11 hours ago, KJP said:

I've also heard some speculation that there were no bidders for the railcar order. A prediction: RTA will use it as an excuse to go back to the two-system (HRV and LRV) concept and buy off-the-shelf stuff. They're going to have to either tweak their rail stations (for a standardized rail fleet) or redesign the Central Rail Facility (to accommodate modern married pair HRVs). It's time for GCRTA that they have to change, not force others to.

Despite the fact that there really was no reason to continue with the two different rail car fleets in the late 1970's and and early 1980's when the Breda LRV and Tokyu HRV fleets were ordered, they did do one thing right with the heavy rail cars back then.  I felt that going with paired cars that were coupled together was a better choice instead of being semi-permanently joined via draw bars.  181-200 were single cars with full controls at both ends.  301-340 were the paired cars with full controls at one end and "hostler" controls (for yard/shop movements) at the other.  If something was wrong with one car of a "pair" set while the other was perfectly fine, it wouldn't take many hours to disconnect and join it with another good car.  A single unit could even be coupled with one of the 301-series to comprise a two-car set in minutes (and I have seen that practice used).

 

The problem is that RTA's rail system ridership has declined to such a point that for most of the day, multiple-unit consists aren't needed.  Operating two cars around-the-clock is extremely wasteful in energy consumption and wear-and-tear on the equipment.  Furthermore, continuing with the separate fleet option does cost far more in the long run with doubling up everything.  If RTA's leaders (they aren't managers--that is insulting to real managers) think they are "smarter than everyone else", a tiny order of 40 or fewer units that will meet their unique needs, it will be so expensive per-unit.  If they cannot gather interest in manufacturer on a larger fleet, it will be even harder to get it for smaller fleets.  

 

It is painfully obvious that the incompetence is continuing.  Birdsong, even on maternity leave, shouldn't have deputies with free reign to do whatever they want if it doesn't align with her vision when she isn't in the office.  If they don't follow her wishes, they should be gone.  If she doesn't care, she should be gone.  A real "bright spot" wouldn't let this continue.  Funding stipulations come from above all the time. If RTA's leaders cannot get unified enough to go with one rail car for the entire system, money being awarded to them to replace the fleet needs to have those strings attached.   

This thread is for discussing RTA.  Not what sort of housing style we should build in Hough.

One of the Red Line cars is on fire at the West Park Station.

This is how GCRTA decided to report said fire. I see the Joe Calabrese way of reporting the truth and maintaining credibility remains alive and well at GCRTA.

 

 

I was misinformed. Turns out Siemens decided to do a rush order to submit a last-minue bid despite GCRTA twice turning them down for a deadline extension. Another bidder was the China Railway Rolling Stock Corp. CRRC built a Springfield, Mass plant to manufacture subway cars for Boston. Siemens makes better trains but CRRC may be able to under-bid them.

 

Other likely candidates for submitting bids, Hitachi and Stadler, did not submit bids.

Are the new RTA trains supposed to have capacity for safe bike storage?

Just now, gildone said:

Are the new RTA trains supposed to have capacity for safe bike storage?

 

Too soon to know.

46 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Too soon to know.

Thanks.  That would be a real mistake if they didn't.  It's becoming more common now with transit systems.

On 5/29/2021 at 11:10 PM, KJP said:

 

I would add Portland, OR, Madison, WI, Olympia, WA and Kansas City, MO. They are willing to try new things and do a good job of listening to their customers as well as people who aren't yet their customers.

 

BTW, as to transit being only for the poor who have no choice, I recall this famous quote: “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation” – Gustavo Petro, Mayor of Bogotá. Along those lines, I was always shocked in Canada how many well-dressed people, especially young white professionals, rode the bus. I expected to see it in Europe, but not in Canada and even in suburban areas where service frequency was high. So in the USA, note which transit systems have the smallest income difference for transit users -- and how slow Cleveland's transit system is. If you speed up the service, it will attract more choice riders.

 

BTW2, the chart below is from: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-cities-for-public-transportation

 

 

I won’t say that GCRTA is completely unresponsive.   After all, I was able to get a bus stop moved when I noticed that a large group of our people were walking several hundred feet down the street to a stop directly adjacent to a closed plant.   The fact that it didn’t happen sooner says something, but so does the fact that it did eventually happen. 

 

On the other hand it wasn’t that long ago that they refused to venture south of Alexander Road, leaving Hard Rock/MGM employees with a mile walk down SR8 and missing a connection with Akron METRO there.

 

As far as Mayor Pero’s description of a “developed country” that’s a bit self serving.   A nation with a communitarian mindset can do that.   The USA isn’t one, particularly away from the coasts.

 

That said, GCRTA has historically seemed to feel that transportation safety net is its precise role.   It’s easy to blame the late Dr. Krumholz for opposing any concessions to the preference of suburban “fat cats”, but the truth is it’s been a long time since he sat on the board.   Yes, that influence has lingered.  

