i was looking over apta q3 2018 stats.

 

i see in cle rail ridership is down in q3, but still up overall for 2018.

 

however, bus ridership is way down last year, by 15%. 

 

anyone have guesses why? were bus routes cut or consolidated or something? uber/lyft chipped it away maybe?

 

Would love more details on the proposed transit redesign.  I understand it has worked well in other cities, including some that had some money issues (though not nearly to the extent as ours). 

 

Also, FYI, my 11 year old and I did take the Red Line to and from the Q last night.  I arranged things so we'd have plenty of time, just in case.  No major issues, but I was disgusted that, on a crowded single-car train, older folks and ladies were forced to stand while young and seemingly able-bodied people were occupying *multiple* seats at a time.  I'd have said something, if not for the risk of my son being drawn into a possible altercation.  The operator did the best he could to remind people of the rules.  No one seemed to care.  I know that funding is extremely sparse, but I can't help wonder if some of even what little there is might be devoted to having undercover cops ride trains every once in a while.  I know they do now, but not nearly enough, apparently, to deter this kind of discourteous, disrespectful, and technically illegal behavior.

In a better funded RTA...trains stations would have attendants working in the booths, ticket machines would be more like MTA or CTA (along with turnstiles) and they would get more RTA police out of their cars and into the trains and stations more often.

Enforcement is lacking because of funding.  Basic human decency is lacking for additional reasons that are probably off-topic here.

12 hours ago, cfdwarrior said:

In a better funded RTA...trains stations would have attendants working in the booths, ticket machines would be more like MTA or CTA (along with turnstiles) and they would get more RTA police out of their cars and into the trains and stations more often.

 

That's basically how it was in the mid 80s.

On 3/8/2019 at 9:22 AM, KJP said:

The new station at E. 116-St. Luke's is almost complete! Today GCRTA began service by boarding on the new platforms. Over the next few days, old platforms will be demolished and the new station will be completed....

 

 

 

 

Whoa, even by RTA standards, that is one terrible route map.  

I always interpreted this as a list of stops, not a route map per se.  I imagine it could be useful to someone unfamiliar with the system.  No sense going to Windermere/Stokes if you meant to go to the airport or vice versa.

 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

Good riddance.  I'm still waiting (since '85/'86) on speakers and train indicators at every station on the Shaker Lines.   

A busy rail-related agenda for GCRTA this morning. All of the items were approved by the board. Also GCRTA will be hosting the American Public Transportation Association's 2021 Rail Conference. Too bad we won't have new rail cars by then but they should have mock-ups and possibly photos of car shells under construction, at least.....

 

Rail-related actions on the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's Board of Trustrees Meeting agenda - 9 a.m., Tuesday March 26, 2019

 

A. 2019-27 - Authorizing Contract No. 2019-001 with Railworks Track Services, Inc., for Project 52M - Rehabilitation of Tracks 10 and 13 at Tower City Station, at a total amount of $11,860,000.00 (RTA Development Fund, Engineering & Project Development Department budget)

B. 2019-28 - Authorizing Contract No. 2019-007 with Hatzel & Buehler, Inc. for Project 18.08 - Light Rail Bonding Renewal, at a total amount of $265,000.00 (RTA Development Fund, Engineering & Project Development Department budget)

C.

D. 2019-30 - Authorizing Contract No. 2019-009 with PIRC Company Landscaping & Snowplowing, LLC to provide landscaping services for all GCRTA Rapid Transit Station locations, as specified, for a three year period with two one-year options in an amount no to exceed $545,739.12 for the base three years and in an amount not exceed $181,913.04 for each of the two option years, for a total contract amount not to exceed $909,562.20 (General Fund, Rail District Department budget)

E. 2019-31 - Authorizing Contract No. 2019-010 with Top Designer Landscaping, LLC to provide Turf Maintenance for all GCRTA Rail Right of Way location, as specified, for a three year period with two, one-year options in an amount NTE $130,548.00 for the base three years and in an amount NTE $47,850.00 for the fir st option year and in an amount NTE $52,650.00 for the second option year for a total contract amount NTE $231,048.00 (General Fund, Rail District Department budget)

F.

