JeTDoG

I think the open design of the station structures makes for pretty good visibility (yay for tempered glass and steel! :-) ), but for some people, visibility takes way more than just opening their eyes... to mention another point of behavior that had to be seen to be believed, I also witnessed one individual, running for the bus that was pulled up to the platform, dash his way between the bus and the structure's busway-side wall, along the concrete "pyramids" that are supposed to discourage such behavior... there truly are no limitations to human foolishness/stupidity.

As I said, I do not know all the things that were considered. Euclid Avenue is also US Route 20, and cars and pedestrians must co-exist. I believe in personal responsibility. There is nothing that any agency can do to guarantee that all drivers and pedestrians will obey the laws. Make a good faith effort to inform them of the law, and then it is up to them to obey or face the consequences. I don't disagree with anything you say above, and it would be interesting to know the regulations inherent with the US Route designation as I hadn't considered that. The question is simply who gets ROW priority on these particular patches of pavement. The answer right now is "auto". I am suggesting that perhaps it should be "pedestrian". Just to weight in on this matter, as I worked a couple of afternoon shifts at E 24th myself... pedestrians have right of way when the signals indicate such, as do vehicles. This is why we have traffic signals. Pedestrian friendly != pedestrian priority. When all traffic is directed to come to a stop, pedestrians are presented with a "Walk" signal, otherwise, they get a "Don't Walk" signal -- this is for their own safety. When they have a "Walk" signal, I personally don't care if they're exactly in a crosswalk or not, as they generally won't be putting themselves in a hazardous situation at that point. The crosswalks are typically situated to allow a pedestrian to observe and clearly interpret the current state of the traffic signals. The most dangerous jaywalking occurs mid-block, where one cannot accurately interpret signal state because you're not close enough to them, or when the state of the signals is clearly ignored, and railings, cattle chutes, or other physical barriers will not stop this. If the coals of a fire are glowing red, and you touch them and get burned, who is at fault? I like the clean lines of the stations without railings (sorry, Mov2Ohio, but that metal railing picture is fugly; functional, but ugly -- what did you think I meant? :wink: ), and I think, over time, people will get used to them. Those who don't, or who choose not to, will continue to face the same level of risk they ever might have, as it's likely that their behavior would not only manifest itself in street crossings. I don't think we need a "nanny state" to look out for everyone...

While it's still way too early to speculate on this, suffice to say <SPECULATION>that there will be no change in the manner in which fares will be debited, i.e, it won't all just become a giant declining-balance system. If you have a day pass now, it will be a day pass as a smartcard, and will allow you unlimited rides on all transit modes until 3:00am the following day (or the day after, if activated late in the day). The only cards that will be "debited" are five-ride cards. The advantage for all cards is the ability to recharge and reuse them. Imagine, if you will, this scenario: January 1, 20xx: you purchase a monthly pass smartcard. You use it for the month of January, taking your trips to work, school, entertainment venues, shopping, etc... January 31: you get home that evening, log onto your PC, navigate to shoprta.com, and via direct debit from your checking account, purchase a February monthly pass activation for your card. At this point, RTA is notified of the transaction, and the smart fareboxes receive notification to expect your card. The next time you use your smartcard at any farebox or media reader/encoder, the information validating your card for February is encoded onto your card. At the end of February -- wash, rinse, repeat... I'm guessing the same thing could be done for day passes, multi-day passes, etc... however, everything right now is in the EARLY planning stages, 'cause, to a certain extent, "we don't know what we don't know".</SPECULATION> And, since I've now pretty much "outed myself" with that little discourse, it's time for me to come clean -- as many of you might have suspected, or have already personally confirmed, I am an RTA employee. :wave: In fact, I'm the organization's web site manager, and have been with them for almost two years. I'm also an avowed transit geek, having never owned a car or even had a driver's license. I'd flown a bit under the radar on these forums in order to scope out the territory and determine just what was going on. Suffice to say, anything I've posted in the past, or will post in the future, is my own personal viewpoint or understanding of a given topic, and should not be interpreted in any way as official organizational policy. I return you now to your regularly scheduled forums...

