I LOVE how Al Roker and Leon Bibb did this segment from an RTA train. Nice trip down memory lane for Cleveland local media. 
 

 

ideastream: GCRTA Launching System Redesign With A Week Of Free Rides In June.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/news/gcrta-launching-system-redesign-with-a-week-of-free-rides-in-june

 

RTA MUST get this rail car purchase right.  To get it right, they have to abandon and run away from the same failed practices stretching over decades.  If they are still blind to all of their problems (which they apparently are), then Federal authorities must get involved.  As there will be Federal money used to help cover a large part of this purchase, the Federal government needs to become involved to insure the best choices are made.  They have every right to insure the funding they will be supplying will be used in the best and most responsible manner.

 

If RTA's so-called "management" (if one can call what they are doing "managing") continues to fight against using common sense and being responsible, then the system needs to be put under Federal oversight.  Based upon all of the scandals (prescription drug, Dixon's getting free medical coverage and not being able to even order rapid transit wheels in timely manner to name just three), the oversight is long past overdue.

 

Stadler, Hitachi and Siemens are probable bidders who can source materials domestically and assemble the trains in the USA. CRRC of China might be interested too, to establish an assembly plant here and tap into a growing USA railcar market.

33 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Stadler, Hitachi and Siemens are probable bidders who can source materials domestically and assemble the trains in the USA. CRRC of China might be interested too, to establish an assembly plant here and tap into a growing USA railcar market.

 

Not to suggest the request for inquiry shouldn't have been submitted, because it definitely should have for some pretty obvious reasons, but any ideas on how long this is going to set back the railcar replacement process? 

42 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Not to suggest the request for inquiry shouldn't have been submitted, because it definitely should have for some pretty obvious reasons, but any ideas on how long this is going to set back the railcar replacement process? 

 

Hopefully, a month. More likely, it won't do a thing except let RTA know people are watching their procurement activities.

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

Not to suggest the request for inquiry shouldn't have been submitted, because it definitely should have for some pretty obvious reasons, but any ideas on how long this is going to set back the railcar replacement process? 

Even if takes 3 months longer, it will be well worth it if the end result is a far better vehicle with a proven history of a successful manufacturer behind it.  Multiple bad scenarios can result if these actions don't happen now.  First, bad bids can be received resulting in a long, drawn-out process causing bids to be rejected including the project being re-bid.  Second, the bid can be awarded to an unproven builder or one with a bad record.  An unproven builder will take much longer to get the planning, design, building, delivery and acceptance completed (the savings of a few months will be lost multiple times over).  They would have to set up a US-based production facility from nothing.  Builders like Breda have such bad histories, not just in Cleveland, where they have been prohibited from bidding on future contracts with San Francisco.  There have been such massive problems with Breda's equipment in San Francisco and Boston that have resulted in huge delays, poor reliability, litigation and contract re-working/cancellation.  Ultimately, the new equipment has a much shorter anticipated lifespan causing premature replacement and the whole process has to start over again.

 

Unfortunately in both San Francisco and Boston, they have gone through this twice.  Both systems were the only operators of the Boeing Vertol LRV's.  San Francisco had a little better success than Boston with the Boeing Vertol LRV's, but then they both acquired bad fleets from Breda.  Already having gone down this path once in Cleveland, RTA should learn and not repeat the mistakes--their own and those of other systems. 

GCRTA Launching System Redesign With A Week Of Free Rides In June

Taylor Haggerty - Ideastream - May 11, 2021 

 

"After years of planning a system redesign, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is launching new bus routes in June. Some routes will be shortened or changed under the new plan to allow for greater frequency of service in high-traffic areas. RTA officials are working to communicate the changes to riders ahead of the redesign’s launch on June 13."

 

 

This is a very nice representation of the upcoming system changes, and a useful comparison to the existing routes: http://www.riderta.com/systemmap

Unfortunately, RTA is acting like a bully dwarf and is angrily going after the much larger Siemens, not realizing that people on their own staff are among AAO's sources. I'll bet Siemens is going to really miss the opportunity to bid on reequipping RTA's miniscule rail fleet. RTA, on the other hand, is acting very suspiciously.

