RTA's board meeting is tomorrow morning. It would be great if anyone is able to attend and make public comments. It is also possible to submit comments / questions at the following link:

https://www.riderta.com/events/2022/8/23/board-meeting

 

I submitted the following "non-agenda" comment:

Rail car replacement - I believe that RTA would benefit from moving to a standard rail car fleet. My impression is that previous RFPs have required the rail car provider to heavily customize vehicles in order to adapt to the current physical requirements of stations. Is this accurate? Has RTA investigated what steps would be necessary to modify stations such that a more standard light rail vehicle could be used at all stations? Buying standard light rail vehicles would make it much easier for RTA to maintain the fleet and would give more flexibility in supporting the rail system into the future. It would minimize the risks associated with being "locked in" to one vendor that had created a customized vehicle that could only serve GCRTA. I believe that previous consultants have overestimated the effort required to make these station modification and I respectfully request that RTA revisit this alternative. Final question - has RTA received viable proposals from more than one rail car supplier in response to the RFP earlier this year?

 

I went through the docs and found a few interesting points:

2nd quarter report

https://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/events/2022-08-23QMR_2ndQuarter.pdf

From Birdsong's comments:

"The rail car replacement project continues to move forward. Currently, proposals received in March are being evaluated per the GCRTA procurement process. The Notice to Proceed to the car builder is expected to be issued in the fourth quarter of 2022, with delivery anticipated for the pilot vehicle in fourth quarter of 2025. Currently, $189.4 million in funding has been identified. As we receive additional funding, we will exercise options to purchase additional cars"

 

Here's something on pg 27 - remember when we learned that the Tower City East duck-under track was being filled in? (Connection to a potential subway under Huron)

"Tower City East Portal Rehabilitation (52N)
RFP for design of repairs to Tower City East Portal including track, power, and signal.
Designer: E.L. Robinson
Cost: $989,942
Contract awarded by Board on February 19, 2019. Notice to Proceed issued on April 4, 2019. Design proceeding. Track 8 duck-under to remain. Plans complete. Project issued for bids March 28, 2022. No bids were received. Estimate to be reviewed prior to resubmitting to Procurement."

I take it this project never happened, or was modified?

 

I also read that they are installing automated fare validators in a number of vehicles, which is a great tool for speeding up boarding time.

On 8/22/2022 at 10:33 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

RTA's board meeting is tomorrow morning. It would be great if anyone is able to attend and make public comments. It is also possible to submit comments / questions at the following link:

https://www.riderta.com/events/2022/8/23/board-meeting

 

I submitted the following "non-agenda" comment:

Rail car replacement - I believe that RTA would benefit from moving to a standard rail car fleet. My impression is that previous RFPs have required the rail car provider to heavily customize vehicles in order to adapt to the current physical requirements of stations. Is this accurate? Has RTA investigated what steps would be necessary to modify stations such that a more standard light rail vehicle could be used at all stations? Buying standard light rail vehicles would make it much easier for RTA to maintain the fleet and would give more flexibility in supporting the rail system into the future. It would minimize the risks associated with being "locked in" to one vendor that had created a customized vehicle that could only serve GCRTA. I believe that previous consultants have overestimated the effort required to make these station modification and I respectfully request that RTA revisit this alternative. Final question - has RTA received viable proposals from more than one rail car supplier in response to the RFP earlier this year?

 

I went through the docs and found a few interesting points:

2nd quarter report

https://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/events/2022-08-23QMR_2ndQuarter.pdf

From Birdsong's comments:

"The rail car replacement project continues to move forward. Currently, proposals received in March are being evaluated per the GCRTA procurement process. The Notice to Proceed to the car builder is expected to be issued in the fourth quarter of 2022, with delivery anticipated for the pilot vehicle in fourth quarter of 2025. Currently, $189.4 million in funding has been identified. As we receive additional funding, we will exercise options to purchase additional cars"

 

Here's something on pg 27 - remember when we learned that the Tower City East duck-under track was being filled in? (Connection to a potential subway under Huron)

"Tower City East Portal Rehabilitation (52N)
RFP for design of repairs to Tower City East Portal including track, power, and signal.
Designer: E.L. Robinson
Cost: $989,942
Contract awarded by Board on February 19, 2019. Notice to Proceed issued on April 4, 2019. Design proceeding. Track 8 duck-under to remain. Plans complete. Project issued for bids March 28, 2022. No bids were received. Estimate to be reviewed prior to resubmitting to Procurement."

