jtadams

Yes. Honestly, IMO, if that is truly her view, then that makes her grossly unqualified. Like it or not, rail is both (a) the backbone of the current system, in spite of its (hopefully temporary) shortcomings caused by decades of deferred repair and maintenance; and (b) the backbone of ANY system capable of competing with private automobiles for getting people to and from downtown, among other places. We should be expanding and extending it, not seriously contemplating its permanent demise.

OK. Fair enough. I'd consider Little Italy acceptable during the day, but not at night. If I have to generalize, I'd say most of Cleveland proper, as well as inner suburbs, work that way. When there are a lot of people out and about, crime rates tend to be low. Though with some exceptions (nightclubs, bars, parking lots etc.). Places that are deserted tend to become lawless. Also with some exceptions. But having been born in East Cleveland, spend much of my life in various Cleveland neighborhoods, and most of the rest in inner suburbs ( Euclid and Lakewood), I definitely don't think it's too much of a generalization to say that most folks won't want to transfer in East Cleveland, Glenville, or South Collinwood if they don't absolutely have to. (Windermere/Stokes being the one exception, since there are ordinarily people there from early morning to at least mid- to late evening.)

I don't think it's a serious question, unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the area, and/or looking to pick a fight. But just on the off chance that it is. I lived in North Collinwood about half my life. There's not a single square inch of it I'd recommend anyone go at night if they didn't have to. There are pockets of relative safety during the day (E. 185, E. 200, Waterloo Arts district, probably Lakeshore at least east of 156th). But then we get south of there, to South Collinwood, then East Cleveland. Except for Windermere station, and not even there too late at night, I would not want to change buses ANYWHERE south of the freeway. But the reimagined systems pretend that I or any other person with a choice actually would. Leaving completely aside that even today, the trip from Shoregate to downtown, anytime the 39 doesn't run, is about 90 minutes. That is with the 30 from start to end, then Red Line the rest of the way. Now, there isn't even that connection. The truly intrepid might change buses on St. Clair or Euclid. The rest, E. 105/Quincy. Turning it into a 2 hour trip. So the reimagined routes still IMO need a bit of re-reimagining in order to work. I get that it's not a proposal per se, but just an idea of what could be done if we wanted to maximize ridership without completely eliminating service in less densely populated areas. But it needs work.

I was a little disturbed that non-peak service to North Collinwood and Euclid, both among the more densely populated residential neighborhoods beyond 5-6 miles from downtown, lose relatively direct service to downtown, under both reimagined systems, unless I'm missing something. Right now we at least have the 39 during weekdays and the 30 to Windermere (already a very long trip through very questionable neighborhoods) the rest of the time. What did I miss? Are we throwing the entire northeast side under the bus?

That's probably part of why they even bother to pretend. But I think they could run drastically reduced service, and in fact may have no choice, once the supply of working rail cars diminishes to the point where they literally cannot do anything more. And if the part of the federal penalties that can actually be enforced are less than the cost of rebuilding the system? Well . . . no good ending there. Worst of all worlds: they're forced to shut down enough service to trigger penalties, then default on the ensuing payback requirements. Something tells me that the feds will take it out on the riders and/or local taxpayers, not on the people who made the poor decisions (over a LONG period of time) that brought us to where we are right now.

Not looking great at this moment. Not great at all. Looking for hope everywhere I can, and, in this context at least, not finding much. I don't have confidence right now of GCRTA's willingness to even keep the system in mothballs, which is what it is looking like at this point, pending a hopefully brighter future in which money can be found to resurrect the system. It looks to me like they will let it die and then let it rot. I hope I'm wrong. I truly do. But that is how it looks to me.

There can be reasons why immediate disclosure might be embarrassing, and/or not be in the public interest. (E.g.: a situation involving disorderly conduct or a minor safety issue.) But eventual disclosure should be pretty much a given. If there isn't, then the transparency bar is being set way, way too low.

I'm all for incarcerating those who are truly dangerous. Murderers. Rapists. Child molesters. Armed robbers. People who knowingly sell fentanyl-laced drugs to addicts. That sort of thing. I don't think fare evasion rises to that level of dangerousness. But I don't think it is an entirely victimless act either. I think that a sane society needs to figure out more productive ways of dealing with relatively small offenses such as this, in such a way as to deter them, but without completely ruining the person's life. I'd probably like to see a scale of fines based on the number of prior offenses and the financial ability of the offender. Civil offense only, at least at first. I'd consider criminal prosecution only in unusual circumstances (e.g., multiple offenses, willful refusal to pay fines, that sort of thing). Beating up the driver or passengers or people waiting for the bus or train? Different matter altogether. And transit cops have to deal with that sort of thing already; probably a good argument for using non-police personnel to deal with minor offenders, freeing up cops for more serious matters.

True enough, but then what happens when they don't pay the fine? If there are no real consequences, at any point, then the prior point stands: it is not mandatory. What I'd prefer to see is a schedule of fines and penalties that increase in severity after repeat offenses.