I had asked the question below a while back in a different thread (Cleveland: Transit Ideas for the Future):

 

On 4/29/2021 at 9:21 PM, Pugu said:

Thanks for that background, though I think the demonstration may have been in earnest--Tober, the previous CEO was in the video so it looked like the video was made before Calabrese came to power. Is the new CEO any better though? I heard she's not any different than Calabrese when it comes to rail or making any real improvements. 

 

And we clearly have our answer. India Birdsong is either completely corrupt herself--getting some deal out of favoring a particular rapid supplier (screwing over Cuyahoga County residents in the process)---or she is incompetent, unable to see what is happening, unable to control the people under her, or just a poor leader in general.  @KJPthanks for AAO bringing this to FTA's attention and hopefully it will get some visibility beyond the transit world in general so that everyday people can learn about these shenanigans at RTA. Even Calabrese would not have pulled this. This is outright corruption or incompetence or both.

 

I don't think she's involved. India is on maternity leave for the second time. She's been a new bright spot for RTA -- when she's been there.

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

I don't think she's involved. India is on maternity leave for the second time. She's been a new bright spot for RTA -- when she's been there.

 

She's the GM---how can she not be involved?  That's makes her sound even worse. Even if she's on maternity leave, she's the head of a public agency so she can't really just wash her hands. I guess a freedom of information request by AAO or Scene or Crains or a needed federal investigation can see if there are emails and phone calls happening between her staff and her during this shady time to see the extent of her involvement.  

^She's probably deleting her emails as we speak and instructing her staff to do the same!

Do you really know how large organizations function? They function through delegation. Regardless, I think you should meet her and then meet her deputy GMs and tell me what you think.

RTA is not that big of a large organization---for something as big as the rail car purchase, she should definitely be involved and I would think that she is actively involved even if one of her deputies is the main person. 

 

"Regardless, I think you should meet her and then meet her deputy GMs and tell me what you think."

 

If what you are saying between the lines is that she is wholesome and good, but her deputies are bad and corrupt, then if she really is wholesome and good, she should replace her deputies. That's what any good leader does. And if she doesn't---or hasn't as she has been there a while now---that means she's no different than them.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

RTA is not that big of a large organization---for something as big as the rail car purchase, she should definitely be involved and I would think that she is actively involved even if one of her deputies is the main person. 

 

"Regardless, I think you should meet her and then meet her deputy GMs and tell me what you think."

 

If what you are saying between the lines is that she is wholesome and good, but her deputies are bad and corrupt, then if she really is wholesome and good, she should replace her deputies. That's what any good leader does. And if she doesn't---or hasn't as she has been there a while now---that means she's no different than them.

RTA's rail car purchase is one of the most significant purchases it will make in decades.  It will literally be indicative of the direction that this transit system takes for many years.  Birdsong is the head of this agency.  She may not be involved with every minuscule and mundane day-to-day decision that is made in RTA, but she had better be involved in this.  Unless she is being carted into the delivery room, she can be involved in the decision making and guidance processes for this purchase.  If she "cannot be bothered" and the fallout means the rail car purchase turns into another fiasco while she passes the blame, she is just as incompetent as the rest of RTA's leadership.  Most certainly then she is definitely not "a new bright spot for RTA".  If it that is true, it is all an act and has people fooled.

 

Professionally, if she bungles this, she should harbor no aspirations of leading another major, definitely not bigger, transit system in this country.  She will either get years, if not decades, of bonuses, contract extensions and raises of running RTA into more years of mediocrity and declining ridership counts.  Either that, or she should look up Calabrese for other career opportunities.

She would have to hear from people other than her deputy GMs.

 

She hasn't been in place long enough to measure her deputy GMs. It would have been preferable for her to have opportunities to evaluate their performances involving lesser activities before this most significant purchase. 

No, she hasn't been there. She's been on maternity leave -- twice. You're passing judgment on someone you've never met and know nothing about and made libelous speculations about her.

 

I don't understand what the people that are upset that the RTA system is still a "Hub and Spoke" system want.  Of course it is!  There are two walkable high density jobs destinations in Greater Cleveland- Downtown and University Circle.  All of our other jobs are spread out along highways in areas where there may not even be sidewalks and each individual building is set back on 20 acres of land.  If you want transit to be useful for anyone at all you need to service those two destinations as frequently and directly as possible from as many high density residential areas as possible.  It'd be nice to add service to the Solons and Westlakes and Independences, but it shouldn't be at the expense of serving neighborhoods that are actually built for transit to work.

