Archer, I know there are commuter rail systems where the cars are boardable at both high and low platforms.  Which light/heavy rail systems have high/low boarding capability?  I've never ridden any myself.

Umm...we got on this whole topic because the Muni light rail in SF has high/low boarding capability.

Pittsburgh also has it.

Archer, I know there are commuter rail systems where the cars are boardable at both high and low platforms.  Which light/heavy rail systems have high/low boarding capability?  I've never ridden any myself.

 

New Jersey Transit trains have drop down stairs on trains as some platforms are just a  patch of concrete (think the old 93/woodhill station Shaker Transit)

^Pittsburgh's subway/surface system uses LRVs that have dual boarding heights, stations.

 

^This RTA is too expensive is absurd.  Even at $4.00/all day pass, it's still a bargain.  Chicago's was $5.00/day over a year ago.  And everybody knows CTA lives a hand-to-mouth existence.

I go to school in DC which means I have to rely on metro heavily. Compared to DC, our prices are great...unfortunatley our system doesnt have good coverage around the city like metro rail, but the prices are great. DC's all day pass is $6 and you cant even use the same ticket for bus and rail.

Glad to see you posting again, Tevis! Don't be a shy stranger.

just heard from someone this morning that the silver line and all rail cars will have LCD tvs (between 17" - 19") installed showing live television - news, sports, weather, and an RTA channel. 

 

all closed captioned, but each channel will have FM transmitter so you can listen to the stations individually.  pretty cool stuff.  should be operational by January 2007 (read: maybe by mid year 2007?)

 

http://www.railnetwork.tv/homepage.html

 

and apparently rail ridership was up another 8% last month.  bike ridership up 72% overall from May 2005, although was down slightly on rail. 

 

now if we could only find out how much electricty the rapid uses...

 

[edit] added web address

^What?!  That's crazy!  Now, if you'd told me that all BRT and rail stations will have this installed by 2007, I might have believed you and still be very impressed.  Now, inside all cars?  That sounds a bit much!  Do you believe your source?

Actually, it's true.  In fact, I know of one company, the Transit Television Network, that provides on-board TV service.  The programming is advertiser-supported and usually consists of CNN or some other news service.

 

http://www.transittelevision.com/

But on all RTA rail cars and BRT vehicles???

I wanna watch SpongeBob!

 

I've been on a couple of trains in Europe that had these on board TVs (I don't know what systems have them domestically) but I wasn't very impressed. Felt like another marketing tool more than anything, but if it provides an additional revenue stream, I'll live with it.

 

The real impressive news was the continuing increase in rail ridership at 8%. Maybe the fuel pinch is making some lifelong converts.

^^ I'm with you, Mister Good Day.  I would rather Calabrese and his cronies to build transit through other means, most notably spending more seed money to sponsor TOD development around stations, and getting behind worthwhile rail expansion proposals, like KJP's Project Green commuter rail to Lorain and the (already Cleveland-backed) extension of the Waterfront Line along the Eastern lakefront).

 

I've only seen on-board TV on Atlanta's MARTA; but MARTA, unlike RTA, is a highly-successful and continually expanding rapid rail network.  Such a proposal for Cleveland is typical of the superficial, nonsense the Calabrese trots out to dazzle riders while keeping them focused away from failure of his administration.

well, the link above in my initial post is for the company doing MARTA's.  The same company is doing Cleveland's as well. 

 

From my understanding, RTA is spending no money on this project - just supporting it.  railnetwork.tv will own the tvs, repair them, get most of the money from any advertising, etc.

 

RTA might get a small throwback, but it is mostly viewed as a way to make transit rides more appealing without RTA having to do anything.

^^ I'm with you, Mister Good Day.  I would rather Calabrese and his cronies to build transit through other means, most notably spending more seed money to sponsor TOD development around stations, and getting behind worthwhile rail expansion proposals, like KJP's Project Green commuter rail to Lorain and the (already Cleveland-backed) extension of the Waterfront Line along the Eastern lakefront).

 

I've only seen on-board TV on Atlanta's MARTA; but MARTA, unlike RTA, is a highly-successful and continually expanding rapid rail network.  Such a proposal for Cleveland is typical of the superficial, nonsense the Calabrese trots out to dazzle riders while keeping them focused away from failure of his administration.

 

MARTA Succesfull?  I think not.  I was just in ATL and the system is on the verge of collapsing and not expanding  They had the force the Gov into signing a bill for (i think) 5% sales tax for the next two years to keep the system running.  and they are copying cleveland and building a BRT line...i wonder why as i've rarely seen a bus in ATL

 

Its the talk of the town, along with ailing Delta, The mayor's conviction, the homeless problems, the amount of jobs leaving the area...this is horrible to say, but its nice to see another area "suffer" instead of Cleveland! As of lately Cleveland seems to be fairing well.

 

Now you're critique on Calabrese...is on the mark!

^MyTwoSense, what I mean by "success" is not geared toward funding.  There are a number of major transit systems that have struggled with funding in recent years, including Philly's SEPTA, New York's MTA and Chicago's CTA -- all seemingly successful by most measuring sticks... 

 

 

What I mean by Atlanta's being successful -- esp compared to ours -- is ridership; that, you can't deny.  With the exception of the dinky Bankhead stub, which was supposed to be extended deep into the NW towards Marietta, all lines operate with 4-car (heavy rail) trains and up at all operating hours.  Even on the Bankhead stub, 2 cars are used (they may use more during rush hour -- I haven't been on MARTA during a weekday rush; I was just in Atlanta last summer on a weekend overnight stay).   As a fellow Shaker Square-ite and frequent rider, I don't have to remind you of our RTA's laughable/embarrassing sight of one car Blue-Green trains at all hours (save a Browns game or special even here and there), and those "silver bullet" single car/pay-the-driver jobbies of our so-called "heavy rail/Metro" Red Line. 

