Track 8 at Tower City will be reopening on Saturday. (The article says Monday, but RTA has since stated that it will open early).

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/westbound_tower_city_track_to.html

 

 

Here's a pic I got of the new track last night

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/rta_red_line_down_due_to_elect.html#incart_2box

 

Shuttle buses replacing the red line Saturday afternoon due to electrical problems.

 

Anybody have any more info?

^ One of the biggest events of the year is downtown today and our major rail line goes down for most of the afternoon. Not to mention that all the buses are rerouted near Public Square, so the normal rail replacement shuttle station is not in service. Not good.

I took the Rapid downtown this morning for Winterfest with out of town relatives.  Having to figure out where the shuttle bus was when we went home was a hassle.  RTA needs to up their game.

^ One of the biggest events of the year is downtown today and our major rail line goes down for most of the afternoon. Not to mention that all the buses are rerouted near Public Square, so the normal rail replacement shuttle station is not in service. Not good.

 

And this follows the Red Line shutdown Wednesday into the airport. I'd like to know why the rail line keeps shutting down and who is responsible.

 

More importantly, I'd like to know if GCRTA will reconsider the offer by Siemens to take over the rail system and bring it up to a state of good repair, including infrastructure and rolling stock. Word is that Joe Calabrese refused to consider Siemens' proposal because he didn't want to relinquish control over hiring and firing in the rail division.

^ One of the biggest events of the year is downtown today and our major rail line goes down for most of the afternoon. Not to mention that all the buses are rerouted near Public Square, so the normal rail replacement shuttle station is not in service. Not good.

 

And this follows the Red Line shutdown Wednesday into the airport. I'd like to know why the rail line keeps shutting down and who is responsible.

 

More importantly, I'd like to know if GCRTA will reconsider the offer by Siemens to take over the rail system and bring it up to a state of good repair, including infrastructure and rolling stock. Word is that Joe Calabrese refused to consider Siemens' proposal because he didn't want to relinquish control over hiring and firing in the rail division.

 

Once again that this very important public agency seems more like Joe C's private fiefdom where he rules beyond questioning.

^ One of the biggest events of the year is downtown today and our major rail line goes down for most of the afternoon. Not to mention that all the buses are rerouted near Public Square, so the normal rail replacement shuttle station is not in service. Not good.

 

And this follows the Red Line shutdown Wednesday into the airport. I'd like to know why the rail line keeps shutting down and who is responsible.

 

More importantly, I'd like to know if GCRTA will reconsider the offer by Siemens to take over the rail system and bring it up to a state of good repair, including infrastructure and rolling stock. Word is that Joe Calabrese refused to consider Siemens' proposal because he didn't want to relinquish control over hiring and firing in the rail division.

 

What was the offer from Siemens?

^ One of the biggest events of the year is downtown today and our major rail line goes down for most of the afternoon. Not to mention that all the buses are rerouted near Public Square, so the normal rail replacement shuttle station is not in service. Not good.

 

 

And this follows the Red Line shutdown Wednesday into the airport. I'd like to know why the rail line keeps shutting down and who is responsible.

 

More importantly, I'd like to know if GCRTA will reconsider the offer by Siemens to take over the rail system and bring it up to a state of good repair, including infrastructure and rolling stock. Word is that Joe Calabrese refused to consider Siemens' proposal because he didn't want to relinquish control over hiring and firing in the rail division.

 

If true, then disgusting.  Absolutely appalling the way RTA is run.

 

What was the offer from Siemens?

 

This information is second-hand from two people and comes from under a couple of years of dust in my brain, but I believe that Bombardier would accept an amount roughly equivalent to what GCRTA was paying to operate the rail system. In 2014, that total was $44.24 million ($31.14M for heavy rail, $13.1M for light rail) for vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, and general administration (that's about 17 percent of GCRTA's annual operating budget). Those costs were offset with little or no surplus or deficit by sales taxes, fares and other revenues. This does not include capital costs such as renewing track, replacing stations or modernizing electrical systems. GCRTA's capital budget in the coming five years ranges from $65 million to $75 million per year with roughly 50 percent going to the rail system. IIRC, new capital improvements (those not already under contract) would be undertaken by Bombardier or subcontracted by Bombardier. This also includes a new Bombardier rail fleet that would be leased by GCRTA. It was to be a long-term contract but I don't remember how long. It would have to be for a decade or two for it to be worth Bombardier's effort. In addition to hiring/firing staff being a deal-killer for GCRTA, a contract of that length would also probably make GCRTA nervous because its operating and capital resources are diminishing. Getting locked into a long-term contract means having to diminish the bus system if sales tax revenues and federal capital funds continue to fall. Then again, I would think there would have to out-clauses to protect GCRTA and the community.

