I never saw an answer to this question, how many trains will the new UC AND Little Italy platforms be able to hold at once? With the change to a more dense neighborhood in LI and rail ridership increasing I would hope at least 4 trains could be held at once.

 

Each station will have two tracks with an "island" platform in between the tracks. All railroads that have electric or electronic signalling system that govern the safe movement of rail traffic have their tracks divided into segments or "blocks." Each block is allowed to accommodate one train and to keep other trains from entering that block, the block is protected by, at minimum, a trackside signal displaying stop, caution/restricted speed, and clear/track speed indicators. A clear signal is typically displayed when the next two blocks ahead are clear of rail traffic. A caution signal is typically displayed when the next block is clear of rail traffic but the block beyond it is occupied. And a stop signal is displayed when the next block is occupied. The signals are activated by low-voltage electrical current running through the rails. A trains wheels and axle are all one piece and "complete the circuit" between the two rails which causes trackside signals (as well as crossing gates, etc) to activate. BTW, if you ever seen an obstruction on the tracks, take the jumper cables out of your car and connect the rails with them to activate the signaling system to stop all rail traffic on the line, then call 911.

 

While all signaled railroad blocks are protected by trackside signals, some have more elaborate systems of protection. GCRTA has one such system called Automatic Train Stop in place on all of its Red Line and part of its Blue and Green lines. If a Red Line train enters an occupied block, the operator gets a stop signal displayed in the cab accompanied by an awful-sounding noise and the train's brakes are activated. The train's operator cannot move the train any further until the next block is cleared of rail traffic. RTA's maintenance of way department can also program (or code) certain blocks with caution indications if track work is being done in that area to force trains to slow down. Unfortunately, these coded track circuits stay coded in off-peak periods when workers aren't working, or remain in force after the work appears to be done just in case some wrap-up work is needed.

 

So the point of all this is that trains (especially Red Line trains) cannot occupy the same platform at the same time. At Tower City Center, GCRTA is able to operate trains more closely together because the blocks are shorter. But this comes with signal-enforced speed restrictions through the terminal area. So if you ever wondered why GCRTA enter and leave the station so slowly, that's why.

 

Also, other factors limiting the ability of having more trains stop at the same platform is the length of a platform. A 270-300 foot platform will comfortably accommodate a three-car Red Line train with room to spare. A platform more than twice as long will be needed to accommodate two trains on the same track combined with extremely short signal blocks and signal-enforced speed restrictions in the vicinity of the station. Also, the Red Line schedule would have to be adjusted to accommodate having more than two trains in these stations at any one time.

 

Rest assured, if ridership grows significantly at these two University Circle stations due to continued economic growth nearby and the relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, it won't create a unique circumstance concerning station use. Instead, it will start to create the kind of ridership that's common at enroute stations on most heavy-rail system and on many light-rail systems. And most of those stations are served by no more than two trains at a time with headways already common on the West Side Red Line.

I never saw an answer to this question, how many trains will the new UC AND Little Italy platforms be able to hold at once? With the change to a more dense neighborhood in LI and rail ridership increasing I would hope at least 4 trains could be held at once.

 

Each station will have two tracks with an "island" platform in between the tracks. All railroads that have electric or electronic signalling system that govern the safe movement of rail traffic have their tracks divided into segments or "blocks." Each block is allowed to accommodate one train and to keep other trains from entering that block, the block is protected by, at minimum, a trackside signal displaying stop, caution/restricted speed, and clear/track speed indicators. A clear signal is typically displayed when the next two blocks ahead are clear of rail traffic. A caution signal is typically displayed when the next block is clear of rail traffic but the block beyond it is occupied. And a stop signal is displayed when the next block is occupied. The signals are activated by low-voltage electrical current running through the rails. A trains wheels and axle are all one piece and "complete the circuit" between the two rails which causes trackside signals (as well as crossing gates, etc) to activate. BTW, if you ever seen an obstruction on the tracks, take the jumper cables out of your car and connect the rails with them to activate the signaling system to stop all rail traffic on the line, then call 911.

 

While all signaled railroad blocks are protected by trackside signals, some have more elaborate systems of protection. GCRTA has one such system called Automatic Train Stop in place on all of its Red Line and part of its Blue and Green lines. If a Red Line train enters an occupied block, the operator gets a stop signal displayed in the cab accompanied by an awful-sounding noise and the train's brakes are activated. The train's operator cannot move the train any further until the next block is cleared of rail traffic. RTA's maintenance of way department can also program (or code) certain blocks with caution indications if track work is being done in that area to force trains to slow down. Unfortunately, these coded track circuits stay coded in off-peak periods when workers aren't working, or remain in force after the work appears to be done just in case some wrap-up work is needed.

 

So the point of all this is that trains (especially Red Line trains) cannot occupy the same platform at the same time. At Tower City Center, GCRTA is able to operate trains more closely together because the blocks are shorter. But this comes with signal-enforced speed restrictions through the terminal area. So if you ever wondered why GCRTA enter and leave the station so slowly, that's why.

 

Also, other factors limiting the ability of having more trains stop at the same platform is the length of a platform. A 270-300 foot platform will comfortably accommodate a three-car Red Line train with room to spare. A platform more than twice as long will be needed to accommodate two trains on the same track combined with extremely short signal blocks and signal-enforced speed restrictions in the vicinity of the station. Also, the Red Line schedule would have to be adjusted to accommodate having more than two trains in these stations at any one time.

 

Rest assured, if ridership grows significantly at these two University Circle stations due to continued economic growth nearby and the relocation of the East 120th station to Little Italy, it won't create a unique circumstance concerning station use. Instead, it will start to create the kind of ridership that's common at enroute stations on most heavy-rail system and on many light-rail systems. And most of those stations are served by no more than two trains at a time with headways already common on the West Side Red Line.

I appreciate the extensive response but maybe I should have been more specific when I said train I meant to add the word cars behind it. So I was basically wondering how long the platforms of the new stations will be. So looking at your last paragraph I'm assuming both new stations will be able to hold 3 cars comfortably on both sides of the island platform.

