How do other cities fund their public transit?  

1 hour ago, NR said:

I see it's being said that the RTA should be free, (which doesn't make sense to me. we all know nothing is really free), but at the same time saying that the RTA doesn't have enough money. The solutions I'm seeing proposed so that we can have "free RTA" are to raise sales tax; take road repair money, raise gas tax, get rid of RTA police, add more highway tolls, tax the EV's more, tax the "rich" more and raise property tax.  All this instead of actually charging the riders of the RTA.  This makes zero sense.

 

If you're saying that RTA fairs don't cover the total costs of having public transport and it needs a little additional funding, then that's a completely different conversation.  But to say the RTA should be free and we should take money from everybody and everything everywhere to make that possible is preposterous.

 

I see it's being said that using roads and parking should be free, (which doesn't make sense to me. we all know nothing is really free), but at the same time saying that local and state governments don't have enough money. The solutions I'm seeing proposed so that we can have "free roads and parking" are to raise income taxes; take public transit money, defund the police, defer critical maintenance of existing infrastructure, tax the "rich" more and raise property tax.  All this instead of actually charging and taxing the people who drive enough to fully cover the costs of road construction, road repair, road maintenance (hello socialist snow plows!), traffic enforcement, parking lot building/maintenance, parking structure construction, health care for the hundreds of thousands injured and killed in auto accidents - things that the gas tax and car registration fees don't even come close to covering.  This makes zero sense.

 

If you're saying that existing taxes and fees don't cover the total costs of having free public roads and parking and they need a little additional funding, then that's a completely different conversation.  But to say that driving and parking should be free and we should take money from everybody and everything everywhere to make that possible is preposterous.

*******************

I am so tired of people pretending like roads and parking have zero government cost or are even remotely covered by gas taxes and vehicle registrations.  Public transit is expensive. Government spending on infrastructure for cars is WAY more expensive.

 

22 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Or it's costing RTA more in collection and enforcement than they are collecting.   

 

Then maybe they're doing something wrong.  How do they do it in other cities?  When I was in NYC I got my 7day MTA ticket from a machine on the wall at the airport, I doubt they lose money on that machine. 

 

There's obviously more to it; but I doubt it cost more for NYC, Chicago and every city in Europe to collect money then they make charging people to ride public transit.

 

21 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

I see it's being said that using roads and parking should be free, (which doesn't make sense to me. we all know nothing is really free), but at the same time saying that local and state governments don't have enough money. The solutions I'm seeing proposed so that we can have "free roads and parking" are to raise income taxes; take public transit money, defund the police, defer critical maintenance of existing infrastructure, tax the "rich" more and raise property tax.  All this instead of actually charging and taxing the people who drive enough to fully cover the costs of road construction, road repair, road maintenance (hello socialist snow plows!), traffic enforcement, parking lot building/maintenance, parking structure construction, health care for the hundreds of thousands injured and killed in auto accidents - things that the gas tax and car registration fees don't even come close to covering.  This makes zero sense.

 

If you're saying that existing taxes and fees don't cover the total costs of having free public roads and parking and they need a little additional funding, then that's a completely different conversation.  But to say that driving and parking should be free and we should take money from everybody and everything everywhere to make that possible is preposterous.

*******************

I am so tired of people pretending like roads and parking have zero government cost or are even remotely covered by gas taxes and vehicle registrations.  Public transit is expensive. Government spending on infrastructure for cars is WAY more expensive.

 

 

Please show me where I pretended that roads and parking have zero cost. Please show me where I spoke about the cost of roads or parking at all.

 

If you want to have a discussion about the cost of roads and parking, then do that, but don't try to put words in other peoples mouth. 

 

No one said we should have free parking everywhere. No one said we should get free license plates. No one said we should get free gas. No one said we should get free cars. No one said that we should all be able to drive cars around everywhere and someone/something else somewhere should pay for it. 

 

None of that was said, but It was said that we should have free public transit. 

 

I'm all for transit, I love the the rapid, I'm a big fan of rail transit and I think CLE should find a financially responsible way to expand it more throughout city/region.  Will it need additional assistance to run and expand it, yes.  How that can be done wisely will take a lot of time, thought and discussions.  But to say that it should be free to ride, all the while its struggling financially, and to say we should take money from other people/places to do it.... while giving free rides.... is preposterous. 

3 minutes ago, NR said:

No one said we should have free parking everywhere. No one said we should get free license plates. No one said we should get free gas. No one said we should get free cars. No one said that we should all be able to drive cars around everywhere and someone/something else somewhere should pay for it. 

