Regardless of whether a certain freeway was under construction in 1959 or 1961, to agrue that the development of the freeway/highway system in NEO has not had a deleterious effect on Cleveland's population, and that the construction of this system did not disproportionately effect people of color, is a tad disingenuous. 

 

The governent in effect "released" the land for development by providing better access to the farmlands of Strongsville, etc.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

Is this a case of some government/private sector plot, or tax dollars being used according to the preferences of the people who paid them?   

 

I'd also argue that roads/highways connecting urban centers to suburbs actually helped saved cities as much, if not more than they hurt them. It's probably an unpopular opinion around here, but if we accept the fact that suburbanization was inevitable because it was the preference of most Americans - downtowns in mid size cities very well may have stagnated entirely had there not been an easy way to commute their from the suburbs. The skyscraper boom of the 70s and 80s may never have happened as corporations would have opted for suburban campuses instead (like many have done and continue to do, anyway).

30 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

I'd also argue that roads/highways connecting urban centers to suburbs actually helped saved cities as much, if not more than they hurt them. It's probably an unpopular opinion around here, but if we accept the fact that suburbanization was inevitable because it was the preference of most Americans - downtowns in mid size cities very well may have stagnated entirely had there not been an easy way to commute their from the suburbs. The skyscraper boom of the 70s and 80s may never have happened as corporations would have opted for suburban campuses instead (like many have done and continue to do, anyway).

 

True, and throw in the impact of CERCLA.   Urban industrial sites often changed hands before it became possible to also inherit environmental cleanup liability, not so much after.   Building on a greenfield began to make much more sense, especially since they were becoming available.  

This was a major driving factor of occupational sprawl, which became a driving factor for second wave residential sprawl.  It did begin to happen for manufacturing corporate HQs as plant people who had worked in the suburbs were averse to the downtown commute.

44 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

I'd also argue that roads/highways connecting urban centers to suburbs actually helped saved cities as much, if not more than they hurt them. It's probably an unpopular opinion around here, but if we accept the fact that suburbanization was inevitable because it was the preference of most Americans - downtowns in mid size cities very well may have stagnated entirely had there not been an easy way to commute their from the suburbs. The skyscraper boom of the 70s and 80s may never have happened as corporations would have opted for suburban campuses instead (like many have done and continue to do, anyway).

It is quite simple.  In the 1950's, the population of Cuyahoga and Lake Counites grew by nearly 375,000 people, over ten times the population loss of Cleveland of about 38,750.  Considering that many of those leaving Cleveland at that time were probably the result of children growing up and leaving their parents' homes while the parents continued to live in them, Cleveland could not handle an increase of over 300,000 in population.  There just was not enough land available to build the needed housing.  The expanding population moved to areas in both counties where land was available to build houses.  Euclid, Mayfield Heights, Lyndhurst and western Lake County were all built out or had developments planned long before the freeways which came significantly later.  The same holds true for the suburbs to the south/southeast like Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, Bedford, Warrensville Heights and so on.  Parma just continued grow in population to its southern area.   

You guys are ignoring the massive government subsidization of the car, externalizing its costs outside of its direct usage, thus making it artificially inexpensive. If we paid the actual costs of new interstate highway (initial costs were funded by a $100 million general fund infusion to kick-start the federal Highway Trust Fund), so-called "free" parking, stormwater runoff directly resulting from so much pavement and car-induced horizontal development patterns, demand-based fees for driving during peak times, health care costs of pollution and accidents, environmental damage, and the actual cost of petroleum exclusive of the subsidized exploration and defense costs of keeping shipping lanes open, we would invariably say that suburbanization is too expensive. Capitalism can and often does result in the efficient use of natural resources -- but what caused suburbanization wasn't capitalism or people's preferences when real costs are reflected in the use of such goods.

 

If you want further proof, consider what has happened in Louisville. People don't want to drive. They want to drive cheaply. If they can't drive artificially cheaply, they won't drive....

 

https://cityobservatory.org/how-to-solve-traffic-congestion-a-miracle-in-louisville/

I'm not going to keep arguing here because it's like trying to argue with someone who is saying 2+2=5. But I really do implore you guys who are saying that suburban sprawl was some kind of natural process of revealed preference to please, please, please read some history on the topic. 

Anything heavily subsidized will be overconsumed.

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Anything heavily subsidized will be overconsumed.

See "oil," "highways," . . . .

On 12/7/2021 at 4:00 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

It was the rise of automobile ownership that was the biggest contributing factor to the growth of suburbia.  My grandparents never drove a car.  Their neighborhood offered almost everything they needed.  They lived close to where they worked, shopped and went to church.  If something wasn't close enough, they took the streetcars, later the trackless trolleys and buses to get to where they needed to go.  Transit options met their needs in routes and frequencies. 

 

When my parents moved to the suburbs, they did so as they were not forced to either be close to where their work, church or shopping was located.  Having a car allowed them to move out to the suburbs.  They wanted their own house with a yard and not a duplex on tiny lot.  The suburbs accommodated what they wanted with an ample selection of new, single family houses.  When my mother worked, bus service was good enough so she could rely on it to get to work.  If they wanted to visit parents, siblings, other family members or friends, all they needed to do was get in the car and go. 

 

My mom in Maple Heights never drove either, but the city had its own very good bus line.    She didn't have to go downtown to get anywhere.   That changed not long after she passed, due to the  GCRTA merger.  Still, we had a car.   Two once I was old enough to drive, though part of that was my dad wanting a "toy" LOL.  (Mom was unamused.  :) ).

 

The fact is that veterans coming back were used to motorized transportation, and many were used to fixing vehicles and building things.   Sprawl and the associated vehicles gave them jobs while responding to their desire for less dense housing, a desire shared by the war workers wanting to keep their jobs and reunite with their families.

The government in turn wanted to preserve those skills in case of another war, or a natural disaster.   This desire continues to this day, is extremely prudent, and is one of the main reasons I'm not a purist libertarian.

 

 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

My mom in Maple Heights never drove either, but the city had its own very good bus line.    She didn't have to go downtown to get anywhere.   That changed not long after she passed, due to the  GCRTA merger.  Still, we had a car.   Two once I was old enough to drive, though part of that was my dad wanting a "toy" LOL.  (Mom was unamused.  :) ).

 

The fact is that veterans coming back were used to motorized transportation, and many were used to fixing vehicles and building things.   Sprawl and the associated vehicles gave them jobs while responding to their desire for less dense housing, a desire shared by the war workers wanting to keep their jobs and reunite with their families.

