JeTDoG

Per our Service Quality Manager, the #7X and #9X will be using the Euclid Avenue bus lanes effective today, 10/20, but the #32X will continue on its present routing until next Monday, 10/27, at which point it too will begin using the Euclid Avenue bus lanes. Any #32X buses running in the Euclid Avenue bus lanes prior to 10/27 are doing so in error, and this will be corrected. If you see any #32X buses in the Euclid Avenue bus lanes prior to 10/27, please note the time, day, and coach number, and let us know so that we can follow up with the operator. Your assistance is appreciated.

I'm sorry, please explain what is meant by this comment. The last increase we had was in January of this year, and was the second stage of a two-stage fare increase that began in 2006, which was the first fare increase in 13 years up until then. The adjustment going into place on October 27 is not a fare increase, it is a fuel surcharge. There is a more-than-semantic difference, as detailed in the release cited above. The fuel surcharge is a variable addition to the base fare that can go up or down, or conceivably fall to zero, based on the market price of diesel fuel. At present time, the market price of diesel fuel calls for a 50 cent fuel surcharge, which has been reduced by half to 25 cents due to the one-time funding received from NOACA. Should the trailing three-month average market price fall below $3.00 per gallon, the fuel surcharge would fall to zero. Conversely, should the state not come through with any kind of dedicated funding prior to September 1, 2009, the fuel surcharge would increase to its full 50 cents. Should the trailing three-month avergae market price increase to between $4.01 and $4.75 per gallon, the surcharge would increase to 75 cents. The surcharge will be adjusted quarterly as permittedby the resolution passed by the board.

We share a common desire in that... and I believe we can agree to disagree on some of the other points raised. Your input and feedback is certainly welcomed here.

He could have dealt directly with RTA. Doing this was divisive! According to his letter posted on the previous page he had been dealing with the RTA. There response, again according to his letter, was to make the cuts less wide spread but the date of the cuts apparently was just released which does pose a legitimate concern of disenfranchisement. Again it may not of been the most constructive approach but it was effective. ** THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BELOW ARE MY PERSONAL OPINION, AND WILL BE MY FIRST, LAST, AND ONLY STATEMENT ON THIS MATTER ** I fail to see anywhere in the entire text of his letter there was an indication, implied or expressed, of "dealing with the RTA". Our reduction in the service cuts had absolutely ZERO to do with any actions on Kucinich's part, and everything to do with Governor Strickland's instructions to NOACA and the other regional planning agencies to free up available CMAQ funds for use by transit. The specific date of the service reduction implementation was announced on or about September 23, so the idea that the date of the cuts was "just released" is also erroneous. Had Kucinich chosen to constructively work with the Authority, he'd have been in the know and could have voiced his concerns in a manner that might have yielded the same results, albeit in a less public fashion.

Per the 2007 Annual Report (http://www.riderta.com/annual/2007/), advertising was responsible for $1,217,959 in revenue to the Authority, down $186,977 from the prior year. This is only about 0.5% of total revenue, and less than 2.5% of operating revenue.

A simple look at a map (thank you, Google) will demonstrate that from E 22 - E 105, Cleveland has no fewer than four major east-west corridor roads (Chester, Euclid, Carnegie, Cedar). Of those four, there are only two (Euclid and Cedar) that extend beyond MLK, and only one (Euclid) that does so without the major geographic headache that is Cedar Glen, and serves the core of the expanding CWRU campus. Is the Carnegie/Lorain corridor a major artery? Absolutely. Heart (or aorta) of the city? Not hardly...

Stand next to the rapid operator, dial three simple digits, 9-1-1... I've been in a number of situations where I've discretely slipped my phone from my belt and dialed 9-1, with my finger poised to hit the third digit. I'm not suggesting that this predator's behavior was in any way acceptable or permissible, but there were a BOATLOAD of things that could have helped the situation turn out better. I hope he's found and dealt with, as much for his own sake as anyone else's.

A few comments: 1. Our legal staff looked at the regs closely. The penalty for breaking this rule is fairly harsh, and it is not worth the risk. 2. The Indians flyers were cut several years ago, and the Browns flyers were already in jeopardy. Two reasons -- low ridership and the length of the games. No matter how many people ride the bus, you have to pay an operator to sit there for 2-3 hours, then make a single trip back. That's the same reason why some schools are cutting back on field trips -- too expensive. Thanks for your comments. I saw all kinds of RTA coaches after the Browns' game last night, I presume shuttles to various park n rides just like prior years. Those coaches were there because wind-related issues (a downed tree on the Blue Line, downed CEI power lines) disrupted rail operation. They were NOT shuttling to the Park-N-Ride facilities.

I now notice they've added a parenthetical (and greener) to the headline -- apparently, somebody in the know thought better of the headline.