 

None of that was said, but It was said that we should have free public transit. 
 

...  But to say that it should be free to ride, all the while its struggling financially, and to say we should take money from other people/places to do it.... while giving free rides.... is preposterous. 

People talk about parking with every single project proposed. And every proposal to raise gas taxes receives significant pushback. Since the gas taxes and vehicle registration collections don’t come anywhere close to covering the costs related to driving, that means that people absolutely are saying “we should all be able to drive cars around everywhere and someone/something else somewhere should pay for it.”

 

There are many things in society where it is far more efficient for them to be funded by the government and offered to everyone free of charge. The military, police, fire departments, education, infrastructure, libraries, etc.  There are countless examples right here in the USA. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss what other things fall into this category. Individual payments for use of public transportation merits discussion. The cost of collecting fares varies, but it is always a substantial portion of the fares collected. That’s inefficient. I don’t know the recent numbers for RTA, but there are systems where those costs-to-collect approach 100% of fares-collected. So then what’s the point of collecting them? This doesn’t always even factor in how much collecting fares slows down bus and other transit where the driver collects the fares. Without fare collection, the routes travel faster, making them more useful, meaning more people utilize a thing that we collectively paid the upfront capital costs of whether we use them or not. 
 

It is absolutely worth discussing whether the net benefit of eliminating fares is positive.  Outright rejecting the proposal without any analysis of the details... is preposterous. 

32 minutes ago, NR said:

 

No one said we should have free parking everywhere. No one said we should get free license plates. No one said we should get free gas. No one said we should get free cars. No one said that we should all be able to drive cars around everywhere and someone/something else somewhere should pay for it. 

 

None of that was said, but It was said that we should have free public transit.

 

Should transit be subsidized to the same degree as roadways?  Should users pay the same percentage of the cost to maintain the roads as users pay to use transit?

https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/press-release/21210250/greater-cleveland-regional-transit-authority-rta-civil-engineers-give-ohios-infrastructure-a-c-on-2021-infrastructure-report-card.

Edit, realized this was RTA thread

Edited February 28, 20214 yr by metrocity

A major transportation makeover for West 25th Street is taking shape

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/25Connects030221.aspx

 

“A plan to redevelop West 25th Street between the bustling activity centers of the West Side Market district and the MetroHealth campus is nearing its final stage, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) reported at a public meeting last Thursday, Feb. 25.

“RTA is leading the 25 Connects: A Transit Oriented Development plan that would replace its current #51 bus line with a bus rapid transit line (BRT)—if it wins a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant to do so—that would connect riders on Cleveland's West Side to downtown and MetroHealth. “We can create great connective tissue on West 25th,” says Maribeth Feke, director of planning at RTA, adding that RTA has prioritized the West 25th Street corridor because it is the second busiest line in its system in RTA system—with 5,400 daily riders.

 

“The plan includes building new, 60-foot stations at Lakeview Terrace, the West Side Market, MetroHealth, Brooklyn Centre/Riverside Cemetery, and Old Brooklyn, as well as the purchase of new, low-floor, articulated 63-foot buses.”

 

I’m trying to figure out if this bus will go over the river. Shouldn’t it terminate at Public Square? Or do they think connecting to the RedLine at Lorain is sufficient?

 

And also, fix the HealthLine first. Argh. 

 

 

It's too bad it looks like they are going to stop short of Old Brooklyn's neighborhood downtown.  It's an up and coming dense and walkable neighborhood that could be a decent activity generator.  And connecting it via BRT to Ohio City, Metrohealth, and Downtown would help it out immensely.

^I guess nobody goes to the zoo anymore. 

Nevermind.  I was looking at the map, which looks like it stops just shy of Old Brooklyn, but rereading the text it says it goes to Old Brooklyn.

9 hours ago, X said:

Nevermind.  I was looking at the map, which looks like it stops just shy of Old Brooklyn, but rereading the text it says it goes to Old Brooklyn.

Yeah, I’m hoping that map is wrong on the north end too - it seems like it should cross the bridge and terminate at Public Square. 
 

 

33 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yeah, I’m hoping that map is wrong on the north end too - it seems like it should cross the bridge and terminate at Public Square. 
 

 

Hopefully we’ll get more info. Maybe the infrastructure improvements will only be between Detroit and Broadview, but the bus line itself can still run to PS.

