Keep in mind you will probably run into significant political opposition if you start modifying/changing stops, particularly in those lower density areas between the CSU campus and CC.  It's tailor made for the type of politician who likes to screech about changes that benefit "them" at the expense of "us", and that's one thing we don't have a shortage of in this area.  Indeed, the spacing planning likely kept this in mind.

 

Tthe location of stops is based on demographics and mathematical modeling.

Thank you all for your response.  I guess my point is, our BRT, which is being held up around the nation as a model of what the Future of Transit in America Looks Like, is about to be at capacity with many stretches directly along its route still not developed and the surrounding neighborhoods relatively unchanged.  And I guess now my question is: What the hell?  Did we really build a transit line that's only capable of carrying something like 30%* of the corridor's actual transit potential?

 

*a wild guess on my part, but you get the point.  Downtown has grown some, but there's room for PLENTY more residents.  CSU is growing as a residential campus.  UC has grown, and the growth will continue to contribute to demand.  And that's with very little transit-oriented growth along the interior of the corridor. 

Keep in mind you will probably run into significant political opposition if you start modifying/changing stops, particularly in those lower density areas between the CSU campus and CC.  It's tailor made for the type of politician who likes to screech about changes that benefit "them" at the expense of "us", and that's one thing we don't have a shortage of in this area.  Indeed, the spacing planning likely kept this in mind.

 

Tthe location of stops is based on demographics and mathematical modeling.

 

How current?  You may recall when I brought the location of an RTA stop to their attention, and they actually did a very good job of moving it rather quickly.  It seemed to be based on the Terex plant still being running when it was not.

 

Also, stop frequency is going to be based on priorities.  More frequent stops serves a particular area better, but it's somewhat to the detriment of people who are just passing through.  Ultimately, it's a political decision.

How current?  You may recall when I brought the location of an RTA stop to their attention, and they actually did a very good job of moving it rather quickly.  It seemed to be based on the Terex plant still being running when it was not.

 

Also, stop frequency is going to be based on priorities.  More frequent stops serves a particular area better, but it's somewhat to the detriment of people who are just passing through.  Ultimately, it's a political decision.

 

Moving a bus stop sign requires little expense, no federal funds and therefore little analysis/screening. Siting or moving a HealthLine station requires more screening.

 

EDIT: consider the possible closing or relocation of the East 79th Red Line station... Public hearings will be held and a final decision must pass muster with the FTA.

Thank you all for your response.  I guess my point is, our BRT, which is being held up around the nation as a model of what the Future of Transit in America Looks Like, is about to be at capacity with many stretches directly along its route still not developed and the surrounding neighborhoods relatively unchanged.  And I guess now my question is: What the hell?  Did we really build a transit line that's only capable of carrying something like 30%* of the corridor's actual transit potential?

 

*a wild guess on my part, but you get the point.  Downtown has grown some, but there's room for PLENTY more residents.  CSU is growing as a residential campus.  UC has grown, and the growth will continue to contribute to demand.  And that's with very little transit-oriented growth along the interior of the corridor. 

 

I agree with your analysis completely... You're right, it's all smiles now (at least from a national/PR perspective), but RTA, and indeed the City, are kicking the can down the road viz your points about the HL.  Let's hope some plan is in the works lest HL operations get ugly in the future.

 

Your logic that speed of the redline makes up for it being in a less than perfect location is not true for some riders. The ridership of the HL vs the redline on the east side supports the argument that access can be more attractive than speed.

 

 

I think a big factor which wont be a popular one is that most riders are heading to Tower City/Public Square. For those who are heading from east of University Circle, taking the train seems like the logical choice. But the ridership is lower than the Healthline. Why? I think it may be because for the Red Line, to get off at Tower City you NEED to have a ticket. For the Healthline you don't.  That may also be why the Red Line is a much calmer crowd than the Healthline.

I suppose they could add buses to alleviate some capacity, which would increase the frequency of buses at each stop.  They could run into overcrowding however as was often the case with street cars back in the day.

 

 

Your logic that speed of the redline makes up for it being in a less than perfect location is not true for some riders. The ridership of the HL vs the redline on the east side supports the argument that access can be more attractive than speed.