 

Yep, about 300 feet. I believe that's how long the station platforms will be. I think the only station with shorter platforms is East 105th-Quincy, which has a 90-foot-long platform. All Aboard Ohio is recommending that this platform be lengthened to at least 200 feet and preferably 300 feet with a station access point on the east side of East 105th, coincident with the rebuilding of East 105th for the Opportunity Corridor. For more, see: http://freepdfhosting.com/8f1055f7ad.pdf

^^I'll give RTA it's due; moving trains in an out of Tower City, esp during rush periods, has got to be difficult... I think the situation on the East Side is compounded with single-car, rush hour Blue/Green trains, which will necessarily hamper any attempt to add greater Red Line peak trains to the new Little Italy station, should increasing patronage warrant it.  The Blue-Green rush hour frequency is great, but I think 2-car trains, at say 12/15 min frequencies, could be just as effective and free up track space for more eastbound Red Line trains. 

^^I'll give RTA it's due; moving trains in an out of Tower City, esp during rush periods, has got to be difficult... I think the situation on the East Side is compounded with single-car, rush hour Blue/Green trains, which will necessarily hamper any attempt to add greater Red Line peak trains to the new Little Italy station, should increasing patronage warrant it.  The Blue-Green rush hour frequency is great, but I think 2-car trains, at say 12/15 min frequencies, could be just as effective and free up track space for more eastbound Red Line trains.

 

If you think about it RTA is running 12 west bound Green/blue trains per hour + 4  westbound redline trains per hour.

 

that's only 16 trains per hours on a system that can handle. 30 trains per hour. ( read the redline extension study documents) all are governed by a Automatic stop and over speed controls.

 

To make it even more interesting only 8 of the 12 Blue/green trains go though tower city, 4 or more park in the pocket track 4 continue to the waterfront line and everyone else waits on  the Viaduct for 5 mins before changing direction.

 

As we should be looking at converting the entire system to Light Rail you can change the way the current system operates.

 

An example would be the ability to allow shaker Rapid LRT trains to continue through tower city to the airport during peak hours.

 

At peak only 1/3 shaker trains continue to the waterfront line.  the other 2/3 trains idle for 5 mins before changing directions.

 

On the Redline you have 8 trains per hour into tower City, only 1/2 trains continue to Windermere, those 4 trains spend 7 mins Idling before changing direction, this total out to 4.4 hours per weekday.

 

over an entire year this Equals, 1,144 hours of idle time. by combining the peak Green line trains with peak Redline trains, you could save 1,144 * $256-270 per hour= $294-310,000 per year.

 

Little things can make a big difference.

 

 

 

 

^I don't believe in converting the system to LRT, if that means lowering the Red Line platforms, which I think would be a shortsighted and expensive mistake.  High platform rail transit, with its quick boarding/unloading and ADA friendly access, is the ultimate in rail transit.  If you have it, why get rid of it?  This is even more true for airport passengers who can carry or roll their bags directly onto trains as opposed to lugging them up and down steps.  The Red Line moved to POP in 2010, so there isn’t the added cost of fare takers or electronic barrier control… Yeah, I know "low floor" LRT trains, which are all the rage, allow more of a step on board scenario, but those split-level cars are rather cramped, with low floor seats in the middle and step-up higher sections on each end.

 

Maybe the development of a high/low "universal" car makes more sense, although keeping the separate Red (HRT) vs. Green/Blue (LRT) would be fine with me... Even though a number of people in the Shaker Hts corridor use the airport, I just don't see that relatively small cadre as making such a major conversion as worth the huge cost.  I think more Airport users and West Siders, generally, do (and more will) ride trains to/from University Circle area stations, especially when E. 120 is relocated to Little Italy.  I think that the continued development of the Flats East Bank area will make the Waterfront Line as more of an attractive through service from Shaker.

 

Slow boarding was endemic to light-rail before the development of low-floor LRT vehicles. Today, Cleveland has a heavy-rail line with light-rail ridership. The extent of infrastructure built for a heavy rail is extremely expensive to maintain (and to replicate with future extensions), but can be justified with high ridership. The Red Line's current weekday ridership of 25,000+ justifies the extent of infrastructure needed for light rail -- not heavy rail. As you probably know, many light-rail lines far surpass the Red Line's ridership. In my mind, in order to save Cleveland's rail system, we have to right-size its infrastructure (stations, vehicles, support facilities, etc) to bring its operating costs down. Only then can we get GCRTA to support expansion of the system.

 

This is one such right-sizing -- to reposition or otherwise modify stations to locations where they can tap more TOD potential, and develop planning for TOD with supportive zoning, incentives, etc...

 

ODOT urged to add transit, TOD in Cleveland’s ‘Opportunity Corridor’

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2267.msg691765.html#msg691765

^I don't believe in converting the system to LRT, if that means lowering the Red Line platforms, which I think would be a shortsighted and expensive mistake.  High platform rail transit, with its quick boarding/unloading and ADA friendly access, is the ultimate in rail transit.  If you have it, why get rid of it?  This is even more true for airport passengers who can carry or roll their bags directly onto trains as opposed to lugging them up and down steps.  The Red Line moved to POP in 2010, so there isn’t the added cost of fare takers or electronic barrier control… Yeah, I know "low floor" LRT trains, which are all the rage, allow more of a step on board scenario, but those split-level cars are rather cramped, with low floor seats in the middle and step-up higher sections on each end.

 

Maybe the development of a high/low "universal" car makes more sense, although keeping the separate Red (HRT) vs. Green/Blue (LRT) would be fine with me... Even though a number of people in the Shaker Hts corridor use the airport, I just don't see that relatively small cadre as making such a major conversion as worth the huge cost.  I think more Airport users and West Siders, generally, do (and more will) ride trains to/from University Circle area stations, especially when E. 120 is relocated to Little Italy.  I think that the continued development of the Flats East Bank area will make the Waterfront Line as more of an attractive through service from Shaker.

 

Hi/low cars still have stairs. Low floor vehicles don't have stairs and better meet the future needs of this system. Which BTW is to not be converted to bus. By definition those high-low vehicles are Light-rail vehicles.

 

RTA owns 106 rail vehicles they only need 40-45 of them to provide service. This is another cost burden that does nothing to improve the experience of the rider.

 

AFAIK the redline has the lowest ridership of any heavy rail system in the country.

 

The blue and green line is 3rd from the bottom on LRT ridership in the country.

 

Back to costs, the cost per hour of our heavy rail system is $270 per hour, in newer light rail systems that cost is roughly $180 per hour.  Joe clabreeze like to complain about the cost of our rail system being %40 of his budget and 30% of ridership, our old system and our overbuilt system are the reason for this.

 

If Rail expansion is to happen in Cleveland the system needs to lower cost to operate and expand you simply cannot make the case for bevy rail expansion in Cleveland.  It too expensive and there isn't enough money to operate it.

