18 minutes ago, jtadams said:

 

My take: 

• A unified fleet always seemed to me to make more sense, presuming the stations can be retrofitted accordingly. 
• We don't have the ridership, now or in any foreseeable future, to require more than the capacity that light rail can offer.
• We can and do run light rail cars on the same tracks as heavy rail now, albeit, by necessity, with separate platforms to accommodate the height and width differences. 
• Converting the Green/Blue/Waterfront lines to use standard heavy rail cars would be a lot of work and expense, compared to converting the Red Lines to lower and wider platforms (to accommodate the more narrow light rail cars). 
• So if we're to have a unified fleet, which I think is ideal, light rail simply makes more sense than heavy.

 

Agreed, I didn't even think unifying with heavy rail was on the table.

43 minutes ago, KJP said:

"Heavy" refers to the extent of construction/infrastructure, not necessarily weight. In fact, the GCRTA light-rail cars are actually heavier than the heavy-rail cars. So "heavy" in this case would be akin to the difference between an Interstate highway and, say, a boulevard. Yes, the Interstate carries more people/vehicles faster because it's built in high travel-demand corridors with all grade-separated rights of way and fewer access points. But building them in most locations would be a misapplication of resources. By comparison, a boulevard might be a better application in more locations considering its lesser extent of infrastructure (at-grade intersection, more access points, less intrusive to neighborhoods, etc).

 

 

I saw that the light rail cars are 90,000 pounds and the heavy rail ones are 82,500 pounds.  Why is it that the light rail cars feel like they have more bounce and sway than the heavy rail cars, which feel more like riding a full size passenger train?

28 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I saw that the light rail cars are 90,000 pounds and the heavy rail ones are 82,500 pounds.  Why is it that the light rail cars feel like they have more bounce and sway than the heavy rail cars, which feel more like riding a full size passenger train?

 

Depends on the suspension systems and the maintenance of track. Put a decent light-rail car with a good suspension (like a Siemens LRV) on well-maintained track laid with concrete ties, and it should be as smooth as glass.

1 hour ago, jtadams said:

 

• Converting the Green/Blue/Waterfront lines to use standard heavy rail cars would be a lot of work and expense, compared to converting the Red Lines to lower and wider platforms (to accommodate the more narrow light rail cars). 
• So if we're to have a unified fleet, which I think is ideal, light rail simply makes more sense than heavy.

Agreed on your points overall. One note - per @KJP’s article, they probably won’t lower the Red Line platforms; rather, they would raise the tracks, because that will be less expensive and much faster. They would “widen” the platforms by using a cantilevered tactile edge, which is also a relatively inexpensive modification. 
 

Fingers crossed that we get a single car type system!

Ultimately the "light rail" cars will still be traveling through grade separated, heavy rail tracks on the red line portion, which is the most important part IMO.

All kinds of inaccurate info in Sam’s article on the $15M in federal funding for RTA red line. Perhaps someone who is on Twitter could ping him with better info?

 

https://m.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2020/09/11/dept-of-transportation-awards-rta-15-million-grant-for-red-line-fleet-upgrade

18 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

All kinds of inaccurate info in Sam’s article on the $15M in federal funding for RTA red line. Perhaps someone who is on Twitter could ping him with better info?

 

https://m.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2020/09/11/dept-of-transportation-awards-rta-15-million-grant-for-red-line-fleet-upgrade

 

He's just quoting the press releases from Sherrod Brown et al. I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Starting to hear calls (including in the Scene article above) about cutting funding for RTA police.  Seems to me that the very opposite would make more sense, albeit I'd rather they focused more on safety in general, and less on fare evasion.  Thoughts?  I for one think there is far too little police presence, not too much, at any RTA facility other than Tower City.  I also think that the CPD, while reasonably competent for the most part, already lacks both the staffing and the training to double as transit police.  But maybe I'm wrong?  I've rarely encountered problems on RTA buses or trains per se, but have been hassled quite a bit at some of the Red Line stations, and also have had friends robbed and badly beaten in several of them.  If the security situation deteriorates, then so will discretionary ridership as well as support for local funding options.  I'd much rather see it improve instead.

