So eventually RTA has to replace the HL fleet. How much would it cost to fit the buses with rail equipment instead of buying a new fleet of LRVs?

 

Edit: Nvm I feel I've asked this before.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

Yes there is a difference between LRV and HR. The LRV have less suspension system and more for stop and go service due to stops. Good with acceleration but not speed. Have RTA ever consider doing a Detroit Streetcar or LR using the superior bridge and Tower city. After all the track work is done They can build a shorter connection for rapid transit and use the temp platform for health line or RTA buses or future streetcar service

 

 

Furthermore, a four track station would become irrelevant if RTA acquires a standardized rail car fleet.

 

I know it's years in the future, but I worry RTA will acquire these dual-mode cars on the cheap with a beggars-can't-be-choosy mentality.  The current Red Line cars, though getting old and somewhat creaky in places (and whose doors 'explode' open), are still the best rail cars I've ever experienced in my long career of Cleveland transit riding (and they rate among the best of all rapid transit cars I've ridden throughout the country and abroad).  The Red Line Tokyu cars are attractive design-wise both from the outside and within (love the silver-steel rapid transit look of the car bodies), spacious, possess fast, quality propulsion and braking systems and provide a smooth, "big car" ride.  I truly hope RTA doesn't replace these with narrow, cramped streetcar-ish LRTs. 

 

Those SF Muni dual-height platform cars you showed earlier are exactly what don't want for the Red Line: ugly/boxy, narrow, tight-seating that probably deliver a bumpy streetcar-ish ride -- the type, not unlike the current Blue/Green cars that jostle riders when they run over switches -- the same switches that you often barely feel on Red Line's current Tokyus.

 

Just my thoughts.

Just because the SF Muni cars are built with narrow bodies doesn't mean that a car of that model for Cleveland would be built the same way. Calgary, whose original fleet were based on the Duwag U2, will have theirs the same width as the U2s. If this design is chosen for Cleveland, it would be built to the same width as a Breda LRV. This design is a modern version of the 1970's "Stadtbahn B" car for Cologne and Bonn, which eventually were used to re-equip the former KBE lines between Cologne and Bonn, now KVV #16 & #18. However, if one doesn't like the ride quality of an articulated car, then the Siemens built cars for Stuttgart's SSB lines would be the solution. These are back-to-back dual platform cars with two four wheeled trucks, which ride better.

BTW, for the record, the term "dual mode" should only refer to those vehicles with two sources of propulsion. For these cars proposed for RTA, the term should be "dual height" or "dual platform".

I know what dual modes mean. That's what meant. The option of using non electrified rail lines in the future or when the power goes out, which seems constant. I'm looking at the broader picture. In the next 30-40 years RTA would have expanded to other counties.

All this talk of expansion... Forget it, be it for rail or even bus. GCRTA's tax base is declining and thus its service levels must be scaled back with it. GCRTA must achieve a balanaced budget at the end of each fiscal year. The GCRTA countywide sales tax now produces $68 million less per year than it did than when GCRTA began in 1975. That was right after Cuyahoga County peaked in population at 1.8 million. It's population is now 500,000 less. That's 500,000 people who aren't making purchases as often in Cuyahoga County and paying sale taxes. Instead they're buying stuff in surrounding counties. Of the six counties that abut Cuyahoga County (Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit), only half of them have dedicated funding for public transportation (Lake 0.25%, Portage 0.25%, Summit 0.5%) and none of those have a full 1 percent of sales tax for transit like Cuyahoga does.

 

So if we want expanded public transportation, we have to expand the tax base for it. We can do that in one of four ways -- add new tax revenue in Cuyahoga County, add new tax revenues from collar counties around Cuyahoga, add significant new state funding, or a combination of the prior three.

 

This is not a operating or engineering issue. It's a political problem. It's time for a massive political campaign for transit in NE Ohio.

^Sorry, I should have said dual level boarding... You are essentially stating my point. I only cited the Muni cars as examples of what we don't want in Cleveland...it also is why I cited Baltimore's LRT cars as being more acceptable in terms of their size, propulsion, comfort, etc...just something more attractive than theirs, though. I understand in order to save money RTA may attempt to joint-order cars with another agency.