 

I would also say Atlanta is successful -- far more than RTA -- with all the TOD development around stations:  just take a gander at all the sleek high-rise apartment (and office) towers that have risen/are rising near MARTA stops at Midtown, North Ave, Arts Center and Buckhead -- just to name a few (and a quickie ride out the newest, few-years-old North (Sandy Springs) branch indicates some of the same.  And how about the mega convention center/stadium complex (I surmise, in part fueled by the '96 Olympics) that have mushroomed directly at (and connect to) the stop just west of Five Points?  -- and for all our teeth-gnashing about where to put, if at all, a new conv center, wouldn't we salivate to have Atlanta's, ... c'mon, be honest.

 

Dude, that's success in my book.  Atlanta may be talking about BRT now, but at least they FIRST did the heavy lifting we refused to do -- that is, build a subway right up the gut down it's main street corridor -- Peachtree St, so as whatever BRT they may be talking about is actually a supplement to a bustling rail network already in place and not pawned off to the public (like Calabrese et al., are doing) as some kind of economical alternative to the subway we SHOULD HAVE built.

 

As to the other sorry scandal going on down in the Capital of Dixie, all I can say is: bad government is exclusively owned by no city or region.

^^ and remember one more thing MyTwoSense, Atlanta proper, to this day, is smaller than Cleveland population-wise (although we're racing to fall behind them).  And even though there metro area has mushroomed to pass ours, it wasn't as big when Atlanta began building this network -- and I wouldn't be surprised that, overall, there metro area's population density still doesn't match ours... so why can THEY dig a subway 5/6 miles out their Peachtree Road and we can't muster the same for a just a few miles out our Euclid Ave?

 

As George Bush I might say, a large part of it is the "vision thing".

Can't wait to watch TV through black marker graffiti on the screens!  Why didn't they spend the money on installing ceiling to floor turnstiles, fare card and fare refill machines similar to NYC/Chicago(at least we can watch TV while everyone pays ON the train!), and maybe even automated voice stops and messages on the trains. 

On another note...is RTA and the cab companies working together somehow?  I never understand why train or bus lines stop running BEFORE the bars close on the weekends.  I love taking the 55 downtown when I go out, but unfortunately is stops running before I go home!  It would be a nice to see RTA back an advertising campaign against drinking and driving and encourage people to use public transit to AND from downtown.  Just a thought....

Why didn't they spend the money on installing ceiling to floor turnstiles, fare card and fare refill machines similar to NYC/Chicago(at least we can watch TV while everyone pays ON the train!), and maybe even automated voice stops and messages on the trains. 

 

the key statement is "why didn't they [RTA] spend".  the only reason this is happening is because a 3d party is funding the whole thing.  if a 3d party would pay for new ticket machines, TOD, and automated voice stops, etc., without any investment from RTA, I think RTA would support it.  This is basically getting something for 'free', supported by advertising or some other model of the transit tv company. 

This is basically getting something for 'free', supported by advertising or some other model of the transit tv company. 

 

More than basically -- it is free. Plus, RTA will get revenue from it. I'll have an article about it this week, and I suppose the PeeDee will attempt to write something as well....

I apologize..I didn't realize this was free.  I of all people am for that...my motto is"if it's free, it's me"!

Why couldn't a third party fund ticket machines or the automated voices?  They could be used for advertising products- say you buy a ticket, and it is also a mini flyer for Giant Eagle's sale item of the week, or the automated voice says, "Next stop, Tower City.  And while your here, don't forget to eat at Taco Bell in the Food Court."

 

And so forth and so on, as they say.

^I'm looking forward to the article...and to the PD's piggy backer! 

 

I know that at least one of the stations on the Red Line (University Circle) had turnstiles at some point in time.  When I used the system in high school, we had to go through them, but they were only effective if there was someone at the booth.  And more often than not, there isn't.  When there is, you're lucky if they look up from their crossword/newspaper/magazine long enough to register that someone is attempting to pay their fare. 

 

I know the new Silver Line BRT will have prepay and "proof of payment" to counter the waiting in line to get on the train problem, but what about our light rail routes?

 

Also, will these new tvs be in stations as well as on the vehicles?  I'd be more likely to watch the screen while waiting than while riding.

TV Update

"Description/Justfication: The Authority is seeking opportunities to effectively communicate with its customers and generate additional revenue.  The Multi Media Passenger Information System will include two to four flat screen LCD units per rail car and per Silver Line vehicles.  This system has the capability to disseminiate service-related information to passengers, including next stop announcements, information about connecting service, customer and security related information, as well as current news/weather updates."(emphasis added)

 

"They will provide these services on all Authority rail cars and have agreed to include service on the 21 Silver Line vehicles.  They will have a first right of refusal to provide service on the remaining GCRTA bus fleet in the future."

 

The redline cars will be equipped first, then the redone blue/green line cars as the renovations are completed.  Should see first redlines in early 07, and remaining fleet by Jul 07. 

 

Ridership Update - May 2006 Numbers

 

          May 2006           May 2005        Chg          YTD 2006         YTD 2005   Chg

Bus     

RTA      4,088,800        4,018,300        +1.8%      19,481,900      19,375,100  +.6%

Circ.        206,800          218,500        -5.3%        1,036,500        1.073,600  -3.5%

Tlt Bus  4,295,700          2,236,800       +1.4%      20,518,400       20,448,700  +.3%

 

Rail     

Heavy   474,400             438,500       +8.2%         2,187,600        2,203,800  -.7%

Light      245,900            227,300      +8.2%        1,101,700        1,076,400  +2.4%

Ttl Rail  720,300            665,800      +8.2%        3,289,300        3,280,200  +.3%

 

Para        39,400              37,100      +6.4              190,900          186,700  +2.2%

 

TOTAL  5,061,400          4,946,000    +2.3%        24,028,800      23,946,800  +.3%

 

**Note that May 2006 included one additional weekday and one less sunday, explaining some of the y-o-y change. 

 

May Trolley Rides: 44,077 (avg 2,004/day)

May Bike Rides:      2,954 (all modes), increase of 47.9% or 957 rides compared to previous May. 

 

 

^MyTwoSense, what I mean by "success" is not geared toward funding.  There are a number of major transit systems that have struggled with funding in recent years, including Philly's SEPTA, New York's MTA and Chicago's CTA -- all seemingly successful by most measuring sticks... 

