8 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Sounds like if Birdsong really was a good leader, she would have gotten rid of the bad next level leadership after she did an assessment of the staff. But she hasn't meaning she doesn't know better, doesn't know how to manage, or doesn't really care. Didn't she take two maternity leaves in her first two years? It may be a combination of all of those, as she laughs her way to the bank and thinks CLE are a bunch of idiots who don't know better.

Maternity leave number 3 is coming, if it hasn't happened already.  She has been on the job less than 2 1/2 years (September 2019).  With her time away from the job, there may not have been enough time to assess that leadership and/or the vacuum at the top would be significantly worse than it already is.

17 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Maternity leave number 3 is coming, if it hasn't happened already.  She has been on the job less than 2 1/2 years (September 2019).  With her time away from the job, there may not have been enough time to assess that leadership and/or the vacuum at the top would be significantly worse than it already is.

 

I assume it was her plan to use the 'idiots of Cleveland' to give her a five-year pause in her career to have children while also receiving a full $200-$300k per year paycheck. I hope the board actively starts looking for a new GM a year before her contract is up. But the board seems pretty clueless as well so they may well just keep her, regardless of how incompetent or useless she is. After all, Calabrese was there for some 20 years. This is why CLE doesn't grow--bad leadership after bad leadership managed by incompetent boards that do or know nothing about what they're overseeing.

15 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I assume it was her plan to use the 'idiots of Cleveland' to give her a five-year pause in her career to have children while also receiving a full $200-$300k per year paycheck. I hope the board actively starts looking for a new GM a year before her contract is up. But the board seems pretty clueless as well so they may well just keep her, regardless of how incompetent or useless she is. After all, Calabrese was there for some 20 years. This is why CLE doesn't grow--bad leadership after bad leadership managed by incompetent boards that do or know nothing about what they're overseeing.

 

Women can have children and still lead organizations. Stop using this lazy attack.

15 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I assume it was her plan to use the 'idiots of Cleveland' to give her a five-year pause in her career to have children while also receiving a full $200-$300k per year paycheck. I hope the board actively starts looking for a new GM a year before her contract is up. But the board seems pretty clueless as well so they may well just keep her, regardless of how incompetent or useless she is. After all, Calabrese was there for some 20 years. This is why CLE doesn't grow--bad leadership after bad leadership managed by incompetent boards that do or know nothing about what they're overseeing.

Her contract is $260k per year. 

Per cleveland.com on May 12, 2020: 

"The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority amended its employment agreement with General Manager and CEO India Birdsong on Tuesday [May 12, 2020] to allow her to take maternity leave that she would otherwise not be entitled to take.

The RTA does not specifically provide for maternity leave, but Birdsong also did not qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act because she had not been employed for a year nor had she accrued at least 1,250 hours on the job, said George Fields, deputy general manager for human resources at the RTA, during a meeting of the RTA board of trustees.

Birdsong also did not qualify for the authority’s extended disability policy, which allows for up to 26 weeks of leave, Fields said.

Birdsong took over the top spot at the RTA on Sept. 16 of last year [2019] at a salary of $260,000.

Fields said Birdsong will be on leave from May 18 through Aug. 24. He said she will first use accumulated vacation, sick and personal time. After five or six weeks, maternity leave will kick in. RTA spokeswoman Linda Krecic said after the meeting that the leave amounts to 38 days"

 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

Women can have children and still lead organizations. Stop using this lazy attack.

 

I'm never said she is unable to lead because she has or is having children. I know plenty of competent women who lead and have children. But spending 1/4-1/2 of all her time in this contract in maternity leave, she is not leading. But who knows, even if there was no maternity leave question, she might not be leading anyway. Whatever the root cause she's not leading. In these times of covid AND sudden piles of money, we need leadership (normally I'd say strong leadership) to leverage those federal dollars and better serve the city. Unfortunately its not her for whatever reason. I hope the Board is able to realize this and send her packing in two years or whenever her contract is up.

2 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Her contract is $260k per year. 

Per cleveland.com on May 12, 2020: 

"The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority amended its employment agreement with General Manager and CEO India Birdsong on Tuesday [May 12, 2020] to allow her to take maternity leave that she would otherwise not be entitled to take.

The RTA does not specifically provide for maternity leave, but Birdsong also did not qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act because she had not been employed for a year nor had she accrued at least 1,250 hours on the job, said George Fields, deputy general manager for human resources at the RTA, during a meeting of the RTA board of trustees.

Birdsong also did not qualify for the authority’s extended disability policy, which allows for up to 26 weeks of leave, Fields said.

Birdsong took over the top spot at the RTA on Sept. 16 of last year [2019] at a salary of $260,000.

Fields said Birdsong will be on leave from May 18 through Aug. 24. He said she will first use accumulated vacation, sick and personal time. After five or six weeks, maternity leave will kick in. RTA spokeswoman Linda Krecic said after the meeting that the leave amounts to 38 days"

 

 

Pitiful. She's really working the system. She got maternity leave even though she didn't qualify. So why not do it two more times whether she qualified or not? She's sees the board as a mindless rubber stamp.

4 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

I'm never said she is unable to lead because she has or is having children. I know plenty of competent women who lead and have children. But spending 1/4-1/2 of all her time in this contract in maternity leave, she is not leading. But who knows, even if there was no maternity leave question, she might not be leading anyway. Whatever the root cause she's not leading. In these times of covid AND sudden piles of money, we need leadership (normally I'd say strong leadership) to leverage those federal dollars and better serve the city. Unfortunately its not her for whatever reason. I hope the Board is able to realize this and send her packing in two years or whenever her contract is up.

 

Then point to actual examples of where she has failed to lead. You've made your point, she's had 2 kids. We get it.

2 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Then point to actual examples of where she has failed to lead. You've made your point, she's had 2 kids. We get it.

 

Luke--if anyone made the suggestion about women having children and their inability to lead, it was you, not me. Regarding failures, read the bunch of posts in this thread. But I will ask you this:  Is RTA better today than it was when she started or worse?