 

 

I think a big factor which wont be a popular one is that most riders are heading to Tower City/Public Square. For those who are heading from east of University Circle, taking the train seems like the logical choice. But the ridership is lower than the Healthline. Why? I think it may be because for the Red Line, to get off at Tower City you NEED to have a ticket. For the Healthline you don't.  That may also be why the Red Line is a much calmer crowd than the Healthline.

 

The irony is the fare box recovery Ratio for the redline is 23% and buses are closer to ~25% it would cost more for RTA to eliminate proof of payment than to tolerate the level of Fare evasion we have today. 

 

 

I suppose they could add buses to alleviate some capacity, which would increase the frequency of buses at each stop.  They could run into overcrowding however as was often the case with street cars back in the day.

 

 

Streetcars can be much longer nowadays.

Cleveland's Healthline prominently featured:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/05/importance-running-true-brt-through-downtown/9033/

Cleveland's Healthline prominently featured:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/05/importance-running-true-brt-through-downtown/9033/

 

"Downtown Cleveland was by most measures quite blighted before the HealthLine, for instance, which made opposition minimal. "

 

Bullmodell.  The Euclid Corridor was, perhaps.  But that's because other areas were doing well.

^ It is a little selective in the interpretation, but it's not exactly like DT was nearly the thriving hotspot it is now.  When service started 5.5 years ago The Residences at 668 was still boarded up, and the Schoefield still had it's terrible skin on.  I think it is safe to say things have picked up since then.

^Well we know downtown's renaissance more coincidentally and simultaneously occurred along with the HL's creation rather than the latter causing the former, as BRT advocates like the Institute for Transportation Development Policy (and The Atlantic) would have you believe... The phony BRT-sparked-$6B--in-TOD-development continues to be batted around as though it's fact, and will continue to be unless those of us who know better publicly and effectively refute it.

That's your opinion, not "what we know".

If they include the art museum expansion, any clinic expansion, or e 4th in the numbers, then we do know.

If they include the art museum expansion, any clinic expansion, or e 4th in the numbers, then we do know.

^Or the VA.

Or CSU's expansion

Or UH and Case

I feel like the numbers are as phony as DCA's population numbers.  but, if it helped RTA justify service expansion or gain more funding, I'd be cool with it.

That's your opinion, not "what we know".

 

It's not my opinion, it's fact.

I hear and understand both sides of this debate. Consider this:

 

1.) If the national economy improves while you are President, you take credit for it. If the national economy tanks while you are in office, you get blamed, despite whatever good or bad actions you took to impact the economy.

2). When a developer decides to invest, we do not ask him or her to pinpoint exactly why he/she has the faith to spend his money here.

3). The development of Euclid Avenue appears to be "on a roll" -- that is, there are a lot of good things happening. I would think a developer would look at the big picture, and decide it was time to "jump in".

I think the causal link is a little besides the point in this case.  The main point was that Downtown was fairly dead when the project was planned, so there wasn't much of debate about removing two travel lanes from a major thoroughfare.  That might have been a harder sell after all the development, and in any case, is a lot harder in other cities with a higher density of traffic and activity.

I think the causal link is a little besides the point in this case.  The main point was that Downtown was fairly dead when the project was planned, so there wasn't much of debate about removing two travel lanes from a major thoroughfare.  That might have been a harder sell after all the development, and in any case, is a lot harder in other cities with a higher density of traffic and activity.

 

I totally disagree. The causal linkage is the point.  Accurately (or inaccurately in this case) reporting the causation of transit development for a mode like BRT can, in the future, help RTA build the most effective transit line per the corridor served and help avoid the mistakes in planning routes like the HL which, as noted by other UOers, is suffering serious service shortcomings along a route that is far from being fully developed, especially in the core Midtown area.  Failure to interpret facts accurately simply compounds errors in urban planning, and we’ve seen far too much of this in Cleveland, esp. in regards to transpiration, transit and RE development (ie. the Public Square redevelopment)

The Ridiculous Politics That Slow Down America’s Best BRT Route

Thursday, June 12, 2014

 

Cleveland’s Healthline is widely viewed as the best bus rapid transit project in the country — and for many good reasons. Running on dedicated center lanes, the Healthline isn’t bogged down by car traffic on the most congested portions of its 7.1-mile route. With about 14,000 daily trips, the Healthline has increased ridership nearly 50 percent (though some of that is attributable to elimination of redundant routes), and local officials credit it with spurring billions of dollars of development nearby.

