jtadams

My understanding was that both the house and senate are determined by majority vote within supposedly equally sized districts (leaving aside the likely effects of gerrymandering).

Ohio may be largely rural by area, but is largely urban and suburban by population, and IIRC, the state legislature is determined almost exclusively by population. I don't believe that urban areas should run roughshod over rural ones, nor vice versa. However, even leaving aside that healthy cities benefit surrounding rural areas (and vice versa), the large urban areas such as our own absolutely should have sufficient voice as to be able to direct some attention to the needs of transit here. While I don't know this for sure, I suspect it is more the executive branch, not the legislature, that ultimately prevents the state from funding transit at even the paltry levels typical of other comparable states. I know others here know the politics way better than I do. But am I far off base here?

Smartphones (and active data plans therefor) are far from universal among the transit-dependent, and for a lot of us, smartcards would be an awful lot more convenient. They're also an extremely mature and well-understood technology, which, frankly, I have trouble believing would be difficult or exorbitantly costly to implement in a modestly sized transit system such as ours. The one does not exclude the other.

I thought that was what I was suggesting. That roads should never have been subsidized at the expense of transit, and that it is not appropriate to continue to keep doing the same thing, even presuming that it ever was, now that we know for certain what will result.

I don't know the answer. But I think if people truly understood the predicament we are in throughout this country with regard to mass transit, its possible demise, and the effect that will have on cities and their surrounding regions, they would be supportive of reasonable, realistic solutions. I base this on the fact that even I, as a libertarian, believe the system needs to be funded somehow, although I would far prefer it be funded by those who most directly benefit - downtown property owners first and foremost, then riders, then other employers, then other commuters, then the region as a whole due to the positive externalities generated by transit. And I can think of a lot of ways to fund it without new or increased taxes . . . though since public funding is a zero sum game, that means it would have to come out of something else, and I'd probably take it out of unnecessary road projects. In a free-er market, roads, and hence low-density suburban development, would never have been subsidized to the exclusion of transit. I don't like the idea of taxes as a tool for social engineering, but I think a good case can be made for starting to undo decades of unsustainable development patterns by no longer preferentially subsidizing highways over transit. That can't be done all at once, but we could start now, given the political will, by, for instance, mandating that every tax dollar spent on roads in urban areas must be matched by some proportional amount of dollars on transit. Then by using that money to build GOOD transit systems that are more convenient and useful for most people than cars. That is the case today for exactly one part of the country, namely, New York City. There is no reason conceptually why it couldn't be true in the more densely populated parts of other cities, including our own. But, speaking of . . . . The situation is not unique to northeast Ohio or the Rust Belt. There is almost as much transit in the New York City area as in the rest of the country combined, but MTA's own chief lamented that their system was in, and I believe he used these exact words, a "death spiral." It has become public knowledge that the graft involved in MTA operations (e.g., LIRR overtime mandated by outdated work rules) is absurd even by NYC standards. I doubt that that level of graft exists here. There just isn't enough money anymore to make it profitable. But, all the same, I think it wise to examine whether the money being spent could be spent better. Whether some degree of automation might help. (Probably not driving, yet, but eventually?) Whether the union is getting in the way of not only the GCRTA, but its own membership, by requirements that reduce productivity and thereby feed the death spiral. I'm not saying it is, or isn't; I just don't know, but, historically, that sort of thing has been known to happen. Whether capital improvements - which are sometimes more easy to fund through federal grants and the like as opposed to operating costs - may in time reduce operating costs. When a family has lost most of its income, it looks at everything it possibly can, to try to find a way to survive a little bit longer. GCRTA needs to do the same. Also, that family is probably looking to replace the income it lost; hopefully all, but, even if not all, then at least a significant part. GCRTA needs to be doing that as well. If both of those things happen, I think we have a fighting chance. Not a guarantee, but a chance. If it does neither though? Then I think we all know that things end very badly. Question is, does Jane Q. Public also know this?

