327

Employees standing around in public-- as if there were no crisis-- is a major, major, major issue at a time when services are being cut en masse. The issue here seems to be "there's no money" vs. "stop being wasteful and there'd be money." No one expects major restructuring to take place overnight. But when reform proposals are dismissed out of hand, and money is clearly being spent on rubbish, I don't think this is a time for RTA to mock people's concerns or tell them to eat cake. Want people to approve more money? Show them that the approach going forward will be different than what they've seen recently. Steps two through twelve are waiting for someone to admit there's a problem. Further attempts at buck-passage should be called out for what they are. Poor expenditure decisions at the local level must be answered for and cannot be blamed on Columbus or DC. These complaints are coming from people who believe in transit, who believe in government, and who defend RTA on an almost daily basis. Seriously. What's being done about these fare machines? What belt-tightening measures are being explored or pursued? What exactly is RTA's vision for the future? Is is something worth publishing, something solid that supporters might rally behind?

Well, every idea is met with "there's no money," and I just found millions like a dude on a beach with a metal detector. And I haven't even finished my coffee. My understanding is that combining safety forces is a primary focal point of most regionalization plans. Some of this is already underway in various suburbs. A year ago Issue 6 seemed unlikely, but looky here at what happened. It is possible to change things. But change is like Tinkerbell-- you have to believe, and it sure helps if you clap. Don't sit there and yell "Die Tinkerbell, die! Children can't fly and you know that!"

CMHA and RTA police are not private security forces at all. Neither is the police force of a public university. To the extent they have actual enforcement powers, the CCF and Case people are in a gray area. And if you observe CPD behavior, they do indeed have a glut of officers with nothing to do. Ask the union and you'll hear otherwise... but account for their motivation when evaluating such claims. Each of these separate publicly-funded police forces has a separate command structure, HQ, and equipment contract. Millions could be saved by combining them. This would not require the reassignment of any resources from anything else... the gain is achieved by eliminating redundancies and utilizing economies of scale. Yes people would be laid off, but these are managers in mid-late careers who already have big pensions. Minimal loss for the regional economy. Ever wonder why private companies are always merging? Because the combined organization is generally more effective and less costly. I'm really just running through the rationale for regionalization and extending it in obvious ways. Nothing earth-shattering here. Why have 61 municipalities in one county? Why have 5 police forces in one city? These things cost money! We claim we don't have any money, yet we waste it on too many chiefs (literally) and not enough Indians.

FWIW transit cops regularly ride the afternoon Shaker trains. It's not clear to me why RTA needs to run its own police force. We have a sheriff's department already, and these narrow yet overlapping jurisdictions are unhelpful. Same goes for CMHA. We don't need all these specialized police forces in Cleveland, each answering to different masters. Think if you're standing near 105 & Euclid... you might be in any of 4 jurisdictions: Cleveland, RTA, CCF, and/or Case. More importantly, we don't need housing and transit agencies to be operating police forces with their scant fundage.

clvlndr it's easy, you just take the 24-hr Euclid bus to Stokes Blvd, then you walk 2 miles or so up Fairhill, while you're plastered at 3am. Then you walk right past the railroad that closes 2 hours before the bars do. RTA says: We don't want you patronizing downtown establishments after 1230. We want all your friends to see you leave early because you ride transit. If we can just increase the stigma attached to public transit, then there will be less demand, then we can cut more routes, then we can balance our budget! Now that's thinkin' with your dipstick! Has anyone considered increasing RTA's sales tax, a la medical mart? Is this something the county executive could do? One would think so.

In the 80s, there were movies about nerds with nerd protagonists... but they were portrayed as losers fighting a hopeless uphill struggle against the social order. I think what happened in the early 90s is the nerds officially took control. This past decade has been the first in which there was no question that nerds rule. We're now, of course, seeing significant anti-nerd backlash. Ogre and the Alpha Betas still have quite a following, and their pep-rally attitude of might-makes-right will always bring comfort to some folks.

Yes. However unlikely, however remote... proper TOD is what we seek, so our actions should move us in that direction and no other. Areas around transit should be zoned for TOD. That zoning should be viewed as no less inviolable than any other law. It may be debatable that good things come to those who wait, but allowing undesirable development on desirable plots is a guarantee of failure. In similar fashion, actively pursuing BRT instead of rail will guarantee no new rail here, regardless of outside forces. If it's that hard to get, they sure as hell aren't giving it to a community that doesn't even want it, that ostensibly wants BRT instead. Our goals may not be as easily obtainable as we'd like, but failing to pursue them locks us into a fate that nobody wants. True leadership stands against outside forces and seeks the best possible chance to beat those odds. It drives me crazy when people describe market forces like some angry thunder-god, against which we can only cower and beg. Market forces are simply an amalgamation of human decisions... and it's time for us to start making courageous, disciplined, forward-thinking decisions around here.