C'mon, stop the fearmongering... I can "imagine" anything, that doesn't make it real. Based on the number of residential conversion projects happening in the area, there appears to be some interest. We can either satisfy those who want us to take risks, or those who want us to go with proven solutions, but not both...

Borderline? Okay, so I reined myself in a little bit... :-P I wanted to give him a little wiggle room/rope to hang himself with...

Throwing my hat into the mix, here's my letter to the PD, as well as numerous other parties (because Feagler's comments were SO far out of line): Thank you, Mr. Feagler. Thank you for marginalizing the interests of myself and others like me, who see the Euclid Corridor Project for what it is: one important piece in the revitalization of an otherwise downtrodden, left-for-dead neighborhood. Thank you for trivializing an institution like the Rock Hall, that is, regardless of your ill-found opinion, a highly recognizable landmark on our lakeshore. Thank you for misunderstanding the significance of a major piece of construction that can help to transform a zone of urban blight back into the burgeoning corridor it once was. Thank you for misrepresenting the situation of an increasing number of young (and not-so-young) people like myself, who CHOOSE to use public transportation, including the current bus along Euclid Avenue, because it suits our needs and saves us money that can be better spent on things that matter, like Orchestra tickets or membership to the Art Museum. I'll also remember your words the next time I catch a #6 bus to give blood over at the Red Cross -- apparently, I'm "nobody". Thank you for perpetuating the elitist, separatist, and borderline racist attitude that continues to act as a divide in our urban fabric far wider than the Cuyahoga Valley could ever be. "People who need buses", indeed -- why not just come right out and refer to them as "those people", the culture you consider as somehow subhuman and therefore undeserving of consideration? Thank you for countering a (forgive the pun) concrete, physical improvement with a pie-in-the-sky speculation like a monorail, well after the majority of the physical improvements to the Avenue have been completed -- come late to parties much? Thank you for expressing your outright ignorance -- it makes you that much easier to ignore. Anyone care to make a friendly wager on which of these, if any, wind up getting printed? :-D Personally, I'd love to see a collective op-ed piece featuring commentary from all of us...

nice to see Metro Netjerks/Worstwood One is continuing their fine journalistic tradition.... morons need to learn how to summarize... "some routes will stop less frequently", where the hell did that come from? and "RTA officials say a fare hike is coming in January", um, yeah, one that was announced 18 months ago, where have they been?

hey, I always LIKED the character of the MTA operators in speaking those "most famous words", it's as "New Yawk" as you can get :-) ... the new prerecorded/synthesized voice that they've installed throughout the system just isn't the same, sounds more like Prince Valium...

In RTA's defense, this problem seems to be widespread in Cleveland amongst ALL drivers, not just buses (although a bus obviously takes up more room). It is one of the major problems resulting from daytime Indians games that let out at rush hour (not that we have THAT to worry about again until next season, darn it... but I digress). Oh, how I long for an enforced implementation of NYC's "don't block the box" campaign (the "box", for the uninformed, being the quadrangle formed by the crosswalks/stoplines at a given intersection -- being caught in an intersection in midtown Manhattan will get your butt handed to you in a major fashion). Simply put, if you can't get out, don't go in (I know, it sounds like a strategy for engaging in a land war in Southeast Asia or the Middle East, but it makes sense :-) ). Jerry is obviously spot-on -- if you lodge an official complaint, especially with visual evidence, it will be followed up on.

actually, there is a $1 shipping/handling fee, so it makes the most sense to go online if you're purchasing a higher-priced item, such as a monthly pass, or a quantity of lower-priced items, since the shipping cost is the same for 1 five-trip farecard or 20... there is, of course, the convenience factor, which plays a lot more into the decision when there's 12+ inches of snow on the ground...