 

 

What I mean by Atlanta's being successful -- esp compared to ours -- is ridership; that, you can't deny.  With the exception of the dinky Bankhead stub, which was supposed to be extended deep into the NW towards Marietta, all lines operate with 4-car (heavy rail) trains and up at all operating hours.  Even on the Bankhead stub, 2 cars are used (they may use more during rush hour -- I haven't been on MARTA during a weekday rush; I was just in Atlanta last summer on a weekend overnight stay).  As a fellow Shaker Square-ite and frequent rider, I don't have to remind you of our RTA's laughable/embarrassing sight of one car Blue-Green trains at all hours (save a Browns game or special even here and there), and those "silver bullet" single car/pay-the-driver jobbies of our so-called "heavy rail/Metro" Red Line. 

 

Well we all know that MARTA won’t go any further!  They are having the same problems Cleveland had.  That is the only reason that Atlanta has a rail system is the Olympics.  As we know the MARTA was funded by Olympic money and has never really caught on, although I can’t analyze the stats that say otherwise.  When I ask my staff in Atlanta about the “train” they laugh because it’s a joke!  And these are people that have a station connected to the office at CNN Center.  In Cleveland at least we have feeder buses that intersect with all our rail lines, people in Atlanta, that I know, are very anti public transportation, not just rail.  Yes it’s horrible to see what our rail system has become even as ridership increases.  I can remember a time when the Shaker Trains ran with FIVE cars or when the “new” LRV’s were 2 (shaker)/3(van aken) cars buzzing thru shaker square.  However, I can always remember that between 10AM and 3:30 PM the LRV  cars were always ONE car, since they could seat the same amount of people as approximately  two old shaker cars.

 

The one thing Cleveland does have is excellent bus coverage around the city.  When MARTA was proposed, all the surrounding cities in DeKalb and Fulton County fell into a county government and some were absorbed by Atlanta.  Atlanta, even today is an extremely segregated city.  The majority of African American live on the south side and whites live on the north side.  As you can see, the majority of development in Atlanta starts downtown and goes north.  The Buckhead area was at one time a MAJOR housing project.  Lenox mall was a bad strip mall and Perimeter Mall was “the mall” to shop.  Since crossing the perimeter was considered an “invisible racial barrier”.  As you can see Sprawl in Atlanta is insane as jobs move further and further away from the city and the people who need them, but can’t get to them and MARTA can’t get you there.

 

Sandy Springs was its own city (along with other cities like Dunwoody, Doraville, Roswell, etc…) prior to being annexed into a county government, (IIRC it was 1979) whites in Atlanta actually said, “we don’t want MARTA or a train, this isn’t the north and we don’t want no n----- in our area”.  Yes, they actually said the “n” word.

 

We were in Atlanta for the summer of 79 (I was 13 y/o), and after hearing people speak like that, my dad actually had a talk with me and my brother about racism as we had never encountered it before.  Ironically, two days later, on the bus to the mall, my brother (15 y/o) and I were called a few “terms of endearment” and told to go back to “where we came from”.  After a few choice words of my own, I thought it was best for my brother and I to get off at the next light…not stop!

 

I would also say Atlanta is successful -- far more than RTA -- with all the TOD development around stations:  just take a gander at all the sleek high-rise apartment (and office) towers that have risen/are rising near MARTA stops at Midtown, North Ave, Arts Center and Buckhead -- just to name a few (and a quickie ride out the newest, few-years-old North (Sandy Springs) branch indicates some of the same.  And how about the mega convention center/stadium complex (I surmise, in part fueled by the '96 Olympics) that have mushroomed directly at (and connect to) the stop just west of Five Points?  -- and for all our teeth-gnashing about where to put, if at all, a new conv center, wouldn't we salivate to have Atlanta's, ... c'mon, be honest.

 

Those things were there BEFORE the train line.  There is a reason why the train line runs under peachtree not Marietta.  Most of Downtown Atlanta was public housing.  Think Garden Valley or Outwaite stretching from West 10 to East 26 Street.  Also the original North line (no the NE line) was pushed east (of i-85) is to keep it away from Roswell.  The city didn’t want marta but to get the Olympics they had to build it where the feds said.  ATL tore out many black neighborhoods to build the five points station, CNN, the Omni and the Convention Center (which has been expanded twice and the Georgia Dome added).  Look at the architecture difference of the buildings between Philips area and the Five points station and also look at the dead land around the area, its worse than our white elephant on the lakefront which is something we can correct.  They can’t as the area is land locked.  The peachtree station is in a great location and everything built in the 80s was center around that station.  The Civic Center is in the middle of NOWHERE, the north Avenue station isn’t facing north avenue and was slapped down in an area not connected, same goes with the midtown station.  Granted 3 new housing developments went up near the midtown station in this past year.  But I just toured them and the developments don’t even mention public transportation as a plus/convenience of being near the station.  The art center station was the only station built as TOD.  lindeberg, lenox, brookhaven, Chamblee are similar to west side red line stations but all have the feel of the Brookpark station – vast parking seas.  The East West line is even more of a joke.  As and individual who uses Marta I think its more geared to “special events” in my opinion.  I mean you can’t even get to their new baseball stadium unless you’re on a loop bus.

 

At least the stations on the Westside of Cleveland are in neighborhoods.  Granted, I wish we had (subway) rail service up St. Clair, Superior/Detroit and Carneige/Lorain and it tied into other forms of development, but what looks good on the “surface” (no pun intended) might not be good for you.  I wish we could get the government to pay for a system I’d be for it.

 

^^ and remember one more thing MyTwoSense, Atlanta proper, to this day, is smaller than Cleveland population-wise (although we're racing to fall behind them).  And even though there metro area has mushroomed to pass ours, it wasn't as big when Atlanta began building this network -- and I wouldn't be surprised that, overall, there metro area's population density still doesn't match ours... so why can THEY dig a subway 5/6 miles out their Peachtree Road and we can't muster the same for a just a few miles out our Euclid Ave?

 

As George Bush I might say, a large part of it is the "vision thing".