On 3/2/2021 at 8:43 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

A major transportation makeover for West 25th Street is taking shape

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/25Connects030221.aspx

 

“A plan to redevelop West 25th Street between the bustling activity centers of the West Side Market district and the MetroHealth campus is nearing its final stage, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) reported at a public meeting last Thursday, Feb. 25.

“RTA is leading the 25 Connects: A Transit Oriented Development plan that would replace its current #51 bus line with a bus rapid transit line (BRT)—if it wins a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant to do so—that would connect riders on Cleveland's West Side to downtown and MetroHealth. “We can create great connective tissue on West 25th,” says Maribeth Feke, director of planning at RTA, adding that RTA has prioritized the West 25th Street corridor because it is the second busiest line in its system in RTA system—with 5,400 daily riders.

 

“The plan includes building new, 60-foot stations at Lakeview Terrace, the West Side Market, MetroHealth, Brooklyn Centre/Riverside Cemetery, and Old Brooklyn, as well as the purchase of new, low-floor, articulated 63-foot buses.”

 

I’m trying to figure out if this bus will go over the river. Shouldn’t it terminate at Public Square? Or do they think connecting to the RedLine at Lorain is sufficient?

 

And also, fix the HealthLine first. Argh. 

 

 

Can the Healthline get new buses? Please? They have been running 24/7 for 13 years. 

One of my worries about the All Star weekend is will RTA have enough train cars to support the major influx of riders. Will they just run 3 car trains at a more frequent schedule? Looking at Atlanta's traffic situation (I'm not saying Cleveland will match that) but people, especially residents, will probably use transit much more that weekend. I hope they extend the waterfront line hours. 

RTA opened the new East 79th Red Line station today, several weeks ahead of schedule. This was the last Red Line station to become ADA compliant.

 

Now I hope BBC and others will help promote station-area development to put jobs and housing within a comfortable walk of this rail station and the Blue/Green line station.

 

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I thought this was an interesting requirement:

“The vehicles require battery systems to provide limited off-wire capabilities in case of power loss;”

Of course this would have prevented that issue where the train got stuck on the WFL after the Browns game in 2019 where there is a gap between the power lines. Are there other parts of the system where this is a problem? 
 

Also, I like this because in theory they could run down Euclid and just put the pantograph down to go under the PHS chandelier. 

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

How would this work?  The red line platforms are high and the shaker ones are ground level.  Would the cars have two different sets of doors? And then wouldn't stairs be required inside the train car so the person gets to the right level?

 

2 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

How would this work?  The red line platforms are high and the shaker ones are ground level.  Would the cars have two different sets of doors? And then wouldn't stairs be required inside the train car so the person gets to the right level?

 

 

Yes and yes. The stairs or a doorway platform would probably fold away.

^Thanks.  So why is this a good thing? The Red Line subway-like cars are very cool and durable-looking--and look like other big cities. The shaker line cars are clunky and feel like a small town. Is this only so RTA can buy more of the same type of cars---more economies of scale? Or is there another benefit?

Great news. This may have been mentioned previously, but what year will the first batch be in operation?

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^Thanks.  So why is this a good thing? The Red Line subway-like cars are very cool and durable-looking--and look like other big cities. The shaker line cars are clunky and feel like a small town. Is this only so RTA can buy more of the same type of cars---more economies of scale? Or is there another benefit?

 

Until a few years ago, we thought the Red Line cars were holding up better. Turns out the frames and areas around the doorways are corroding very quickly. Otherwise a stainless steel railcar (Red Line) lasts longer than a straight steel railcar (Blue & Green lines).

 

Economies of scale is one reason. RTA has a small rail system so having two very small fleets is not cost effective whereas a small fleet is a little more cost effective. So is having standardized replacement parts. So is having to train new train operators and maintenance workers. So is being able to run Green Line trains from Green Road in Shaker Heights to Hopkins Airport -- maybe they could even a few trains in the morning non-stop or limited stops from Green Road to Hopkins Airport and run express trains in the evening from the airport to Green Road. Or they could run some trains from the Van Aken District to University Circle with only a reversing move at East 55th? Or, someday, run a Red Line train from the West Side around the downtown loop and come out of the loop as a Blue or Green Line train? Or vice-versa? Lots of options suddenly become possible.

3 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

Great news. This may have been mentioned previously, but what year will the first batch be in operation?

 

Not sure. Just guessing -- probably a couple of years.

@KJPanother two questions---so will the red line still have high platforms and shaker still low?  And what do you call this new hybrid---will the Red Line still be heavy rail and the shaker light rail? Or will the entire system be some other classification?