 

But perhaps more relevant in 2021 is the entrenched bureaucracy/monopoly mindset.   GCRTA’s approach to Siemens et al is oddly parallel to the way it views potential suburban riders:  you will do things our way, or the heck with you. 

Want to know what's absolutely f'd. I get off the Amtrak at 5:30am last Friday, and to get to Tower City I have to walk up the stairs at the East 9th station. 

 

Except that the ground level doors were/are locked from the inside, so once I climbed the station steps, there was no escape. So what do I do, I go downstairs with my s-hit, right back to the tracks, then climb the f'ing hill next to the station so I can circle back to Tower City.

 

Whether it's Amtrak or RTA's fault, not exactly a world class greeting.

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

It’s easy to blame the late Dr. Krumholz for opposing any concessions to the preference of suburban “fat cats”, but the truth is it’s been a long time since he sat on the board.   Yes, that influence has lingered.  

 

Unfortunately, Krumholz's opposition to rapid transit growth came at a key time.  After he helped to kill the extension to I-271, RTA sold off the right-of-way beyond Sulgrave Road (border of Shaker Heights and Beachwood) to Beachwood.  At least the right-of-way is still intact and held by local government.  If, by some miracle the desire to extend the line beyond Green Road becomes more of a reality, the loss of perhaps 50 feet of width out of the 500-foot wide median would not be a massive loss of green space.  A potential extension could be shifted so that the tracks would be next to the westbound lanes of Shaker Blvd to minimize the disruptions.  It would still leave 450 feet of that median undisturbed.

3 hours ago, TBideon said:

Want to know what's absolutely f'd. I get off the Amtrak at 5:30am last Friday, and to get to Tower City I have to walk up the stairs at the East 9th station. 

 

Except that the ground level doors were/are locked from the inside, so once I climbed the station steps, there was no escape. So what do I do, I go downstairs with my s-hit, right back to the tracks, then climb the f'ing hill next to the station so I can circle back to Tower City.

 

Whether it's Amtrak or RTA's fault, not exactly a world class greeting.

 

On a semi-related note, when I was down at the NFL draft I was surprised to see that the replacement bus stop for the Waterfront line is all the way over in front of the Science Center on Erieside.  

8 hours ago, TBideon said:

Want to know what's absolutely f'd. I get off the Amtrak at 5:30am last Friday, and to get to Tower City I have to walk up the stairs at the East 9th station. 

 

Except that the ground level doors were/are locked from the inside, so once I climbed the station steps, there was no escape. So what do I do, I go downstairs with my s-hit, right back to the tracks, then climb the f'ing hill next to the station so I can circle back to Tower City.

 

Whether it's Amtrak or RTA's fault, not exactly a world class greeting.

 

A friend of mine from Chicago almost always walks the Shoreway ramp to East 9th and then over to Tower City. He's also taken RTA's 9-12 Trolley (when it ran) from outside the Amtrak station gate to Chester/East 12th to take Greyhound to Akron. 

 

BTW, a number of large employers in the 9-12 District aren't bringing their employees back to the office until RTA brings back the 9-12 Trolley route.

 

6 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Unfortunately, Krumholz's opposition to rapid transit growth came at a key time.  After he helped to kill the extension to I-271, RTA sold off the right-of-way beyond Sulgrave Road (border of Shaker Heights and Beachwood) to Beachwood.  At least the right-of-way is still intact and held by local government.  If, by some miracle the desire to extend the line beyond Green Road becomes more of a reality, the loss of perhaps 50 feet of width out of the 500-foot wide median would not be a massive loss of green space.  A potential extension could be shifted so that the tracks would be next to the westbound lanes of Shaker Blvd to minimize the disruptions.  It would still leave 450 feet of that median undisturbed.

 

I'd rather see the Green Line turn north along Warrensville, then northeast around John Carroll University, up Belvoir to Cedar and Cedar east to Legacy Village and Beachwood Place. Then, maybe someday, Northeast along the south side of I-271 to Golden Gate.

Is it possible to get to W3 from the Amtrak? Google maps does not make it clear.

6 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Is it possible to get to W3 from the Amtrak? Google maps does not make it clear.

 

Probably. You can walk west along the Amtrak trackside platform and then carry your bags across the tracks to the West 3rd station which has a ramp up to street level. It may be chained off but that's nothing that a duck-under can't defeat.

I'll try that next time.

I would say that does not make a good first impression of Cleveland.

I haven't heard why, but this is not a good look for GCRTA...

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/rta-cancels-rail-car-procurement-rfp-will-re-issue-next-few-months

 

RTA Cancels Rail Car Procurement RFP; Will Re-Issue in Next Few Months

 

Jun 11, 2021

 

CLEVELAND, OH -- The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is canceling the solicitation for the procurement of rail cars effective today, June 11, 2021, and will re-issue the Request for Proposal sometime in the next few months.