 

But it could run much faster if officials fixed one small thing that is completely within their power to address: the signal timing.

 

The Plain Dealer reported in 2010 that it takes an average of 44 minutes to travel the seven miles from downtown’s Public Square to East Cleveland. That’s only three minutes faster than the bus line it replaced, and more than ten minutes off the 33-minute pace that project planners promised. Despite some tweaking around the margins, not much has changed since 2010, according to sources familiar with the project.

 

The frustrating thing is that the Healthline could easily run faster. But the city of Cleveland simply hasn’t activated the transit priority technology for most of the route, according to advocates.

 

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/12/the-ridiculous-politics-that-slow-down-americas-best-brt-route/

 

 

 

"John McGovern, current chair of RTA’s Citizen’s Advisory Board, said shortly after the Healthline began operating, the city turned off the transit priority technology for most of the traffic signals.

 

“I recall hearing a line from the city that ‘important people in cars’ were pissed that they had to wait for a bus to make their left turn into work,” he said. “The city’s course of action was to turn off all the expensive sensors so one man could control the whole thing so as to be accountable to the needs of these very important people.”

 

The Greater Regional Transit Authority would not confirm or deny that the transit signal priority has not been activated, saying that question could only be answered by the city of Cleveland. Officials from the city of Cleveland did not respond to multiple requests for an interview."

 

Great job, RTA. Really doing your job there buddy. Way not to pass the buck

 

 

They always have a excuse for why they are poorly run.

The Ridiculous Politics That Slow Down America’s Best BRT Route

Thursday, June 12, 2014

 

Cleveland’s Healthline is widely viewed as the best bus rapid transit project in the country — and for many good reasons. Running on dedicated center lanes, the Healthline isn’t bogged down by car traffic on the most congested portions of its 7.1-mile route. With about 14,000 daily trips, the Healthline has increased ridership nearly 50 percent (though some of that is attributable to elimination of redundant routes), and local officials credit it with spurring billions of dollars of development nearby.

 

But it could run much faster if officials fixed one small thing that is completely within their power to address: the signal timing.

 

The Plain Dealer reported in 2010 that it takes an average of 44 minutes to travel the seven miles from downtown’s Public Square to East Cleveland. That’s only three minutes faster than the bus line it replaced, and more than ten minutes off the 33-minute pace that project planners promised. Despite some tweaking around the margins, not much has changed since 2010, according to sources familiar with the project.

 

The frustrating thing is that the Healthline could easily run faster. But the city of Cleveland simply hasn’t activated the transit priority technology for most of the route, according to advocates.

 

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/12/the-ridiculous-politics-that-slow-down-americas-best-brt-route/

 

 

I'm a little surprised that you-know-who actually had something positive to say about Cleveland, even though it was almost in passing.

 

Indirectly, she does make one good point.  It interacts with cars despite the separate lanes.  That, and the frequency of stops, makes it a bus, not a rapid.

 

Still, the time between TC and UC would be more relevant than the time to East Cleveland, I would think.  Don't the dedicated lanes end at about 105th?

I am surprised the Feds didn't make RTA pay the traffic light preemption money back since RTA elected to turn it off... Calabrese's answer sounds like passing the buck.

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

I am surprised the Feds didn't make RTA pay the traffic light preemption money back since RTA elected to turn it off... Calabrese's answer sounds like passing the buck.

 

Are we sure RTA is at fault?

 

In the world of corporate public relations, RTA did the right thing.  They've laid the baby at Cleveland City Halls door step.  If my staff was doing this I would have instructed them to do the same.  RTA and the City must work together, so he cannot answer for City Hall, but by saying that, it puts the microscope on City Hall.

I am surprised the Feds didn't make RTA pay the traffic light preemption money back since RTA elected to turn it off...

 

If it was up to RTA, they would have kept the traffic lights prioritized for the buses. But the city owns the traffic signals. Either way, I am surprised the FTA hasn't told "someone" to pay back the money for the signals which aren't being used as the funding was intended. I'm also surprised some group hasn't filed a taxpayer lawsuit to force action.

I am surprised the Feds didn't make RTA pay the traffic light preemption money back since RTA elected to turn it off... Calabrese's answer sounds like passing the buck.