All this talk of expansion... Forget it, be it for rail or even bus. GCRTA's tax base is declining and thus its service levels must be scaled back with it. GCRTA must achieve a balanaced budget at the end of each fiscal year. The GCRTA countywide sales tax now produces $68 million less per year than it did than when GCRTA began in 1975. That was right after Cuyahoga County peaked in population at 1.8 million. It's population is now 500,000 less. That's 500,000 people who aren't making purchases as often in Cuyahoga County and paying sale taxes. Instead they're buying stuff in surrounding counties. Of the six counties that abut Cuyahoga County (Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit), only half of them have dedicated funding for public transportation (Lake 0.25%, Portage 0.25%, Summit 0.5%) and none of those have a full 1 percent of sales tax for transit like Cuyahoga does.

 

So if we want expanded public transportation, we have to expand the tax base for it. We can do that in one of four ways -- add new tax revenue in Cuyahoga County, add new tax revenues from collar counties around Cuyahoga, add significant new state funding, or a combination of the prior three.

 

This is not a operating or engineering issue. It's a political problem. It's time for a massive political campaign for transit in NE Ohio.

 

Echoing this. A good organizing project would be to collect 5,000 signatures from Cleveland registered voters supporting a 35% tax on commercial parking in the city. Council would then have to consider the legislation a la its battle with the SEIU over the minimum wage in recent months. 

 

It wouldn't get us revenues enough to expand our system, sure, but at least it could plug the funding gap we're seeing with the current deficits.

 

Any lawyers on here, seeing how important this is, who can draft a petition pro bono to circulate?

 

Hopefully, Council would take the opportunity and pass the legislation as a democratic mandate: a parking tax is nowhere near as controversial or economically perilous as Fight For 15 is characterized, one would hope.

^ 35% parking tax!? That seems excessive and it might discourage people from visiting or locating their offices in Cleveland.

^ 35% parking tax!? That seems excessive and it might discourage people from visiting or locating their offices in Cleveland.

 

I think these fears are overstated.  It's their employees paying the tax, not the business.  So they can choose to spend millions or more to relocate, or have their employees pay the tax.  Of course, there is another solution.  Employees could take transit and not pay the tax. 

^ 35% parking tax!? That seems excessive and it might discourage people from visiting or locating their offices in Cleveland.

 

I think these fears are overstated.  It's their employees paying the tax, not the business.  So they can choose to spend millions or more to relocate, or have their employees pay the tax.  Of course, there is another solution.  Employees could take transit and not pay the tax. 

 

Isn't Pittsburgh imposing a parking tax to support their transit?  If so, what is their rate?

.

^ 35% parking tax!? That seems excessive and it might discourage people from visiting or locating their offices in Cleveland.

 

I think these fears are overstated.  It's their employees paying the tax, not the business.  So they can choose to spend millions or more to relocate, or have their employees pay the tax.  Of course, there is another solution.  Employees could take transit and not pay the tax. 

 

Isn't Pittsburgh imposing a parking tax to support their transit?  If so, what is their rate?

 

Pittsburgh's rate is 35% and the revenue goes to transit.

 

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/finance/07_PARKING_TAX_REGULATIONS.pdf

 

Cleveland's rate is currently 8% and this revenue goes to the sport's stadiums. So, the tax increase being proposed would be 27% with revenues going to transit.

Currently, property tax in Cleveland (which is CMSD's main source of funding) brings in $49,184,325 unaudited in 2014.

 

The 8% parking tax brought in $11,819,000 in 2014.

 

Pretty crazy that parking tax brings in as much as almost 1/4 of all property taxes in Cleveland. Also interesting to note that ALL this money, as it currently stands, goes to operating the professional sport stadiums.

 

Here's the budget book for people who want to take a deeper dive: http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/sites/default/files/forms_publications/2015Budget.pdf

 

So yes, we're talking about a progressive tax.