The government in turn wanted to preserve those skills in case of another war, or a natural disaster.   This desire continues to this day, is extremely prudent, and is one of the main reasons I'm not a purist libertarian.

 

Sprawl was coming, regardless.  With sprawl came the necessities to support it.  The "urban" area, comprising the already developed former streetcar suburbs like Lakewood, Cleveland Heights and East Cleveland along with the city of Cleveland physically could not support much more in the way of a surging population.  They went to areas that could support population growth.  That population would not tolerate unimproved and narrow roads.  The troops coming back from Europe had been exposed to Germany's highway infrastructure.  People can gripe all they want about how this came about and how it was funded, but when so much of the population had seen it in place elsewhere, the word got out.

 

As for the postwar housing boom, the developers of the 1940's and 1950's built what the populace wanted.  If people wanted duplexes, they would have been building them.  People did not want that type of housing, hence they weren't built.  It is no different than today.  The split/multi/bi-level designs that were the rage of the 1960's and 1970's aren't desired in new construction.  Those types of designs are simply not being built.  Force a lifestyle upon the general population that doesn't want it won't yield the desired results.  Builders who would have refused to build nothing but duplexes would be out of business.

 

As for RTA and CTS before it, they have basically destroyed suburban transit in the county.  Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, Euclid and North Olmsted all had excellent local transit operations that were integral to their communities.  Brecksville was pretty much a commuter operation to Cleveland.  Once RTA obtained full control of those systems and the operating agreements that kept those operations semi-independent ended, those systems were dismantled.  RTA was the only game in town and took control.  In the 1950's and 1960's, CTS bought out Lakewood's bus system, Berea, Broadview Heights and Redifer.  They eliminated the competition hand could do whatever they wanted.  When the east side rapid was opened in 1955, they refused to have a rapid transit stop for Mayfield Road (even though provisions already existed) because they weren't interested in making things better for Redifer's riders.  It took 60 years to rectify the situation. 

 

Unfortunately, with RTA's current management, they have done nothing to entice suburban riders to using the system.  If somebody wants to really do some good, instead of beating the sprawl and freeway infrastructure subjects to death (a waste of time as they won't change), they should focus their energies making RTA a better system to use for everybody.  Transit oriented development is fine, but if the transit isn't worth using, it is meaningless.  Unfortunately, RTA is well on the way of destroying what little transit remains in the county.

It is completely incorrect to assume that those suburban systems' ridership and quality would not have declined if the RTA merger didn't happen.

 

It is also incorrect to blame RTA for decline. Was their leadership perfect, absolutely not. By many accounts completely dysfunctional. But transit has been up against state and federal governments for 50+ years who couldn't give a hoot about transit, and have shoveled trillions of dollars of government subsidy to transit's competitors, in addition to zoning and land use policies that favor transit's competitors.

 

That is the reason for RTA's decline, not poor management.

25 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

It is completely incorrect to assume that those suburban systems' ridership and quality would not have declined if the RTA merger didn't happen.

 

It is also incorrect to blame RTA for decline. Was their leadership perfect, absolutely not. By many accounts completely dysfunctional. But transit has been up against state and federal governments for 50+ years who couldn't give a hoot about transit, and have shoveled trillions of dollars of government subsidy to transit's competitors, in addition to zoning and land use policies that favor transit's competitors.

 

That is the reason for RTA's decline, not poor management.

Passing the blame on a lack of funding from the government is a cop-out and excuse that RTA tries to pass on to try to cover up for their decades of mis-management.  Information that is readily available shows that by receiving the 1.0% sales tax revenue for Cuyahoga County, RTA proportionally receives more money based upon ridership than Pittsburgh's PAT system with their state subsidy and Allegheny County match.  Federal money has been available, but RTA did little or nothing to pursue it, while other system have.  Transit systems across the country have sought out and received money to invest in electric battery powered buses.  Lake County's Laketran has the state's first such fleet.  Why has RTA not done so?  As an aside, Laketran offers a very successful commuter operation to downtown Cleveland and has "young" fleet (5 years older or newer) to provide service.  RTA bought a dozen virtually identical models purchased in 2020 that mostly sit unused in a garage (their only commuter route is sponsored by Strongsville and Brunswick).

 

RTA cannot even do simple things to make itself a better operation.  Maple Heights and North Olmsted purchased air conditioned buses at the same time that CTS purchased their last fleet just before the creation of RTA.  They were basically identical models by the same manufacturer.  The suburban systems installed builder-supplied winterization covers in the fall and removed them in the spring.  On RTA, they were left open to the elements.  After a few years, the RTA buses had non-functional air conditioning while their suburban counterparts units worked fine.  It was too much "effort" for garage employees to latch engine compartment covers.  As a result, the covers would flap on the roads.  The suburban operations kept their buses clean and well-maintained.  Hot, dirty and unreliable equipment does nothing to keep and attract riders.

Eventually, RTA gained greater control over the bus fleets, even under the operating agreements.  New buses were assigned under RTA's rules.  Money to maintain older equipment was drained away.  When the operating agreements between the suburban operations ended and the operation was taken over by RTA, the local bus garages were closed.  If the mechanics who meticulously maintained equipment transferred to RTA, they were forced to follow RTA's rules and maintenance lessened.  Routes that favored the local communities and commuter runs were slashed.  People who once relied on buses to get them around their towns or get to work downtown could not.  That is why the suburban ridership plummeted.  Now, the elimination of fast and direct bus service from the suburbs has been eliminated.  Most people have no interest in riding slow, indirect routes on city streets in uncomfortable equipment that double or triple their commuting time.  Decisions such as this only contribute to rider loss.

 

Passenger counts would have dropped across the system due to various factors, but not the precipitous drop as has been seen on RTA.  Many of these decisions fall upon poor management that plagued the system for decades.  Fraud, theft and waste went undetected.  That directly falls upon management and many of those managers are still in place today.

On 12/10/2021 at 11:09 AM, LifeLongClevelander said:

Passing the blame on a lack of funding from the government is a cop-out and excuse that RTA tries to pass on to try to cover up for their decades of mis-management.  Information that is readily available shows that by receiving the 1.0% sales tax revenue for Cuyahoga County, RTA proportionally receives more money based upon ridership than Pittsburgh's PAT system with their state subsidy and Allegheny County match.  Federal money has been available, but RTA did little or nothing to pursue it, while other system have.  Transit systems across the country have sought out and received money to invest in electric battery powered buses.  Lake County's Laketran has the state's first such fleet.  Why has RTA not done so?  As an aside, Laketran offers a very successful commuter operation to downtown Cleveland and has "young" fleet (5 years older or newer) to provide service.  RTA bought a dozen virtually identical models purchased in 2020 that mostly sit unused in a garage (their only commuter route is sponsored by Strongsville and Brunswick).

