To head off any speculation about the presence of an item on Tuesday's Board agenda:

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/agenda-july-16-board-meeting

 

Contract 2013-091 with Jadco Construction Services, for Tower City Wall Replacement, was in the works well prior to Wednesday's collapse.

Damn, you guys are clairvoyant!

The work that ODOT's doing is demolition on the W.74th st. bridge.

Why is ODOT doing that work? It's a city street. The Madison Avenue bridge is also being replaced. I believe Madison is a county road, but I'm just guessing on that one.

Why is ODOT doing that work? It's a city street. The Madison Avenue bridge is also being replaced. I believe Madison is a county road, but I'm just guessing on that one.

 

Good question; I was wondering this myself... Bottom line is RTA OWES the public a much clearer explanation of what it's doing when it completely shuts down such a vital service as the Red Line.  I've been noticing a rather cavalier, vague approach when stating rational for widespread rail service... i.e.: when closing the Blue/Green lines, which RTA does most years, we deserve more than just: "track work."... this shouldn't fly.  Tell us exactly what work necessitates these closures because many riders, myself included, wonder whether such draconian measures as full closures are needed as opposed to sectional closures (like with the S curve work) or single tracking.... The lack of clear explanation by RTA sends the message of contempt for its riding public, whether RTA feels that way or not.

Regarding communication of shutdowns...

 

1. Much of the info is posted at rail stations and on vehicles. It has to be brief. People read it "on the fly."

 

2. The most important thing is to give riders the news and their options, as in "Buses will replace trains on the Red Line on this date and this time. Please allow extra time for your trip."

 

3. To be consistent, we tend to use the same language everywhere, so there is consistency in the message.

 

Generally speaking, shutdowns are slated on weekends when there are no major special events.

 

I have passed along your observation that some riders are seeking more explanation, and see if we can accomplish that in the future.

 

Whenever communications are drafted, our diverse customer base is at the forefront of our decisions.

Because of demand, RTA is increasing service for the National Senior Games, July 19- Aug. 1. The additional service is:

    Open to all customers.

    All normal fares apply.

    All farecards and passes are accepted.

 

RTA will increase the number of HealthLine vehicles in operation. From 7 a.m.-7 p.m., frequency will be every 8 minutes or better, 7 days a week.

 

B-Line trolley operates seven days a week, from 7 a.m.-7:15 p.m., with a frequency of 10 minutes on weekends, 5 minutes on weekdays.

 

There will be a bus shuttle between the Convention Center and Baldwin-Wallace, where some events are being held.

 

For complete details:

http://www.riderta.com/news/july-19-aug-1-additional-senior-games-service-open-all

Ridership update:

 

YTD: total system up 1 percent, HealthLine up 6.2 percent, rail is even

 

June: total system down 2.3 percent, HealthLine up 7.7 percent, rail down 6.7 percent

 

Note that in June 2012, ridership was boosted by Marine Week, and the first full month of the Horseshoe Casino

Sounds like some of the Red Line shutdowns are having a negative impact on ridership? If so, too bad ODOT won't reimburse GCRTA for lost fares.

It has been a roller coaster year, with challenges from the tunnel work, the S-curve, and the Shoreway closed for two weeks for Captain America. The rest of the year should be smoother, starting with this week, when 20,000+ visitors come in for the National Senior Games.

JMasek--could you the stop locations to the downtown trolleys map? a person would not know whether to walk in one direction or another go catch a trolley based on the current map. As well, the passenger would not know where to get off without missing his destination and having to walk back the direction from which he/she came. A simple dot noting the locations of stops would make travel so much easier for people. Just image a map of the rapid lines with no stations indicated. People would have to guess where to get on and off. Many thanks.

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/maps/System_Map_Trolleys.pdf

^ Thanks. I will pass this along to our map maker.

You'd think with the Captain America filming that rail would have been up in June. The weekend rail disruptions must have really hurt overall ridership.

 

On another note, it was great to be able to take the red line from the airport to Tower City again. I just purchased a quick one ride ticket at the airport and the on screen process is much more efficient than the old one!

