jtadams

Does anyone have a rough idea of the numbers involved? Because these "freebies" are going to cost a LOT more than most people realize. I think it prudent to make sure they are invested wisely and will support us through the much, much worse times that are soon to follow.

Fix rail now. Bus can come later. And let's hope that by the time this money is spent, there will be enough of an economy left for at least some of us to be able to afford bus or rail tickets.

Sunday schedule kills access to a lot of job sites. I could live with Saturday service schedules, so long as it is well understood by drivers that keeping the schedule, now that it should be trivially simple to do so (almost no riders + almost no traffic), is absolutely essential. I'm horrified by all this. But something has to be done to stop the bleeding. It's not just loss of fares, which as noted above is almost trivial at this point. It's that sales in Cuyahoga County have been reduced to near zero and will stay way lower than before for a very, very long time.

Collecting fares right now is like trying to patch a gaping chest wound with a speck of dust. Since farebox revenues at this point are likely to be negligible anyway, I see no downside to doing something like this temporarily. Serious but hopefully temporary service cuts need to be on the table as well. On my infrequent jaunts around the block to get coffee, I see the same 3-4 #26 buses an hour that normally run, but with barely any riders on them. No agency, and certainly not GCRTA, can afford to run nearly-empty buses and trains for very long.

Just a few weeks ago I was lamenting the probability that transit in northeast Ohio was in a death spiral. Now it's not just transit but the entire economy (not a new thing, but newly obvious to many). Funny how fast things can change. I can only hope that when the current crisis is deemed over, by those who created it, enough of the economy can bounce back that people on the margins, including the transit-dependent, don't literally starve to death first. I don't advocate economic growth because it enriches me, or the wealthy, but because those at the margins literally live or die based on whether it happens.

I don't disagree, but do think a closer look might be useful. Funding via sales taxes probably seemed like a good idea at the time GCRTA was formed (mid-70s). The U.S. economy had not yet stopped growing in real (inflation-adjusted terms), until right about then, nor had suburbanization come close to reaching the pace it would during the following couple decades. The ascendency of Amazon and other online retail, and their impact on sales tax revenues, could not yet have even been imagined. It would take a while to learn the necessary lessons, and to foresee the impact to potential sales (and other) tax revenue, that would result. By the time it became sufficiently clear, it was too late. Now, as a libertarian, there is *no* tax I like. None. But if someone puts a gun to my head and asks me whom to tax in order to pay for better transit, I tend to think it should be the intersection of those who benefit the most, and those who can afford to pay it. That would be downtown and (possibly) University Circle property owners. The transit-dependent benefit greatly, but can't afford to pay, and other property owners may be able to afford to pay, but don't directly benefit to nearly the same extent. In my perfect version of the universe, transit is supplied mainly by municipalities (or perhaps special districts including the dense inner suburbs as well), funded mainly by those municipalities, and the center city, in turn, derives the necessary funding by taxing downtown property, whose value depends directly on the availability of workers, which, in turn, depends on their ability to get downtown in sufficient numbers.

Even as a driver, I very much dislike the curves between Clifton and Detroit, and then again between Madison and West 102 (I think?). I can't imagine trying to bike there. I'm not normally a fan of "traffic calming" for its own sake, but those are a couple of short but very dangerous stretches I think could be reduced to a single lane for the benefit of pretty much everyone using them.

OK. My bad. I was not aware of the distinction between the two, and still don't fully understand it apart from one being much smaller. Nonetheless, the six-way intersection - I'm most familiar with - West Blvd., West 105, Parkhurst & Governor - still seems to me as though it ought to be a roundabout. Note that because of the width of the streets involved, it's neither pedestrian- nor bike-friendly today. That width is currently needed mainly to allow bike lanes plus queueing of rush-hour traffic in such a way as to occasionally not block other nearby intersections. That probably can't be helped. But in a properly designed roundabout, as I understand it, all traffic must yield to crossing pedestrians at all times (not just during a certain phase of the traffic signals) and I imagine that it would use "sharrows" instead of bike lanes inside the roundabout. What am I still missing?

No argument there. And if it happens someplace fairly far out like say Howard Beach/JFK (don't ask me how I know this), you can be well and truly screwed. But, in Manhattan at least, you usually have a few reasonable alternate routes if a single line is having issues, including, most likely, a bus that will be there in less than 5 minutes (though it'll be 10x slower than the train). With GCRTA, best case, we get shuttle buses that are neither fast, nor frequent. You may well lose an hour or more, especially if you were counting on a once-an-hour connection to one of the many connecting buses that only run hourly. You can leave 15-20 minutes for your connection, as I did back when I rode GCRTA more frequently. But if the train suddenly breaks down, or just never bothers to show up, you still aren't going to make that connection.

