How are the smart cards ultimately going to work?  I almost always travel on a day pass.  Are the smart cards going to automatically debit a one-way trip fair and that's it, or will the cards be able to be programmed some other way?

 

While it's still way too early to speculate on this, suffice to say <SPECULATION>that there will be no change in the manner in which fares will be debited, i.e, it won't all just become a giant declining-balance system. If you have a day pass now, it will be a day pass as a smartcard, and will allow you unlimited rides on all transit modes until 3:00am the following day (or the day after, if activated late in the day). The only cards that will be "debited" are five-ride cards. The advantage for all cards is the ability to recharge and reuse them. Imagine, if you will, this scenario:

 

January 1, 20xx: you purchase a monthly pass smartcard. You use it for the month of January, taking your trips to work, school, entertainment venues, shopping, etc...

 

January 31: you get home that evening, log onto your PC, navigate to shoprta.com, and via direct debit from your checking account, purchase a February monthly pass activation for your card. At this point, RTA is notified of the transaction, and the smart fareboxes receive notification to expect your card.

 

The next time you use your smartcard at any farebox or media reader/encoder, the information validating your card for February is encoded onto your card.

 

At the end of February -- wash, rinse, repeat...

 

I'm guessing the same thing could be done for day passes, multi-day passes, etc... however, everything right now is in the EARLY planning stages, 'cause, to a certain extent, "we don't know what we don't know".</SPECULATION>

 

And, since I've now pretty much "outed myself" with that little discourse, it's time for me to come clean -- as many of you might have suspected, or have already personally confirmed, I am an RTA employee.  :wave: In fact, I'm the organization's web site manager, and have been with them for almost two years. I'm also an avowed transit geek, having never owned a car or even had a driver's license.

 

I'd flown a bit under the radar on these forums in order to scope out the territory and determine just what was going on. Suffice to say, anything I've posted in the past, or will post in the future, is my own personal viewpoint or understanding of a given topic, and should not be interpreted in any way as official organizational policy.

 

I return you now to your regularly scheduled forums...

Jerry,

 

While I'm looking for the POP system on the Red & Silver lines, I'm wondering why it isn't going to be implemented on the Blue & Green Lines.  Won't it be confusing (viz the Red Line) since all the rail lines are so tightly integrated?  Wouldn't also it be a great chance to finally get rid of Shaker Rapid's famed (but confusing, to newcomers) "Pay Enter, Eastbound," "Pay Leave, Westbound?"

How are the smart cards ultimately going to work? 

 

Joel Frelich, Project Manager for the fare collection upgrade, responds:

 

"After you obtain a smart card, you can place on the smart card any of the various farecards or passes we are offering to the public at that time. Details will not be worked out for quite a long time yet."

Akron's Metro system proposes a fare increase in March

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/11880261.html

JetTDoG, can't really welcome you aboard since you've been here for a while, but it's definitely great to have multiple RTA insiders here.

Call him JeTDoG and he might be more thankful! ;)

^Thanks KJR ;)

While I'm looking for the POP system on the Red & Silver lines, I'm wondering why it isn't going to be implemented on the Blue & Green Lines.  Won't it be confusing (viz the Red Line) since all the rail lines are so tightly integrated?  Wouldn't also it be a great chance to finally get rid of Shaker Rapid's famed (but confusing, to newcomers) "Pay Enter, Eastbound," "Pay Leave, Westbound?"

 

The Project Manager responds, "Good point, but POP requires installation, maintenance, and servicing of vending machines at all stops, including lightly used stops.  This would be cost-prohibitive due to the large number of Blue & Green Line stops."

^ thanks, Jerry.

 

I kinda figured as much.  The Blue & Green lines have upwards of about 28 stops sans the joint Red Line ones, and the busier of those: Shaker Sq, Lee (Blue), the ends of the line, etc, would require 2 or more vending machines to handle the volume.  And unlike almost all Red Line stops, they'd sit outdoors exposed to Cleveland's volatile weather, meaning even more maintenance + passenger operational difficulty during snowy frigid days... I can foresee the problems.  Our 2 rail systems, though tightly linked, are like as different as fish and foul.    So it looks like "Pay Enter, Eastbound -- Pay Leave, Westbound" with all the attendant confusion along with the ever clunky, 1-man (or woman), 1-car operation will rule the day along our light rail lines for the foreseeable future.