JMasek--could you the stop locations to the downtown trolleys map? a person would not know whether to walk in one direction or another go catch a trolley based on the current map. As well, the passenger would not know where to get off without missing his destination and having to walk back the direction from which he/she came. A simple dot noting the locations of stops would make travel so much easier for people. Just image a map of the rapid lines with no stations indicated. People would have to guess where to get on and off. Many thanks.

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/maps/System_Map_Trolleys.pdf

When the trolleys started up wasn't the idea that you could flag them down anywhere so that you don't have to find a marked stop?

When the trolleys started up wasn't the idea that you could flag them down anywhere so that you don't have to find a marked stop?

 

Yeah, that was my thinking as well... then again, with so many trolley routes now, this might not work; people do need to know which line they're getting on.  It was much simpler when there was just the Euclid Route and the Warehouse Dist- Superior route.

When we say that ridership is up or down in a given month, we are comparing this year to last year -- June 2013 vs June 2012.

 

As I have previously noted, June 2012 was a terrific month because of special events, It would be hard to beat the ridership for last year.

Re: Courtesy stops

 

If people could just "stand anywhere", then the trolleys would be way off schedule. We strongly encourage people to wait at designated stops. Yes, you can wave down a trolley if you are not at a designated stop, but stopping there is at the operator's discretion, based on traffic conditions and other variables. DING! DING!

When the trolleys started up wasn't the idea that you could flag them down anywhere so that you don't have to find a marked stop?

 

Yeah, that was my thinking as well... then again, with so many trolley routes now, this might not work; people do need to know which line they're getting on.  It was much simpler when there was just the Euclid Route and the Warehouse Dist- Superior route.

 

We've always had the same number of routes.  The "trolleys" are loosely base don the old loop bus system.  We had Loop A, B, C & D.  How hard can it be?  I think its easier now, considering the vehicle "looks" like a trolley and the old loops buses were buses from the regular fleet.

 

We've always had the same number of routes.  The "trolleys" are loosely base don the old loop bus system.  We had Loop A, B, C & D.  How hard can it be?  I think its easier now, considering the vehicle "looks" like a trolley and the old loops buses were buses from the regular fleet.

 

I understand what you're saying, but RTA gradually replaced the Loops with trolleys IIRC.  For a while there were just 1 or 2 trolleys and still a couple loops, which actually had printed schedules and required a fare.  But the loops have now been eliminated in favor of the free trolleys and the trolleys have even expanded beyond loop territory -- such as the E.9th - Rock Hall Route... and of course, they now run on weekends where the loops were only M-F.  Even though their routes are similar, they may be trickier to follow without printed schedules with the loop route on it, and even tougher if someone tries to flag a trolley down in the middle of the route pursuant of course to the restrictions Jerry noted, which make perfect sense...

 

It's tougher to for younger, newer visitors and residents... Then again, it may not be that hard to remember the good old loop days if you're an old fart like you or me ... well, ... like you.

Saw a Green Line train coming into Tower City tonight with a bright bar of green LED lights on the front display and side display of the train. Maybe Jerry can answer... Is this being done on all light rail cars?? It makes it incredibly more efficient!

 

I think its easier now, considering the vehicle "looks" like a trolley and the old loops buses were buses from the regular fleet.

 

 

Wow, that's impressive. I didn't realize you could see those trolleys all the way from New York City.......

Saw a Green Line train coming into Tower City tonight with a bright bar of green LED lights on the front display and side display of the train. Maybe Jerry can answer... Is this being done on all light rail cars?? It makes it incredibly more efficient!

 

Saw a blue bar above what I am assuming was a Blue Line train so I think it's safe to assume that they are done for all LR.  Only question, does the Waterfront Line get a special color or just whichever line it is coming/going in/out on?

Only question, does the Waterfront Line get a special color or just whichever line it is coming/going in/out on?

 

It's a continuation of the joint Blue/Green line west of Shaker Square.

 

 

Only question, does the Waterfront Line get a special color or just whichever line it is coming/going in/out on?

 

It's a continuation of the joint Blue/Green line west of Shaker Square.