I'm open to both ideas. I'm not a fan of the current state of the criminal justice system, and specifically of its tendency to harden criminals (and non-criminals as well) rather than to rehabilitate them. But, generally speaking, theft of service is already a crime, as is trespassing. I'd be more than happy to handle non-repeated, non-willful offenses as more or less the equivalent of parking tickets. Or even to forgive first-time offenders altogether, maybe with a sliding scale of subsequent fines based on the number of priors and the financial ability of the offender. However, repeated and/or willful offenses by able-bodied, able-minded, adult offenders should not be tolerated outright. If they are, then we end up with those who will obey the law subsidizing those who will not. That's the wrong incentive here. Possibly not as wrong as incarcerating people for any less than the most truly compelling reasons, which I will fully admit this isn't. But wrong nonetheless. Can we come up with a policy that does require payment, but doesn't completely ruin the life of those who run afoul thereof?

POP is an essential element of BRT, as are dedicated lanes and signal prioritization. Anyone who doesn't like it is always free to use one of the several roughly parallel services. Besides which, we already live in what is very much a "papers, please" society. Any person can be harrassed by cops, or worse, for not producing papers. ESPECIALLY any person of color. People who look even vaguely Hispanic can be deported for not having papers, even if they are 5th generation American citizens. It happens all the time. It's not right, but it is what it is, and requiring partial payment for a valuable service that costs a lot of money to provide is not a particularly huge change from the fact that any cop can demand "papers" from any person at any time already, with or without reason, and in this case there at least would be a reason: without it, BRT is really not possible. Plus, no one is demanding ID in this situation. They are demanding proof of payment. Carrying such proof is simply a condition of using the service.

I didn't quite understand the reason either, and maybe the signs were wrong, but I definitely remember that they said go to 96th. 72nd would have been close enough to walk and I'd have gladly done that rather than pay $40-50 for a cab. 96th, not so much; not with little kids in tow. I wonder if they were doing work on multiple local platforms. And it was all the services, not just the 1. We needed to get to South Ferry, but the 2/3 go to Fulton St. which isn't too far of a walk, so that would have been just fine. But, details aside, the point is that people who don't use a transit system regularly will often be deterred by changes, even if planned and announced ahead of time. I maybe should have checked the MTA website, but my phone was almost dead and I didn't want to use it unless truly necessary. Now, given that we don't have great alternatives to our Red Line here when it shuts down, for whatever reason, I think it's pretty important to keep those shutdowns to a minimum. And that segues back into the main topic that we've been discussing here now for years. We need to invest some capital in order for this to be a realistic possibility.

It's a baby step, but, still, $15 million and change we were not at all certain to get, from a state that is historically very reluctant to fund transit. It's a start. I can't help thinking (and lamenting) that railcar replacement simply is not going to happen, at least not soon enough, without some sort of federal assistance. Ideologically I'm quite opposed to that. But I'm also opposed to seeing our rail system fall apart - and us having to repay a bunch of federal moneys already received and spent - if we don't find some way to replace our fleet before it's too late.

I have some suggestions, though a lot of folks won't like them. Start to actually police the troubled neighborhoods that surround many RTA stations. Focus on both the reality, and the perception, of violent crime. Try to push drug dealing and prostitution indoors. Try to push the gangs someplace else altogether. Make it safe, both in perception and in reality, for people of all classes and races to live and work and raise families in places near good transit, including but not limited to every single Red Line station. Buy up parcels of formerly industrial and now-empty land near stations, and build nice, but affordable, housing near every station possible. I'm aware of at least some of the challenges behind each and every one of these proposals. But I'm also aware that if they don't happen, we won't get the density, or economic development, necessary in order to support good transit without excessive subsidies from the general public.

This would of course be great. Problem is, we can't even afford to keep existing rail service running. We're not making the necessary capital expenditures, so, if nothing changes (for the better!), we won't have a Waterfront or any other rail line for more than about the next 5 to 10 years. There won't be enough rolling stock to maintain useful service. The "baby steps" I was referring to were just in terms of finding funding to keep the lights on at this point, with the next priorities, in my thinking at least, being modest improvements in reliability, then frequency of service, then making viable plans to replace the fleet at least as rapidly as necessary, and then, only after all of the previous, improving scope of service (possibly including providing rail coverage to more of downtown in some capacity).

Umm . . I may be aging, and my short-term memory may be crap, but this was a fairly unforgettable experience, and I was there. ? I know several services share the line between 59th/Columbus Cir. and lower Manhattan. But the southbound platforms were closed. Trains were running southbound but could not stop and pick people up. They had to skip the station, making it fairly useless to anyone wanting to use it to travel south. This did look like a planned thing, judging by the fairly nicely printed signs. It's common in NYC on weekends, because they do a lot of their maintenance and trackwork then. It's apparently the least bad among several bad options given that the subways are open, running, and well-used 24/7/365. I mentioned this in relation to how even a minor, planned hiccup in services can cause great inconvenience to visitors and tourists and such, never mind those who depend on the train or bus for their living. That will be a way bigger problem for the traveler here than in NYC, because, ordinarily, there are (and were, even for us, however inconvenient) alternatives to any disrupted service there; here, if you're lucky, there might be replacement bus, eventually. To weave public transportation into the everyday life of our city, never mind our region, is a great goal. That's something that's taken for granted in much of the world, but is rare in the US outside of maybe NYC, Chicago, and (arguably?) DC. A great thing to shoot for. But it's a lofty one given the current situation, and right now I would settle for even baby steps, provided they are in the right direction, and are sufficient to at least preserve the possibility of rebuilding in the future when the economic and political situation with respect to transit has improved.