 

CORRECTION: the company was Bombardier, not Siemens

What was the offer from Siemens?

 

This information is second-hand from two people and comes from under a couple of years of dust in my brain, but I believe that Siemens would accept an amount roughly equivalent to what GCRTA was paying to operate the rail system. In 2014, that total was $44.24 million ($31.14M for heavy rail, $13.1M for light rail) for vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, and general administration (that's about 17 percent of GCRTA's annual operating budget). Those costs were offset with little or no surplus or deficit by sales taxes, fares and other revenues. This does not include capital costs such as renewing track, replacing stations or modernizing electrical systems. GCRTA's capital budget in the coming five years ranges from $65 million to $75 million per year with roughly 50 percent going to the rail system. IIRC, new capital improvements (those not already under contract) would be undertaken by Siemens or subcontracted by Siemens. This also includes a new Siemens rail fleet that would be leased by GCRTA. It was to be a long-term contract but I don't remember how long. It would have to be for a decade or two for it to be worth Siemens' effort. In addition to hiring/firing staff being a deal-killer for GCRTA, a contract of that length would also probably make GCRTA nervous because its operating and capital resources are diminishing. Getting locked into a long-term contract means having to diminish the bus system if sales tax revenues and federal capital funds continue to fall. Then again, I would think there would have to out-clauses to protect GCRTA and the community.

 

So the physical stock (except for the leased vehicles) would still be owned by RTA, but the rail system (alone) would be run by a private company?

 

Would Siemens have control over scheduling and fare hikes?  Would there still be transferability to the bus system?

So the physical stock (except for the leased vehicles) would still be owned by RTA, but the rail system (alone) would be run by a private company?

 

Would Siemens have control over scheduling and fare hikes?  Would there still be transferability to the bus system?

 

I don't know for sure, but I presume so on all questions.

So the physical stock (except for the leased vehicles) would still be owned by RTA, but the rail system (alone) would be run by a private company?

 

Would Siemens have control over scheduling and fare hikes?  Would there still be transferability to the bus system?

 

I don't know for sure, but I presume so on all questions.

 

I think Melbourne, Australia has this arrangement whereby a private company runs the city's massive commuter rail network which is roughly similar to Philly/SEPTA's regional rail.  I also think Maggie Thatcher inspired British Rail to try this setup until a decade or so ago, but it failed because the company was incompetent and there were too many train wrecks... Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not only is the timing horrible, RTA once again falls short in the communications-to-riders department... "Mechanical issue" is not good enough; and it's not just Twitter; this same explanation is on RTA's website.  I didn't see anything on cleveland.com about it... Guess we should be happy they warned people not to take the trains... I guess.

 

clvlndr, I have to ask, and I mean this sincerely -- given this incident, what more information, specifically, would have helped you and/or changed your mind about using RTA on that day, at that time?

 

I'm asking because I can advocate for better information, if I know what that better information, from a rider's perspective, needs to be. Simply saying "more" or "better" isn't nearly as helpful.

Not only is the timing horrible, RTA once again falls short in the communications-to-riders department... "Mechanical issue" is not good enough; and it's not just Twitter; this same explanation is on RTA's website.  I didn't see anything on cleveland.com about it... Guess we should be happy they warned people not to take the trains... I guess.

 

clvlndr, I have to ask, and I mean this sincerely -- given this incident, what more information, specifically, would have helped you and/or changed your mind about using RTA on that day, at that time?

 

I'm asking because I can advocate for better information, if I know what that better information, from a rider's perspective, needs to be. Simply saying "more" or "better" isn't nearly as helpful.

 

I can't answer for clvndr, but I don't think we all would like more information about what is causing these shutdowns not just so we know whether or not we can ride the train on *that day*, but so we can make informed decisions for the future.  Such as whether or not it's feasible to rely on the rapid at all to get us where we need to go or if it's a toss up on any given day whether it will be running or not.  RTA needs to reassure its riders that these shutdowns won't keep increasing in frequency, or level with them if they are.

 

For instance, when WMATA had serious track issues and had to come up with a plan to fix them, they published a lot of information about exactly what needed to be done, why, where, and when.  They could have just kept quiet and slowly started shutting down lines and tweeting things like "track work, green line closed all weekend" every other week, but instead they communicated with their riders in a professional manner.