 

 

 

I know that but was wondering if there was a different color to indicate that the car would be traveling to the Waterfront extension as well?  Maybe white or something as it travels into Downtown.

Only question, does the Waterfront Line get a special color or just whichever line it is coming/going in/out on?

 

It's a continuation of the joint Blue/Green line west of Shaker Square.

 

 

 

I know that but was wondering if there was a different color to indicate that the car would be traveling to the Waterfront extension as well?  Maybe white or something as it travels into Downtown.

 

No, just think of East Ninth as Tower City.

wenn?

 

 

 

wenn?

 

 

 

 

SHUT UP!  LOL

lol!

wenn?

 

 

 

 

never. RTA doesnt care about rail.

never. RTA doesnt care about rail.

 

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence:

• $9.4 million reconstruction of the E 55 Rapid Station
  
• $9.54 million reconstruction of the Puritas Rapid Station
  
• $2.46 million in parking lot repairs for Brookpark Rapid Station, contract awarded in June
  
• $16.5 million budgeted for reconstruction of the Brookpark Rapid Station
  
• $15.1 million reconstruction of the Cedar - University Rapid Station is ongoing
  
• $17.5 million estimated for reconstruction of the Little Italy - University Circle (former E 120) Rapid Station
  
• $10.1 million rehabilitation of the Airport Tunnel
  
• $7 million restoration of the Red Line S-curve
  
• $3.3 million reconstruction of the Buckeye-Woodhill Rapid Station
  
• $3.5 million budgeted for reconstruction of the Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station
  

And this doesn't even account for: numerous grade crossing upgrades ongoing on the light rail, signal upgrades throughout the system (including MAJOR enhancements done as a result of an unprecedented lightning strike on one of our shacks), countless bus timings adjusted (another ongoing project) to better feed into and out of the rail spine, interior and exterior refurb programs on both heavy and light rolling stock, and plans underway for eventual rolling stock replacement as those vehicles reach end-of-life.

 

All this, in addition to running approximately 400 buses out of two garages, and servicing an ever-growing paratransit customer base.

I was talking about the Red Line but they should at least be refurbished like the Blue/Green Line was it's a much more pleasant ride visually.

 

I understand. I was using the age of the Blue/Green line cars to show that the age of a railcar isn't so much the issue, but if/when it was updated, refurbished or completely rebuilt down to the carbody shells. But I see that you do recognize that the Red Line cars aren't necessarily in need of replacement. They are getting overhauled at a cost of $6,745,000 according to GCRTA's 2011-15 capital improvement plan....

 

The mid-life overhaul of the Authority’s Light Rail (LR) Vehicle fleet neared completion at the end of 2010 and the Heavy Rail (HR) Vehicle fleet mid-life overhaul remains underway, through at a slower completion rate than anticipated. Both projects were initiated to economically extend the useful life of the Authority’s rail vehicle fleets approximately 12 years beyond their normal expected operating life of 25 to 30 years. The cost of a new heavy or light rail vehicle is between $1.5 and $3.0 million, while a mid-life rehabilitation of the vehicle, costs much less.

 

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/budget/2011/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf

 

 

 

RAIL EXPANSION

Blue Line Extension to Warrensville Intermodal Center @ $33,770,500 due for 2013-15

 

 

###

So if this extension cost 33,770,500 how in the world could Joe C. come up with that $100 million per mile number.

I was talking about the Red Line but they should at least be refurbished like the Blue/Green Line was it's a much more pleasant ride visually.

 

I understand. I was using the age of the Blue/Green line cars to show that the age of a railcar isn't so much the issue, but if/when it was updated, refurbished or completely rebuilt down to the carbody shells. But I see that you do recognize that the Red Line cars aren't necessarily in need of replacement. They are getting overhauled at a cost of $6,745,000 according to GCRTA's 2011-15 capital improvement plan....