Do I dare point out, then, that the unions may have a role in keeping GCRTA alive? That they might find it in their own interest to compromise on things of this nature, seeing that the alternative might be the last nail in the coffin of rail transit in northeast Ohio?

BTW: I like to visit NYC from time to time, but the well-publicized problems with subway service on weekends, which is when I'm usually there, have been a huge deterrent, especially since I've been affected by them personally. Last time (2 years ago) I couldn't figure out a simple way to get from Columbus Circle to South Ferry. Several services normally service that line. But on this occasion, all the southbound platforms were closed. Signs indicated we should go north on the 1 to 96th, about 2 miles north, then cross over to go back south. But it was nearly 100F (at street level), trains were jam-packed, and I had 5 other people with me, 4 of them children and all of us exhausted. Ended up taking an air-conditioned cab instead. This was one bad experience, one time (well, two, if you could that an A train at Howard Beach/JFK decided not to show earlier that morning, leaving us stranded there for 40 minutes). But that plus the news reports have kept my tourist money and business away from NYC. Little by little, they are making improvements. Because they have the money to do so, though not nearly as much as they'd like. So I'll probably be back. Eventually. But meanwhile, here in Cleveland, we MUST figure out a way to do the same. NYC's transportation system, even just considering the subways alone, is resilient enough to survive hiccups like this, or even Hurricane Sandy, which was devastating to several of the East River tunnels amongst many other things. Ours is not. If we lose any part of our rail system, we probably have lost it for good.

Agreed. If all goes well. And the destination is someplace that can be easily reached from the Red Line. And there are no retaining walls falling down onto the tracks. And the S-curve isn't closed for months because of a repair that should have been done 10-20 years previously. And there isn't a major sporting event downtown that causes 2-3 hour delays. And if none of the track or the train itself are broken down. And if you don't have to transfer to/from shuttle buses in rough or at least rough-looking neighborhoods at night. And if you can figure out which train goes to the airport as opposed to Stokes/Windermere. And if the Heartless Felon and BBE-900 crews don't decide to take an interest in you or your belongings. I hate to sound like a cynic, because I really do want GCRTA and in particular the Red Line to succeed. And I don't think it's GCRTA's fault. But at current levels of funding I don't know how we offer a system that is particularly welcoming, or even visible, to the average visitor. Even we Clevelanders have frequent trouble with it. We could market it a lot better than we do, sure. But are we ready to do that yet? Do we want many visitors' first impression of GCRTA to be something that causes them grief, rather than relieving it? Maybe the better course is to get some new cars, get some new spare parts, make sure the track is in good enough condition that there are no unplanned shutdowns, coordinate HealthLine/trolley service to coincide with rail arrivals and departures, get some uniformed TC police in some of the stations besides Tower City, and *then* shift focus to marketing, after we have something to market that we're sure will leave a good first impression?

As a libertarian I'm usually fairly sympathetic to this line of reasoning. Public sector agencies often lack sufficient checks and balances against graft, corruption, and inefficiency. However, I don't think it fits here. From all appearances, GCRTA operates in a commendable fashion given the resources at its disposal. It simply needs more resources, for two main reasons that most of us know but most of John Q. Public does not. (a) To keep the rail system alive, and (b) to offer an acceptable level of service to at least the transit-dependent. If either of these objectives fail, the blowback hits everyone.

Then, not to state the obvious, but perhaps the project scoring process is seriously flawed?

The cynic in me says maybe. However, I don't see who directly benefits from killing rail. It would greatly diminish the value of downtown and UC as major employment centers. It throws away the (today's equivalent of) multiple billions of dollars of investment already made, in exchange for essentially nothing. There are a dozen or more good ways to fund the needed replacement vehicles. Probably not all of them would work, but none have been tried. I'm not quite seeing how someone turns the death of GCRTA rail into a profit center. If anything I'd imagine just the opposite: it comes with all the usual opportunities for "profit" via corruption and graft that northeast Ohio is known for.

Even allowing for a little uncertainty as to predicted traffic volumes, this sounds like a near perfect example of a quantifiable, and extreme, bias in favor of a less-needed and more expensive road project, over a more-needed and less expensive rail project. Textbook. Unlike a lot of folks here, I have no extreme prejudice against roads in general or the OC Boulevard in particular. But, even so, it was a no-brainer that keeping rail alive, which is really what this boils down to, is MUCH more important than building another road of at best moderate importance. In this case, and in the general case as well.

It is always harder to handle peaks than averages. Rail should shine in that its peak capacity is vastly greater than other modes of transportation. But . . . . ?

Not to mention that the automated stop/station announcements, on buses at least, are often wrong, sometimes laughably so. If one were visually impaired, and/or unfamiliar with the town, these wrong announcements could put a rider in real danger.