 

 

Edited December 23, 20213 yr by Pugu

6 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

How does reduced trip time really factor into the equation?  The only way I see it happening is the wait time for a transfer "may" be reduced due to frequency changes.  If core routes are the same routes as before, than the distance from start to end will be the same and so will the travel time.  A local route is still a local route with the same number of physical stops.  A bus doesn't run "faster" because 5 are on the route or if their are 10.  They still have to travel the same distance dealing with the same traffic and signals.  The only meaningful time that could be gained is to turn local routes into express/flyer routes which did not happen, in fact there are now fewer ones now than before.  Time is a huge cost and that cost should not be ignored.

 

There is another thing that is being disregarded in the way RTA has redesigned the system.  When RTA was created in 1975, Cleveland comprised about 41% of the county's population.  In 2020, it was just under 31% of the county's population.  RTA will eventually decide to go to the taxpayers for more money, be it from an increase to the sales tax or a property tax.  When that comes to a vote (only a matter of time), suburban voters who see little to no benefit of a transit system that provides little to no service to their communities and what service is provided is sub-standard, that ballot initiative is far more likely to fail.  With all of the scandals that the system faced in recent years, the board of trustees acknowledged about 2 1/2 years ago that any revenue enhancing tax would fail at the polls.  The system is already on thin ice with the voting public.  If RTA is seen as irrelevant, prospects of passage will be poor.

 

 

I agree the politics of reducing suburban service are a bit dangerous, especially given the scandals and lackluster leadership in recent years.

Regarding "trip time", I was indeed referring to reduced wait time, but it was poorly phrased.  I don't know if ridership will bear it out, but reducing headways from. say, 20 minutes to 15 minutes is a substantial enhancement of service for certain core routes for a variety of reasons. As far as I know NextGen did not reduce overall service hours, it just rearranged them with a new set of priorities.  I don't think the planners ignored the fact that riders in, say, North Olmstead or Lake County would get worse service, they just downgraded their priority for scarce resources.  RTA is in an impossible position given the relentless job sprawl in the area. 

Edited December 23, 20213 yr by StapHanger

10 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

 

I agree the politics of reducing suburban service are a bit dangerous, especially given the scandals and lackluster leadership in recent years.

Regarding "trip time", I was indeed referring to reduced wait time, but it was poorly phrased.  I don't know if ridership will bear it out, but reducing headways from. say, 20 minutes to 15 minutes is a substantial enhancement of service for certain core routes for a variety of reasons. As far as I know NextGen did not reduce overall service hours, it just rearranged them with a new set of priorities.  I don't think the planners ignored the fact that riders in, say, North Olmstead or Lake County would get worse service, they just downgraded their priority for scarce resources.  RTA is in an impossible position given the relentless job sprawl in the area. 

In actuality, the changes made by RTA in 2016 regarding the 239 Euclid Park-n-Ride route in many ways mimicked the concepts of NextGen, ended out working out much better for Laketran.  Prior to 2016, many northeastern Cuyahoga County residents preferred Laketran to RTA.  The Euclid Transit Center was a highly undesirable place for riders to leave their cars.  Security camera coverage was poor and the covers over the cameras were basically opaque due to them becoming clouded over.  Cars were broken into, damaged and stolen.  Homeless individuals found the station a good place to sleep.  Many people were dropped off and picked up rather than risking their cars.  To not deal with the poor security and safety issues, they preferred to go to the nearby Laketran park-n-ride on Lakeland Blvd near Lloyd Road.

 

In 2016, the direct trip from the Euclid Transit Center was replaced by a new route, a branch of the 39F.  That route went up Babbitt Road, down Lakeshore to E. 185th to get to I-90.  That doubled the commute downtown from about 15-20 minutes to 30-35 minutes and the number of trips dropped from 5 to 3.  This was the "reward" for riders complaining about the discontinuance of the 239.  Most riders from the 239 switched to Laketran.  After about a year, the branch of the 39F was downgraded to a branch of the 39.  Instead of going down E. 185th, the route continued down Lakeshore, through Bratenahl to get on I-90 at MLK Jr Blvd.  That trip now took an hour.  Now there are no security issues for cars as nobody parks in the truncated version of the parking lot.  The 39 no longer goes to the Euclid Transit Center. 

 

This was a rare circumstance when RTA's riders had a viable and realistic option when RTA took away service from the 239.  The level of maintenance performed on Laketran's buses is noticeably better than nearly identical models on RTA.  Unfortunately for the riders that used the Westlake and North Olmsted Transit Centers, they don't have viable options and those former riders have turned to their cars.

 

Regarding the use of scarce resources, the elimination of the highway coach routes from North Olmsted and Westlake ended up wasting other resources.  Four highway coaches that had a lot of service and miles remaining on them were sold for next to nothing in October and November while 2 others are currently up for sale.  Six other highway coaches that were slightly newer sit idle as do many of the 12 new highway coaches purchased in 2020.  Those 12 buses are too many for the one remaining highway coach route from Strongsville/Brunswick.  Not much to show for buses that cost about $640k apiece new that sit mostly idle while used ones get sold for $6300 or less.  Significantly enlarged parking lots will soon be sprouting weeds while sitting basically empty.

12 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

Luke--if anyone made the suggestion about women having children and their inability to lead, it was you, not me. Regarding failures, read the bunch of posts in this thread. But I will ask you this:  Is RTA better today than it was when she started or worse?

 

 

Right... 

 

Well given the mess she inherited in the massive maintenance backlog, declining ridership and revenues, and ever expanding residential and employment sprawl, I would say she's done about as well as expected. 

 

There have been obvious missteps, like the request for proposal of a new rail fleet. However long over due this is, it is good that it's going through now and that it sounds like they are switching to a single rail fleet. 

 

Moving to signal prioritization and right-of-way on the health line is a positive, though again overdue.

 

Adopting a smart card and upgrading the RTAs app, all positives.

 

An increased focus on TOD for new revenue streams and to increased ridership is also a great shift in thinking. 

 

Most of these will take time to see the benefits so hard to say better now than when she took over, but I would argue she's setting us in the right track. 

13 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

Pitiful. She's really working the system. She got maternity leave even though she didn't qualify. So why not do it two more times whether she qualified or not? She's sees the board as a mindless rubber stamp.