 

That said, somehow Baltimore makes POP work and they have at least as many LRT stops (if not more) as we, esp in their surface downtown rail/transit mall.  Did RTA ever check out how they do it?  Like Blue/Green, Baltimore's Light Rail stops are all outdoor (at least we have indoor Tower City) -- and even though Balto's climate is generally milder, they still have their 'Cleveland moments' during winter, and then some...

 

I will pass along your Baltimore comment.

Two informational meetings will be held to help customers understand the route consolidations and significant route changes that will go into effect on Dec. 16.

 

The affected bus routes are: #4, #14, #15F, #20A, #22, #25B/W, #35, #38, #39X/BX,  #49F, #55X, #77F, #86F, #326 and #823.

 

The meetings will be from noon-1 p.m. and 4:30-6 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 6, at the RTA Main Office, 1240 West Sixth Street.

For more information, call 216-621-9500.

 

Jerry, one suggestion for some subtle PR which you guys may have already done: google maps include subway/light rail stops for several American cities, but not for Cleveland.  Any change you guys could nag them a bit to update their layers?

Google maps include subway/light rail stops for several American cities, but not for Cleveland.  Any change you guys could nag them a bit to update their layers?

 

I will let JeTDog weigh in on that...my technical ability ends when I press the SEND button.

RTA Board committees meet at 9 a.m Tuesday, Dec. 4.

 

The Finance Committee will hold a required public hearing on the proposed 2008 operating and capital budget.

 

The Planning and Development Committee will hear a monthly update on the status of the Euclid Corridor Project, and discuss a non-drilling oil and gas lease agreement that a firm has proposed for the Woodhill Garage.

 

The Board is expected to pass the budget at the Dec. 18 meeting.

Jerry, one suggestion for some subtle PR which you guys may have already done: google maps include subway/light rail stops for several American cities, but not for Cleveland.  Any change you guys could nag them a bit to update their layers?

 

I was about to respond to this post in the context of Google Transit, and then I re-read the post and realized what was being requested.

 

Now that I've correlated that there is no relationship between participation in Google Transit and the existence of these map points (i.e., Chicago and Boston are not on Google Transit, but their stations are represented on Google Maps, albeit a bit sloppily, as the infowindow popups are, in some cases, less than informative), I see no reason not to. I have a contact at Google that I can explore this with, understanding that it may take a while to navigate "the great G". Thankfully, rail stations don't tend to migrate :-).

 

On the topic of Google Transit, since my response is likely to raise that issue, I will say this: Google has some very specific (and thankfully standards-based) requirements as far as what data is needed to populate their system. Our scheduling system only recently had an export facility ported into it to even consider being able to export the data in a "Google-friendly" format. I have not had the opportunity to explore that data export capability further at this point.

 

Also, there are considerations to be had in how much data would need to be provided to Google. By this, I mean that Google Transit has the ability to use both defined timepoints (which are a minimum requirement) and shapefiles (which are optional). I actually did some investigation into Google Transit's implementation in Pittsburgh, and came up with some interesting results. Using an origin of 1420 Centre Ave and a destination of 300 Chatham Park Dr (addresses obtained from a Google search of apartments in Pittsburgh), while the results obtained appear to be technically accurate, they are not completely realistic. The results returned do not accurately portray the intermediate route taken by the 38C bus; rather, they show a straight line trip from Penn & Stanwix to  Parkway Center Dr South. This is because those are likely the only defined timepoints that were supplied to Google.

 

You'll also see inaccuracies further on down the path (along Greentree Rd), which become more apparent when you zoom in. Again, these are probably due to the amount of data supplied to Google. It appears that the Port Authority has chosen not to supply a shapes.txt file, which would be an accurate drawing of the route, and a representation of the distance along the route on which the stops occur. I would prefer to provide the best possible data to Google if we were to do this, especially considering the winding, branching nature of some of our routes, and this could raise questions of the amount of effort it would take to generate such a file.

 

Please understand, I don't consider any of these to be insurmountable issues, and I will not dismiss any options outright. I do, however, have to balance effort versus return, and have multiple priorities and responsibilities, all of which need to be met. That being said, I'm a big fan of Google and their technologies, and will do eveything possible to make sure that RTA puts forth a "best of breed" internet product, whatever form that may take.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, JeTDoG.

Yes, thanks JeTDog for the reply.  I can imagine the Google Transit project is more ambitious- but I'd think just getting the stops accurately portrayed on google maps would be pretty useful.  They're already on some of the other map sites (Yahoo maps, for instance), but just like you observations for other cities, they're not always in the exact right spot...

mmm, no postings for four days...I guess silence is golden.