Also FYI I'd like to see fare evasion treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter, at least for first offenses.  I think I've stated this here before.  Many of the offenders are younger people and I don't want them having a criminal record for such a relatively minor thing, if it can be helped.  But harrassing/intimidating/robbing/beating passengers, drivers, etc.?  That's another matter entirely.  I have no patience for that sort of thing.

1 hour ago, jtadams said:

Starting to hear calls (including in the Scene article above) about cutting funding for RTA police.  Seems to me that the very opposite would make more sense, albeit I'd rather they focused more on safety in general, and less on fare evasion.  Thoughts?  I for one think there is far too little police presence, not too much, at any RTA facility other than Tower City.  I also think that the CPD, while reasonably competent for the most part, already lacks both the staffing and the training to double as transit police.  But maybe I'm wrong?  I've rarely encountered problems on RTA buses or trains per se, but have been hassled quite a bit at some of the Red Line stations, and also have had friends robbed and badly beaten in several of them.  If the security situation deteriorates, then so will discretionary ridership as well as support for local funding options.  I'd much rather see it improve instead.

 

If we could get rid of fares altogether, or only police fare evasion at turnstiles, that would allow the transit police to focus on policing in the stations and on the trains/buses.

2 hours ago, jtadams said:

Also FYI I'd like to see fare evasion treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter, at least for first offenses.  I think I've stated this here before.  Many of the offenders are younger people and I don't want them having a criminal record for such a relatively minor thing, if it can be helped.  But harrassing/intimidating/robbing/beating passengers, drivers, etc.?  That's another matter entirely.  I have no patience for that sort of thing.

 

Many transit agencies have civilian/non-law enforcement fare checkers. I think replacing more costly police officers and replacing them with more numerous civilian fare checkers is the way to go. Make the whole system either fare-free or have all fares purchased off-vehicle, such as at grocery stores, convenience stores and at rail/BRT stations and strategically placed transit kiosks with vending machines. It would dramatically speed boarding times and reduce costs per vehicle-hours of service (which average about $130-$140).

Edited September 14, 20204 yr by KJP

^It would seem to me that a free fare Sundays would be a good way to test that out.

Aside from the concern that civilian fare collectors might face some degree of harassment, I think maybe it's an idea worth pursuing.

 

 

A great step toward a free-fare system, and one by which the feasibility thereof might be determined, might be a reduced-fare system, where regular riders would be incentivized to buy weekly or monthly passes in some form, and perhaps, via RFID or some similar technology, automatically checked on boarding.  Similar to Amazon's automated stores where they basically do a more elaborate version of the same thing.  It's not 1980 anymore, and there are numerous technologies that could help us out.  I don't know that you can require advance purchases, but if there were a quick and easy way to make them via cell phone, without necessarily having to have a bank account (many of the transit-dependent aren't going to), it could be very strongly encouraged, by making it much cheaper than paying cash on boarding, which slows everyone down, etc.

 

Note that if we had even a small amount of additional funding, we also could try to reverse the "death spiral" by offering more frequent service along major corridors plus more reliable service to the places we can't serve frequently.  A bus every 45 minutes or every hour wouldn't be nearly so bad if one could be reasonably assured that it would arrive on time and make its connection to the next bus that also runs infrequently, and so forth and so on.  I actually think this is much more important than lowering fares.  A free bus isn't worth that much if it strands people for an hour in the freezing cold or in a sketchy part of town. 

AND

 

Edited September 15, 20204 yr by KJP

Just in case anyone's day didn't already suck.  ?

 

How do they manage to spend 2 years of stimulus money in barely 5 months?

 

 

Just because Congress gives you a check based on what they think you can get by on doesn't mean they actually provided what you needed, let alone asked you how much you needed. And I don't think anyone in Congress, at the Federal Transit Administration, the American Public Transportation Association or the individual transit agencies had any idea how much money they would actually need. How could they? Who has any experience with this situation?

14 hours ago, KJP said:

Just because Congress gives you a check based on what they think you can get by on doesn't mean they actually provided what you needed, let alone asked you how much you needed. And I don't think anyone in Congress, at the Federal Transit Administration, the American Public Transportation Association or the individual transit agencies had any idea how much money they would actually need. How could they? Who has any experience with this situation?