 

RTA issued Request for Proposal 2020-150 for the procurement of new rail cars on February 22, 2021 and allowed three months for proposals to be submitted. The deadline for submission was May 19, 2021.

The proposals were to be submitted in two parts, a technical proposal and a cost proposal.

 

Two vendors submitted documentation in response to RFP 2020-150. Only one of those two vendors submitted a proposal for consideration.

 

The single proposal received was reviewed by the technical proposal review panel, and the panel concluded that proposal was not responsive to the technical requirements of the solicitation.

 

Since only a single proposal was received and that proposal was non-responsive, the technical proposal review panel recommended that the Director of Procurement cancel the solicitation.

 

Additionally, because the technical proposal was non-responsive to the technical requirements, the cost proposal portion of the proposal was not eligible to be reviewed.

 

RTA remains committed to its Railcar Replacement Program.

@KJPGood that they are going to re-issue the RFP.  I wonder if anything about this explanation is a way of saving face from AAOs complaint? 

The failure to extend the bid date requested by Siemens likely backfired on them. I am sure the Siemens submittal was not a full proposal and they could not award a contract to the Chinese without any other competing bids. They would be crucified. And with FTA looking over their shoulder after AAO's complaint, they decided to take this drastic if not excessive action. I don't think they needed to start over.

 

11 hours ago, KJP said:

The failure to extend the bid date requested by Siemens likely backfired on them. I am sure the Siemens submittal was not a full proposal and they could not award a contract to the Chinese without any other competing bids. They would be crucified. And with FTA looking over their shoulder after AAO's complaint, they decided to take this drastic if not excessive action. I don't think they needed to start over.

Maybe the FTA looking over RTA's shoulder was more than that.  Maybe they were strongly "suggested" by the FTA to start over and get it right.  Perhaps the delay in advertising for new proposals is getting reviewed by the FTA before it is put out.  Other previous incidents have indicated that internal oversight is strongly lacking and the rail car replacement process is just another example of RTA's flawed internal review. 

Reminder: the entire RTA system is free to use all week, starting tomorrow, Sun-Sat (June 13-19). They are promoting the complete bus system redesign which goes into effect tomorrow. The new system dramatically increases the portion of the population that will have good access to decent frequency service.

 

I'm taking advantage of the free service by taking my kids on their first ever Rapid ride, which they are very excited about.  I'm thinking OC, Terminal Tower (can't wait to show them the new water feature!), and Little Italy.  Debating also going all the way to the airport or perhaps to Shaker Square. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Maybe the FTA looking over RTA's shoulder was more than that.  Maybe they were strongly "suggested" by the FTA to start over and get it right.  Perhaps the delay in advertising for new proposals is getting reviewed by the FTA before it is put out.  Other previous incidents have indicated that internal oversight is strongly lacking and the rail car replacement process is just another example of RTA's flawed internal review. 

 

It be great if the federal Infrastructure $$$ support a standard transit car design with a few variations that could be widely purchased by lots of transit systems, like the PCC streetcars. This custom-design nonsense is why transit cost way more than it should.

5 hours ago, Dougal said:

 

It be great if the federal Infrastructure $$$ support a standard transit car design with a few variations that could be widely purchased by lots of transit systems, like the PCC streetcars. This custom-design nonsense is why transit cost way more than it should.

 

It's ONE of many reasons.

 

On 6/3/2021 at 11:52 AM, E Rocc said:

 

I won’t say that GCRTA is completely unresponsive.   After all, I was able to get a bus stop moved when I noticed that a large group of our people were walking several hundred feet down the street to a stop directly adjacent to a closed plant.   The fact that it didn’t happen sooner says something, but so does the fact that it did eventually happen. 

 

On the other hand it wasn’t that long ago that they refused to venture south of Alexander Road, leaving Hard Rock/MGM employees with a mile walk down SR8 and missing a connection with Akron METRO there.

 

As far as Mayor Pero’s description of a “developed country” that’s a bit self serving.   A nation with a communitarian mindset can do that.   The USA isn’t one, particularly away from the coasts.

 

That said, GCRTA has historically seemed to feel that transportation safety net is its precise role.   It’s easy to blame the late Dr. Krumholz for opposing any concessions to the preference of suburban “fat cats”, but the truth is it’s been a long time since he sat on the board.   Yes, that influence has lingered.  

 

But perhaps more relevant in 2021 is the entrenched bureaucracy/monopoly mindset.   GCRTA’s approach to Siemens et al is oddly parallel to the way it views potential suburban riders:  you will do things our way, or the heck with you. 