Not only is the timing horrible, RTA once again falls short in the communications-to-riders department... "Mechanical issue" is not good enough; and it's not just Twitter; this same explanation is on RTA's website.  I didn't see anything on cleveland.com about it... Guess we should be happy they warned people not to take the trains... I guess.

 

clvlndr, I have to ask, and I mean this sincerely -- given this incident, what more information, specifically, would have helped you and/or changed your mind about using RTA on that day, at that time?

 

I'm asking because I can advocate for better information, if I know what that better information, from a rider's perspective, needs to be. Simply saying "more" or "better" isn't nearly as helpful.

 

JetDog, I sincerely believe helps the public have more trust in the rail system if RTA is more transparent about the exact causes leading to rail shutdowns.  I think this is heightened because of the frequency of rail service outages coupled with the public knowledge of funding shortages.  All these issues raises the need for the agency to make people feel RTA is doing all they can to keep rail service safe and running.  As you can probably sense from forums like UO, and even in comments sections of transit-related articles on cleveland.com, Scene Magazine and even Crains, the public confidence and trust level in RTA is extremely low. 

 

Just saying "mechanical issue" for a Rapid service outage, especially during Black Friday's Winter Fest which, annually, is one of RTA's highest riding days, has got to lower public trust even more.  I have to believe that by saying service was interrupted due to say a transformer burnout or catenary problem or something specific would cause riders to empathize a bit more even in their frustration.  There are some people out there who are so distrustful of RTA that they don't believe RTA's service outages are even legitimate.  I've even heard RTA employees gripe (in Tower City) that they believe RTA shuts down rail service to save money... I personally don't believe this, because it would be huge scandal if it were true, but I'm just telling you this type of thinking is out there even among some RTA workers themselves.

This is the full funding grant agreement between GCRTA and the FTA which references the transit zone on Superior as part of the federal funds:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0l3jr4x1mpcpysb/Euclid%20Corridor%20Full%20Funding%20Grant%20Agreement%20OH030247%20102704.pdf?dl=0

 

In my mind deleting the transit zone through Superior on Public Square changes the project scope/description. I won't be surprised if FTA says "no" or requests a new or supplemental Environmental Assessment before giving concurrence.

Below is a chart of how many buses WOULD cross Superior were RTA buses allowed to cross Public Square in accordance to the original plan.

 

From 6 AM - 6 PM, one bus would cross Public Square every one-minute thirty-seconds, approximately.

 

The busiest time for bus traffic in Public Square would be from 7 AM - 9 AM during the morning-rush. With inbound bus-traffic from the west side at this time, one bus crosses Public Square every one-minute ten-seconds.

 

On weekday mornings, this is the time at which buses get logjammed going around Public Square--49 buses are added to the traffic circling the square unnecessarily during each peak hour, which causes major delays. Indeed, traffic pattern may contribute to a marked increase in delayed buses, generally, and from experience those traveling outbound to the west side during the morning rush: two westbound, route-26 buses down Detroit (the 8:40 and 8:55) arriving together late at 8:58 AM.

 

Column 1: Hour (weekday)

Column 2: Total number of buses to cross square per hour

Column 3: 1 bus crosses Public Square ever 'X' minutes

Column 4 - 19: Number of buses per route to cross the square per hour (legend is below the table)

     

0:00-00:59 17 3.5 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

01:00-01:59 12 5.0 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

02:00-02:59 10 6.0 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

03:00-03:59 9 6.7 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

04:00-04:59 16 3.8 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

05:00-05:59 29 2.1 2 2 2 2 1 0 6 6 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 2

06:00-06:59 42 1.4 4 4 2 4 1 2 6 6 2 1 3 0 0 2 0 5

07:00-07:59 49 1.2 5 4 3 4 2 1 7 6 2 1 4 0 0 2 0 8

08:00-08:59 49 1.2 4 4 4 4 1 2 7 6 2 1 4 0 0 2 0 8

09:00-09:59 42 1.4 3 3 4 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 8

10:00-10:59 36 1.7 3 3 4 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2

11:00-11:59 36 1.7 3 3 4 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2

12:00-12:59 36 1.7 3 3 4 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2

13:00-13:59 36 1.7 3 3 4 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2

14:00-14:59 38 1.6 3 4 4 4 2 1 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2

15:00-15:59 48    1.3 4 6 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 2 6 0 0 2 0 2