From the Cleveland: Downtown: Tower City thread:

20 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I’m black. And I have yet to meet a single person that looks like me that would Make a permanent decision to choose to ride the bus over driving a car, especially those who grew up in poverty like I did. I don’t know what world some of the people around here live in. That’s just absolutely silly. Ask the average poor Clevelander if they had their choice of owning a reliable car or riding the bus and 90 percent of them would say owning a reliable car. I’ve been on the bus before in poverty. It’s a miserable experience. And most people at the socioeconomic end of the spectrum that I grew up in who have to ride the bus spend most of their time complaining about having to ride the bus. 
 

Amsterdam? I’m not talking about Amsterdam. I’m talking about Cleveland, Ohio, a Midwestern city in a very Midwestern state. That’s being practical.
 

I PREFER to have places that people will actually spend money in. It provides jobs for people, including the people who come from where I come from. And in order to do that, you gotta be realistic about what people actually want in Cleveland, Ohio. Nobody is saying “man if I didn’t have this car I’d spend more money in Cleveland businesses”. What?? Well, maybe somebody is saying that but not the people that come from where I come from. Like most around here (I hope) I want what’s best for Cleveland. But I also understand that there has been so much sprawl in the region that there are going to be a significant segment of people who are never going to be the urbanists dream. And instead of saying “f them all” like some of you are saying, I believe that in a city with 34 freaking neighborhoods in it there’s enough room to provide something for everybody. I would rather have them spend their money here, providing tax revenue and jobs for people IN THE CITY than outside in the suburbs. I also know that if you grew up in neighborhoods like I did, with the surroundings that I had, some of the stuff that you’re talking about doesn’t sound like progress to them.

 

Yes, Amsterdam.  Or Tokyo.  Or London.  Where there are cars, the buses and trains are clean and DEPENDABLE, and people are willing to bike for half an hour, is not unattainable in Cleveland.  People don't like riding the bus when it doesn't show up on time (meaning a long trip also means lots of waiting around for an unknown time), when the bus rarely comes by, when it's crowded and dirty, when the bus stop is a pole where you have to stand in the rain and sleet for that unknown time, and when it doesn't get you where you want to go.  Cleveland deserves better public transit service.  Sprawl makes that difficult, if not impossible.  Forcing poor people to invest in a car is not necessarily going to make their lives better (thankfully cars are more reliable than in years past, but the inexpensive cars are unpredictably unreliable -- and I would argue that a car for a poor person is a lot more expensive and less reliable than a better-run, better-financed public transit system that all of Cleveland, not just the poor, deserves.)  We might never catch up to Amsterdam, but it is a worthy goal -- if you had lived in Amsterdam you would wonder why the richest country in the world does such a horrible job of mass transit in Cleveland. 

 

While it may seem like the ideal should be that everyone owns their own reliable personal car, we are already in a bind with the car infrastructure that we have -- we just cannot afford the maintenance on what is already built, much less on the expanded lanes in the pipeline.  Cleveland itself struggles to keep up with street maintenance and is constantly criticized for its failures on that front.  Expanding roadways to make it easier to live further away and still have a 30-minute commute in your private car sounds like a good idea until the taxes for maintenance come due.  Building more and more parking to make it easier for cars is very expensive, both in construction and maintenance.  Maintenance costs are never given enough consideration during transportation planning.   

 

Making greater Cleveland financially sustainable means better mass transit in the core - more pleasant, more reliable, and more convenient; fewer (not "no cars") cars on the roads; and a balance of investments in roadways, transit, separated bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways.  And a financially sustainable greater Cleveland will be a much nicer place to live.

21 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I’m black. And I have yet to meet a single person that looks like me that would Make a permanent decision to choose to ride the bus over driving a car, especially those who grew up in poverty like I did. I don’t know what world some of the people around here live in. That’s just absolutely silly. Ask the average poor Clevelander if they had their choice of owning a reliable car or riding the bus and 90 percent of them would say owning a reliable car. I’ve been on the bus before in poverty. It’s a miserable experience. And most people at the socioeconomic end of the spectrum that I grew up in who have to ride the bus spend most of their time complaining about having to ride the bus. 
 