 

The mid-life overhaul of the Authoritys Light Rail (LR) Vehicle fleet neared completion at the end of 2010 and the Heavy Rail (HR) Vehicle fleet mid-life overhaul remains underway, through at a slower completion rate than anticipated. Both projects were initiated to economically extend the useful life of the Authoritys rail vehicle fleets approximately 12 years beyond their normal expected operating life of 25 to 30 years. The cost of a new heavy or light rail vehicle is between $1.5 and $3.0 million, while a mid-life rehabilitation of the vehicle, costs much less.

 

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/budget/2011/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf

 

 

 

RAIL EXPANSION

Blue Line Extension to Warrensville Intermodal Center @ $33,770,500 due for 2013-15

 

 

###

So if this extension cost 33,770,500 how in the world could Joe C. come up with that $100 million per mile number.

The Blue Line extension is less than half a mile, but costs $33M because utilities have to be moved.

I was talking about the Red Line but they should at least be refurbished like the Blue/Green Line was it's a much more pleasant ride visually.

 

I understand. I was using the age of the Blue/Green line cars to show that the age of a railcar isn't so much the issue, but if/when it was updated, refurbished or completely rebuilt down to the carbody shells. But I see that you do recognize that the Red Line cars aren't necessarily in need of replacement. They are getting overhauled at a cost of $6,745,000 according to GCRTA's 2011-15 capital improvement plan....

 

The mid-life overhaul of the Authoritys Light Rail (LR) Vehicle fleet neared completion at the end of 2010 and the Heavy Rail (HR) Vehicle fleet mid-life overhaul remains underway, through at a slower completion rate than anticipated. Both projects were initiated to economically extend the useful life of the Authoritys rail vehicle fleets approximately 12 years beyond their normal expected operating life of 25 to 30 years. The cost of a new heavy or light rail vehicle is between $1.5 and $3.0 million, while a mid-life rehabilitation of the vehicle, costs much less.

 

http://www.riderta.com/pdf/budget/2011/6-CapitalImprovementPlan.pdf

 

 

 

RAIL EXPANSION

Blue Line Extension to Warrensville Intermodal Center @ $33,770,500 due for 2013-15

 

 

###

So if this extension cost 33,770,500 how in the world could Joe C. come up with that $100 million per mile number.

The Blue Line extension is less than half a mile, but costs $33M because utilities have to be moved.

Which still doesnt equal $100 million per mile

^ I believe it is a 1/3 of a mile.  $33.7M * 3 = $101.4M

 

Still an overstatement as Keith is right about why the cost is so high.

^ I believe it is a 1/3 of a mile.  $33.7M * 3 = $101.4M

 

Still an overstatement as Keith is right about why the cost is so high.

Also as I and other people have mentioned Diesel Electric trains would also reduce the cost of extension by eliminating the cost of setting up electric lines/overheads and would be able to just run on already established rail tracks. The only thing needed would be stations and some medians for safety.

 

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence:

• $9.4 million reconstruction of the E 55 Rapid Station
  
• $9.54 million reconstruction of the Puritas Rapid Station
  
• $2.46 million in parking lot repairs for Brookpark Rapid Station, contract awarded in June
  
• $16.5 million budgeted for reconstruction of the Brookpark Rapid Station
  
• $15.1 million reconstruction of the Cedar - University Rapid Station is ongoing
  
• $17.5 million estimated for reconstruction of the Little Italy - University Circle (former E 120) Rapid Station
  
• $10.1 million rehabilitation of the Airport Tunnel
  
• $7 million restoration of the Red Line S-curve
  
• $3.3 million reconstruction of the Buckeye-Woodhill Rapid Station
  
• $3.5 million budgeted for reconstruction of the Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station
  

And this doesn't even account for: numerous grade crossing upgrades ongoing on the light rail, signal upgrades throughout the system (including MAJOR enhancements done as a result of an unprecedented lightning strike on one of our shacks), countless bus timings adjusted (another ongoing project) to better feed into and out of the rail spine, interior and exterior refurb programs on both heavy and light rolling stock, and plans underway for eventual rolling stock replacement as those vehicles reach end-of-life.

 

All this, in addition to running approximately 400 buses out of two garages, and servicing an ever-growing paratransit customer base.