I've had to change my thinking on this. I believe as I always have that transit serves the interests of the entire region broadly defined, including non-riders, but I no longer believe we are going to be able to sell that belief to people in lower-density suburban and exurban areas, even if we continue to run highly subsidized, yet infrequent, park and ride service to those areas. They just don't personally see those benefits. And given that those services operate at heavy losses, something I was not aware of until recently, I don't think business as usual makes sense anymore. I do think it makes a lot of sense to (a) ask them to pay their fair share (in taxes, or at the farebox); (b) ask (and allow) them to operate their own suburban services at no cost to taxpayers outside their own jurisdictions; or (c) at least for now, given the current funding disaster, cut them loose. For now. The current ridership, and all likely future ridership, comes from the city and inner suburbs. I'd like to keep some reverse commute trips because a lot of folks really depend on those trips. But, otherwise, shrinking the scope of service to mostly city and inner suburbs, but running the best service therein that we can afford, makes the most sense to me. If we want a truly regional system again - which even with great funding won't look like it would have 40 years ago - then the region will have to pay for it, and, right now, I don't know any way to sell that, especially given the need to fix the current rail systems before we can even think about expanding them.

As I see it, they don't have much control over the hand they were dealt, and it was a crappy one. However, they *can* choose how they are going to play it. Business as usual doesn't work anymore. They have to choose whether to preserve at least the core of the system (including rail and inner-city/inner-suburb service), or let it die and the entire region along with it. Honestly, that's a lot of power over the future of over a million people, and I'd feel an awful lot better about that future if I knew that those with that power were at least a little bit inclined to use it wisely.

With that attitude, soon they won't have to do any work at all, because there will no longer be anything resembling a GCRTA for which to work.

Not sure those offering their opinions understood this. Or that the status quo really provides the worst of both worlds; we get mediocre-at-best service as well as mediocre-at-best coverage, making the system at best minimally useful even to those who have no alternative, and, generally speaking, very unattractive to those who do. AND, hence, not likely to generate much support for the funding needed to keep even this mediocre service alive for much longer.

It also becomes that much more important that the funding that was lost over the past decade or so be replaced. I won't profess to have a clue as to how. But that's why Ms. Birdsong and others at the top of GCRTA make the big bucks. ?

Then I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with E_Rocc and say that we need for grownups to start running things, which I think means to prioritize the stuff for which there isn't an alternative, namely, good service in the city and inner suburbs where good ridership already exists. Hopefully the new GM/CEO, Ms. Birdsong, will either agree and act accordingly, or plot some other consistent course toward a future in which at least those who need useful transit the most can have it.

Increased frequency on fewer lines means you can get to anyplace the system goes in a bounded amount of time. If you live in a lower-density area that just became unserved, you may have to walk/bike/drive to get to a stop. But in that case, you probably can afford to do that. You still know that once you're in the system, you can get to anyplace else in the system in a bounded (though not necessarily small) amount of time. Increased coverage with lower frequency means the system probably goes where you are, but only every hour or two, and transfers become unreliable and hence useless. This is useful for point-to-point commutes only. It made more sense when a lot of people worked downtown compared to anyplace else. Not so much anymore IMO. The increased frequency/fewer lines option kills the line I would use to get to work (without having to walk the last 1.25 miles) and I would *still* prefer it to the increased coverage/less frequency option.

The only significant, non-rush-hour coverage I think we can afford outside of the city and inner suburbs would be reverse-commute trips to places like Solon. I wonder if it makes sense for municipalities that might lose out in this situation to restart their own municipal bus services, as North Olmsted, Maple Heights, Euclid, Garfield Heights, and a number of others once did. Since it was only gradually, and in some cases well after the creation of the GCRTA, that these services disappeared, I assume there are no legal impediments to running these services in coordination with GCRTA. Some of the more relatively affluent suburbs might want to fund better services for those who live and/or work in them, out of their own budgets, than what GCRTA can afford to run. Thoughts?