 

RTA cannot even do simple things to make itself a better operation.  Maple Heights and North Olmsted purchased air conditioned buses at the same time that CTS purchased their last fleet just before the creation of RTA.  They were basically identical models by the same manufacturer.  The suburban systems installed builder-supplied winterization covers in the fall and removed them in the spring.  On RTA, they were left open to the elements.  After a few years, the RTA buses had non-functional air conditioning while their suburban counterparts units worked fine.  It was too much "effort" for garage employees to latch engine compartment covers.  As a result, the covers would flap on the roads.  The suburban operations kept their buses clean and well-maintained.  Hot, dirty and unreliable equipment does nothing to keep and attract riders.

Eventually, RTA gained greater control over the bus fleets, even under the operating agreements.  New buses were assigned under RTA's rules.  Money to maintain older equipment was drained away.  When the operating agreements between the suburban operations ended and the operation was taken over by RTA, the local bus garages were closed.  If the mechanics who meticulously maintained equipment transferred to RTA, they were forced to follow RTA's rules and maintenance lessened.  Routes that favored the local communities and commuter runs were slashed.  People who once relied on buses to get them around their towns or get to work downtown could not.  That is why the suburban ridership plummeted.  Now, the elimination of fast and direct bus service from the suburbs has been eliminated.  Most people have no interest in riding slow, indirect routes on city streets in uncomfortable equipment that double or triple their commuting time.  Decisions such as this only contribute to rider loss.

 

Passenger counts would have dropped across the system due to various factors, but not the precipitous drop as has been seen on RTA.  Many of these decisions fall upon poor management that plagued the system for decades.  Fraud, theft and waste went undetected.  That directly falls upon management and many of those managers are still in place today.

 

The "one size fits all" mindset that Norm Krumholtz advocated became institutionalized.    Not only was there a militant opposition to doing anything different to attract riders with other options, but things like reliability and comfort were an afterthought when the customers were seen as a sort of captive audience.   Bureacracy meant bringing down the units whose excellence could prove embarrasing, and also provided cover for sloth and corruption.

Genius!

 

 

8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

The "one size fits all" mindset that Norm Krumholtz advocated became institutionalized.    Not only was there a militant opposition to doing anything different to attract riders with other options, but things like reliability and comfort were an afterthought when the customers were seen as a sort of captive audience.   Bureacracy meant bringing down the units whose excellence could prove embarrasing, and also provided cover for sloth and corruption.

Krumholtz's stance regarding suburban sprawl has caused this area to suffer.  Sprawl was happening long before he became a major voice.  He could do nothing to stop it and definitely not reverse it.  Yet, his stance against rail expansion to areas that already experienced sprawl help kill rail expansion.  People had already moved outward or decided to move to those areas regardless.  They came to expect that they weren't going to have transit to meet their needs and incorporated the lack of it into their lifestyles.  As such, his stance further entrenched populations's reliance on highways and their cars while diminishing the need for transit.

And preventing low-income people from reaching the new jobs further out. This region has one of the slowest transit systems in the country. The reason is because we don't have fast transit (rail, express bus) linking widely separated jobs/housing nodes and transit hubs. It's why only 1/3 of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90 minute one-way transit trip. It leads to hyperpoverty and the kinds of conditions we see, especially on the East Side.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

And preventing low-income people from reaching the new jobs further out. This region has one of the slowest transit systems in the country. The reason is because we don't have fast transit (rail, express bus) linking widely separated jobs/housing nodes and transit hubs. It's why only 1/3 of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90 minute one-way transit trip. It leads to hyperpoverty and the kinds of conditions we see, especially on the East Side.

 

For decades there was only one major hub, downtown.   This certainly seemed to be intentional.   Of course, for obvious geographic reasons this hub was on the edge of the service area.

There was also indifference to linking up with neighboring counties.    Lake County finally took matters into their own hands.   Summit?   I used to see people trudging down Northfield to their jobs at the Casino (which had bus stops for Summit) or nearby because GCRTA refused to go south of Alexander.

19 minutes ago, KJP said:

And preventing low-income people from reaching the new jobs further out. This region has one of the slowest transit systems in the country. The reason is because we don't have fast transit (rail, express bus) linking widely separated jobs/housing nodes and transit hubs. It's why only 1/3 of available jobs in Greater Cleveland are within a 90 minute one-way transit trip. It leads to hyperpoverty and the kinds of conditions we see, especially on the East Side.

One would think that RTA's so-called "experts" would have come to the conclusion that the fragmentation of service due to the breaking up of routes and the creation of unnecessary forced transfers that replaced one-seat rides failed miserably over the last two plus  decades.  Then RTA rolls out NextGen to somehow make the situation far worse.  Regardless of social-economic background, people have increasingly wanted things faster and reduce waiting times.  NextGen is rolled out that extends commuting times and it increases the number of jobs OUTSIDE the 90 minute one-way transit trip area.  For people who have the option of using a car, it turns that into a necessity.  Otherwise, if people don't have access to a car, it turns their transit usage into being nearly unbearable under ideal circumstances.  When weather, breakdowns and traffic conditions become factors, it becomes impossible.

 

With the decentralization of jobs, employers will are going to be tolerant only so far.  Hearing the excuse "bus issues" for being late will wear very thin.  Being proactive and leaving earlier is an option, but if somebody has child care involved, it causes those costs to increase.  The final outcome is bad in the end no matter what happens.  Tardiness or not being able to show up to work will cause people to lose their jobs.  Increased costs could cause working those jobs as not being worth it.  Losing or quitting jobs will do nothing to improve poverty numbers.  If someone has the fortitude of sticking it out, as soon as they have enough money, they purchase a car.  Either way, RTA loses more riders.  RTA will be reduced to having riders who have no other choice.  Companies that have made their investments in facilities in suburban areas aren't going toss those investments aside in response to a transit agency that has miserably failed the people who need it most.    

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

For people who have the option of using a car, it turns that into a necessity. . . . [If] people don't have access to a car, it turns their transit usage into being nearly unbearable under ideal circumstances.  When weather, breakdowns and traffic conditions become factors, it becomes impossible.