As the web site manager for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority and a strong proponent of all things Google, I think your efforts might be best focused on encouraging the Authority to publish their data to Google Transit, and make the data feed publicly available for third-party use. Even if Google Transit itself doesn't suit your needs, having the comprehensive data set in this format can only help your development efforts. The Google Transit Feed Specification is rapidly becoming a de facto standard, and is easy to work with (comma-delimited plain text), understand (pretty normalized as data files go),and most importantly for resource-strapped transit agencies, produce (third-party scheduling software now frequently provides the option to output to GTFS). It is a comprehensive, yet continually evolving specification that encompasses multiple modes of travel, and leverages the power of the 800 pound gorilla that is Google. I'll reach out to see if I have any contacts in Cincy who might be able to share any info on if they are headed in this direction. So far, Cleveland and Columbus have come on line in Ohio, with other agencies in the developmental process.

In a nutshell, such devices, whether equipped with a headset/hands-free device or not, are absolutely forbidden... PLEASE report violations of this policy, as such behavior definitely presents a safety concern.

No problem, that's why we're here; and just to let you know, he did respond back to me saying the incident would be investigated and a "common sense" reminder issued to all operators...

Excuse me, but it's ABSOLUTELY worth it... in a distributed system like this, it's often the best way to quickly find out where problems exist, and correct them/head them off before they get entrenched as acceptable behavior. I haven't had as many issues with the rail, but then I tend to be more of a bus user, and I have a great working relationship with the Transportation Manager out of our Hayden Garage. When I was out there attending to another user's issue one day, I stopped in to say hello one day, and mentioned that I hoped I wasn't being too much of a nuisance with the issues I was reporting. The response I got was, "keep 'em coming". Okay, I'll get off the soapbox now... and the details of your situation from this morning have been routed to the Rail District Transportation Manager (this time)...

bah. so what's the holdup now? they should be openly discussing new projects. where's an rta masterplan? none of that requires anything but foresight. just sayin. that would be here: http://www.riderta.com/transit2025/ or here: http://www.riderta.com/plandev/, with more to come... and you need to get yourself over to the RTA thread before pope layeth the smacketh down...

Really? The line costs about $625,000 a year to operate and maintain ... RTA says it expects to save $314,243 by cutting service hours on the Waterfront Line. -- PD ... or $861/day. Doesn't seem to make much of a dent in a $20M shortfall, esp when the service derives as many dividends as WFL, even with its current low ridership (which appears to be growing of late). It's probably an overused phrase, but the journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step. In addition, the cut to the Waterfront Line is not absolute, as service will be maintained for Browns games and other special events (the likely sources of that apparent growing ridership). I, for one, look forward to being around when increased East Bank and lake shore development has people clamoring for a public transit alternative.

There are a lot of things they do or don't do that are stupid. I'm sure RTA could pitch the idea to them but there is no control over what they put in the paper where and when. Thanks, I was going to say that while we control many things, the editorial content of the PD is not one of them. If it were as simple as telling them what to put on their front page, our publicity efforts would be a slam-dunk...

We made a limited print run available, and they will definitely be handed out at the hearings; our Citizens' Advisory Board members will also be pushing for citizen advocacy at most, if not all, of the hearings. Finally, the Facts & Answers section of the brochure is also linked from the advocacy campaign page that's been posted at http://www.jointheride.com/. Methinks our elected officials are about to get deluged with e-mails, and this is a good thing... JetDog, is there a reason why local Mayors and Cleveland City Council is not on the list? local funding, minimal as it is, can't likely be expected to make up the budget shortfall we face (the sum total of state & local noncapital funds RTA received for FY 2007 was about 4.3 million, with the bulk of that being from the state) essentially, it's a matter of "bang for the buck" -- but by all means, feel free to put the bug in their ears, it certainly couldn't hurt; local money is as green as any other kind

We made a limited print run available, and they will definitely be handed out at the hearings; our Citizens' Advisory Board members will also be pushing for citizen advocacy at most, if not all, of the hearings. Finally, the Facts & Answers section of the brochure is also linked from the advocacy campaign page that's been posted at http://www.jointheride.com/. Methinks our elected officials are about to get deluged with e-mails, and this is a good thing...