G. 2019-33 - Authorizing the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority to execute a Non-Binding Letter of Intent with Carnegie Management and Development Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, for Transit-Oriented Development of GCRTA property located at Columbus Road and Abbey Avenue, adjacent to the West 25th Street Rapid Transit Station

H. 2019-35 - To amend the fiscal year 2019 revenues and appropriations for the General Fund, as adopted in Resolution No. 2018-119, and to provide for an increase in the amount of $6,000,000 in the transfer to the Reserve Fund for Rail Car Replacement

I.

END

42 minutes ago, KJP said:

H. 2019-35 - To amend the fiscal year 2019 revenues and appropriations for the General Fund, as adopted in Resolution No. 2018-119, and to provide for an increase in the amount of $6,000,000 in the transfer to the Reserve Fund for Rail Car Replacement

 

Does this mean they are accelerating their plans for replacement cars? Or should I read nothing into this.

I'm glad they are taking the rail car replacement seriously. What happened with that recommendation (last year?) that suggested they keep separate car types for the Red and Blue/Green lines?

 

Edited March 26, 20196 yr by Mendo

Not sure what to read into it. I haven't thought about it much because $6 million doesn't really move the needle on a $250+ million railcar order.

 

What does move the needle is that GCRTA is considering piggy-backing on to the Miami-Dade Metrorail order to replace its railcars, which are almost as old as GCRTA's. If they proceed, that would be a major disappointment to me. It would continue the bizarre insistence that we preserve two small fleets for a lightly used, dual heavy/light-rail system that continues to operate as if the City of Cleveland owns one system and the City of Shaker Heights owns the other.

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article197945004.html

 

 

Edited March 26, 20196 yr by KJP

Is it possible to consolidate the two fleets?  Aside from the obvious - the need to either raise the Blue/Green Line platforms or lower the Red Line ones - what else would be necessary? 

Cleveland's light rail cars have to be 13 inches narrower than its heavy rail cars.  It would be much less expensive to retrofit 15 Red Line stations to accommodate the narrower light rail cars. But the assumption by RTA that it would be cost prohibitive is RTA's lack of interest in being innovative. There are two ways RTA could address the 6-1/2 inch gap (3 inches is the maximum gap allowable under federal law) that would result from using light-rail cars at heavy-rail stations. One is to order light-rail trains that have a retractable gap filler at high-floor doors on the trains ..... or, to replace the 2-foot-deep, plastic tactile edges at Red Line stations with 2-1/2 foot deep nonferrous metal tactile plates. They would be as strong as bus lift plates to support the weight of an occupied, motorized wheelchair. Crews should be able to replace these tactile edges at one station per day which means it would take about 2 weeks to replace them at all the Red Line stations. Thus you could shut down the west half of the Red Line's stations in one week and then shut down the east half the other week. By the way, RTA thinks that they can simply replace a rail fleet as they receive the new cars, such as a couple of cars per month. They cannot. Rail systems with more experience at replacing rail cars know they need as much as a year for all of the new railcars to be de-bugged. So this overly hurried effort is silly because it's not going to happen anyway.

Edited March 26, 20196 yr by KJP

I appreciate the explanation.  If this can truly be accomplished over the space of several weeks, then it sounds to me like an absolute no-brainer.  I am more than OK with it being a fully light-rail system going forward.  And then we only have to buy one type of car, and then, as the last of the old Red Line cars age out, then the retractable gap filler can be retired and replaced with something more durable and permanent.

The platform widening is one option. The retractable gap filler is another. If GCRTA chooses one or the other, they would have to stay with that choice.

Cross posted in the Cleveland East Side neighborhood development thread......

 

Hope the East 79th Blue/Green line station also gets some much-needed attention soon too!