 

Going to the airport isn't the point, the point is to be more efficient in providing service. The airport is the end of the line not the goal. Remember transit isn't about endpoints its about the pairs of stops in between those endpoints there the airport itself isn't a strong generator of ridership but there is demand for people to Travel between shaker square and Ohio city, or west 117th and Beachwood.  If running the green line to the airport helps pay for system expansion.

 

It may turnout cheaper to lower all redline platforms than to continue to maintain a pair of ADA lifts at all 34 LRT stations and pay the additional expense of a hi/low vehicle or to buy two separate vehicles.  The logical choice is a low floor light rail vehicles.

 

Something like this would be fine.

 

 

 

Being on the tapatalk app I can't see certain pictures so I'm not sure if this was posted but a pipe burst in TC around 7:30

Jeez. RTA sure has had a rough week

Being on the tapatalk app I can't see certain pictures so I'm not sure if this was posted but a pipe burst in TC around 7:30

 

Its the entire mall has had pipe bursting issues.

 

My office was flooded at thensustanable Cleveland center.

 

The movie theater has a pipe burst at 3am on Tuesday, the water leak than it froze, some poor guy had his car covered in 3ins of ice, because a pip burst above where he parked.

 

The food court was partially shut down today, too.

Being on the tapatalk app I can't see certain pictures so I'm not sure if this was posted but a pipe burst in TC around 7:30

 

Its the entire mall has had pipe bursting issues.

 

My office was flooded at thensustanable Cleveland center.

 

The movie theater has a pipe burst at 3am on Tuesday, the water leak than it froze, some poor guy had his car covered in 3ins of ice, because a pip burst above where he parked.

 

The food court was partially shut down today, too.

Wow those freezing temps sure have done their damage.

Flooding at track level....

 

https://twitter.com/WEWS/status/421462676049379329/photo/1

Slow boarding was endemic to light-rail before the development of low-floor LRT vehicles. Today, Cleveland has a heavy-rail line with light-rail ridership. The extent of infrastructure built for a heavy rail is extremely expensive to maintain (and to replicate with future extensions), but can be justified with high ridership. The Red Line's current weekday ridership of 25,000+ justifies the extent of infrastructure needed for light rail -- not heavy rail. As you probably know, many light-rail lines far surpass the Red Line's ridership. In my mind, in order to save Cleveland's rail system, we have to right-size its infrastructure (stations, vehicles, support facilities, etc) to bring its operating costs down. Only then can we get GCRTA to support expansion of the system.

 

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2267.msg691765.html#msg691765

 

Outside of the obviously larger and heavier vehicles, what added costs are you talking about?  The current HRT/Red Line stations are unmanned just as LRT stations.  And with off street stations, such as Red Line stations, you're going to need modern infrastructure to insure the ease and safety of passengers.  North Coast station on the Waterfront Line is typical of stations on the Red Line -- I'm talking about stations like West Blvd Cudell, not the "palaces" you say Ron Tober built in the 90s... So where's the big cost savings?  I think you paint an overly dire picture of today's system.  Yeah, we know about the small patronage.  It's been lower than expected since Albert Porter killed the subway in the 1950s ... this is nothing new.  RTA, to their credit, is making the system work even though we know it's expensive.  It's a fact of life: Rapid Transit is expensive.  The POP fare system has saved costs, and the ridership is bouncing back nicely.  RTA has also cut some duplicative (of rail and other bus routes) bus lines.    Short of converting the Rapid system into a useless street trolley, I don't see the utility in spending 100s of millions of dollars, allegedly, to save 100s of millions of dollars.  I think we're chasing our tail here...

 

I do agree with your TOD piece, and relocating some stations -- like E. 79 to E. 89 Buckeye-Woodland, to increase TOD and ridership... Universal high-low platform cars, yes... jackhammering high level platforms for low-level, LRT Shaker-like boarding, ... absolutely not.

 

Hi/low cars still have stairs. Low floor vehicles don't have stairs and better meet the future needs of this system. Which BTW is to not be converted to bus. By definition those high-low vehicles are Light-rail vehicles.

 

RTA owns 106 rail vehicles they only need 40-45 of them to provide service. This is another cost burden that does nothing to improve the experience of the rider.

 

AFAIK the redline has the lowest ridership of any heavy rail system in the country.

 

The blue and green line is 3rd from the bottom on LRT ridership in the country.

 

Back to costs, the cost per hour of our heavy rail system is $270 per hour, in newer light rail systems that cost is roughly $180 per hour.  Joe clabreeze like to complain about the cost of our rail system being %40 of his budget and 30% of ridership, our old system and our overbuilt system are the reason for this.

 

If Rail expansion is to happen in Cleveland the system needs to lower cost to operate and expand you simply cannot make the case for bevy rail expansion in Cleveland.  It too expensive and there isn't enough money to operate it.

 

Going to the airport isn't the point, the point is to be more efficient in providing service. The airport is the end of the line not the goal. Remember transit isn't about endpoints its about the pairs of stops in between those endpoints there the airport itself isn't a strong generator of ridership but there is demand for people to Travel between shaker square and Ohio city, or west 117th and Beachwood.  If running the green line to the airport helps pay for system expansion.

 

It may turnout cheaper to lower all redline platforms than to continue to maintain a pair of ADA lifts at all 34 LRT stations and pay the additional expense of a hi/low vehicle or to buy two separate vehicles.  The logical choice is a low floor light rail vehicles.

 

Something like this would be fine.

 

 

Your general point is well taken.  Quite obviously we have way more cars than are needed to operate the system at current passenger levels.  When RTA made the car purchases in the early 1980s, it was no doubt responding to the explosive growth in riders upon the creation of RTA and the drop to 35-cent fairs (not to mention, for the 1st time, free transfers between the Shaker Rapid and the rest of the old CTS bus and rail network).  And as I said, I don’t object to smaller and even universal high-low LRT-type cars for the entire system.  Other Cities, like Pittsburgh, uses them… But this wacky idea to bulldoze the Red Line high platforms into low platforms to the tune of several hundred million bucks with no real showing of cost saving, simply doesn’t make sense. 