 

The opinion is that RTA under Joe C has been disinterested in rail extension, not maintaining and enhancing existing rail.  Actually, those things you cite I applaud Joe for... I also have given him major props for implementing the POP fare system on the Red Line, which has allowed for longer trains and speedier service.

The opinion is that RTA under Joe C has been disinterested in rail extension, not maintaining and enhancing existing rail.  Actually, those things you cite I applaud Joe for... I also have given him major props for implementing the POP fare system on the Red Line, which has allowed for longer trains and speedier service.

 

The opinion I was refuting was the oversimplified "RTA doesn't care about rail". This is clearly not the case. I don't mind differences of opinion, but I have greater respect for those opinions that have some factual basis.

 

You say "disinterested", I say "walking a fine line between multiple, often conflicting priorities, each fighting for a slice of the same, ever-shrinking pie".

 

Your support of our ongoing efforts is appreciated.

^Obviously RTA cares about rail, however RTA doesn't care about rail as much as some of us would prefer. The entire list of projects you listed are either repairs or reconstruction, not one involves an expansion of service.

A neat experience today helping some attendees of the senior games from Ontario with boarding the WFL. They had been given RTA passes and had a great impression of the city so far. Just thought it was cool!

A couple weeks ago, I tried transferring from the Green Line to the Red Line for a trip to University Circle's Uptown.  It was a pleasant, quick experience (the still newish 15-min Red Line intervals clearly make a difference!).  A couple comments/suggestions:

 

- The new E. 55 (Red Line-Blue/Green Line transfer) station is very pleasant; light-years better than it's dumpy predecessor, but the relatively long walk between stations from under the E. 55th bridge with no canopy can be problematic.  Fortunately the day I went, it was a nice day; no problem, but I could see it getting messy during heavy rain or other inclement Cleveland weather: and there was a goodly crowd moving between the Red Line platforms and the fancy new E. 55 head house... Is there any way some kind of walkway canopy can be added to this otherwise excellent new station?

 

. Euclid- E. 120 Red Line Sta.  Yes, we know that, happily, the new Little Italy-UC station will open in a couple years.  Meanwhile, conditions at the existing station are deplorable and need to be upgraded.  I'm mainly not talking about the station itself, which isn't in too bad a shape, although a periodic mop 'n bucket (with serious ammonia) would help the pee smells in the station stairwell... I was surprised that there were about 7-8 people who got off the train (mostly Case/CIA looking kids)... My main issue is the hideous walk under the extremely wide Rapid/RR overpass on Euclid:  there is ZERO lighting; there is dirt, mud and probably (again) urine -- why isn't RTA doing anything about this?  ... Just because the new, relocated station is coming, there's no reason why some money can't be spent in the interim for lighting and cleaning of this station and esp under the bridge tunnel (which must be even more frightening to women traveling alone... and please, I hope RTA doesn't duck this as City of Cleveland responsibility, because I'm sure a large number (if not greater %) of the pedestrians under that bridge are Red Line riders...

 

... Jerry?  JetDog? what do you guys think about these issues?

Sorry -- I've been away in New England for the past week and missed this discussion.

 

never. RTA doesnt care about rail.

 

I object as well. A year or so ago I totaled up RTA's five-year capital improvement program for rail and found it totaled about $167 million. I don't remember the actual share that represented of RTA's capital budget, but I'm pretty sure it was much more than one-fifth of RTA's total capital program. That one-fifth is important because it represents the share of systemwide annual ridership that the rail mode represents. That's pretty good, considering RTA has only three rail routes vs. dozens of bus routes. But the fact is RTA is putting more money into rail than is getting out of it in terms of ridership.

 

 

So if this extension cost 33,770,500 how in the world could Joe C. come up with that $100 million per mile number.

 

I think Joe's quote is that rail costs $150 million per mile. Either way, saying that rail costs $X per mile is not helpful because there are many different kinds of rail -- all with vastly different unit-cost price tags. Austin built its diesel-powered MetroRail light-rail mostly along an existing rail corridor for $5 million per mile. The Second Avenue Subway in New York City is costing $2 billion per mile. These are the extremes of two very different types of technologies, environments and objectives with a myriad of alternatives in between. What we choose to do here in Cleveland, if anything, may well be closer to Austin's because of the constraints we face.

