jtadams

Lakewood, where I live as well, is rare among NE Ohio communities in being both sufficiently dense, and sufficiently prosperous, that something like this really should work here, if it will work anywhere. But here is my guess: Uber/Lyft got much of their foothold because of the brokenness of our overall transportation system, not limited to but certainly including transit. Since the original Circulator disappeared, they now serve the short-haul, transit-dependent market in Lakewood better than transit itself can. The coming fleets of driverless/autonomous vehicles potentially might do so even better. I would like to see the Circulator revived, but honestly I think it is already too late for that. Here is what it is *not* too late for: improved long-haul transit to and from the central city and other job centers, probably evolving into a hub-spoke mile with ridesharing and/or autonomous vehicles increasingly serving the "last mile" in one or both directions. And guess what: rail works WAY better in this role than buses possibly could. Plus, it is the one thing that can offer value in the central city and other congested areas that autonomous vehicles cannot. Let's think outside the box here and not be discouraged when 20th century solutions prove to have been already made obsolete by the first sixth of the 21st.

No. Neither party cares about you or me. They both suck, each worse than the other. But that is not the problem. In this case, they are doing something right. They are pushing funding responsibilities onto local/regional governments because that is where it belongs. Nothing in the federal or most state constitutions authorizes anyone in Cleveland, New York, or anyplace else to force the population of rural, agricultural Bumblefart County, Nebraska to pay for their transit. Note that the same is true of subsidies for local streets, roads, highways, bridges, Opportunity Corridor boulevards, and so forth. Neither automotive transportation nor transit should receive subsidies. I fully get that cars/roads do get them, transit outside NYC doesn't, and that is part of why we're in this mess. But it is not going to change anytime soon. It might never. Rather than crying about it, why don't we accept it, and figure out a way to fund a truly excellent system without demanding that others pay for it at gunpoint??? Before crying that "it can't be done," could we pleeeeeeease consider that it is *already* being done in many places around the world, including city-states like Singapore where there is no Bumblefart County to pay? Or that it was being done right here for about a century before the GI bill and suburbanization made transit less profitable? You don't have to like it. I sure don't. But whining that "the GOP suxx0rs because they won't gimme other people's money, WAAAH" does at most nothing, and possibly less than nothing, to fix it. We either dig OURSELVES out somehow, or the transit "death spiral" continues and takes down the entire economy with it. How about we start talking about how?

Something has changed since the housing market crash. The stark division between city and suburb, especially inner suburb, has lessened greatly. Places like Euclid, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Brooklyn, Independence, even Solon, have seen major increases in transit-dependent people as well as in many cases non-transit-friendly jobs. It no longer makes sense IMO to think that the city and the rest of the county have starkly differing interests. It is not always even the case that the city has the densest population. (Euclid is very comparable; Lakewood's is actually almost double Cleveland's). If the county as a whole cannot see the case for a frugally but adequately funded transit network, then Cleveland and First Suburbs, and anyone else interested, should band together and work to create a funding district specifically for creating such a network. And let me point out, as usual, one thing that will piss off conserberals and libervatives alike: Transit GREATLY benefits downtown property owners, making the job density of downtown or University Circle possible. Taxation is never fair, but, if you want it to be as fair as possible, you have to find a way to make them pick up their share, and the best way to do that is to give them some positive motivation to do so. How? I'm not quite sure. Naming/branding rights are a step in the right direction. I loathe property taxes but perhaps a modest levy on downtown commercial real estate (only) would be fair compensation for bringing tens of thousands of workers downtown at (mostly) other taxpayers' expense? And in the year 2017 (almost 2018) it is important to look ahead to the point where not only Uber and Lyft, but multiple fleets of self-driving vehicles, will dramatically change the face of transit. My guess: buses will decrease in importance except along the busiest corridors; rail will greatly INCREASE in importance because it is the one and only thing, even in 2018, that has the potential to bypass the increasing density of traffic that even Cleveland should see when and if the local economy ever begins to stabilize and grow again. And such buses as continue to exist will probably need to be consolidated so as to provide better/more frequent service on a smaller number of routes. A single frequent route to, say, Solon, might make a lot more sense than 4 or 5 infrequent ones, if at the end of the frequent route, riders can hire cheap, autonomous vehicles to take them the last mile or two.