 

RTA staff shared its 2008 Service Management Plan with the Board of Trustees yesterday during a Finance Committee meeting on the proposed 2008 budget. Some points you may find interesting:

 

* Systemwide, average boarding per vehicle hour...bus 26...rail 66.

 

* "Staff will continue to explore the feasibility of implementing "flexible routing" in low-density areas, to enhance customer service and route productivity. The concept might entail buses leaving at set times from a particular hub, such as a transit center. After leaving the hub, the actual path followed by the bus would vary, based on passenger requests."

 

* Staff is also reviewing weekend service,to see if it meets customer demands.

 

During a public hearing on the budget, General Manager Joe Calabrese noted, "We need help." Without more aid from the State, service cuts will continue. He is seeking help from various groups to help lobby for a dedicated funding source of state aid.

 

Service cuts also mean that over time, RTA will need fewer vehicles, and the five-year Bus Improvement Plan has been reduced by $19 million.

 

Depending on the weather, Euclid Avenue, from East 55th Street to East 86th Street, should open in January or February.

 

* Staff is also reviewing weekend service,to see if it meets customer demands.

 

 

For me it doesn't.  The 86 stops running south of Brook Park RTS to early on Saturday evenings and I've found the circulator in Lakewood to be mostly useless for me when I've wanted to connect to it from the Red Line on weekends because it doesn't run often enough.   

 

But, I'm just one passenger.  In all honesty, not many people in Berea ride the 86 on Saturday evenings.  Although, back in August, I had intended to catch the southbound 8:52 from Brook Park only to find that the schedule had been revised at some point to eliminate the 8:52 and 9:52 runs  (if it ever did?).  I had to get back on the Red Line and go to the airport and get a cab.  I had come back from Columbus on Greyhound and was trying to get home.  One other passenger got stranded at Brook Park too.  She had to call someone she knew in Berea to get a ride. 

 

I wish the ridership study done several years ago for extending the Red Line to Berea and the IX Center had shown worthwhile numbers.  Then the Red Line would be a 10 minute walk from my house... sigh...

http://timferris.blogspot.com/2007/12/claudia-pens-beautiful-devotional-piece.html

 

I'm sick of responding to every single blog, column, comment I read or hear. lol.

In response to the two previous posts:

 

* I have forwarded your comments to the staff conducting the review. Thanks for the input.

 

* The proposed Red Line extension to Berea was killed by Berea residents and civic leaders, who said they did not want their city turned into a parking lot for RTA. The feds never want their money used in a city that does not want it.

 

* I have already responded to Tim Ferris. Thanks.

I just received this press release.

 

Shaker Square is now a WiFi Hotspot

 

CLEVELAND — This historic shopping and restaurant district has now entered the 21st century with the introduction of a "Shaker Square WiFi Hotspot”. Web users can enjoy this new free wireless internet service anywhere in the outdoor space that is within the confines of the Square. The wireless access is available 24-hours a day.

 

"This is an example of how the Shaker Square experience will be further enhanced for those coming to the Square," said Peter Rubin, President and CEO of The Coral Company, owner of Shaker Square. "We are committed to continue making Shaker Square a true night and day encounter.”

 

Since 2004, Shaker Square has been owned and managed by local developer, The Coral Company. Coral is an unusual real estate company in that it has expertise in both commercial & residential development. The company excels best in complex redevelopment projects where mixed uses can be integrated together like an intricate puzzle to create viable, vibrant neighborhoods that last for

generations to come.

 

Direct questions to: [email protected]

 

Mr. Ferris has point, but until this state and this nation gets serious about supporting mass transit with real dollars and intelligent land use, there will never be adequate service after normal business hours.  There is always room for improvement and they aren't perfect, but overall, I think RTA does a decent job with what they have.  If Mr. Ferris thinks transit service is lacking here, he should try living in Columbus. 

 

on a separate note-- I must be misremembering about the Red Line extension.  I could have sworn that the ridership numbers were part of it.  Oh well, can't remember everything.

Here is a summary of what is on the agenda for the Dec. 18 Board meeting. It starts at 9 a.m.

 

Adopt a resolution of congrats for former RTA GM Ronald Tober, who is retiring after 38 years in transit. He is now in Charlotte, NC.

 

Spend $151,000 to upgrade the paging system equipment at Tower City, and improve sound quality.

 

Spend $180,000 to inspect and recommend changes to the Hopkins Airport rail tunnel and track bed.

 

Approve the 2008 operating budget.

 

Issue general obligation bonds for capital improvements and to refinance early bond issues.