 

24U - E. 79TH STREET RED LINE RAPID STATION RECONSTRUCTION

 Return to Case List | Start Over | Print Report (PDF format)

Project Information

East Case #  EAST 2019-013

Address:E. 79th Red Line Rapid Station

Company:GCRTA

Architect:GCRTA

Description:

New building and rehabilitation of E. 79th Street RTA station.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/brd/detailDR.php?ID=3136&CASE=EAST 

 

City efforts to re-densify this area:

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2018-10-02Collier.OCCorridorEast79th.pdf

 

Here we go:

 

Greater Cleveland RTA ridership hits record low - now less than a third of what it once was

Today 7:38 AM

By Rich Exner, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - RTA ridership last year slipped to a record low of 35 million, less than a third of annual totals during the late 1970s and early 1980s after local transit systems merged to form the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority.

 

RTA carried at least 115 million passengers for each of its first six years, from 1976 through 1981. This included the record of 129.7 million set in 1980. But the number fell below 100 million for the first time in 1983 and below 50 million for the first time in 2009.

 

Facing funding issues, both from fare and tax sources, the agency has made numerous route cuts over the years, including service cuts to a number of urban routes in March 2018.

 

RTA ridership in 2018 totaled 35,006,764, down 4.5 percent from 36,672,559 a year earlier, with the biggest drop being on the HealthLine service that links Public Square to University Circle and beyond, RTA reported. Here’s how RTA broke out ridership by mode:

 

Bus - down 4.4 percent from 22.9 million to 21.9 million.

Red Line rapid - down 0.6 percent at about 6.3 million each year.

Blue and Green line rapid - down 0.6 percent at about 1.6 million each year.

HealthLine bus rapid transit - down 14.7 percent from 4.3 million to 3.6 million.

Trolley - up 1.6 percent from 939,262 to 954,284.

Paratransit - down 1.1 percent from 593,722 to 587,423.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2019/04/rta-ridership-hits-record-low-a-fourth-of-what-it-once-was.html

Edited April 8, 20196 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

If only there were something simple they could do to reverse the healthline numbers from declining...

If only Cleveland's business community cared enough about transit to nudge the region's and state's elected officials and RTA to act on rectifying the issues eroding RTA, its taxbase its and its ridership base through stagnation.

I do find it interesting that train ridership is more or less flat, while bus ridership crashes. I forget when the all the cuts have been, but were there routes discontinued last year? I'd be interested in seeing numbers which took the decrease in service into account.

GCRTA says: A single, common rail car fleet requires significant infrastructure work at stations & eliminates the ability to phase in vehicle purchase/delivery. 
SOURCE: http://www.riderta.com/pillarstudies#railcar 

 

AAO says: "malarkey." Here's why: http://allaboardohio.org/2018/12/23/cleveland-rta-ready-to-repeat-mistakes/

Are there more details somewhere on the Rail Replacement Study? I’m trying to figure out the difference in the $240 million budget quoted on the website link above versus the $715 million the Plain Dealer keeps quoting.

Well, the cleveland.com article stub on the homepage says it's going to be a slow phase in over the course of 30 decades, so I imagine they're factoring in some serious inflation. ?

 

edit: they got it right in the actual article

30 decades actually sounds just about right given the current pace.  ?

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

Are there more details somewhere on the Rail Replacement Study? I’m trying to figure out the difference in the $240 million budget quoted on the website link above versus the $715 million the Plain Dealer keeps quoting.

 

Here's the consultant's presentation: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/events/2019-04-16RailCar.pdf

 

The cost estimates used in the Cleveland.com article (not a Plain Dealer article) seem to come from the "total 30-year lifecycle cost" estimates, which I think covers mid-life overhauls.

 

7 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

Looks like they did a nice job with it, but it's too bad it was rebuilt before the OC kicked in.    As long as the route from it to CC was made less forbidding (and from what I understand, it was), they could have made it a controlled access/free transfer hub (likewise E. 55th).  Then shift the terminus of the blue or green line there.

Red-line use is great. Light rail use is abysmal. The green line is useless, and redundant. It runs through single family housing. I think that if they're going to sink money into updating the fleet, they should focus on the red and blue line. They should get rid of the green line and waterfront line - or run it through Downtown  at street level (i.e. Minneapolis) so its actually useful.

I agree that the Green Line is pretty useless in its present form.  But, in theory, the Green Line could be extended to a number of much more densely populated areas such as the 91/322 intersection and countless apartment and retail complexes within a few blocks.  And/or to I-271. 