 

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

@KJPanother two questions---so will the red line still have high platforms and shaker still low?  And what do you call this new hybrid---will the Red Line still be heavy rail and the shaker light rail? Or will the entire system be some other classification?

 

 

Yes, the station platforms will not significantly change. The tracks may be raised slightly at each station. It will be light-rail vehicles. Many cities throughout the world have light-rail trains that serve both high and low platforms, including Pittsburgh, Buffalo, San Francisco, Calgary, Toronto, and others.

Good question Pugu. The blue and green line trains are a truly inferior experience relative to the smooth ride of the red line heavy rail trains. I don’t understand why light rail is the future direction. Light rail seems more appropriate for service that is integral at street level. Heavy for below grade/off street. KJP, tell me I’m misinformed.

3 hours ago, Pugu said:

@KJPanother two questions---so will the red line still have high platforms and shaker still low?  And what do you call this new hybrid---will the Red Line still be heavy rail and the shaker light rail? Or will the entire system be some other classification?

 

 

1 hour ago, w28th said:

Good question Pugu. The blue and green line trains are a truly inferior experience relative to the smooth ride of the red line heavy rail trains. I don’t understand why light rail is the future direction. Light rail seems more appropriate for service that is integral at street level. Heavy for below grade/off street. KJP, tell me I’m misinformed.

 

@KJP has answered these questions in the articles he wrote and in his previous posts about consolidating the fleet into a single train type:

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2021/01/19/cleveland-rta-will-unify-rail-system-with-new-railcars/

 

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2020/06/gcrta-may-unify-its-rail-system-with.html

 

And here's the post from last summer where I had compiled all of the relevant previous discussions:

 

Here's another good post of Heavy Rail vs Light Rail:

 

 

1 hour ago, w28th said:

Good question Pugu. The blue and green line trains are a truly inferior experience relative to the smooth ride of the red line heavy rail trains. I don’t understand why light rail is the future direction. Light rail seems more appropriate for service that is integral at street level. Heavy for below grade/off street. KJP, tell me I’m misinformed.

 

@w28th You may be surprised to learn that GCRTA's light-rail trains are actually heavier than the heavy-rail trains. The light-rail trains are called that because of the extent of infrastructure for its rail system -- it's a lighter extent, with fewer grade separations and more at-grade crossings of streets and walkways, low-level platforms, more intimate integration with its surroundings. The heavy-rail line is entirely grade separated, has high-level platforms, fenced-off from its surroundings, and offers a higher-speed route.

 

Some light-rail trains in use elsewhere in the USA ride more smoothly and more quietly than GCRTA's Red Line trains. Siemens' trains are top notch and operate in Charlotte, San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Calgary. They are very quiet trains that offer smooth rides. It all depends on how the trains are designed. Our Breda cars are junk, and I say that with sadness because my cousin was part of the team that chose those cars more than 40 years ago. San Francisco Muny had Breda cars too. But after only 12 years, they chose to replace them and prohibited Breda from bidding on their replacement. That's how bad some trains can be. Since GCRTA is going to be acquiring trains that have similar predecessors already in service, we're going to have a chance to experience the bidders' products and critique the finalists before GCRTA makes its selection.

Thanks for the rundown and confirmation that light rail cars aren’t the problem, it’s Breda.

Great photo.  Maybe someday soon we'll see passenger trains again crossing this bridge too...

 

Posted this AM

 

 

 

On 3/21/2021 at 12:53 AM, KJP said:

Some light-rail trains in use elsewhere in the USA ride more smoothly and more quietly than GCRTA's Red Line trains. Siemens' trains are top notch and operate in Charlotte, San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Calgary. They are very quiet trains that offer smooth rides. It all depends on how the trains are designed. Our Breda cars are junk, and I say that with sadness because my cousin was part of the team that chose those cars more than 40 years ago. San Francisco Muny had Breda cars too. But after only 12 years, they chose to replace them and prohibited Breda from bidding on their replacement. That's how bad some trains can be. Since GCRTA is going to be acquiring trains that have similar predecessors already in service, we're going to have a chance to experience the bidders' products and critique the finalists before GCRTA makes its selection.

 

As you stated, the Breda rail cars on the Blue and Green lines are very poorly built and have serious design problems as are San Francisco's Breda cars.  Their reliability in service in San Francisco approaches that of the infamous Boeing LRV's that ran only in San Francisco and Boston.  Boston also has a fleet of 95 Breda LRV's that are the Type 8 class that were delivered from 1999-2006.  That order was truncated and there were significant legal actions initiated by MBTA due to poor reliablity.