 

What's pitiful is that women don't have an inherent right to maternity leave but have to "earn" it or ask for an exemption from the "standard rules."  The US is the only advanced nation not to have mandatory maternity leave rules.  RTA did the right thing in negotiating the first-year maternity leave and having her take her vacation and sick time first.

Calling the US an advanced nation is getting to be more and more a stretch these days.

Second time I’ve seen the Holiday Train, and this time it was stopped so I could get some pics. 
 

 

 

You know, I think it just might be time to replace these disco-era trains...

 

 

There’s a lot wrong with the RTA, but credit where it’s due. This made me smile yesterday, I was handed it at Tower City with a very sincere “Happy Holidays and thank-you for riding with RTA”

On 12/24/2021 at 8:05 AM, KJP said:

You know, I think it just might be time to replace these disco-era trains...

 

 

Maybe RTA can acquire some of the San Diego Siemens SD-100 fleet of 52 units that are being retired in 2022.  They are about 12 to 14 years YOUNGER than the Breda LRV's that are marginally operational.  That fleet should provide more than enough units to replace all of the remaining Breda LRV's with a large supply of parts that can be obtained from units not needed by RTA.  They are only slightly longer that the Breda LRV's (by about a foot) and they use the same track gauge.  Previously, San Diego sold off a large portion of their first LRV's (Siemens U2) for continued service when they were retired.  As Siemens built the SD-100 for other systems, the "uniqueness" of RTA's current fleet won't be a problem regarding spare parts procurement.  The only issue would be to add better heating systems in the San Diego units, but as this same model was built for Denver and Salt Lake City, they are capable to operate in cold weather environments.

 

This can help bridge the gap between now and the time that RTA gets its act together enough to get the next rail fleet operational.  The way things are going, it is obvious that the current fleet won't hold up long enough to see their replacements placed into service.  It may also open up the eyes of RTA's leaders to the quality of the Siemens product.  As for space considerations, RTA's Central Rail Maintenance Facility was constructed to hold more than double the number of heavy and light rail vehicles (60 and 48 respectively) when those fleets were delivered.  With the scrapping of significant numbers from both fleets, the rail yard is more than capable of holding any conceivable number of San Diego SD-100's if they were acquired.

 

The Federal government has gotten involved with transferring surplus assets from one transit system to another, so there is already precedence in doing inter-agency transfers.

Edited December 28, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

^ Great idea! I'll see if I can generate some interest in it. Meanwhile, what in the h3ll is going on here?

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/rta-rail-service-schedules-modified-dec-30-and-dec-31

 

RTA Modifies Rail Service Schedules on Dec. 30 and Dec. 31

 

Dec 29, 2021

CLEVELAND, OH -- The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is adjusting its rail service schedules on December 30 and December 31.

On Thursday, December 30, the Red Line will operate at a 30-minute frequency until noon and then follow its regular weekday schedule for the remainder of the day.  There will be no change in schedules on the Blue/Green Line.

 

On Friday, December 31, frequency on the Red Line and the Blue/Green Lines will be reduced to approximately every hour.

Rail service on Jan. 1 will operate according to the regular Saturday schedule.

Please call 216-621-9500 for more information, or use the Transit App to access the modified schedules and view real time information.

 

Media Contact:

Linda Scardilli Krecic
Cell: 216-390-9605

First of all, I am glad to have found this site as a place where people share my budding interest in urban topics, most notably transit.  I am a relatively new RTA rider from Parma, and I have started to take the bus to work (I work in Midtown).  The commute is fairly long, and I really only have one bus route that will get me to my destination (Tower City, in order to transfer to the HealthLine), which is the 45.  I was snooping around the web for any plans that the RTA had to expand some kind of rapid transit into Parma, and I came across the below link, which is the Parma Master Plan of 2004.  On Page 88, they mention something about a rapid transit line that would extend along the Red Line from Tower City and then run along what I assume is the NS Cloggsville Line and then branch off near Ridge and Denison, and then run at-grade down Ridge Road to Parmatown.  Oh, how different Parma would look today if they would have followed-through with this plan!  I guarantee that a ton of people would have used this as a way to get downtown.  Since I was so curious, I went ahead and made a custom Google Map with what I assumed as their proposed route, along with stations that I added myself, as I wasn't sure what they would have used as stations, but I gave some suggestions.  I assume this would have been all light-rail.  Anyways, I look forward to riding RTA more hoping that we can expand on the GCRTA system!

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1r_gFOLCz709MnAd2GkGb0kA8X2Q88jBP&usp=sharing

http://levin.urban.csuohio.edu/academics/graduate/mupdd/mupdd_capstone05/land use planning/student products/kleem-master plans/parma.pdf

if you haven't seen these historic rta 50th anniversary pics and ads -- definitely take a look!

 

http://www.riderta.com/50

Lol I love how cheesy this is. Thanks for the most @mrnyc

 

Kerry McCormack also was named transportation committee chair

 

 

Maybe he can finally get some movement on this

 

 

Update on HealthLine buses. Thx @roman totale XVII
 

 

Geez how many rail cars were connected to each other back then? Looks like a NYC subway.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I recall riding six-car Bluebird trains during rush hour circa 1980. Of course, the Bluebird cars were shorter and had fewer seats than today's Tokyu cars. The Tokyus size-wise had more in common with the Airporter cars and those ran in three-car sets during rush hours. I recall three-car Tokyu trains operating into the early 2000s.

1 minute ago, KJP said:

I recall riding six-car Bluebird trains during rush hour circa 1980. Of course, the Bluebird cars were shorter and had fewer seats than today's Tokyu cars. The Tokyus size-wise had more in common with the Airporter cars and those ran in three-car sets during rush hours. I recall three-car Tokyu trains operating into the early 2000s.

In the early days of Airporter operation, they very occasionally ran in 4-car trains, but they eventually cut that back to 3-car trains.  For the Bluebird cars, the maximum was 6 cars.  Aside from places like Tower City, those trains were limited in the number of cars was due to platform length.  The Tokyu cars are about 5 feet longer than the Airporters.  The extra length was used to incorporate the middle doors.  