 

Valid points, but I think mine still stands.  If you were given, say, $5000, to supposedly last you for two years, wouldn't you try to try to budget and plan accordingly?  Wouldn't you also have taken into consideration that your expenses might be a good bit lower in the very near term (drastically less ridership, allowing significant reductions in service with less pain than those reductions would usually cause)?  Now, maybe GCRTA did.  I'm not privy to the thought process nor all of the information they would have about fixed versus variable costs.  Maybe they truly did the best they could.  It just seems odd to me for it to be gone so soon.

 

RTA briefly reduced operations but they've since been restored to pre-COVID service levels (except for all of the downtown trolleys). I seem to recall that one of the conditions of getting federal Cares Act money is that they wouldn't furlough people (that's 70 percent of RTA's operating costs right there) and that services would be restored to pre-COVID levels. And if Congress thought that this small (but greatly appreciated) amount money would last two years, then either they misunderstood the gravity of the situation or someone sold them a bill of goods.

17 hours ago, KJP said:

RTA briefly reduced operations but they've since been restored to pre-COVID service levels (except for all of the downtown trolleys). I seem to recall that one of the conditions of getting federal Cares Act money is that they wouldn't furlough people (that's 70 percent of RTA's operating costs right there) and that services would be restored to pre-COVID levels. And if Congress thought that this small (but greatly appreciated) amount money would last two years, then either they misunderstood the gravity of the situation or someone sold them a bill of goods.

 

OK.  Forgive me for yet another analogy.  But the feds just offered you that same $5,000, but a condition of that grant would be that you have to spend $50,000 that you otherwise would not have to.  Would it be wise to take that money?  It just doesn't take sense to me.  Federal money always comes with strings attached, and it is always wise IMO to make sure that the strings don't end up costing you more than taking that money is worth.

 

Let's skip the analogies because the actual situation is easier to explain and more accurate. The feds offered RTA about $110 million to keep the system (and the agency's fiscal situation) whole into 2022. Those funds came with strings, yes. The strings were to have no layoffs/furloughs and to submit a plan for returning service to pre-COVID levels. The CARES Act funds represent only about one-third of RTA's annual budgeted revenues, some of which must be transferred to the capital budget to support its capital plan, including the servicing of existing bond issues. So RTA returned to 93 percent of service by Aug. 10, excepting all of its park-n-ride and downtown trolleys, although it never laid-off/furloughed anyone.

 

At the time, that CARES funding amount seemed like a reasonable offer considering that COVID would be over by summer (remember the persons-infected curves that showed which states would return to zero cases by May, June and July?). There would be lingering effects post-pandemic to be sure, especially with the sales tax as it would take time for the economy for revive. Conversely, the sales tax revenue is recovering (98% of pre-COVID) much better than the ridership (58% of pre-COVID). So here we are heading into Fall with the pandemic still rolling and RTA still not fiscally recovered.

 

RTA had to take the money or it would be fiscally insolvent by now, including potentially defaulting on its debts. It could not cut its way to solvency because without it being able to transport essential/frontline workers, it would create a death spiral of economic hardship and further loss of revenues (sales tax and fare revenues), forcing additional cuts.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/ClevelandCityCouncil

Quiet here.

 

Any thoughts on the proposed redesign as it stands currently?  I've seen a few news articles, but with no links to any actual documents, that I could find at least.

 

One observation if I might: 

 

No matter what, we're going to have infrequently running services on non-core routes, possibly more than today.  That's necessary if we're to have better service on core routes as well as even slightly expanded coverage to job and other sites not served today.

 

Is there technology that could make it safer to ride infrequently scheduled routes?  By safer I really do mean safer.  Missing a connection when the next one is an hour or more away might mean risking a job, risking injury from exposure during winter months, and attracting unwanted attention at night or in questionable neighborhoods.

 

Keep in mind that few people will be riding on infrequent routes if they truly have another option, so, almost by definition, those who do ride are already vulnerable, and I would prefer to make them less so, not more, if I can help it.

