their support of it. The elected officials along the route would probably be pushing for the rail extension if their more persuasive constituents (UCI, Cleveland Clinic, UHHS, GE, Lincoln Electric, etc) were more outspoken on the need for the rail extension.

 

In the end, it seems that people are either happy with the economic conditions along this corridor or don't believe that the rail extension will be a helpful ingredient to a corridor-wide strategy to address those conditions. Come to think of it, what is the economic development strategy for this corridor? If there isn't one, then there's no surprise that the Red Line extension will be another good idea that will fade away. And it won't resurface because, as time goes on and more population loss reduces the ridership density available, this won't be a cost-effective rail extension in the coming decades. This is our last shot to get federal funds for it.

RTA would probably be more aggressive in seeking a funding solution to build the rail extension if elected officials along the route were more outspoken in their support of it. The elected officials along the route would probably be pushing for the rail extension if their more persuasive constituents (UCI, Cleveland Clinic, UHHS, GE, Lincoln Electric, etc) were more outspoken on the need for the rail extension.

 

In the end, it seems that people are either happy with the economic conditions along this corridor or don't believe that the rail extension will be a helpful ingredient to a corridor-wide strategy to address those conditions. Come to think of it, what is the economic development strategy for this corridor? If there isn't one, then there's no surprise that the Red Line extension will be another good idea that will fade away. And it won't resurface because, as time goes on and more population loss reduces the ridership density available, this won't be a cost-effective rail extension in the coming decades. This is our last shot to get federal funds for it.

 

This is a very bleak outlook which makes Cleveland seem to be going backwards from the nation while other cities, including Detroit, are developing and/or expanding rail.  The RTA (RAIL) rapid transit system not only not expanding but has threats to its future.  Yet outside of AAO and a few folks on UO, nobody seems particularly interested.  Even the AAO-fueled story about the potential rail shutdown came and went after the Scene Magazine article.

 

However, the February meeting seems to represent a Last Call for local officials to at least show up and show some interest.  I personally am going to make some phone calls and emails to affected local pols to see if these guys plan to attend (or at least send a representative) or find out why not.  This includes Frank Jackson's office where his top administrator, Valerie McCall, is not only the City's RTA liaison, but recently elected vice chair of the American Public Transit Association's executive committee.  I urge others, who are interested in not only this particular important expansion proposal, but in the future viability of of the Rapid to do so, also.

 

KJP, according to the report, in order to at least score "medium" for cost effectiveness, the HRT option would require 7.5 minute train frequencies, and even then it would just squeak under the $/trip threshold. Would RTA's current fleet be sufficient even if that level of service were provided? 

 

If a project can't score a "medium" for cost effectiveness, do you know its prospects for attracting federal funds?

 

Finally, the land and ROW acquisition costs aren't included in the estimated project costs. Does RTA or a public body already own some or all of the ROW needed to extend the Red Line past Windermere?

My understanding is that GCRTA'says existing Red Line fleet or future replacement would be sufficient to operate the Euclid extension.

 

The project should score a medium. Its ability to get federal funds depends on what projects elsewhere in the US it would compete with and how much federal funding is available.

 

Property acquisition costs will be incurred as GCRTA doesn’t own any right of way. However the scope of those costs are unknown. It could be tens of millions of dollars or it could be $100+ million.

Forum gathers ideas for Lorain County transit

Filed on February 4, 2016 by Katie Nix

 

ELYRIA — Residents gathered for a forum Wednesday night to discuss the lack of public transportation in Lorain County.

 

“We know that transportation is a complex issue,” said Brian Frederick, president and CEO of the Community Foundation of Lorain County. “In every needs assessment that we do, transportation has been at the top of the list. We don’t have a system that adequately meets the needs and desires of the people of Lorain County.”

 

Frederick helped to administer an electronic survey to about 90 people at the Mobility and Opportunity for a Vibrant Economy forum where the results were seen live. For example, 82 percent of the people in attendance felt as though Lorain County has “worse or slightly worse” access to jobs via public transit than surrounding counties.

 

“I was talking to an employer on the eastern side of the county who said he has about 50 temporary jobs that would become permanent if we could get people there,” Frederick said. “And I know there are plenty of people, especially in Lorain and Elyria, that need jobs like that, but we don’t have a way to get them there.”

