Question Regarding RTA Trains (Cleveland, Newark: how much, living, prices)

[dr_j_planning]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Cleveland's transit ridership decline is akin to the rate of its population loss. Attract people to the city and the transit ridership will increase. People in the suburbs don't use or like public transportation. Transit riders in Cleveland are typified by the local story featuring two African-American women, one a janitor, the other a crossing guard, griping that they are too pressed to pay the .25 cent fare increase.

I'm skeptical of extending the Red Line to Euclid with the idea that people will drive in from, say, Mentor, park their car, wait for a train and ride through the east side, down to Tower City and then make their way to the office. It's not convenient and it's not logical. And the suggestion that these riders can then transfer to the Waterfront Line for work at E 9th/Lakeside or the East Bank is ridiculous. Euclid is depressed, running the Rapid there is misplaced; the stable suburbs, spreading into the adjacent counties don't want the Rapid.
The inner ring suburbs are declining as Cleveland's sprawl continues.

If you're driving in from Lake County, whether in a car or on LakeTran, you want a single ride into town.

Here is the latest Quarterly Report from the American Public Transportation Association:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Total transit ridership during the first three quarters of 2015 in Cleveland has decreased 3.6% when compared to total transit ridership during the first three quarters of 2014. Total transit ridership across most other transit agencies in Ohio and the United States overall decreased during the same period. Here are the 2014-2015 changes in transit ridership in neighboring metropolitan areas:

Buffalo (+2.2%)
Chicago (+0.4% CTA; -1.2% METRA)
Cincinnati (-2.6%)
Columbus (-0.9%)
Detroit (-1.0%)
Grand Rapids (-6.5%)
Indianapolis (-4.5%)
Louisville (-5.3%)
Pittsburgh (+2.2%)

However, heavy rail ridership in Cleveland (i.e. Red Line) during the first three quarters of 2015 increased 3.7% from the first three quarters of 2014. Heavy rail ridership across the entire United States experienced a 0.3% increase during the same period. Here are the 2014-2015 changes in heavy rail ridership in other metropolitan areas of the United States (NOTE: Cleveland's ridership increase was the highest of the 14 heavy rail systems nationwide, although Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest of any system in the United States):

Atlanta (+0.8%)
Baltimore (-11.1%)
Boston (+0.1%)
Chicago (+1.4%)
Jersey City (+3.1%)
Los Angeles (-4.4%)
Miami (+1.1%)
New York City (+0.4%)
Philadelphia (+1.0%)
Port Authority (NY/NJ) (+0.8%)
San Francisco (+3.0%)
Staten Island (+1.9%)
Washington (-2.5%)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by dr_j_planning

Here is the latest Quarterly Report from the American Public Transportation Association:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Total transit ridership during the first three quarters of 2015 in Cleveland has decreased 3.6% when compared to total transit ridership during the first three quarters of 2014. Total transit ridership across most other transit agencies in Ohio and the United States overall decreased during the same period. Here are the 2014-2015 changes in transit ridership in neighboring metropolitan areas:

Buffalo (+2.2%)
Chicago (+0.4% CTA; -1.2% METRA)
Cincinnati (-2.6%)
Columbus (-0.9%)
Detroit (-1.0%)
Grand Rapids (-6.5%)
Indianapolis (-4.5%)
Louisville (-5.3%)
Pittsburgh (+2.2%)

However, heavy rail ridership in Cleveland (i.e. Red Line) during the first three quarters of 2015 increased 3.7% from the first three quarters of 2014. Heavy rail ridership across the entire United States experienced a 0.3% increase during the same period. Here are the 2014-2015 changes in heavy rail ridership in other metropolitan areas of the United States (NOTE: Cleveland's ridership increase was the highest of the 14 heavy rail systems nationwide, although Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest of any system in the United States):

Atlanta (+0.8%)
Baltimore (-11.1%)
Boston (+0.1%)
Chicago (+1.4%)
Jersey City (+3.1%)
Los Angeles (-4.4%)
Miami (+1.1%)
New York City (+0.4%)
Philadelphia (+1.0%)
Port Authority (NY/NJ) (+0.8%)
San Francisco (+3.0%)
Staten Island (+1.9%)
Washington (-2.5%)

That's encouraging news for Cleveland's Red Line. The problem is, as you point out, that it remains the most underused U.S. heavy rail system

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by Kamms

You make it sound as if Cleveland is undergoing this huge uptick in transit use. Take rail into the suburbs then if the demand is so great that people are flocking into parking lots and riding the rapid into downtown.

A large increase in city population will increase transit use. Transit use not being nearly as robust as the late '70s-early '80s, is a total spin on over a 50% drop in ridership since that time.