Amsterdam? I’m not talking about Amsterdam. I’m talking about Cleveland, Ohio, a Midwestern city in a very Midwestern state. That’s being practical.
 

I PREFER to have places that people will actually spend money in. It provides jobs for people, including the people who come from where I come from. And in order to do that, you gotta be realistic about what people actually want in Cleveland, Ohio. Nobody is saying “man if I didn’t have this car I’d spend more money in Cleveland businesses”. What?? Well, maybe somebody is saying that but not the people that come from where I come from. Like most around here (I hope) I want what’s best for Cleveland. But I also understand that there has been so much sprawl in the region that there are going to be a significant segment of people who are never going to be the urbanists dream. And instead of saying “f them all” like some of you are saying, I believe that in a city with 34 freaking neighborhoods in it there’s enough room to provide something for everybody. I would rather have them spend their money here, providing tax revenue and jobs for people IN THE CITY than outside in the suburbs. I also know that if you grew up in neighborhoods like I did, with the surroundings that I had, some of the stuff that you’re talking about doesn’t sound like progress to them. 

 

@inlovewithCLE Except you can't have a dense, mixed-use, walkable, enjoyable, high-quality of life urban core without quality public transportation. No where does one exist without the other. A city yielded to and flooded with cars destroys the urban experience. It's sad that so many Clevelanders (and Americans) have your view when the global appreciation and perspective about community transportation is so different. We Clevelanders/Americans have allowed this to happen to one of the pillars of urban civilization.

Responding to inlovewithCLE from here

 

 

3 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Ask the average poor Clevelander if they had their choice of owning a reliable car or riding the bus and 90 percent of them would say owning a reliable car. I’ve been on the bus before in poverty. It’s a miserable experience. And most people at the socioeconomic end of the spectrum that I grew up in who have to ride the bus spend most of their time complaining about having to ride the bus. 

 

Of course, the busses in Cleveland suck. They get stuck in traffic. That's the point that the video I linked makes. As long as busses get stuck in traffic, it will always be quicker to drive and people will always drive if they can. As Dougal pointed out as more people that could afford to drive more people chose to drive. 

 

20 hours ago, Dougal said:

Your point of view was perfectly demonstrated when RTA use declined along with unemployment in 2018-19.

 

Busses can't shed their association with poverty until busses are more convenient and quicker than driving. They won't be quicker than driving until we stop prioritizing cars. This will make it harder for suburbanites to drive into Cleveland to spend their money, but the value they add to the city is much smaller than the costs of having everyone in Cleveland proper drive. 

 

 

20 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Amsterdam? I’m not talking about Amsterdam. I’m talking about Cleveland, Ohio, a Midwestern city in a very Midwestern state.

 

Yes, Amsterdam and Cleveland are completely different cities. That doesn't mean we can't take their ideas and apply them here. Why should we try to figure out how to make great cities when the Dutch already have done a lot of work and we can just adapt that to fit Cleveland?

 

 

21 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I PREFER to have places that people will actually spend money in.

 

We don't need outlet malls or anything like that, we need streets designed for humans. 

 

Why Walkable Streets are More Economically Productive

 

 

 

It is pretty clear to me that most of the responses here do not give a single consideration to what people that I am talking about want. Which has been a common theme here from time to time. People who come from where I come from want cars because you feel dependent without them. And when you live in poverty, surrounded by circumstances and situations that you cannot control, you want to be able to hold onto something that gives you a sense of accomplishment. One of the first things people in the hood get when they get a little money is a car. Because you don’t want to be RELIANT on riding the bus. It’s not sexy when you’re poor. So you can bring up any example from Amsterdam and London that you want to, and it’s laughable to people who come from where I come from. The fact that I even have to explain that is an example of the common perspective around here. RTA ridership declined when unemployment declined (as another poster smartly pointed out) because POOR PEOPLE DONT LIKE RIDING THE BUS. I’ve only known upper middle class or higher white folks who choose to ride the bus.

 

Rail is different. People still choose to use rail and would choose it more if the infrastructure was better, which is one of the reasons why I passionately support an expansion of rail. But I’m not arguing with a single person on this site about what low income people generally and black people specifically want because I’ve been black a long time and I grew up low income. I care about the people who come from where I come from, and I speak up for those folks on this site and anywhere else where necessary.