 

MORE:

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/02/04/forum-gathers-ideas-lorain-county-transit/

“I was talking to an employer on the eastern side of the county who said he has about 50 temporary jobs that would become permanent if we could get people there,” Frederick said. “And I know there are plenty of people, especially in Lorain and Elyria, that need jobs like that, but we don’t have a way to get them there.”

 

Well then, why did you put your company there?  Employers need to start thinking about these things.

Employers put the jobs beyond the reach of the underfunded transit system, and then ask to have the transit service extended to them. Why??

 

Dear employers, the more people a transit system carries, the more money it loses because fares are set artificially low. If you want transit access, either pay for it or move next to a route that's already existing.

“I was talking to an employer on the eastern side of the county who said he has about 50 temporary jobs that would become permanent if we could get people there,” Frederick said. “And I know there are plenty of people, especially in Lorain and Elyria, that need jobs like that, but we don’t have a way to get them there.”

 

Well then, why did you put your company there?  Employers need to start thinking about these things.

 

It's been a consideration for at least twenty years.  Just not a compelling one.  Largely due to CERCLA.

Can't do work without workers. Employers enterprises will either have to pay for new transportation or pay to clean up old sites. There's no freebies.

Can't do work without workers. Employers enterprises will either have to pay for new transportation or pay to clean up old sites. There's no freebies.

 

Or hire people who have cars.  Even if they have to pay a little more.  That's how it typically works out.

Except they don't pay more. A friend from Russia works a minimum-wage job at a plastics plant in Solon. The apartments are too expensive on the East Side (except in bad neighborhoods) so she shares and apartment with a coworker in Broadview Heights and they share rides to work all the way across town.

 

You and I are old enough to remember when that was a good-paying union job and it was located in Cleveland or an inner-ring suburb, and she could afford to drive or take a bus that was part of a more extensive transit system back then.

 

Another way it usually works out is the employer complains about not getting enough job applicants to a transit agency because they don't offer a bus to their new location. The transit agency says it can't afford to expand and suggests the employer pay to expand bus service. Instead, the cheap-ass employer complains to an elected official whose campaign they've supported who in turn complains to a friend or colleague on the transit agency board of trustees who then puts pressure on the transit agency's staff to extend a route to the new employment location. That means subtracting transit service from somewhere else to pay for it.

 

And the new expansion is usually just a bare-bones expansion, like the express bus that goes from the end of the Blue Line out to Cochran Road in Solon -- a bus that's so full by the time it gets halfway down Warrensville to I-480 that it has to drive past people waiting to board because the bus's doors wouldn't be able to close if they got on.

:clap:

:yap:

 

Like KJP's map. Should be all N E Ohio, including Trumbull.Mahoning and Columbia counties. Now is the time to talk about a real regional authority to coordinate sparse transit funding plans. Maybe get more Federal funds for rail and bus projects. Joint buying,software,equipment,new service, etc.

:clap:

:yap:

 

Like KJP's map. Should be all N E Ohio, including Trumbull.Mahoning and Columbia counties. Now is the time to talk about a real regional authority to coordinate sparse transit funding plans. Maybe get more Federal funds for rail and bus projects. Joint buying,software,equipment,new service, etc.

 

http://www.akronmetro.org/102-now-goes-to-the-northfield-rocksino.aspx

 

It would be an obvious step for GCRTA to do likewise with their bus that goes down Alexander.  It only runs a few times a day during rush hours.  Instead, it hits the Summit County line at Broadway, where there's not much.

 

When I leave late for work I still see people trudging down 8 from Alexander.

REMINDER

 

Please join GCRTA for the final public meeting where the planning team will discuss the findings and recommendations outlined in the Final Report, and welcome your questions and feedback.

 

Details:

 

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016

Time: 6:00-8:00pm

Location: Collinwood Recreation Center

16300 Lake Shore Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44110

 

MORE:

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/redlinehealthlineextension

^ I bummed I won't be able to go because of work. Will AAO be live tweeting it??

^ I bummed I won't be able to go because of work. Will AAO be live tweeting it??

 

As close as I can. But I think we all know what will be said.