 

The Siemens rail cars are also common in Europe.  Hopefully RTA decides to go with this manufacturer for its new fleet,  They should go with a standard mechanical design and not design a totally new rail vehicle with new, unproven technology.  Go with established designs where all of the bugs have been worked out.  This is what made the PCC streetcar such a successful design from the mid-1930's to 1951 and continued on in rapid transit heavy rail cars into the late 1950's and early 1960's.

On 3/20/2021 at 9:07 PM, KJP said:

Economies of scale is one reason. RTA has a small rail system so having two very small fleets is not cost effective whereas a small fleet is a little more cost effective. So is having standardized replacement parts. So is having to train new train operators and maintenance workers. So is being able to run Green Line trains from Green Road in Shaker Heights to Hopkins Airport -- maybe they could even a few trains in the morning non-stop or limited stops from Green Road to Hopkins Airport and run express trains in the evening from the airport to Green Road. Or they could run some trains from the Van Aken District to University Circle with only a reversing move at East 55th? Or, someday, run a Red Line train from the West Side around the downtown loop and come out of the loop as a Blue or Green Line train? Or vice-versa? Lots of options suddenly become possible.

I once knew a heavy rail operator on RTA.  When he was an operator (he has long since retired), they used to run trains that only operated on the west side.  At the Terminal Tower, they would change directions and head back to the Airport.  The ridership numbers were greater on the west side versus the east side.  Perhaps trips from Shaker, Van Aken or a mix of both could travel to the west side and others on the Waterfront Line.

 

Aside from the differences in parts, there is another issue with the current shop and how they maintain the rail fleets.  The shop has different jacking positions for each type of rail car.  This may "seem" minor until one considers that the hydraulic jacks are embedded in the concrete floor of the Central Rail maintenance building.  The 3-truck (wheel/axle/motor assemblies) articulated Breda cars have specific tracks they use for lifting while the 2-truck Tokyu rail cars have their own.  When they still had a handful of the older rail cars they needed to service, they had to use portable jacks to properly lift those cars when they needed to do so.  Extremely inflexible and redundant design.   

Yes, RTA used to run THREE types of rail cars:

 

Airporter: built and delivered to Cleveland by Pullman Standard in 1968. Operated Airport-Union Terminal only.

Bluebird: built and delivered by St. Louis Car Co. starting with the opening of the CTS Rapid in 1955. Operated Brookpark-Windermere only.

PCC: built and delivered in 1948 by Pullman Standard. They were wider than most PCCs (Presidents Conference Committee) and had left-side doors (never used) to load from a center platform in downtown subways that were never built. Additional PCC cars were acquired in 1953 by Shaker Heights Rapid Transit from the Twin Cities after they went all-bus. They were narrower and had only right-side doors.

 

So I guess you could say that Greater Cleveland had four types of rail cars at the same time from the late 1960s to the early 1980s!

 

10 hours ago, KJP said:

Yes, RTA used to run THREE types of rail cars:

 

Airporter: built and delivered to Cleveland by Pullman Standard in 1968. Operated Airport-Union Terminal only.

Bluebird: built and delivered by St. Louis Car Co. starting with the opening of the CTS Rapid in 1955. Operated Brookpark-Windermere only.

PCC: built and delivered in 1948 by Pullman Standard. They were wider than most PCCs (Presidents Conference Committee) and had left-side doors (never used) to load from a center platform in downtown subways that were never built. Additional PCC cars were acquired in 1953 by Shaker Heights Rapid Transit from the Twin Cities after they went all-bus. They were narrower and had only right-side doors.

 

So I guess you could say that Greater Cleveland had four types of rail cars at the same time from the late 1960s to the early 1980s!

 

Even within those fleets, there were differences.  The Bluebirds came in 2 different orders - 1954/1955 and 1958.  The two orders were of the same type of car, but they had significant differences.  101-112 (1954/1955) and 113-118 (1958) were single units with operators controls at both ends.  201-256 (1954/1955) and 257-270 (1958) were semi-permanently joined together (married pairs) with a draw bar and had controls on one end of each car.  They could be disconnected, but it involved significant effort.  In later years, two of the 201-256 group were joined with two of the 257-270 group creating married pairs renumbered as 271-272 and 273-274, consisting of one from each group.  This was done as one car in the original pairs in each case needed major repairs, enough so that it wasn't worth doing the work.  These mixed pairings allowed 2 sets to stay in service.  In later years, many of the single unit cars were removed from service and their parts permitted more married pairs to stay in operation.  The presence of the single unit Airporters negated the need for the single unit Bluebirds to run in off-peak service.  All of these cars did run to the Airport as well when the line was extended from West Park.