 

I am grateful RTA is keeping its commitment to our city's rail system. RTA's strong statement about the future of the rail system is coming at an opportune time when young professionals, empty nesters, developers and investors are rediscovering the city and the value of low-mileage lifestyles.

 

So lets move forward without preconceived notions of what "rail" (in all its different forms, purposes, and price tags) represents generally and to us in Cleveland. Alternatives analyses are pursued to help their sponsors make educated, unbiased decisions on what course of action, if any, they should take in a particular study area. "Rail" is an alternative in the Red Line/HealthLine extension study, but there are perhaps a dozen potential "rail" alternatives that could be considered -- all with existing precedents in revenue service elsewhere in the USA. Let's see what issues are identified by the process and then, what are the best alternatives to address them.

 

I object as well. A year or so ago I totaled up RTA's five-year capital improvement program for rail and found it totaled about $167 million. I don't remember the actual share that represented of RTA's capital budget, but I'm pretty sure it was much more than one-fifth of RTA's total capital program. That one-fifth is important because it represents the share of systemwide annual ridership that the rail mode represents. That's pretty good, considering RTA has only three rail routes vs. dozens of bus routes. But the fact is RTA is putting more money into rail than is getting out of it in terms of ridership.

 

Actually this isn't unique to Cleveland.  In all bus/rapid rail cities not named New York, and maybe D.C., bus riders represent the lion's share of their systems' patronage while rail is considerably more expensive to operate.  In Chicago, a city most consider as having a very successful rapid transit operation, the breakdown is: Bus: 1,063,433, Rail: 761,169 (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Transit_Authority), yet I'm sure the L eats up the bulk of CTA's daily/annual expenses; not to mention periodic capital costs...

 

Then there's Dallas, which has 85 miles of still-new DART LRT but only carries 71,600 daily riders (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_Light_Rail) compared to the roughly 40,000 daily riders on the combined Red/Blue/Green LRT/HRT here in Cleveland... This means that, even though many consider Cleveland's rapid to be a relative "failure" passenger-wise, we're actually performing better than DART: 842 riders per (system) mile vs. RTA's 1250 per mile (based on the Rapid's approximately 32 unduplicated route miles)...

 

... and yet those crazy red-state conservative Texans are actually moving to expand DART, including building a parallel subway downtown to relieve rail traffic off of the streetcar/malls along Pacific and Bryan Streets.  Imagine that!?

Good info. Thanks.

In all bus/rapid rail cities not named New York, and maybe D.C., bus riders represent the lion's share of their systems' patronage while rail is considerably more expensive to operate.  In Chicago, a city most consider as having a very successful rapid transit operation, the breakdown is: Bus: 1,063,433, Rail: 761,169 (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Transit_Authority), yet I'm sure the L eats up the bulk of CTA's daily/annual expenses; not to mention periodic capital costs...

 

I will grant you that rail is almost always more expensive to build (capital cost) than a new bus route.  Partially because someone else builds and maintains the right-of-way.

 

But are the operational costs that much greater?  I would expect rail to be less expensive to operate.  Fewer operators required to move more people, using less fuel, and less wear and tear.  Can you provide numbers?

But are the operational costs that much greater?  I would expect rail to be less expensive to operate.  Fewer operators required to move more people, using less fuel, and less wear and tear.  Can you provide numbers?

 

I can. In raw numbers, the operating costs for rail are higher because the transit agency is responsible for the right of way while a street is the responsibility of someone else. That's especially true for an electrified rail right of way as there is a lot more to maintain and a lot more labor costs. This is old data, but in the past decade GCRTA's operating cost per vehicle service mile was about $7 for demand response, $8 for regular route bus, $11 for heavy rail (Red Line) and $14 for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront Lines).