 

With the decentralization of jobs, employers will are going to be tolerant only so far.  Hearing the excuse "bus issues" for being late will wear very thin.  Being proactive and leaving earlier is an option, but if somebody has child care involved, it causes those costs to increase.  The final outcome is bad in the end no matter what happens.  Tardiness or not being able to show up to work will cause people to lose their jobs.  Increased costs could cause working those jobs as not being worth it.  Losing or quitting jobs will do nothing to improve poverty numbers.  If someone has the fortitude of sticking it out, as soon as they have enough money, they purchase a car.  Either way, RTA loses more riders.  RTA will be reduced to having riders who have no other choice.  Companies that have made their investments in facilities in suburban areas aren't going toss those investments aside in response to a transit agency that has miserably failed the people who need it most.    

 

You make a lot of good points.  And I think we all agree that RTA has not been the best-managed organization over the years.

 

But reading between the lines, it sure looks like sprawl, both residential and in employment sites, makes RTA's job a LOT harder.  And as you noted, that sprawl in jobs and housing also hits the poor a lot harder.  Sprawl is caused by a lot of factors, wanting something new, wanting more space for your home, cheaper construction on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, tax and incentive-shopping, government subsidies for new and expanded roads, new interchanges, etc.  It's not all on individuals, businesses, government, or RTA management that got us into this mess.  But the costs of sprawl are finally catching up, including with employers who can't find enough employees who can afford a car so that they can reliably show up on time.

 

If we want RTA to be more efficient and useful, we need more density or we need to spend a lot more money on RTA.  A whole lot more -- and I don't think there will be many advocates for spending a lot more while the regional population continues spreading thinner. We do not need to return to living in the cramped quarters of 1920s Cleveland, and it's not going to happen anyway -- we're stuck with a lot of the sprawl we've already got. 

 

But we can do better.  Think TOD -- we need transit destinations that are close to lots of things near the stop.  Employers can't spread out further and further from the center of Solon and wonder why they can't get workers to show up on time from Hough or Warrensville.  Solon and other suburban communities should be identifying transit stops and encouraging employers to group near those stops, then they can push RTA to serve those stops.  And employers who insist on building further out from municipal centers should not receive government incentives to do so.

Used car prices are getting really out of hand for low-income individuals. Good work cars were $200 in the 90s. Cars like that now are pushing $3000 now.

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

You make a lot of good points.  And I think we all agree that RTA has not been the best-managed organization over the years.

 

But reading between the lines, it sure looks like sprawl, both residential and in employment sites, makes RTA's job a LOT harder.  And as you noted, that sprawl in jobs and housing also hits the poor a lot harder.  Sprawl is caused by a lot of factors, wanting something new, wanting more space for your home, cheaper construction on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, tax and incentive-shopping, government subsidies for new and expanded roads, new interchanges, etc.  It's not all on individuals, businesses, government, or RTA management that got us into this mess.  But the costs of sprawl are finally catching up, including with employers who can't find enough employees who can afford a car so that they can reliably show up on time.

 

If we want RTA to be more efficient and useful, we need more density or we need to spend a lot more money on RTA.  A whole lot more -- and I don't think there will be many advocates for spending a lot more while the regional population continues spreading thinner. We do not need to return to living in the cramped quarters of 1920s Cleveland, and it's not going to happen anyway -- we're stuck with a lot of the sprawl we've already got. 

 

But we can do better.  Think TOD -- we need transit destinations that are close to lots of things near the stop.  Employers can't spread out further and further from the center of Solon and wonder why they can't get workers to show up on time from Hough or Warrensville.  Solon and other suburban communities should be identifying transit stops and encouraging employers to group near those stops, then they can push RTA to serve those stops.  And employers who insist on building further out from municipal centers should not receive government incentives to do so.

As @KJPstated, only 1/3 of the available jobs are within a 90-minute ONE WAY commute in Cleveland.  So that turns into 3 HOURS spent in daily commuting on RTA.  In having ridden some of that equipment that RTA uses to provide nearly all service, how is spending all that time sitting or standing in some of the most uncomfortable buses going to be attractive to retain existing or gain new passengers?  Plus there is the time spent waiting for one or more transfers to complete that commute, hoping the bus is on time or the bus that one was riding hasn't run late causing the connection to be missed.  

 

At its inception, RTA's local bus fares were 25 cents and express/flyer/rapid transit fares were 35 cents, a 40% "premium".  Even with fare increases, the extra charge for the faster express services remained for many years.  People were willing to pay the extra amount if it meant the trip was faster and that helped RTA's service to be attractive to suburban riders.  RTA currently offers little in the way of express/flyer services and those now cost the same as local service. The "premium" park-n-ride services have been basically eliminated.  Even when they were provided, the premium was virtually non-existent ($2.75 instead of $2.50) and it helped make park-n-ride services a money-loser (however, all of RTA's services are money-losers).  To be consistent, park-n-ride service should have cost $3.50.  RTA's "solution" was to eliminate the runs and drive away passengers.  Those suburban passengers mainly turned to their cars instead.  

 

As for transit oriented development, that is great.  However, for people to want to use transit to get to the results of the development, it has to be desirable transit.  If one has to spend an hour or greater on a one-way trip just to get to the destination, making transfers and riding a bus is as comfortable as riding rolling bricks on hard seats, that development will not achieve the desired results.  Even when RTA did provide better suburban services, issues such as reliability and safety/security caused co-workers and neighbors of mine to not want to use it even when their employers paid the full cost of transit fares.  They still preferred to incur their own driving and parking costs over what amounted to free rides.  TOD is part of the puzzle, but the key pieces are the transit services provided.  If that isn't provided, the desired goals will never be achieved.    

Edited December 12, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

16 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

As @KJPstated, only 1/3 of the available jobs are within a 90-minute ONE WAY commute in Cleveland.  So that turns into 3 HOURS spent in daily commuting on RTA.  In having ridden some of that equipment that RTA uses to provide nearly all service, how is spending all that time sitting or standing in some of the most uncomfortable buses going to be attractive to retain existing or gain new passengers?  Plus there is the time spent waiting for one or more transfers to complete that commute, hoping the bus is on time or the bus that one was riding hasn't run late causing the connection to be missed.  

 

At its inception, RTA's local bus fares were 25 cents and express/flyer/rapid transit fares were 35 cents, a 40% "premium".  Even with fare increases, the extra charge for the faster express services remained for many years.  People were willing to pay the extra amount if it meant the trip was faster and that helped RTA's service to be attractive to suburban riders.  RTA currently offers little in the way of express/flyer services and those now cost the same as local service. The "premium" park-n-ride services have been basically eliminated.  Even when they were provided, the premium was virtually non-existent ($2.75 instead of $2.50) and it helped make park-n-ride services a money-loser (however, all of RTA's services are money-losers).  To be consistent, park-n-ride service should have cost $3.50.  RTA's "solution" was to eliminate the runs and drive away passengers.  Those suburban passengers mainly turned to their cars instead.  