 

OK, so we have among the lowest ridership for heavy and light rail in the country.  Big deal.  We know, also, that we have a local leadership that is ignorant to urban environmental improvements that could boost rail… namely TOD.  Maybe we need to focus on that rather than wringing our hands about low ridership… And if you think RTA’s got it tough cost-wise, consider Philadelphia’s 200+ mile, fully-electrified commuter rail system, where most lines carry equal-to-or less than RTA’s and are all, but 2 o 3, longer (considerably longer) than RTA’s Rapid lines… And SEPTA’s regional rail uses standard railroad-size (very heavy) rail cars – with conductors!..  So what did SEPTA do?  They just got their legislature to pass a $300M transit bill to upgrade infrastructure and improve rail service…  I think improvements (TOD and otherwise) is what we need to focus on rather than wasting time talking about downgrading or rail system.

 

Hey, I saw in the comments "you know where" that RTA's supposedly running a route out towards Northfield Park.  is that indeed the case?

Bad headline.. doing a quick skim it reads like shots were fired at an RTA station. But that is not the case.

But at least I-90 remains closed!! :-o

Slow boarding was endemic to light-rail before the development of low-floor LRT vehicles. Today, Cleveland has a heavy-rail line with light-rail ridership. The extent of infrastructure built for a heavy rail is extremely expensive to maintain (and to replicate with future extensions), but can be justified with high ridership. The Red Line's current weekday ridership of 25,000+ justifies the extent of infrastructure needed for light rail -- not heavy rail. As you probably know, many light-rail lines far surpass the Red Line's ridership. In my mind, in order to save Cleveland's rail system, we have to right-size its infrastructure (stations, vehicles, support facilities, etc) to bring its operating costs down. Only then can we get GCRTA to support expansion of the system.

 

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2267.msg691765.html#msg691765

 

Outside of the obviously larger and heavier vehicles, what added costs are you talking about?  The current HRT/Red Line stations are unmanned just as LRT stations.  And with off street stations, such as Red Line stations, you're going to need modern infrastructure to insure the ease and safety of passengers.  North Coast station on the Waterfront Line is typical of stations on the Red Line -- I'm talking about stations like West Blvd Cudell, not the "palaces" you say Ron Tober built in the 90s... So where's the big cost savings?  I think you paint an overly dire picture of today's system.

 

Heavy Rail is heavy it create more wear and tear on the system than light rail and per mile it is more expensive to maintain becuase it is designed for higher speeds.

 

the overhead lines (OHL) for the Redline are prone to failure due to its age, and is in need of an upgrade.

 

the reason RTA will not run 3 car trains is because the low voltage of system (600VDC) running thru OHL creates extreme waste of energy because they are so heavy and the system is soo old.

 

Taken in total, the best decision is to convert the system to light rail which better matches the way the system is being used.

 

BTW 65% of the operating cost of the Redline goes to maintenance vs 56% for the blue/green lines, compared with 41% for Portland's MAX light rail system.

 

Yeah, we know about the small patronage.  It's been lower than expected since Albert Porter killed the subway in the 1950s ... this is nothing new.

 

Nothing new?  it time to,let go of the past and look to the future where the system we have today in some places dates back to the 1930s and was built for a different time.

 

You bringing up a subway that never happen over 50 years ago, reinforces the point that some believe rail is more for vanity than it is for efficiently moving people around the region.  Cleveland not having a heavy rail system doesn't mean we are any less for it, light rail for all intents and purposes replaced heavy rail Decades ago.  it's time we right sized our system so that we can grow our system again.

 

 

RTA, to their credit, is making the system work even though we know it's expensive.  It's a fact of life: Rapid Transit is expensive.  The POP fare system has saved costs, and the ridership is bouncing back nicely.  RTA has also cut some duplicative (of rail and other bus routes) bus lines.

 

 

RTA has done well with what they have, but eventually you have to replace the rolling stock, and stop putting band aids on a 80 year old system. as the fleet ages the cost to operate the rail system will continue to grow.

 

We all need to face this fact.

 

Short of converting the Rapid system into a useless street trolley, I don't see the utility in spending 100s of millions of dollars, allegedly, to save 100s of millions of dollars.  I think we're chasing our tail here...

 

those trolleys have a top speed of 50mph, the blue and green have a top speed of 55mph, the term rapid isn't exclusive to HRT or LRT it is a condition of the ROW.

 

I do agree with your TOD piece, and relocating some stations -- like E. 79 to E. 89 Buckeye-Woodland, to increase TOD and ridership... Universal high-low platform cars, yes... jackhammering high level platforms for low-level, LRT Shaker-like boarding, ... absolutely not.

 

 

Universal high level? that makes no sense at all. 

 

Most new Redline station have platforms built on pylons designed to easy conversion to low-level platforms, in some cases it would be easier to raise the tracks up than to lower the platform.

 

low level platforms aren't bad.

 

Hi/low cars still have stairs. Low floor vehicles don't have stairs and better meet the future needs of this system. Which BTW is to not be converted to bus. By definition those high-low vehicles are Light-rail vehicles.

 

RTA owns 106 rail vehicles they only need 40-45 of them to provide service. This is another cost burden that does nothing to improve the experience of the rider.

 

AFAIK the redline has the lowest ridership of any heavy rail system in the country.

 

The blue and green line is 3rd from the bottom on LRT ridership in the country.

 

Back to costs, the cost per hour of our heavy rail system is $270 per hour, in newer light rail systems that cost is roughly $180 per hour.  Joe clabreeze like to complain about the cost of our rail system being %40 of his budget and 30% of ridership, our old system and our overbuilt system are the reason for this.

 

If Rail expansion is to happen in Cleveland the system needs to lower cost to operate and expand you simply cannot make the case for bevy rail expansion in Cleveland.  It too expensive and there isn't enough money to operate it.

 

Going to the airport isn't the point, the point is to be more efficient in providing service. The airport is the end of the line not the goal. Remember transit isn't about endpoints its about the pairs of stops in between those endpoints there the airport itself isn't a strong generator of ridership but there is demand for people to Travel between shaker square and Ohio city, or west 117th and Beachwood.  If running the green line to the airport helps pay for system expansion.

 

It may turnout cheaper to lower all redline platforms than to continue to maintain a pair of ADA lifts at all 34 LRT stations and pay the additional expense of a hi/low vehicle or to buy two separate vehicles.  The logical choice is a low floor light rail vehicles.

 

Something like this would be fine.