RTA is erratic when it comes to making things easier for is riders.  When the 239 was in operation, approximately half that bus route's riders got off at the Federal Building, yet that bus did not stop at the building.  There were people who found that the walk across Lakeside was an issue (due to physical problems).  There were some drivers who were sympathetic and made it a stop, but most didn't.  There were multiple requests to make it a stop, but RTA refused.  The current 39F and 39 don't stop there either.  Laketran has their park-n-ride buses stop right in front of the building.  On the other hand, when the management of a certain restaurant in the Galleria (that will be moving to the AECOM building next year) complained about a stop near their outdoor dining area, RTA moved it.  Complaints concerning poor operators that regularly caused people to miss connections for other routes yielded no actions.

 

As for RTA's disdain for suburban riders, they are playing a dangerous game.  It is a foregone conclusion that they will be going to the county's voters in the foreseeable future for to seek either an increase to the sales tax or a new property tax.  How favorably will residents who were users of the former North Olmsted, Maple Heights or Euclid bus systems think of the service they now receive?  Commuters who used the park-n-ride services have lost those routes except for the Strongsville service.  Some suburbs barely have any regular service at all.  There are those who haven't forgotten the cutting back of Green Line service with the last trip leaving downtown at 9:00 pm for a year (except for random special events).  It was useless to take the Green Line for any evening baseball, basketball, hockey, concert or other event.  If suburban riders do not feel they receive any benefit by the services that RTA provides, will they be inclined to increase taxes to pay for those services, especially with the well-publicized management problems?

Edited June 27, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

I do not think it's a foregone conclusion that RTA will seek a new revenue source. There are some in management who believe that they will lose badly at the polls. Ironically, those same managers are a major reason why they're probably right.

16 minutes ago, KJP said:

I do not think it's a foregone conclusion that RTA will seek a new revenue source. There are some in management who believe that they will lose badly at the polls. Ironically, those same managers are a major reason why they're probably right.

From what I have read, the revenue increase was put on hold due to the belief it would do very badly, but I got the impression that it was only on hold.  At some point it will be put to a county vote.  Perhaps the tactic to try to get it passed is to link the passage to the restoration of now curtailed or drastically reduced suburban services.  

 

I do believe that those managers are in denial that they are the reasons behind RTA's decline.  It is far easier for them to blame everything else for their problems and not themselves.

On 6/12/2021 at 11:53 AM, Dougal said:

 

It be great if the federal Infrastructure $$$ support a standard transit car design with a few variations that could be widely purchased by lots of transit systems, like the PCC streetcars. This custom-design nonsense is why transit cost way more than it should.

The feds actually tried to do this in the 70s.

 

They had the USLRV which was a disaster and the SOAC which never went into production.

 

The CTS tested both and turned both down.

15 hours ago, jawn said:

The feds actually tried to do this in the 70s.

 

They had the USLRV which was a disaster and the SOAC which never went into production.

 

The CTS tested both and turned both down.

 

Then we need the Donald Rumsfeld approach: "Yes, but those people were idiots; in MY hands it will work."  😉

 

This may actually contain a germ of truth. The USLRV was an early example of Boeing hubris - Boeing Vertol didn't build very good helicopters in those days, either.  SOAC probably could have worked with a stronger govt. push. A standard design *could* be done well.

On 6/13/2021 at 7:57 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

RTA is erratic when it comes to making things easier for is riders.  When the 239 was in operation, approximately half that bus route's riders got off at the Federal Building, yet that bus did not stop at the building.  There were people who found the that the walk across Lakeside was an issue (due to physical problems).  There were some drivers who were sympathetic and made it a stop, but most didn't.  There were multiple requests to make it a stop, but RTA refused.  The current 39F and 39 don't stop there either.  Laketran has their park-n-ride buses stop right in front of the building.  On the other hand, when the management of a certain restaurant in the Galleria (that will be moving to the AECOM building next year) complained about a stop near their outdoor dining area, RTA moved it.  Complaints concerning poor operators that regularly caused people to miss connections for other routes yielded no actions.

 

As for RTA's disdain for suburban riders, they are playing a dangerous game.  It is a foregone conclusion that they will be going to the county's voters in the foreseeable future for to seek either an increase to the sales tax or a new property tax.  How favorably will residents who were users of the former North Olmsted, Maple Heights or Euclid bus systems think of the service they now receive?  Commuters who used the park-n-ride services have lost those routes except for the Strongsville service.  Some suburbs barely have any regular service at all.  There are those who haven't forgotten the cutting back of Green Line service with the last trip leaving downtown at 9:00 pm for a year (except for random special events).  It was useless to take the Green Line for any evening baseball, basketball, hockey, concert or other event.  If suburban riders do not feel they receive any benefit by the services that RTA provides, will they be inclined to increase taxes to pay for those services, especially with the well-publicized management problems?

 

I'm not sure there are many people left who rode any of the independent suburban systems on a regular basis, still riding today.

On 6/12/2021 at 11:53 AM, Dougal said:

 

It be great if the federal Infrastructure $$$ support a standard transit car design with a few variations that could be widely purchased by lots of transit systems, like the PCC streetcars. This custom-design nonsense is why transit cost way more than it should.