I take it this project never happened, or was modified?

 

I also read that they are installing automated fare validators in a number of vehicles, which is a great tool for speeding up boarding time.

Any idea if they mentioned this comment in the meeting?

 

 

August 24, 2022

Passenger

 

GCRTA Advancing Railcar Replacement, Civilian Oversight Programs

 

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is one step closer to fully funding its Railcar Replacement Program with an Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) grant and to forming a civilian oversight committee.

ODOT recently awarded GCRTA $8 million under the Ohio Transit Partnership Program, the agency reported Aug. 24.

 

This is the third consecutive year GCRTA has received the award, bringing its total ODOT funding for the Railcar Replacement Program to $21.4 million. GCRTA, which operates a 33-mile rail network, has now raised $197.5 million of the $300 million Railcar Replacement Program budget, according to Deputy General Manager Engineering and Project Management Mike Schipper. That budget also includes awards and commitments from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, Federal Formula Funding, and USDOT BUILD, as well as the self-funded Rolling Stock Replacement Fund. 

 

“Our railcars are some of the oldest in the country. They have far exceeded their 30 year lifespan,” Schipper said during an Aug. 23 GCRTA Board of Trustees meeting, reported ABC News 5 Cleveland.

 

 

more:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/gcrta-advancing-railcar-replacement-civilian-oversight-programs/

The fact that RTA is claiming they will initiate rail car procurement in Q4 makes me very concerned with what supplier they are going to use. (Not sure if it’s in the article, but they did talk about it at the board meeting and it was in the docs at the board meeting webpage I linked above.)

 

I did call in the for board meeting, listened to the first hour, had a work call come in that I had to take, and then heard the RTA board calling on me for my question while I couldn’t respond to them. I haven’t had a chance to watch the rest of that meeting to see if they answered my web-submitted question, but the full recording of the meeting is also at the link above. 

14 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The fact that RTA is claiming they will initiate rail car procurement in Q4 makes me very concerned with what supplier they are going to use. (Not sure if it’s in the article, but they did talk about it at the board meeting and it was in the docs at the board meeting webpage I linked above.)

 

I did call in the for board meeting, listened to the first hour, had a work call come in that I had to take, and then heard the RTA board calling on me for my question while I couldn’t respond to them. I haven’t had a chance to watch the rest of that meeting to see if they answered my web-submitted question, but the full recording of the meeting is also at the link above. 

I tried to listen and didn't hear anything, but I may have dozed off -- those meetings are long.

Not sure how true it is, but I'm hearing that RTA is going to go with Siemens -- the same company that offered to take over the entire rail system's operations from RTA when Calabrese was running things. But of course he turned them down. I don't think that's what's happening here though. Appears to just be Siemens offering to supply rail cars. But we'll see.....

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Not sure how true it is, but I'm hearing that RTA is going to go with Siemens -- the same company that offered to take over the entire rail system's operations from RTA when Calabrese was running things. But of course he turned them down. I don't think that's what's happening here though. Appears to just be Siemens offering to supply rail cars. But we'll see.....

Is that normal to have Siemens take over operations of a region?

10 hours ago, JB said:

Is that normal to have Siemens take over operations of a region?

 

It's becoming more common in the USA for transit agencies and other local and regional governments to contract out the operation, maintenance and management of their transit systems. But it's commonplace in the rest of the civilized world. 

8 hours ago, KJP said:

 

It's becoming more common in the USA for transit agencies and other local and regional governments to contract out the operation, maintenance and management of their transit systems. But it's commonplace in the rest of the civilized world. 

I had no clue, interesting to know though!

9 hours ago, KJP said:

 

It's becoming more common in the USA for transit agencies and other local and regional governments to contract out the operation, maintenance and management of their transit systems. But it's commonplace in the rest of the civilized world. 

Which cities/ regions in the US have done this? Is there an improvement in transit in this type of arrangement?

1 hour ago, freefourur said:

Which cities/ regions in the US have done this? Is there an improvement in transit in this type of arrangement?

I'll be interested in hearing others opinions, but I can imagine a corporation seeking dramatic cost-cutting and expanding executive pay.  How is privatization of the Indiana turnpike working out?

2 hours ago, freefourur said:

Which cities/ regions in the US have done this? Is there an improvement in transit in this type of arrangement?