 

There were 30 Airporters total. 151-170 came in 1967/1968 and 171-180 came in 1970.  They were all single-unit cars with controls on both ends.

 

The PCC fleet actually had more differences:

71-95, the only group purchased new by Shaker Heights, were 50-foot cars and were multiple-unit capable (run in trains)

56-70 were purchased from Twin Cities, were 46-foot cars and had multiple-unit capability added

51-55 were purchased from Twin Cities, were 46-foot cars but remained as single units (unable to run in trains)

40-49 (40 was later renumbered to 50) were purchased in 1959 from St. Louis Public Service, were 46-foot cars and had multiple-unit capability added.  This group permitted the retirement of the last of the original center-entrance former Cleveland streetcars from service.

The 51-70 and 40-49 cars were actually as wide as the 71-95 group at 9 feet (108 inches).  The conversions for Shaker were done in their original cities before being shipped to Cleveland.  40-49, 56-70 and 71-95 were able to be mixed together in trains.

In 1975, RTA leased two double-end PCC cars from museums and rebuilt/restored them, 450 and 451.  They had controls at both ends with only one set of doors--at the front.  They originally operated on the Illinois Terminal line that ran into St. Louis.  They could only operate in a train with themselves.  They were returned to the museums in 1979.  They were 50-foot cars and 9 feet wide.

In 1977, RTA purchased 2 additional single unit PCC cars from Newark, 3 and 27.  These were originally from Twin Cities and were otherwise identical to 51-55.  They replaced 59 and 65 that were wrecked in the head-on collision in the summer of 1977, but remained single units on RTA.

In 1978, RTA purchased 9 former Cleveland PCCs that were originally sold and shipped to Toronto in 1952-1953.  These cars were 4630, 4648, 4651, 4652, 4655, 4656, 4662, 4663 and 4665.  They were equipped with multiple unit controls (they were built this way for eventual multiple-unit operation in Cleveland, but only had couplers added in Toronto) but they could only operate in trains within their own group due to different couplers.  4630 never actually operated in service on RTA.  These cars were 46 feet long, but they were narrower than the rest of the RTA PCC fleet being 100 inches wide (8 foot 4 inches).  Being that these cars were narrower, the front two panels of the 4-panel front doors were disabled and a bar placed in front of the steps inside.  When these 9 arrived, the 2 leased museum cars were returned to the museums shortly thereafter. 

Thanks! I forgot about the different styles of Bluebird cars. I didn't know about all of those variations of PCC cars. It's mind-blowing how many there were.

7 hours ago, KJP said:

Thanks! I forgot about the different styles of Bluebird cars. I didn't know about all of those variations of PCC cars. It's mind-blowing how many there were.

Regarding the Bluebird fleet, the 1954/1955 group had some minor differences with the 1958 group.  For the original group, near the roof on either side of the operator's control end, there was a single lens where a colored filter rotated behind it so the light would be white, red or green.  On the later group, this was replaced with three individual lenses with the white, red or green colors.  Additionally, the married-pairs from the first group had only one pantograph for current collection for the 2-car set.  On the second group, there were pantographs on the roof of both cars of the pair.  Only one was used for current collection, however the second one did not have a power cable attached.  It could be raised with special sleet-cutting sliders in place of the carbon sliders used for current collection in icy weather.

 

As for the Airporters, the second group of 10 had smaller windshields than the first 20.  The ends were the same, just the openings were smaller.

 

In the late 1950's the Shaker Rapid was looking to replace the final group of center-entrance former Cleveland streetcars.  They originally looked to purchase the eight that operated on Illinois Terminal.  That number was too small so they turned to St. Louis Public Service.  Initially they were going to purchase 14 from that city, but the cost of recovery from a bad flood that filled up their Kingsbury Run Shop complex and declining rider numbers caused them to reduce the purchase to 10 cars.  The four that were declined by Shaker Heights ended up going out to San Francisco where they had earlier acquired 66 of that same group from St. Louis.  As for the Illinois Terminal PCC's, 6 of the 8 were eventually scrapped and the remaining 2 went to the  museums which eventually leased them to RTA in 1975.