 

yes and they are shrink faster than Cleveland, but the numbers will be washed out in the next census, remember Atlanta uses, IIRC 15/16/17 Counties to make up its metro area.  I think if you took Dekalb, Fulton and Cobb county, they only have about 2 M people, about the same as Cuyahoga County.However, it is what it is......

 

Can't wait to watch TV through black marker graffiti on the screens!  Why didn't they spend the money on installing ceiling to floor turnstiles, fare card and fare refill machines similar to NYC/Chicago(at least we can watch TV while everyone pays ON the train!), and maybe even automated voice stops and messages on the trains. 

On another note...is RTA and the cab companies working together somehow?  I never understand why train or bus lines stop running BEFORE the bars close on the weekends.  I love taking the 55 downtown when I go out, but unfortunately is stops running before I go home!  It would be a nice to see RTA back an advertising campaign against drinking and driving and encourage people to use public transit to AND from downtown.  Just a thought....

 

 

JDD...come one man...I know you're being sarcastic, but we have way too many people who THINK just like that.  I would love to see redline stations and heavy use Blue/Green line stations (Shaker Blvd., Warrensville, Shaker Square, E 116, Woodhill) with turnstiles, and fare machines as it would intergrate and revamp the systems image.  In regards to PR...I know I sound like a broken record but...the city/county and infratructure businesses/government entities don't have a multi level PR strategy.  How about just having (a link to) the closestest RTA rail station or bus stop located on your businessess website instead of driving direction or in addition to them?  it sends a message to consumers, RTA is good..we don't need a car to go from point AtoB..etc.. and also encourages foot traffic.

 

^I'm looking forward to the article...and to the PD's piggy backer! 

 

I know that at least one of the stations on the Red Line (University Circle) had turnstiles at some point in time.  When I used the system in high school, we had to go through them, but they were only effective if there was someone at the booth.  And more often than not, there isn't.  When there is, you're lucky if they look up from their crossword/newspaper/magazine long enough to register that someone is attempting to pay their fare. 

 

I know the new Silver Line BRT will have prepay and "proof of payment" to counter the waiting in line to get on the train problem, but what about our light rail routes?

 

Also, will these new tvs be in stations as well as on the vehicles?  I'd be more likely to watch the screen while waiting than while riding.

 

 

I think a news network in waiting rooms or a "city guide" channel on platforms/waiting areas would be a marvelous idea.

 

 

yes they did, so did E. 120, Superior, Brookpark.  West 25 street used to have them and I think most of the west side stations still have them or atleast the token booth.  I'm usually asleep, on the train so I never pay attention to what happens/or whats on the platform of the Redline stations.

 

Based the information UrbanLife posted, looks like rail and bike transportation modes are up AGAIN...this is a perfect opportunity to get people to stay on public transportation as gas prices continue to be a pain.

As we know the MARTA was funded by Olympic money and has never really caught on, although I can’t analyze the stats that say otherwise.

 

Are you sure about that?  I was certain the MARTA rail system opened its first segment in 1979 (with planning beginning in the 1950s--well before the Olympic effort).  And, for all its supposed shortcomings versus RTA, the "joke" MARTA rail system carries nearly a quarter of a million passengers per day, or about six times the ridership of RTA's rail system. 

 

www.itsmarta.com 

I agree that it's pretty hard to throw stones at other rail systems given RTA's paltry rail ridership.

As we know the MARTA was funded by Olympic money and has never really caught on, although I can’t analyze the stats that say otherwise.

 

Are you sure about that?  I was certain the MARTA rail system opened its first segment in 1979 (with planning beginning in the 1950s--well before the Olympic effort).  And, for all its supposed shortcomings versus RTA, the "joke" MARTA rail system carries nearly a quarter of a million passengers per day, or about six times the ridership of RTA's rail system. 

 

www.itsmarta.com  

 

Yep I remember my dad complaining about them buying up land. 

 

The East/West blue line started first and there were like three station to begin with.  For instance GS was a stop then IIRC the next stop was Edgewood then the last stop was decatur.

 

I agree that it's pretty hard to throw stones at other rail systems given RTA's paltry rail ridership.

 

I'm not throwing stones, my answer is based on my personal experience using the MARTA rail system, since I fly into the airport quite often and transfer to a downtown train and those told to me by my staff based in ATL.

The May 2006 numbers surprise me. I thought there would be a much more impressive increase in ridership.

I'm not arguing the 1979 part, MTS.  I'm highly skeptical that Olympic money paid for the MARTA rail system.  Atlanta wasn't even selected until 1990--11 years after the first segment opened.

I'm not arguing the 1979 part, MTS.  I'm highly skeptical that Olympic money paid for the MARTA rail system.  Atlanta wasn't even selected until 1990--11 years after the first segment opened.

 

Dan I said FUNDED not built with!  If the olympics had not come to Atlanta - let me carefully select my words - I do not believe, the MARTA rail system would have been expanded further than:  east/west - Ashby to Decatur and North/South - North Ave. to the Fort.

The May 2006 numbers surprise me. I thought there would be a much more impressive increase in ridership.

 

Apparently, it surprised the board as well. 

 

But with 2 strong years of ridership growth in a row, very little new or improved service and a slowly recovering local economy (still mainly in the suburbs), and a losing indians team and empty jacob's field, maybe shouldn't be surprising.  i don't know.

That's not quite what you said above:

That is the only reason that Atlanta has a rail system is the Olympics.

I understand if extensions were funded with Olympic money, though.

 

 

I'm not arguing the 1979 part, MTS.  I'm highly skeptical that Olympic money paid for the MARTA rail system.  Atlanta wasn't even selected until 1990--11 years after the first segment opened.

 

Dan I said FUNDED not built with!  If the olympics had not come to Atlanta - let me carefully select my words - I do not believe, the MARTA rail system would have been expanded further than:  east/west - Ashby to Decatur and North/South - North Ave. to the Fort.

 

I've never heard of any part of MARTA funding coming from, being built for or otherwise having anything to do with the Olympics. That's a new one on me.