 

Or even standard design criteria!  Gotta start somewhere.

On 6/23/2021 at 12:13 PM, E Rocc said:

 

I'm not sure there are many people left who rode any of the independent suburban systems on a regular basis, still riding today.

At one time, RTA must have felt that providing good service to its suburban riders was worth it.  When the four park-n-ride facilities opened in Euclid, North Olmsted, Strongsville and Westlake, they all had parking for 300 to 320 cars.  Euclid's capacity didn't change, but North Olmsted's capacity increased to 489, Strongsville to 650 and Westlake to 715.  RTA does own land where it could have expanded the Euclid facility to about 500 cars if it wished.  When RTA started providing park-n-ride service with far more comfortable highway coaches (which also had longer planned service lives, 18 years instead of 12), they used 23 40-footers.  Not long after, they augmented the fleet with 3 45-footers.  Later they added another 12 45-footers.  When RTA operated a mix of both sizes, the 45-footers almost exclusively operated on the west side routes.  In 2020, RTA retired the last of the 40-footers and original 3 45-footers with 12 new 45-footers (costing about $8 million total for the 12).

 

With NextGen's implementation, the highway coach service from North Olmsted and Westlake ceased.  The faster service using comfortable buses traveling mostly freeway routings has been replaced with more frequent service, but the travel times are much longer in duration using city-type buses and their hard plastic seats over city streets.  

 

In 2013, RTA spent $252,000 to rebuild the 320-car capacity Euclid park-n-ride facility.  In 2016, the highway service ceased from that facility and it was replaced with indirect service downtown over city streets.  Riders rejected it.  Today, that lot has been mostly cordoned off with guardrails attached to barrels.  At most, perhaps 15 cars could park there.  As it has been shown for the Euclid change, riders will not be interested in lengthening their commuting times.  How long before those expanded lots be contracted in capacity in a similar manner in North Olmsted and Westlake?  This is not the way to increase ridership, let alone retain it, for a system that has been annually dropping to new all time lows.  

 

If RTA comes calling for an increase in tax revenue, either from a hike in the county-wide sales tax or additional property tax, will suburban voters that have seen service downgraded or eliminated be inclined to increase their taxes?  Since the original vote to create RTA by increasing the county's sales tax rate by 1.0% in 1975, the percentage of the county's population has increased significantly to the suburbs.  It is unwise for RTA's leaders to ignore the segment of the population that it needs to pass at tax increase on the county level.

Edited June 27, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

15 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

At one time, RTA must have felt that providing good service to its suburban riders was worth it.  When the four park-n-ride facilities opened in Euclid, North Olmsted, Strongsville and Westlake, they all had parking for 300 to 320 cars.  Euclid's capacity didn't change, but North Olmsted's capacity increased to 489, Strongsville to 650 and Westlake to 715.  RTA does own land where it could have expanded the Euclid facility to about 500 cars if it wished.  When RTA started providing park-n-ride service with far more comfortable highway coaches (which also had longer planned service lives, 18 years instead of 12), they used 23 40-footers.  Not long after, they augmented the fleet with 3 45-footers.  Later they added another 12 45-footers.  When RTA operated a mix of both sizes, the 45-footers almost exclusively operated on the west side routes.  In 2020, RTA retired the last of the 40-footers and original 3 45-footers with 12 new 45-footers (costing about $8 million total for the 12).

 

With NextGen's implementation, the highway coach service from North Olmsted and Westlake ceased.  The faster service using comfortable buses traveling mostly freeway routings has been replaced with more frequent service, but the travel times are much longer in duration using city-type buses and their hard plastic seats over city streets.  

 

In 2013, RTA spent $252,000 to rebuild the 320-car capacity Euclid park-n-ride facility.  In 2016, the highway service ceased from that facility and it was replaced with indirect service downtown over city streets.  Riders rejected it.  Today, that lot has been mostly cordoned off with guardrails attached to barrels.  At most, perhaps 15 cars could park there.  As it has been shown for the Euclid change, riders will not be interested in lengthening their commuting times.  How long before those expanded lots be contracted in capacity in a similar manner in North Olmsted and Westlake?  This is not the way to increase ridership, let alone retain it, for a system that has been annually dropping to new all time lows.  

 

If RTA comes calling for an increase in tax revenue, either from a hike in the county-wide sales tax or additional property tax, will suburban voters that have seen service downgraded or eliminated be inclined to increase their taxes?  Since the original vote to create RTA by increasing the county's sales tax rate by 1.0% in 1975, the percentage of the county's population has increased significantly to the suburbs.  It is unwise for RTA's leaders to ignore the segment of the population that it needs to pass at tax increase on the county level.

 

City streets also means more stops, and the associated longer times.