 

As for transit oriented development, that is great.  However, for people to want to use transit to get to the results of the development, it has to be desirable transit.  If one has to spend an hour or greater on a one-way trip just to get to the destination, making transfers and riding a bus is as comfortable as riding rolling bricks on hard seats, that development will not achieve the desired results.  Even when RTA did provide better suburban services, issues such as reliability and safety/security caused co-workers and neighbors of mine to not want to use it even when their employers paid the full cost of transit fares.  They still preferred to incur their own driving and parking costs over what amounted to free rides.  TOD is part of the puzzle, but the key pieces are the transit services provided.  If that isn't provided, the desired goals will never be achieved.    

Are we talking about the same things?

 

While I agree that RTA could do better than they do at times, I'm not sure I understand your point or what you're suggesting as a solution to these problems.

 

Yes, having to take a bus for more than 45 minutes (and 90 minutes one-way is ridiculous) is pretty much a nonstarter for anyone who can afford the car-alternative.  And it really, really sucks for those who cannot afford a car.  Add the time you have to wait for the bus, or a transfer, and it's a huge time-tax on the poor.  As you said, only 1/3 of the jobs are even within 90 minutes -- as a result t I don't think that RTA can provide quick, reliable, comfortable transit to 90% of the jobs in the county, which would be ideal.  The way development has spread out, it's just not practical.  "Back when RTA did provide better service" the people and jobs in greater Cleveland were not so spread out.

 

Making the seats more comfortable won't make much of a difference in those passengers lives.  A soft seat is great, until someone before you spills their drink into it and you lose a seat or you accidentally sit in it....and hope it was just a spilled drink.  I expect that soft seats also need more frequent replacement and are more difficult to keep clean ($$$).  That's why a lot of transit seats around the world are hard plastic.

 

And as long as buses share the road with cars and trucks, on-time performance is partially out of RTA's control.  This is why transit fans advocate for dedicated rights-of-way and signal prioritization to minimize the random traffic events that can delay the buses.

 

I also don't think that a comfortable coach, better pricing, and a return of safe, monitored park-n-ride lots will make a significant difference for RTA's bottom line or ridership numbers.  Operating those coaches and monitoring the parking lots is expensive, and I don't know that there are enough potential riders much less actual riders willing to pay that higher price at this time.  The 40% rapid flyer service "premium" probably wouldn't be enough to provide the first-class service you think RTA should provide

6 hours ago, Foraker said:

Are we talking about the same things?

 

While I agree that RTA could do better than they do at times, I'm not sure I understand your point or what you're suggesting as a solution to these problems.

 

Yes, having to take a bus for more than 45 minutes (and 90 minutes one-way is ridiculous) is pretty much a nonstarter for anyone who can afford the car-alternative.  And it really, really sucks for those who cannot afford a car.  Add the time you have to wait for the bus, or a transfer, and it's a huge time-tax on the poor.  As you said, only 1/3 of the jobs are even within 90 minutes -- as a result t I don't think that RTA can provide quick, reliable, comfortable transit to 90% of the jobs in the county, which would be ideal.  The way development has spread out, it's just not practical.  "Back when RTA did provide better service" the people and jobs in greater Cleveland were not so spread out.

 

Making the seats more comfortable won't make much of a difference in those passengers lives.  A soft seat is great, until someone before you spills their drink into it and you lose a seat or you accidentally sit in it....and hope it was just a spilled drink.  I expect that soft seats also need more frequent replacement and are more difficult to keep clean ($$$).  That's why a lot of transit seats around the world are hard plastic.

 

And as long as buses share the road with cars and trucks, on-time performance is partially out of RTA's control.  This is why transit fans advocate for dedicated rights-of-way and signal prioritization to minimize the random traffic events that can delay the buses.

 

I also don't think that a comfortable coach, better pricing, and a return of safe, monitored park-n-ride lots will make a significant difference for RTA's bottom line or ridership numbers.  Operating those coaches and monitoring the parking lots is expensive, and I don't know that there are enough potential riders much less actual riders willing to pay that higher price at this time.  The 40% rapid flyer service "premium" probably wouldn't be enough to provide the first-class service you think RTA should provide

RTA has to compete with becoming the preferred choice of the general public in Cuyahoga County.  That public quite frankly has it rather well to own and operate a car.  Fuel costs (as compared to other areas) aren't that high.  Insurance costs are fairly low.  Parking is readily available and really is not that expensive.  When factoring in the cost difference of operating a car, most find the extra cost worth having the comfort and convenience of their own vehicle.  The factors that make mass-transit a necessity in big cities where people don't have cost-effective choices (or where it is cost-prohibitive to even own a car) aren't in play in Cleveland. 

 

RTA used to and still can do things to increase the the speed of a trip.  RTA has essentially eliminated express services.  When they were offered, it was a regular sight to be riding an express/flyer bus and pass multiple slower local buses.  If somebody truly needs to use an intermediate stop not used by an express/flyer bus, there is nothing that says they cannot transfer at a common stop served by all buses to board a local bus.  For somebody who uses a bus to get downtown from an outlying area, having to deal with unnecessary stops just extends travel time.  Laketran is able to provide a highly successful highway coach bus service to Cleveland.  They charge a significant premium ($3.75 vs $1.75 for local routes), but their runs are significantly longer and their sales tax income in Lake County is 0.50% versus RTA's 1.00% in Cuyahoga County (5 times the population of Lake County). 

 

For those who think that hard plastic seats are a solution, have they ever ridden a bus that has them?  Yes, plastic seats are easier to clean, but so are vinyl seats and they are a better option than cloth seats.  With the changes in bus design, the suspension systems are far less "forgiving" than older air-ride suspension systems.  Nearly every single bump and pothole gets translated to the rider on those hard seats.  It may be tolerable on short rides, but if somebody has to put up with that two or more hours a day, it would be miserable and not be a desirable choice.  As for safety and security, if people don't feel safe using the system, they won't.

 

RTA's issues are multi-faceted.  Some things cannot be controlled, but others can be managed and improved.  RTA has basically de-evolved into a system that the only riders will be the ones that have no other choice.  TOD and catchy slogans won't make a difference to the system if the experience is poor.