 

How'd we get on this silly subject anyway? This is like those debates that occasionally come up about which city is bigger, Cleveland or Columbus. Let's focus on ridership trends, discuss ideas for improving the numbers, and the like -- in other words, go back to the intent of this string!

Atlanta began rail with a vision for the entire city: become the convention capital of the South, and in the process, grow a high density city.  The only line of MARTA that was directly related to the Olympics, to my knowledge, is the north line to North Springs, designed, largely, to ferry Olympic goers parking at or beyond the Perimeter beltway.  (btw, MTS, I'm aware of negative forces in Atlanta -- like those in Cleveland -- are freezing MARTA's rail growth).

 

There are lessons here for Cleveland.  We have got to start demanding our leaders work for the goal of what is most healthy for the city.  We know what it is and what's not.  High density, mixed use, walking-oriented, transit-oriented ... we KNOW what it is... In Cleveland, we're a sprawl, no growth city.  We shouldn't try to be a good version of an Atlanta or a Chicago... we've got to foment the best Cleveland -- of course, in the context of what is objectively positive for any big city, anywhere on the planet... Projects like Steelyards and that stupid big box Target in W. 117 & I-90 are clearly NOT the answer to any kind of positive growth.  And we have to (like Washington, D.C. did long ago), issue a moratorium on urban freeways, period... we, in this town, are addicted to freeway building like a junkie's addicted to crack... Slowly, though, it appears most new big projects here are TOD.  That's a start.  And have to -- absolutely HAVE TO stress business returning downtown as our Central Business Center.  The idea of the Science Parks (Beachwood, MBNA) and huge Progressive suburban campuses -- that follow our perimeter freeways and sap dollars from our downtown -- have to stop -- I bristle every time I hear those ubiquitous Progressive TV commercials tout the fact they are "of Mayfield, Ohio."  Nice.  And to hell with the mother city.  Transit ridership will not grow, alone with TOD, alone, without a healthy downtown.  RTA's/the Rapid's numbers declined, seriously, as downtown declined, both as a business and retail center... As you can see, downtown's growth as a residential and entertainment (see DaninDC's favorite concept: downtown as an adult theme park, LOL) center, while helping somewhat, cannot replace what a strong business center meant for RTA riders... but, obviously, creating more TOD's is helpful, too, obviously, and in no way am I dismissing them by any stretch of the imagination...

 

Atlanta's Sunbelt a growth town, so they're not a great model.  St. Louis and Baltimore are most like us.  I'm not quite sure what to make of St. Louis' light rail although it seems successful. 

 

Baltimore is an utter failure.  And, btw MyTwoSense, let me back away from only looking at ridership numbers as success.  Baltimore has numbers on us, but it is anything but a success.  Indeed, it's got to be the worst built of the large-scale modern systems; makes RTA look like a gem in comparison.

What other measuring stick would you use to evaluate transit systems? Perhaps only cost-recovery ratio... In my book, that and ridership are the two more important measurements of transit success.

 

Except for heritage streetcars and tourist trolley lines, here are the three least used light-rail transit services in the U.S.:

 

City/System   -  yearly total ridership

 

Baltimore LRT  -  5.8 million

Buffalo LRT     -  5.4 million

Cleveland LRT -  2.7 million

 

Baltimore's LRT ridership was 7.4 million in 2003, but construction of double track caused travel delays and negatively impacted ridership. I wouldn't doubt that ridership will at least climb back to where it was in 2003.

 

Based on this data, I would love it if Cleveland's LRT was as successful as Baltimore's. I believe Cleveland's Red Line (a heavy rail service) had some 5 million riders last year. Baltimore's heavy rail line had 12.4 million riders...

 

Arbitrarily throwing ridership out of the success-measurement equation is like saying hotel occupancy rates aren't meaningful. I understand ridership isn't the only thing, but in the nonprofit world of transit and infrastructure, it's one of the two biggest factors.

I'm not throwing ridership out as a measuring stick; I'm not even saying it's not the main measuring stick, because it is.  I'm just saying it should not always be used as the sole measuring stick.  And Baltimore and Cleveland are extreme examples of why.  Baltimore is ridden more than Cleveland, obviously.  But there are a host of reasons why (like the natural row-house (high) overall density of Baltimore vs. the natural frame house, deep-lot driveway (moderate/low)  of Cleveland. 

 

Plus, I there are issues in Baltimore that help its success like 1) newness of the system/rapid transit overall to the public; 2) the strength of the urban core of B'more, both as a commercial and retail center over Cleveland (also remember, as a Colonial city of the aforementioned row houses -- some dating over 300 years -- people have always lived in and around downtown B'more, whereas it's a very recent thing for Cleveland (discounting, of course, the period of Moses' landing up to 1900, when people started bolting downtown for the fringes and burbs of Cleveland); and then 4) there’s Baltimore’s ongoing refusal to build radial freeways whereas Cleveland is crisscrossed with them.

 

Then, looking at Cleveland, we’ve suffered from extreme loss of industry in many areas of the city, coupled with the devastation downtown due to a loss of corporate/service jobs that is unprecedented in the U.S. per capita-wise.  I’m not making excuses for the bonehead failures RTA and it’s predecessors have made – by commission and omission – but you must recognize that there are many, many factors that hurt RTA ridership besides the quality, or lack-thereof, of the system itself.

 

//////////

 

The listed factors existed from before the time Baltimore’s 1st rapid transit went on line—in other words, it had many preexisting factors going for it, ridership-wise, from the beginning.  Baltimore is very similar in age, density and urban architecture to Boston, and had ever chance to build a system approaching Boston’s, but blew it.  It has light rail, commuter rail (2 lines, including the gift electrified NEC line), and a heavy rail Metro; and yet:

 

- they barely interface with one another (save the lone single-track connection of the slow Light rail line)

- You must walk outside, for a block, to transfer btw Heavy and light rail – and even then, there are no transfer  privileges at all btw the 2 services; full fare is req’d

- Building a surface, downtown portion of light rail was penny-wise/pound foolish raised to the tenth power – even moreso, when you consider that Heavy rail downtown was not only built fully in a subway TO downtown from the edge of town, it was extended in subway THROUGH downtown AFTER the Light Rail was built – how much sense does that make?  As a result, light rail ridiculously slow, esp in a high-density downtown with lots of pedestrians, short blocks and untimed lights.  Forget about airport use like Cleveland – that is, going from the suburban district opposite the BWI airport, thru downtown (it takes forever to inch along via rail on Howard St, which has been turned into a retail ghost-town by Light Rail), and, as noted above, if your coming in on the Metro, you have to schlep your luggage outdoors (poss in rain or snow), to that slow light rail – and you’d better have your 2nd fare handy.