It might be worth taking a look at what LakeTran does.    I work near a park and ride lot just east of SR 615.   It used to appear reasonably full, pre-virus.   Definitely highway coaches, highway ride, minimal stops.

If it doesn't come back Euclid may be a lost cause.
 

Edited June 27, 20213 yr by E Rocc

GCRTA also established some of the park-n-ride routes as a precursor to commuter rail. The station sites for Westlake and Euclid were specifically chosen to be next to rail lines that GCRTA planned to use for commuter rail. After Ron Tober left, those commuter rail dreams left with him. With the continued demise of downtown as a workplace, I question as to whether or not park-n-ride transit services are justified. They are some of the least cost-effective even when they were being heavily used.  Unless GCRTA gets heavily involved in promoting more TOD to add more urban core density, I don't see much of an expansion future for GCRTA in sprawled-out Greater Cleveland. Any new revenue has to be for promoting TOD as much as for service improvements.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

GCRTA also established some of the park-n-ride routes as a precursor to commuter rail. The station sites for Westlake and Euclid were specifically chosen to be next to rail lines that GCRTA planned to use for commuter rail. After Ron Tober left, those commuter rail dreams left with him. With the continued demise of downtown as a workplace, I question as to whether or not park-n-ride transit services are justified. They are some of the least cost-effective even when they were being heavily used.  Unless GCRTA gets heavily involved in promoting more TOD to add more urban core density, I don't see much of an expansion future for GCRTA in sprawled-out Greater Cleveland. Any new revenue has to be for promoting TOD as much as for service improvements.

I believe that the "least cost effective" aspect of the park-n-ride operations may have been the result of numbers manipulation and poor pricing by RTA.  A highway coach travelling from one of the west side lots using mostly the freeways can make two departures from the same lot in less time than one bus travelling via the same points over city streets.  Fuel efficiency and wear is much better when stop-and-go operations are greatly reduced.  It very obvious that as RTA degraded under Calabrese's control as many through routes were truncated into feeder lines involving transfers.  For many, it turned into a series of shuttle bus routes.  A park-n-ride freeway run does not fit that model.  I also feel that offering a premium service for only an additional quarter, only 10% more than standard service, isn't going to have much of an additional return.  When RTA started operations in 1975, local service was 25 cents and express/flyer service was 35 cents, 40% over the local fare.  Translated to today, park-n-ride service, especially with equipment far better than RTA had in its early days, should be in the vicinity of $3.50 a trip. 

 

RTA's park-n-ride services should not be confused with the subsidized highway operations offered by Akron's METRO.  RTA's services are within their operational area that basically covers Cuyahoga County, whereas the METRO and Canton service to Cuyahoga County are multi-county operations where only one fare-generating trip can be made by a single bus per each peak period.  About half of the Laketran runs from/to Eastlake and Mentor have buses that will make two round trips per peak period.  The only other highway coach route offered by Laketran involves the 2 trips from/to Madison during each peak period.  Laketran also maximizes their usefulness as a commuting option by promoting reverse commuting (i.e. return runs from morning rush hour trips will carry passengers from downtown to Tyler Blvd in Mentor and the reverse in the afternoons).  They also have scheduled departure times from park-n-ride lots when they make their runs going downtown in the afternoon.  Finally, on days where employers will let people off early either due to holidays or bad weather, Laketran will send highway coaches downtown early.  The early runs for holidays are publicized beforehand. When I rode RTA's park-n-ride service, if there was a possibility of early dismissal, I would drive to work as I did not want to face an hour using the local bus to get back.

 

As for the demise of the Euclid park-n-ride service, it was directly due to security problems.  Cars were regularly broken into, damaged and stolen from the lot.  Homeless individuals, even during good weather, would sleep on the station benches.  Security camera coverage of the parking lot was virtually non-existent.  Unless somebody called for transit police, they weren't around and Euclid didn't have their police on patrols there either.

 

By taking the actions over the years to basically eliminate most park-n-ride operations will probably mean that RTA has lost those passengers for good.  Transit oriented development, though something that is desirable, will be dismissed by people who feel that RTA has failed to do their job in promoting and encouraging mass transit usage.

Edited June 27, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

The big difference between park and ride/express/freeway busses and mainline routes is that the people that get on the bus at the park and ride lot are the only people who will be riding that trip. That may be, what, 40 people? A mainline bus on the other hand will have people getting on and off the bus all throughout its one-way trip so that it could end up picking up a 100 or even 200 people in the course of its one way trip toward the destination.

 

Apparently we may have to do a mass education campaign to explain to taxpayers and voters why Greater Cleveland RTA should be involved in TOD.  At the same token I would remove RTA from being involved in transit planning. And I would also make RTA a contracting authority with private sector operators who would compete for routes and receive subsidies to operate them. There simply as too much waste and expense in how the existing system functions.