I don't see what "security risks" exist at Public Square that have not existed for over 200 years, other than that upper-middle-class white people now play there, and, apparently, are more deserving of the illusion of "security" than others who aren't in a position to demand it. :( Well, there is the risk that perpetually stopped traffic would prevent even the possibility of any kind of emergency response, in the event of any kind of emergency, but that is a risk that was CAUSED by closing Superior, and would be largely mitigated by opening it again. I can almost understand the sick, cynical, perverse set of "incentives" that might cause corrupt politicians to sacrifice the entire transit system and the entire transit-dependent population so that the affluent can have another nice park to play in. But I can't understand why anyone else would put up with it.

I'm not in any way condoning Mr. Reed's actions, which are clearly motivated by politics and not the genuine best interests of the people. If the feds choose to fine the City, they will, regardless of what he or the council do. Nonetheless, like him or not (and I don't), he has a point. Those who make terrible decisions - and this particular one is WAY more than $12 million worth of terrible because of the value of the time it wastes on the part of RTA riders and the job losses that result - should be held accountable for their actions.

True that taxpayers should not foot the bill. I understand the decision was made more or less unilaterally by Mayor Jackson. If that is the case, then he is responsible. He needs to cough up the $12 million himself, *or* change his mind and return that short but vital stretch of Superior Avenue to its necessary historical purpose. Preferably, the latter.

(Disclaimer #2: a close friend owns property very near this site, and several other friends rent it.) Those letters do not have the force of law AFAIK, and this is, frankly, a troubled neighborhood with a significant gang presence at least during the recent past. I do suspect it is this latter element that is the greater problem. Other than these two problems, it does seem like as good a place for redevelopment, of some kind (not necessarily industrial), as Cleveland has to offer. Once we can be certain that the Heartless Felons, BBE 900, and other like-minded groups are gone for good, and that nothing else comparable rushes in to take their fairly lucrative place, I think you might see more of the potential of this neighborhood come to fruition. I do think the potential is great, and that the W.98/Cudell station is underused in spite of already being a mini-hub for the relatively frequent 26, 81, and Red Line services. Given the near proximity to Berea Road as well as Clifton Blvd., Edgewater Park and the new Shoreway boulevard, I think it has the potential to be the largest and most natural mini-hub on the West Side, surpassing West Park which I believe to be the biggest at present. It would be cramped, but it could work, especially if RTA acquired and developed the land across the street and somehow could functionally combine the two sides of the street into a single transit facility. Significant new housing has gone up somewhat nearby, e.g., Madison right across from the West 117th station. There seems to be plenty of demand for housing in that area. It might take a while, and I mean a *long* while, before interest and exchange rates clear, and labor laws and regulations harmonize, such that Cleveland can return to its historical role as a major manufacturing center. It might be prudent in the meantime to accept what redevelopment we can, even if it is not industrial in nature.

how is this legal? And, assuming that is, wouldn't this be solved by the prospective owner doing a very in depth due diligence before purchasing the property? This, plus some public sources to convert brownfields to 'vacant land'? Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but a software engineer who worked for lawyers involved in asbestos-related litigation during the 1990s. It's "legal" because, ever since long before the 70s when CERCLA was first vomited upon us, we have not been ruled by genuine law, but by the mere whims of men and women unconstrained by morals, ethics, or the Constitution. Men and women who acknowledge no limits on their power. From both the right and the left. Extremely corrupt ones at that. But, of course, larger entities know this, do their due diligence to the extent possible, and then very often still come to the conclusions that the risk of unknowns, which by the way are generally not insurable, outweighs the cost of just moving out to Solon or Avon instead. Smaller companies can't afford to do all that research. If they truly want to locate in the hood, they more typically will try to protect themselves by using shell corporations or similar mechanisms, and then roll the dice. If they are VERY lucky, the government will not try to pierce the corporate veil, and they might not end up bankrupt, jobless, and homeless themselves. However, in Superfund litigation, the government quite often does attempt to do that. They usually go after the smaller companies that can't defend themselves, not the bigger ones that usually find themselves more than adequately lawyered and lobbied up. Remember that in my example, the contamination was from a chemical that had not even been known to be hazardous at the time of the land purchase. This is not contrived. Asbestos is the textbook, real-life example of a substance that was not only believed relatively safe, but was actually mandated by government for use in insulation, fireproofing, and numerous other applications. It turned out not to be. Numerous property owners were sued by people whom it made sick. Very sick in most cases - asbestosis, pulmonary fibrosis, mesothelioma, and other cancers. And then governments forced some of them to pay to clean it up. Again, with absolutely, positively ZERO regard to the fact that most were not responsible for the presence of asbestos, and in some cases they were forced to use it, by the same government that now required them to pay to clean it up. As an aside, and making the situation even more absurd: Asbestos in walls, floors, and many other applications is, in fact, reasonably safe. Asbestos causes harm only if we come into contact with it, especially the lungs, but secondarily also mucus membranes or skin. But inside a wall or floor or kitchen counter, left alone, we're not exposed to much of it, if any at all. Do you know how we *become* exposed? When some contractor goes and starts tearing it out of those walls and floors and pipes and other places. They are required to follow procedures to somewhat reduce the amount that becomes "friable" and escapes into the air. But, nonetheless, everyone, and especially the remediation contractors themselves, gets exposed to an infinite amount more of this crap than they would have if it had just been left alone. A similar problem accompanies lead remediation and many others. Take this one example. Multiply it by about a thousand. And now you might be starting to understand why we conservatives and libertarians are extremely cautious and skeptical about massive regulatory initiatives including but not limited to CERCLA.