 

A good argument for increasing commercial parking tax deals with surface lots in a two-pronged approach. Surface lots in a CBD (think next to Public Square) is not a great land use, most people can agree. It's doubly bad considering that the property tax paid on surface lots is artificially low because the land is appraised much lower considering the lack of lot improvements -- no structures. So, making surface lots less economically viable can be an incentive for surface lot operators to develop their property, which can see a boon for property tax receipts, which helps school funding.

 

This is the case for this sort of progressive tax. People can disagree, but I'm relatively persuaded on its merits from many levels. We need to find revenue for RTA, because without good transit land use favoring cars will continue to be justified and get even more extreme.

 

Obligatory Angie Schmitt article: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/23/pittsburgh-vs-detroit-a-case-study-in-parking-contrasts/

 

Also shout out to Christian Carson for  proposing the idea back in 2014: http://www.rebuildcle.com/2014/11/downtown-cleveland-needs-parking-tax.html

 

 

BTW, for the record, the term "dual mode" should only refer to those vehicles with two sources of propulsion. For these cars proposed for RTA, the term should be "dual height" or "dual platform".

 

Oh, you mean we aren't getting these? :P

 

^ 35% parking tax!? That seems excessive and it might discourage people from visiting or locating their offices in Cleveland.

 

I think these fears are overstated.  It's their employees paying the tax, not the business.  So they can choose to spend millions or more to relocate, or have their employees pay the tax.  Of course, there is another solution.  Employees could take transit and not pay the tax. 

 

Isn't Pittsburgh imposing a parking tax to support their transit?  If so, what is their rate?

 

Pittsburgh's rate is 35% and the revenue goes to transit.

 

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/finance/07_PARKING_TAX_REGULATIONS.pdf

 

Cleveland's rate is currently 8% and this revenue goes to the sport's stadiums. So, the tax increase being proposed would be 27% with revenues going to transit.

 

... yeah, I see it was announced the other day that First Energy Stadium is getting yet another $10M expansion.  As much as I love sports and the Browns, it seems like this football palace, which is only used about 10 to 15 times a year (including a few concerts) is a taxpayer money pit -- it just received a much more costly major face lift a year or so ago.  Meanwhile, the transit system needed to (among other things) deliver thousands of fans to its front door is dying a slow death due to political strangulation.

... yeah, I see it was announced the other day that First Energy Stadium is getting yet another $10M expansion.  As much as I love sports and the Browns, it seems like this football palace, which is only used about 10 to 15 times a year (including a few concerts) is a taxpayer money -- it just received a much more costly major face lift a year or so ago.  Meanwhile, the transit system needed to (among other things) deliver thousands of fans to its front door is dying a slow death due to political strangulation.

 

Maybe Haslam should help fund RTA.

I am not in favor of a parking tax. Not this drastic anyway. It hurts too many people who are just trying to make it through the week.  That extra money it will cost them to park everyday will make a big difference in their lives. The extra let's say 50-100 bucks a month they will need to spend means they won't go to lunch at a nearby restaurant or go out after work for drinks.  People are living day today as it is.  If you say they should then use transit to get to work that's fine  but unfortunately our transit system does not serve enough population areas for it to be an option for a lot of people, but that's another story.

As I have posted before  I think a  countywide 'Pop' tax should be a part of the discussion.  This would be for transit and sold as such. I think if a case is made to the voters it would have a good chance of passing.  It is being used in other cities, Philly for example for various reasons. I think a 'pop' tax for transit would bring in the money needed to upgrade all areas of the system.

... yeah, I see it was announced the other day that First Energy Stadium is getting yet another $10M expansion.  As much as I love sports and the Browns, it seems like this football palace, which is only used about 10 to 15 times a year (including a few concerts) is a taxpayer money -- it just received a much more costly major face lift a year or so ago.  Meanwhile, the transit system needed to (among other things) deliver thousands of fans to its front door is dying a slow death due to political strangulation.

 

Maybe Haslam should help fund RTA.