 

One thought that keeps bouncing around my mind:  a smartphone app you could use to request that a specific connection be made as reliable as possible, perhaps by delaying the departure of the next vehicle by a few minutes if necessary, perhaps by trying to run a minute or two ahead of schedule if one is on a frequent service, perhaps in some cases even by presenting the passenger a different route that might be slower but more reliable under the specific conditions that exist at that time.

 

I know you can't really speed up or slow down a bus or train by very much without causing cascading problems down the line; however, I can't count the times I missed connections downtown by less than a minute, or how many times I made connections only by chasing and flagging down a bus that had already pulled away and hoping someone saw and had mercy on me.  ?

 

So I'm not saying wait a half hour for a bus that broke down or caught fire or crashed into a pickup truck; what I'm asking is, particularly with regard to the very infrequent services, how can we make it at least a little more likely that connections to and from those services will be made and not missed?

 

RTA does have a guaranteed ride home program so if you miss your bus or train you are supposed to be able to get a ride. I don't know if this applies to missed connections or just the last bus or train of the night kind of thing. I've never used it so I don't know. Perhaps it could be expanded to fill missed connections?

That would be awesome, but also much more practical if combined with efforts to avoid those missed connections in the first place.

http://www.riderta.com/nextgen

 

A lot to like.

 

There's a pretty clear shift away from rush-hour commute service (for instance, direct service to Park & Ride lots is mostly gone) and toward improving service for the transit dependent (e.g., extending coverage to Tri-C West Shore, and what looks like better reverse commutes, and of course improving frequency on core routes). 

I think that's a good thing, however mildly inconvenient it may be to some (including myself - the current frequent service on Clinton Rd. would become once an hour - but it hardly generates the numbers to justify more).

It was brought to my attention around a year ago that the Park & Ride services were money pits.  They were probably greatly underpriced.  I do notice that service to most of those lots is still there, just not necessarily via direct freeway service.  People with a choice are likely to drive instead.  But, given very limited funding, I'm more concerned about making sure people who don't have a choice are adequately served.  Perhaps the P&R services can come back in the future when and if the local economy improves sufficiently.

 

One concern, that I'm sure will force some modifications to the plan.  Euclid, home to many transit-dependent and also one of the more distant of the inner suburbs, doesn't have direct downtown service except during rush hour, and I imagine that transferring from the 10 to the most practical connecting line (probably the Red Line or HealthLine) is going to make it about a 100-110 minute trip from, say, 260th and Lakeshore.  28 to Windermere won't be much better.  I think Euclid is one of a handful of places that really does need regular freeway service, such as the 39 offered before it was largely replaced with the 30.

Up until a few years ago, I was a daily rider of the #239 Euclid Park-n-Ride.  It seemed like RTA didn't really care about the riders of that line.  First and foremost was the lack of decent security for the facility.  There was only one camera that panned the parking lot.  The quality of any images was questionable as the camera cover was clouded, either due to the plastic becoming dirty or opaque due aging.  People leaving their vehicles in the lot were subject to vandalism and theft.  Homeless individuals frequently spent the night inside the station building.  Whenever there was a shortage of highway coaches, the #239 was the first of the park-n-ride routes to see replacements with regular city coaches, usually the oldest leftovers in the garage.  Delays were normal due to equipment issues.

The problems went further than that.  There were drivers who couldn't keep the schedule.  It wasn't due to heavy traffic or accidents on I-90.  One regular driver didn't like to drive at freeway speeds.  If somebody doesn't like driving on a freeway, they shouldn't pick a route that is mainly a freeway route.  Another driver routinely was late every single morning--picking up breakfast came first.  People missed connections or were late.  Complaints to RTA fell on deaf ears, even those made by the RTA employees who rode that route.  A large percentage of riders on the #239 that worked for a firm that fully paid for transit passes could not get a stop added at their building.

These were the main factors in plummeting ridership on the line.  I fortunately had another transit option to get downtown and decided to switch to it.  In the summer of 2016, RTA eliminated the #239 and its direct run downtown.  It initially replaced it with a branch of the #39F that traveled from the park-n-ride lot to Lakeshore Blvd before getting on I-90 at East 185th Street.  It more than doubled the travel time downtown.  About a year later, that #39F branch became a #39 branch via Bratenahl, a one-way trip of an hour--4 times as long as what the #239 took.  The 300-car parking lot that not too long before was completely repaved would have 5 to 8 cars parked there (pre-COVID).  Many former #239 riders fortunately also had another transit option.