 

RTA's service area of today is basically the same area that it had in its peak years or not long after in the early/mid-1980's.  Some of the outlying areas like Strongsville, Westlake, Brecksville and Solon have seen significant growth, but others such as the eastern, northeastern and near southern suburbs were all developed by the 1970's.

 

On 11/22/2021 at 8:46 AM, DEPACincy said:

I know a few very successful people that went to Brush. It didn't hinder them at all. Truth is, the metrics we use to measure school districts are not actually all that useful at predicting the success of an individual child. But yes, unfortunately, parents put a lot of stock in them.

 

Agreed.  There are a lot more factors and variables.  I have cousins that attended Cleveland schools, East and West side.  They have prospered.  Hell, even my skank-in-law went to East Tech and even though I hate her with every cell in my body, she excelled in her education and professionally.   

 

Not everyone leaves and many stay to help maintain and improve. My cousin and her husband work in the finance field.  The can afford to live in any community, but decided to live near the museums.  Both of their children went to John Hay.  After graduation, one attended Penn the other Princeton.

 

On the flip side, I grew up in the burbs and will never, live in one EVER again!  My kid attends public school.  I can afford to send him to Browning, Buckley or St. Bernard but I refuse to turn him into a prep school eunuch! 

Edited December 16, 20213 yr by MyTwoSense

13 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

Agreed.  There are a lot more factors and variables.  I have cousins that attended Cleveland schools, East and West side.  They have prospered.  Hell, even my skank-in-law went to East Tech and even thought I hate here with every cell in my body, she excelled in her education and professionally.   

 

Not everyone leaves and many stay to help maintain and improve. My cousin and her husband work in the finance field.  The can afford to live in any community, but decided to live near the museums.  Both of their children went to John Hay.  After graduation, one attended Penn the other Princeton.

 

On the flip side, I grew up in the burbs and will never, live in one EVER again!  My kid attends public school.  I can afford to send him to Browning, Buckley or St. Bernard but I refuse to turn him into a prep school eunuch! 

 

yes, even students from my crummy high school get into Ivy League schools. Although I think there's some kind of pipeline they have with Cornell. This is the third person to go there in the last few years. And I don't believe the Ivies offer athletic scholarships, so they call it something else.🤔 

 

 

^Don't they do scholarships for stuff like squash and crew though? Maybe not football.

lol -also for equestrianism 🐴

On 12/10/2021 at 11:09 AM, LifeLongClevelander said:

Passing the blame on a lack of funding from the government is a cop-out and excuse that RTA tries to pass on to try to cover up for their decades of mis-management. 

 

I'm not saying that I'm blaming RTA's decline on a "lack of government funding" as in "transit subsidies are too low" - that's missing my point and missing the big picture.

 

I'm blaming RTA's decline on everything else the government and society does do. All levels of government, through both funding and regulatory action, for the past 50-60 years, have prioritized building out a country in a such way that is not conducive to successful public transit operations. Zoning codes, building codes, fire codes, highway subsidies, oil & gas subsidies, parking minimums, the Obama auto bailout and many other subsidies to American car manufacturers, public tastes, redlining, lack of environmental cleanup funding in urban areas. Literally everything that society has done for the better part of a century has been done in such a way to undo a built environment conducive to public transit. Yes, RTA should have gotten air conditioning and done this better or that better, they're a completely stagnant and awfully-run organization, I don't dispute it. I ride the buses all the time and I understand the neglect, even contempt, for its customers the organization has and it makes me angry. But running the organization better would have only had a small impact in the face of headwinds that have been ruinous to public transit pretty much everywhere outside of the largest and densest cities.

 

As far of the slashing of suburban routes, yeah, more and more suburban families have started to have 2, 3, 4, 5 cars in the past 40 years, and more and more of them have moved out of county. Ridership starts to decline and so they cut the route and then they lose more riders, that's why it's called a death spiral. Do you really think if Maple Heights and North Olmsted kept their independent suburban systems, they would be the same in 2021 as they were in the 1970s? They likely would not have even survived.

 

Now let's touch on Laketran and the Allegheny County Port Authority. Given what we know about those areas' geographic characteristics, it's not surprising at all that they have weathered these conditions a little better than RTA. Lake County has not had to deal with a massive exodus as has Cuyahoga County and has had a mostly stable population. And then there's Pittsburgh, which is built a little more densely than Cleveland in the first place, and of course its manufacturing decline, as has been mentioned many times on UO, took place mostly outside of the city proper, leaving less of a population decline in the urban core, and therefore less of a transit decline. 

Edited December 18, 20213 yr by mu2010

37 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

As far of the slashing of suburban routes, yeah, more and more suburban families have started to have 2, 3, 4, 5 cars in the past 40 years, and more and more of them have moved out of county. Ridership starts to decline and so they cut the route and then they lose more riders, that's why it's called a death spiral. Do you really think if Maple Heights and North Olmsted kept their independent suburban systems, they would be the same in 2021 as they were in the 1970s? They likely would not have even survived.

 

Now let's touch on Laketran and the Allegheny County Port Authority. Given what we know about those areas' geographic characteristics, it's not surprising at all that they have weathered these conditions a little better than RTA. Lake County has not had to deal with a massive exodus as has Cuyahoga County and has had a mostly stable population. And then there's Pittsburgh, which is built a little more densely than Cleveland in the first place, and of course its manufacturing decline, as has been mentioned many times on UO, took place mostly outside of the city proper, leaving less of a population decline in the urban core, and therefore less of a transit decline. 

I understand that changes suburban car acquisition habits have caused declines in rider needs.  Maple Heights and North Olmsted continued to run successful suburban operations while having operating agreements with RTA.  Calabrese forced the termination of those agreements.  Per a former employee of the NOMBL (North Olmsted Municipal Bus Lines, a logo applied to all buses they operated under the agreement), those operations made RTA look bad.  Their buses were clean and well-maintained, while buses that RTA operated from the exact same groups were not.  Even older, pre-RTA buses were in excellent condition on those suburban systems.  They maintained relative stability in rider counts when they retained a matter of autonomy with those operating agreements.  Once those systems lost control and RTA fully took over, that is when the spiral started. 