 

Six of the largest private transit operating firms have formed the North American Transit Alliance (NATA). NATA member companies include First Transit, Keolis, MV Transportation, National Express, RATP Dev USA and Transdev. Over 19 percent of the passenger journeys, or over 1 billion trips, in the U.S. in 2018 were completed using services provided by private transportation, says NATA. NATA members operate in 46 states, five provinces and more than 2,000 cities in the U.S. and Canada. 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/press-release/21141860/north-american-transit-alliance-six-leading-private-transit-operators-join-forces-to-promote-transit-innovation-in-north-america

 

Is there an improvement in service? Yes and no. In some cases, the service increased because the pay of drivers and other rank-and-file employees decreased and because there was now an aggressive private sector firm that was lobbying for more funds whereas the transit agency and its unions were not as aggressive and unwilling to make campaign contributions. In Boston, there have been complaints of French-based Keolis and its operations of the MBTA regional commuter rail system. I have not heard of as many complaints of Keolis' operation of Virginia Railway Express in DC and northern Virginia, which ousted Amtrak as the contract operator after many years.

 

I've heard no complaints about Herzog Transit Services (aka TransitAmerica Services) and its operations of the Trinity Railway Express between Dallas and Fort Worth, or CalTrain between San Francisco and San Jose, or the new CTrail between New Haven, CT and Springfield, MA. As you can see, a lot of these are regional/commuter rail services, unlike in Europe where almost all levels of public transportation is run by the private sector under contract with public agencies.

 

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

I'll be interested in hearing others opinions, but I can imagine a corporation seeking dramatic cost-cutting and expanding executive pay.  How is privatization of the Indiana turnpike working out?

 

Indiana Turnpike has been a disaster.

 … they always forget the subway in ft worth went kaput when the tandy center mall declined. 😉

Great work here:

 

Yup. I used it in my article today....

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/09/18/the-future-of-the-cleveland-play-house-site/

Couldn't really figure out what exactly happened but one of the new HL busses was in a crash today. Bus looked fine, drivers side of the Equinox was pushed in pretty far. The bus was stopped going north right before the busway through PS, and car was off parked next to the old courthouse. Maybe the person turned from Euclid into the bus coming around the square? 

Edited September 19, 20222 yr by GISguy

Anyone know when this started? I’m glad they did this I just wish they integrated it into the ticket machine instead of off to the side so it’s more obvious.

Source: Twitter

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How unfamiliar w downtown does one need to be to pay $100 for parking? Ha. 

43 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

How unfamiliar w downtown does one need to be to pay $100 for parking? Ha. 

 

or how lazy as to not want to walk an additional 100-200 feet from the next, less crazy-priced garage.

Note from a frustrated (potential) RTA rider

 

 

It also doesn't help that they shut down the functional RTA app in favor of Transit / EZfare, but at least as of two weeks ago, their QR code scanners weren't functional with the Transit App.

 

Moving to EZfare was probably the right call, but even if the system is now functional, it still took them weeks to make their end of the planned roll out work. If you want people to use the system it needs to be easy, stress free, and (feel) safe. A confusing payment system rules out the first two. 

Edited October 11, 20222 yr by Ethan
,

10 hours ago, Ethan said:

It also doesn't help that they shut down the functional RTA app in favor of Transit / EZfare, but at least as of two weeks ago, their QR code scanners weren't functional with the Transit App.

 

Moving to EZfare was probably the right call, but even if the system is now functional, it still took them weeks to make their end of the planned roll out work. If you want people to use the system it needs to be easy, stress free, and (feel) safe. A confusing payment system rules out the first two. 

In the last several years, it fits the pattern of being more difficult on riders.  What has been done so "the system it needs to be easy, stress free, and (feel) safe"?  Numerous prolonged major rail system shutdowns.  Tower City track replacement that takes months to complete and forcing riders to use stairs when an old elevator was frequently broken down.  Violence on buses.  Schedules that aren't met.  Homeless camping out in stations that reek of excrement.  Worn out rail cars that frequently break down with replacements not expected for years.  The NextGen fiasco.  The elimination of almost all park-n-ride service with replacement service using stop-and-go city streets and turning park-n-ride stations into vacant lots.  Add a messed up fare collection rollout to the list of failures.   