 

I never said bus infrastructure doesn’t matter. It does. But I said it should be both/and, not either/or. And I’ll die on that hill, because I care about the people I’m talking about, and I know what they actually want, not what I want them to want. And I don’t think we should just throw a middle finger to anyone who won’t bow down to living in “Amsterdam”. Sorry not sorry

40 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I never said bus infrastructure doesn’t matter. It does. But I said it should be both/and, not either/or. And I’ll die on that hill, because I care about the people I’m talking about, and I know what they actually want, not what I want them to want. And I don’t think we should just throw a middle finger to anyone who won’t bow down to living in “Amsterdam”. Sorry not sorry

 

Almost everyone I know outside this forum wants free surface parking downtown. I understand the desire, it's old school thinking and "convenient." Yet it would be healthier for everyone if our city was somehow better designed for walking and cycling.  I think the touchy subject is a point you've (I think it was you apologies if I'm mistaken) brought up that it's not a great idea in the short term to simply exclude cars from downtown; not until our public infrastructure is better. Right now having a car is the best option for far too many people, so I do see this process as being a difficult one. 

1 minute ago, inlovewithCLE said:

It is pretty clear to me that most of the responses here do not give a single consideration to what people that I am talking about want. Which has been a common theme here from time to time. People who come from where I come from want cars because you feel dependent without them. And when you live in poverty, surrounded by circumstances and situations that you cannot control, you want to be able to hold onto something that gives you a sense of accomplishment. One of the first things people in the hood get when they get a little money is a car. Because you don’t want to be RELIANT on riding the bus. It’s not sexy when you’re poor. So you can bring up any example from Amsterdam and London that you want to, and it’s laughable to people who come from where I come from. The fact that I even have to explain that is an example of the common perspective around here. RTA ridership declined when unemployment declined (as another poster smartly pointed out) because POOR PEOPLE DONT LIKE RIDING THE BUS. I’ve only known upper middle class or higher white folks who choose to ride the bus.

 

Rail is different. People still choose to use rail and would choose it more if the infrastructure was better, which is one of the reasons why I passionately support an expansion of rail. But I’m not arguing with a single person on this site about what low income people generally and black people specifically want because I’ve been black a long time and I grew up low income. I care about the people who come from where I come from, and I speak up for those folks on this site and anywhere else where necessary.

 

I never said bus infrastructure doesn’t matter. It does. But I said it should be both/and, not either/or. And I’ll die on that hill, because I care about the people I’m talking about, and I know what they actually want, not what I want them to want. And I don’t think we should just throw a middle finger to anyone who won’t bow down to living in “Amsterdam”. Sorry not sorry

I think you're missing some of the nuance in what has been said as much as you seem to think we're missing what you're saying.

 

Of course poor people don't like riding the bus in its current state, and of course anyone who can afford to drive does so today, and I'm not saying that they should be wanting the current system or that even small improvements should make us happy to take the bus.  I prefer to drive because it's more convenient, and I can afford to do so so I do.  Even if I couldn't afford to do so, I definitely would want to drive.  I don't begrudge that feeling to anyone.

 

But both the poor and wealthy in other countries do take the bus when it is fast, clean, on-time, and convenient.  Making Cleveland's overall transit system better (faster, cleaner, more convenient (frequent and on-time)) to ATTRACT more people to it is a long-term (very long-term) goal, and what is necessary to make that happen also will make Cleveland a better place to live.  That is not going to happen overnight.  For the foreseeable future it will continue to be true that almost no one will ride the bus who doesn't have to and we shouldn't (and I don't) expect otherwise.   I don't want to push more people onto a terrible bus system, I want to make the RTA system so much better that more people want to use it (and I'm talking about the entire system, both bus and rail).

 

I think we all agree that rail is a lot better than buses; it's just that rail is a lot more expensive to build so we are going to be stuck with some buses (although trains can be cheaper to maintain than buses -- another reason that maintenance costs should be part of our spending decisions). 