 

A blogger friend is looking for a new way to describe her lifestyle -- she owns a car but does not want to use it. So, she is not car-free, but she would just rather take public transit. It is an interesting blog...see if you can help her out.

 

http://www.christineborne.net/cleveland_accent/

 

Go to the Dec. 14 entry.

Give Jerry credit, I am a moderator on Fox's Cleveland Browns page.  I was going to link a thread here where people were talking about the Rapid going down after the Buffalo game.  But he was already there and responding.

Give Jerry credit, I am a moderator on Fox's Cleveland Browns page.  I was going to link a thread here where people were talking about the Rapid going down after the Buffalo game. But he was already there and responding.

Thanks. I recently updated my daily Google news alerts to include blogs, and it is paying dividends. Before, I was only monitoring news stories.

 

Some members of the Browns forum said they thought it was "scary" that someone in government could monitor what they say. I think it just promotes responsibility. Because of the First Amendment, you are free to say (or post) whatever you want. Now, you just know that RTA will be along, sooner or later, to respond to your comment. That what makes our nation great. There are a lot of people in foreign lands who wish they had these freedoms that we take for granted.

A blogger friend is looking for a new way to describe her lifestyle -- she owns a car but does not want to use it. So, she is not car-free, but she would just rather take public transit. It is an interesting blog...see if you can help her out.

 

http://www.christineborne.net/cleveland_accent/

 

Go to the Dec. 14 entry.

 

Funny you should post this today. I had coffee with her this morning! She's going to be doing some volunteer work for All Aboard Ohio. Christine and her husband share a car, so her husband actually uses it while she takes transit. She had her own car, but sold it and immediately recognized how much money she was saving.

This morning, I saw a woman running in the slippery, snow-covered street alongside a trolley to knock on the door and get the operator to stop.

 

He stopped, she got on, and all is well. But what would have happened if she slip and fell? Running on a snow-covered street is never a good idea, especially when you are alongside a heavy vehicle.

 

And when accidents occur, RTA is often (always?) portrayed as the bad guy. When there is a TV camera stuck in your face, you can never say what you really want to say.

 

Happy New Year.

New fares effective Jan. 7

 

New RTA fares take effect Monday, Jan. 7. This is the second phase of fare modifications approved in May 2006. The first phase took effect July 1, 2006, after an extensive round of public hearings.

 

After the hearings, the Board agreed to split the increase into to two parts to lessen the impact on customers. The action was RTA’s first across-the-board increase in 13 years, and can largely be

attributed to the rising cost of fuel.

 

All-Day Pass, unlimited rides

Individual, $4.00

Senior/disabled/child, $1.75

 

Bus/Rapid

Cash, $ 1.75

5-trip farecard, $8.75

7-Day Pass, $ 17.50

Monthly Pass, $63.00

 

Trolley/Loop/Circulator

Cash $1.00 (trolleys free because of sponsorship)

5-trip farecard, $5.00

 

Park-N-Ride Bus

Cash, $ 2.00

5-trip farecard, $10.00

7-Day Pass, $ 20.00

Monthly Pass, $70.00

 

Senior/disabled

Cash, $ .75

5-trip farecard, $3.75

7-Day Pass, $ 7.50

Monthly Pass, $29.00

 

Student

5-trips farecard, $7.50

 

Other cash fares

Paratransit $1.75

Out-of-county $3.00

New year, new budget, same problems

 

Even with revenue from a fare change taking effect on Jan. 7, RTA’s 2008 operating budget will be a “challenge,” officials said. Expenses are rising faster than revenue.

 

Because of a weak economy, the budget reflects limited revenue from a one percent countywide sales tax. Fuel costs are unpredictable, and health-care costs continue to rise. In addition, state funding for transit has been reduced dramatically.

 

“Our mission remains the same: to provide effective public transportation and superior customer service while maintaining financial health. But this year, meeting that goal will be more challenging than ever,” says RTA CEO Joe Calabrese.

 

To help balance the budget, a service reduction was implemented Dec. 16, and other reductions will be considered later this year. The budget also funds 51 fewer positions than last year.

 

This year, RTA will take the lead in a statewide push to develop strategies to increase revenue by looking at non-traditional sources of income, including the possibility of a dedicated funding source from the State.

 

Nearly $725,000 in additional resources is being allocated for disabled and Job Access services to keep up with increasing needs and demands.

 

Capital improvements:

 

• Construction will continue on the Euclid Corridor.

 

• Construction will begin on the East 55th Street and Puritas stations, as well as design of the Brookpark and East 120th Street stations.