 

 

Your general point is well taken.  Quite obviously we have way more cars than are needed to operate the system at current passenger levels.  When RTA made the car purchases in the early 1980s, it was no doubt responding to the explosive growth in riders upon the creation of RTA and the drop to 35-cent fairs (not to mention, for the 1st time, free transfers between the Shaker Rapid and the rest of the old CTS bus and rail network).  And as I said, I don’t object to smaller and even universal high-low LRT-type cars for the entire system.  Other Cities, like Pittsburgh, uses them… But this wacky idea to bulldoze the Red Line high platforms into low platforms to the tune of several hundred million bucks with no real showing of cost saving, simply doesn’t make sense. 

 

 

the cost to Upgrade the 15 redline only stations would be less than 10 million dollars.

 

The other 3 shared with LRT would not require conversion, they would share platforms.

 

the cost premium for a high/low fleet would be 10-15% above that of an off the shelf design.

 

that would be on top of a ~4.2 million dollar vehicle that is up to $820,000 premium per vehicle. thats 32.8 million extra to maintain.

 

In sanfranscio they are exploring converting all their high level platforms to low lever platforms it just makes too much sense, becuase hi/low are more expensive to operate

 

 

 

OK, so we have among the lowest ridership for heavy and light rail in the country.  Big deal.  We know, also, that we have a local leadership that is ignorant to urban environmental improvements that could boost rail… namely TOD.  Maybe we need to focus on that rather than wringing our hands about low ridership… And if you think RTA’s got it tough cost-wise, consider Philadelphia’s 200+ mile, fully-electrified commuter rail system, where most lines carry equal-to-or less than RTA’s and are all, but 2 o 3, longer (considerably longer) than RTA’s Rapid lines… And SEPTA’s regional rail uses standard railroad-size (very heavy) rail cars – with conductors!..  So what did SEPTA do?  They just got their legislature to pass a $300M transit bill to upgrade infrastructure and improve rail service…  I think improvements (TOD and otherwise) is what we need to focus on rather than wasting time talking about downgrading or rail system.

 

There are two types of costs

Capital and operating

Capital costs can be offset in the form of federal, state and local grants and Bonds that can be paid off over time.

 

Operating costs are costs that have to be paid from Fare and Local tax receipts, when ODOT becomes more progressive, the State of Ohio.

 

Investing 100 million in capital cost to reduce operating costs makes sense, because those operating cost are a constant and directly affects the ability of the agency to provide service. 

 

 

 

 

Biker, you completely misread my Albert Porter reference.  The point is: low ridership has been evidenced since the beginning of Cleveland heavy rail: it's nothing new. So to keep bringing up the fact that Cleveland has among the lowest (not THE lowest) heavy rail ridership is like: blah, blah, blah ... to me.  We KNOW this; so what?... 

 

In Philly, SEPTA’s Chestnut Hill East and West lines, both about 11/12 miles long (roughly the length of the West Side leg of the Red Line), fully electrified with super heavy railroad EMUs and conductors, but carrying on average less than 6,000 passengers per day, each.  In the 90s, SEPTA even replaced an 1880s trestle, serving the last 3 stops of the East line which serves probably 1,000 people or less each day.  (btw, even our low ride producer, the Blue/Green/Waterfront lines, which run about 15 total miles, carry on average about 12,000 riders, making them superior performers than the 2 Philly regional rail lines I cite, and at a much lower, LRT operating expense… What about that?

 

I bring this up because, in Philly, they’re not crying about costs and advocating downgrading service as you are, they’re actually IMPROVING service: more high platforms, new Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V EMUs… SEPTA’s even looking into double-decker cars in the future.  And they pushed for, and won, a $300M state transit subsidy.  Is RTA pursuing this approach?  Seems like the agency has, through a degree of serious pain for some riders, pruned service and implemented cost-saving measures like POP which recently produced a surplus and allowed RTA to actually EXPAND service (ie. The new Brookpark Road bus serving the West Side VA hospital, and the restored daily Waterfront lines).

 

I know you love tram/streetcars and would love to replace our current Rapid system with these, but that’s not feasible.  Plus you’re 100 years late; the Van Sweringen’s saw that people, back then weren’t moving to the Heights because of the very same slow streetcars you advocate now – that’s why they built the Blue and Green lines -- as truly RAPID transit -- which, despite current low ridership, have been an astounding success in terms of the real estate development they’ve spawned at Shaker Heights, Shaker Square and, of course, Tower City…

 

Btw Biker, why does the idea of a high-low platform car ..."make no sense at all."  Why do they work in Pittsburgh and San Francisco?  We could put them in here little (or no) additional costs – and probably plenty of cost saving… Why is tearing down platforms to low level so important to you?  ... Maybe that’s because you’re so hell-bent on Tram-ing our Rapid system.

 

 

 

 

the cost to Upgrade the 15 redline only stations would be less than 10 million dollars.

 

The other 3 shared with LRT would not require conversion, they would share platforms.

 

the cost premium for a high/low fleet would be 10-15% above that of an off the shelf design.

 

that would be on top of a ~4.2 million dollar vehicle that is up to $820,000 premium per vehicle. thats 32.8 million extra to maintain.

 

In sanfranscio they are exploring converting all their high level platforms to low lever platforms it just makes too much sense, becuase hi/low are more expensive to operate

 

 

I haven't heard that about San Fran., and if they are thinking to do this, it doesn't make much sense, given the extremely high-volume passenger usage in the shared, trunk-line LRT subway under Market Street. ... in sum, I just wish here in Cleveland, we would move away from the status quo analysis: spend freely to build highways and BRT (and then bloat BRT's success with phony RE "growth" statistics) -- while putting every rail project, including our current growing system under the constant microscope designed to shrink what service we have... I guess you're not in objection to running BRT along the OC competing directly with the Red Line -- while simultaneously not pushing the TOD the Red Line, or any rail line, needs for success... Then you can come back and say:  See, I told you people aren't riding the trains...

Biker, you completely misread my Albert Porter reference.  The point is: low ridership has been evidenced since the beginning of Cleveland heavy rail: it's nothing new. So to keep bringing up the fact that Cleveland has among the lowest (not THE lowest) heavy rail ridership is like: blah, blah, blah ... to me.  We KNOW this; so what?... 

 

our ridership makes the case fro right sizing the system, and finding more cost effectvi9e ways to provide service.

 

In Philly, SEPTA’s Chestnut Hill East and West lines, both about 11/12 miles long (roughly the length of the West Side leg of the Red Line), fully electrified with super heavy railroad EMUs and conductors, but carrying on average less than 6,000 passengers per day, each.  In the 90s, SEPTA even replaced an 1880s trestle, serving the last 3 stops of the East line which serves probably 1,000 people or less each day.  (btw, even our low ride producer, the Blue/Green/Waterfront lines, which run about 15 total miles, carry on average about 12,000 riders, making them superior performers than the 2 Philly regional rail lines I cite, and at a much lower, LRT operating expense… What about that?