16:00-16:59 38 1.6 4 5 4 2 1 1 6 6 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 2

17:00-17:59 39 1.5 4 4 4 2 2 2 6 6 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 2

18:00-18:59 31 1.9 3 2 3 2 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2

19:00-19:59 26 2.3 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2

20:00-20:59 23 2.6 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

21:00-21:59 23 2.6 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

22:00-22:59 22 2.7 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

23:00-23:59 22 2.7 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

TOTAL         729         68 70 66 65 24 23 115 112 26 24 45 0 0 38 0 53

 

Column 4 - 19 (in order): 3 (WB) 3(EB) 26(WB) 26(EB) 38(WB) 38(EB) 51 ALL (NB) 51 ALL (SB) 45 (NB) 45 (SB) 79 ALL (NB) 79 ALL (SB) 81 (WB) 81 (EB) 55 ALL (WB) 55 ALL (EB)

 

This chart  includes only city bus-routes and not the Park & Ride buses which would cross Public Square, too.

 

WB = Westbound , EB = Eastbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound

 

While I've posted this data before, I'd like to look at again considering the decision to permanently close the Square to bus traffic.

 

This is the full funding grant agreement between GCRTA and the FTA which references the transit zone on Superior as part of the federal funds:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0l3jr4x1mpcpysb/Euclid%20Corridor%20Full%20Funding%20Grant%20Agreement%20OH030247%20102704.pdf?dl=0

 

In my mind deleting the transit zone through Superior on Public Square changes the project scope/description. I won't be surprised if FTA says "no" or requests a new or supplemental Environmental Assessment before giving concurrence.

 

To piggy-back off KJP's post, above is an hourly breakdown of what we're talking in terms of bus traffic by closing Superior Ave. to RTA.

This is the full funding grant agreement between GCRTA and the FTA which references the transit zone on Superior as part of the federal funds:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0l3jr4x1mpcpysb/Euclid%20Corridor%20Full%20Funding%20Grant%20Agreement%20OH030247%20102704.pdf?dl=0

 

In my mind deleting the transit zone through Superior on Public Square changes the project scope/description. I won't be surprised if FTA says "no" or requests a new or supplemental Environmental Assessment before giving concurrence.

 

On page 22:

 

"The Downtown Transit Zone BRT element is comprised of the rehabilitation of 2.3 miles of roadways between Public Square and Cleveland State University, including the creation of approximately one mile of 24-hour exclusive bus lanes on Superior Ave, and 0.7 miles of peak hour exclusive bus lanes on St. Clair Avenue."

 

On page 25:

 

Contract Unit 02 -- Transit Zone.

 

C-01 -- "The Transit Zone north of Euclid consists of the rehabilitation of several streets totaling 2.3 miles in the downtown central business district. The following are location descriptions of the streets: St. Clair (W. Third to E. 13th Street); Superior Avenue (W. Third to W. Roadway and E. Roadway to E. 18th Street)..."

 

Interesting that Superior Avenue between W. Roadway and E. Roadway is not part of the project description for the contract unit.

You may be right, too.

 

Meanwhile, transit rider Chris Stocking timed his bus trip today around Public Square this morning at 6 minutes, 18 seconds....

 

 

 

You may be right, too.

 

Meanwhile, transit rider Chris Stocking timed his bus trip today around Public Square this morning at 6 minutes, 18 seconds....

 

 

Did notice this floating around:

 

Riders Unite-Press Conference/Rally

Saturday, December 3 from 3 to 4 pm at Public Square, Northeast Quadrant by the steps

Calling all transit riders and those sympathetic to their plight now that Public Square is closed permanently! Let your voices be heard at this event. Press Conference and testimonials to be given on public safety and hindrance to commuting to work issues caused by Public Square closures. Wear Red and ride RTA to Public Square. We also need a large showing at City Hall in Room 217 next Wednesday at 9 am. If you can help out by passing out flyers for the December 3 event at any RTA stop or station please give Chris Stocking a call at 440 376 8400

It's been 14 days since the press conference announcing the decision to close Superior Ave. across Public Square permanently to buses.

 

Meaning, look out for the plan the City and RTA said they would submit to the FTA.

 

After further investigation, I think there's a solid argument to be made that closing Superior violates the 2004 contract with the FTA.