 

The PCC car was truly an amazing design.  The operating technology behind the design was excellent.  It was designed for flexibility in ordering.  The standard car body was 46 feet long and 100 inches wide.  Cities could order different lengths.  Detroit, Shaker, Pacific Electric, San Francisco and Chicago all operated the 50 foot versions.  Shaker, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago operated 108 inch wide cars.  Washington D.C. operated shorter cars.  Many systems operated on "standard gauge" track (4' 8 1/2" track gauge), however St. Louis and Toronto operated 4' 10" inch gauge track, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh had 5' 2 1/2" gauge, Baltimore had 5' 4 1/2" gauge and Los Angeles had 3' 6" gauge. 

 

The design was so well established so that a streetcar system could unload a brand new PCC from a flatcar after the morning rush hour, have the destination roll signs added and have it taken out for a trial trip around the carbarn that day.  That same car could then be hauling passengers in the evening rush hour.  Now, many newer design light rail vehicles take months if not years to get them operational.  Of course, those types of problems happen when systems go for brand new designs with untested technology and no history of working out the problems.  It gets repeated all too frequently.

Edited March 31, 20214 yr by LifeLongClevelander

 

Shaker Heights / RTA announce plans for Van Aken transit hub remodel next year. Sounds good. 

https://shakeronline.com/739/VAD-Public-Realm-Plan

I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Did RTA rebuild the Tower City Red Line tracks in a way that will require them to be completely rebuilt once the Red Line trains are replaced w light rail cars? I realize this project was probably pretty far along in planning once the train replacement decision was made, but they shouldn’t they have paused this project as soon as that happened? Any thoughts, @KJP ?
 

 

 

 

No because Tower City has both high and low platforms. If the floor height of the new railcars can't be high enough to serve the existing Red Line station platforms, the tracks can be raised by adding ballast at all but two stations -- Tower City and the Airport. At the Airport, the platforms may have to be lowered. At Tower City, the low-level platforms can be used by the new rail cars which are expected to have fold-down stairs for use on the Blue/Green lines. So the low-level platforms can be used permanently or, more likely, temporarily while the high-level platforms are lowered.

9 minutes ago, KJP said:

No because Tower City has both high and low platforms. If the floor height of the new railcars can't be high enough to serve the existing Red Line station platforms, the tracks can be raised by adding ballast at all but two stations -- Tower City and the Airport. At the Airport, the platforms may have to be lowered. At Tower City, the low-level platforms can be used by the new rail cars which are expected to have fold-down stairs for use on the Blue/Green lines. So the low-level platforms can be used permanently or, more likely, temporarily while the high-level platforms are lowered.

I get that tower city has both high and low platforms. Aren’t they on separate tracks? (Forgive my ignorance if I’m getting that wrong.) I don’t understand why tracks are being rebuilt in such a way that appears it would require rebuilding them again (or redoing the platforms) in the not too distant future (or just abandoning them and moving everything to the low level platforms). Were they just so far gone that something HAD to be done, even if it will only be used for a few years?

 

4 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I get that tower city has both high and low platforms. Aren’t they on separate tracks? (Forgive my ignorance if I’m getting that wrong.) I don’t understand why tracks are being rebuilt in such a way that appears it would require rebuilding them again (or redoing the platforms) in the not too distant future (or just abandoning them and moving everything to the low level platforms). Were they just so far gone that something HAD to be done, even if it will only be used for a few years?

 

 

Nope. Same tracks. The west end of the Tower City station tracks has high-level platforms and the east end of the station (same tracks) has low-level platforms with the fare-free area in between.

Both painful and exciting 

 

 

 

 

RTA originally bought 60 of those red line cars, 40 interior renovations around a decade ago. I guess these ones getting scrapped are the ones that didn't get the renovations. 

And they're in a very big hurry to do it. So much of a hurry that GCRTA refused to grant more time to a major bidder (Siemens) to prepare its bid. I figured Siemens would be a leading bidder since it has new railcars in service on rail lines in San Fran and Calgary with high and low platforms like Cleveland. And they have new trains in regular service on Brightline in Florida with automated doorway gap fillers that would be very useful on trains here, filling the gaps between train and platforms of different widths. Siemens may not submit a bid because it is doubtful that could fully comply with GCRTA's 1,300-page RFP. GCRTA gave a very small window of time between the Central Rail shop tours (the week of March 29, IIRC) and the deadline in the middle of this month.

 

Under FTA best practices guidelines, a transit authority is encouraged to give bidders more time to generate more competition and better bids. The fact that GCRTA isn't doing this suggests they may already have a bidder in mind, which doesn't smell good. Or worse, since GCRTA GM India Birdsong is out on maternity leave and the old-hat deputy managers are in charge, one has to ask if GCRTA management is trying to show that it received no decent bids for a standardized rail fleet and will instead go back to having two incompatible, small groups of railcars. I'm told a PD reporter is looking into the matter. When I learned this, I told All Aboard Ohio. It is considering filing a complaint with the FTA.