The point is this:  fixing problems that drove those passengers away really doesn't cost much. Having drivers maintain schedules should be a no-brainer.  Security cameras aren't that expensive, nor are clear covers.  Good maintenance not only improves reliability, but extends the lifespan of buses that cost nearly $500k (city coaches) to $620k (highway coaches).  RTA can devise all sorts of great sounding plans to improve service, but if they don't address inherent problems:  security, drivers, quality, maintenance and customer service, the outcome will be the same. 

 

 

Good stuff @LifeLongClevelander. These are the kind of service reports that prove useful. Recently departed GM Joe Calabrese wasn't a fan of the park-n-ride buses. They were the creation of his predecessor, Ron Tober, who saw them as a remedial version of his coveted commuter rail services on existing freight tracks. Note that some of the park-n-ride lots were put next to tracks that were considered for future commuter rail routes so they could easily be re-tasked as commuter rail stations someday.

 

Calabrese had no use for either park-n-ride buses or commuter trains, but found the political value in having the suburban park-n-ride services to the edges of the county. Still, these services were money pits. Their operating performances were second from the bottom at RTA -- exceeded only by the on-demand transit services like paratransit, but which has access to lots of health & human services funding.

I'll toss in on the security part of it. I've been trying to take the Red Line into the city when I can more and more often, especially for events like baseball games, but I've been harassed and seen other people harassed by people waiting at the adjacent bus station at the Madison/117th station. It's not a pleasant or safe feeling experience, especially when the person harassing you is screaming angry and, uh, we'll say explicit things at other people in your group. I also know I regularly see RTA transit police cruising all over the place in their patrol cars, so I know they have the resources to have a semi-regular presence at stations, but I've never seen one of them, feels like they're just usually parked on W. 6th.

Agree with your assessment of Calabrese.  Maintaining at least some sort of suburban park-n-ride services (or any regular suburban bus service) did provide political value.  If those services were eliminated, he may have faced a revolt of the suburban communities where a referendum could originate to eliminate the 1.0% county-wide sales tax.  If that tax were repealed, it would be the end of RTA.  When the 2016 service cuts were initially announced, the #7 Monticello/Wilson Mills to SOM Center and Mayfield Road (formerly the #7A) was going to be truncated to Richmond Road.  The mayors of Highland Heights and Mayfield Village balked at completely losing their only bus route.  RTA relented and maintained some service beyond Richmond Road. 

Honestly, in my opinion, if a service did not help or in other ways detracted from his "baby" the HealthLine, Calabrese had no use for it.  The overall impact to system the held no significance, just as long as the numbers for the HealthLine "appeared" to be good.  That is unfortunate as if the HealthLine was viewed as complimenting service instead of a competing service, the impact could have been positive system-wide.

So far I am liking the proposed changes to the bus routes.  I was pleasantly surprised to see the 26 line extended to Crocker Park and more service on the 25 line that will now service Steelyard Commons. Although I think they should add a MetroHealth Stop to the 25 line.  Otherwise it is looking pretty good.  I'd like to see bus only lanes in areas where it is possible and other improvements to speed up buses. 

 

Edited October 20, 20204 yr by freefourur

http://www.riderta.com/service-alerts/waterfront-line-construction?s=09

Quote

 

Effective Monday, October 26, Waterfront Line rail service will be temporarily suspended until spring 2021 due to a new phase in the ongoing track rehabilitation project in the Tower City Station area.

 

Due to low ridership on the Waterfront Line, no #67R replacement bus service will be operated during this service suspension.

 

For trip planning assistance, please go to our website at www.rideRTA.com or call the RTAnswerline at 216-621-9500. The RTAnswerline is staffed Monday - Friday, 7 a.m.-6 p.m. and Saturday, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

 

East of Tower City, the Blue and Green Lines will operate their regular schedule. A new timetable with an effective date of October 26, 2020 will be available shortly.

 

We apologize for the inconvenience.