 

Aristocracy of pull.  It happens anywhere, but happens a little more often here.  Not much can be done about it.

 

Just as likely government people (possibly feds) as business.

A couple of HealthLine pics on Euclid at 9th.....

 

 

 

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

 

I recall the 9 express taking 20 or less, even stopping.

 

The 9 schedule says it takes 13 minutes to go from 105th to 19th on Euclid.  The BRT schedule does not break down by stop, just the ends.  40 minutes from Windermere to downtown.

 

Why was this money spent, again?

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

 

I recall the 9 express taking 20 or less, even stopping.

 

The 9 schedule says it takes 13 minutes to go from 105th to 19th on Euclid.  The BRT schedule does not break down by stop, just the ends.  40 minutes from Windermere to downtown.

 

Why was this money spent, again?

 

The purpose of the BRT was to serve points in between Public Square and University Circle, like CSU and the Clinic.  The end-to-end comparisons (with the #6 bus) are interesting, but useless.  Anyone going from end to is crazy not to take the Red Line, which covers this route in 18 minutes.

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

 

I recall the 9 express taking 20 or less, even stopping.

 

The 9 schedule says it takes 13 minutes to go from 105th to 19th on Euclid.  The BRT schedule does not break down by stop, just the ends.  40 minutes from Windermere to downtown.

 

Why was this money spent, again?

 

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

 

I recall the 9 express taking 20 or less, even stopping.

 

The 9 schedule says it takes 13 minutes to go from 105th to 19th on Euclid.  The BRT schedule does not break down by stop, just the ends.  40 minutes from Windermere to downtown.

 

Why was this money spent, again?

 

Anyone going from end to is crazy not to take the Red Line, which covers this route in 18 minutes.

 

But it happens quite often because if heading downtown, one has to pay on the Red Line but can easily get away with not paying on the Healthline. Because of this, the Red Line is also a much quieter and pleasant ride.

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Could you please add a single fact to your next rant? The project cost $200 million. It rebuilt a century-old main street from the sewers up. It made a beautiful street scene. It provided a shot in the arm to a tired corridor which has since seen more than $4 billion in new development. Some of that admittedly would have happened anyway, but some of it wouldn't have. And nearly all of the buildings and new zoning overlays were influenced by the project to be sited and designed in a way to favor more than just car users -- pedestrians and transit users which make a city more urban and vibrant than be subjugated by the space-eating tyranny of the highly subsidized car.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinions. But I sure wish you would learn *something* about the project before you opine on it.

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Could you please add a single fact to your next rant? The project cost $200 million. It rebuilt a century-old main street from the sewers up. It made a beautiful street scene. It provided a shot in the arm to a tired corridor which has since seen more than $4 billion in new development. Some of that admittedly would have happened anyway, but some of it wouldn't have. Nearly all of it was encouraged by the project, including new zoning overlays motivated by the project, to be sited and designed in a way to favor more than just car users -- pedestrians and transit users which make a city more urban and vibrant than be subjugated by the space-eating tyranny of the highly subsidized car.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinions. But I sure wish you would learn *something* about the project before you opine on it.

 

Cars should not be subsidized either.  I agree that is part of the problem.  Earlier 20th century century cities, though not without problems, were quite vibrant with very little if any subsidies for either cars *or* transit.  And transit won out where it made the most sense (dense urban cores and their immediate surroundings).  Cars won out where they were clearly the better choice (rural areas and smaller towns).  A level playing field, with each mode of transport paying its own way, influences development in a truly and genuinely sustainable fashion, with little if any need for government involvement.

The 44 minute time is still off. It can easily take 40 minutes from University Circle to Playhouse Square.

 

I recall the 9 express taking 20 or less, even stopping.

 

The 9 schedule says it takes 13 minutes to go from 105th to 19th on Euclid.  The BRT schedule does not break down by stop, just the ends.  40 minutes from Windermere to downtown.

 

Why was this money spent, again?

 

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Could you please add a single fact to your next rant? The project cost $200 million. It rebuilt a century-old main street from the sewers up. It made a beautiful street scene. It provided a shot in the arm to a tired corridor which has since seen more than $4 billion in new development. Some of that admittedly would have happened anyway, but some of it wouldn't have. Nearly all of it was encouraged by the project, including new zoning overlays motivated by the project, to be sited and designed in a way to favor more than just car users -- pedestrians and transit users which make a city more urban and vibrant than be subjugated by the space-eating tyranny of the highly subsidized car.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinions. But I sure wish you would learn *something* about the project before you opine on it.