I wouldn't take it there unless I had an hour or two to spare. But I'm more than happy to take it back home.

I understand the feeling, but I don't think it's even close to being time to give up. Not yet. These are dark times for transit, not just here but throughout most of the U.S. However, keep in mind that just 12 years ago, we were named one of the best transit systems in the nation. Could we get back? It would require changes most of which are beyond the control of anyone here. But they are not impossible. $2/gal. gas will not last forever. The long-term viability of ride-sharing services is far from certain. A trend of re-urbanization continues in spite of many forces arrayed again it. TOD is happening everyplace it's been given even half a chance. While downtown Cleveland employment remaines more or less stagnant, its residential population is growing rapidly. There is a growing understanding that our nation has been falling way behind on investment in infrastructure, not limited to transit, but certainly including it. I think if the general public understood as well as those of us here how cost-effective transit investment can be, compared to the alternatives, their voice would lead toward broad bipartisan support for enough scraps (even if it's a rounding error compared to roads/highways/bridges) to more than rebuild our rail fleet and provide frequent service in the urban core as well as major suburban employment and residential centers. The retiring baby boomer generation may well discover that transit is even more important to people in their golden years, beyond the point of being able to drive safely or legally, than it is to the rest of us. There are no guarantees, and it won't happen without a lot of work and a bit of luck. But even I, a fairly pessimistic person by nature, don't think it's hopeless. Not yet. It may feel that way, but that doesn't mean we give up. It means we fight that much harder. None of us were born transit advocates, and many of us, myself included, had to overcome some degree of ideological bias in order to join this club. If we managed to learn enough to understand the vital importance of transit, others can too, but it's important that we find ways to educate them. That may well prove to make the decisive difference.

There is a third option. Live, actively monitored cameras. Not nearly as effective as a live person, but not nearly as costly either.

Why couldn't some of these (e.g., West Blvd., West 105, Parkhurst & Governor) be traffic circles?

I assumed he meant funding for 34 new cars. I think we do have that, and it's a step in the right direction. But, in my understanding, only about half what's needed to replace the Red Line fleet. We still need the rest, plus, within about 5-10 years, the Blue/Green Line fleet will be in a similar condition.

Railcar replacement is probably even more crucial at this juncture - the Red Line won't survive without it - but otherwise, I agree completely.

Not tremendously high density. I can think of a lot of other corridors that would IMO be better candidates. Perfect world, we'd have BRT on every artery including freeway medians. The one we actually have? We'll be lucky to get true BRT even on the one corridor where we did once have BRT.

If they could do off-vehicle fare collection and signal prioritization along West 25th, then why not on Euclid, which is by far the more important, busy, and higher-profile corridor of the two?

Not a terrible idea, except that we learned or at least should have learned from the HealthLine experience that true BRT is not possible in the current economic/political climate. Deprived of off-vehicle fare collection and signal prioritization, and with vehicles nearing the end of their useful life, the HealthLine no longer comes close to offering a true BRT experience. Mostly not RTA's fault; these decisions were largely made by others. Nonetheless, I don't see a reason to hope for anything substantially better on West 25th, unless some changes to the aforementioned economic and political climate happen first. And I don't know that it makes sense to invest tens of millions of dollars into what will likely amount to, at best, a marginal improvement over the service we have now. Better IMO to buy more cars for our rail system, while we still have it.

I respect that bus drivers' and passengers' time is valuable, just as anyone else's, so if at all possible, I will allow buses to go ahead of me, even if I have right of way. But it would be nice if that courtesy were more consistently reciprocated. Most bus drivers are professional, safe, and courteous, but there remains a small minority who do things like going 5-10mph when they're ahead of schedule, creating a dangerous line of traffic behind them; pull diagonally into bus stops, blocking several lanes unnecessarily; and do all manner of other things so dangerous as to lead me to believe they are unaware of how much damage 30,000 pounds of out-of-control vehicle can do to a typical car, much less a cyclist or a pedestrian.

Other cultures (e.g,. Japan), manage to make their trains run on time. But I have to concede KJP's point that we don't live in a culture whose values align well with transit at all, much less great transit. It's accepted in cities as a necessary evil, but not as an inherent part of what makes cities thrive and grow and add value to the larger culture of which they are a part. And MTA has some huge challenges of its own. It has more resources, but much greater needs as well. In fact, many of the same needs as our system, *plus* the need to replace antiquated signaling systems, some of them original, which force the tradeoff between running very slowly versus running at normal speeds but with unacceptable risks of derailments and crashes.

