^now give me smart cards!

RTA's new machines and boxes will be equipped to handle the advanced technology, but widespread use is still at least a year or two away. The cards are too expensive now to replace popular all-day passes, Calabrese said.

 

From what I understand, smart cards cost about $4.50 each from the vendor.  WMATA charges $5 for a new card, which can hold up to $300 in fare value. 

 

There is a proposal on the table to discourage cash fare payment, as well as the paper magnetic farecards on the subway, by raising non-Smartrip fares.  For example, cash fare on the bus would be $2, but would remain at $1.25 if you paid with Smartrip.  London has had great success with this methodology, in that non-Oyster card fares account for only 5% of all fares, making it a heck of a lot more efficient to collect revenue, and improve service.

 

While there has been a lot of debate on the effectiveness of POP systems (especially on the Baltimore Light Rail), it's good to see RTA is moving in the right general direction. 

RTA's new machines and boxes will be equipped to handle the advanced technology, but widespread use is still at least a year or two away. The cards are too expensive now to replace popular all-day passes, Calabrese said.

 

From what I understand, smart cards cost about $4.50 each from the vendor.  WMATA charges $5 for a new card, which can hold up to $300 in fare value. 

 

There is a proposal on the table to discourage cash fare payment, as well as the paper magnetic farecards on the subway, by raising non-Smartrip fares.  For example, cash fare on the bus would be $2, but would remain at $1.25 if you paid with Smartrip.  London has had great success with this methodology, in that non-Oyster card fares account for only 5% of all fares, making it a heck of a lot more efficient to collect revenue, and improve service.

 

While there has been a lot of debate on the effectiveness of POP systems (especially on the Baltimore Light Rail), it's good to see RTA is moving in the right general direction. 

 

Dan, just to clarify, the cost and proposal you've outlined apply to the DC area, not to RTA?

 

While I understand the need to pass new costs along to passengers where possible, a $5 smart card surcharge in this area would likely be counter-productive. I understand that the card is reusable/reloadable, and that this likely would be a one-time expense which, amortized over the card's lifetime, would be negligible, but I'm just thinking of the response from the masses.

 

Also, pope, please reread the PD article, especially the last two paragraphs -- smart cards will be phased in...

^also jetdog, i was implying that i'm impatient.

The $4.50 (+/-) is the cost of the card from the vendor.  This is the cost that the transit agency pays up-front, and the $5 is what WMATA charges to recoup the cost of the card.  I presume it is similar in Chicago (the only other U.S. city I know of that uses smart cards).

 

I understand the concern that making people buy the card could be unpopular.  There was a similar debate here some time ago when the policy changed to require a Smartrip card to pay for parking at the suburban park-and-ride lots.  Many people thought it unlikely that a tourist would buy a card for $5, pay to ride the subway, and then pay for parking.  The fear was that we would suddenly have hordes of lost out-of-state drivers clogging city streets.  This proved to be largely unfounded.  Metro has sold hundreds of thousands of smart cards, though, and last I heard, somewhere north of half of all subway riders pay with smart cards.

 

I'm part of a transit riders advocacy group in the DC area.  Since the new WMATA fare collection proposal, we have discussed a similar issue.  Given that the cost of a card is close to one-hour of take-home pay at DC minimum wage, and bus riders have a greater likelihood of being poor than subway riders, how do you get them the cards, lest they be forced to pay $2 for each bus ride?  We are advocating that DC subsidize distribution of the cards to its residents, as both a means of getting them to people of little means, as well as encouraging transit ridership.  I imagine the City of Cleveland could do something similar.

 

 

 

Euclid Corridor drivers will be responsible for checking tickets late nights and weekends.

 

How's that going to work?  Are they going to get out and walk around or are people still going to have to get on in the front? 

Euclid Corridor drivers will be responsible for checking tickets late nights and weekends.

 

How's that going to work?  Are they going to get out and walk around or are people still going to have to get on in the front? 

 

Chicago's smart cards were free for a period...they waived the $5 cost when it was introduced.  The best benefit is that if you lose the card, it can be replaced with your value still on it, unlike the older chicago Transit Cards and NYC MTA's metrocard.  I like the smart card.  I have been using it for a year now with no complaints.  Sometimes they don't work for whatever reason on certain buses, but the driver usually just waves you on. 

 

My company also participates in a program where they take the money from your pay pre-tax, and send it it directly to cta to reload the card monthly.  I don't have to hassle with any of it, I always have a card with a fare on it. 

 

Chicago also has a graduated fare system that encourage riders to buy the smart card, besides it is now the only way to get a bonus amount which quickly makes up for te $5 fee:

 

Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus: Full fare is $1.75; transfer for 25 cents. Transfers allow two additional rides within two hours after the first boarding.