 

The Bluebird rapid transit cars were the adaptation of PCC streetcar technology into rapid transit equipment.  Aside from length and width differences, this rapid transit car design and equipment was operated by Boston and New York City.  The 6000-series cars that ran on Chicago's EL were also based on the PCC streetcar technology.  The first 200 were built new for EL service, but the last 570 were built using many salvaged components (motors, windows, seats, electrical gear, trucks, etc....) from practically brand new Chicago PCC cars when that city got rid of its streetcars.  They were fully compatible to the first 200 cars plus 4 "experimental" articulated train sets from the late 1940's.  This permitted for Chicago to rather inexpensively modernize its EL fleet and retire the large number of wooden cars that were still in service in the 1950s.

 

13 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Geez how many rail cars were connected to each other back then? Looks like a NYC subway.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 

Is that the same Robert Pence as the late Robert Pence that once was a regular poster here?

8 minutes ago, sizzlinbeef said:

Is that the same Robert Pence as the late Robert Pence that once was a regular poster here?

One and the same.

I miss Robert. 😪

On 1/5/2022 at 8:19 PM, MyPhoneDead said:

Geez how many rail cars were connected to each other back then? Looks like a NYC subway.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 

 

What station is that---Tower City?

9 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

What station is that---Tower City?

Yes, it is Tower City in the days when the heavy rail had separate platforms from the light rail/former Shaker Rapid platforms.

6 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Yes, it is Tower City in the days when the heavy rail had separate platforms from the light rail/former Shaker Rapid platforms.

 

A familiar site for me.....in the early to mid 80s.

That pic is copyrighted 2008, the Bluebirds were still in service?   Or did he just copyright an older picture?

Edited January 7, 20223 yr by E Rocc

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

A familiar site for me.....in the early to mid 80s.

That pic is copyrighted 2008, the Bluebirds were still in service?   Or did he just copyright an older picture?

It is an older picture.  The Bluebirds were retired from service around 1985.  Also, the photo shows the heavy rail portion of Tower City before it was rebuilt to accommodate both the heavy and light rail operations in 1990.

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

It is an older picture.  The Bluebirds were retired from service around 1985.  Also, the photo shows the heavy rail portion of Tower City before it was rebuilt to accommodate both the heavy and light rail operations in 1990.

 

That's literally when I graduated, found a job in my own suburb, and quit riding.

new health line bus in the wild

Can someone from Cleveland please confirm something for me? When the RTA is talking about 'light rail' like in their ridership report (http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/events/2021-11RidershipReport.pdf) is it-

 

1. Only the Waterfront Line is considered light rail and the Red, Blue and Green lines are all heavy rail; or

2. The Waterfront Line, Blue and Green are all light rail and the Red line is the only heavy rail line?

 

I'm pretty sure it's number 2 but just looking for confirmation. 

 

 

^ number 2 is correct. The Red Line is the only heavy rail. 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

Can someone from Cleveland please confirm something for me? When the RTA is talking about 'light rail' like in their ridership report (http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/events/2021-11RidershipReport.pdf) is it-

 

1. Only the Waterfront Line is considered light rail and the Red, Blue and Green lines are all heavy rail; or

2. The Waterfront Line, Blue and Green are all light rail and the Red line is the only heavy rail line?

 

I'm pretty sure it's number 2 but just looking for confirmation. 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^ number 2 is correct. The Red Line is the only heavy rail. 

Building on this - Tower City, East 34, and East 55 are interesting because Heavy Rail and Light Rail share the same tracks and catenary. There are separate platforms for the high floor heavy rail Red Line and lower floor light rail Blue and Green. 
 

The Light Rail is entirely dedicated right of way and it is grade separated from downtown to Shaker Square. Even in Shaker Heights there are a couple key grade separations - Blue Line goes under Lee Rd and Green Line goes under Warrensville Center Rd.  The balance of that system in Shaker Height runs in dedicated RoW in medians, with intentionally fewer cross streets. The entire suburb of Shaker Heights was laid out around these tracks. 
 

Both systems desperately need replacement trains.  RTA sent out a bad RFP for new trains and unsurprisingly (to observers) it failed. They have pulled this RFP.

 

What RTA probably should do is move the entire system to light rail. Unfortunately new standard Heavy Rail cars do not fit in RTA’s maintenance system. It is likely less expensive to retrofit the Red Line as Light Rail than it would be to replace the maintenance system, and standardizing on one vehicle type has many other advantages. @KJP has written a bunch about it in these threads. I know that many transit observers prefer heavy rail, and I share that preference, but we have to work with in the constraints of what’s possible in this country, state, and city.  A light rail retrofit on the Red Line (done correctly) would still have level boarding and full grade separation - those are two very important system features. 
 

Hopefully we’ll see a new rail car replacement RFP soon. Some advocates have suggested that we buy the Siemens light rail trains that San Diego is retiring because they are newer and in better shape than what we have. I like that idea. 

16 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

Building on this - Tower City, East 34, and East 55 are interesting because Heavy Rail and Light Rail share the same tracks and catenary. There are separate platforms for the high floor heavy rail Red Line and lower floor light rail Blue and Green. 
 

The Light Rail is entirely dedicated right of way and it is grade separated from downtown to Shaker Square. Even in Shaker Heights there are a couple key grade separations - Blue Line goes under Lee Rd and Green Line goes under Warrensville Center Rd.  The balance of that system in Shaker Height runs in dedicated RoW in medians, with intentionally fewer cross streets. The entire suburb of Shaker Heights was laid out around these tracks. 
 

Both systems desperately need replacement trains.  RTA sent out a bad RFP for new trains and unsurprisingly (to observers) it failed. They have pulled this RFP.

 

What RTA probably should do is move the entire system to light rail. Unfortunately new standard Heavy Rail cars do not fit in RTA’s maintenance system. It is likely less expensive to retrofit the Red Line as Light Rail than it would be to replace the maintenance system, and standardizing on one vehicle type has many other advantages. @KJP has written a bunch about it in these threads. I know that many transit observers prefer heavy rail, and I share that preference, but we have to work with in the constraints of what’s possible in this country, state, and city.  A light rail retrofit on the Red Line (done correctly) would still have level boarding and full grade separation - those are two very important system features. 
 