 

Cars should not be subsidized either.  I agree that is part of the problem.  Earlier 20th century century cities, though not without problems, were quite vibrant with very little if any subsidies for either cars *or* transit.  And transit won out where it made the most sense (dense urban cores and their immediate surroundings).  Cars won out where they were clearly the better choice (rural areas and smaller towns).  A level playing field, with each mode of transport paying its own way, influences development in a truly and genuinely sustainable fashion, with little if any need for government involvement.

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Could you please add a single fact to your next rant? The project cost $200 million. It rebuilt a century-old main street from the sewers up. It made a beautiful street scene. It provided a shot in the arm to a tired corridor which has since seen more than $4 billion in new development. Some of that admittedly would have happened anyway, but some of it wouldn't have. Nearly all of it was encouraged by the project, including new zoning overlays motivated by the project, to be sited and designed in a way to favor more than just car users -- pedestrians and transit users which make a city more urban and vibrant than be subjugated by the space-eating tyranny of the highly subsidized car.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinions. But I sure wish you would learn *something* about the project before you opine on it.

 

Cars should not be subsidized either.  I agree that is part of the problem.  Earlier 20th century century cities, though not without problems, were quite vibrant with very little if any subsidies for either cars *or* transit.  And transit won out where it made the most sense (dense urban cores and their immediate surroundings).  Cars won out where they were clearly the better choice (rural areas and smaller towns).  A level playing field, with each mode of transport paying its own way, influences development in a truly and genuinely sustainable fashion, with little if any need for government involvement.

 

Is there a way to get to a more level playing field at this point in time? Just a casual look around downtown CLE shows a mostly auto-centric city.

Because they didn't want to run express buses down Chester or Carnegie, which would have resulted in a reliable 10 minute trip downtown.  And they wanted to spend billions of dollars of other people's money, taken from them by force, the vast majority of whom do not benefit from it in any way, to enrich themselves.  It was classic political pork.  I like the concept of BRT, but it was never right for Euclid Avenue.  What it needed was some common sense.  Run local service on Euclid, and express service (including some feeding Euclid) on Carnegie and Chester.  Problem solved, for very little if any $$ (actually it probably would have been a net positive for the region and would not have cost people in Alaska or Texas or Guam a penny).

 

Could you please add a single fact to your next rant? The project cost $200 million. It rebuilt a century-old main street from the sewers up. It made a beautiful street scene. It provided a shot in the arm to a tired corridor which has since seen more than $4 billion in new development. Some of that admittedly would have happened anyway, but some of it wouldn't have. Nearly all of it was encouraged by the project, including new zoning overlays motivated by the project, to be sited and designed in a way to favor more than just car users -- pedestrians and transit users which make a city more urban and vibrant than be subjugated by the space-eating tyranny of the highly subsidized car.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinions. But I sure wish you would learn *something* about the project before you opine on it.

 

Cars should not be subsidized either.  I agree that is part of the problem.  Earlier 20th century century cities, though not without problems, were quite vibrant with very little if any subsidies for either cars *or* transit.  And transit won out where it made the most sense (dense urban cores and their immediate surroundings).  Cars won out where they were clearly the better choice (rural areas and smaller towns).  A level playing field, with each mode of transport paying its own way, influences development in a truly and genuinely sustainable fashion, with little if any need for government involvement.

 

Is there a way to get to a more level playing field at this point in time? Just a casual look around downtown CLE shows a mostly auto-centric city.

 

Not at a local level and not right away.  Most of the distortion comes from the idea that transportation should be handled by bureaucrats in Washington, rather than locally. 

 

HOWEVER:  there is a limit to how much the feds can borrow from other nations, and when that borrowing stops, so does a great deal of the unnecessary federal spending.  That starts the process.

 

The challenge is that at that point we still have land-use patterns, infrastructure, and public expectations that have been dominated by 60+ years of auto- and suburb-oriented federal spending.  Some of that, frankly, is not going to survive.  As gas and road prices begin to approach their true cost, transit in and near cities becomes more viable, and the McExurbs become largely unsustainable.  It could take a while, but sooner or later, land and home values will adjust to reflect the new reality that transportation is expensive, but drastically more so in those exurbs and drastically less so in denser urban environments. 