 

See Linked Map: https://postimg.org/image/gtoh00nz7/

 

The reason is that the language outlined in the contract insists on a Transit Zone which includes 24-hour exclusive bus lanes along Superior approximately one-mile long: that's the distance from West Third to E. 17th St. along Superior, the section of Superior outlined in the grant agreement about 0.95 miles in length.

 

Therefore, removing a 600-foot section (the distance across Public Square, approximately one-tenth of a mile) reduces the total exclusive bus lanes along the section of Superior from West Third to E. 17th St. to 0.85 miles in length, which seems counter to the contract.

 

Maybe there's wiggle room with the word "approximately" in there, but that evidently is for the FTA to decide, according to Mayor Jackson.

 

Indeed, the portion of the contract which excludes the portion Superior Ave across Public Square on page 25 has to do with road rehabilitation work necessary for the Transit Zone. If you reference my map, there is 2.3 miles worth of road work outlined in the contract. However, you need both components.

 

The creation of the Transit Zone, as described, hinges on the concurrent creation of approximately one-mile's worth of 24-hour exclusive bus lanes on Superior. Closing 10% of that length, arguably, defies the contract.

 

Meaning, potentially, the closure of Superior across Public Square does not a Transit Zone make.

 

RTA's goal is to replace rail cars by 2025... cost is $280 million

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

Revenue lost from rule-change related to collecting sales tax on Medicaid charges: $17 million per year...

 

Which is predicted to affect RTA to make a 7% decrease in service next year.

 

In 2008, when the economy tanked, RTA had to cut service by 12%... A major blow to the system. Sales tax receipts were down enormously and Cleveland unemployment peaked over 10%. Less jobs, less riders, less purchases being made. While over the ensuing years, ridership built back-up and service was incrementally expanded, this year the 3% service cut and the fare increase did well to set the system back at a time where ideally we'd be ramping up and expanding -- for a myriad of reasons familiar to regulars on this forum.

 

In 2016, though people are working and the economy isn't as awful, do people use public transpration when they get that new job? When the service is infrequent (many routes now down to once an hour), more expensive ($2.50 for one-way, $5.50 for an all-day), and more unreliable (since Public Square was closed, incidents of buses being late has increased by over 40%); or do people instead do a mental cost-benefit analysis, take their money, and invest in a car? While buying a $5,000 used car in Cuyahoga County nets GCRTA $50, that's only half the cost of a monthly pass with no future fares to count on.

 

I'm guessing there will be new infrastructure bills to update (MAP-21, ICETEA-LU) in the new congress, any thought on what to look out for.. Usually the local match is 20% on major capital purchases with the rest coming from the feds. So for rail car's that's like $60 million set aside.

 

Can we discuss the macro-economic outlook for RTA and its backlog of capital needs at a time of major political transition in DC? Gridlock on issues like infrastructure might subside a bit (who knows), but what does that look like for transit agencies when Republicans have their hands at the levers and public transportation is looked at through a partisan lens?

 

Slideshow for 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan image was clipped from:

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2016-08-02CIP.pdf

 

The partisan angle is quite interesting... While it's very fashionable for Republicans in general, and in particular in Ohio, to hate on transit (it's 'social engineering', even 'communist' in some eyes; antithetical to the free/libertarian society the USA is... etc, etc), a number of big cities in conservative Republican states, most shockingly Salt Lake City, Utah, have quietly gone whole-hog into investing in -- and loving, rail mass transit... Go figure.

 

Trains are an easier sell to Republicans and conservatives, I can't say for sure why.

 

Probably because of the same reason why the average urban American ignores city buses but will ride trains.  Trains are simply a superior means of urban mass movement and even many dogmatic conservatives can't deny a train's speed and comfort, not to mention the fact that rapid transit systems make their cities seem bigger, more important and sexy.  It's similar to congressional pols and staffers in Washington... They can spew that right-wing, anti-transit crap to their small town and rural constituents back home while, at the same time, voting to authorize huge capital spending packages for expanding D.C. Metro Rail for their own convenience.  It's totally hypocritical.

Cleveland Council assails city officials for banning buses from Public Square: Here are council's best questions

By Leila Atassi, cleveland.com

on November 30, 2016 at 1:11 PM, updated November 30, 2016 at 3:31 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland City Council members on Wednesday grilled city administrators and officials from the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority over the controversial decision to permanently close Public Square to buses - challenging the city's argument that leaving Superior Avenue open imperils pedestrians enjoying the newly renovated public space.

 

At council's Transportation Committee hearing, city officials and RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese presented a largely united front against a barrage of criticism from council members and maintained that the city and RTA will work together to mitigate the inconveniences to riders and any increased costs that the square's closure might cause.