Hopefully we’ll see a new rail car replacement RFP soon. Some advocates have suggested that we buy the Siemens light rail trains that San Diego is retiring because they are newer and in better shape than what we have. I like that idea. 

There are numerous systems that operate light rail vehicles that serve both high and low platforms.  This is definitely not unique and has been successfully operated on these systems for decades.  The biggest system constraint is the Central Rail Maintenance Facility.  Inside the facility is a transfer table that shifts rail cars from one track to another.  Some tracks are only accessible via this table.  This is the greatest limitation in rail car length by constraining them to around 80 feet.  The current "standard" of heavy rail equipment is to operate two cars in semi-permanently coupled married pairs.  To separate and re-join sets is extremely labor-intensive.  I was told that the old Bluebirds that consisted of mostly married pairs took about 6 to 8 hours to separate and the same number of hours to re-join.  The married pairs were about 96 feet long, but were never serviced out of Central Rail. 

 

The current Tokyu heavy rail cars are 75 feet long.  When delivered, there were 40 300-series cars (301-340) with normal operator controls at one end and 20 (181-200) single units with controls at both ends.  The 300-series are always operated in trains of 2 or 3 cars so that control cabs are at either end of a train.  This train can be comprised with either group, just as long as the normal controls are at the end of each train.  Furthermore, the hydraulic jacks to lift rail cars are embedded in concrete in the shop floor of Central Rail.  These are specifically spaced to line up to the reinforced lifting points of the rail car bodies.  The four jacks used to lift Tokyu rail cars are spaced differently than the six used for the Bread LRVs.  If different length rail cars were acquired, portable jacks can be a temporary solution, but long-term, the jacks need to be re-positioned in the floors.   RTA got around the issue of operating 150-foot long pairs by having each rail car with standard couplers and train wiring for connections.  To break apart or re-join sets takes minutes.  Unfortunately, the industry standard is for the semi-permanently joined pairs and RTA is such a "minor" system to rail manufacturers.  Their needs are too unique to design and build what would comprise a "tiny" order that would have only one customer.  It may be cost-prohibitive to modify the building to accommodate a transfer table to handle 150-foot long pairs.

 

RTA simply does not have the ridership numbers to call for married-pair rail car set operation.  Unfortunately, the system doesn't have enough of operational single units to run them alone.  So, basically around the clock, RTA is forced to operate 2-car trains even though a fewer than 10 people maybe riding in the train.  Each of the Tokyu rail cars can seat about 80 people.  To operate 2-car trains is extremely wasteful in power consumption and only causes unnecessary wear-and-tear/maintenance on rail cars that are already way past due for retirement.  The design of the CTS rapid transit was done in the days when high-platform operations were the vogue and projections for ridership were sky-high.  Those extremely lofty rider counts were never reached and plummeting ridership does not support true heavy-rail/high platform operation in Cleveland (even if ridership significantly increased, maintaining the current set-up is unjustified). 

 

Instead of doing the order "piecemeal" in groups of 15 to 20 each time, RTA needs to do one order of common rail vehicles for the entire system.  Other systems routinely order rail cars in numbers of 100 or more units.  Some systems will collaborate to go with one design further lower costs.  To set up fabrication for tiny unique orders will increase the per-unit cost.  RTA also needs to go with STANDARD designs, even if it entails bringing a test set from another system to the system to evaluate the units.  In RTA's "plans", one called for small orders of 8 heavy rail cars and 8 light rail cars to "evaluate" the designs.  No wonder this didn't gain any interest from potential builders.  Eight-unit orders are unheard of and raises the per-unit design/engineering/construction exponentially higher as the initial costs are spread out on fewer units.  Also, what happens if RTA deems what they uniquely want as unacceptable for future orders?  Do these units become "oddballs" that don't fit in with future operations and worse yet, get prematurely retired so more of the final design get purchased (ultimately wasting them)?  In the past, new rail cars were temporarily routed from the builder to a system to how they operate for a potential buyer.  Cleveland Railway (predecessor to CTS and RTA) once operated a Pittsburgh PCC as a test for a month on Cleveland streets and the Shaker Rapid brought in a test Boston PCC to operate prior to its ordering new PCC's of its own.  Other systems have done this as well.  Standard rail cars will utilize equipment that has had all the "bugs" worked out and later on will have replacement parts readily available.  Currently, the unique fleets in Cleveland never had counterparts anywhere in the world.  When parts are needed, expensive custom orders are forced to be procured instead of purchasing standard "off the shelf" (and less expensive) available replacements.  Fortunately, RTA appears to be going in the direction of one common rail vehicle, but until the bids are in and order placed, the system's management cannot be trusted to do the right, common sense and logical thing.

 

I was the one that initially suggested acquiring the units from San Diego.  Though it would be a stopgap, at least it would allow RTA to get the eventual replacement order correct and enable the system to provide more reliable operation than the significantly older equipment they currently operate provides.  If all of the available San Diego units were acquired, they may not be enough to equip the whole system, but they would allow retirement of all of the heavy rail cars on the Red line and supplement the similarly sized light rail cars on the  Blue/Green/Waterfront lines.  Immediately after acquisition was completed, the maintenance costs would drop and the need to run 2-car Red line trains around-the-clock would end, reducing operating costs.  Sounds win-win to me.

2 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

There are numerous systems that operate light rail vehicles that serve both high and low platforms.  This is definitely not unique and has been successfully operated on these systems for decades.  The biggest system constraint is the Central Rail Maintenance Facility.  Inside the facility is a transfer table that shifts rail cars from one track to another.  Some tracks are only accessible via this table.  This is the greatest limitation in rail car length by constraining them to around 80 feet.  The current "standard" of heavy rail equipment is to operate two cars in semi-permanently coupled married pairs.  To separate and re-join sets is extremely labor-intensive.  I was told that the old Bluebirds that consisted of mostly married pairs took about 6 to 8 hours to separate and the same number of hours to re-join.  The married pairs were about 96 feet long, but were never serviced out of Central Rail. 