 

• The Westlake Park-N-Ride expansion will be completed.

 

• Several rail bridges will be rehabbed.

In response to an earlier posting about senior ID cards:

 

1. You can obtain your senior ID on your birthday or 30 days before.

 

2. You must be 65 years old.

 

3. You must come to 1240 West Sixth St.. with $3 and a photo Id that includes your date of birth.

 

An interesting tidbit from the most current issue of Mass Transit Magazine, regarding federal funding favoring BRT over streetcars:

 

http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=5086

 

notable quotes from the article:

 

"Portland officials... are learning that federal transit managers favor buses for efficiency and may delay or withhold construction funding."

 

"Portland is failing to meet a cost-effectiveness test that planners here say is biased against streetcars"

 

"Office of Management and Budget... has ordered them to raise standards for cost effectiveness when judging transit projects"

 

"Both congressmen want the government to implement the Small Starts program... to proliferate streetcar lines and dense urban development in cities across the nation. But two years after Congress passed the law, the administration hasn't funded a single streetcar line and instead proposed rules that would give preference to bus rapid transit systems over streetcars."

 

"If you build 5,000 units of housing along that line and people walked from those units of housing and get on the streetcar, they would not count under their criteria"

 

"Portland, TriMet and Metro planners... have to proceed with caution through delicate talks... 'Since you are asking for money, it's generally a good idea not to go kicking the people who are supposed to give you the money'"

 

I know Portland is frequently tossed around on these boards as an example of a streetcar system that works, and is being pursued for further development. I just want it to be perfectly clear that all is not wine and roses (or is it maple syrup & lattes?) in the Pacific Northwest.

See recent posts at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=14029.0

But I'll post this article I wrote last May for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association newsletter, since this thread probably gets visited more than the USDOT thread....

_____________________

 

 

The Plot to Derail Rail’s Revival

New federal criteria is denying rail funding – on purpose

By Ken Prendergast

 

With 25 years of rail’s popularity and success – including for light-rail, regional commuter rail and intercity passenger trains – you’d think the federal government would be eager to meet their electorate’s desires.

 

Instead, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other federal transportation agencies have made a concerted effort to change project-scoring criteria to deny funding to rail projects and make it appear there is actually less demand for new rail projects. The end result is what they desired – divert federal dollars to new high-occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways and bus alternatives that have little hope of encouraging denser, mixed-use developments around transit stops.

 

The obvious question is – why?

 

The disturbing answer is reminiscent of a dark chapter in America’s transportation history book in which highway and oil industries joined forces to create shell companies to buy electric streetcar systems and replace them with buses. Today, the highway lobby is using a slightly different tactic to stop the transit renaissance dead in its tracks. It’s a tactic that gained traction in the last six years with the White House and Congressional leaders.

 

The transit renaissance, and rail’s energizing of it, is hard to ignore. In March, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reported that Americans took 10.1 billion trips on local transit in 2006. It was the first time in 50 years that public transit was used so heavily. The ridership growth didn’t just start when gas prices began heading upward in 2004.

 

“Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995,” APTA reported. “That is more than double the growth rate of the (nation’s) population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period.”

 

Rail transit ridership was responsible for the nation’s increased use of public transportation, according to an analysis by Ed Tennyson, Pennsylvania’s former deputy secretary of transportation, now a consultant to the nonprofit organization Light Rail Now!

 

“If we analyze the APTA data, ridership went down with streetcar eliminations from 1956 to 1981 when San Diego Trolley came alive,” Tennyson wrote. “Ridership had gone down 75 percent as (the nation’s) population grew. Transit was no longer relevant except in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and New Oreleans. Why there? Rail service. Even Shaker Heights, with Cleveland’s partial demise, lost only half as many riders as bus systems did.

 

“Now, since 1984, what has happened?” Tennyson asked. “Using APTA-FTA data, light rail has grown 274 percent from a small base. Regional commuter rail has grown 57 percent from a larger base. Rapid rail (subways, elevated railways, etc.) has grown 40-some percent from a large base and buses lost half a percent from the largest base.”

 

New rail transit services continue to be added while existing services are expanded. Yet, many of these are happening with federal funding contributions reduced from 80 percent of total project costs in the 1980s to less than 50 percent today. Smaller, new-start rail transit projects – Denver’s Central Corridor, St. Louis’ Cross-County light-rail line, the first phase of New Mexico’s RailRunner – are getting built with no federal dollars.