 

I really dont want to be mean or anything but that isn't rapid rail service that is commuter rail service.  the Reline is a high frequency rail service, the Septa route you mentioned isn't

 

compare the schedules

http://www.septa.org/schedules/rail/pdf/che.pdf

 

If you want the Redline to run every hour you will follow the model of a commuter rail service.  if you want to increase frequency and make rail more attractive you move to a more cost effective system.

 

If you give a day or two I will pull up the costs to operate that line.

 

I bring this up because, in Philly, they’re not crying about costs and advocating downgrading service as you are, they’re actually IMPROVING service: more high platforms, new Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V EMUs… SEPTA’s even looking into double-decker cars in the future.  And they pushed for, and won, a $300M state transit subsidy.  Is RTA pursuing this approach?  Seems like the agency has, through a degree of serious pain for some riders, pruned service and implemented cost-saving measures like POP which recently produced a surplus and allowed RTA to actually EXPAND service (ie. The new Brookpark Road bus serving the West Side VA hospital, and the restored daily Waterfront lines).

 

How does low platforms hurt service.

 

 

I know you love tram/streetcars and would love to replace our current Rapid system with these, but that’s not feasible.  Plus you’re 100 years late; the Van Sweringen’s saw that people, back then weren’t moving to the Heights because of the very same slow streetcars you advocate now – that’s why they built the Blue and Green lines -- as truly RAPID transit -- which, despite current low ridership, have been an astounding success in terms of the real estate development they’ve spawned at Shaker Heights, Shaker Square and, of course, Tower City…

 

You are CONFUSED.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, there weren't any changes in rolling stock on the sharket Rapid when CUT opened, the increase in speed was entirely due to operating in in dedicated ROW, right

 

when you say streetcar, you are not referring to the Rolling stock but primarily referring to the way it operates, in mixed traffic.

 

Light Rail technology as it is used in Europe can operate in a number of different ways.

 

Light rail technology is not black or white it is a spectrum, from short to long, from fast to slow.

 

3 primary modes of Streetcar/Tram/Light rail

 

Average Service Speeds

 

Urban Circulator Service: 10 to 15 mph

 

 

Enhanced Local Service: 15 to 25 mph

 

 

Rapid Streetcar: 20 to 35 mph

 

Read what Toronto is Doing.

 

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/

 

they used LRT because the Cost of servicing the route would heavy rail would be prohibitive in those suburban areas, much like our shaker rapid today, they

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw Biker, why does the idea of a high-low platform car ..."make no sense at all."  Why do they work in Pittsburgh and San Francisco?  We could put them in here little (or no) additional costs – and probably plenty of cost saving… Why is tearing down platforms to low level so important to you?  ... Maybe that’s because you’re so hell-bent on Tram-ing our Rapid system.

 

Traming?

 

What is the difference between a Tram and subway type HRT??

speed?

 

capacity?

 

cost?

 

I think it time to move into the 21st century and embrace newer Rail transit technology.

 

Another reference case.

 

Seattle's Central link look at the frequencies

 

Approximate train frequencies - weekdays

5:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m. Every 15 minutes

6:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Every 7.5 minutes

8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Every 10 minutes

3:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Every 7.5 minutes

6:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Every 10 minutes

10:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. Every 15 minutes

 

look at the vheicles

 

look at the Daily ridership

32,000 by June 2013

 

Redline Daily ridership

~21-25,000

 

 

light rial works because it can operate where the  people are and isn't limited to operating in tunnels, viaducts or trenches.

 

I haven't heard that about San Fran., and if they are thinking to do this, it doesn't make much sense, given the extremely high-volume passenger usage in the shared, trunk-line LRT subway under Market Street. ... in sum, I just wish here in Cleveland, we would move away from the status quo analysis: spend freely to build highways and BRT (and then bloat BRT's success with phony RE "growth" statistics) -- while putting every rail project, including our current growing system under the constant microscope designed to shrink what service we have... I guess you're not in objection to running BRT along the OC competing directly with the Red Line -- while simultaneously not pushing the TOD the Red Line, or any rail line, needs for success... Then you can come back and say:  See, I told you people aren't riding the trains...

 

I agree with you we have issues, but I believe we have to leap ahead to a technology that will grow the Rail system not continue on path where it cannot.

^btw, I'd have to seriously question your high-expense differential between low-platform (or low floor) LRT's as opposed to dual-height ones.  Maybe you're talking about trains with a movable floor, where the costs would be higher (and maybe that's what SF has, I don't know).  But I know Pittsburgh cars merely board from different doors... We could design cars with 8-doors, instead of the current 6-door arrangement on Blue/Green LRTs -- and doors on each side (and since, by that time, we'll have hopefully junked the archaic Shaker confusing east-west pay-on-board arrangement in favor of system-wide POP, we'll be able to have doors on opposite sides at the cars front, as opposed to merely on the right-hand-side doors up front to facilitate fare(box)-paying entrants).  Thus, the ends of the car would be low platform; middle high platform. 

^btw, I'd have to seriously question your high-expense differential between low-platform (or low floor) LRT's as opposed to dual-height ones.  Maybe you're talking about trains with a movable floor, where the costs would be higher (and maybe that's what SF has, I don't know).  But I know Pittsburgh cars merely board from different doors... We could design cars with 8-doors, instead of the current 6-door arrangement on Blue/Green LRTs -- and doors on each side (and since, by that time, we'll have hopefully junked the archaic Shaker confusing east-west pay-on-board arrangement in favor of system-wide POP, we'll be able to have doors on opposite sides at the cars front, as opposed to merely on the right-hand-side doors up front to facilitate fare(box)-paying entrants).  Thus, the ends of the car would be low platform; middle high platform.

 

All this to preserve high platforms, which you cannot point having any advantage over low platforms with a Low floor vehicle.

 

you also forget the issue of ADA compliance at those low-platform stops you have to have use Ramps to use

 

 

There are always compromises, In Pittsburgh their train only have one low floor door on each side, in San Francisco the stairs disappear, I question how long that would last in our climate with salt and snow. 