 

The WFL having such low ridership that the RTA isn't even bothering with a replacement bus is simultaneously depressing, comical, and unsurprising.

I've seen the future, and it's electric....  Greensboro, NC chooses electric buses.  Not to be "green" but to save "green."

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/04/greensboro-n-c-invests-in-electric-buses/

^That seems like a no brainer.  Start and stop vehicles are pretty ideal for at the least hybrids if not fully electric.  There is also flywheel technology that could be used. 

   The amount of engine maintenance and of course constant fuel over the life of a bus is a fairly sizable amount of money being constantly thrown at non-electric buses. 

One doesn't need to go to Greensboro, NC to see a similar system being implemented.  Lake County's LAKETRAN system is in the process of getting ready to add electric battery powered buses to its city transit coach fleet.  On Lakeland Blvd, just east of the Lloyd Road/Route 2 freeway ramps, they are rebuilding their park-n-ride facility to include battery recharging stations for their regular transit coaches for their routes 2 and 3.  The facility is shared with the highway coaches that will remain with "clean" diesel engines.  They are going to replace 12 of their city-type coaches next year with the new electric buses. 

Other routes will have electric buses, too.  Don't know what LAKETRAN's plans are for the entire system.  They just expanded their local routes from 7 to 9 with the 2 newest routes added to the Mentor area.  One of the two new routes, plus Route #7, the Lakeland Community College circulator, are operated with dial-a-ride type buses which are transitioning to propane powered fleet.  As it is, their current 16 transit buses may be near system capacity to provide service on the expanded number of routes.   

 

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by LifeLongClevelander
corrected error

23 hours ago, jawn said:

http://www.riderta.com/service-alerts/waterfront-line-construction?s=09

The WFL having such low ridership that the RTA isn't even bothering with a replacement bus is simultaneously depressing, comical, and unsurprising.

 

I responded here.......

 

 

I like the idea of extending the WFL to the eastern section of downtown, especially if it then loops all the way back to E.34.

 

But it's an even better idea if the whole system gets converted to light rail first, because, then, at least westbound Red Line trips could use the new loop just as easily as the Green and Blue.  Maybe eastbound too if there is some safe way these trains could change directions and tracks after stopping at Tower City.

 

Some stations on all three lines serve as park & ride lots.  Providing a one-seat trip from those stations to within a half mile of most of downtown seems like a huge win, and a great way to get people at least partially out of their cars and into trains again.

 

Of course, this presumes a level of growth and capital funding that isn't really on the horizon yet, but, if 2020 has taught us anything, it's that the future can be unpredictable, and, hopefully, this works in both ways (e.g., things can get unexpectedly better, not just unexpectedly worse).

On 10/21/2020 at 9:23 AM, KJP said:

 

I responded here.......

 

 

2005!

Remember when the Pinacle condos was the everything in downtown development?

On 9/17/2020 at 9:44 AM, KJP said:

Let's skip the analogies because the actual situation is easier to explain and more accurate. The feds offered RTA about $110 million to keep the system (and the agency's fiscal situation) whole into 2022. Those funds came with strings, yes. The strings were to have no layoffs/furloughs and to submit a plan for returning service to pre-COVID levels. The CARES Act funds represent only about one-third of RTA's annual budgeted revenues, some of which must be transferred to the capital budget to support its capital plan, including the servicing of existing bond issues. So RTA returned to 93 percent of service by Aug. 10, excepting all of its park-n-ride and downtown trolleys, although it never laid-off/furloughed anyone.

 

At the time, that CARES funding amount seemed like a reasonable offer considering that COVID would be over by summer (remember the persons-infected curves that showed which states would return to zero cases by May, June and July?). There would be lingering effects post-pandemic to be sure, especially with the sales tax as it would take time for the economy for revive. Conversely, the sales tax revenue is recovering (98% of pre-COVID) much better than the ridership (58% of pre-COVID). So here we are heading into Fall with the pandemic still rolling and RTA still not fiscally recovered.

 

RTA had to take the money or it would be fiscally insolvent by now, including potentially defaulting on its debts. It could not cut its way to solvency because without it being able to transport essential/frontline workers, it would create a death spiral of economic hardship and further loss of revenues (sales tax and fare revenues), forcing additional cuts.