 

Can you imagine a subway station (or multiple subway stations ) within walking distance of everywhere in Cleveland, out of the weather, clean, comfortable, frequent, and on-time -- that would be amazing!  That's what I experienced when I lived in a city in Japan with an over-built subway network.  Not only were there multiple subway lines with stations near my apartment, but I knew there was a train every five minutes on any one of them, so I didn't have to plan any local trip based on when the train would arrive. And it was clean, air-conditioned, and the on-time performance was incredible.  It was really nice. But rail is so expensive (and subways many times more expensive) to build in the first place that that's a pipe dream here.  I'm just holding out hope for one "small" rail project -- making the Waterfront Line a downtown streetcar loop -- and even that seems to be a pipe dream for Cleveland at the moment. 

 

And I don't think we're saying that it is either/or, we are with you that it is a both/and -- I'm saying that rather than spending almost all of our transportation dollars on roads as we do now, and continuing to build new and bigger roadways, let's spread that money around.  Let's maintain existing roadways AND put more money into alternatives. (Ohio puts far less into mass transit than our neighbors in PA, NY, MI, and even IN -- but even NYC/London/Tokyo spends money on roadways.)

 

Putting more money into mass transit and bike infrastructure will both take cars off the road (improving their lifespan and reducing traffic for the remaining cars) and make our city a better place to live.  

 

And getting Amtrak into Tower City, as you suggested, would be a great addition to our local transit system as well as a potential lifeline for Tower City retail.  The only detail we seem to disagree on is whether government should incentivize/subsidize a parking garage and additional roadway improvements to encourage suburbanites to come to Tower City for their retail shopping.  I think that suburbanites have plenty of alternatives competing for their retail dollars and that it would be a losing investment to rely on attracting people to drive long distances to Tower City to justify any additional roadway/parking investment. So if the owners of Tower City want to improve their parking by adding a garage, go for it -- but don't give them a subsidy to do so because it's not an investment that is going to pay off.  There will always be a "newer" mall off the next interstate exit to compete with and in the long term Tower City can't win.  Tower City needs to cater to the nearby residents and transit riders coming through the station (hopefully including Amtrak, which hopefully includes more frequent on-time travel to more destinations in the future).

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I think you're missing some of the nuance in what has been said as much as you seem to think we're missing what you're saying.

 

Of course poor people don't like riding the bus in its current state, and of course anyone who can afford to drive does so today, and I'm not saying that they should be wanting the current system or that even small improvements should make us happy to take the bus.  I prefer to drive because it's more convenient, and I can afford to do so so I do.  Even if I couldn't afford to do so, I definitely would want to drive.  I don't begrudge that feeling to anyone.

 

But both the poor and wealthy in other countries do take the bus when it is fast, clean, on-time, and convenient.  Making Cleveland's overall transit system better (faster, cleaner, more convenient (frequent and on-time)) to ATTRACT more people to it is a long-term (very long-term) goal, and what is necessary to make that happen also will make Cleveland a better place to live.  That is not going to happen overnight.  For the foreseeable future it will continue to be true that almost no one will ride the bus who doesn't have to and we shouldn't (and I don't) expect otherwise.   I don't want to push more people onto a terrible bus system, I want to make the RTA system so much better that more people want to use it (and I'm talking about the entire system, both bus and rail).

 

I think we all agree that rail is a lot better than buses; it's just that rail is a lot more expensive to build so we are going to be stuck with some buses (although trains can be cheaper to maintain than buses -- another reason that maintenance costs should be part of our spending decisions). 

 

Can you imagine a subway station (or multiple subway stations ) within walking distance of everywhere in Cleveland, out of the weather, clean, comfortable, frequent, and on-time -- that would be amazing!  That's what I experienced when I lived in a city in Japan with an over-built subway network.  Not only were there multiple subway lines with stations near my apartment, but I knew there was a train every five minutes on any one of them, so I didn't have to plan any local trip based on when the train would arrive. And it was clean, air-conditioned, and the on-time performance was incredible.  It was really nice. But rail is so expensive (and subways many times more expensive) to build in the first place that that's a pipe dream here.  I'm just holding out hope for one "small" rail project -- making the Waterfront Line a downtown streetcar loop -- and even that seems to be a pipe dream for Cleveland at the moment. 