 

 

I agree that maintenance is a bigger issue locally, and our maintenance would be greatly simplified with lighter vehicles and a single fleet of vehicles.  But we are stuck until we can get the money to lower platforms.  So some high-low vehicles are almost certainly in our future, even if just to manage the transition.  And with any luck, the seemingly reviving interest in light rail in the US might lead to the development of some new rail technology by the time we get our act together here in Cleveland.

I agree that maintenance is a bigger issue locally, and our maintenance would be greatly simplified with lighter vehicles and a single fleet of vehicles.  But we are stuck until we can get the money to lower platforms.  So some high-low vehicles are almost certainly in our future, even if just to manage the transition.  And with any luck, the seemingly reviving interest in light rail in the US might lead to the development of some new rail technology by the time we get our act together here in Cleveland.

 

Low floor technology is finally catching on in the US.

 

I just hope we move to a fleet that is more global in nature to prevent the parts supply issues we are facing with the current fleet. it much easier to find parts for vehicle that has sold 2000 vehicle worldwide than to use vehicle that only sold 120.

I agree that maintenance is a bigger issue locally, and our maintenance would be greatly simplified with lighter vehicles and a single fleet of vehicles.  But we are stuck until we can get the money to lower platforms.  So some high-low vehicles are almost certainly in our future, even if just to manage the transition.  And with any luck, the seemingly reviving interest in light rail in the US might lead to the development of some new rail technology by the time we get our act together here in Cleveland.

 

Low floor technology is finally catching on in the US.

 

I just hope we move to a fleet that is more global in nature to prevent the parts supply issues we are facing with the current fleet. it much easier to find parts for vehicle that has sold 2000 vehicle worldwide than to use vehicle that only sold 120.

 

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with our current fleet for at least 15 years (although I'm sure it'll be longer). I can't imagine RTA not trying to suck every bit of life out of the rehabbed Red Line cars before buying new rolling stock.

GCRTA also had the nation's fifth-fastest growing bus ridership, but Columbus' COTA was tops!

 

Greater Cleveland RTA among leading gainers in U.S. for heavy and light rail use

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on January 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Use of public transit is up nationally, with Greater Cleveland among the leading gainers in heavy and light rail ridership, according to findings of a national advocacy group for public transportation.

 

Ridership on RTA's rail Red Line was up 5.7 percent in the 2013 third quarter compared with a year earlier. The July-September period is the most recent for which the American Public Transportation Association has complete counts.

 

The Cleveland gain in heavy rail use trailed only the rate of increase in Miami, where heavy rail ridership rose 11.1 percent, due mostly to an increase in the number of trains deployed during peak hours; and Los Angeles, with a 7.5 percent increase for the quarter.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/greater_cleveland_rta_among_le.html#incart_river_default

^RTA's Mary Shaffer attributes RTA's rail gains solely to more people driving to free Rapid station parking lots.  However, this ignores Cleveland's population and demographic shifts to more walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods such as downtown, Ohio City, University Circle/Little Italy, Shaker Square and, even Detroit-Shoreway, which has produced (at least in my un-scientific "eyeballing survey") a growing number of new, younger walk-up rail users in addition to a growing drive-n-park crowd.

^ I saw a map once and you'd be surprised to see how low public transit ridership is in those new popular urban west side neighborhoods. Less than 5% of households I believe it was use transit to commute to work. And those neighborhoods still are home to many residents living in poverty where public transportation is their only option. Most of the new residents still all own cars and prefer driving them to work downtown or elsewhere. They are happy about their much shorter commute but they haven't given up their cars. I'd have to say I believe her that most of the growth is from the parking lots at the further out stations. That's why they are expanding them to meet the demand.

^I'm not saying that most growth isn't with the drivers, nor am I saying a huge number of people are giving up their cars in favor of transit.  All I'm saying is that there is some growth in those areas.  For example, I know for a fact that in the last 5 years, more Case and other U.C. students are using the Rapid to go downtown -- which has become more relevant as a dining and entertainment destination and Ohio City.  As someone who worked in/around University Circle during the last decade and a half, I know the soon-to-close E. 120 station used to see zero riders and while, today there aren't much, there are some now -- I even see groups of (seeming) Case/CIA kids on the E. 120 platforms or coming/going from the station's entrance.  That just didn't exist before...  I know that more people in the Shaker Square/Larchmere area are connecting with downtown and Ohio City as well.  And we're not even talking about the folks who live in Van Aken area apartments, the Tremont folks who walk or take the 81 over to W. 25, the Cedar-Fairmount folks who walk or bus down Cedar Hill to the Red Line (as we know, 32 buses don't go downtown anymore) ... and others.

 

And it's not just people going into downtown, but I note downtown residents (most of whom couldn't have existed 15/20 years ago) heading into Tower City station --- or getting off the late-evening inbound Green (or Blue) line trains ... as if they are heading downtown ... and home!  I just don't think you can dismiss this growing group of people as if they don't exist.  I just think we (collectively) are slow to change our paradigm when it comes to driving and transit.  We either don't see it; or refuse to see it. 

 

I also know that, if downtown employment has risen in recent years, it isn't by that much.  The growth in the aforementioned areas as "go to" areas, ... along with the 24/7 casino sitting atop Tower City, is boosting off peak ridership as it has rarely been boosted in recent history.

^RTA's Mary Shaffer attributes RTA's rail gains solely to more people driving to free Rapid station parking lots.  However, this ignores Cleveland's population and demographic shifts to more walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods such as downtown, Ohio City, University Circle/Little Italy, Shaker Square and, even Detroit-Shoreway, which has produced (at least in my un-scientific "eyeballing survey") a growing number of new, younger walk-up rail users in addition to a growing drive-n-park crowd.

 

Actually, the statement from the article was, "people are making economic choices to drive to a rail station, park for free and ride the rapid". This is a valid statement, but does not imply singularity of purpose. "Solely" was your characterization.

BTW, for a Cleveland neighborhood to have 5% of residents commuting by public transit is higher than the rate in the overall metro area, which according to this chart (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf) is about 3 or 4 percent (I hate charts that make it difficult to tell for certain, so I had to put a piece of paper on my screen with the bottom edge of the paper against the bottom of my screen, then use the side of the paper to see where the graphed bar for Cleveland ended!). Cleveland's 3-4% is actually slightly below the national average of 5%, yet Greater Cleveland still ranks 14th nationally among metros in commuting by transit.