 

Right! He can donate ten dollars and that would easily eclipse what Randy Lerner did for the Lakefront.

I am not in favor of a parking tax. Not this drastic anyway. It hurts too many people who are just trying to make it through the week.  That extra money it will cost them to park everyday will make a big difference in their lives. The extra let's say 50-100 bucks a month they will need to spend means they won't go to lunch at a nearby restaurant or go out after work for drinks.

 

Parking is different than most competitive markets. Downtown parking operators are operating in an oligopoly/monopoly model. They're already squeezing every dollar that the consumer will pay. If they could charge more to the end-consumer right now, they would. But most consumers will not be willing to pay it. What this means is that in the short-term, an increase in parking taxes should have little to no effect on downtown pricing.

 

The Philadelphia Parking Association report below will give a short synopsis of how increased parking taxes effect pricing in the short and long term:

 

In the short run, a change in the parking tax has no impact on the parking rates paid by the consumer. Consequently, the parking facility operator pays the entire amount of a parking tax increase. Parking facility operators face the same short run problem every day—how to maximize revenue. In other words, parking operators are already charging as much as they can and the price consumers pay is determined by the number of spaces and the demand for parking, not by the level of taxes. The level of taxation and the other costs of operating a facility do not affect the price charged or the number of spaces available unless the costs are so great that the operator shuts down the facility.

In the long run the story is quite different. An increase in parking taxes discourages the rejuvenation of aging facilities, the replacement of facilities lost to development, and the construction of additional facilities. Thus higher parking taxes will decrease the long-run supply of parking, will increase the cost to the public of parking, and will decrease profits to owners of parking facilities.

Further, should an additional parking facility be required, a higher parking tax implies that the facility will require larger subsidies to develop than it would in the absence of the parking tax increase.

 

I can't post links, yet, since I'm mostly a lurker. But I do have a source for that.

^Yes good info but isn't everything in some form or another passed on to the consumer.  Rates would go up but another reason would be given.  Besides a parking tax would not raise enough money.  And while transit serves everyone why should a downtown, which is where most of the parking lots are be burdened with the majority of the of the financing.

I am not in favor of a parking tax. Not this drastic anyway. It hurts too many people who are just trying to make it through the week.  That extra money it will cost them to park everyday will make a big difference in their lives. The extra let's say 50-100 bucks a month they will need to spend means they won't go to lunch at a nearby restaurant or go out after work for drinks.  People are living day today as it is.  If you say they should then use transit to get to work that's fine  but unfortunately our transit system does not serve enough population areas for it to be an option for a lot of people, but that's another story.

As I have posted before  I think a  countywide 'Pop' tax should be a part of the discussion.  This would be for transit and sold as such. I think if a case is made to the voters it would have a good chance of passing.  It is being used in other cities, Philly for example for various reasons. I think a 'pop' tax for transit would bring in the money needed to upgrade all areas of the system.

 

Reasonable.

^Yes good info but isn't everything in some form or another passed on to the consumer.

 

No.  It depends on a lot of factors, such as the elasticity of demand (how many alternatives the consumer has).  Prices may go up some, but I would bet a lot of the cost would be eaten by the parking lot operators and just lower their profits a little bit, especially if the taxes are being used to offer even better alternatives to having to drive downtown.

^Yes good info but isn't everything in some form or another passed on to the consumer.... And while transit serves everyone why should a downtown, which is where most of the parking lots are be burdened with the majority of the of the financing.

 

In the long-run, it would get passed onto consumers. But one of the nice parts about this, is how its easily avoidable tax(parking demand is price elastic, IE - people tend to look for alternatives, and luckily in downtown people do have alternatives such as RTA), and there won't be a huge shock to the consumer at first since parking prices would slowly increase over time.

 

On the demand side, a parking tax in a downtown core is more of a proxy way to tax car commuters. Parking fees will go up over time. It has the side benefit of nudging people away from driving, which has negative externalities(pollution, congestion). This moves them to more desirable forms of transportation, such as mass transit.