My understanding is that GCRTA'says existing Red Line fleet or future replacement would be sufficient to operate the Euclid extension.

 

The project should score a medium. Its ability to get federal funds depends on what projects elsewhere in the US it would compete with and how much federal funding is available.

 

Property acquisition costs will be incurred as GCRTA doesn’t own any right of way. However the scope of those costs are unknown. It could be tens of millions of dollars or it could be $100+ million.

 

So does your 1st statement mean that RTA could, er, be persuaded to choose the Red Line extension as its Locally Preferred Alternative in the Spring? ... In your opinion, what would it take to move the RTA board in this direction (other than RTA's considerable assertion, you noted, that the expansion could be covered with the Red Line's existing fleet?).  I take it Thursday's meeting will be a serious opportunity to persuade RTA in this direction, no?

 

You further noted that the land acquisition cost is an unknown, but I reiterate that RTA's estimate of $914M for this nearly 6-mile, HRT expansion does not seem too terribly expensive within the larger scheme of rail transit new construction circa 2016.  I'm sure part of this is because the route is relatively flat and barrier free.  I wonder if RTA would factor in at-grade crossings (which NS has on this route) and even 1 or more at-grade stations, with simple ramps to street intersections to lower costs.  As you know, the Chicago L has these cheap, grade-level crossings and stations at a few locations which are not only more densely urbanized than along the Red Line route (which, I know, carries its own Catch-22) and bears the added challenge of ground-level, electrified 3rd rails as opposed to RTA's much safer overhead catenary which is beyond the reach of pedestrians.

 

Btw, are we to assume the $914 figure excludes costs for new rolling stock?

.

Unless GCRTA wants to make a political statement, they can't recommend it. Not when GCRTA has a nearly $600 million backlog of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs.

 

If built (which it won't), the Red Line would make no at-grade crossings. The right of way through East Cleveland is elevated and there a bunch of bridges over streets that must be constructed. It will have to cross-over to the north side of the NS mainline on an elevated flyover. And going past NS's Euclid Yard means putting the Red Line almost entirely on an elevated alignment to account for current and future industrial spur tracks. My guess is that about one-sixth of a Red Line extension would be on bridges.

I wouldn't get excited about the meeting on the 11th...

Unless GCRTA wants to make a political statement, they can't recommend it. Not when GCRTA has a nearly $600 million backlog of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs.

 

Terrible.  This major injustice of non-transit funding leading to this is at the hand of Kasich and his Republicans who, as we know, cancelled the 3-Cs Amtrak (fully funded) route while personally godfathering the $330M Opportunity Corridor urban highway through the East Side ... That RTA's rail transit cannot properly expand -- let alone barely survive given faltering rail cars, due to State under (actually non)funding, in a City/metro area that claims to want to be more dense/urbanized and pedestrian and transit friendly, is a major embarrassment for this City and region.

 

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, the health-hazard atrocity of drinking water lead poisoning in Flint, MI caused by political cheapness coupled with total indifference to the needs of a largely minority/working poor city, is even worse than the situation of Kasich-GOP-RTA/transit/rail passenger mess here in Ohio...

 

... oh, and by the way, did I mention Michigan gov Rick Snyder, the man ultimately behind the Flint travesty is also a Republican ... just like our beloved John Kasich? ... yep, the same group of folks we will be cheerily opening our arms to this summer when mighty RNC marches into town...

 

                                              .... NOTE TO CAVS: please win the title this year so I can try and forget about all this.

 

 

Unless GCRTA wants to make a political statement, they can't recommend it. Not when GCRTA has a nearly $600 million backlog of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs.

 

Terrible.  This major injustice of non-transit funding leading to this is at the hand of Kasich and his Republicans who, as we know, cancelled the 3-Cs Amtrak (fully funded) route while personally godfathering the $330M Opportunity Corridor urban highway through the East Side ... That RTA's rail transit cannot properly expand -- let alone barely survive given faltering rail cars, due to State under (actually non)funding, in a City/metro area that claims to want to be more dense/urbanized and pedestrian and transit friendly, is a major embarrassment for this City and region.

 

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, the health-hazard atrocity of drinking water lead poisoning in Flint, MI caused by political cheapness coupled with total indifference to the needs of a largely minority/working poor city, is even worse than the situation of Kasich-GOP-RTA/transit/rail passenger mess here in Ohio...