Matches, I'm going to assume there was some amount of sarcasm in the "always-reputable Wikipedia" description... anywho, that was a wiki reference to a findarticles search result summarizing a Railway Age article describing a Brookings Institution study... just what comes after "tertiary", anyway? :-) I'll try to chase it back to the ultimate source (beyond Brookings, although I respect their research tremendously), which will more than likely be APTA documentation... cripes, I feel like I'm back in college...

yes, elliot sander, the head of mta, said that. Thank you... however, it sounds like a reporter may have taken some liberties with Mr Sander's statements. What he actually said in February of this year, according to the transcript located at http://www.mta.info/mta/news/public/testimony070215.htm, was that "In 2007, MTA expects to generate $5.4 billion, or 60%, of its total $9.2 billion in operating revenues primarily from fares and tolls." (emphasis mine). Furthermore, he acknowledged this as "a phenomenally high farebox return, significantly higher than any other system in the country.". Also, it appears Mr. Sander's statements may have been a bit "optimistic". Looking at the financials for the first six months of 2007, located at http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/2007_first_half_consolidated_financial.pdf, the total fares & tolls revenue was $2.8 billion versus expenses of $5.4 billion, or 52% (in round figures). Subtracting out toll revenue, for which Cleveland has no comparable component, knocks it down to about 41% -- still a phenomenal number, without a doubt, but NYC's economy of scale cannot be discounted in this regard. There's more to be discussed here, but I have work to do :-). I'm not knocking what you're saying, mrnyc, just enjoying the discourse...

fyi (for your information): dk = don't know and nyc = new york city my question was why do you suspect that rta only comes in at half of the national average on that ridership funding stat? mrnyc, can you quote an authoritative source for that 40% number? I only ask because in my prior dealings with NFTA (Buffalo, NY), anything above 20-25% was considered spectacular, and I can't fathom that things would have changed so drastically in 2-3 years

there, fixed that for ya :-) I was going to comment, but all of the rest of you have done such a fabulous job... I love this town! I will say that I had a couple of opportunities recently to catch the 807 to/from Steelyard Commons, and only then was I able to appreciate the beauty of the neighborhood it passes through. In a word -- WOW!!!

a perfectly valid criticism... but don't let that deter you, the on-time performance can and does vary by route, time of day, day of week, etc... if you look here: http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_reportcard.asp, you'll find the "report cards" for various time periods, and while they are not broken down by route or mode, they do include on-time statistics; unfortunately, this year has experienced a downturn, as the first six months declined from 82% to 73% on-time, but that may also be attributed to the increased construction... to the best of my knowledge, once Euclid Corridor is fully functional, all other buses will be moved onto parallel streets, i.e., the Silver Line and the E Line Trolley will be the only vehicles directly servicing Euclid Avenue....

you were expecting maybe marble floors and maple wainscoting, or just gold-plated grab rails? </snark> :-D

So that's been his top priority? Ummmmmmmmm! :? :roll: :? :roll: :? Now wonder why rail hasn't been expanded/enhanced! Clvlndr....I'll let finish this one! I know you're dying to write two paragraphs and make a historical reference to "what could have been". :wink: Anyway, in true Cleveland form, Congrats to the non management employees at RTA! :clap: :clap: oh, for cryin' out loud MTS, read the item that was quoted, it says "A top priority", not "THE top priority" (btw, a person can have multiple, dare I say complementary top priorities), and to think that the achievement of an honor like this gets reached without real, substantive progress (albeit not the SPECIFIC form of progress you desire, regardless of the countless reasons that have been presented and re-presented ad nauseum as to why rail hasn't been expanded) is ridiculous

i want to see an ol' timey transit nerd fight. ahem... that's transit GEEK, not transit NERD, thank you very much :-D glad to see everyone's keeping good humor about this... (Good Humor... mmm, ice cream); when it comes right down to it, we're all on the same side

reluctance was not my intention, I was just stating the circumstances as they exist... I agree, more is almost always better when it comes to ridership also, I understand blue + yellow = green, my question was ?? + yellow = red; not being an optical scientist, I can't speak to the nature of refracting plexiglas, although my understanding of refraction is that it has little to do with brightness, but my statement was one of contrast in any event, it might be worth a trial run, because nothing beats visual evidence when examining visual solutions