Transit forum for the County Exec contenders tomorrow 

 

Interesting article on why sheltered bus stops are where they are: Most Northeast Ohio bus stops don't have shelters. Here's what goes into deciding which gets them

 

Quote

“Our policy … states that the [GCRTA] seeks to provide shelter at a stop if 50 or more persons per day are expected to use that shelter, and if it's feasible to install,” Freilich said. “So, you need both honor our policy.”

 

I would like to know how that expectation of "50 or more persons per day" is determined. If its based off of current riders per stop it seems a bit backward...I would think that number is deflated a bit because the site isn't accommodating. But if its based on residential density of the surrounding area then this might make some more sense. 

 

Quote

Riders can call their local transit agency to request a shelter at a bus stop, or submit the request on agency's website.

 

If anyone wants to suggest a stop that needs a shelter:

GRTA Feedback Form

General Manager connection line at 216-621-9500

Biden-Harris Administration Announces $600 Million from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Replace Aging Railcars Across the Nation

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administration-announces-600-million-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-replace

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Biden-Harris Administration Announces $600 Million from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Replace Aging Railcars Across the Nation

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administration-announces-600-million-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-replace

This is a lay-up for the RTA? 
Right?

Right??

What is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need?  How much could RTA reasonably hope for from this pot of money?  Presumably, this 600M would be split among many cities.

 

Would this money be over and above "normal federal funding?"

49 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

What is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need?  How much could RTA reasonably hope for from this pot of money?  Presumably, this 600M would be split among many cities.

 

Would this money be over and above "normal federal funding?"

This is the latest I could find:

”Overall, the transit agency has raised $197.5 million of the $300 million budgeted for rail-car replacement.”

 

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/news/Greater-Cleveland-RTA-obtains-state-funds-for-rail-car-replacement--67375

4 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

This is a lay-up for the RTA? 
Right?

Right??

 

Not necessarily. 

 

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

What is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need?  How much could RTA reasonably hope for from this pot of money?  Presumably, this 600M would be split among many cities.

 

Would this money be over and above "normal federal funding?"

 

Yes, this is additional money. It's a competitive grant. GCRTA develops its capital budget in four-year increments, based on the availability of federal formula grants being distributed every four years based on updated transit system performance and asset data, as well as on the population of the service area. In order to receive federal dollars, be it formula funds or competitive grants like this new railcar program, it must contribute a nonfederal funding share. That can include local, state or private dollars. And the size of the nonfederal share has a strong bearing on how much federal funding can be secured. If, for example, GCRTA can offer $20 million in nonfederal funds, it could get anywhere from $20 million to $80 million in federal funds -- depending on how much competition there is for those federal funds. If Chicago or New York can offer $100 million in nonfederal funds, they could get anywhere from $100 million to $400 million in federal funds. The more nonfederal funds GCRTA can offer, the more federal dollars it can win.

34 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

”Overall, the transit agency has raised $197.5 million of the $300 million budgeted for rail-car replacement.”

 

9 minutes ago, KJP said:

Yes, this is additional money. It's a competitive grant. GCRTA develops its capital budget in four-year increments, based on the availability of federal formula grants being distributed every four years based on updated transit system performance and asset data, as well as on the population of the service area. In order to receive federal dollars, be it formula funds or competitive grants like this new railcar program, it must contribute a nonfederal funding share. That can include local, state or private dollars. And the size of the nonfederal share has a strong bearing on how much federal funding can be secured. If, for example, GCRTA can offer $20 million in nonfederal funds, it could get anywhere from $20 million to $80 million in federal funds -- depending on how much competition there is for those federal funds. If Chicago or New York can offer $100 million in nonfederal funds, they could get anywhere from $100 million to $400 million in federal funds. The more nonfederal funds GCRTA can offer, the more federal dollars it can win.

 

So since RTA has already raised ~$198M can we assume they have the opportunity to receive a grant of at least $198M? Or is some of those funds already raised federal dollars so not eligible to be matched? 

41 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

 

So since RTA has already raised ~$198M can we assume they have the opportunity to receive a grant of at least $198M? Or is some of those funds already raised federal dollars so not eligible to be matched? 

 

A lot of that is federal money, including formula funds from their current four-year apportionment. 

 

EDIT: in spring of this year, GCRTA wrote the following including amounts from each source... 