Don't worry it's coming, see below. I actually prefer the driver announcments, especially when they have local flavor. Just my opinion. I have yet to hear either of the automated systems function properly. Is RTA getting its money back on "Rosie?" Also, twice in the past few weeks my inbound train has stopped just inside Tower City and gone into reverse because seemingly a switch was missed. If it weren't so scary, this would be hilarious because the driver has to run up and down the train in order to do it.

Here's my concern: If the city is putting words in RTA's mouth, to the extent that these words reach higher levels of government (and the public) with RTA's name attached... and basic planning priorities are grossly misrepresented... then we might as well just cue the circus music. I mean, if the city is that far off in characterizing RTA's plans, just how big is this schism between RTA and city hall? And are we saying city hall submitted a rough draft of their ARRA request? I'm all for sharing a laugh about government inefficiencies, but wow, that seems off the charts.

As a matter of fact, the city's stimulus request lists the BRT item under "Projects submitted by other organizations that the city of Cleveland supports" and the listed "Project Sponsor" is GCRTA. http://blog.cleveland.com/cityhall_impact/2009/03/City%20of%20Cleveland%27s-AmericanRecovery%20%20Reinvestment%20Act%20Project%20List%20%283.2%2009%29_2pm.xls.pdf This $50 mill request for BRT extension is more than the $30 mill requested for "RTA Rapid Station Construction," and more than the combined total for RTA rail, which includes the station re-do's plus $13 mill to relocate the E34th station to improve red line access "by residents of Central." I had no idea red line access in Central was such a priority, especially since Central is already right next to downtown. Now, if we were talking about red line access for Collinwood I might be interested, and I might have less doubts about the current direction of our transit system. But at this juncture we appear to be treading water on rail while moving ahead with BRT.

Jerry, glad your surgery went well. Great to see you back. Also great to hear that RTA has no interest in BRT on Buckeye. I wouldn't have raised the Buckeye BRT issue if not for the fact that, according to this article, Cleveland requested $50 mill of stimulus money in furtherance of "Euclid Corridor style" BRT on Clifton, 55th, and Buckeye. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1795.msg357591.html#msg357591 I had made a logical leap in assuming that since RTA is in charge of transit planning around here, RTA would have been at least tangentially involved in this funding request. If the city was acting in a loose-cannon capacity, 1) that can't be how it's supposed to work, and 2) perhaps RTA should clear the air in DC by letting the administration know we definitely don't want BRT on Buckeye.

^ Word.

I don't think there's any doubt retailers on Euclid were hurt by the construction. I'm just surprised it hit Trinity as hard as it hit places without a Prospect entrance. And as you say, when the sample is all bookstores, it's tough to weed out the internet factor. Regardless, at the end of 2009 we're looking at a net retail gain, at least in the core downtown section of the project. A lot of this has resulted from the project eventually getting done. That too is hard to measure, but surely the renovation is having some positive effect. I mean, the retail climate is terrible, and yet things are opening downtown.

But the parking entrance for that Trinity Commons was on Prospect the whole time, so Euclid being torn up should have had minimal effect. Good idea about the Cafe, and I hope they change their name when they expand. "Meet me at Cafe Ah... Ah... ugh... meet me at the coffee church."

The simplest plan is close the streets going through it, divert the traffic around, and fill in the "+" to make it one contiguous park. I don't see how a mound with tunnels is necessary, or prudent, if we can just do this. I guess I prefer option #2: make it an actual forest. As for sight lines, you can just about see the west side from Playhouse Square as it is. Downtown needs less sight lines, not more.

But that should mean no trains are being built in the red-state south, which isn't true. The teabagger cities are building trains left and right. Yet they hate government and they hate transit-riders. How can this be? Somehow someone is overcoming these political difficulties and making things happen. Step one is wanting it. Joe C doesn't want it. As clvlndr said earlier, studying BRT on Buckeye makes very little sense unless one discounts the rail line that runs literally a block to the north. What we're talking about here is evidence of motivation. Sure, Joe C (got more game than Coleco) wants to oversee an agency that isn't struggling and shrinking, so I'm sure he goes around asking for money. But what does he plan to do long term with our transit system? We have evidence. I don't like how it looks. However much state clout Cleveland loses to uber-conservative Cincinnati, it is a foregone conclusion we'll get no new rail if our transit leadership doesn't want any. By the way, the leadership in uber-conservative Cincinnati is trying very hard to get a streetcar built, despite public pressure against it. A contentious ballot measure just went in the streetcar's favor there. Columbus is talking about this too, although less so. Meanwhile, Joe C can't get any traction in uber-liberal Cleveland, where the county can whip up half a billion on a whim, and which already has a rail system? I really, really, really think the problem is him... primarily the fact that he doesn't like trains. We need a leader at RTA who likes trains. It's like saying I run Smuckers but I hate jelly. Plenty of people like jelly. Let them run Smuckers.

dogsandcats, clvlndr, shs96, grumpy, avogadro... you're all making tremendously strong points. And I thank you for doing so.