No one is saying this is the only problem, nor even the biggest. But every factor that drives sprawl helps to reinforce all of the other factors that drive sprawl. That's the curse of where we stand now. It's also the opportunity we have going forward. That which addresses one part of the problem, because of its inherently self-reinforcing nature, also helps to lessen every other part of the problem.

CERCLA is a major contributor to job loss in formerly industrial areas, among others, because it forces anyone who owns polluted land, even if they did not pollute it, even if they couldn't have known it was polluted in the first place, to be jointly and severally liable for the cost of cleanup, which can exceed the value of the land by many orders of magnitude. Here is an example. I pay $25,000 for a decrepit building at the corner of Deadfactory Boulevard and East Ghetto Lane. I open a job training center. It thrives, and my clients work hard and enter the labor force. Life is good. But suddenly someone discovers that the chemical Crapmium Arsenide, formerly believed to be harmless, causes butt cancer. And, 150 years ago, a former business once located on my site used Crapmium Arsenide, and minute amounts are detected in the soil. Guess what? I have pay to clean it up. I have to use the only government-approved contractor that is accepting new clients. It will cost $75 million and change. I call my representative. "But I only paid $25,000 for this land. And I didn't pollute that. Someone else did. How can I possibly owe the government $75 million???" His response, because of CERCLA (also known as Superfund): "'Cuz CERCLA. Now pay up!" Now, the first time this happens to someone, what do you suppose others might do? Where do you suppose they might decide to locate, given that the same thing, or maybe even worse, might happen to them? Do the math. Won't be anyplace *anywhere* near anything resembling a brownfield. Industry today locates outside of the city for very, very good reasons. This is just one, but it's a big one. And this totally and completely screws over those of us who'd like to see safe, efficient, and affordable transit. Worse, it screws over the people who live there and would like to be able to have a job some day. But it is fixable. If only certain people would pull their heads out of their butts, and understand the need for rule of law, which would mean, among other things, they could *not* hold anyone liable for harm they did not cause or agree to assume. Yes, significant past contamination does need to be cleaned up. No, the entities responsible for the contamination probably aren't around anymore so you can't bill them. Yes, it is a difficult problem that probably doesn't have a solution that would please everyone. But, NO, you should NOT be discouraging people from developing in the city, by forcing them to write a blank check to pay for somebody else's wrongdoing. If you do, the problems of the city, and of transit, and of the poor, and of the economy as a whole, will never, ever be fixed.

Greater Cleveland commuters are pampered compared to other cities like Washington or Boston; in those cities riders are forced to transfer and don't seem to mind. In Boston the comprehensive T subway lines intercept all the radial bus lines to the extent that only 1 or 2 bus routes enter downtown Boston, esp in or near Park Street (at Boston Common (garden) which is like an over-sized Public Square).. To me, the 32s and 9s should have been terminated at U.C. years ago even before the Health Line. You yourself have noted that a large bulk of employment trips are now in U. Circle/Cleveland Clinic area anyway, so a lot of 9/32 riders have a one-seat ride. And if one is working downtown West of E. 6th (or to me E. 9th), the Red Line is just as fast/convenient if not more so. I know the Red Line provides a superior ride in terms of comfort, space and, again, speed. One transfer to a fairly frequent and reliable service is fine IMO. Many riders however are forced to make more than one, sometimes significantly more. And if something goes wrong they are guaranteed to have to wait at least a full hour. Those aren't problems you would have in a system with more frequent and reliable service. But here in Cleveland we have no choice but to start with what we have, and that is not always fast, frequent, or reliable. In these conditions, it is really important to try to keep most trips possible with at most 2 transfers, and at most one of those two being any less than nearly certain in terms of schedule.