 

On the supply side, a parking tax has a tendency to tax discourage building of new parking lots/garages. Specifically, it will make surface lot financials much less attractive, and may spur development of surface lots into 'better' uses.

 

Besides a parking tax would not raise enough money.

 

An increase in the parking tax from 8% to 37.5% would increase revenue by $41M/year for the City of Cleveland. This would be something like an increase in revenues by 8%.

 

Assuming somehow the county did a county-wide parking tax, we could see that $41M go to fund the RTA. That would increase RTAs budget by 13.3%. They need something like $140M to get matching fed funds for replacement railcars. In a little over 3 years, this tax alone could fund those cars.

 

Now, Cleveland doesn't need to go all the way to 37.5%, but is going to 12% or 15% really that crazy? The city is discussing increasing income taxes to 2.5%, which I think is way more drastic - it hits everyone. There's no way to avoid it(except move/not work in Cleveland).

 

(Yet again, I don't have enough posts so it's not letting me post links to sources for some of the numbers above, but a site called rebuildcle will have an article on the parking tax)

 

Higher prices to park seems like it could potentially have the effect high gas prices had. Only difference is you would have to be someone that truly wants to visit the location enough to pass up on driving. Essentially the high cost of parking would encourage people to think about cheaper more cost efficient alternatives such as riding transit. Driving up ridership, increasing (some) revenue while the transit agency benefits from the parking tax money on top of that. I already don't park downtown I just ride the red line.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

 

Seems as though the elevator is finally fixed for the westbound tracks at Tower City.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

 

^You mean no more garbage can with a broom on it blocking the elevator door!?  Jeez...

^Ha! Nope. Fully functional!

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

 

Buses to replace RTA trains during upcoming rail repairs

 

By Ginger Christ, The Plain Dealer

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on August 19, 2016 at 10:46 AM, updated August 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Three upcoming rail maintenance projects will change how riders catch RTA trains in the next few weeks.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/buses_to_replace_rta_trains_during_upcoming_rail_repairs.html#incart_2box

 

Just out of curiosity, what happens to the train operators during these shutdowns?  Do they get paid vacation?

^I'm sure.  It's not their fault, only the public suffers (not train drivers and, certainly, not management) and I'm sure the union wouldn't allow otherwise. 

 

As usual, RTA's reason for this latest inconvenience is not entirely clear.  On the Red Line, it says work on bridges over E. 79 Street and MLK Blvd.  We know the E. 79th bridge is being rebuilt... Why it would take 2 entire weekends and a day cutting off East Side service completely, is beyond me.  But what work are they talking about at MLK?  And why do these massive shutdowns just seem to come out of the blue?  For the size system Cleveland has, it is the shut-downiest rail system I've seen.  Why is this?

I'm not sure on the progress of the E 79 bridge, but it could be because the bridge replacement project could be expedited if the tracks were closed entirely. The RTA tracks run more frequently than the freight lines. Complicated items that could involve total closure include laying the new beams in place or taking down the old bridge.

Buses replace Green Line trains through Wednesday or later due to sink hole

Faith Boone

5:51 PM, Aug 20, 2016

 

CLEVELAND - Until Wednesday at the earliest, 67R buses will replace Green Line trains due to a sink hole, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority announced on Saturday.

 

According to GCRTA Media Relations Manager Jerry Masek, the sinkhole is located under the tracks on Green Road just east of Warrensville Center Road.

 

Masek said RTA was doing maintenance on the line Saturday when a 4x4-foot hole opened up and a portion of a piece of heavy construction equipment fell inside.

 

MORE:

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/buses-replace-green-line-trains-through-wednesday-or-later-due-to-sink-hole

BTW, due to maintenance and replacement of some key parts, my understanding is that RTA's light rail fleet is currently down to only 13 cars in service. RTA needs 14 LRVs to offer a full rush-hour schedule and roughly twice as many cars to provide special-event service (such as a Browns game, Indians game and Paul McCartney concert on the same night). This is a temporary reduction in fleet size, but the number of in-service cars available during temporary reductions is getting smaller and smaller -- as is the size of the overall, serviceable fleet.