 

As for operations in the denser areas of Cleveland, with the fragmentation of service and route re-designs that look like a child's scribbles, how will RTA's future rider counts look?  There are people who have experienced the NextGen changes and it has served to discourage their future use of the system.  A big rule of marketing is to make your product appealing to use, especially when other attractive options exist.  There are differences to Pittsburgh's PAT and Cleveland's RTA, but not to the extent where RTA's ridership has fallen off a cliff.  It doesn't matter if it is in the city or using a route from the suburbs, circuitous non-direct routes that use surface streets will not be attractive for anybody to use.  Continued route changes that defy logic and only lengthen commuting times will be the route cause of RTA losing riders and having them turn to their cars instead.

 

Laketran's commuter operation continued to thrive.  They had a pricing structure commensurate to the services provided, yet rider counts did not suffer.  In fact when both RTA and Laketran offered the same type of service and equipment in nearby areas, there were people who were willing to pay extra just because of what better security and reliability provided.  When RTA significantly downgraded their service, Laketran was the beneficiary.

 

Concerning obtaining funding for new services, how does a small operation from the state's smallest county by way of population able to have the success that they do?  Laketran was able to gather significant funding to create Ohio's first electric battery powered bus system in the state.  That not only allowed them to receive money for those battery powered buses, but money for new transit center buildings, charging systems at those centers and support equipment at their garage.  Considering that for now, RTA is still the largest transit system in the state with all of its "well staffed" headquarters, we have heard nothing about even attempting to secure such funding.  RTA has difficulty in obtaining money to meet equipment replacement needs and has had this problem for many years, even when Federal money was flowing freely.  

59 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

 

 

Concerning obtaining funding for new services, how does a small operation from the state's smallest county by way of population able to have the success that they do?  Laketran was able to gather significant funding to create Ohio's first electric battery powered bus system in the state. 

 

I think you mean smallest in land area, right? Lake County is 11th in terms of population.

 

https://www.ohio-demographics.com/counties_by_population

Ohio doesn't have much square mileage difference in its counties. Not like Kentucky where you could fit 5 of their Carroll Counties inside their Pike County.

55 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I think you mean smallest in land area, right? Lake County is 11th in terms of population.

 

https://www.ohio-demographics.com/counties_by_population

Thank you for the correction.  Even for this forum, Laketran falls within "Ohio's Small & Rural Transit Systems".  How can a small transit system be able to secure major funding for such a project when the large management staff of Ohio's largest transit system cannot?  Prior to the acquisition of the battery powered buses (10 of the 17 received this year), Laketran operated 16 diesel buses (12 35-foot models and 4 30-foot models).  The 12 35-foot buses were the ones replaced by the 17 new buses.  The remaining 4 buses are slated for replacement in 2022.  Laketran has maintained regular equipment replacement schedules.  Even nearing retirement, one wouldn't know the age of the equipment without having that knowledge.  Even when their buses were retired, they are operational and have been pressed into service when warranted, such as what was done for the 2016 Cavaliers victory parade. 

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Ohio doesn't have much square mileage difference in its counties. Not like Kentucky where you could fit 5 of their Carroll Counties inside their Pike County.

Lake County was one of the last, if not the last created in Ohio.  Prior to its creation, much if not all of Lake County was a part of Geauga County.  This is why Geauga's county seat, Chardon is so far north in that county.  When Chardon became the county seat of Geauga County, Chardon was in more in the center of the larger area.

14 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Thank you for the correction.  Even for this forum, Laketran falls within "Ohio's Small & Rural Transit Systems".  How can a small transit system be able to secure major funding for such a project when the large management staff of Ohio's largest transit system cannot?  Prior to the acquisition of the battery powered buses (10 of the 17 received this year), Laketran operated 16 diesel buses (12 35-foot models and 4 30-foot models).  The 12 35-foot buses were the ones replaced by the 17 new buses.  The remaining 4 buses are slated for replacement in 2022.  Laketran has maintained regular equipment replacement schedules.  Even nearing retirement, one wouldn't know the age of the equipment without having that knowledge.  Even when their buses were retired, they are operational and have been pressed into service when warranted, such as what was done for the 2016 Cavaliers victory parade. 

 

Maybe it has something to do with David Joyce.  Isn't he a big proponent of public transportation?  Bringing home the pork (I hate that term lol)

18 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Lake County was one of the last, if not the last created in Ohio.  Prior to its creation, much if not all of Lake County was a part of Geauga County.  This is why Geauga's county seat, Chardon is so far north in that county.  When Chardon became the county seat of Geauga County, Chardon was in more in the center of the larger area.

 

Interesting.

36 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

Maybe it has something to do with David Joyce.  Isn't he a big proponent of public transportation?  Bringing home the pork (I hate that term lol)

Per the Lake County News Herald on October 20th regarding Laketran's electric buses:

 

"With support from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Congressman Dave Joyce, R-Bainbridge Township, Laketran secured several competitive federal grants through the Federal Transit Administration to fund the Park-n-Ride renovation, charging infrastructure and its battery-operated electric fleet conversion to bring modern electric bus technology to Northeast Ohio."

“I would like to thank Sen. Brown’s office, the Ohio EPA, NOACA and our local community partners for their letters of support that helped Laketran provide competitive grant applications to support our electric bus conversion program,” Capelle said."

 

Yes, Dave Joyce had a hand in securing the funding for the buses, but so did Senator Sherrod Brown.  Part of Joyce's district includes Cuyahoga County.  Why didn't RTA seek out their assistance as well as that of congressional delegation for Cuyahoga County of Marcia Fudge (as she was still in congress when Laketran's funding was secured), Marcy Kaptur and Anthony Gonzales?  Four members from the House of Representative and a U.S. Senator should have had even better success than just Brown and Joyce.  That wasn't achieved as RTA didn't put much or any effort into it. 

 

With that regard, what has Cleveland's congressional delegation done, be it Kucinich (when he was in office), Fudge and Kaptur?  Due to their party's stance of helping the economically disadvantaged, especially those who must rely on mass transit, they should have had made the effort to do more.  They haven't, even when they were part of the party in full control of Congress and the Oval Office.  

 

Edited December 18, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

^But over the years I think Lake Co. voters have also overwhelmingly approved levies in support of Laketran. I imagine that would also go a long way in explaining its continued success, no. 

26 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

^But over the years I think Lake Co. voters have also overwhelmingly approved levies in support of Laketran. I imagine that would also go a long way in explaining its continued success, no. 