 

Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus customers get a 10 percent ($2.00) bonus for each $20 of value added.

 

Transit Card: $1.75 on buses; $2.00 at rail stations; transfer for 25 cents. Transfers allow two additional rides within two hours after the first boarding.

 

Cash: $2 per ride on bus and rail; exact fare only; no change returned. No transfers issued when paying with cash.

PS...the difference between the Chicago Card and the Chicago Card plus is that the you reload the Chicago Card at the machines in the L station, and the Chicago Card Plus reloads automatically from a credit card that you give cta when the amount dips below  a certain amount(like $10).  You tell them what the reload amount is when you sign up for the card.

 

 

My company also participates in a program where they take the money from your pay pre-tax, and send it it directly to cta to reload the card monthly.  I don't have to hassle with any of it, I always have a card with a fare on it.

 

Doesn't RTA do that now... or at least used to?

^^^Yes, that's part of the IRS code. 

^i receive my monthly RTA pass pre-tax through the mail. As your HR person.

Euclid Corridor drivers will be responsible for checking tickets late nights and weekends.

 

How's that going to work?  Are they going to get out and walk around or are people still going to have to get on in the front? 

 

 

Pope, I believe that is how they are going to enforce the "honor pay" system.  Except, instead of machine guns, the robot will have ticket dispensers.

nope, they'll have credit card swipe slots, so you can pay the fine on the spot!

But you better not max out your card.  A maxed-out credit card would make ED-209 very unhappy.

^i receive my monthly RTA pass pre-tax through the mail. As your HR person.

 

Go here/send your HR person here for more info: http://www.riderta.com/pro_commuter.asp

 

Pope, props for the ED-209 pic, I almost fell off my chair when I saw that! 

 

"you have 15 seconds to comply..."

 

:shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

there's also companies that your HR person can outsource "commuter advantage"-eque arrangements to. Mine comes through WageWorks.

I just re-read the PD article and it sounds like there will be one type of fare collection system for the buses and the Blue/Green lines, and another type for the Red Line and Silver (Euclid Corridor) Line. I will contact RTA directly to clarify this, but if that's the case then I'm not happy with having two systems for the rail lines. Standardization isn't just about lowering costs but creating familiarity and simplicity for customers. I hope I'm overreacting.

KJP:  I agree that having two systems for the rail lines is ridiculous and complicates things.  If you don't keep it simple, it drives riders away.

KJP:  I agree that having two systems for the rail lines is ridiculous and complicates things.  If you don't keep it simple, it drives riders away.

 

I agree as well.

 

I had posted before the page break that the main reason for 2 systems is cost.  It is actually 1 physcial system, but it will be operated in 2 different ways, making it confusing.

 

But until the remaining Blue/Green line stations get power and fiber, RTA doesn't think it is feasible to link the Ticket Vending Machines on the blue/green line.  How much would this cost?  Can we find a grant or get the individual cities to pitch in?  Could onecleveland play a bigger role through wireless/mesh/microwave connections to these outlying stations?  Perhaps we can speak up and get the board to approve some additional money?  i don't know.

 

We should be targeting elimination of the hurdles that keeps our system from become truly world class, and more importantly easy and intuitive to use - "Here's how the train works, here's how the bus works", not the current, and future, "Here is how the 1 train works, and the other 2 trains work this way on part of the system, but a little different on other parts and you pay getting on here, but getting off there, unless you get on at one of these stations and are heading this direction". 

 

at the very minimum this will eliminate the confusing red line boarding with multiple cars with unattended stations. 

Did anyone also notice in the planning documents Connecting Cleveland 2020 that there's a number of transit improvements, including new stations, routes and TOD projects? If not, they're available at:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/gisphp/transit.pdf

 

Looks more like projects for planning reference. Glad to see West Shore Corridor is in there, as well as a transit line east along the lakeshore.

i think the waterfront line eventually should be moved north of the shoreway to accomadate hopeful development of the burke site and all the way to E.55th. i think this shouldve been done from the start.

^I agree gavster.  Right now, the Waterfront line is taking up platform space at what will hopefully be the Northcoast Transportation Center.  It doesn't provide easy access to the museums either.    You have to get off at E. 9th St. and back track.  If the City succeeds in turning the Shoreway into a boulevard (and I hope they do) it might be nice to turn it into more of a streetcar. 

 

Or is the idea of turning the Shoreway into a boulevard dead?  I haven't kept up...

I haven't heard much about it (the downtown portion) in a long time.  I don't think that there is any active push to turn it into a blvd.