- The core 10 mile North corridor is completely missed save the very lowest portion along creaky Light Rail line for 1 mile 

- Unlike Cleveland, many, if not most, prime entertainment/tourist areas are missed by both lines, including wildly popular Fells Point, the Charles Village/university museum district and the classic Inner Harbor – yep, the Inner Harbor.  Yes, light rail goes a “scant” 3 (sizable) blocks from the Harbor, but that’s not serving it, in my book.  (indeed, while B’more has given up

- Commuter rail from Penn Station hasn’t been extended into downtown; and the connection to Light Rail is pretty useless as the Light Rail skims the edge of downtown, anyway.  One is much better off hoping one of the many express buses into the true core of the city down along busy St. Paul street, which runs adjacent to Penn Station

- And while I’m on it, why hasn’t Baltimore upgraded MARC’s commuter trains to make Baltimore more of the destination/urban center it is rather than existing in it’s MARC status as a mere D.C. suburb?  (if you don’t believe me, download a schedule, partuclarly a Camden Yards schedule where trains actually do terminate in downtown.

 

Sure some of Baltimore’s lines are somewhat longer than Cleveland’s, but what difference if you’ve got the multitude of problems Baltimore has that I’ve listed (and my list is not exhaustive.  The point being is, we Clevelanders always seem quick to downgrade RTA while holding other transit systems on pedestals based on ridership alone, when there are tons of external forces affecting RTA we don’t take into account.

 

Ridership is an important measuring stick, but let’s not make it the sole measuring stick.  I see examples on this Board of that type of thinking for things like, say, a rail line out W. 25/Pearl deep into Parma.  Yeah, it would carry a lot of people (mainly crossovers from the buses it replaces), but if it’s little faster than a bus, what’s the point?  Is that success to you?

 

Baltimore has an OK system, but it could have been great with better planning.  Balto transit exemplifies expediency at its worst. And when it comes down to overall quality, I’d take Cleveland’s Rapid (and bus) over Baltimore’s in a heartbeat.

 

[note, apologies ahead of time for the grammar/typo’s, but hitting the sack at this ungodly hour esp since it’s a work-night; now morning]

 

I bet if Cleveland had beeter placed lines instead of hiding them, the ridership would be better.  If you had lines (either El, underground, or whatever) through the Clifton(and integrated with the NEW shoreway blvd proposed) area, W25th/Pearl, and maybe St Clair or along 90/rt2 E...it would be visible AND be where populations are.  RTA could even get crazy and have a line along 271 to 480 to connect all the lines on the outer ends.  The East side lines do go through some populated areas, but THE West side line survives IMO because it goes to the airport.  for regular everyday use, it seems hidden in back yards and behind a bunch of factory buildings.  I wish Cleveland lines were more visible and promoted like Chicago's rail service.....just my opinion

While I think Baltimore's numbers are admirable, I don't think it is possible to use that city as a measuring stick for Cleveland. About half of the people using Baltimore's public transit are probably travelers making connections there to get to D.C. one way or another.

No I wouldn't use Baltimore's as an example either. Hence the reason why I posted it with Buffalo and Cleveland's as the three least-used non-tourist/heritage LRT cities/systems in the U.S. I would hold up as examples these top 10 LRT cities - with their 2004 ridership --

 

Boston - 70.6 million

San Francisco - 45.2 million

Los Angeles - 32.9 million

Portland - 31.9 million

San Diego - 26.5 million

Philadelphia - 25.2 million

Dallas - 16.4 million

St. Louis - 14.4 million

Sacremento - 11 million

Denver - 10 million

 

Info is from:   http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/lrservuse.cfm

About half of the people using Baltimore's public transit are probably travelers making connections there to get to D.C. one way or another.

 

I would be one of them!  I hate that stupid light rail connection from Penn Station.  What a waste.  Gotta love 17 minute headways during rush hour for that overglorified bus on rails.     

KJP, is there any comparison of these top ridership cities with other factors, such as track miles, employment numbers, service area, etc.?

 

Also, i think ridership would be increased by making RTA easier to use.  I know that RTA is part of OneCommunity and is using some of that bandwidth to support security and other operations, but i think some well placed kiosks like denver has would be a big improvement:

 

 

http://www.rtd-denver.com/Kiosk/locations.html

 

 

 

KJP, is there any comparison of these top ridership cities with other factors, such as track miles, employment numbers, service area, etc.?

 

Not that I'm aware of, though I haven't done a Google search.

 

Also, i think ridership would be increased by making RTA easier to use.  I know that RTA is part of OneCommunity and is using some of that bandwidth to support security and other operations, but i think some well placed kiosks like denver has would be a big improvement:

 

Look for a similar thing when RTA's rail and Silver lines go to proof-of-payment.

 

And, I've said a million times before and I'll say it again, if your rail transit lines were built in lousy areas for ridership (next to decaying industries, busy freight railroads, etc.), then redevelop the areas around the stations or adjust the location of the rail transit lines.

 

See the threads on this forum on Red Line TOD projects and the Opportunity Corridor (putting a rail line in its median). Those are considerably less expensive than building all-new rights of way for rail transit within the city or for suburban extensions.

 

This is a lousy way to say it, but many areas along RTA's rail lines have been thoroughly abandoned of industry and housing that this can actually be a benefit to reshaping those areas as modern transit-oriented communities. In those areas, we have a "clean" slate to start over, although some of those areas clearly are not clean of pollutants.

ok, i found this analysis from 2000 data.  although this site looks very anti-transit in general, these numbers appear to come from the FTA database.