 

And I don't think we're saying that it is either/or, we are with you that it is a both/and -- I'm saying that rather than spending almost all of our transportation dollars on roads as we do now, and continuing to build new and bigger roadways, let's spread that money around.  Let's maintain existing roadways AND put more money into alternatives. (Ohio puts far less into mass transit than our neighbors in PA, NY, MI, and even IN -- but even NYC/London/Tokyo spends money on roadways.)

 

Putting more money into mass transit and bike infrastructure will both take cars off the road (improving their lifespan and reducing traffic for the remaining cars) and make our city a better place to live.  

 

And getting Amtrak into Tower City, as you suggested, would be a great addition to our local transit system as well as a potential lifeline for Tower City retail.  The only detail we seem to disagree on is whether government should incentivize/subsidize a parking garage and additional roadway improvements to encourage suburbanites to come to Tower City for their retail shopping.  I think that suburbanites have plenty of alternatives competing for their retail dollars and that it would be a losing investment to rely on attracting people to drive long distances to Tower City to justify any additional roadway/parking investment. So if the owners of Tower City want to improve their parking by adding a garage, go for it -- but don't give them a subsidy to do so because it's not an investment that is going to pay off.  There will always be a "newer" mall off the next interstate exit to compete with and in the long term Tower City can't win.  Tower City needs to cater to the nearby residents and transit riders coming through the station (hopefully including Amtrak, which hopefully includes more frequent on-time travel to more destinations in the future).

 

You’ve attributed things to me that I never said, so let’s go with the last one first.

 

1. I NEVER SAID that anybody should subsidize/incentivize a parking garage to bring suburbanites to Tower City. I don’t know where you got that from. That was never what I said. At all. This whole thing started because someone suggested that Tower City should have an outlet mall and I disagreed because the clientele for an outlet mall IS the suburbanites or even exurbanites who will care about parking. This wasn’t about Tower City having more parking. That just came out of thin air. This was about an outlet mall being there. I don’t give a damn what anybody around here says, if you think an outlet mall with its typical clientele would be successful in Tower City as currently configured, you’re fooling yourself. What I ACTUALLY said was that the outlet mall should be somewhere else (I support the muni lot proposal) and let Tower City CATER TO A DIFFERENT CLIENTELE. That’s WHY I said Amtrak should happen here. Because if there’s a transportation center in Tower City, then their retail would not be car dependent. It would be a different target audience. Most major cities have the shopping center for the tourists and the shopping center for the locals. I believe that an outlet mall should be for the tourists and Tower City could/should be for the locals. I’m not saying Tower City needs to cater to suburbanites at all. I’ve literally said the opposite I don’t know how many times. In one of the previous posts I verbatim said that Tower City should cater to the locals and people on Amtrak. If that transportation center happens, then Tower City can have retail similar to the “airmalls” you see in airports. That’s what I ACTUALLY said.

 

2. I NEVER SAID not to invest in public transit infrastructure. What you said about doing both is literally not what most of the respondents around here have been saying. So that may be what you mean, but that’s not what most of the people I’m responding to mean. People’s attitudes around here have been like “let’s force people into making decisions that we want them to make, regardless of whether they want to or not.” I find that to be very arrogant and presumptuous and I’m not with that. Another point I made about the infrastructure is that we have 34 neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland. They don’t all have to be the same, look the same or function in the same way. And they shouldn’t. There are always going to be neighborhoods in the city that are more “urban” than others. I never begrudge anybody who wants urban oriented development patterns. I mean I’m obviously on “Urban Ohio” because I believe in this. But I also don’t believe that every neighborhood has to be the same. Kamms Corners is different from downtown. Ohio City is different from Old Brooklyn. And it should be. Some around here think that the way to end sprawl is to force people to do what they want them to do. I believe that the way to end (or at least reduce) sprawl is to provide enough diversity in housing, style, culture etc that it makes the city a better choice and option for people so that they don’t CHOOSE to go to the suburbs or exurbs. Which means that every street isn’t going to look like London or Tokyo or Amsterdam. For example, one thing I’ve been saying around here (which few people here ever care about) is that we need somewhere in the city for the black middle class to go. They are in suburbs and now even exurbs when they used to live in the city. And neighborhoods like Hough, with the size and style of the houses that they build there, are perfect for what that clientele is attracted to. And people argued with me about THAT, because they didn’t want “Solon” type houses in Cleveland. Which is stupid. If you care at all about getting the black middle class in the city (and there are plenty around here who don’t if they’re honest) you better have houses that are big enough to compete with what they can get now. Especially if you have someone that grew up poor in the inner city in duplexes with those small ass yards and those small, narrow ass driveways. You’re not pining to return to that for the sake of urbanity. If one neighborhood out of 34 has “Solon” type houses, that shouldn’t be enough to start a 300 response post war around here, but it is. I’d rather have those people (and their tax dollars) in the city of Cleveland, not in Solon or Beachwood or Summit County.