 

The total number of new-start transit projects receiving federal funding fell from 80 projects in 2002 to 40 in 2006, according to the New Starts Working Group. Most new-start projects are rail. The declining federal contribution is a big factor, especially for conducting preliminary engineering. Another factor is the increasingly complicated planning process which the FTA puts a project through. In the past, it would typically take five years for a project to go from the alternatives analysis phase to final design. Today, the planning process takes at least 10 years, said Jeff Boothe, chairman of the New Starts Working Group and a partner at the Washington D.C. office of Holland & Knight, LLP.

 

“They (FTA) are putting more of the onus on local funding for design with less certainty for federal funding,” he said. “People are spending a lot more time, which is money, before you get considered for a full funding grant agreement (from the FTA). There aren’t many transit agencies willing to going through that. It’s death by a thousand cuts.”

 

As is typically the case for any transportation mode, there are far more transit projects than there is federal funding available to them. For transit, however, there is a 20-year backlog of projects waiting for federal funding. Last year, the FTA New Starts Program was funded at just $1.2 billion.

 

Furthermore, in 2002 the FTA began changing the weighting, or emphasis on criteria it uses to rate new-start transit projects in search of federal funding. Cost, ridership, benefits to low-income areas and environmental impacts are among the key factors FTA uses to measure the merits of a New Start project. Cost-effectiveness is now a primary factor, determined by travel time savings and annualized capital costs over the short term. Land-use impacts were pushed farther down the list.

 

Although rail projects tend to have large, up-front construction costs, they have more long-term benefits than buses by encouraging denser, mixed-used communities around transit stops. The reason is rail’s permanence provides confidence to real estate developers; they know that rail will serve their investments for decades. Rail services also have more easily identifiable routes and carry less of a social stigma than buses. Rail competes well with express buses on travel time savings when higher-density neighborhoods exist around stations.

 

But when land-use impacts carry less weight with the FTA than short-term cost-effectiveness, the FTA will opt for high-occupancy vehicle highway lanes in low-density, suburban sprawl areas and a few Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes.

 

“It (the New Starts standards) totally misses how you reshape a city,” said Kevin McCarty, senior director of federal policy at the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

 

“There are no cost-effective rail projects anymore,” Boothe said. “The focus is on BRT and to use FTA money on HOV lanes and put in express buses. Then they turn the HOV lane over to single-occupant cars. The New Starts Program has become a highway program.”

 

“They (FTA) seem to be more highway oriented,” McCarty said. “If you make the whole (project rating) thing about travel-time reduction, then the truth is that for a lot of (rail) segments, it isn’t going to be enough. On a given rail corridor, up to 30 percent are taking transit. That’s a lot of lane capacity, saving (drivers’) travel time.”

 

So how did the FTA come to hold new rail projects in such a low regard? Like everything else in Washington D.C., nothing happens without political pressure. That pressure was applied by a succession of congressmen who chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, which has spending authority over U.S. Department of Transportation programs. First was Harold “Hal” Rogers (Kentucky’s 5th District). Next was Ernest Istook Jr. (Oklahoma’s 5th District). Most recently, it was Joe Knollenberg (Michigan’s 9th District).

 

“They put the pressure on OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and OMB puts pressure on the FTA,” Boothe said.

 

And who put the pressure on Congressmen Rogers, Istook and Knollenberg? Highway and oil lobbyists are funneling their message, and money, through so-called independent “think tanks” espousing far-right causes. They include the Reason Foundation, Thoreau Institute, Coors Foundation, Buckeye Policy Institute and others.

 

Among their funders, according to Media Transparency and compiled by Light Rail Now!, are the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, plus The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Founders of these “charitable groups” grew their fortunes from oil, pipelines and asphalt, Media Transparency reports. And, they gave more than $50 million to right-wing “think tanks” seeking to block rail transit and smart growth.

 

“They are in complicity with the committee chairs, the FTA and OMB,” Boothe said. “We have a lot of ideology working here. They view that road and air (travel) is the free market. Rail is viewed as social engineering. It’s frustrating and ludicrous.”

 

At a 2004 hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, then-Chairman Istook opened the session by saying that while he comprehends the nation’s need for more transit services, “we need to distinguish between the grass and the weeds.”

 

“It’s all an effort to move away from rail and it extends to high-speed rail, too,” said Boothe, a Washington D.C. political insider for 25 years. “It’s history repeating itself. They’re trying to kill off rail transit again.”