 

"By this measure, the most productive light-rail system is in Boston, which carried 8,500 passenger miles per mile. The least productive is -- you guessed it -- San Jose's, which at 1,750 passenger miles per mile carried less than half the average and only about a fifth of Boston's level.

 

Table Two

Daily Passenger Miles Per Route Mile

Boston                    8,484

St. Louis                  7,681

Los Angeles                6,977

Portland                  5,937

San Diego                  5,318

Salt Lake City            4,536

San Francisco              4,258

Dallas                    4,023

Newark                    3,445

Buffalo                    3,411

Sacramento                3,065

Baltimore                  2,795

Denver                    2,762

Pittsburgh                2,600

Philadelphia              2,443

Cleveland                  2,196

San Jose                  1,749"

 

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate32.html

 

 

 

This is a lousy way to say it, but many areas along RTA's rail lines have been thoroughly abandoned of industry and housing that this can actually be a benefit to reshaping those areas as modern transit-oriented communities. In those areas, we have a "clean" slate to start over, although some of those areas clearly are not clean of pollutants.

I bet if Cleveland had beeter placed lines instead of hiding them, the ridership would be better.  If you had lines (either El, underground, or whatever) through the Clifton(and integrated with the NEW shoreway blvd proposed) area, W25th/Pearl, and maybe St Clair or along 90/rt2 E...it would be visible AND be where populations are.  RTA could even get crazy and have a line along 271 to 480 to connect all the lines on the outer ends.

 

I agree with this! I live in Lakewood and work downtown, and I'd LOVE to take the Rapid to work. But there are a few problems. First, the station on 117 is a mile away. That's a long walk for a station, especially when I have to be to work at 8 a.m. and I went to the bar the night before. I could drive and park my car at their lot, but that just seems stupid when it takes me 15 minutes to get into the parking deck via the Shoreway. Finally, a monthly transit pass costs more money than my parking deck costs, so on the whole, it really doesn't equal out. If the station was a few blocks away rather than a mile, there would be no question.

 

And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow.

ok, i found this analysis from 2000 data. although this site looks very anti-transit in general, these numbers appear to come from the FTA database.

 

They may be from the FTA, but they represent incomplete and therefore meaningless data (it's like saying trucks at the fire station down the street from me traveled the fewest miles of any station in the city -- does that mean the fire station should be closed down? Maybe it's because the fire station is in a densely developed part of the city where its trucks don't have to travel as far to reach emergencies). But the Thoreau Institute isn't interested in facts, not when it's funded by highway-lobby groups and companies, plus far-right libertarians.

 

Let me direct you and others here to a very worthwhile site: http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths.htm

 

One of my favorite passages from this dependable site is this:

 

...Any system dependent on automobiles tends to generate vast numbers of otherwise wasteful trips – in large part, a function of poor planning, poor urban design, suburban sprawl, deficient or non-existent pedestrian and cycling facilities, and other factors. In connection with this, one also must keep well in mind that public transport is today trying to function and meet areawide needs within the context of the overwhelming public promotion of motor vehicle travel which has persisted since the early decades of the 20th century. While the roadway system has feasted on a diet amounting to well over two trillion dollars (in constant 2003 $) in investment from about the early 1920s, in almost every US city, mass transit was given nothing, and allowed to dwindle (and in many cases disappear) steadily until about the mid-1970s.

 

As a consequence, lacking a grid of accessible public transit, most urban residents – and suburbanites especially – find themselves hopelessly dependent on automobiles for mobility. Many parents are forced to transport their kids to school – generating more passenger trips (including the driver). Even within many of today's inner-cities, residents must hop in their car for a trip to buy simple necessities and other common items like salt, milk, or a newspaper. You must use your car to buy gas, go to the carwash, or get an oil change. You must shuttle from sprawling mall to mall, from Big Box store to store, to buy necessities for human life. All these mean more and more trips – and all of them are tallied up on the regional trip counter. (And keep in mind that even the trips to a transit park & ride are counted as automobile trips and passenger-miles!)

 

Meanwhile, as the automobile system is racking up all those trips, activities based on transit, in contrast, are far more compact and efficient. In cities with good rail transit, passengers have the opportunity to buy some things at shops and malls near their transit stops. Many rail transit passengers benefit from convenient multi-use inner-city or downtown malls which some developers have seen desirable to build at rail stations. (In Dallas, this is already starting to happen at major stations such as Cityplace and Mockingbird.) Multiple trips to far-flung locations gradually become unnecessary – thus, most passengers need only two trips on transit – one to get to the original destination, and one to get back. And their passenger-mileage is much less as well. But, because of this efficiency, transit users fall far behind in the total numbers of "trips" tallied and passenger-miles logged.

 

What this means is that the very inefficiencies and wastefulness of the automobile system are exploited by Road Warriors as they try to build a case for the automobile and disparage mass transit!

 

Here's a better stat to measure productivity: what is the rail transit line's/system's contribution to the local economy and how much does it save in economic and environmental costs?

I don't disagree with you KJP, but what I'm trying to find out is how large the actual light rail systems are, what their foot print is.  So, Cleveland has 15 miles of light rail single way track, and 2.5 of this is the waterfront line.  19 miles of heavy rail. 

Our rail network footprint is only 34 miles total, with a portion overlapping (red/green/blue) from towercity to E34, then (blue/green) overlapping again until shaker square.  In addition, as mentioned above, from the outset the lines were built on the cheap, through existing freight rail right-of-ways for the most part, and not through historical high density areas. 

 

So, for instance, St.Louis' Metrolink "has 28 stations and stretches 38 miles."  I would therefore expect pure ridership numbers to be higher on their light rail.  I don't suggest that it is a direct correlation.  However, if the miles of waterfront line were instead extended out toward lakewood, that would make more sense. 

 

i think our system does OK for what it is, but i do find it amazing that there is no rail service in lakewood near high population areas. 

 

 

Look for a similar thing when RTA's rail and Silver lines go to proof-of-payment.

 

And, I've said a million times before and I'll say it again, if your rail transit lines were built in lousy areas for ridership (next to decaying industries, busy freight railroads, etc.), then redevelop the areas around the stations or adjust the location of the rail transit lines.