The Shoreway project is listed in Mayor Jackson's capital improvements plan.  Phase I is from Clifton to the western end of the Main Avenue Bridge, and Phase II is the downtown portion from the eastern side of the bridge to the Innerbelt Curve.  I think work is slated to be done in 2010 and 2011.

Perhaps on the West Shoreway, but not on the eastern portion!

 

I like the idea of running the WFL through North Coast Harbor as a more street grade system.  I don't know where exactly they'd put it, but it could certainly make the system more attractive and convenient. 

 

Anyone have any idea if there are any plans in the future to buy cars that would have low floors (like Portland's MAX) for the Blue/Green/WF lines so you can walk on/off without any steps?

Anyone have any idea if there are any plans in the future to buy cars that would have low floors (like Portland's MAX) for the Blue/Green/WF lines so you can walk on/off without any steps?

 

at some point in the future, there will be a discussion and purchase of new rail vehicles - possibly changing the entire system to run on consistent vehicles.  but this is likely years away as the blue/green line trains are now being renovated to extend their useful life.  probably at least 15 years before we'll see a new rail car purchase is my guess, unless we see some expansion of light rail routes. 

 

i prefer the low floor entry of the VTA in san jose.  it also has room for 3 bikes in the middle of each car.  but, VTA also didn't make very smart busines decisions, selling cars to salt lake that still had a lot of use. 

 

 

 

Perhaps on the West Shoreway, but not on the eastern portion!

 

The "West Shoreway" goes from Lake Avenue through downtown all the way to the Innerbelt, and, yes, that entire portion is slated for redevelopment (transportation projects 2.T.1 and 3.T.1.)  I didn't think there was ever any talk about redoing the Shoreway after it runs into 90.

I would only relocate the WFL north if there was some coordinated, density development that went along with it.  Otherwise, just to relocate it to be closer to the museums isn't worth (and btw, I think it currently serves both museums pretty well; I don't get the "backtracking" comment).  Right now, there's no right of way for the WFL other than where it is.

 

And I certainly don't get gildone's comment at all -- how would the WFL be "in the way" of platform space of the  North Coast Transp center.  I thought the Waterfront Line would be an integral part of it serving to shuttle passengers btw there, the Flats and Tower City/Public Sq.

 

I think turning the WFL into a streetcar in a low-density development is counterproductive, esp if the line is ever to be extended along the East Lakefront to spur high-density residential development, which it should. 

 

At the CPC's comments about improving 'West Shore Corridor Transit Improvements,' methinks the vagueness of the "goal" is a giant door opener for JoeC's precious BRT and not rail, commuter rail, rapid transit or otherwise.

I agree with clvlndr on the Waterfront Line routing.

 

The "West Shore Corridor Transit Improvements" probably was a response to Calabrese's comments about the "BRT-light" or "Gold Line" on Clifton. After all, his proposal predated the recent commuter rail stakeholder efforts. But since the wording of the "West Shore Corridor Transit Improvements" was left vague, I consider that an opportunity.

^Let's hope so, KJP.  Your current Lorain/West Shore commuter rail initiative, as a demonstration project perhaps utilizing 2nd-hand (but in good shape) commuter equipment is quite promising, as is Mayor Jackson's people's interest in the project as well as the stakeholders'.  It almost makes too much sense.  I don't see how anyone could logically be against it.

Anyone have any idea if there are any plans in the future to buy cars that would have low floors (like Portland's MAX) for the Blue/Green/WF lines so you can walk on/off without any steps?

 

at some point in the future, there will be a discussion and purchase of new rail vehicles - possibly changing the entire system to run on consistent vehicles.  but this is likely years away as the blue/green line trains are now being renovated to extend their useful life.  probably at least 15 years before we'll see a new rail car purchase is my guess, unless we see some expansion of light rail routes. 

 

i prefer the low floor entry of the VTA in san jose.  it also has room for 3 bikes in the middle of each car.  but, VTA also didn't make very smart busines decisions, selling cars to salt lake that still had a lot of use. 

 

 

 

 

Low floor is an attractive technology, to be sure... I think, though, from what I've seen, anyway, is that the transit systems that utilize it have extensive in-street running.  While the current Blue-Green-WFL system has considerable at-grade running, cars don't board in streets or at curbside, so the slight raised platform seems less an issue; but I'll admit, even RTA's LRT slight elevation/step climb can, I'm sure reek havoc on those of limited (or no) ambulatory ability -- we're all going to get old sometimes and more power to the youthful individuals already facing such obstacles... I'm glad for the ADA facilities that are being phased in at more Blue/Green stations, but I have to say, having watched them being used, they seem quite clunky, slow to implement and, often, beyond the comprehension of some RTA drivers to use.