All this shows is more incompetence and dishonesty spewing from RTA.  Saying they are "making room for our new rail fleet" is a worthless statement.  RTA's Central Rail Maintenance Facility yard has a capacity for double the size of the original Breda rail fleet (48 cars) and Tokyu rail fleet (60 cars).  This doesn't include the rail yard at Brook Park.  A couple years ago, they already scrapped some of the current fleet rail cars.  In the 1980's, RTA had far more rail cars on the property right after the delivery of the Breda and Tokyu rail cars.  RTA was in no rush to dispose of the retired light rail PCC fleet.  Around 60 out of 66 PCC sat after the 2 leased cars were returned to museums.  They still had 28 of the 30 heavy rail Airporters and about 75 of the 88 heavy rail Bluebirds on the property.  This was on top of the 108 new rail cars. The old rail cars were held on to due to unreliability issues of the new rail cars.  

 

I also cannot help but wonder how many of the rail cars they decided to scrap in this go-around were in that bad of shape.  Having recently driven by the Brook Park Yard, there were a number of overhauled Breda cars in RTA's current gray/blue/red color scheme.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that mishaps will occur with the remaining fleet.  Collisions and fires can cause major damage that would be ruled as unrepairable.  In the past, RTA was able to salvage the good sections of two damaged articulated Breda cars.  The salvaged halves received the number 849.  Will breakdowns and mishaps deplete the size of the operational fleet to the point where service gets cut and cars get packed?

 

As an aside, the need to salvage parts by cannibalizing the remaining fleet is an example of what happens when a system has unique fleets.  As no other systems operate them, the likelyhood that parts suppliers will produce and have them in stock becomes unlikely.  Either RTA must make special, expensive small orders to meet their needs or if lucky, repair/fabricate them in house.  A standard rail car design in use by many systems (and the company that builds them is still in business) will find more parts available and less expensive.  In the days when systems were retiring PCC streetcars and their mechanically similar heavy rail rapid transit cars, there was extensive dealing done by transit agencies to obtain parts when other systems scrapped their cars.

16 hours ago, KJP said:

And they're in a very big hurry to do it. So much of a hurry that GCRTA refused to grant more time to a major bidder (Siemens) to prepare its bid. I figured Siemens would be a leading bidder since it has new railcars in service on rail lines in San Fran and Calgary with high and low platforms like Cleveland. And they have new trains in regular service on Brightline in Florida with automated doorway gap fillers that would be very useful on trains here, filling the gaps between train and platforms of different widths. Siemens may not submit a bid because it is doubtful that could fully comply with GCRTA's 1,300-page RFP. GCRTA gave a very small window of time between the Central Rail shop tours (the week of March 29, IIRC) and the deadline in the middle of this month.

By CONTINUING to mis-manage major decisions, RTA will doom this whole process to failure, just like it has done so many other times.  If they had good managers, they would be extremely accommodating to the leading manufacturer of light rail vehicles in North America.  Siemens has undisputed success in the North American light rail market for over 4 decades.  They have a proven, well-designed product operating in many cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico along with a long-proven history in Europe.  They have a production facility established in California.  The primadonnas who "know everything" about running a transit system (into the ground) cannot look for success stories in many other cities.

 

If things don't change, RTA will find some desperate and/or unproven manufacturer will little to no experience in the LRV market like Boeing Vertol and Breda.  They will do and say everything to conform to leadership demands to win RTA's contract.  Production will have to be established in a facility with no history of LRV construction, extending the process and learning curve.  When it comes time for delivery, it will be excessively late, drag on once started and the system will have to shake out unproven design flaws in the equipment leading to RTA's acceptance of the new rail cars taking years.  The low-ball contract will end up having huge cost overruns and be years late in completion.  Despite this, RTA's leaders will trumpet their so-called "state of the art" vehicles that riders (the few that will remain) will know they would be more unreliable junk.  They will end up passing a proven design, well-tested and reliable LRV's so they can have another rolling "monument" to stupidity.  This happened before as Siemens didn't want to play RTA's games in the late 1970's when the system ended up going with Breda.  We all know how that turned out.  

 

Used Siemens LRV's go on to successful second-hand lives in some cities.  Nobody will be able to say that about RTA's current junk.  History repeats itself.