Probably the second difference for the park-and-rides is that they are one-way - if a bus makes an early pickup at Westlake, runs downtown and drops people off, and then heads back for another trip, there won't be anyone going from downtown to the park-and-ride lot in the morning.

 

The 55 would have at least some riders in the outbound direction.

1 hour ago, bjk said:

Probably the second difference for the park-and-rides is that they are one-way - if a bus makes an early pickup at Westlake, runs downtown and drops people off, and then heads back for another trip, there won't be anyone going from downtown to the park-and-ride lot in the morning.

 

The 55 would have at least some riders in the outbound direction.

 

It was just addressed that that isn't the case for LakeTran.

 

FWIW, the Tyler Boulevard area of Mentor (actually the lot is on Market Street across SR2 from Tyler) is a busy manufacturing area.   We're booming as apparently are our neighbors.  That said, manufacturing starts earlier than downtown jobs.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

The big difference between park and ride/express/freeway busses and mainline routes is that the people that get on the bus at the park and ride lot are the only people who will be riding that trip. That may be, what, 40 people? A mainline bus on the other hand will have people getting on and off the bus all throughout its one-way trip so that it could end up picking up a 100 or even 200 people in the course of its one way trip toward the destination.

 

Apparently we may have to do a mass education campaign to explain to taxpayers and voters why Greater Cleveland RTA should be involved in TOD.  At the same token I would remove RTA from being involved in transit planning. And I would also make RTA a contracting authority with private sector operators who would compete for routes and receive subsidies to operate them. There simply as too much waste and expense in how the existing system functions.

 

Based on the cars I used to see in the Market Street lot, the typical P&R rider isn't trying to save money.   Boost the fares.   And oh yeah, have actual security in the lots, which are after all private property.  

I do like your idea about private sector operators.    A lot.  I've said for years that mass transit doesn't need to be "public" transit, and this has certainly become the case in the SF bay area (with pushback of course).   But I doubt it flies.   Monopoly was the entire point of the federally "encouraged" mergers.

Park and rides are an inherently bad way to structure public transit. For every parking spot you get 2 trips a weekday maximum, but the parking lot is rarely gonna be at capacity. There are still car trips associated with each transit trip. The parking lots also make the transit stop less walkable by separating any possible destination by a sea of parking. Park and rides are an extension of car centric planning and do not have a place in the transit oriented cities of the future. 

 

Mass transit should be public. Privatization will cut costs and "inefficiencies" but those costs are the lower ridership routes that people depend on. There are societal benefits to mass transportation beyond making a profit and it should be run as a public service not as a private enterprise. There are all kinds of issues around transit equity and the like that private businesses are not interested in improving because their main goal is short term profits for shareholders not the general improvement of transit access for all in a city. 

1 minute ago, Henryefry said:

Park and rides are an inherently bad way to structure public transit. For every parking spot you get 2 trips a weekday maximum, but the parking lot is rarely gonna be at capacity. There are still car trips associated with each transit trip. The parking lots also make the transit stop less walkable by separating any possible destination by a sea of parking. Park and rides are an extension of car centric planning and do not have a place in the transit oriented cities of the future.

Generally agree that park-and-rides are inefficient.  But I think you would get some additional riders who are dropped off and won't take up a parking space -- say one spouse working downtown and another working in Oberlin.  And if they put a covered waiting area at the front of the park-and-ride site with parking behind, it COULD be made more pedestrian-friendly. 

 

My preference would be to offer up the park-and-ride lot to the local community to maintain and subsidize the route.  Most probably wouldn't, which just shows how unimportant and useless mass transit is when you live in car-dependent sprawl.

 

 

7 hours ago, KJP said:

The big difference between park and ride/express/freeway busses and mainline routes is that the people that get on the bus at the park and ride lot are the only people who will be riding that trip. That may be, what, 40 people? A mainline bus on the other hand will have people getting on and off the bus all throughout its one-way trip so that it could end up picking up a 100 or even 200 people in the course of its one way trip toward the destination.

 

Apparently we may have to do a mass education campaign to explain to taxpayers and voters why Greater Cleveland RTA should be involved in TOD.  At the same token I would remove RTA from being involved in transit planning. And I would also make RTA a contracting authority with private sector operators who would compete for routes and receive subsidies to operate them. There simply as too much waste and expense in how the existing system functions.

All of RTA's current highway coaches are 45-foot models with a seating capacity of 57.  Their now-retired original 40-foot models seated 49.  RTA has never had any issues with carrying standees and if packed, another 25 or so can be carried as well.  All of the early trips return downtown for second trips.  They can complete two trips in the time that a local bus can perhaps complete one round trip.  If patronized, those highway coaches can carry 114 seated and another 50 standing.  Sure, the intermediate boardings and disembarkings don't occur, so the number of paying fares are reduced.  To make up for it, RTA should have a bigger difference in local versus park-n-ride fares, $2.50 as compared to $2.75.

