JeTDoG

a very interesting read (okay, for varying degrees of "interesting"), FTA has just released their Annual Report on Funding Recommendations for FY 2009 feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, which I'm sure you will... this gives you some idea of where the big money goes, and why...

8SOG- The latest update to RTA's board is here: http://www.riderta.com/pdf/presentations/2008-02-05-ECTP.pdf (pay particular attention to pages 3 & 4). At this point, Euclid Avenue will be open from E 17 - E 86 anticipated early March, with the full project scheduled for opening on or about October 26, 2008. The stations from Public Square - E 14 are currently scheduled for completion by August 17.

Actually, Jerry's numbers are a serious underestimate... the average coupled-pair light rail vehicle like what we run weighs on the order of 90-100,000 pounds unloaded... that's 45-50 TONS, folks, and that weight doesn't stop on a dime (high school physics, F=mV2); play chicken with that and the only nickname you'll acquire is "the late..."

Having been through Grand Central many a time, I can only think what must have gone through people's heads when they saw this... very cool effect, and could really freak some people out (the poor cart driver, for instance, seemed to be at a total loss). If you weren't already paranoid, this could send you there. It's amazing how unnatural or unexpected behavior can just completely disrupt a person's psyche... and to the "hippie" comment, I say PFFFFFFFTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Get a LIFE...

Oh, sweet hyperbole, what promises you make; if only you could deliver... Just to let everyone know, I've examined the web site at http://www.publicroutes.com, and while the initial appearance looks good, this is most definitely a version 1.0 effort. There is no area within the interface to specify a time and/or date for your trip, and while alternatives are given, there doesn't appear to be any way to consider an alternative, i.e., I attempted a trip from downtown to Rockside Rd. in Independence, and was given a primary choice of the #77F, with an advisement to also consider the #35, but no means by which to consult further information for the #35 alternative. Furthermore, at least some of their information appears to be outdated -- a trip plan from downtown to W 61 suggested the #45Y, with the #45R and #326 (which hasn't existed for just over a month) as possible alternatives. Also, this system does not display the actual path a given route takes, just the starting and ending points, and total trip time doesn't seem to consider potential layover time. Finally, to the best of my knowledge, no one from that company has had any official dealings with RTA, nor us with them (a situation which I have rectified with a call to their PR contact, who is having someone get back to me). I'm uncertain where the data they are using for their trip planning is presently coming from. I'm all for encouraging any effort that promotes the use of our services, and will provide any reasonable assistance to any business interested in doing such, so long as my assistance does not negatively impact our responsiveness to our customers. While we will not necessarily endorse any outside solution, I'll gladly provide reference to it, so long as it proves to be worthy of such reference. I would like to hear feedback on other people's experimentation with this offering, either here on the forum or direct e-mail to [email protected]. On a slightly related note, I've received some additional information from our scheduling software provider regarding export of their data in a Google Transit-friendly format, and have been working with our planning staff to get route path information in a usable format. I should have more to report on that shortly.

from riding in other cities / countries, this seems like a very aggressive way to view a transfer. i've used to old transfer system to go from downtown to the west side market and back within 1 hour, for 1 ride. if i now have to pay 3.50 for this same trip, i'm likely to just drive and park for free (or maybe take the 66x there and the 20, 22 or 35 back to work within this new system). was there widespread use of this feature or did someone think they could wring a few extra dollars out of the passes? it seems like this has a negative effect of making the transit system less friendly/convenient/cost effective. I didn't conduct a scientific examination, but a cursory look at other agencies' transfer policies indicates that we're pretty much right in line with expectations. The purpose of a transfer is to allow completion of a one-way trip when single bus service between two points is unavailable, and RTA's current policy reflects that. I can't necessarily speak to the more liberal nature of the old policy, since I wasn't here at the time. As you've noted, our current policy does still allow for return to the same area via a different route or mode of transportation, where some of the systems I reviewed didn't even allow that. In those rare instances where a more liberal directional policy was allowed, this was restricted by more tightly defined time periods -- there's no such thing as a free lunch. I can share more details if you wish, at a later time...

I can chime in on this one, since I've experienced it myself on other routes (notably the #9, while construction on Mayfield is suspended for the winter). Yes, what you likely experienced was an operator attempting to keep himself on schedule, by slowly "using up" accumulated time between stops. The choice is either this or idle at a single stop for a period of time. Under no circumstances should an operator allow himself to get too far ahead of schedule. I know this sounds like an inconvenience to the people already on the bus (because, in fact, it is), but adhering to the schedule allows the people further down the line to effectively use our services, rather than just missing a bus because they read the schedule correctly and the operator was running early (which can also lead to one bus running nearly empty and the next one being overcrowded). As I mentioned elsewhere, early arrivals/departures are the one thing that senior management absolutely doesn't accept. Run late if you must, but DON'T RUN EARLY is a mantra amongst our operating districts. I'm fairly certain the #6 (and #9) schedule will be adjusted as the factors that have previously slowed (or allowed improvements in) their service come closer to final resolution (which means no major changes on the #9 until the north side of Mayfield is complete, and no major changes to the #6 until Euclid Ave is more substantially complete), but any major adjustment in a system such as this has to be undertaken carefully. Buses on one line will frequently operate return or continuing trips on a different line, and we have to be cognizant of sufficient operator layover time and appropriate connection opportunities wherever possible. Keep in mind, RTA operates as an interconnected system, not just a bunch of independent runs. Change one time setting in the machine, and the whole thing goes to hell if you don't consider the consequences...