 

At this time $189.4 million of funding has been either awarded or committed to the Rail Car Replacement Program as follows: GCRTA has already placed $56.0 million in a Rolling Stock Reserve Fund and plans on adding another $10.0 million over the next two years for use as local match towards grants. GCRTA has also committed $66 million of federal formula grants over the next eight years. NOACA has provided $9.6 million of funding with another $14.4 million committed, USDOT has awarded GCRTA a $15 million BUILD grant. The IIJA included $5 million in Community Project Funding from Senator Brown. The State of Ohio has awarded $4.5 million of GRF funding and $8.9 million of OTP2 funding.

We are requesting multi-year funding commitments for the remaining $110.6 million as follows:

• Federal funding of between $60.0 – 80.0 million over the next four to six years beginning in FFY 2022.

• State funding of between $45.0 – 50.0 million over the four to six years beginning in SFY2022.

In 2021 we solicited and received proposals from Rail Car Manufacturers that were unacceptable. We re-issued the RFP with new proposals due on March 9, 2022 for potential contract award in August 2022.

https://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/legislative/LegislativeUpdate2022.pdf

 

Then, in August, GCRTA won an additional $8 million in ODOT funds for the railcar program (it has requested $10 million per year over six years)...

 

"This is the third year that ODOT has awarded funding to the Rail Car Replacement Program and brings the total ODOT funding to $21.4 million"

https://www.riderta.com/news/GCRTAawardedODOTgrants

 

 

12 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

This is a lay-up for the RTA? 
Right?

Right??

 

If Lou Stokes or Steve LaTourette was still in office, yes.   Now, not so much.

On 10/14/2022 at 7:03 AM, urb-a-saurus said:

What is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need?  How much could RTA reasonably hope for from this pot of money?  Presumably, this 600M would be split among many cities.

 

Would this money be over and above "normal federal funding?"

Here is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need.  In 1980, the current fleet of Breda LRV's started to be delivered.  At that time the PCC fleet that operated on the former Shaker Rapid Transit Lines was 32 to 34 years old.  When the first group of new PCC's arrived in 1948 (additions to the fleet were purchased used that were slightly older), they started to replace former Cleveland streetcars that were 34 years old in 1948.  Those former Cleveland streetcars were relegated to peak-service runs only at that time and the last ones were retired from that service in 1959.  The PCC design was excellent and highly successful.  By the late 1940's nearly all of the design problems had been discovered and corrected in later production runs.  New PCC cars would be delivered in a morning, tested and put into service by the evening rush hours.  That is an indication of how well they were constructed.

 

The current heavy rail fleet of Tokyu HRV rapid transit cars started to be delivered in 1984.  The original Bluebird rapid transit cars on the former CTS rapid transit were delivered new in 1955 and 1958.  The Airporter fleet was purchased new in 1967 and 1970.  When the Airporters entered service, the Bluebirds were relegated to peak-service runs.  In addition, only 18 of the 88 Bluebirds were single units while all 30 Airporters were single units.  So, when the Tokyu rapid transit cars were placed into service, they replaced all of the earlier rapid transit cars that were 29, 26, 17 and 14 years old respectively.  

 

At the current time, the Breda LRV's are 44 years old and the Tokyu HRV's are 38 years old with no replacements ordered as of yet.  It takes several years for the bid(s) to be placed (which RTA has bungled already), build the rail cars, have the bugs worked out and for the new fleet(s) placed into full regular service.  By that time, the Breda fleet will be nearing 50 years old and the Tokyu fleet not far behind.  If RTA decides to continue their stubborn ways, they will go with fleet(s) that will have their own unique designs which will add to the bugs and time to resolve them.

 

Aside from the age of the rail fleets, they are both unique designs with no similar models in service anywhere.  Breda, in particular, has a bad reputation for LRV equipment.  Being unique and old, off-the-self parts are not available.  Cannibalizing out-of-service RTA rail cars can only supply parts for only so long.  RTA then must resort to having custom expensive spare parts produced to keep the fleets operational.  To add to RTA's problems, as @KJPhas previously stated, the HRV's are deteriorating faster than the LRV's.  This is due to RTA not having enough operational single unit HRV's to provide off-peak service (when new, 20 of the HRV's were single units and 40 were intended to run in a minimum of 2-car trains as they have operators' cabs on one end).  When CTS received the Airporters and into the first years of RTA, the 30-unit Airporter fleet provided single-unit operation during off-peak service (service outside of rush hours, nights and weekends).  They were more than sufficient to provide single-unit operation even with significantly higher ridership numbers than the current day.  The low numbers of the current single-unit HRV's force RTA to run two-car trains that are basically empty.  It doubles the wear-and-tear on the equipment and power consumption.  The LRV's have fared somewhat better as they are all articulated single units.