 

He referred to National City Lines, the most prominent of many shell corporations created in the 1930s by General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Truck (which made buses) to acquire electric streetcar and interurban railway systems. Back then, most transit systems were run by private companies which competed against government-owned roads. Transit companies were wracked by the Great Depression and a Supreme Court ruling that divorced their railway and electric utility operations on the grounds they wielded too much political power and ignored rural interests. More than 40 transit systems were acquired by National City Lines, their streetcars dismantled and replaced with buses made by GM and Mack, burning Standard Oil and Phillips fuel and running on Firestone tires.

 

In 1949, the U.S. Justice Department prosecuted National City Lines and its corporate financiers on antitrust conspiracy charges, winning at the district and appellate court levels. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ rulings.

 

“Street railways failed for economic and demographic reasons which had nothing to do with any plot by General Motors,” GM officials countered.

 

The transit renaissance in recent decades, riding on the rebirth of rail, has become a threat to the highway and oil lobbies’ monopoly power over how we have lived and traveled for the past 50 years.

 

Boothe said there is hope in Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota, a strong supporter of rail transit who took over this year as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Oberstar said he will hold oversight hearings in the coming months on the FTA’s scoring criteria for New Starts.

 

“I’m optimistic we’ll get an airing of these (New Starts) issues,” Boothe said. “I hope that FTA realizes there’s a new sheriff in town.”

 

END

___________________________

 

The Plot, In a Nutshell...

 

Full Speed Ahead – Since 1995, ridership on public transit has risen 30 percent, faster than the nation’s population growth, and even faster than the rising use of cars. According to transit industry data, all of public transit’s ridership growth is the result of the greater availability of rail transit and its encouragement of smart growth around stations.

 

Not so Fast – At the same time, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made it more difficult for transit agencies and communities to submit federal funding requests for rail projects and get them approved. Instead, bus rapid transit and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on highways are getting an increasing share of the federal funding. It is an apparent attempt to make it seem as if there is less demand for rail projects.

 

The Train Robbers – The FTA is under pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, which in turn was under pressure from the last three chairmen of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Those three chairmen saw eye-to-eye with right-wing “think thanks,” funding by highway and oil interests, who consider rail to be social engineering and highways/aviation part of the free market.

 

New Sheriff in Town – There is a new chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, James Oberstar, who is very pro-rail, and will hold hearings on FTA’s anti-rail bias.

 

END

___________________________

 

 

Why care?

 

Why should advocates of intercity passenger trains care what happens to local transit systems? The reasons are numerous:

 

There is a synergistic relationship between real estate development patterns and different modes of transportation. Higher-density, mixed-use communities nourish, and are nourished by higher-density modes like rail transit and intercity rail; Low-density, sprawling communities encourage, if not require people to drive for virtually every trip, be they across the street or across the state;

 

There is also a synergistic relationship between the usage of intercity passenger trains and local transit systems. Where the modes are conveniently linked at shared station facilities, with coordinated schedules and clear information, ridership on both modes tends to increase. When people have to get in their cars to reach the train station, they are more likely to keep on driving.

 

Federal investments in local transit can benefit intercity passenger train service quality. For example, regional commuter rail services often share rights of way and stations with intercity passenger trains, so a federal investment in commuter rail can speed up intercity trains, improve their safety and reliability, and provide their riders with more comfortable station facilities. Even where there is no commuter rail service, federal funding has created intermodal transportation centers uniting light-rail, and/or local/intercity buses with intercity rail.

 

In some cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference between a commuter and an intercity rail travel corridor. The FTA considers a travel market 135 miles or less and having at least several thousand weekday travelers bound for one or more cities along the corridor to be a commuter market. The start-up of Amtrak’s Boston-Portland Downeaster service was funded in this manner. Eligible Midwest corridors could include Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-Champaign/Urbana, Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh, Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus and others;

 

The anti-rail transit attitude in recent years in Washington D.C. has extended to intercity passenger rail, creating a negative policy climate for Amtrak and high-speed rail funding.

 

END

 

^We need to get the troglodytes out of Congress who buy into the anti-rail baloney-- a difficult task.  If the Dems lose control of Congress, the next chair of the T&I committee is going to be John Mica (R-FL).  A root fungus understands more about transportation than he does-- especially when it comes to rail. 

To be fair, wasn't Trent Lott advocating an overhaul of rail?  I know it was mostly about freight, but it would have opened up more tracks to commuter traffic.

 

KJP, do I have that right?

RTA Board Committees meet at 9 a.m. on Jan. 8 to:

 

* Review the Euclid Corridor Project.