20 minutes ago, jtadams said:

I agree that the Green Line is pretty useless in its present form.  But, in theory, the Green Line could be extended to a number of much more densely populated areas such as the 91/322 intersection and countless apartment and retail complexes within a few blocks.  And/or to I-271. 

 

Great in theory, but that's a long 5 miles with a lot of nimbys and anti-transit communities. Lots of potential in our rail system, but rail is extremely costly to maintain. I would love for the WFL to be a loop through the Campus District. RTA really seems to be in a transitional period. With a declining regional population and ridership, they have to do something drastic to grow. 

Too bad GCRTA, seeing only its current balance sheet, sold off its right of way in the median of Shaker Boulevard from the Shaker Hts/Beachwood corporate line at Sulgrave east to I-271. Now the Beachwood City Park West exists in the median. I don't see how GCRTA could convince the City of Beachwood to reverse this change of land use. Of course, GCRTA never would because it doesn't have any money nor any desire to ask for more.

 

Shaker was always lined with single family homes. Green Line ridership was pretty decent up until the early 1990s when downtown employment and shopping began shifting to along the newly expanded I-271. I recall taking the Rapid to school downtown from 1990-92 and people would fill the park-n-ride lots at Green, West Green and Warrensville. And they would even park 10-50 cars-deep on the sides of cross streets with stations like Courtland, Eaton, Attleboro, South Park, and Drexmore. The Green Line and downtown Cleveland were a powerful draw from the Heights back then.

 

BTW, rail isn't expensive to operate. It represents nearly 25 percent of GCRTA's ridership and less than 20 percent of its operating budget. It does require a lot of capital, but that is one thing Republicans are still willing to provide to transportation.

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by KJP

These images from 1994 don't quite show everything, since the tree cover blocks the views of cars parked along the sides of some cross streets. And in 1994, Green Line ridership was already heading downward as May Co. had already closed and Dillard's took over Higbee's in 1992 and began the decline of its downtown store. Tower City was also in decline by then. When I had to be downtown for a 7:30 a.m. class, I could still find decent parking at Green Road. But if I had to come later, most of the good parking was gone. I either had to park in the mud at the far west end of West Green or along the driveways to/from Shaker at the far east end of the station property. I don't see any cars parked in either location in these 1994 views, which confirms that ridership was already down a bit by this point.

 

Green Road and West Green station and pretty full park-n-ride lot. Not as full as I remember from the early 1990s, but still better than now....

 

A full Warrensville lot...

 

The tree cover at Courtland is pretty thick, but you can see cars parked north of the station on the southbound side of the street, halfway up to South Park Blvd...

 

Look at how many cars are parked along both sides of South Park Blvd. and north and south of the station. Note the scale at lower right. There's easily 50 cars parked here.....

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by KJP

One thing I hadn't noticed till just now is that Shaker Hts now limits on-street parking on stretches of South Park closest to the rapid station to only 2 hours. Not sure why the city is actively discouraging park and ride there.  You can see some hardy folks still park there, despite the longer walk: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4826896,-81.5721351,3a,75y,336.95h,85.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYWWpmQyZI_i7riRYHg2rvw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

As of 2014, still looks like a lot of folks were parking on Courtland: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4790366,-81.5432764,3a,75y,339.45h,64.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTk7wbuumXpdg1fhuW3H8dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Too bad GCRTA, seeing only its current balance sheet, sold off its right of way in the median of Shaker Boulevard from the Shaker Hts/Beachwood corporate line at Sulgrave east to I-271. Now the Beachwood City Park West exists in the median. I don't see how GCRTA could convince the City of Beachwood to reverse this change of land use. Of course, GCRTA never would because it doesn't have any money nor any desire to ask for more.

 

Shaker was always lined with single family homes. Green Line ridership was pretty decent up until the early 1990s when downtown employment and shopping began shifting to along the newly expanded I-271. I recall taking the Rapid to school downtown from 1990-92 and people would fill the park-n-ride lots at Green, West Green and Warrensville. And they would even park 10-50 cars-deep on the sides of cross streets with stations like Courtland, Eaton, Attleboro, South Park, and Drexmore. The Green Line and downtown Cleveland were a powerful draw from the Heights back then.