 

When the PCC fleet was in operation, parts were common as they were still operated in several cities.  The Bluebirds were mechanically similar as they were based upon PCC streetcar technology applied to rapid transit rail car bodies, also used in other cities.  The Airporters, though they were unique, were "youngsters" in comparison to the other RTA fleets.  As the current rail fleets get older, maintenance problems of non-standard rail cars will intensify.  Should we have harsher, prolonged and colder winters that haven't happened in a few years, expect the problems to be much worse.

 

This is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need.

 

Edited October 16, 20222 yr by LifeLongClevelander

On 10/15/2022 at 4:18 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

This is the magnitude of RTA's rail car need.

 

The gist from those of you more expert than me seems to be (1) RTA needs a complete fleet replacement, (2) for maintenance and service efficiency RTA should buy an off-the-shelf rail car rather than a custom vehicle, (3) RTA should buy rail cars that could operate on both the Red Line and Blue/Green Lines, and (4) RTA will do none of the above.  Correct?

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

The gist from those of you more expert than me seems to be (1) RTA needs a complete fleet replacement, (2) for maintenance and service efficiency RTA should buy an off-the-shelf rail car rather than a custom vehicle, (3) RTA should buy rail cars that could operate on both the Red Line and Blue/Green Lines, and (4) RTA will do none of the above.  Correct?

Yes on the first 3. I’m not sure on 4 - I’m under the impression they are leaning towards a unified fleet. In recent board meetings I have also gotten the impression they will be putting out more info this quarter - hopefully we’ll get an update in December. 

6 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yes on the first 3. I’m not sure on 4 - I’m under the impression they are leaning towards a unified fleet. In recent board meetings I have also gotten the impression they will be putting out more info this quarter - hopefully we’ll get an update in December. 

 

Will they have to  redo the Shaker line platforms if that is the case?   I recall swapping between them at E. 34th and the platform heights were significantly different.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Will they have to  redo the Shaker line platforms if that is the case?   I recall swapping between them at E. 34th and the platform heights were significantly different.

I’m really curious how they would do it - from my perspective, either Red Line stations or Shaker Line stations would have to be modified for a unified fleet. Previously they had not expressed a willingness to make these modifications. But no one is going to make them a Heavy Rail fleet that will fit in the maintenance facility. Which means that SOMETHING would have to change about the Red Line (specifically platform height). It’s also possible that I took the various comments from RTA and read more into them than what was there. The way they talked about it gave me the impression it would be a unified fleet. Perhaps it’s my eternal optimism. Anyway, as of a recent board meeting, they talked about making more info public by December. 
 

Also, yes there is a very big platform height difference. As far as I know, there is no light rail car is existence that could service the RedLine platform height. The tracks would have to be raised. (Or all the Red line platforms rebuilt, which would be way more expensive.) Or maybe they convinced someone to build them a custom single car Heavy Rail, which seems least likely. Or they are going to buy Heavy Rail cars that don’t fit in their current maintenance facility, which seems like a terrible idea.  To be fair, all options have significant negatives. I just hope their perception of “least bad” is the same as ours. 

To make a light-rail car work on our rail system, either the Red Line station platforms have to be lowered or the tracks at each station have to be raised. I believe the variance is about 1 foot, IIRC. No one makes a light-rail car with floor heights that will match the Red Line's platform levels. Raising the tracks at each station is much less complex and expensive. It requires adding ballast (the gravel on which tracks set) through stations. Some are on or next to bridges (West 117th, University Circle, Little Italy, Superior), but all are ballasted bridge decks whose side walls may need to be raised a bit to support the extra ballast. But there is one place where it is not easy to retrofit -- the airport station. There, the tracks are bolted to concrete floor of the tunnel. Those would need to be redone. Fortunately, the airport station is at the end of the line so it can be taken out of service for modifications and not result in taking more stations out of service for the duration of that work. All of the shared light-rail/heavy-rail stations do not need any work done -- Tower City, East 34th, East 55th -- as the LRT platforms and their ADA ramps can be used. Hopefully the ADA ramps don't need major retrofit work done.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 Fortunately, the airport station is at the end of the line so it can be taken out of service for modifications and not result in taking more stations out of service for the duration of that work. 