 

As to the possibility of a "uniform rail car" in the distant future, I know this is RTA's dream for some.  However, given the extreme expense in retrofitting Red Line stations to make them low, some kind of high-low entry car would have to be designed to meet both platform heights.  A few cities have such LRT's currently (Pittsburgh comes to mind).  Could high/low-floor cars be built?  I'm sure they could.. I sometimes wonder whether the current system, although awkward to some, isn't preferable.  I know the idea of a thru Shaker-to-airport run is attractive, but is the cost worth it?  Will that many more people be persuaded to use the Rapid to the Airport if the (relatively painless) transfer among lines is eliminated?  Enough to justify the cost?

 

Don't know... I think there are more pressing immediate needs to attend to for our rail system -- like the fare system; TOD, finishing the LRT car rehab (and implementing one for HRT/Red Line cars) and the like.

 

BTW, along these lines, I was recently in Chicago riding on one of the newer, U.P. double-deck cars and, aside from the fact trains boarded/ran on the "wrong side"/wrong way on 2-way track, these very unusual but nice cars (running along the best run diesel commuter rail system, imho) had their own "low floor" technology so that you barely stepped up from the low platform into the car which, though, like RTA's current ADA-compliant buses, had step-up riding compartments at either end.

 

These were double-deck cars with the, somewhat unusual, narrow upper galleries which open to into the lower/central aisle as opposed to most double-deck cars I've seen (i.e. in S. FLA and in the D.C. area) which have totally separate floors/levels... it seems 'low floor' technology isn't just limited to LRT...

I'm sure reek havoc on those of limited (or no) ambulatory ability -- we're all going to get old sometimes and more power to the youthful individuals already facing such obstacles

 

That is certainly true.  My aunt fell once trying to get onto one of the older, step-up buses and now refuses to take public transportation.  Oh, and she doesn't drive.  But that's another issue...

 

I think turning the WFL into a streetcar in a low-density development is counterproductive, esp if the line is ever to be extended along the East Lakefront to spur high-density residential development, which it should.

 

 

The idea is that this will eventually be a high-density environment, though.  And that more people would be likely to use the line if it were easier to get to.  There are a number of examples of highly used lines traveling at street grade through historic, densely populated districts (Portland's Old Town comes to mind) that do so effectively and attractively.  The next question is whether or not moving the line to the north (such a hypothetical) would discourage people on the north end of the E. 9th Street business district and in the Civic Center area from using it.

 

The "West Shoreway" goes from Lake Avenue through downtown all the way to the Innerbelt, and, yes, that entire portion is slated for redevelopment (transportation projects 2.T.1 and 3.T.1.)

 

Really?  So, is this included in the Lakefront West planning process or will this be entirely separate?  I haven't seen anything to date in this area...

The "West Shoreway" goes from Lake Avenue through downtown all the way to the Innerbelt, and, yes, that entire portion is slated for redevelopment (transportation projects 2.T.1 and 3.T.1.)

 

Really?  So, is this included in the Lakefront West planning process or will this be entirely separate?  I haven't seen anything to date in this area...

 

This is true.

However it is nowhere near being completely funded with a local match.

^Let's hope so, KJP. Your current Lorain/West Shore commuter rail initiative, as a demonstration project perhaps utilizing 2nd-hand (but in good shape) commuter equipment is quite promising, as is Mayor Jackson's people's interest in the project as well as the stakeholders'. It almost makes too much sense. I don't see how anyone could logically be against it.

 

Upon further review.... Did you notice that the Connecting Cleveland transit component also had a TOD for the West 117th area on the "West Shore Transit Corridor"? Well, one of the goals of the Cudell Improvement Corp. (a commuter rail supporter) is to have a station at West 117th Street and promote a TOD-style development there. They proposed redeveloping along West 117th south of the tracks, including the car dealership, Cudell's current offices in the former Medic store at Detroit and the several business in between. They also want to work in conjunction with Lakewood on making new use of some underutilized properties on its side of the street, namely the closed Bahr Lumber. That tells me that the city's definition is "West Shore Transit Corridor" is likely rail transit. But I will see if I can find out for certain.

^great idea as, I'd guess, the W. 117 location has the highest population density of all Lorain-commuter line stops.  Actually, I've always wished RTA would extend a 1-2 stop Red Line stub at least to this location, creating a Red Line/Lorain commuter rail/RTA bus transfer station/terminal here would be more than awesome... but that's being greedy, I guess, esp here in Cleveland...