 

... oh, and by the way, did I mention Michigan gov Rick Snyder, the man ultimately behind the Flint travesty is also a Republican ... just like our beloved John Kasich? ... yep, the same group of folks we will be cheerily opening our arms to this summer when mighty RNC marches into town...

 

                                              .... NOTE TO CAVS: please win the title this year so I can try and forget about all this.

 

It might be the time to not mention Kasich cancelling the 3C rail line given that Megabus has just cancelled its Cleveland to Columbus-Cincinnati service due to lack of demand.

^In a Republican-controlled, freeway-dominated/oriented state, where the capital city -- the largest in the State, doesn't even have ANY Amtrak service at all, Megabus' 3-C nixing is not surprising.  Study after study after study after study have pointed out that human beings are far more open to using trains that buses, with the former seen as comfortable, relaxing, safe and positive with the latter seen as all-things negative.  But the GOP, their friends the Koch Bros in tandem with endless right-wing super-Pacs, have spent billions and worked triple overtime to convince the Ohio populace that train travel is just some gold-plated, social-engineering, tax-grubbing, Rube Goldberg-ean folly geared toward shuttling poor and minority, oft criminally-oriented hordes to a nice lily-white neighborhood near you -- all dreamed up in the heads those Bernie-lovin', Occupy Wall Street uber-wacko, Limousine Libs.

 

Megabus' 3-C cancellation was due to falling gas prices and people -- again, we're talking Ohio, where trains and transit have been systematically sledge-hammered by the Right -- have been lured into drive their cars everywhere but esp to/from their suburban and ex-urban cul-de-sacs, malls and non-city office parks along the beltway.

^In a Republican-controlled, freeway-dominated/oriented state, where the capital city -- the largest in the State, doesn't even have ANY Amtrak service at all, Megabus' 3-C nixing is not surprising.  Study after study after study after study have pointed out that human beings are far more open to using trains that buses, with the former seen as comfortable, relaxing, safe and positive with the latter seen as all-things negative.  But the GOP, their friends the Koch Bros in tandem with endless right-wing super-Pacs, have spent billions and worked triple overtime to convince the Ohio populace that train travel is just some gold-plated, social-engineering, tax-grubbing, Rube Goldberg-ean folly geared toward shuttling poor and minority, oft criminally-oriented hordes to a nice lily-white neighborhood near you -- all dreamed up in the heads those Bernie-lovin', Occupy Wall Street uber-wacko, Limousine Libs.

 

Megabus' 3-C cancellation was due to falling gas prices and people -- again, we're talking Ohio, where trains and transit have been systematically sledge-hammered by the Right -- have been lured into drive their cars everywhere but esp to/from their suburban and ex-urban cul-de-sacs, malls and non-city office parks along the beltway.

 

Still, how much would a train ticket on a high-speed line cost to get to Columbus vs. a Megabus style ride or simply driving?  Once in a place like Columbus, or even Cincinnati, how is one to get to their final destination unless it's right near a train station? 

 

Right, Megabus was cancelled due to a lack of demand.  That's how business works.  No demand, no service.  Yet, somehow a vastly more expensive high-speed train line linking the 3Cs was going to work and sustain itself when even Megabus couldn't survive?

 

I'm a public transit supporter but this whole high-speed train line from CLE-CIN never really made economic sense.  The high-speed train cancel by Kasich issue should be dropped, and quickly.

Responded to this off-topic conversation in the proper thread....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18328.msg789842.html#msg789842

ICYMI, Joe Calabrese testified in Columbus yesterday before the Joint Legislative Task Force to advocate for more state transportation funding. It's good that the lawmakers in the statehouse are hearing from him, but it's up to us to show them that their constituents also care about these issues. They're not getting elected by Joe Calabrese after all...

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/calabrese-advocates-transit-funding-statehouse

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cleveland/rta-boss-makes-case-for-more-state-funding-of-public-transit/44940724

 

 

There is a new group of people that are working to be that voice. It's called Clevelanders for Public Transit and you can follow the group on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CLEforTransit and like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CLEforTransit/. If you want to help change the status quo and work to make public transit a valuable asset for NE Ohio, get involved!