^Oh gosh, Washington is so bad!  They have, like, bureaucrats! And politicians!  And to suggest that the healthline was political "pork" that cost billions and enriched everyone involved is beyond ridiculous.  As was pointed out, it cost $200 million (thats 1/5 of a billion, in case your math is rusty) and has already provided ROI (that's return on investment...)  Tear yourself away from your guv'ment hatin' libertarian websites and do some factual research.  :roll:

 

Not at a local level and not right away.  Most of the distortion comes from the idea that transportation should be handled by bureaucrats in Washington, rather than locally. 

 

HOWEVER:  there is a limit to how much the feds can borrow from other nations, and when that borrowing stops, so does a great deal of the unnecessary federal spending.  That starts the process.

 

The challenge is that at that point we still have land-use patterns, infrastructure, and public expectations that have been dominated by 60+ years of auto- and suburb-oriented federal spending.  Some of that, frankly, is not going to survive.  As gas and road prices begin to approach their true cost, transit in and near cities becomes more viable, and the McExurbs become largely unsustainable.  It could take a while, but sooner or later, land and home values will adjust to reflect the new reality that transportation is expensive, but drastically more so in those exurbs and drastically less so in denser urban environments. 

 

I'm more cynical on this. I think any injury to the status quo in federal spending (however necessary it may be) is going to hurt urbanism.  Maybe it's analogous to the "too big to fail" mentality, but I think that the suburbs and the highway system is going to continue sucking up scarce resources no matter what happens.

^Oh gosh, Washington is so bad!  They have, like, bureaucrats! And politicians!  And to suggest that the healthline was political "pork" that cost billions and enriched everyone involved is beyond ridiculous.  As was pointed out, it cost $200 million (thats 1/5 of a billion, in case your math is rusty) and has already provided ROI (that's return on investment...)  Tear yourself away from your guv'ment hatin' libertarian websites and do some factual research.  :roll:

 

You can hate big government or not.  I don't much care either way.  It isn't sustainable, and therefore it won't last.  But I'd prefer if our cities, and the transit that helps to sustain them, did.  And they can.  On balance big government harms transit MUCH more than it helps.  When Big Government goes the way of the former USSR, and it will, think of that not as a disaster, but a great opportunity, for transit, and for our region in general.  It will be, and you will either see that, eventually, or get left behind by those who do.

^Oh gosh, Washington is so bad!  They have, like, bureaucrats! And politicians!  And to suggest that the healthline was political "pork" that cost billions and enriched everyone involved is beyond ridiculous.  As was pointed out, it cost $200 million (thats 1/5 of a billion, in case your math is rusty) and has already provided ROI (that's return on investment...)  Tear yourself away from your guv'ment hatin' libertarian websites and do some factual research.  ::)

 

You can hate big government or not.  I don't much care either way.  It isn't sustainable, and therefore it won't last.  But I'd prefer if our cities, and the transit that helps to sustain them, did.  And they can.  On balance big government harms transit MUCH more than it helps.  When Big Government goes the way of the former USSR, and it will, think of that not as a disaster, but a great opportunity, for transit, and for our region in general.  It will be, and you will either see that, eventually, or get left behind by those who do.

I'm a fairly intelligent person with an advanced degree.    What the hell are you trying to say?

 

Not at a local level and not right away.  Most of the distortion comes from the idea that transportation should be handled by bureaucrats in Washington, rather than locally. 

 

HOWEVER:  there is a limit to how much the feds can borrow from other nations, and when that borrowing stops, so does a great deal of the unnecessary federal spending.  That starts the process.

 

The challenge is that at that point we still have land-use patterns, infrastructure, and public expectations that have been dominated by 60+ years of auto- and suburb-oriented federal spending.  Some of that, frankly, is not going to survive.  As gas and road prices begin to approach their true cost, transit in and near cities becomes more viable, and the McExurbs become largely unsustainable.  It could take a while, but sooner or later, land and home values will adjust to reflect the new reality that transportation is expensive, but drastically more so in those exurbs and drastically less so in denser urban environments. 