My preference is to have a station for that area located at West Boulevard to enable transfers to/from the Red Line. That gives inbound West Shore riders to quickly head to two downtown stations -- North Coast and Tower City -- plus the airport, University Circle, Shaker, Ohio City. The latter may be important to St. Ignatius boys and their parents, many of whom live in the West Shore.

this great rta thread made me 40 minutes late today.

 

boo broken trains, yay beer.

KJP, that sounds wonderful that Cudell Improvement Corp wants to create TOD at a potential commuter rail station at 117th.  Why the heck can't they promote TOD at the EXISTING Red Line station at W117th and Lorain?  I was appalled to see that the reconstruction of the station will feature a MASSIVE parking lot on premises.  What gives?

 

Given the population density of that vicinity, there is no reason you can't have thriving TOD at W117th, W98th/West Blvd, and Triskett.  All you have to do is get rid of the subsidized parking lots.

this great rta thread made me 40 minutes late today.

 

boo broken trains, yay beer.

 

the stewardess served beer while the train repairs were made?? Wow, RTA rocks!

yes, and I was offered the "wah, wah, RTA made me late to work today." ticket.

My preference is to have a station for that area located at West Boulevard to enable transfers to/from the Red Line. That gives inbound West Shore riders to quickly head to two downtown stations -- North Coast and Tower City -- plus the airport, University Circle, Shaker, Ohio City. The latter may be important to St. Ignatius boys and their parents, many of whom live in the West Shore.

 

I don't doubt this plan is very good.  However, I just think, if we're going to develop serious TOD at W. 117, I'd perfer rapid transit over commuter rail.  Not only that, the stub off the Red Line @ W. Blvd would be cheap -- an at-grade extension for less than a mile.  W. 117 & Detroit/Clifton already has lots population and retail; but w/ TOD, light-frequency, slow-boarding commuter rail, nice though it is, is not preferable with a close-in, high-density TOD development of the type... Sure, JoeC will jump half the way up Terminal Tower at the suggestion and commission a study to try and prove how buses are superior than rapid transit...

 

Also, btw, I agree w/ DaninDC that the West Blvd station should have TOD over parking.  That stretch btw Berea Rd and W. 110 along Detroit should be developed with apts/condos.  The Chicle development is good, but not nearly enough.

KJP, that sounds wonderful that Cudell Improvement Corp wants to create TOD at a potential commuter rail station at 117th.  Why the heck can't they promote TOD at the EXISTING Red Line station at W117th and Lorain?  I was appalled to see that the reconstruction of the station will feature a MASSIVE parking lot on premises.  What gives?

 

Given the population density of that vicinity, there is no reason you can't have thriving TOD at W117th, W98th/West Blvd, and Triskett.  All you have to do is get rid of the subsidized parking lots.

 

Cudell also has TOD at West 117th/Madison in its masterplan, and thus the city in its. Doesn't mean developers are listening. And RTA doesn't believe that a developer will want to use its parking lot for development instead. They will point to the yawn they got in return for offering up the development parcel at the EcoVillage station at West 65th and the sub-glacial development at the Brookpark station. Maybe RTA should swallow its pride and contract out its real estate marketing activities....

KJP, I don't suppose there is capacity on the rapid tracks to simply add the commuter train to the Red Line route East of W. Blvd, is there?  I's sure there are a zillion operational issues that would make this impossible, but I can imagine a commuter line hitting Tower City and UC with one seat having a lot more ridership draw than one hitting just the north coast station...

 

QUESTION WITHDRAWN: just saw discussion covering this in the Lorain commuter rail thread (the proper place).  Though it would be nice...

It's possible, but requires a different kind of train equipment (called diesel light rail). That's stuff has to be bought new, since it's a new kind of technology. And given Cleveland's reticence to do substantial transit-oriented projects except those meant to placate irritating interests, an interim service using second-hand train equipment is probably the way to go.

Question... When is Joe C.'s position open next? Does he have to step down or does someone new have to be selected for the position?

To my knowledge, Joe is not under contract nor is there a term of office for RTA's general manager. An RTA GM stays hired until he/she retires, resigns or is fired by the board.

^I thought JoeC was extended a year or so ago by the RTA Board, which seems very high on him.  I know he's much beloved by the PD and Crain's, which considers him a visionary.  Crain's especially praised Joe for his fiscal responsibility in favoring buses over expensive rail... Only in Cleveland can one be a hero for such a regressive orientation.

He may have been. I haven't followed his employment status.

^regardless of the technicalities, we're both saying the same thing: the dude's going to be helming RTA a looooooooong time.

can we get a light rail line up fairmont again?  We'd like to be able to zip downtown and beyond without having to transfer to a bus!