 

The current Tokyu heavy rail cars are 75 feet long.  When delivered, there were 40 300-series cars (301-340) with normal operator controls at one end and 20 (181-200) single units with controls at both ends.  The 300-series are always operated in trains of 2 or 3 cars so that control cabs are at either end of a train.  This train can be comprised with either group, just as long as the normal controls are at the end of each train.  Furthermore, the hydraulic jacks to lift rail cars are embedded in concrete in the shop floor of Central Rail.  These are specifically spaced to line up to the reinforced lifting points of the rail car bodies.  The four jacks used to lift Tokyu rail cars are spaced differently than the six used for the Bread LRVs.  If different length rail cars were acquired, portable jacks can be a temporary solution, but long-term, the jacks need to be re-positioned in the floors.   RTA got around the issue of operating 150-foot long pairs by having each rail car with standard couplers and train wiring for connections.  To break apart or re-join sets takes minutes.  Unfortunately, the industry standard is for the semi-permanently joined pairs and RTA is such a "minor" system to rail manufacturers.  Their needs are too unique to design and build what would comprise a "tiny" order that would have only one customer.  It may be cost-prohibitive to modify the building to accommodate a transfer table to handle 150-foot long pairs.

 

RTA simply does not have the ridership numbers to call for married-pair rail car set operation.  Unfortunately, the system doesn't have enough of operational single units to run them alone.  So, basically around the clock, RTA is forced to operate 2-car trains even though a fewer than 10 people maybe riding in the train.  Each of the Tokyu rail cars can seat about 80 people.  To operate 2-car trains is extremely wasteful in power consumption and only causes unnecessary wear-and-tear/maintenance on rail cars that are already way past due for retirement.  The design of the CTS rapid transit was done in the days when high-platform operations were the vogue and projections for ridership were sky-high.  Those extremely lofty rider counts were never reached and plummeting ridership does not support true heavy-rail/high platform operation in Cleveland (even if ridership significantly increased, maintaining the current set-up is unjustified). 

 

Instead of doing the order "piecemeal" in groups of 15 to 20 each time, RTA needs to do one order of common rail vehicles for the entire system.  Other systems routinely order rail cars in numbers of 100 or more units.  Some systems will collaborate to go with one design further lower costs.  To set up fabrication for tiny unique orders will increase the per-unit cost.  RTA also needs to go with STANDARD designs, even if it entails bringing a test set from another system to the system to evaluate the units.  In RTA's "plans", one called for small orders of 8 heavy rail cars and 8 light rail cars to "evaluate" the designs.  No wonder this didn't gain any interest from potential builders.  Eight-unit orders are unheard of and raises the per-unit design/engineering/construction exponentially higher as the initial costs are spread out on fewer units.  Also, what happens if RTA deems what they uniquely want as unacceptable for future orders?  Do these units become "oddballs" that don't fit in with future operations and worse yet, get prematurely retired so more of the final design get purchased (ultimately wasting them)?  In the past, new rail cars were temporarily routed from the builder to a system to how they operate for a potential buyer.  Cleveland Railway (predecessor to CTS and RTA) once operated a Pittsburgh PCC as a test for a month on Cleveland streets and the Shaker Rapid brought in a test Boston PCC to operate prior to its ordering new PCC's of its own.  Other systems have done this as well.  Standard rail cars will utilize equipment that has had all the "bugs" worked out and later on will have replacement parts readily available.  Currently, the unique fleets in Cleveland never had counterparts anywhere in the world.  When parts are needed, expensive custom orders are forced to be procured instead of purchasing standard "off the shelf" (and less expensive) available replacements.  Fortunately, RTA appears to be going in the direction of one common rail vehicle, but until the bids are in and order placed, the system's management cannot be trusted to do the right, common sense and logical thing.

 

I was the one that initially suggested acquiring the units from San Diego.  Though it would be a stopgap, at least it would allow RTA to get the eventual replacement order correct and enable the system to provide more reliable operation than the significantly older equipment they currently operate provides.  If all of the available San Diego units were acquired, they may not be enough to equip the whole system, but they would allow retirement of all of the heavy rail cars on the Red line and supplement the similarly sized light rail cars on the  Blue/Green/Waterfront lines.  Immediately after acquisition was completed, the maintenance costs would drop and the need to run 2-car Red line trains around-the-clock would end, reducing operating costs.  Sounds win-win to me.

I think we are advocating for the same thing. I believe that RTA needs to standardize on one train type and that it should be light rail (because of the heavy rail / married pair not fitting in the maintenance hub). I also think it should absolutely be a standard, off-the-shelf model. (Better to retrofit the system to match a standard car, then to get a custom car that fits the existing system.) One thing I’m not clear on that you have mentioned a few times - servicing two different platform levels. My understanding is that there are no standard light rail trains that are high enough for Red Line platform. So they definitely need to retrofit platform levels to accommodate light rail (and also platform width because light rail trains are narrower). It will be much less expensive to accomplish this by raising track levels as compared to redoing the platforms. According to Ken, this is relatively easy at all stations except Tower City and the Airport, where the track is embedded in concrete. (The rest are all on ballast.) Of course TC already has light rail platforms anyway, so the airport is the only station that would require a more expensive retrofit. 
 

With this in mind, I don’t understand why you are calling for a system “that serves both high and low platforms”. The high platforms would go away. So what are the two levels?

 

It would be helpful for me to understand what you are suggesting if you pointed to a specific light rail vehicle (e.g. “Siemens model xxx”) that you are calling for (when they order new cars).

 

I appreciate your detailed knowledge of the RTA system. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I think we are advocating for the same thing. I believe that RTA needs to standardize on one train type and that it should be light rail (because of the heavy rail / married pair not fitting in the maintenance hub). I also think it should absolutely be a standard, off-the-shelf model. (Better to retrofit the system to match a standard car, then to get a custom car that fits the existing system.) One thing I’m not clear on that you have mentioned a few times - servicing two different platform levels. My understanding is that there are no standard light rail trains that are high enough for Red Line platform. So they definitely need to retrofit platform levels to accommodate light rail (and also platform width because light rail trains are narrower). It will be much less expensive to accomplish this by raising track levels as compared to redoing the platforms. According to Ken, this is relatively easy at all stations except Tower City and the Airport, where the track is embedded in concrete. (The rest are all on ballast.) Of course TC already has light rail platforms anyway, so the airport is the only station that would require a more expensive retrofit. 
 