It could also be operated with a decent schedule using a single track and crossing over, allowing for each side to be retrofitted independently if necessary.   

1 hour ago, KJP said:

To make a light-rail car work on our rail system, either the Red Line station platforms have to be lowered or the tracks at each station have to be raised. I believe the variance is about 1 foot, IIRC. No one makes a light-rail car with floor heights that will match the Red Line's platform levels. Raising the tracks at each station is much less complex and expensive. It requires adding ballast (the gravel on which tracks set) through stations. Some are on or next to bridges (West 117th, University Circle, Little Italy, Superior), but all are ballasted bridge decks whose side walls may need to be raised a bit to support the extra ballast. But there is one place where it is not easy to retrofit -- the airport station. There, the tracks are bolted to concrete floor of the tunnel. Those would need to be redone. Fortunately, the airport station is at the end of the line so it can be taken out of service for modifications and not result in taking more stations out of service for the duration of that work. All of the shared light-rail/heavy-rail stations do not need any work done -- Tower City, East 34th, East 55th -- as the LRT platforms and their ADA ramps can be used. Hopefully the ADA ramps don't need major retrofit work done.

The Airport station can also be modified one track at a time.  The amount of service that the Red Line sees is not heavy or frequent enough where a single stub-end track terminus would be a problem.  Multiple times in the history of the station, one track at a time has been taken out-of-service so that work could be performed either for repairs or rebuilding.  RTA also has no qualms about taking significant portions of lines out-of-service for extended periods of time for major work.

7 hours ago, Foraker said:

The gist from those of you more expert than me seems to be (1) RTA needs a complete fleet replacement, (2) for maintenance and service efficiency RTA should buy an off-the-shelf rail car rather than a custom vehicle, (3) RTA should buy rail cars that could operate on both the Red Line and Blue/Green Lines, and (4) RTA will do none of the above.  Correct?

Both of RTA's fleets are well past retirement age.  It is really coming into question on just how much longer they can keep the rail operation going, in particular the Red Line.  They most certainly need to operate one common rail fleet for all lines.  They have to have practically double of everything to maintain two distinctly different fleets and it offers no flexibility for operations.  As for the Red Line, even though it was built for heavy rail standards, the ridership doesn't warrant a heavy rail operation.  From what I understand, those behind Federal funding do not want to build a fleet of heavy rail cars with complete control cabs on both ends of heavy rail cars as it adds significantly to costs. 

 

As  @KJP previously stated, the current preference is to build heavy rail cars that are semi-permanently joined together as a married pair sets joined via a drawbar.  Married pairs can be separated, but it is highly intensive in labor and time to do so.  The transfer table at RTA's Central Rail Maintenance facility can shift a rail car that is around 80 feet long.  The Breda LRV's are 77 feet long.  The Tokyu HRV's are 75 feet long, but they have couplers at both ends of all rail cars, even though 40 of the original 60 were designed for paired operation.  Just as long as a train has an operator's cab at both ends, both the single units and individual units designed for paired operation can operate in multi-car trains.  To modify the maintenance facility (not only the transfer table but the building structure as well) to be able to shift 150 foot long car sets will substantially add to the acquisition costs, something that the ridership doesn't justify.  Also, the car body lifts are embedded in concrete floor at the maintenance facility.  The jacking points are different for a Breda LRV and Tokyu HRV.  A married pair would have to have double the lifts to lift the set.  Anything that does not share the common jacking points would need to be lifted with a pair of the concrete embedded lifts and a pair of portable jacks.  If a common rail car design is selected using the LRV body style, all of the unique servicing needs can be eliminated as well as two sets of unique parts.

True about being able to take out one track at a time at the Airport station. But if RTA wants to continue service without interruption, the first station track would have to be taken out of service while the Tokyu cars are still operation. Then the second station track would have to be taken out after the new cars begin service. That transition would have to occur well after the new cars were delivered and debugged.

45 minutes ago, KJP said:

True about being able to take out one track at a time at the Airport station. But if RTA wants to continue service without interruption, the first station track would have to be taken out of service while the Tokyu cars are still operation. 

Wouldn't that be the case for all Red Line Stations?  

9 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Wouldn't that be the case for all Red Line Stations?  