I wouldn't call it a huge uptick, but RTA's rail transit use has been increasing steadily for the past 4-5 years on both heavy and light rail. This is a major development in contrast to the huge rail (and bus) rider losses the system suffered from the 1980s to the early 2000s.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by dr_j_planning

(NOTE: Cleveland's ridership increase was the highest of the 14 heavy rail systems nationwide, although Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest of any system in the United States):

I've resigned myself to the fact that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership will always be among the nation's lowest although someday, perhaps, we may catch up to and overtake places like Baltimore or Miami, but we're still quite a ways from even that. Cleveland was robbed of a chance for the really robust ridership the system was built for when, in the late 1950s, the County's former engineer Albert S. Porter encouraged the County Commissioners to reject the subway portion of the Rapid which voters had already approved. Even though the Rapid was extended to the airport a decade later, the Porter-inspired subway cut is a debacle for which the entire rail system has never fully recovered. It's a shame.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by TheProf

I've resigned myself to the fact that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership will always be among the nation's lowest although someday, perhaps, we may catch up to and overtake places like Baltimore or Miami, but we're still quite a ways from even that. Cleveland was robbed of a chance for the really robust ridership the system was built for when, in the late 1950s, the County's former engineer Albert S. Porter encouraged the County Commissioners to reject the subway portion of the Rapid which voters had already approved. Even though the Rapid was extended to the airport a decade later, the Porter-inspired subway cut is a debacle for which the entire rail system has never fully recovered. It's a shame.

Good old Cleveland corruption. Even Higbee's had a hand in derailing the subway since it was going to stop in Playhouse Square for its big competitor, Halle's. The downtown loop subway most likely would have contributed to a decreased decline downtown and a speedier recovery had it been built.

Ironically, Halle's went out in 1982 followed by Higbee's in 1992 or so. Higbee's, thinking it was being savy by maintaining the dept store with a rail station, ended up contributing to its own demise 30 years later.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by TheProf

I've resigned myself to the fact that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership will always be among the nation's lowest although someday, perhaps, we may catch up to and overtake places like Baltimore or Miami, but we're still quite a ways from even that. Cleveland was robbed of a chance for the really robust ridership the system was built for when, in the late 1950s, the County's former engineer Albert S. Porter encouraged the County Commissioners to reject the subway portion of the Rapid which voters had already approved. Even though the Rapid was extended to the airport a decade later, the Porter-inspired subway cut is a debacle for which the entire rail system has never fully recovered. It's a shame.

From the point of view of the rider, always having a seat and not having to stand is a benefit.

It used to anger me that RTA buses were jammed even on longer commutes even while the rail rapids rarely had standing riders.

That's an advantage of having bus lines serve rail stations. It also would be an advantage in Euclid. Additionally, Euclid users could switch to the Healthline at Windermere for much easier access to University Hospitals/Cleveland Clinic/CSU/etc.

Finally, the rail rapids have much better service frequencies than the buses.

I would think if the Red Line was expanded to Euclid, RTA reduce bus service between Euclid and downtown and replace those buses with an enhanced feeder system serving the rail station. This should greatly benefit Euclid's attractiveness for residents IMO.

[dr_j_planning]

Originally Posted by Kamms

That's encouraging news for Cleveland's Red Line. The problem is, as you point out, that it remains the most underused U.S. heavy rail system

I provided a link to data that shows ridership on the heavy rail portion of Cleveland's public transit system is the lowest of the 14 heavy rail portions of transit systems in the United States. However, the term "underused" implies a measure of system use efficiency (e.g. average daily use as a percentage of total capacity). The data in the APTA report does not address system use efficiency. It is entirely possible that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest because it has the lowest number of track miles or the fewest number of stations. You could not conclude Cleveland's system is the most "underused" heavy rail transit in the United States without further research.

[Minervah]

One thing I would like to see happen if possible is the revamping of the concrete structures along the route of the Redline. The first time I rode it from The Cedar/University Station to Ohio City I got a real shock. The infrastructure looked like it was crumbling right before my eyes.

Of course the graffiti wasn't exactly pretty but it was typical of big city neighborhoods. I was used to seeing that when I rode the Chicago subways and Elevated trains. But to see cement pillars all chipped and worn was kind of scary.

I saw a news story that the city council was a bit concerned that visitors coming in for the RNC this summer would be seeing all this and maybe things should be "spruced up" a bit.

Ya think?

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by dr_j_planning

I provided a link to data that shows ridership on the heavy rail portion of Cleveland's public transit system is the lowest of the 14 heavy rail portions of transit systems in the United States. However, the term "underused" implies a measure of system use efficiency (e.g. average daily use as a percentage of total capacity). The data in the APTA report does not address system use efficiency. It is entirely possible that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest because it has the lowest number of track miles or the fewest number of stations. You could not conclude Cleveland's system is the most "underused" heavy rail transit in the United States without further research.

If I'm not mistaken, there are a few other HRT systems that have fewer track miles than RTA's Red Line.

RTA comes in at 19.1 miles (and 18 stations)

Baltimore's is about 15 miles (14 stations)

Staten Island's single line is about 14 miles IIRC.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by dr_j_planning

I provided a link to data that shows ridership on the heavy rail portion of Cleveland's public transit system is the lowest of the 14 heavy rail portions of transit systems in the United States. However, the term "underused" implies a measure of system use efficiency (e.g. average daily use as a percentage of total capacity). The data in the APTA report does not address system use efficiency. It is entirely possible that Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest because it has the lowest number of track miles or the fewest number of stations. You could not conclude Cleveland's system is the most "underused" heavy rail transit in the United States without further research.

Cleveland's heavy rail ridership is the lowest because the city has lost almost 60% of its population and the rail line serves mostly the city itself, borders Lakewood and ends in East Cleveland. Lakewood has declining population and East Cleveland can only be described as going from John D Rockefeller to having a hair weave business the only business left in a retail strip center on Euclid Avenue.