With this in mind, I don’t understand why you are calling for a system “that serves both high and low platforms”. The high platforms would go away. So what are the two levels?

 

It would be helpful for me to understand what you are suggesting if you pointed to a specific light rail vehicle (e.g. “Siemens model xxx”) that you are calling for (when they order new cars).

 

I appreciate your detailed knowledge of the RTA system. 

First off, I believe that there are light rail vehicles that currently in production (like by Siemens) that are about the same dimension in length as RTA's Breda LRV's.  Basically the shop could service those models as is with the only modifications need for the portion of the shop that services the heavy rail vehicles be modified to support the LRV equipment.  The ones being retired by San Diego are nearly identical in length with RTA's Breda LRV's.  San Diego's newest LRV's are the Siemens S70 Ultra Short is 81 feet 4 inches long as compared to the Breda LRV being 77 feet 2 inches long.  For San Francisco, the Siemens S00 SF is currently being built and it is 75 feet long.

 

I am in agreement with raising the track level to accommodate the new LRV-based equipment.  That is not an expensive proposition at most of the heavy rail stations.  As you mentioned at Tower City, the new LRV's just could use the current Blue/Green/Waterfront facilities.  At the Airport, one track could be modified while the other remained in service.  There have been multiple times due to repairs that the Airport station used one one track for extended periods of time.  Plus, the service levels aren't such that both tracks aren't a necessity where taking one out of service won't cause undo operational hardship.  If RTA decides to use cost-saving "logic", panel track (full-sized sections of pre-assembled track (with concrete ties) could be used place new track over existing track.  Railroads do this sort of thing all the time.

 

With the need to conform to the Americans With Disabilities Act, maintaining the high platforms allows them to do this.  As I mentioned, in cities like San Francisco, their LRV's have doorways that can service both high and low platforms. If the platforms are designed for wider rail cars, there are two solutions:  Make the platforms wider or have extensions at the carbody doors.  In Philadelphia about 30 years ago, the Norristown High Speed line suffered serious equipment shortages (old, worn out equipment and several wrecks that destroyed equipment).  To temporarily resolve the problem, SEPTA purchased 7 married-pair sets from Chicago (plus another 3 sets for parts).  The former EL cars were narrower than the platforms on the line, so extensions were added to the carbodies at the doorways to fill in the gap.

Edited January 15, 20223 yr by LifeLongClevelander

Heavy Rail vs Light Rail for GC RTA future - a summary post. (TL/DR: RTA should standardize on light rail and modify Red Line stations to make it work. AND RTA should buy San Diego's retiring LRV as a stop-gap until they can get funding for a full buy.)

4 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

First off, I believe that there are light rail vehicles that currently in production (like by Siemens) that are about the same dimension in length as RTA's Breda LRV's.  Basically the shop could service those models as is with the only modifications need for the portion of the shop that services the heavy rail vehicles be modified to support the LRV equipment.  The ones being retired by San Diego are nearly identical in length with RTA's Breda LRV's.  San Diego's newest LRV's are the Siemens S70 Ultra Short is 81 feet 4 inches long as compared to the Breda LRV being 77 feet 2 inches long.  For San Francisco, the Siemens S00 SF is currently being built and it is 75 feet long.

 

I am in agreement with raising the track level to accommodate the new LRV-based equipment.  That is not an expensive proposition at most of the heavy rail stations.  As you mentioned at Tower City, the new LRV's just could use the current Blue/Green/Waterfront facilities.  At the Airport, one track could be modified while the other remained in service.  There have been multiple times due to repairs that the Airport station used one one track for extended periods of time.  Plus, the service levels aren't such that both tracks aren't a necessity where taking one out of service won't cause undo operational hardship.  If RTA decides to use cost-saving "logic", panel track (full-sized sections of pre-assembled track (with concrete ties) could be used place new track over existing track.  Railroads do this sort of thing all the time.

 

With the need to conform to the Americans With Disabilities Act, maintaining the high platforms allows them to do this.  As I mentioned, in cities like San Francisco, their LRV's have doorways that can service both high and low platforms. If the platforms are designed for wider rail cars, there are two solutions:  Make the platforms wider or have extensions at the carbody doors.  In Philadelphia about 30 years ago, the Norristown High Speed line suffered serious equipment shortages (old, worn out equipment and several wrecks that destroyed equipment).  To temporarily resolve the problem, SEPTA purchased 7 married-pair sets from Chicago (plus another 3 sets for parts).  The former EL cars were narrower than the platforms on the line, so extensions were added to the carbodies at the doorways to fill in the gap.

 

Maybe we need to standardize our terminology.  My understanding is that there are no LRV's that are anywhere close to the height of the Red Line platforms.  Ken researched it for an article awhile back and found that the highest LRV floors are still 14" lower the Red Line platforms. Perhaps we should refer to the highest LRV's as a medium-height platform to avoid confusion?

 

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/06/gcrta-may-unify-its-rail-system-with.html

"The reason why the Red Line HRV stations would have to be modified and not the Blue/Green Line LRV stations is because the HRVs are nine inches wider than the LRVs and their floors are 14 inches higher than those in the tallest LRVs. It would be far more costly and disruptive to modify the Blue/Green Line stations. And, besides, the HRVs are decaying faster and must be replaced in five years or less, LTK says."
 

Elsewhere he has described how the Red Line platforms could be inexpensively extended to meet ADA spacing requirements.  There's a tactile edge product that could be cantilevered over the edge to eliminate the gap.  That seems better than car mounted gap-fillers, because the latter would leave a big gap between the rest of the train and the platform edge.

 

And once you are modifying the track height to get the LRV floors up to Red Line platform levels, it seems like going to the lower-floor LRV possible would make sense. (They should still be level boarding everywhere possible to speed up load/unload.)  For example, is there a standard LRV that would reasonably service Shaker Line stations while enabling level boarding on modified Red Line stations.  That's the part I don't know.