 

BTW, rail isn't expensive to operate. It represents nearly 25 percent of GCRTA's ridership and less than 20 percent of its operating budget. It does require a lot of capital, but that is one thing Republicans are still willing to provide to transportation.

 

To say rail is 25% of the ridership doesn’t mean anything for the green line since the Green/Blue/WFL only account for 20% of that 25%. Further, the green line only portion is probably around 25-30% of light rail with most of that being at Green Rd. Maybe warrensville and bus connections (40-41). So that’s around 400-500k riders out of the 1.6 million light rail riders compared to the 6+ million red line riders. It’s hard to get exact numbers since counts for light rail are combined, and fare box data only accounts for one direction.  Most of light rail ridership comes from the denser zoned blue line and the combined section Shaker Square-Downtown. Our rail, especially our light rail severely underperforms and the capital cost to maintain the green line isn’t worth what it gets in ridership. It could easily be folded into the blue line (less than a mile away) and have the blue line ran more frequently.  The twin cities have around 26 million rail riders for comparison. 

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by imjustinjk

^@KJP knows all that.  But you're right, on a per passenger basis, the Green Line is likely not especially cheap to operate. For personal and sentimental reasons It pains me to say it, but the Green Line seems increasingly difficult to justify.  Or at least should be subsidized by the city of Shaker Hts if they want to preserve it.

1 minute ago, StapHanger said:

^@KJP knows all that.  But you're right, on a per passenger basis, the Green Line is likely not especially cheap to operate. For personal and sentimental reasons It pains me to say it, but the Green Line seems increasingly difficult to justify.  Or at least should be subsidized by the city of Shaker Hts if they want to preserve it.

 

As an urban planner/transportation planner who chooses to live without a car in this car centric hellscape, I love transit. I take the green line a lot since my dad lives right off of it. But it’s just not feasible to keep it. When looking to the future, RTA should cut the fat and grow what makes the most sense. I’m hoping that all of these studies, increased capital funding, etc. with a revitalizing urban core can yield a better functioning transit system. 

It's worse than that. Even the Blue Line underperforms as a light rail line, as does the Red Line as a heavy rail line. The Red Line would be middle of the pack if it were a light-rail line.

 

But RTA cannot abandon a rail line (or any transit facility) if it has used federal funds to build or rebuild it within the last 30 years, otherwise RTA has to refund the FTA some or all of the funding used. And RTA has used tens of millions of dollars to rebuild track, crossings, stations, substations and signals (the latter will be underway this year) in the past 30 years on the Green Line east of Shaker Square. Plus, RTA has to go through a public involvement process before it can abandon a transit facility. When RTA planned to close two stations that fewer than 300 people a day were using at each (East 34th, East 79th Red Line), it had to hold a public hearing for both closures. Community stakeholders spoke out in opposition and RTA backed off, saying it would rebuild the stations and make them ADA compliant if the community also came up with ways to boost ridership (TOD, better access, etc). I have a suspicion that the opposition RTA got to closing the East 34th and East 79th stations would be small compared to the opposition it would face from trying to close the Green Line -- assuming the FTA would even allow them to do so without massive financial penalties.

I know I will hate the answer, but here goes.  Can operating costs for lightly-used lines like the Green Line east of Shaker Square be reduced through any sort of automation?

Another dumb question.  But could something other than external electric power power the Green/Blue Line fleet east of Shaker?  Perhaps some sort of diesel/electric hybrid?  This of course would mean significantly more expensive rolling stock, but perhaps the savings in not having to maintain the overhead catenary would pay for it over time?  Have other cities made that sort of transition?

45 minutes ago, jtadams said:

I know I will hate the answer, but here goes.  Can operating costs for lightly-used lines like the Green Line east of Shaker Square be reduced through any sort of automation?

 

Probably. But a big way to improve the operating costs is to reduce the travel time. And there are two ways to do that:

1. Introduce POP fare policy by implementing Smart Cards (yes, it really is coming), fare machines at busier stations, and one or two fare machines on board the train.

2. Add signal priority for trains at all intersections. This should also cut down on the car-train collisions that plague the LRT lines.