KJP, not to naysay your point, but as a student of medieval heraldry (on which much modern color theory is based), green on black or red on black (which is what appears to be suggested in these cases, although I'm uncertain what filtering combination, when applied to a yellow LED source, would result in red output) are relatively low-contrast color combinations, so I'm unconvinced that they would yield the desired result. I do think the overall range of suggestions demonstrates that some further identifying differences might be able to be applied to the trolleys, and I applaud the fact that these are being thrown around and discussed. However, I will say that by achieving current ridership levels of around 3,000-4,000 passengers/day, the trolleys kick the butt of the former loop routes (which averaged around 700/day), even without line identification improvements.

Agreed, this a problem that will be alleviated by RTA's forthcoming move to a proof-of-payment based system -- once that is in place, boarding and alighting will be accomplished by all doors, with no need to interact with the operator for fare payment purposes.

I am certainly not the final word on this, but I can say that I have heard nothing about changing anything on the trolleys. They are one of our most popular modes, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, I promise that I will pass your suggestions along to RTA's decision-makers. Even successful products need to refresh themselves from time to time. Just to weigh in on this, I would think that one of the problems with implementing a permanent unique identifier (such as color coding) on the vehicles would be one of resource allocation, i.e., there's no guarantee that on X day there will be Y number of vehicles available for the B Line and Z number available for the E line. If there's an identifier that can be unique, recognizable, and still be easily, inexpensively changed (such as in the days of manual destination signs, when you could print a destination insert with a different background color), that might have possibilities -- unfortunately, I don't believe the trolleys have multicolor LEDs on their destination signs. Anyone care to brainstorm, based on the limitations I've described? This way, we can send JMasek to the appropriate decision-makers with a potential solution.

no cheap shot intended, but I'd have to think Cleveland's a damn sight better off than they are... just consider popular media, we get "Welcome to Collinwood" :-D, they get "Eight Mile" :shoot:

found this little nugget on euclidtransit.org: I'm guessing this means the RTV will be out and about during that time? Could be fun to observe...

clvlndr, I respectfully disagree with some of the points you've made: Untrue; the first dedicated busway in the US opened in 1973, and "lesser" is a relative term with no basis, other than "it's not rail". Please don't lump Mike White in there -- the continued fallout from the airport fiasco has shown him to be an unindicted (as of this point, at least) criminal with more concern for feathering the nests of his cronies than anything else. And that's done exactly WHAT for the city of Detroit? Their urban core is rotten and continuing to decay, as evidenced by the inner-city neighborhoods that are degrading back to wilderness. Add in the fact that the formation of DARTA was invalidated by the courts, and you've got a blight trifecta in the making... "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", a common fallacy of timeliness implying causation -- had Tober's "grand plans" been implemented here in the form he suggested, we'd all likely be facing higher taxes, lesser overall service, and a bloated infrastructure that our tax base would be unable to operationally support. Federal dollars help to build most (all?) of these types of projects, but federal dollars CANNOT be used for operational expense. It is the responsibility, ultimately, of the impacted community to provide day-to-day operational fiscal support. Thanks, but with as many issues as Cleveland is facing, I'll take a little fiscal conservatism. Don't get me wrong, I wish the city of Charlotte all the best, and I hope it does work for them, but it's a hell of a gamble. I'm a gambling man with my own money, but I'll not often encourage dragging the great unwashed masses along with me. They deserve responsible (which at times means conservative, or at least pragmatic) leadership.