The "Healthline" isn't really "rapid transit" especially with the signals not synched. And while I agree about stop safety, what you're talking about is what I've advocated for the 55th street stop. A controlled access area you can't enter without a paid fare, with buses and the rapid lines (all three go through 55 IIRC) boardable in the secured area. The idea of a secure, enclosed environment sounds great. But where we run smack back into the mesh of self-reinforcing and difficult-to-change problems is this. Nothing goes from there to anyplace downtown other than Tower City. Maybe the 14, but even getting to that would be a decent walk through a not very inviting area. So, once downtown, they'll need either a potentially long walk, or yet another transfer. Or you'll have to reroute the 14 to serve the station, but that makes the long ride on the 14 even longer, plus, next time funding cuts come around, someone will decide to end *that* line at East 55 as well. Maybe 15 and 19 too. They pass an awful lot closer to the E. 55 station than the 39 ever did to Stokes, yet that's where the 39 ends today, along with any possibility of 50,000+ residents of Euclid and nearby areas of being able to get downtown reasonably quickly other than during the day on weekdays only. The fundamental problem is that the The Red Line *only* directly serves Tower City. 50 years ago that might have been good enough, but today, if we're going to make that the only way into or out of downtown, then those who need to get to Erieview or CSU or the Warehouse District are faced with yet another transfer, and in the most congested place that they possibly could make one. Thus, once again, the advantages of RTA over driving disappear for all but those for whom driving is not an option. Even worse, the options of reverse commuters and the transit-dependent pretty much disappear completely. I wish I knew a way to move past this gridlock of things we would all like to do, but can't, because of questionable decisions made 50 years ago. It all keeps coming back to the need to reroute the Red Line so as to be able to make a few stops north and east of the current one, but there is neither the funding, nor the will, for this to happen. And this helps the anti-rail crowd. They argue that our system is a "train to nowhere" and would have unsustainably low ridership if not for forcing many people, e.g., the former riders of the 32 to downtown, onto it. Regrettably, the worse our funding situation gets, the closer they are to being correct. I don't want to concede that point to them. I understand how much worse the transportation system would be without the Red Line, even with its flaws. But we might not get to keep it, nor the rest of RTA as we know it, if we do not at least seriously think about addressing or mitigating those flaws.

OK. On one hand, I agree. I've also dealt with the destruction of the off-peak 39, which never ran anywhere remotely near Stokes. It's now at least a couple hours from Shoregate to downtown. The 25 is much less useful now both because of poor frequency and lack of a one-seat ride downtown, and, therefore, the lack of a less than three-seat connection to most destinations in the county. No longer any easy way from Lorain Road to Westgate. I could go on and on and on. On the other hand, this is an unavoidable consequence of trying to decentralize, for whatever reason, from a downtown-hub to a multiple-hub system. If there were safe, fast, reliable connections into any part of downtown other than Tower City, or if the bus lines were coordinated to minimize waiting times, it might be less of an issue. But ending every possible line at a rail station makes things harder, not easier, for many riders. What I would have to recommend is balance, and choice. End some of the trips at the HL or RL, others downtown. Maybe even through-route some of the trips. There are people commuting - often reverse-commuting - from southeast to northwest suburbs, northeast to southwest suburbs, and vice versa. They had options back when I was in that situation, for which I'm grateful. Today, they really do not. I would love to see that change.

My "dream system" would consist of a largely high-frequency grid in the city and inner suburbs, local and express radial routes (high-frequency local, and express mainly during peak hours), commuter rail to at least Painesville, Lorain, Elyria and Akron, and 2 or 3 circumferential lines. I would focus very little, however, on lightly populated, low-density car-centric suburbs. Some of them would end up served by express commuter lines, and I certainly would want to try to support reverse-commuters insofar as possible. But there are places transit makes sense, and those where it doesn't, and if a community has chosen to zone itself as low-density residential, I won't sacrifice transit in places it is truly and desperately needed in order to serve said community. I'd provide widely-spaced, mostly peak-hour commuter service to a town nearby, and they can do park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride from there. :)