 

These could literally save RTA millions of dollars per year in service-hour costs and potentially boost ridership with faster travel times. The worst area is Shaker Square, where it takes 3 minutes for a train to get from one side of the square to the other. Signal priority and computer-aided dispatcher control of the Blue/Green line junction would provide immense benefits. But RTA sees only the multi-million cost. It doesn't know how to debt finance projects from a potential multi-million dollar-per-year savings. FYI: 3 minutes x 196 weekday trains = 558 minutes x 249 days = 138,942 minutes / 60 = 2,315.7 hours; 3 x 160 weekend/holiday trains = 480 minutes x 114 days = 54,720 minutes / 60 = 912 hours + 2,315.7 hours = 3,227.7 hours of trains per year crossing Shaker Square. So 3,227.7 hours x $240.91 operating cost per light-rail vehicle revenue hour = $777,585.21.

 

That's approximately how much it costs GCRTA to cross Shaker Square each year -- $777,585.21. If GCRTA could cut that travel time (and thus the cost) in half, it could debt-finance the improvements necessary to cause that trip time reduction in just five years. And there's a lot more schedule fat east of Shaker Square due to the many road crossings that could be eliminated with signal prioritization (and improved safety!). But creating efficiencies is near the bottom in its ranking for prioritizing capital improvements. Safety understandably is the number one priority for making capital improvements, and perhaps that how RTA could advance these investments sooner.

1 hour ago, jtadams said:

Another dumb question.  But could something other than external electric power power the Green/Blue Line fleet east of Shaker?  Perhaps some sort of diesel/electric hybrid?  This of course would mean significantly more expensive rolling stock, but perhaps the savings in not having to maintain the overhead catenary would pay for it over time?  Have other cities made that sort of transition?

 

Not that I'm aware of, but there are efficiencies to be had here. When RTA rebuilt the Shaker and Van Aken lines in 1980, it considered replacing the old fixed-contact overhead wires with a flexible wire that's called constant-tension because, every couple of miles, the wire has a weight and pulley system that keeps the wire tight regardless of temperature. Not only does that offer more safety and reliability, it also is less expensive than paying people to loosen and tighten wires every time the temperature rises and falls (happens a lot in Cleveland!!). But RTA didn't install it during the LRT rebuild of 1980 because, in the words of the chief engineer on that project, "constant tension wires are only for high-speed trains, not light rail." Well, at least RTA has constant tension wires on the 1996-built Waterfront Line. It is the only part of the RTA rail system that has it.

RTA asks public if it should design service for maximum frequency or geographic coverage

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Should transit in Cuyahoga County maximize frequent service on its most highly traveled routes? Or spread service as widely as possible while sacrificing frequency?

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is looking for responses to those alternatives in an online survey and meetings over the next month.

The new survey and meetings are the latest steps in a yearlong “system design’’ process aimed at guiding RTA’s strategic planning for the next decade and beyond.

 

The public is invited to respond to a pair of starkly different maps showing how RTA’s bus and rapid transit routes would look if configured to suit each alternative.

The maps assume no increase in RTA’s current funding. The agency’s 2019 budget is $292 million.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/05/rta-asks-public-if-it-should-design-service-for-maximum-frequency-or-geographic-coverage.html

 

I'm in favor of high frequency, if you want to be able to compete with the like of Uber and Lyft you need to focus on where your strengths are ridership wise and enhance that. People want to be able to get to their destination as fast as possible and if they can get people on the bus in 15 minutes or less it puts them in a better position. 

Edited May 5, 20196 yr by MyPhoneDead

^ I agree completely. I think it’s a bit odd that they’re even asking this question. While expanded geography would be great, it isn’t anywhere near as important as frequency and reliability. 

On 4/18/2019 at 1:56 PM, KJP said:

 

Probably. But a big way to improve the operating costs is to reduce the travel time. And there are two ways to do that:

1. Introduce POP fare policy by implementing Smart Cards (yes, it really is coming), fare machines at busier stations, and one or two fare machines on board the train.

2. Add signal priority for trains at all intersections. This should also cut down on the car-train collisions that plague the LRT lines.