Well, our Bikes on Rail program is definitely good for something: the likelihood of this happening on an RTA train is greatly reduced...

Just announced on euclidtransit.org within the last ten minutes, "weather permitting... (as of January 18) all Eastbound traffic will be moved to the south side of the road on the new pavement from Public Square to East 9th Street as construction progresses to the North side of Euclid." As I look out my window whilst posting this, I see a dusting of snow on the ground, so the weather may or may not be "permitting" over the next few days, but it's in the working stages...

I'm sure Jerry will take the time to respond on this one, but I just wanted to say a few words. The detail you've provided will go a long way toward locating the operator of the train in question, and I'm certain this will be mentioned to the operator, i.e., "it will make a damn difference". We take very seriously the problem presented by a vehicle leaving a stop earlier than the scheduled time. It is something that sends our General Manager up a proverbial wall, since it is disruptive to our service, leads to dissatisfaction, and is completely preventable. Mind you, with the many items an operator needs to attend to, he or she honestly may not have seen you. I think I may have mentioned this before, but we have an online feedback form available for reporting these and other situations (and for relating instances of exceptional service, or suggestions on improvements). This form can be found at http://tripplanner.gcrta.org/hiwire?.a=cCustomerComplaint (a URL that I'll probably have a friendlier version of in relatively short order, since it's getting more extensive use lately). One advantage of reporting incidents through this form is that it will provide a tracking number that can be used for further investigation if no response is received. Please don't abuse this avenue of feedback, but know that it is available.

If it were up to you w28, NYC would still be a city of tenements. Why not tear it down and build something of use to the city instead of an empty, gutted building? Thanks for revealing your total inability to grasp local development tendencies k2stae. If you haven't noticed there are blocks upon blocks of empty land surrounding the parcel in question that didn't magically sprout new development after buildings were knocked down to create a barren wasteland. Need I remind anyone of the gentrification that occurred in the South Bronx in NYC under the guise of "urban renewal"? Just tearing things down without any kind of a concrete (or even ephemeral) idea of "what's next" is a recipe for disaster.

One step ahead of ya... map has been posted on the Riders' Alert page for the announcement in question, which is at http://www.riderta.com/nu_ridersalerts_list.asp?listingid=980. What was referenced previously was text from the media announcement. Look for more extensive use of maps (especially interactive Google maps, as opposed to static graphics) on the site in the future, since a picture is worth a thousand words and all...

Gotta chime in on Teresa's to say that I've been there four times already, and the food and service are exceptional. They have now installed multiple big-screen TV's tuned to ESPN, CNN, and MSNBC (but with the sound turned down, so you can enjoy your lunch in peace if you wish), and there is a new ordering system that connects the bar area to the front counter for ticket printouts, making those quick lunchtime orders that much quicker. Today was the first day I was in there that they really weren't that busy, although I think the cold, blustery weather kept a lot of people inside. I've mostly been ordering the Italian meat lunch special (sub, chips, & a non-alcoholic drink for $5.99), and the taste and quality of everything has been wonderful. Here's hoping everything goes well for them in the future -- those fresh-made potato chips are downright addictive...

actually, more like between 5:00am and 8:00am

Thanks for the rundown 8SoG, it's always good to know where else I can get my fix... Man, TWO $tarbuck$ in Steelyard? talk about saturation...

An interesting tidbit from the most current issue of Mass Transit Magazine, regarding federal funding favoring BRT over streetcars: http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=5086 notable quotes from the article: "Portland officials... are learning that federal transit managers favor buses for efficiency and may delay or withhold construction funding." "Portland is failing to meet a cost-effectiveness test that planners here say is biased against streetcars" "Office of Management and Budget... has ordered them to raise standards for cost effectiveness when judging transit projects" "Both congressmen want the government to implement the Small Starts program... to proliferate streetcar lines and dense urban development in cities across the nation. But two years after Congress passed the law, the administration hasn't funded a single streetcar line and instead proposed rules that would give preference to bus rapid transit systems over streetcars." "If you build 5,000 units of housing along that line and people walked from those units of housing and get on the streetcar, they would not count under their criteria" "Portland, TriMet and Metro planners... have to proceed with caution through delicate talks... 'Since you are asking for money, it's generally a good idea not to go kicking the people who are supposed to give you the money'" I know Portland is frequently tossed around on these boards as an example of a streetcar system that works, and is being pursued for further development. I just want it to be perfectly clear that all is not wine and roses (or is it maple syrup & lattes?) in the Pacific Northwest.