I spoke to the engineer again, and it turns out a $3.6 million chunk of that was actually overstated by a factor of 4, i.e., it should only be $900k, which reduces the signals total to about $8.8 million ($11.5 - $2.7). Keep in mind, this is just a planning budget that allows us to assess what ballpark we're in and what funding sources are appropriate for a given project. This is not the "shopping list" that is used for hard costs (we're WAY too early in the process for something like that). So, this error is, regardless of magnitude, inconsequential at this time. Every number in the planning budget is gone over with a fine-tooth comb as planning becomes reality. Some further detail -- the signals budget includes integration into our ATC (Active Train Control) system, which is not currently in use on the Blue Line, but makes sense from a safety standpoint, especially in such a pedestrian-dense environment. ATC is the system that provides for override of operator control of a train based on signal feedback (it's the cab beeping & deceleration you'll sometimes encounter on a Red Line train as the signals indicate that two trains are operating too close together, or that a train is approaching a work zone, or some other signaling event is taking place). It also includes signal work related to bus entry and exit from the proposed intermodal station. And, it does include full traffic signal preemption (one step above prioritization) capability at the main reconfigured intersection, with the hardware necessary for both the trains and the traffic signals. Some or all of this could be excluded from the final design.

I know the good folks at RTA have a LOT on their plate, but yeah - this brochure demands better real estate than the yellow "ticker tape" update. Something like this: consider it done... y'know, the folks on here should really run the "Rock the Vote" campaign, it might actually get some results...

Thanks. See, I should read the whole report! I'm glad someone can! This sounds like the biggest financial barrier to possible future extensions of the Blue Line. Spending $37.5 million for perhaps a half-mile of rail extension is a big-ticket item, especially when construction costs for light-rail in low- to medium-density areas are typically $5 million to $20 million per mile. I can offer up some additional budget details, courtesy of our Engineering department: there's nearly a half-million dollars in demolition costs, because we'd be taking out two stations (Farnsleigh & Warrensville) and building two (new one between existing Farnsleigh & Warrensville, and new intermodal east of the reconfigured intersection) crossovers, switches, and side track are about $2.6 million new catenary is budgeted at $2.1 million the new substation is $3 million all by itself signals are $11.5 million the new Farnsleigh/Warrensville intermediate station is about $1.3 million the new intermodal terminus is about $2.3 million utility relocations are just over $3.5 million design, admin & contingency are about $9 million so, this is not just construction costs, this is the whole nut, and since it involves ancillary items like stations, signals, and supporting infrastructure (crossovers & switches), and is taking place in a well-established developed area, it's quite involved just to satisfy my own curiosity, can you cite your source for the $5-20 million figure you quoted? Firenze98 & BuckeyeB, you are correct, crossing this intersection will be a major hurdle cleared... that intersection is hell on earth any way you slice it (I believe the phrase I once used was "designed by a drunken monkey with Parkinson's")

from page 53 of the Final Report document: demolition, new & reworked track, catenary power, a new substation and two new stations account for $37.5 million, or about 75% of the total; the remainder is in surrounding roadwork, utility relocation, and other supporting items

It's a tunnel. Please re-read the "Transit Priority" section on page 29 of the full report - transit will be at-grade. The only "tunnel", as such, will be a punch-through of the extension through the building proposed for the southeast corner of the new four-legged intersection (see the image on page 33). This reminds me a lot of how the light rail in Buffalo, NY passes underneath the HSBC tower.

Yes, and a very good question. If I seemed overly defensive, mea culpa. As you can imagine, being both an employee of the system and a lifelong transit-dependent individual (by choice, and one that I don't regret), it's a thought that has more than fleetingly crossed my mind. All I can say is, frankly, I don't know. I also don't know what the hurricane season holds for the Gulf states this year, what might or might not happen in the Middle East, or any of numerous other factors that can throw the best prediction into utter turmoil (would anyone have expected nearly $5/gallon for diesel when it was under $3/gallon just 12 months ago? check out the historical prices at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/ddr001w.htm). I can only say, "hope for the best, plan for the worst, and account for the unexpected". Remember, too, the idea that "nothing is impossible" swings both ways... don't give up the ship.

Please check your figures, NOWHERE is an 80% increase in the cost of a monthly pass even being suggested; the range of increases that has been PROPOSED (and I stress the term PROPOSED, as nothing is cast in stone) is slightly less than 35% to just over 63% -- substantial, yes, but let's talk facts. Also, the cuts that are being proposed represent only a portion of our total service (while the media has chosen to say "affecting more than half our routes", that's half by number of routes affected, not total service hours or miles) -- nowhere are cuts being proposed at this time for mainline heavy or light rail, nor for the #1, #3, #6, #14, #22, #25, #26, #28, #30, #34, #37, #48... I could go on, but you get the idea; even if all of the proposed cuts were to be implemented, RTA would remain with a strong core service. Make no mistake about it, these are difficult measures to stomach, and nobody enjoys even suggesting them, but this is reality as it exists. I say again what I've said in the past -- make sure your voice is heard, not only by RTA but by those with the ability to have a material effect on the financial support of the organization, i.e., state and federal legislators, and come to the table with constructive suggestions and alternative solutions. The question isn't, "do we do this or don't we do this?", instead it's, "we need to do something, is this the best something we can do? if not, what can we do?"