 

However........  The carrying capacity of rail vehicles is much higher. So while one train operator drives a vehicle that carries up to several hundred people, a regular route bus has one driver for perhaps 20-50 people. A demand response (paratransit) bus may carry one or two passengers. The travel industry standard for measuring usage is the passenger-mile, so costs are spread among more passenger miles with greater usage. For heavy rail (Red Line), GCRTA's cost per passenger-mile is 42 cents, for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront lines), its 72 cents. For regular route bus, its 92 cents. And for demand response, it's $8.68!

 

There is also another way to measure operating costs per boardings, called an unlinked passenger trip in transit-planner-speak. GCRTA's operating cost per unlinked passenger trip was $3.18 for heavy rail, $3.48 for regular route bus, $4.26 for light rail, and $47.20 for demand response.

But are the operational costs that much greater?  I would expect rail to be less expensive to operate.  Fewer operators required to move more people, using less fuel, and less wear and tear.  Can you provide numbers?

 

I can. In raw numbers, the operating costs for rail are higher because the transit agency is responsible for the right of way while a street is the responsibility of someone else. That's especially true for an electrified rail right of way as there is a lot more to maintain and a lot more labor costs. This is old data, but in the past decade GCRTA's operating cost per vehicle service mile was about $7 for demand response, $8 for regular route bus, $11 for heavy rail (Red Line) and $14 for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront Lines).

 

However........  The carrying capacity of rail vehicles is much higher. So while one train operator drives a vehicle that carries up to several hundred people, a regular route bus has one driver for perhaps 20-50 people. A demand response (paratransit) bus may carry one or two passengers. The travel industry standard for measuring usage is the passenger-mile, so costs are spread among more passenger miles with greater usage. For heavy rail (Red Line), GCRTA's cost per passenger-mile is 42 cents, for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront lines), its 72 cents. For regular route bus, its 92 cents. And for demand response, it's $8.68!

 

There is also another way to measure operating costs per boardings, called an unlinked passenger trip in transit-planner-speak. GCRTA's operating cost per unlinked passenger trip was $3.18 for heavy rail, $3.48 for regular route bus, $4.26 for light rail, and $47.20 for demand response.

 

KJP this is great, but can you provide more specific data.  ;)

In raw numbers, the operating costs for rail are higher because the transit agency is responsible for the right of way while a street is the responsibility of someone else. That's especially true for an electrified rail right of way as there is a lot more to maintain and a lot more labor costs. This is old data, but in the past decade GCRTA's operating cost per vehicle service mile was about $7 for demand response, $8 for regular route bus, $11 for heavy rail (Red Line) and $14 for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront Lines).

 

However........  The carrying capacity of rail vehicles is much higher. So while one train operator drives a vehicle that carries up to several hundred people, a regular route bus has one driver for perhaps 20-50 people. A demand response (paratransit) bus may carry one or two passengers. The travel industry standard for measuring usage is the passenger-mile, so costs are spread among more passenger miles with greater usage. For heavy rail (Red Line), GCRTA's cost per passenger-mile is 42 cents, for light rail (Blue/Green/Waterfront lines), its 72 cents. For regular route bus, its 92 cents. And for demand response, it's $8.68!

 

There is also another way to measure operating costs per boardings, called an unlinked passenger trip in transit-planner-speak. GCRTA's operating cost per unlinked passenger trip was $3.18 for heavy rail, $3.48 for regular route bus, $4.26 for light rail, and $47.20 for demand response.

 

Thanks!  That clears things up -- rail is cheaper to operate per passenger-mile .

And heavy rail is cheaper per passenger boarding. That's for one of the least-used heavy rail lines in the USA. And STILL its cheaper than bus.

I was traveling from Playhouse Square to West 9th today so I decided I would take the E Line Trolley. I waited at the station for several minutes, didnt see anything coming do decided to start walking. I walked to public square, still no bus, so I decided one had to be coming soon so I waited at the East 2nd street station. It took an additional 11 minutes for the bus to finally show. Had to be around 25 minutes total of waiting for the bus and walking(not including riding time).

 

These are supposed to come every ten minutes but hardly ever do. This just goes to show that Euclid Avenue has terrible traffic lighting. Terrible for cars, healthline, and trolleys.

Sadly, the City of Cleveland controls the traffic signals. Sadly.