Exactly my point. If you want discretionary riders, you have to aim for those for whom transit is a reasonable alternative, which means making it a reasonable alternative for them.

I grew up very near there also (about 2 blocks). The corner of Lakeshore/E.152/Macauley seems about as far west as one can safely go. A guy was shot a few years ago, at the westbound 30/39 bus stop on that corner, for no apparent reason at all. He was just on his way to work.

No way to know. I want to give her the benefit of any doubt. The best scenario I can conceive is that she was pulled aside after that tirade and instructed to withhold further comment on the rail system until she learns what she is talking about. The worst is that things are exactly as they appear to be: that a GM was hired not to save our transit system but to preside over its demise. I'm hoping for the former.

Case in point. We were originally supposed to get rail along Euclid (under, over, whatever). That changed to "bus rapid transit." That changed to a glorified #6 bus because no signal prioritization and no advance fare collection (not to mention not nearly enough vehicles to handle peak flow). Then the vehicles reached the end of their useful life and as far as I know have not been replaced. So now, arguably, worse than when we had both the #6, and express service the whole length of Euclid (7, 9, 28, and 32). Most of this is not RTA's fault. But it still deters people who, in any city with reasonable transit, would be using transit. People such as you and me. People who have a choice, but whose time is valuable, and most of whom will choose transit if they can, but ONLY if they can do so without it costing them hours per day. This is not reasonable, unless you want RTA to serve only the transit-dependent, and, unfortunately, the transit-dependent do not tend to be awash in political capital or other resources with which they might otherwise bargain for more funding. I fully believe that they should be the priority, if the system cannot serve both them and those with a choice. But a reasonable transit system would offer a reasonable choice for most people who live and/or work in the city or the more densely populated inner suburbs.

I think the carrot is likely to be far more effective in this case than the stick. I don't think it's reasonable to punish drivers for choosing the easiest, cheapest, fastest, safest, most convenient, and in most cases *only* option available to them. Rather, I'd find ways to incentivize those for whom transit might actually make sense. In my case, for instance, I both live and work in high-volume transit corridors, a few miles apart, that directly connect. However, both the 26 and 81 buses, that I would need, are quite unreliable. Further, the point at which I'd need to transfer, the W.98/Cudell station, is not a place I'd consider particularly friendly, especially not early in the morning when I'd need to transfer. I don't mind waiting a few minutes. But more than a half hour, which is what it typically takes? Nope. No way to get work done while constantly having to watch one's back. I am willing to more than triple my commute, from about 15 minutes by car to nearly an hour by bus, IF I can make productive use of the time riding or waiting. But NOT if I'm wasting all that time. Only if I can use it productively. What would it take to make me a regular rider at least to and from work? * 26 bus, which is sufficiently frequent but RARELY close to being on time, would need to become more reliable. And there would have to be a seat at least much of the time. I realize that bunching is the reason for both problems, and can't always be helped. But it can be improved in most cases. * 81 bus drivers would need to be trained to actually pick people up along Clinton Road. They often refuse for whatever reason. "I didn't see him." (Why not???) "There isn't a stop there." (There doesn't need to be; it's a special service zone and they must stop if it's safe, unless something has changed recently.) "I'm running late." (Often true, but not an excuse. Late arrival is better than not being picked up at all.) * A sufficient police presence would be needed at W. 98/Cudell RTS, so as to deter the many students there from behaving like uncivilized thugs or worse. (No, that is not all of them, or even most of them, nor is it even a few of them more than just some of the time; however, people with choices will not use the station if they don't have to, if they feel intimidated even some of the time, or if it is so gratuitously noisy that one can't actually work.) * Sufficient service would have to exist for me to be able to sit down with a laptop and work. The killer for me would not be the longer commute, but the longer commute PLUS not being able to do anything useful, other than watch my back, during by far the greater part of it. How much would this cost? Not a lot. How much would it cost to instead punish me for driving to work? You would be making me an opponent rather than a supporter. And not just me, but tens if not hundreds of thousands of others like me; people who live, work, or both in Cleveland proper or in an inner suburb that could reasonably be served by high-frequency, reliable buses or trains. Is the goal to make life harder for drivers, most of whom have no choice currently, or to make things easier for transit users, such that many folks on the margins, such as myself, would choose the latter rather than the former?