 

EDIT: note that the Red Line is heavy rail and therefore not affected by the steadily diminishing LRV fleet size.

@GCRTA 8/21/16 10:00am Sinkhole under Green Line, 67R buses to serve Shaker Sq-Green Rd thru at least Weds. Allow additional travel time.

Just wanted to mention that as I was walking over to the Flats East Bank arts festival yesterday, I noticed alot of people riding the waterfront line. Just further proof that if there's more to do near the stops, our trains will be used. Lets keep the development going! :)

Why havent  RTA request emergency funds to procure new railcars?. Next year we will be down 8-10 LRV. We might have to lease some railcars like SEPTA  to continue to provide adequate service.

RTA is hiring a budget analyst.  Probably a part time job!  :roll: 

 

Have any free time KJP[/member]?

 

Why havent  RTA request emergency funds to procure new railcars?. Next year we will be down 8-10 LRV. We might have to lease some railcars like SEPTA  to continue to provide adequate service.

 

Emergency funds from where? And why is RTA's backlog of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs more important than so many other transit agencies'?

This is probably a stupid question, but why has RTA been rebuilding all of its stations when it barely has enough rail cars to keep the system operable. Seems like that would be first priority.

Because RTA also has to rebuild its stations to make them ADA compliant. One station rebuild equals only 2-3 new railcars. And no manufacturer is going to set up an assembly line for only a few railcars every year.

Why don't we (or do we?) have a national standard for rail cars so that cities use cars with the same basic dimensions and features?  Part of the big problem with a lot of transit agencies seems to be the high cost of equipment caused in large part by the special design requirements and low order quantities.  If every city was ordering the same basic heavy rail car wouldn't that help to level out the annual demand and reduce non-recurring engineering expenses?

Why don't we (or do we?) have a national standard for rail cars so that cities use cars with the same basic dimensions and features?  Part of the big problem with a lot of transit agencies seems to be the high cost of equipment caused in large part by the special design requirements and low order quantities.  If every city was ordering the same basic heavy rail car wouldn't that help to level out the annual demand and reduce non-recurring engineering expenses?

 

It's a question that has been asked a lot, and steadily the industry is moving in that direction because everyone wants it. Transit agencies, taxpayers and yes, even, manufacturers ultimately want to deliver a less-expensive product more quickly. But routine-based inertia is often the biggest impediment to progress and innovation at big, bureaucratic transit agencies, regulatory bodies and, again, at these large manufacturers.

 

EDIT: another issue for railcar manufacturers is that each rail system is a little bit different. Some have different platform heights or the their lateral/overhead clearances are slightly different, or their electricity is supplied at one of several different voltages. Many of the older rail systems like Cleveland's were established before there were federally mandated standards of system design. Even RTA's own rail system isn't standardized, as the LRVs and HRVs aren't fully interoperable! Lastly, even if RTA wanted to borrow another rail car from another system, it would have to be a system that is very similar to RTA's.

BTW, several riders have informed me of some interesting things on the Green Line....

 

First, in the past week during rush hours, there's been one of the large, Cleveland State Line articulated buses stationed at the Green Road station. This may be due to GCRTA being short one LRV for their normal requirements for rush-hour service.

 

Second, for some unknown reason, at least two drivers on the 67R buses weren't collecting fares this morning.

Because RTA also has to rebuild its stations to make them ADA compliant. One station rebuild equals only 2-3 new railcars. And no manufacturer is going to set up an assembly line for only a few railcars every year.

 

Oh wow, didn't know that. ADA has been around for decades, I assumed that the stations had already been brought up to compliance. Cincy purchased 5 streetcars, and I believe KC purchased only 4. Doesn't seem like a stretch to make a small order like that for RTA, but you'd obviously know much better than me. Are there any systems around the US that use the same cars as RTA? Would it be possible to combine orders to scale up a little?