 

Mayor Frank Jackson's Chief of Staff Ken Silliman said the city and RTA also would seek the approval of the Federal Transportation Administration, which has invested millions in the transit system around Public Square and could demand that RTA repay the investment.

 

Despite heavy criticism that the decision to close the square was made with virtually no input from the public, all but one member of the Jackson administration -- Planning Director Freddy Collier -- had left the room before members of the public were given a chance to testify.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/cleveland_council_assails_city.html

And....

 

City Council Excoriates Jackson Administration for Public Square Debacle

Posted By Sam Allard on Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:21 pm

 

It was 10:30 a.m. and Joe Calabrese had a plane to catch. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) CEO had withstood a 90-minute onslaught of questions and comments from Cleveland City Council on the subject of buses on/near/through/athwart Public Square, and the battered transit executive was no doubt relieved to escape to the nation's capital.

 

The councilpeople were steamed. This Transportation Committee hearing had been arranged in the harried aftermath of the announcement by Mayor Frank Jackson and Calabrese, two weeks ago, that the 600-foot strip of Superior Avenue through Public Square would remain closed to buses permanently. The announcement came at an evening press conference with very little warning to the media and no warning at all to the city's legislative branch (council), who felt variously "concerned," "insulted," and "ashamed" by the Mayor's secretive decision-making process. The outspoken Councilman Zack Reed likened the decision to that of a dictator. "It's like Fidel Castro," he told Scene after today's meeting.

 

MORE:

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2016/11/30/city-council-excoriates-jackson-administration-for-public-square-debacle

So Calabrese was absent for the public commenting (and for most of the meeting apparently). Another class act.

 

Jackson and most of his staff was also absent for the public commenting and for some of the session. Fantastic.

 

While I agree with the closure, I disagree with how it had and continues to be handled. It's a disgrace. To catch a plane? My ass.

So Calabrese was absent for the public commenting (and for most of the meeting apparently). Another class act.

 

Jackson and most of his staff was also absent for the public commenting and for some of the session. Fantastic.

 

While I agree with the closure, I disagree with how it had and continues to be handled. It's a disgrace. To catch a plane? My a$$.

 

Jackson's staff and Calabrese left after the hearing concluded, before public comment began. They didn't miss part of the session. Joe had a trip to DC scheduled, why would he be making that up? And for the record, Freddie Collier, the city planning director, was present for the public comment section, as was RTA's marketing director.

 

Edit:

I don't want to come across like I'm defending the city. I think their arguments were mostly ridiculous and this whole situation is absurd.

Unfortunately, I think it might be true that RTA is purposely trying to save money by unscheduled shut downs of rail and skipped buses. Since I ride both rail and buses I have noticed since this summer that some scheduled buses simply "skip".  It is not just a matter of the bus being late because of the detour around public square.  This has happened so often that it seems deliberate.  There have also been an increase of malfunctioning buses - buses with no a.c., buses that breakdown.  I have talked to two people who don't have a car who say they no longer can rely on RTA and they are planning on buying a car. This is not good and is a downward spiral for RTA.

Here's what I can't seem to get past; Calabrese on Nov 7th sent a letter to Jackson reiterating his strong opposition to keeping the square closed, with data to back it up. Jackson didn't respond until Nov 14th, rejecting RTA's claims. The joint press conference was held on the 15th announcing the permanent closure.

 

So what happened that convinced Calabrese to change positions and now seems to fully support the new plan?

Unfortunately, I think it might be true that RTA is purposely trying to save money by unscheduled shut downs of rail and skipped buses. Since I ride both rail and buses I have noticed since this summer that some scheduled buses simply "skip".  It is not just a matter of the bus being late because of the detour around public square.  This has happened so often that it seems deliberate.  There have also been an increase of malfunctioning buses - buses with no a.c., buses that breakdown.  I have talked to two people who don't have a car who say they no longer can rely on RTA and they are planning on buying a car. This is not good and is a downward spiral for RTA.

 

As I posted above, I certainly hope RTA hasn't stooped to the level of shutdowns to save money, but ... Quite obviously, RTA has a serious perception problem among the public.  UOer David had a thoughtful post elsewhere (couldn't put my hands on it) where he opined that, based on his experiences, Cleveland's RTA ranked 3rd among Ohio's Big C's transit systems in terms of service quality.  Given that neither Cincy nor Columbus has an extensive rail network comparable to Cleveland's, that's really saying something. 