I did specify "limited number." :) I don't see a way around the importance of downtown given our current funding, and, as you mention, the inherent geography of our area, including a road system following old Native American trails that go back centuries if not millenia. But we had at one time (going back a *long* time admittedly) Clark-Pershing, Denison-Harvard, and I believe both Brookpark-Granger and Snow-Rockside. Once OC is built (yes, I know, and agree, but . . . ) one could also envision UC - OC - Lorain (or Clark, or West 25, or any number of possibilities). With connections to at least 3 points on the Red Line (Quincy, E. 55, W. 25). IMO, the Denison-Harvard route seems to me like it would strike a great balance between cost and usefulness. No more Clark-Pershing bridge, and the roads further south don't seem to connect well to a sufficient number of other lines or major employment centers (it takes at least 2, so Rockside/Indepednence is not enough). They were dropped for lack of demand long before the current funding crisis. So I'd say that of these, Denison-Harvard and OC to some point west or south might make a lot of sense, and potentially divert a significant number of riders around downtown while getting them to their destinations at least as fast if not faster.

I've long said that each heavy rail (Red Line) station should be a mini-hub of sorts. I'm thinking that a lot of the transfers could, and maybe should, happen at E. 55th and W. 25th. That would be a possibility, but lots of adjustments would need to be made, to the timing of various routes, and to both the reality and the perception of safety in both places. This system was designed for a single major downtown hub and a few smaller ones (Stokes, West Park). I'm not sure there is any way to get around that. I do remember that about 25-30 years ago, the effort was made to reduce congestion at the Square by moving many transfer points to West Prospect. I am not sure whether more bus traffic could be moved there or not, or whether the timing of lights or automotive traffic patterns could be altered to make it easier, faster, and more reliable for buses to get in and out of that and other parts of downtown. I do understand that bus lanes, signal prioritization, and other improvements outside of Public Square are supposedly in the works, but given that the city has never followed through on its promise to prioritize the lights on Euclid Avenue for the HealthLine, I am a bit skeptical. I just hope the issue is being taken seriously. RTA's two major sources of ridership are downtown commuters (who will be inconvenienced as well, but probably won't lose jobs over this), and the transit-dependent. If RTA becomes irrelevant to significant portions of either group, then the consequences, to all of us, should be pretty obvious. I used to take RTA from Maple Heights to CWRU every day so I get what you are saying. I sometimes transferred at 34th, once in a great while at 55th, but neither were all that safe, even for a younger guy only a couple years removed from HS football. I'd usually go downtown. 55th has evolved, it could do moreso. Indeed a controlled access free transfer hub would make a ton of sense. It's struck me for a long time that RTA may be *too* downtowncentric. It's important but not as critical as it was, and more to the point is the opposite of centrally located, geographically speaking. As for it's major sources, one is a function of how it operates the other a captive audience without options. Growth or increased relevance means reaching beyond. If we had the ridership and funding, we could operate a system more similar to say Seattle or Portland, which as I understand are far more grid-centric and less focused on any single hub. But the reality is that for the foreseeable future, funding is likely to be bad and getting worse. I think that under these circumstances a hub-and-spoke system is the only real option we have, although I've long advocated for modifications such as a limited number of through, crosstown and circumferential routes, and there are places like Steelyard that lend themselves to, and indeed are becoming, mini-hubs of their own.

It's not hate. That would be better. It's something even worse. It is heartless, callous indifference. And it can come from *any* ideology. But, within limits, so can concern, caring, even love.

I've long said that each heavy rail (Red Line) station should be a mini-hub of sorts. I'm thinking that a lot of the transfers could, and maybe should, happen at E. 55th and W. 25th. That would be a possibility, but lots of adjustments would need to be made, to the timing of various routes, and to both the reality and the perception of safety in both places. This system was designed for a single major downtown hub and a few smaller ones (Stokes, West Park). I'm not sure there is any way to get around that. I do remember that about 25-30 years ago, the effort was made to reduce congestion at the Square by moving many transfer points to West Prospect. I am not sure whether more bus traffic could be moved there or not, or whether the timing of lights or automotive traffic patterns could be altered to make it easier, faster, and more reliable for buses to get in and out of that and other parts of downtown. I do understand that bus lanes, signal prioritization, and other improvements outside of Public Square are supposedly in the works, but given that the city has never followed through on its promise to prioritize the lights on Euclid Avenue for the HealthLine, I am a bit skeptical. I just hope the issue is being taken seriously. RTA's two major sources of ridership are downtown commuters (who will be inconvenienced as well, but probably won't lose jobs over this), and the transit-dependent. If RTA becomes irrelevant to significant portions of either group, then the consequences, to all of us, should be pretty obvious.