Compared to what I can imagine goes on there, I'm sure this is a model of civility and decorum, but, nevertheless, I'd like to aspire to better than that. ?

My point isn't to name names or to place blame. If there's anything I'm trying to say here it's really that what I consider to be the extreme far left, and what it surely considers to be extreme far-right (me), have so little in common that fruitful, non-argumentative discussion tends to be impossible. In many cases, an understanding of the vital role of public transit does happen to be one of those few points of common ground. But, clearly, not always. If I have over-reacted or mischaracterized the viewpoints of anyone here, I do want to apologize, though it still goes to evidence that once we've veered away from the topic of transit, there may not be enough common ground left for fruitful discussion.

Honestly, I'd just as soon not. People whose world view is based on envy, control, lust for power, elitism, and the ingrained belief that they know better than anyone else, rather than the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all people, rarely respond positively to discussion. They just get angry, and frankly they make me more than a bit angry as well. Possibly because they remind me of a much (decades) earlier version of myself. Either they will mature into a world view compatible with reality, or they won't, and I've never known myself to have made the least bit of difference in that regard, in either direction. There are plenty of folks here *far* to the left of me who still manage to retain some grip on basic decency, morality, and common sense. Arguably, at times, better than my own. But a few of the recent participants in this conversation have not, and as far as I'm concerned, they can have this discussion with someone else. I'm here to talk about how to make things better. Not to hate on and punish those who are successful and whose success could, if only it were allowed to, help empower others to succeed as well. (The evil of which even the furthest-left of liberals used to acknowledge, and, I am sincerely hoping, some still do.

You don't have to like economic reality in order to acknowledge it and to try to find realistic solutions that make things better. If you try to force employers to pay more than employee's work is worth, TO THEM, you will chase away the vast majority of those who might otherwise employ lower-skilled workers.

That is an economically valid observation. But it runs smack into a political minefield, for a reason that makes even me feel excessively cynical and negative. We have one political party that sells itself to the disadvantaged by dangling handouts in front of them, and another which sells itself to lower-middle-class white people by trying to make them scared of eeevil brown and black people. Prosperity for the poor and minority community therefore upsets the balance of political power. Both parties profit from poverty and despair. It's a fact, I blame both sides, and I don't pretend to have a great solution.

The rigid race-based segregation of a couple generations ago has largely disappeared, at least in terms of housing and job markets. But barriers to upward mobility in general, and things that can cause rapid downward mobility (healthcare expenses, drug abuse and drug-related crimes, divorce/abandonment, etc.), have significantly worsened during that time. While I don't like to use the term "privilege," as it is inherently prejudicial and divisive, it is simply a reality that we do not all start at the same place in life. But, rather than to place barriers in the path to success for anyone, I would rather understand and eliminate as many of those barriers as possible, especially but not necessarily exclusively those that disproportionately impact poor and minority people. Lousy transit happens to be one of those barriers. The inner city where poor and minority people disproportionately lived in the past have what look on paper like decent transit options. But consider that to use them, one must walk through dangerous neighborhoods, then wait at a stop in a dangerous neighborhood for an unpredictable and potentially long period of time. Then, probably transfer in another dangerous neighborhood; lather, rinse, repeat. Possibly miss a connection that only happens every hour or worse; possibly lose job as a result. Furthermore, many poor and minority people have now migrated to the suburbs and beyond, where the safety issue is typically less of an issue, but low population density makes efficient transit much harder to provide. Either way they suffer limited access to jobs, fresh food, healthcare, social services, and the like. Keeping the de facto, largely race-based caste system intact, potentially for generations to come. Transit is really key to helping to break this cycle. IMO, to have a healthy city with decent opportunities for all, you need at least three things that are non-negotiable. (a) Safe streets. (b) Safe and effective schools. (c) Good transit options, that go where people live as well as where they work, learn, shop, heal, play, and worship.