^God help you all if that's true. Cincinnati's metro bus service is, by and large, terrible. There is one line that serves my neighborhood (Mt. Adams, directly adjacent to Downtown) and the last bus leaves downtown at 7:15PM Mon-Fri. After that, there is no transit service to the neighborhood, despite it being a large nightlife destination. Weekend service for this route is like every 80 minutes...basically impossible to depend on for regular transportation. There are some routes that are pretty frequent, and some parts of town are served by numerous routes, though. So if you were trying to get from Clifton/UC area to Downtown, for example, you could catch like 5 different busses that would get you there quickly. We have 1 BRT-lite (emphasis on lite) route that goes from Downtown out to Kenwood Town Center, which apparently is pretty popular.  I find it very hard to believe that RTA is worse than what we have down here. I think a lot of people in Cleveland probably don't realize how good they have it compared to the rest of the state/midwest excluding Chicago.

^I don't know what quote clvlndr is referring to, but RTA's service coverage and frequency are obviously much better than any other transit system in the state. The complaint might have been about reliability and comfort of scheduled trips, but when talking about overall "service quality," things like that are obviously secondary to there actually being scheduled trips. They are still important, though.

Plus the behavior of RTA personnel. I can't tell you how many unprofessional employees I've seen at Tower City over the years.

It's sad, but I find the staff at TC hilarious. They don't give a flying f**k and don't care that you know it.

^I don't know what quote clvlndr is referring to, but RTA's service coverage and frequency are obviously much better than any other transit system in the state. The complaint might have been about reliability and comfort of scheduled trips, but when talking about overall "service quality," things like that are obviously secondary to there actually being scheduled trips. They are still important, though.

 

Now that I recall, David posted his comments in response to a back 'n forth I had with rockandroller in the Flats East Bank thread about folks not using the Waterfront Line... It's gone now because MayDay deleted the comments as not relevant to FEB, but if David is out there and wants to reprise his thoughts here ...

I find it very hard to believe that RTA is worse than what we have down here. I think a lot of people in Cleveland probably don't realize how good they have it compared to the rest of the state/midwest excluding Chicago.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head there.  I have plenty of gripes with RTA, but it's still much better than anything between Chicago and Philadelphia that I have seen.

Plus the behavior of RTA personnel. I can't tell you how many unprofessional employees I've seen at Tower City over the years.

 

Not only Tower City, but the Airport, on trains and buses, and even in front of HQ on W6th....there are lots of "entitled" people who work for RTA to collect a check and have no fear of being terminated. 

It's funny; absent their incident with the Lakewood woman at the W. 117 Street Red Line station last year aside, I usually find RTA's cops at Tower City to be very polite, esp those guys sitting around the info booth when I'm looking for a map or schedule -- now they often won't know anything, but they're nice.  It's usually the regular employees and drivers who are truculent and otherwise rude.  Occasionally drivers are cool; we had a particularly thoughtful Green Line driver earlier in the fall who assisted a wheelchair woman with a child at the ADA platform.  This woman (driver) deserved a Gold Star...

In closing Public Square, people say Mayor Jackson forgot about them

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/in_closing_public_square_people_say_mayor_jackson_forgot_about_them.html

I just want to say that the notion that RTA saves money when the rail is shutdown is ludicrous. By contract all rail operators receive their full pay despite there being no rail operations, and the bus bridges are usually done exclusively with overtime, often from the more senior drivers.

 

Its more expensive to shutdown, you're still paying to staff the railroad, plus extra buses. Explain to me where the cost savings are? The rail is shutdown only when it is required to for maintenance or due to operational issues.

Consider that the rail division is 17 percent of GCRTA's operating budget, yet carries 19 percent of GCRTA's riders. Yes, it requires tremendous capital support -- because GCRTA is wholly responsible for it. If cities billed GCRTA for the damage its buses do the streets, I doubt GCRTA would be able to afford running many bus routes. BTW, GCRTA pays no fuel tax.

Consider that the rail division is 17 percent of GCRTA's operating budget, yet carries 19 percent of GCRTA's riders. Yes, it requires tremendous capital support -- because GCRTA is wholly responsible for it. If cities billed GCRTA for the damage its buses do the streets, I doubt GCRTA would be able to afford running many bus routes. BTW, GCRTA pays no fuel tax.