^^^I thought most cities' rail cars were interchangeable.  I know RTA once was using old Toronto streetcars -- originally bought by Toronto from Cleveland -- as a stop-gap on the Blue & Green lines after the crush of new traffic following RTA's creation and low fares.  Also RTA sold SEPTA the Red Line's old CTS Blue-colored cars for use on its Norristown High-Speed Line where, IIRC, they were also using old Chicago L cars as well.  I also know cities have joint-ordered cars in the past, which is why the Baltimore and Miami Metro rail cars are identical... In addition, I believe Cleveland and Philly put in a joint order for their Red Line and Broad Street subway cars, respectively, in the mid-80s; although they are built by different companies (Tokyu for RTA and, I believe, Kawasaki for SEPTA) their dimensions and operation appear similar if not identical....

 

I do know some systems were constructed as incompatible.  I know Philly's Market-Frankford  el and BART have wider (than standard) gauge tracks, so they're trains are not be compatible with most systems which use the internationally standard 4 ft 8.5 inch tracks.

Oh wow, didn't know that. ADA has been around for decades, I assumed that the stations had already been brought up to compliance. Cincy purchased 5 streetcars, and I believe KC purchased only 4. Doesn't seem like a stretch to make a small order like that for RTA, but you'd obviously know much better than me. Are there any systems around the US that use the same cars as RTA? Would it be possible to combine orders to scale up a little?

 

ADA has been in existence since 1991. RTA once had enough capital funding to rebuild an average of about one station every year and not ignore its other capital needs. There are 18 Red Line stations, all of which need rebuilding to be a ADA compliant. Four light-rail stations (not including the Waterfront Line) are at grade differences with the surrounding land. Lesser ADA compliance work was/is being done at light-rail stations without gradient differences.

 

EDIT: KC & Cincy bought the same streetcars and there were complications & delays with such a small order. As for recent orders, Calgary and San Francisco ordered a Siemens car that offers potential for Cleveland because it can serve high/low platforms like Cleveland's. But RTA still has to go through a lengthy Request For Proposals/bidding process that's federally compliant, even if they know what they want. If the Siemens cars could be bought today, they'd still need some refinements to operate on the RTA system.

 

^^^I thought most cities' rail cars were interchangeable.  I know RTA once was using old Toronto streetcars -- originally bought by Toronto from Cleveland -- as a stop-gap on the Blue & Green lines after the crush of new traffic following RTA's creation and low fares.  Also RTA sold SEPTA the Red Line's old CTS Blue-colored cars for use on its Norristown High-Speed Line where, IIRC, they were also using old Chicago L cars as well.  I also know cities have joint-ordered cars in the past, which is why the Baltimore and Miami Metro rail cars are identical... In addition, I believe Cleveland and Philly put in a joint order for their Red Line and Broad Street subway cars, respectively, in the mid-80s; although they are built by different companies (Tokyu for RTA and, I believe, Kawasaki for SEPTA) their dimensions and operation appear similar if not identical....

 

I do know some systems were constructed as incompatible.  I know Philly's Market-Frankford  el and BART have wider (than standard) gauge tracks, so they're trains are not be compatible with most systems which use the internationally standard 4 ft 8.5 inch tracks.

 

That was before ADA.

Also RTA sold SEPTA the Red Line's old CTS Blue-colored cars for use on its Norristown High-Speed Line where, IIRC, they were also using old Chicago L cars as well.

 

 

I don't know who told this, but it is absolute wrong! SEPTA was considering the St. Louis built rapid cars, but body conditions and under floor mounted equipment that wouldn't clear the third rail lead to SEPTA's decision to settle on the CTA 6000s as their stopgap.

I don't know who told this, but it is absolute wrong! SEPTA was considering the St. Louis built rapid cars, but body conditions and under floor mounted equipment that wouldn't clear the third rail lead to SEPTA's decision to settle on the CTA 6000s as their stopgap.

 

If you read what I said, I didn't say they were using the old Blue Cars, but clearly had bought or were trying to buy them. ... Try reading more carefully in the future.

On a westbound Red Line train that derailed outside Tower City about 30 minutes ago...no injuries, we were going real slow.  Waiting to be offloaded.