 

See the threads on this forum on Red Line TOD projects and the Opportunity Corridor (putting a rail line in its median). Those are considerably less expensive than building all-new rights of way for rail transit within the city or for suburban extensions.

 

This is a lousy way to say it, but many areas along RTA's rail lines have been thoroughly abandoned of industry and housing that this can actually be a benefit to reshaping those areas as modern transit-oriented communities. In those areas, we have a "clean" slate to start over, although some of those areas clearly are not clean of pollutants.

 

But why spend millions to rebuild built rail lines? when: a) there is TOD potential untapped by existing lines, which are finally being explored, b) there is even some TOD growth near the lines you wish to replace (ie the Juvenile Justice center going up near the new Quincy/E. 105 Red Line Station, c) Building rail lines in freeway medians may be cheap, but it stymies, not adds to TOD growth, d) converting the rapid lines to trolleys will slow them down, hurt ridership.

 

You don't seem to want to answer those questions, KJP, about your Opportunity Corridor.  Why?

This is a lousy way to say it, but many areas along RTA's rail lines have been thoroughly abandoned of industry and housing that this can actually be a benefit to reshaping those areas as modern transit-oriented communities. In those areas, we have a "clean" slate to start over, although some of those areas clearly are not clean of pollutants.

I bet if Cleveland had beeter placed lines instead of hiding them, the ridership would be better.  If you had lines (either El, underground, or whatever) through the Clifton(and integrated with the NEW shoreway blvd proposed) area, W25th/Pearl, and maybe St Clair or along 90/rt2 E...it would be visible AND be where populations are.  RTA could even get crazy and have a line along 271 to 480 to connect all the lines on the outer ends.

 

I agree with this! I live in Lakewood and work downtown, and I'd LOVE to take the Rapid to work. But there are a few problems. First, the station on 117 is a mile away. That's a long walk for a station, especially when I have to be to work at 8 a.m. and I went to the bar the night before. I could drive and park my car at their lot, but that just seems stupid when it takes me 15 minutes to get into the parking deck via the Shoreway. Finally, a monthly transit pass costs more money than my parking deck costs, so on the whole, it really doesn't equal out. If the station was a few blocks away rather than a mile, there would be no question.

 

And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow.

 

jaimec, ironically, there were plans to extend the Red Line up Cedar hill to Coventry shortly after it opened in 1955, but CTS opted to extend westward to the airport, instead.  The Coventry extension, I believe, was deemed to expensive... a shame, in my book...

 

As to your living too far from W.117 street.  Have you tried using a bus to the station?  I understand, also, Lakewood has an excellent Community Circulator bus -- the most used line of all the Circulators.

This is a lousy way to say it, but many areas along RTA's rail lines have been thoroughly abandoned of industry and housing that this can actually be a benefit to reshaping those areas as modern transit-oriented communities. In those areas, we have a "clean" slate to start over, although some of those areas clearly are not clean of pollutants.

I bet if Cleveland had beeter placed lines instead of hiding them, the ridership would be better.  If you had lines (either El, underground, or whatever) through the Clifton(and integrated with the NEW shoreway blvd proposed) area, W25th/Pearl, and maybe St Clair or along 90/rt2 E...it would be visible AND be where populations are.  RTA could even get crazy and have a line along 271 to 480 to connect all the lines on the outer ends.

 

I agree with this! I live in Lakewood and work downtown, and I'd LOVE to take the Rapid to work. But there are a few problems. First, the station on 117 is a mile away. That's a long walk for a station, especially when I have to be to work at 8 a.m. and I went to the bar the night before. I could drive and park my car at their lot, but that just seems stupid when it takes me 15 minutes to get into the parking deck via the Shoreway. Finally, a monthly transit pass costs more money than my parking deck costs, so on the whole, it really doesn't equal out. If the station was a few blocks away rather than a mile, there would be no question.

 

And I wish one of those damn lines went to Coventry in Cleveland Heights near all the stuff over there. I want to take it somewhere, but I look at the train map, and there's nowhere I want to go on it. I might take it to Ohio City for kicks tomorrow.

 

jaimec, ironically, there were plans to extend the Red Line up Cedar hill to Coventry shortly after it opened in 1955, but CTS opted to extend westward to the airport, instead.  The Coventry extension, I believe, was deemed to expensive... a shame, in my book...

 

As to your living too far from W.117 street.  Have you tried using a bus to the station?  I understand, also, Lakewood has an excellent Community Circulator bus -- the most used line of all the Circulators.

 

Funny you should ask! I took my first trip via the Rapid from my new hood in Lakewood and I walked to the station when I left and I took the circulator to my apartment when I came home. The Red Line rocks! I took it to University Circle and Little Italy, and it was fast, cheap and it let me forget about finding a place to park. And I didn't have to deal with any traffic. I can't wait until the CMA opens again. I'll be on that train all the time! And then when Pescht opens! I won't have to drive my car to buy crap! So cool.

 

I'm still trying to decide if the circulator is worth the effort, however. It took me 20 minutes to walk from my place to the rapid station, but I think the circulator still beat me on feet. Of course, I had to hear the drivers complain about how dirty the buses are and how often they get sick from them. So, then I was thinking I would walk, haha.

 

I'm going to do a Red Line work commute this week to see how it goes. I'm thinking that in the winter with all the snow and crap, the trains will be a better way to go than driving, especially with how backed up things get downtown. The primary issue for me is I get up at the very last possible second, and I am afraid I am not ambitious enough to take a bus to a train and then walk eight blocks to work once I get downtown. So, yeah, I'm lazy.

 

I know someone mentioned that the RTA should look at the train routes or where they are positioned. I really enjoyed my Red Line traveling, but the one thing I thought was weird was that the stations are way out of the way in those big ditches or whatever they are called. It seems to me that having a station near your house and workplace would make it more valuable, not less. And while I wish the Rapid was a little beefier, I think we are really lucky to have it at all. A lot of cities don't have any rail system. I felt very thankful today when I hopped off the train, walked a few blocks and was eating a slice of pizza on Mayfield Rd! =)