 

* Review a request for proposals for real estate brokerage services. The broker would help generate revenue from RTA property through sales, joint developments and tenants.

 

The full Board meets Jan. 22.

Senator Lott is a more fair-minded Republican. He was one of the two leading sponsors of a bill to reform and boost funding for passenger rail service. The Senate passed the bill 70-22. It's awaiting action in the House.

 

Read this guest column by Senator Lott:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg234124#msg234124

Senator Lott is a more fair-minded Republican.

 

...in the very narrow field of national railroad policy, anyway...

 

Lott notwithstanding, the destruction of Amtrak as a policy goal is most definitely a partisan issue, so our railroading future would certainly be in better hands with a dem congress (and president).

Actually, transit funding fared better under Democratic administrations and Congresses, but in 36 years of existence, funding for intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) has always been paltry at best, no matter which party is in charge.

 

Now we have an administration that has spoent two terms actively trying to sabotage anything that moves people by rail.

Well that's true, both parties treat Amtrak like crap.  But underfunding (the dems) is still better than dismantling (the GOP) IMHO.

 

* Review a request for proposals for real estate brokerage services. The broker would help generate revenue from RTA property through sales, joint developments and tenants.

 

 

Jerry,

 

Do you have any "high-level" statistics readily available on just how much property RTA owns? Or how much they are intending to sell? (i.e. property not currently being used for RTA facilites).

 

* Review a request for proposals for real estate brokerage services. The broker would help generate revenue from RTA property through sales, joint developments and tenants.

 

 

Do you have any "high-level" statistics readily available on just how much property RTA owns? Or how much they are intending to sell? (i.e. property not currently being used for RTA facilites).

 

Not now, but I know that the PowerPoint presentation from the Board Committee meeting will be available on our Web site either late Tuesday or early Wednesday morning. All presentations are. If you check the on-site newsroom regularly, you will receive a wealth of information. I will link to it here when it is posted.

 

http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1127

 

Highlights of Tuesday's RTA Board Committee meeting are now available. The posting includes an update on the Euclid Corridor project and an overview of a proposal to hire a real estate brokerage firm. In response to an earlier question, RTA owns about 400 properties.

Can everyone on this list make a New Year's resolution to subscribe to RTA's GREAT twice-a-month e-newsletter? The next issues will magically appear in your e-mail inbox on Jan. 15 and Feb. 1. Go ahead, make my day.

 

www.rideRTA.com/e-news

Can everyone on this list make a New Year's resolution to subscribe to RTA's GREAT twice-a-month e-newsletter? The next issues will magically appear in your e-mail inbox on Jan. 15 and Feb. 1. Go ahead, make my day.

 

www.rideRTA.com/e-news

Mr. Masek,

 

Are there any other longterm major plans RTA is planning in the future?  Anything as grand in scope as the Euclid Corridor Project in discussion with any sort of realistic chance of implementation? 

Are there any other long-term major plans RTA is planning in the future?  Anything as grand in scope as the Euclid Corridor Project in discussion with any sort of realistic chance of implementation? 

The Board is expected to discuss this issue later this year, maybe in the spring. Because of the depressed economy and tight budget, there will certainly be nothing of the scope of the $200 million Corridor Project. I think the Board is leaning toward a "lessons learned" approach, to see where the principles of BRT can be used elsewhere in the system, perhaps along Clifton Boulevard in Lakewood.

Lakewood officials I'd spoken with weren't too keen about that Clifton BRT project. Maybe the change in administration will mean a change in attitude but as a Clifton Boulevard homeowner, I hope not.

 

If I were running RTA, I'd take the top 9 busiest bus routes (with Euclid Corridor already subtracted), and start investing in signal prioritization for buses, better signage, some improved transit waiting environments with leasable spaces at the busiest ones (at major transfer locations) with local/neighborhood buy-in to help maintain their landscaping, trash etc. (like Adopt a Shelter but call it "Adopt a Stop").

 

Clifton is already a pretty fast roadway, and benefits from having the West Shoreway (or boulevard to be) into downtown. And if I recall, the #55 isn't even among RTA's 10-busiest routes. RTA is dogged by rising fuel, maintenance and labor expenses. Not having to stop at every single traffic light on the 10 busiest bus routes would reduce fuel costs, maintenance costs (replacing brakes, etc.), vehicle service hours, employee productivity and yes, even make the bus services more attractive to riders by increasing their average speed of travel.

 

These types of projects are eligible for federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds which RTA can secure through NOACA. Who knows, RTA might even get more ridership/revenue from the improvements.