 

I'm more cynical on this. I think any injury to the status quo in federal spending (however necessary it may be) is going to hurt urbanism.  Maybe it's analogous to the "too big to fail" mentality, but I think that the suburbs and the highway system is going to continue sucking up scarce resources no matter what happens.

 

Even if it does, the fewer of those resources available to waste, the less cars and roads get subsidized, and the more likely it is that people and companies will find it attractive to locate themselves in or near cities rather than exurbs and undeveloped countryside, thus beginning to reverse historically anomalous land use patterns in the U.S. compared to nearly every other civilization in history.  We transit advocates lose our paltry subsidies too, but that's just it.  They are paltry compared to what the fedgov is doing for the auto and highway lobby.  Loss of, say, 30% of funding across the board hurts them way more than it hurts us, if it even hurts us at all - my argument is that on balance it actually helps, because sprawl is inherently unsustainable and requires ever-increasing subsidies to continue, while transit, historically, did not (until that sprawl came along).

 

^Oh gosh, Washington is so bad!  They have, like, bureaucrats! And politicians!  And to suggest that the healthline was political "pork" that cost billions and enriched everyone involved is beyond ridiculous.  As was pointed out, it cost $200 million (thats 1/5 of a billion, in case your math is rusty) and has already provided ROI (that's return on investment...)  Tear yourself away from your guv'ment hatin' libertarian websites and do some factual research.  ::)

 

You can hate big government or not.  I don't much care either way.  It isn't sustainable, and therefore it won't last.  But I'd prefer if our cities, and the transit that helps to sustain them, did.  And they can.  On balance big government harms transit MUCH more than it helps.  When Big Government goes the way of the former USSR, and it will, think of that not as a disaster, but a great opportunity, for transit, and for our region in general.  It will be, and you will either see that, eventually, or get left behind by those who do.

I'm a fairly intelligent person with an advanced degree.    What the hell are you trying to say?

 

Probably nothing that most people here will be capable of understanding, not because of lack of intelligence, but lack of perspective.  But let me try one more time.  Big, corrupt government hurts transit, especially in our region, much more than it helps, largely by massively funding the auto/road/oil/military complex, but also by distorting the decisionmaking process in countless ways.  However much I may like the HealthLine - and I do - it is an example of both problems, and we can fix those problems, with regard to the HealthLine or to transportation in general, not by ignoring them but by recognizing them and plotting some path that gets us, affordably and sustainably, from where we are to where we would like to be in the future. 

^ I am honestly not trying to be a dick...but your comma game is CRAZY, son!

^Oh gosh, Washington is so bad!  They have, like, bureaucrats! And politicians!  And to suggest that the healthline was political "pork" that cost billions and enriched everyone involved is beyond ridiculous.  As was pointed out, it cost $200 million (thats 1/5 of a billion, in case your math is rusty) and has already provided ROI (that's return on investment...)  Tear yourself away from your guv'ment hatin' libertarian websites and do some factual research.  :roll:

 

You can hate big government or not.  I don't much care either way.  It isn't sustainable, and therefore it won't last.  But I'd prefer if our cities, and the transit that helps to sustain them, did.  And they can.  On balance big government harms transit MUCH more than it helps.  When Big Government goes the way of the former USSR, and it will, think of that not as a disaster, but a great opportunity, for transit, and for our region in general.  It will be, and you will either see that, eventually, or get left behind by those who do.

 

The government, big or small, is going to build roads because they usually benefit contributors, be they larger taxpayers, or those who build things.  They also tend to have more benefit for the persuadable voters.  Also, closed end projects like building roads are something that the government can do reasonably well, and hold up as accomplishments.

 

As far as transit goes, the worst thing big government ever did to it was encourage it to consolidate.  Places like Maple Heights (where I grew up to the extent that I did at all) which had their own systems pretty much qualified as “transit oriented development” by today’s standards.  Many residents opposed the merger, fearing that RTA would provide worse service and in particular would eliminate the local runs in favor of serving Cleveland in general and downtown in particular.  This was considered speculative at the time, but it happened.  Regionalization, along with the out and out pandering to class envy practiced by the powers that be at the time forced all mass transit in this region into a “one size fits all” model.  This made it more of a social program than a transportation resource, and gave it the stereotype of being mostly for those without other options.