You sure did burn me there. Cheers! Had I complained about route cuts or fare increases, these would be excellent retorts. But I didn't... in fact, I specifically distinguished capital expenditure decisions (this fare machine v. that fare machine) from measures necessary to balance the operating budget, all of which I favor. Answering long-term planning and capital concerns with obvious statements about tight operating budgets isn't helpful to you, or me, or RTA, or anyone. My understanding is that RTA has discussed actively spending (someone's) money on studies for additional BRT (Buckeye and 55th come to mind), and that nobody is forcing them to do this. My understanding is also that once per month I buy a pass from some clownish mockery of a fare machine that has RTA's name on it. If these understandings are factually incorrect, then please by all means give me a hard time. Wait-- on second thought, don't.

It is amazing that you could type this out and still miss my point. Merry Christmas!

Upper management at RTA needs to change. Mistakes are piling up and accountability is zero point zero. I don't care if the official rationale is "witchcraft," people need to start getting fired immediately. Virtually everything they've built or installed in the last few years is a disgrace to this community. In particular, we need to see a mea culpa on these fare machines and we need to see it now. Why is that not happening? I know, I know, the financing issues are over most people's heads. But that's not the point, if you're already wasting the money you have. These are two separate issues that shouldn't be conflated, i.e. sales tax revenue and state funding have NOTHING TO DO with the incompetent purchasing and planning decisions being made here. Are we moving to expand rail? Hell no, we're moving to expand BRT. Attention Joe C: Bush isn't president anymore. Everyone is talking about rail now... except you.

Prediction: Cleveland's medical mart is defeated by a small diner on St. Clair and an unforuntate eminent domain case in Norwood, as Ohio's distaste for coordinated regional effort strikes again! I hope I'm wrong.

If so, why not put this particular development on another street? There's no need to undermine the very concept of zoning, and frustrate the purpose of a billion-dollar makeover for Euclid Avenue, just because one potential tenant prefers a suburban setup. This potential tenant isn't compatible with Euclid Avenue. However, Cleveland has many developable parcels that could easily meet their needs. Progressive zoning laws are already in place for the parcel in question. "Rule of Law" means we don't toss those aside on a whim. This situation doesn't merit a controversy, it merits a new site search. Problem solved. This seems like an open attempt to discredit urbanism, given the wording employed thus far, and given the existence of so many other sites that don't have zoning issues. Can anyone answer why this MUST go on Euclid if it MUST contradict all stated plans for that street? There are so many round holes in which to put this round peg... that "jobs vs. urban zoning on Euclid" is clearly a false choice.

Hi everybody! This is so interesting I can't resist a post. I think a case could be made for building on the mall. While I'm not claiming the mall is unused, it's clearly never been the people-magnet it was proposed to be. Several factors have led to this, one being the outward focus of the buildings lining it, another being the rail nexus at Tower City instead of Mall C. As noted above, there was supposed to be a big train station at the end, not an open lake view, even in the original mall plan. And consider that downtown was far Far FAR denser overall at the time the mall was concieved. In short, the whole mall concept is enough of a failure that we might consider scrapping it. Downtown was laid out to have public square as its primary open space. To have that plus the mall is overkill, it's the opposite of density by any definition, and the mall's location and size effectively cuts our downtown in half. That giant featureless grassland dampens any potential synergy between the two residential areas on either side of it... particularly at night. Seriously, this area is geographically the core of our downtown and we insist on keeping it not just empty but 100% bald. We've had it there for a century, and as centuries go, it hasn't been a good one for Cleveland or its downtown. It's hard to harmonize the idea of a massive central lawn with any other theories or goals we have for downtown development. Buildings are more appropriate for a major city's downtown than meadow/pasture/grassland is. I'd be OK with a Medical Mart on Mall C. Maybe it is just a negotiating tactic, but it's still an interesting idea.

I agree as well. Way too much debt is being issued. I also agree about the bank bailouts being of questionable utility.

Wait till you see the plans for what they're building in its place!!