 

These could literally save RTA millions of dollars per year in service-hour costs and potentially boost ridership with faster travel times. The worst area is Shaker Square, where it takes 3 minutes for a train to get from one side of the square to the other. Signal priority and computer-aided dispatcher control of the Blue/Green line junction would provide immense benefits. But RTA sees only the multi-million cost. It doesn't know how to debt finance projects from a potential multi-million dollar-per-year savings. FYI: 3 minutes x 196 weekday trains = 558 minutes x 249 days = 138,942 minutes / 60 = 2,315.7 hours; 3 x 160 weekend/holiday trains = 480 minutes x 114 days = 54,720 minutes / 60 = 912 hours + 2,315.7 hours = 3,227.7 hours of trains per year crossing Shaker Square. So 3,227.7 hours x $240.91 operating cost per light-rail vehicle revenue hour = $777,585.21.

 

That's approximately how much it costs GCRTA to cross Shaker Square each year -- $777,585.21. If GCRTA could cut that travel time (and thus the cost) in half, it could debt-finance the improvements necessary to cause that trip time reduction in just five years. And there's a lot more schedule fat east of Shaker Square due to the many road crossings that could be eliminated with signal prioritization (and improved safety!). But creating efficiencies is near the bottom in its ranking for prioritizing capital improvements. Safety understandably is the number one priority for making capital improvements, and perhaps that how RTA could advance these investments sooner.

IIRC this was discussed and turned down in the 80s.  The electronic switch to change trains would have been located at the Western End of the Square.  The problem is Cleveland and RTA wont prioritize the trains over car traffic.  At the time the city thought there would be significant car backup along Shaker Blvd. East due to Trains crossing in both directions from/to Van Aken, as westbound train crosses both tracks.

 

When RTA eliminated the Shaker Square loop this should have been addressed.  So many things that in 1980 RTA thought was "good" are not turning out to be bad for business, the Shaker Community and Passengers.

On 4/18/2019 at 1:56 PM, KJP said:

 

Probably. But a big way to improve the operating costs is to reduce the travel time. And there are two ways to do that:

1. Introduce POP fare policy by implementing Smart Cards (yes, it really is coming), fare machines at busier stations, and one or two fare machines on board the train.

2. Add signal priority for trains at all intersections. This should also cut down on the car-train collisions that plague the LRT lines.

 

These could literally save RTA millions of dollars per year in service-hour costs and potentially boost ridership with faster travel times. The worst area is Shaker Square, where it takes 3 minutes for a train to get from one side of the square to the other. Signal priority and computer-aided dispatcher control of the Blue/Green line junction would provide immense benefits. But RTA sees only the multi-million cost. It doesn't know how to debt finance projects from a potential multi-million dollar-per-year savings. FYI: 3 minutes x 196 weekday trains = 558 minutes x 249 days = 138,942 minutes / 60 = 2,315.7 hours; 3 x 160 weekend/holiday trains = 480 minutes x 114 days = 54,720 minutes / 60 = 912 hours + 2,315.7 hours = 3,227.7 hours of trains per year crossing Shaker Square. So 3,227.7 hours x $240.91 operating cost per light-rail vehicle revenue hour = $777,585.21.

 

That's approximately how much it costs GCRTA to cross Shaker Square each year -- $777,585.21. If GCRTA could cut that travel time (and thus the cost) in half, it could debt-finance the improvements necessary to cause that trip time reduction in just five years. And there's a lot more schedule fat east of Shaker Square due to the many road crossings that could be eliminated with signal prioritization (and improved safety!). But creating efficiencies is near the bottom in its ranking for prioritizing capital improvements. Safety understandably is the number one priority for making capital improvements, and perhaps that how RTA could advance these investments sooner.

 

Reduced travel time would be great, but would it really reduce operating costs that much?  A 3 minute shorter ride would be great for everyone and may help increase ridership, but wouldn't it either mean more trips due to decreased headways or drivers sitting idle for 3 more minutes at the end of the route?  While some costs would be reduced (energy savings) the man hours would still be the same, so it wouldn't be a linear savings.

Please attend and share your voice at these public meetings -- which start TODAY!!