 

There has been extensive discussion of this. Here are links to relevant posts:

 

 

Here's another good post of Heavy Rail vs Light Rail:

 

RTA' problems are compounded by multiple factors.  For one, they are forced to operate two-car trains practically all the time.  After the morning rush hour, the number of riders drops off significantly and doesn't pick up until the afternoon rush hour.  With rider levels that RTA has, single-unit operation is warranted.  Over 35 years ago when RTA operated the Airporters, all of which were single-unit rail cars, single-unit operation was the normal mode of operation in off-peak service and this was when RTA had much higher rider numbers.  When peak periods kicked in, the Airporters were coupled into trains and the older Bluebirds (the majority were married-pairs) were put into service.  During weekends, single-unit operation was the norm.  Operating two-car trains when rider numbers don't support them is a major factor in causing quicker deterioration.  At least the Breda LRVs are designed to operate as single units.  Without turning loops, if the LRVs had controls at one end and needing to run as two-car trains, they would be deteriorating just as fast as their heavy rail counterparts.

 

Another factor is the are no LRVs currently in production that are as wide as RTA's HRVs.  As it is, RTA is having trouble even gathering interest in prospective bidders.  Since RTA's rail car order, if they go down the dead-end track of being a custom, highly specialized one-off order (making the same foolish mistakes over and over again), current experienced rail car builders of reliable, well-designed equipment aren't interested in getting into the custom-run business.  They have their current production line models that have been engineered and the bugs have been worked out.  Even if RTA decides to order the maximum number of replacements they have projected, that will be it for this custom run.  There may be talk that RTA could plan extensions and new rail lines, but the management of these rail car builders know the reality of the situation.  If ever RTA decides to order more rail cars in the future, the history of foot-dragging will put this possibility so far into the future that whatever is developed now will be obsolete. 

 

Despite RTA's management thinking otherwise, in the minds of the managers of rail car builders RTA is viewed as a small-time operator.  Worse yet, they know that they will be dealing with RTA's leaders who think they are far more important than they are.  The rigidness of the initial bidding process regarding the short bidding window and limited time to gather shop facility information proves RTA's vision of self importance.  For rail car builders with full production schedules, a small and unique order that will cause them great difficulty in navigating obstacles that RTA will throw in their way will not be worth it. 

 

Unfortunately, the well-regarded builders with excellent products will show little interest in the order.  What could be left is some inexperienced builder may be drawn into the process.  They will offer an unproven design with no historical experience in building this type of equipment.  If this type of builder ends up being the winner of the bidding process, the end result will see long delays in deliveries, massive numbers of problems, unreliability and failures.  This will then become the next generation of failed equipment in history like the Boeing LRV's of the mid/late 1970's and multiple failures from Breda.  Boeing never built anything after the joint order for Boston and San Francisco.  Breda's poor equipment has caused them to be forbidden from bidding on replacements for their failed LRVs in Boston and San Francisco.  Those systems were forced to replace their Breda rail cars prematurely and even cancel the deliveries of their last units because they were so bad.  We don't need a repeat of these scenarios in Cleveland.   

20 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Elsewhere he has described how the Red Line platforms could be inexpensively extended to meet ADA spacing requirements.  There's a tactile edge product that could be cantilevered over the edge to eliminate the gap.  That seems better than car mounted gap-fillers, because the latter would leave a big gap between the rest of the train and the platform edge.

 

And once you are modifying the track height to get the LRV floors up to Red Line platform levels, it seems like going to the lower-floor LRV possible would make sense. (They should still be level boarding everywhere possible to speed up load/unload.)  For example, is there a standard LRV that would reasonably service Shaker Line stations while enabling level boarding on modified Red Line stations.  That's the part I don't know.

 

Thanks for that summary.

 

If you are going to raise the rail bed at Red Line stations to accommodate lower-floor LRVs, couldn't you also move the tracks closer to the platform to reduce/eliminate that gap with the platform edge?

THE GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1240 West 6th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113-1331

 

ADDENDUM
COVERING NOTICE OF CHANGE IN
SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLAN DOCUMENTS

 

DATE ISSUED: 1-13-22 ADDENDUM #: 004
IFB/RFP # 2021-125
DATE EFFECTIVE: 1-13-22
Project: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's Railcar Replacement Purchase

 

INTENT
In order to maximize competition and offer the overall best value to the Authority, this
addendum is issued prior to receipt of bid/proposal to provide notice of changes
indicated below. Acknowledgment of this addendum is required as part of this
solicitation.

 

Clarifications & Corrections
1. Omitted text in the RFP addendum documents is denoted by strikethrough.
2. Added text inthe RFP Addendum documents is denoted by underline.
3. All changes to text in RFP Addendum is denoted by an outside border mark
at side of changed paragraph.
Item Page
No.
Reference Clarifications and/or Corrections
01 N/A N/A Clarification&Correction Lo(AttachmentA)
02 N/A N/A Mini High Platform -ADA Interface Video -
http://www.riderta.com/2022RailCar

 

All other requirements remain the same

 

Issue by: Melinda J. Dangelo, Director of Procurement 

 

I don't recall GCRTA ever shutting down during a snowstorm before.

 

Update 

 

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

Update 

 

 

Since they name Cleveland and East Cleveland specifically, I assume the buses were not having issues in other service cities.   Hopefully Bibb can figure out the snow plow issue...

5 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Since they name Cleveland and East Cleveland specifically, I assume the buses were not having issues in other service cities.   Hopefully Bibb can figure out the snow plow issue...

RTA only has two active bus garages:  Triskett on the west side of Cleveland and Hayden in East Cleveland.  Not many buses are out on the road during the overnight hours.  If bus drivers could not get to the garages in the first place or they could get to the garage, but then got stuck after pulling out, that would be the basis for issues throughout the system.  

 

I never recall RTA ever having a system-wide shut down due to weather, either.  In years past, RTA had far more snow-fighting equipment on the rail lines and would run extra rail cars to keep the lines open.

Edited January 18, 20223 yr by LifeLongClevelander

15 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Since they name Cleveland and East Cleveland specifically, I assume the buses were not having issues in other service cities.   Hopefully Bibb can figure out the snow plow issue...

 

This morning Lakeshore Boulevard was far, far cleaner in Euclid than it was in Cleveland.