I think their definition of "coming soon" needs a little work... apparently, this has been in development for quite some time. The last I had heard was November 15, which obviously didn't happen, and when I asked a clerk at the Mayfield/Green location about it, she didn't sound too optimistic. C'mon, guys, get with the program, I'd like another alternative to Arabica & Caribou (don't even mention $tarbuck's, and Au Bon Pain is a little too yuppie frou-frou for me).

I agree on the need for a "heads up" sticky... I wondered if something bit-bucketed the system, as I knew I had some posts on Monday that seemed to vanish, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me...

fact-finding road trip, anyone? :-D

gotribe -- I guess great minds think alike :roll:

Wow... are those pictures current? I never had any idea the place looked so nice inside! I live right around the corner from there, so it will be intriguing to see what can be done with it. Since I was over at the Boneyard on Mayfield this weekend, which is another reused theater, I'm tempted to ask, perhaps something like "Boneyard Jr.", i.e., a local sports bar with a few plasmas/projection screens in the former theater stage area? I need to check my Megamillions numbers when I get home; $160-some odd million could yield some nice results with this space :-).

Okay, I'm gonna vent a little bit here, and I will preface this with the statement that these are my own personal, non-professional, non-RTA opinions. The sentiment expressed in the quote above rankles me in the same way as "think of the children!" or "if we do/don't x, the terrorists win!" in terms of being empty rhetoric that serves no real purpose other than to perpetuate a victim mentality. Of course, due concern was given to ALL intersections - fer chrissakes, they are areas where pedestrains and vehicles interact, they're going to, by their very nature, be dangerous. An intelligent human (as I would HOPE most college-age persons should be), when presented with an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous situation, should look for advice and guidance (traffic signals, crosswalks) and follow that advice accordingly. Failure to heed that advice results in assumption of risk and expectation of potential consequences. IIRC, I was crossing busy intersections successfully, on my own, when I was about 8 or 9. I don't think we need to save every lemming from jumping off the cliff if that is what they choose to do. I'll say it again -- what they CHOOSE to do. MuRrAy HiLL, this is nothing personally directed at you, just me starting off the day a little grumpy...

consider the slack cut :-) in a nutshell, my personal opinion is yes; I'd love to see it, and genuinely could see it happening... all progress likely starts as daydreams

It's funny you should mention that. While the road surface is torn up, RTA has been working with the 20+ utilities whose lines run through the project area (in the case of telecoms, this may even include providers who don't offer service in the area, but whose lines happen to run through the ground) to maximize their access to their lines. Also, if you've noticed, anywhere concrete has been poured, it's usually been some time after the initial slab pour that the utility manholes, water shutoffs, etc... have had their immediate surroundings poured -- this is by design. Separating the manhole or other utility access pours into modular "subslabs" allows for future scarring to be kept to a minimum, since a contractor might only need to dig up the portion immediately surrounding the utility access. Obviously, this wouldn't be as meaningful in the case of something like a sewer line replacement, but that's why the city is doing lower Euclid now.

I was about to respond to this post in the context of Google Transit, and then I re-read the post and realized what was being requested. Now that I've correlated that there is no relationship between participation in Google Transit and the existence of these map points (i.e., Chicago and Boston are not on Google Transit, but their stations are represented on Google Maps, albeit a bit sloppily, as the infowindow popups are, in some cases, less than informative), I see no reason not to. I have a contact at Google that I can explore this with, understanding that it may take a while to navigate "the great G". Thankfully, rail stations don't tend to migrate :-). On the topic of Google Transit, since my response is likely to raise that issue, I will say this: Google has some very specific (and thankfully standards-based) requirements as far as what data is needed to populate their system. Our scheduling system only recently had an export facility ported into it to even consider being able to export the data in a "Google-friendly" format. I have not had the opportunity to explore that data export capability further at this point. Also, there are considerations to be had in how much data would need to be provided to Google. By this, I mean that Google Transit has the ability to use both defined timepoints (which are a minimum requirement) and shapefiles (which are optional). I actually did some investigation into Google Transit's implementation in Pittsburgh, and came up with some interesting results. Using an origin of 1420 Centre Ave and a destination of 300 Chatham Park Dr (addresses obtained from a Google search of apartments in Pittsburgh), while the results obtained appear to be technically accurate, they are not completely realistic. The results returned do not accurately portray the intermediate route taken by the 38C bus; rather, they show a straight line trip from Penn & Stanwix to Parkway Center Dr South. This is because those are likely the only defined timepoints that were supplied to Google. You'll also see inaccuracies further on down the path (along Greentree Rd), which become more apparent when you zoom in. Again, these are probably due to the amount of data supplied to Google. It appears that the Port Authority has chosen not to supply a shapes.txt file, which would be an accurate drawing of the route, and a representation of the distance along the route on which the stops occur. I would prefer to provide the best possible data to Google if we were to do this, especially considering the winding, branching nature of some of our routes, and this could raise questions of the amount of effort it would take to generate such a file. Please understand, I don't consider any of these to be insurmountable issues, and I will not dismiss any options outright. I do, however, have to balance effort versus return, and have multiple priorities and responsibilities, all of which need to be met. That being said, I'm a big fan of Google and their technologies, and will do eveything possible to make sure that RTA puts forth a "best of breed" internet product, whatever form that may take.