So Ken, are you saying that despite the tremendous high capital costs rail projects incur (new stations, rebuilt power facilities, new railcars but over 25-to-40 year spans), that the rail division is cheaper to run over time when factoring in fuel costs, shorter bus life spans, replacement costs, etc?

RTA will respond that its high operating cost on the bus side is due to its mandate to provide demand response (paratransit) bus service. Mainline/regular route bus service is pretty cost-effective (especially since RTA doesn't pay to use/repair the roads). For regular route buses, an unlinked trip by a passenger costs RTA about $3.50-$4.00. For heavy rail, it costs RTA $3.25-$3.50 per unlinked trip. For light-rail, it's about $4.50. For demand response/paratransit, it's nearly $50!

 

And BTW, for those who say transit agencies should be more demand-response oriented like cars (or subsidize Uber/Lyft/Taxis) to meet customers needs have probably never seen modal cost comparisons on a per-passenger basis. Nor are they aware of the needs of disabled RTA passengers. Sure, a car costs less to own/operate than a PRT bus, and an Uber driver is paid less than an RTA driver. But if the per-passenger trip cost is more than one-third (under $17) below RTA's demand-response cost experience, I will be very surprised.

Latest examples from today....

 

Official TTC Tweets ‏@TTCnotices  now7 seconds ago

Service suspended on Line 2 (BD) St George to Pape due to scheduled track upgrades. Alternate route: Shuttle buses operating.

 

Official TTC Tweets ‏@TTCnotices  2m2 minutes ago

Service suspended on Line 1 (Spadina) Downsview to Wilson due to scheduled track upgrades. Alternate route: Shuttle buses operating. #TTC

 

They've repeated each of these tweets probably 6+ times today with different pictures (twitter followers pay more attention to tweets with images) of the work or similar work being done.

This isn't related to the discussion above, but I went out to Warrensville-Shaker today to get some pictures, and I must say it looks really nice. If nothing else, the station renovation programs seem to be creating pretty good stations. Here are some pictures:

 

I also got some pictures of the new track at Tower City, and that also looks really nice (it would be nice if they would upgrade the other tracks too, but it looks like that's still a long way off...)

The "Tower City" sign at the rebuilt westbound platform is still wrecked.  It looks awful and I feel like they just had a golden opportunity to fix it.  While they're at it, one of the "Ohio City" signs is wrecked too and has been for years.

RTA will respond that its high operating cost on the bus side is due to its mandate to provide demand response (paratransit) bus service. Mainline/regular route bus service is pretty cost-effective (especially since RTA doesn't pay to use/repair the roads). For regular route buses, an unlinked trip by a passenger costs RTA about $3.50-$4.00. For heavy rail, it costs RTA $3.25-$3.50 per unlinked trip. For light-rail, it's about $4.50. For demand response/paratransit, it's nearly $50!

 

And BTW, for those who say transit agencies should be more demand-response oriented like cars (or subsidize Uber/Lyft/Taxis) to meet customers needs have probably never seen modal cost comparisons on a per-passenger basis. Nor are they aware of the needs of disabled RTA passengers. Sure, a car costs less to own/operate than a PRT bus, and an Uber driver is paid less than an RTA driver. But if the per-passenger trip cost is more than one-third (under $17) below RTA's demand-response cost experience, I will be very surprised.

 

Your comments are enlightening and surprising since Joe Calabrese frequently (politely with a smile) gripes that RTA's rail expenses way outsize the actual service it provides viz RTA buses.

^Where has he said that about rail operating costs?

 

Worth keeping in mind that one reason that the rail share of passengers has increased is because bus service has been so severely cut back- far more than rail. To be super specific, Bus numbers have decline sharply compared to 20 years ago, light rail numbers have been decimated since 20 years ago (down by about a third) and Red Line numbers are up significantly, but not nearly enough to make up for the other losses.

I don't often hear Joe talk specifically about rail operating costs, but this is the line I hear him repeat every chance he gets: "The truth is that more than 45 percent of RTA’s capital budget is allotted to rail, yet rail serves only 19 percent of RTA’s customers."

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/nov-6-2015-statement-rta-gm-joe-calabrese-about-rail-funding

 

^Right, despite people's complaints here, Calabrese has been a huge investor in RTA's rail system, which is why it's pretty tedious to keep hearing how "anti rail" he is. His quotes about rail capital costs aren't at all in tension with what KJP wrote about operating costs. That's the whole rub with rail: it can carry a ton of riders at a low cost/trip (even lower per trip mile), but it costs a crap ton to build and maintain.