Lake County voters also have to deal with a sales tax rate of 0.5% to support their system in the form of an initial 0.25% with renewals and then in the form of an additional 0.25% increase.  In Cuyahoga County, that rate is 1.0% for RTA.  When Laketran has to go back to the voters for reaffirmation to get their sales tax renewed, they know very well if their service declines they will be held accountable with a sales tax renewal defeat.  In the case of RTA, their 1.0% sales tax was voted in in 1975 and has been in place ever since.  No renewals required; they have that sales tax revenue forever unless there is an initiative to repeal it.  In the current state of affairs and management, RTA's trustees know that a sales tax increase or new property tax increase to augment RTA's funding would fail at the polls (and have stated as such).  By making that sales tax permanent, it removed that major tool to hold RTA accountable for service, quality and management decisions.  Laketran provides a desirable service to its residents and has had no scandals linked to it as well.

On 12/15/2021 at 1:56 PM, eastvillagedon said:

 

yes, even students from my crummy high school get into Ivy League schools. Although I think there's some kind of pipeline they have with Cornell. This is the third person to go there in the last few years. And I don't believe the Ivies offer athletic scholarships, so they call it something else.🤔 

 

 

 

I work right by the Stadium Grill, it's a nice place.   But it's far from Painesville and aren't the towns sort of rivals?

I doubt the idea is close proximity to the Sweatycoat.   :)

On 12/18/2021 at 1:45 PM, eastvillagedon said:

 

Maybe it has something to do with David Joyce.  Isn't he a big proponent of public transportation?  Bringing home the pork (I hate that term lol)

 

Steve LaTourette was sort of his mentor and he did a lot for the city, even though he had zero constituents within city limits.   He's the one that was key to having DFIS (sic?) stay here, while the city's own reps didn't do much more than hold rallies.

If he or Louis Stokes was still in office, PNC would never have been able to take over NCB during TARP.

On 12/18/2021 at 11:14 AM, LifeLongClevelander said:

I understand that changes suburban car acquisition habits have caused declines in rider needs.  Maple Heights and North Olmsted continued to run successful suburban operations while having operating agreements with RTA.  Calabrese forced the termination of those agreements.  Per a former employee of the NOMBL (North Olmsted Municipal Bus Lines, a logo applied to all buses they operated under the agreement), those operations made RTA look bad.  Their buses were clean and well-maintained, while buses that RTA operated from the exact same groups were not.  Even older, pre-RTA buses were in excellent condition on those suburban systems.  They maintained relative stability in rider counts when they retained a matter of autonomy with those operating agreements.  Once those systems lost control and RTA fully took over, that is when the spiral started. 

 

 

Maple Heights Transit employees said the same things, and could back this with facts.   Maple Heights ran older buses on similar routes to fully absorbed CTS and GHTS buses.   They were invariably cleaner and more reliable both in terms of schedule and maintenance uptime.  Approximately 100% of them would insist the merger was forced through for this reason.

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Steve LaTourette was sort of his mentor and he did a lot for the city, even though he had zero constituents within city limits.   He's the one that was key to having DFIS (sic?) stay here, while the city's own reps didn't do much more than hold rallies.

If he or Louis Stokes was still in office, PNC would never have been able to take over NCB during TARP.

LaTourette put his staff on the slated closing of DFAS (Defense Finance and Account Service).  They uncovered that the numbers used to " "justify" the closing were skewed to benefit the site in Denver that was not closing (the DFAS director was originally from Denver).  Once the accurate numbers were factored into the equation, Denver dropped off the list of sites to stay open and Cleveland leapfrogged to almost the top, if not the top of the list.  Kucinich was too busy formulating presidential campaigns and Tubbs-Jones did nothing.  The loss of thousands of jobs to the region, if DFAS closed, would have been devastating.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

I work right by the Stadium Grill, it's a nice place.   But it's far from Painesville and aren't the towns sort of rivals?

I doubt the idea is close proximity to the Sweatycoat.   :)

I think this event was for other Lake County students who had signed with other colleges. At one time long ago--like in the 50's and early 60's-- Painesville (Harvey) and Mentor were rivals. Mentor High School now has almost 3X the students, so obviously it's in a different division/conference whatever, but I think P'ville Riverside (another traditional rival of Harvey's but is also much larger) still plays Mentor (I'm probably wrong). I always found Riverside kids obnoxious and arrogant 😛 When I was growing up the Painesville Township school system would of course go by the name Painesville Township (duh!) But a number of years ago they changed it to "Riverside Local Schools." I guess having the name "Painesville" associated with their schools was just too much of a branding stigma for parents and administrators to accept lol.

Edited December 19, 20213 yr by eastvillagedon

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Maple Heights Transit employees said the same things, and could back this with facts.   Maple Heights ran older buses on similar routes to fully absorbed CTS and GHTS buses.   They were invariably cleaner and more reliable both in terms of schedule and maintenance uptime.  Approximately 100% of them would insist the merger was forced through for this reason.

The buses operated by Maple Heights and North Olmsted were in immaculate shape up until the end.  The buses from Garfield Heights were in rough shape and worn out.  That system was an early transfer of operations to RTA.  Very few of the Garfield Heights buses operated after RTA had full control.  Euclid had a very well maintained fleet as well.  After Euclid transferred its operations to RTA, about 1/2 of its fleet was retired as those retired coaches dated to 1951 to 1958.  Those buses were still operational and then a major equipment shortage hit the system in large part due to the failure of the 1978 model AM General buses that numbered 143 units.  That was a horrible design that plagued all operators of that bus.  RTA was forced to restore approximately 20 of those retired buses to service to help maintain operations.  

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

So I live in Mentor and I love my house, but hate the city. My wife doesn’t want to move either. Is there anyway to try and make it a better place? Bug the local government to revamp building codes and make it more walkable? Or should we just take a bulldozer to this city?

2 hours ago, JB said:

So I live in Mentor and I love my house, but hate the city. My wife doesn’t want to move either. Is there anyway to try and make it a better place? Bug the local government to revamp building codes and make it more walkable? Or should we just take a bulldozer to this city?

I don't think you're going to see any improvements in Mentor.  They best you can do is convince her to move next door to the village in Willoughby, where there is some walkability.  

7 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I don't think you're going to see any improvements in Mentor.  They best you can do is convince her to move next door to the village in Willoughby, where there is some walkability.  

Yeah looking back we should of just did Willoughby. I’d rather just live in Cleveland, but I don’t think there is hope for any of that now.

As the Cold War appears to be returning, I remind you youngsters of the bad old days and one of the influences of sprawl....

 

And

 

On 2/22/2022 at 8:28 PM, KJP said:

As the Cold War appears to be returning, I remind you youngsters of the bad old days and one of the influences of sprawl....

 

And

 

 

It was one of the many things on my list upthread.  It was a cause, it was not the main one.