This really isn't a forum that believes in such things LOL It's happened to me before here, and, generally, on previous occasions when I have been critical of RTA (though hopefully in a constructive way). I am asking people to think outside of their longstanding ideologies, because I think it is important that they do so, to our region, to transit, and to themselves. I have been forced recently to do the same, and believe I am at least marginally better for it. But I do hope you are right, that my attempt at constructive criticism will be met with at least minimally helpful responses, by which each of us will hopefully better ourselves. :)

Regarding the permanent closure of Public Square to buses: How are the transit-dependent, many of whom must make connections downtown with other buses that run infrequently, and many of whom may lose their jobs if they miss that connection even one single time, supposed to adapt to a world in which there is no place to make those connections, and no way to guarantee even a reasonable chance of not missing those connections? It was difficult even when Public Square was open. This closure was supposed to be temporary, and many of us supported the project on that basis. I can't believe I even need to ask this on what I consider to be a generally left-leaning forum. But did ANYONE think about the interests and needs of the transit-dependent, before making this absurd decision?

Why should transit funding *not* be local? Why should rural subsidize urban, or vice versa? Are we saying that transit would not survive if we did not have to rob people living elsewhere in order to pay for it? All of that is crap, and self-defeating crap at that. We will never grow up if we keep insisting that our federal Mommy and Daddy do for us what we both can and should be doing for ourselves. And aside from that, transit is, Constitutionally speaking, a local/State responsibility. Face that. Realize that if this region wants good transit then this region must fund it. Make your case to voters. I for one, a conservative/libertarian, will listen. I live in the most urban part of the region and I will not be difficult to persuade. I will willingly pay more for better transit (although I will not demand that *others* pay for my better transit). Through fares, possibly even through taxes if they are specifically designed to benefit transit and levied on those who benefit from it (riders, property owners, etc., not farmers in Utah). But I'll tell you a few things about my conditions for that support. Those transit options had better be safe. They had better be reliable. They had better be stable and predictable over time. They had better serve the needs of as much as possible of the entire population: city, inner suburb, outer suburb insofar as practical (I know sometimes it's not), poor, rich, even whatever little remains of our local middle class. It had better help and not hurt economic development and growth. It had better connect and not isolate local neighborhoods and communities. You have to give me something for the taxes you want me to pay. If you will not, then I will concede that transit is *only* for the poorest of the poor, I will reach into my pocket to help them more directly instead, and I will look forward to Uber and Lyft and driverless cars as the only possible future for non-private-automotive transit in NE Ohio. I know many of you will go all "safe space" over this but I am saying it to help, because it is absolutely not only vital to the interests of transit and of this region in general, but an absolute prerequisite to their well-being. Let's learn to depend on ourselves. We might surprise ourselves.

Many if not most of the transit-dependent must make connections at Public Square, and often with buses that run infrequently. Missing one might mean the loss of a job. This may sound very odd coming from a conservative/libertarian such as myself. But I used to be among the transit-dependent, and I understand how this potentially might impact them. For them, at the very least, this is NOT a good thing. And since it is a part of RTA's mission to serve the transit-dependent, and since it is that particular part of its mission that makes me willing to pay taxes to fund it, I expect to see some answers as to how they will address this problem.

I'm sorry, my friend, but, frankly, that they were able to step up and handle a day of over 500,000 ridership, considering the funding situation (not just operating, but insufficient capital to fully maintain the rolling stock we have), was nothing short of amazing.. Are there things they could have done differently, lessons learned for next time? Absolutely. Hindsight is always better. Do I sometimes criticize RTA for various reasons, including not always making the best use of the limited resource available? Yes. Can I fault them for the job they did Wednesday? No. They were frickin' AWESOME.

Neither is St Louis and its rail lines attract more riders than Cleveland. This isn't a population issue; the culprit in Cleveland is sprawl and the WFL's limited and badly planned route. Ummmm.......St. Louis itself is only 10% of the population of its metro area, Cleveland is 19%. Sounds like it's even more sprawled there. I couldn't find numbers to prove this, but I believe St. Louis has a much larger economy, thus much more employment, which is one of the primary drivers of transit use.

That's why you want to make sure there is a stop at Windermere, to transfer to and from local services. This corridor is already the best covered in the city, with the Red Line, Health Line, #3, and other feeder routes connecting at Windermere. Perhaps a connection with the #94 further east would be useful as well.