I've long pondered, as I'm sure have others here, what a truly forward-thinking transit system would look like. One designed for a hopefully more prosperous future rather than our dismal post-industrial past. And one based on there being at least a little bit more of a level playing field with respect to roads and cars than what we have now. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. I don't know that transit alone is enough to bring economic growth back to the region. But it is certainly a crucial component. As you've touched on, a little bit more openness to free enterprise and the economic growth that would result could help to bring a level of healthy re-urbanization back to the region and specifically to Cleveland proper. It's no secret for instance that the second Amazon HQ was never going to go to any city without at least a reasonable level of transit service. (Nor one in which it was explicitly made to feel unwelcome, for whatever reason.) Many medium- to largish companies likewise recognize the absolutely vital nature of transit to a healthy city and a healthy region. Especially in the tech space. Millenials have shown great willingness to re-colonize formerly troubled and even largely abandoned urban neighborhoods that are or at least potentially could be well-served by transit. The trick would be to find a way to keep them as they grow older, have families, and seek the best possible schools and safest possible communities for their offspring. That means that not only economic opportunity, but also safe communities, with safe and high quality schools, are must. They could be persuaded to live without acres and acres of lawns that have to be mowed, driveways that have to be plowed, etc., as evidenced by basically every single city in the world outside of the U.S. and Canada. But they are not going to compromise, nor should they, on their kids having a safe and healthy life with a promising future. So I believe all these things need to be considered. The problem of restoring healthy transit to our region is intertwined with that of how to build more dense, walkable and urban neighborhoods, but that are safe, have good to excellent schools, and so forth. In the city and inner suburbs at the very least. (It can be done elsewhere as well, but that's a bigger challenge and one with diminishing returns.) We might need to learn from our own past, as well as our peers elsewhere in the world, for ideas on how to make it work.

Also it's been brought to my attention that these kinds of park & ride commuter services are very expensive, not coming near breaking even in terms of farebox recovery to cost ratio. The benefits they bring relative to that cost, and the fact that they transfer wealth from the less prosperous to the more, should be examined. Commuter-oriented services tend to cost MUCH more in other parts of the country, and perhaps the answer to both problems is to simply raise the price to what the market will truly bear.

I would say it is the default assumption for NE Ohio. Commuter services are an exception. Everyone loves these, and they serve the broader public in at least two ways: (a) helping to make our downtown possible, and (b) keeping a handful of cars off of the roads at the times they tend to be the most congested. But aside from these? Few people with cars make non-downtown, non-commute trips via public transit. I don't, even though I would love to, and probably would if it were not grossly inconvenient. It would be less inconvenient though if there were more service (both frequency and scope), and there would be better frequency and scope of service if transit were perceived as more than just a "commuters and poor people" type of service.

How depressing, yet undeniably true. But, acknowledging the present realities including that our society deems transit to be a government rather than a private sector responsibility, and one that serves primarily the politically powerless, does there yet remain any realistic hope for meaningful change? And/or (and these possibilities are not mutually exclusive) is it time to start challenging these deeply seated, yet flawed assumptions?

No real surprise. What is disappointing is that as far as I can tell people are accepting this as "business as usual," rather than asking the questions that need to be asked. Could this problem have been detected and corrected earlier, for example when they were rebuilding the S-curve a few years ago? Why does RTA not fight to regain the right to police its own system? Why are signals STILL not prioritized? It was always understood that the only way the HealthLine could come close to meeting the Euclid Avenue corridor's need for rapid transit would be if it were true BRT and not a glorified #6 bus. Where is the outrage? I don't even see much here, which is the last place I'd expect for it to have gone missing. Have we simply become resigned to the fact that we will always have substandard transit even for a city our size, a fact for which I don't place blame, but lament all the same?

The Dual Hub project might have provided genuine rapid transit service downtown, but I think that ship sailed once it was scaled back to become a glorified slightly faster #6. There isn't a way to build rail downtown anymore at a reasonable cost. And we clearly can't afford to maintain the system we have now. I think this and a lot of other very valid and useful ideas will likely have to wait until the political and economic climate changes for the better, presuming this ever happens.