 

Maybe. They could shut down the Red Line west of Tower City for a week or two to lift the tracks at all stations, then do all of the stations east of East 55th in about a week or so.

Is

5 hours ago, KJP said:

To make a light-rail car work on our rail system, either the Red Line station platforms have to be lowered or the tracks at each station have to be raised.

 

Is there any requirement for Red Line trains to be heavy rail because they operate on/near freight tracks?

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

Is there any requirement for Red Line trains to be heavy rail because they operate on/near freight tracks?

No, there is no requirement due to the proximity to the line being near freight tracks.  It was built to heavy rail standards in the mid-1950's due to extremely lofty ridership projections for the line that never materialized.  High platform operation was in vogue in that time frame and it was felt that loading rapid transit cars would be faster if steps were not involved in loading the cars.  Originally, the rapid transit line was planned to use PCC streetcars operated in trains.  The outer segments of the streetcar lines would be utilized and when those lines crossed or approached the rapid transit right-of-way, the streetcars would then use it.  Due to the forced transfers from buses to the rapid transit stations and lack of downtown stations (aside from the Terminal Tower) made it less desirable to use.  The decay of the area on the eastern end of the line only contributed to the decline in ridership for the rapid transit line.

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by LifeLongClevelander

@Foraker Also note that the Shaker lines were built next to freight tracks from near East 92nd to the vicinity of East 9th Ext. and heavy-duty mainline passenger railroad tracks all the way into Cleveland Union Terminal/Tower City Center.

 

An acquaintance asked me a few weeks ago about what land RTA owned and I was curious myself; so I compiled the data set of parcels in Cuyahoga County; and marked in red on this map - https://skorasaur.us/maps/2022-09-RTA_properties.html

If I get time or willingness, I'll create a bulleted text list with the addresses so you can more clearly see them.

 

(RTA's properties are deeded under 20 different names, which was annoying during my work, including and not limited to:

GCRTA
cleveland RTA
Greater Cleveland - R T A
Greater Cleve R T A
THE GREATER CLEVELAND TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Greater Cleve Trans Auth.
Greater Cleveland Regional
Greater Cleve Regional Trans
Cleveland Rta
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTH
Cleveland R T A
GREATER CLEVELAND RTA
Cleveland Regional Transit
Cleve Regional Transit
GREATER CLEVE REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTH ATTN EDWARD PEPPERS
Clevel Reg Transit Authority Accounting Dept
Cleve Reg Transit Authority Accounting Dept  
Greater Cleveland RTA
Regional Trans Authority
Cleveland City Of C-T-S
GREATER CLEVE REGIONAL TRANS AUTH ATTN EDWARD PEPPERS

 

Notably; they own very little or no property along the green and blue lines (even within the city of Cleveland); that is all are owned by the City of Shaker Heights; the parcels around the 55th station are owned by them (Shaker Hts) or ODOT.

Edited October 18, 20222 yr by skorasaurus
clarity

51 minutes ago, skorasaurus said:

 

An acquaintance asked me a few weeks ago about what land RTA owned and I was curious myself; so I compiled the data set of parcels in Cuyahoga County; and marked in red on this map - https://skorasaur.us/maps/2022-09-RTA_properties.html

If I get time or willingness, I'll create a bulleted text list with the addresses so you can more clearly see them.

 

(RTA's properties are deeded under 20 different names, which was annoying during my work, including and not limited to:

GCRTA
cleveland RTA
Greater Cleveland - R T A
Greater Cleve R T A
THE GREATER CLEVELAND TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Greater Cleve Trans Auth.
Greater Cleveland Regional
Greater Cleve Regional Trans
Cleveland Rta
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTH
Cleveland R T A
GREATER CLEVELAND RTA
Cleveland Regional Transit
Cleve Regional Transit
GREATER CLEVE REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTH ATTN EDWARD PEPPERS
Clevel Reg Transit Authority Accounting Dept
Cleve Reg Transit Authority Accounting Dept  
Greater Cleveland RTA
Regional Trans Authority
Cleveland City Of C-T-S
GREATER CLEVE REGIONAL TRANS AUTH ATTN EDWARD PEPPERS

 

Notably; they own very little or no property along the green and blue lines (even within the city of Cleveland); that is all are owned by the City of Shaker Heights; the parcels around the 55th station are owned by them (Shaker Hts) or ODOT.

That is AWESOME. Really ideal for helping to think about ToD potential.