 

 

I was wrong. RTA has come through the pandemic in amazing shape. Yes, passenger fare revenues fell by nearly 50 percent -- but most of RTA's revenues come from the sales tax and that has been basically unchanged (albeit still an estimate). So RTA is in great shape -- especially since it got $112 million in federal CARES Act funding for which it can use for operating or capital needs. So RTA is using some of it this year and next to cope with the decline in passenger fares. And they're planning to transfer more general fund revenue (including CARES Act money) into their capital budget to fund the missing part of the first half of the rail fleet replacement and to fund other projects (I think Tower City track improvements, but not sure). And there may be other state-of-good-repair projects they can fund, and possibly to undertake the planning and engineering for expansion projects (Downtown Loop??). Here are the fiscal basics.....

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Hey Ken PLEASE apply for this job. 😀😀😀

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hey Ken PLEASE apply for this job. 😀😀😀

 

I looked at it but there was nothing there. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in a potential future employer....

 

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by Mendo

7 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

 

Here is a link to it as well: 

 

https://websrvor15.gcrta.org:8000/OA_HTML/OA.jsp?page=/oracle/apps/irc/candidateSelfService/webui/VisVacDispPG&OAHP=IRC_EXT_SITE_VISITOR_APPL&OASF=IRC_VIS_VAC_DISPLAY&akRegionApplicationId=821&transactionid=434562103&retainAM=N&addBreadCrumb=RP&p_svid=23247&p_spid=1160007&oapc=14&oas=KGek7hMkKpLXnf6qDAvxTg..

Interesting. That job was announced on Twitter this morning. So I applied for it. This afternoon, I got this response.....

 

Posted by: Milliron, Donald Frederick
Content: Dear Applicant, Thank you for applying to the Project Assistant position with the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA). However, we have decided to pursue other candidates whose skills and work experience more closely fit the needs of this position with the GCRTA at this time. Thank you for your interest in employment opportunities with the GCRTA.

all 130 rta cops to get body cameras:

 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/safety-security/news/21164775/oh-greater-cleveland-rta-police-to-get-body-cameras

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to get confirmation about this latest federal stimulus. It has $14 billion in it for public transportation. IF those funds are distributed with the same urban formula as the CARES Act (which had $25 billion for transit), GCRTA might expect to receive $62 million. That can be used to pay for capital or operating expenses.

OK, here's the detail about the funding that will be awarded from the second federal stimulus. This time, it will not be awarded to transit agencies but to metropolitan planning organizations, ie: NOACA. According to this spreadsheet, NOACA will receive $74,275,418 for transit stimulus.... 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FOkVoRiFB4tP7cPRakRYZJj7skl3ihtonA68_L7FiRg/edit#gid=16040283

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

OK, here's the detail about the funding that will be awarded from the second federal stimulus. This time, it will not be awarded to transit agencies but to metropolitan planning organizations, ie: NOACA. According to this spreadsheet, NOACA will receive $74,275,418 for transit stimulus.... 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FOkVoRiFB4tP7cPRakRYZJj7skl3ihtonA68_L7FiRg/edit#gid=16040283

 

Is it likely that they will then distribute it the funds to GCRTA and other organizations?  

23 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

 

Is it likely that they will then distribute it the funds to GCRTA and other organizations?  

 

Yes, for each transit agency's operating or capital needs. AAO may urge NOACA and RTA to restore some of the service cuts from 2008 and to help RTA implement its new service plans. It may also fund some of RTA's capital improvement backlog including rail car replacements, rebuilding rail infrastructure, replacing the HealthLine buses and some un-sexy stuff like improving maintenance facilities, equipment, etc. But since this is a stimulus, it should be used to get people to jobs and create jobs. One job-creating aspect could be to fund the  site prep costs transit-oriented developments like RTA's plan for the Ohio City station, or NOACA's plans for the West Boulevard station, the East 116th station, or the Slavic Village bus corridor. Perhaps they could also create a low-interest loan program for transit agencies, CDCs or municipalities to apply to help offset site-prep (enviro assessments, remediation, demolition, infrastructure, other land expenses) costs for TOD projects?