LOTS OF NEWS

 

Agenda for Jan. 21 Board meeting: http://www.riderta.com/news/jan-21-agenda-board-and-committee-meetings

 

Year-end ridership report: http://www.riderta.com/news/good-news-ridership-rta-rose-third-straight-year

 

25 percent increase in riders on free day: http://www.riderta.com/news/25-percent-increase-rides-free-ride-day-rta

 

RTA operates a normal weekday schedule on MLK Day, but offices are closed.

LOTS OF NEWS

 

Agenda for Jan. 21 Board meeting: http://www.riderta.com/news/jan-21-agenda-board-and-committee-meetings

 

Year-end ridership report: http://www.riderta.com/news/good-news-ridership-rta-rose-third-straight-year

 

25 percent increase in riders on free day: http://www.riderta.com/news/25-percent-increase-rides-free-ride-day-rta

 

RTA operates a normal weekday schedule on MLK Day, but offices are closed.

Good news indeed!

Greater Cleve RTA ‏@GCRTA  22m

Red, Blue & Green Lines btwn Tower City & end of lines EAST SIDE ONLY replaced w/ shuttles on SAT 1/25 & SUN 1/26. http://bit.ly/1hfrXeC

Not a lot to like about the weather but I have to say the bus ride was pleasantly spacious and quiet with no high school kids. Apparently I only get seats on the Healthline and route 10 on snow days.

Not a good start to the morning.  Not far from my bad-weather route in, close to the time I use it.

 

http://fox8.com/2014/01/28/passengers-scramble-off-bus-moments-before-fire/

Regarding the RTA ridership being up at the stations with parking lots, I can say that the Triskett parking lots and the W.117th lot have been more full this past year.  I would like to see better and more frequent connecting buses to those stations.  The bus that runs on W.117th and connects to two rapid stations runs only once an hour most of the time and increases to once every half hour at rush hour.  There is no adequate public transit up Triskett Rd. to take people to that station.  There is a plan for dedicated bike lanes on Triskett soon.

From twitter:

 

@GCRTA: The first completed Red Line rehabbed car will be in service TOMORROW (1/30) morning! If u ride it, tweet us a pic! #redline

I have a question. Why are there no ticket machines at light rail stations? Especially major stations like Green, Shaker Sq. Or even Flats East Bank? I know the POP system on the blue and green lines is different than the red but it is very inconvenient. If you want to go from Green rd. to Shaker Sq. Or the waterfront, and you don't have cash, what do you do? If you go to the waterfront you have to get off at Tower City, but a pass, and get back on.

I have a question. Why are there no ticket machines at light rail stations? Especially major stations like Green, Shaker Sq. Or even Flats East Bank? I know the POP system on the blue and green lines is different than the red but it is very inconvenient. If you want to go from Green rd. to Shaker Sq. Or the waterfront, and you don't have cash, what do you do? If you go to the waterfront you have to get off at Tower City, but a pass, and get back on.

 

Good point.  I have been in that very same situation -- inbound on the Green Line heading to North Coast (East 9th) on the WFL, but forced to get off at Tower City to buy a pass at a machine because I had nothing smaller than a $20 and some credit cards.  I of course believe RTA needs to apply to FTA for a grant to expand POP to the Green/Blue LRT network... but in the meantime, one ticket machine (or 2) at the 3 busiest stations on the lines: Warrensville (Blue), Green Rd. and Shaker Sq, would make a boatload of sense... sadly, too much sense.

Also, what happens if you get on the Waterfront Line at North Coast Station and then get off at Tower City? You have to pay when you get on the train but then what happens when you go through the fare gates at Tower City? Will the staff just let you through if you tell them you came from the WFL and that you already paid?

^You keep your used fare card from Tower City and run it through the fare box of the train when you exit to prove you already paid.  Just like exiting Tower City from the Waterfront or Red Line.

You should always have exact change when you get on transit. You're fortunate the light-rail train driver waited for you when you had to get off the train at Tower City because you forgot to bring exact change. The light-rail lines operate more like a bus in the eastbound direction (you pay the fare on board the vehicle in exact change when you get on) except at Tower City where you pay in the station. In the westbound direction, you pay your fare on board the vehicle in exact change when you get off the train, except at Tower City where you pay in the station.

 

If you're still uncertain, the easiest thing to do is keep a $5 bill in your wallet and pay when they tell you to pay. Use it to pay for an all-day pass either on the train or in Tower City station and then you never have to worry about paying again the rest of the day.

^You keep your used fare card from Tower City and run it through the fare box of the train when you exit to prove you already paid.  Just like exiting Tower City from the Waterfront or Red Line.

 

But if you're boarding at a WFL station going 'eastbound', you don't get a fare card if you're only taking one trip. You have to pay exact change cash and it wouldn't make sense to have to pay for another fare card at TC.

 

This was just a point illustrating yet another deficiency of the Green/Blue Line payment system.

Actually, my intent was to go to Tower City initially until a friend hit me on the cell and wanted to meet at Winks at the Galleria -- after I'd left home for the Rapid, so I was stuck... Usually, I do have a $5 -- even when I know I'm making just 2 trips, one in, one out, I always get the $5 all day pass -- I donate the extra $.50 to RTA... That still doesn't change my desire to have machines at the 3 aforementioned busy LRT stations.

But if you're boarding at a WFL station going 'eastbound', you don't get a fare card if you're only taking one trip. You have to pay exact change cash and it wouldn't make sense to have to pay for another fare card at TC.

 

 

In that direction, it's no different than boarding a bus. You paid a one-way cash fare of $2.25. You don't need a farecard anymore than you do in riding a bus one way and paying a cash fare of $2.25. You got on, you paid and you're don't need to think about it anymore. Just like a bus.

^Except that when you try to exit Tower City Station you have to go through the fare gates again, so you either need to pay again (which makes no sense) or have proof of your payment when you first boarded.

 

^You keep your used fare card from Tower City and run it through the fare box of the train when you exit to prove you already paid.  Just like exiting Tower City from the Waterfront or Red Line.

 

But if you're boarding at a WFL station going 'eastbound', you don't get a fare card if you're only taking one trip. You have to pay exact change cash and it wouldn't make sense to have to pay for another fare card at TC.

 

This was just a point illustrating yet another deficiency of the Green/Blue Line payment system.

 

Can't you get a fare card from the on-board fare box?  Kind of like a receipt?  Maybe you have to ask for it?  It's probably been 15 year since I've ridden the WFL, but I think thats how it worked in the late 1990s, at least.

 

Unfortunately, the "how to pay" part of the RTA website is still a bit of a disaster, so not much help there: http://www.riderta.com/howtopay