 

Laketran, on the other hand, charges a local fare of $1.75 and park-n-ride fare of $3.75.  Their highway coach fleet consists of 40-foot models and they almost never even allow standees.  The only time that I have witnessed standees on Laketran was for the Cavaliers Championship Parade.  Somehow, Laketran is able to make it work for them.  Part of it is the greater price differential, but better reliability and security measures help to attract riders.

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

It was just addressed that that isn't the case for LakeTran.

 

FWIW, the Tyler Boulevard area of Mentor (actually the lot is on Market Street across SR2 from Tyler) is a busy manufacturing area.   We're booming as apparently are our neighbors.  That said, manufacturing starts earlier than downtown jobs.

Laketran was approached by the businesses of the Tyler Boulevard area of Mentor.  They were able to adjust their routes to fill a need and gain reverse-commute riders.  It is a win-win for the agency (without using additional vehicles), riders who rely on transit and businesses to get those workers.  As for manufacturing hours, the first two Laketran park-n-ride buses arrive at Rt. 306 and Tyler Blvd AFTER returning from downtown Cleveland at 7:00 and 7:15 in the morning.  Those arrivals apparently worked out fine between the agency and the businesses for shifts to start.  This is a perfect example of a transit agency meeting a need efficiently and working with local businesses for the common good.  RTA has trouble even making slight stop adjustments (for someplace they already use) for the benefit of others (unless they get money thrown at them).  Does RTA even try to make itself a partner with any businesses other than those who sponsor the HealthLine, CSU Line and MetroHealth Line?  With NextGen, the formerly sponsored downtown trolley routes are mostly gone aside from one route, so that partnership is apparently gone.

 

 

 

City Club in Public Square: Where We're Headed (and How to Get There by Transit): The Future of RTA

 

Public transit plays an essential role in ensuring all residents have the freedom to get where they need to go, like their jobs, medical appointments, grocery stores, and school. Public transit is also a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in highly congested urban areas. Yet, less than 2% of our state budget's transportation dollars are dedicated to public transit, which many experts believe simply is not enough. An absence of multi-modal options that rely on safe pedestrian routes and protected bike lanes also add to the challenges faced by public transit.

 

Last month, Greater Cleveland RTA launched "Next Gen RTA," which introduced changes to many routes, including an increased frequency of bus service, reduced wait times, and an increased number of "one seat" rides--reducing the need for bus transfers.

 

Join the City Club in Public Square as we talk with India L. Birdsong, General Manager and CEO of Greater Cleveland RTA on this next chapter of public transit in Cleveland.

 

Interested in the livestream? It will be available on our Facebook page beginning at 12:00 p.m. Have questions? Tweet them at @TheCityClub or send a text to 330.541.5794. 

 

 

https://www.cityclub.org/forums/2021/07/27/city-club-in-public-square

I’m trying to figure out why they didn’t do this work when they did the other recent track work that shut down the Shaker lines. 
 

 

They had funding to completely replace all of the track from near East 55th to Woodhill last year. They were able to recently find funding to replace the section from Woodhill to Shaker Square this year. If they can find funding to replace tracks east of Shaker Square, they'll do that next.

16 hours ago, KJP said:

They had funding to completely replace all of the track from near East 55th to Woodhill last year. They were able to recently find funding to replace the section from Woodhill to Shaker Square this year. If they can find funding to replace tracks east of Shaker Square, they'll do that next.

Pay as you go, makes sense.  Sucks they have to do it that way, but from RTA's financial perspective I understand it.

Every time I drive up Cochran / Harper Road in Solon I hate seeing those RTA's bus stops with no shelters. They don't even have a walkway to the sidewalk - just a bus sign in the grass on the side of a 5 lane street.  So it made me happy to see this bit of good news: Solon and RTA are working together to install four new bus shelters.

 

Currently only one stop in the city has a shelter (!); this investment will take it to five.  Out of 38 stops - so there's still a long ways to go.

 

EVERY bus stop (with regular usage) should have a bus shelter.  The people using these bus stops are paying 2% of their income (Solon income tax) to the city and almost certainly using none of the services those tax dollars pay for, so I really think this is a good use of tax dollars.

 

http://www.chagrinvalleytoday.com/communities/solon/article_2a48b6c4-cf00-11eb-bce0-3bb4f9aad6a7.html

(article is probably paywalled)

"Solon City Council approved going out for bid for concrete work for four additional RTA bus shelters and four launching pads. RTA agreed to provide the shelters and trash receptacles at their cost if the city does the concrete work.

"An overall project estimate is just over $79,500."

"Four additional RTA shelter locations will be located westbound on Aurora Road at Harper Road; northbound on Cochran Road at Carter Street; northbound on Cochran Road at Solon Road and eastbound on Solon Road at Davis Industrial Parkway."

(The stop currently with a shelter is Melbury Avenue and Aurora Road.)