 

But that’s been my point the whole time. Cant say you’re for both/and and not either/or if you’re willing to either force people to do what you want them to do, regardless of if they want to do it or if you’re just willing to say “screw them” to anyone who won’t acquiesce. (I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying, but that’s been the general attitude of some here, and it’s the general attitude whenever I bring up anything close to this around here).

 

13 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

It is pretty clear to me that most of the responses here do not give a single consideration to what people that I am talking about want. Which has been a common theme here from time to time. People who come from where I come from want cars because you feel dependent without them. And when you live in poverty, surrounded by circumstances and situations that you cannot control, you want to be able to hold onto something that gives you a sense of accomplishment. One of the first things people in the hood get when they get a little money is a car. Because you don’t want to be RELIANT on riding the bus. It’s not sexy when you’re poor. So you can bring up any example from Amsterdam and London that you want to, and it’s laughable to people who come from where I come from. The fact that I even have to explain that is an example of the common perspective around here. RTA ridership declined when unemployment declined (as another poster smartly pointed out) because POOR PEOPLE DONT LIKE RIDING THE BUS. I’ve only known upper middle class or higher white folks who choose to ride the bus.

 

Rail is different. People still choose to use rail and would choose it more if the infrastructure was better, which is one of the reasons why I passionately support an expansion of rail. But I’m not arguing with a single person on this site about what low income people generally and black people specifically want because I’ve been black a long time and I grew up low income. I care about the people who come from where I come from, and I speak up for those folks on this site and anywhere else where necessary.

 

I never said bus infrastructure doesn’t matter. It does. But I said it should be both/and, not either/or. And I’ll die on that hill, because I care about the people I’m talking about, and I know what they actually want, not what I want them to want. And I don’t think we should just throw a middle finger to anyone who won’t bow down to living in “Amsterdam”. Sorry not sorry

 

I’ve said similar, a bunch of times.   For exactly the reasons you’re stating.  

 

The crazy thing is, it’s all probably truer in Cuyahoga County than it is other places, and that was done more or less with intent.   I’ve said pretty much since it happened that the mid 70s merger of the suburban bus system into GCRTA was the worst thing ever to happen to mass transit in this region.

I grew up in Maple Heights, which was then socioeconomically more like Strongsville or Solon is today.  We had a pretty good bus system.   My mom (passed in 1984) never saw the need to get a drivers license.   There was a route that went downtown, and another that ran through Maple up to Randall Mall and eventually the rapid at Van Aken.

 

Maple people opposed the merger pretty hard, but federal “encouragement” and federal bucks made it happen anyway.   The Maple system stayed autonomous for a few years.   It was better run and more reliable than the system as a whole despite having older equipment.   So of course there was a bureaucratic push for full absorption.   At which time pretty much all the predictions of merger opponents came true, including the end of that internal line.   Indeed, at this point the vast majority of GCRTA lines went downtown.   Which, of course, is not the geographical center of the region but on its edge.

 

It gets “better”.   Norman Krumholz was some sort of urban planning god to a lot of people around here, but his influence on GCRTA was absolutely disastrous.    He was loudly opposed to any concession in terms of scheduling or routing to the wishes of the people he called “fat cats” and very much in favor of a one size fits all system based on buses not rail.

 

The outcome, of course, was a social program on wheels.  With predictable results.

14 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

You’ve attributed things to me that I never said, so let’s go with the last one first.

 

1. I NEVER SAID that anybody should subsidize/incentivize a parking garage to bring suburbanites to Tower City.

 

 

Apology -- sorry to have confused you with someone else.  Seems like we mostly agree.

15 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I’ve said similar, a bunch of times.   For exactly the reasons you’re stating.  

 

The crazy thing is, it’s all probably truer in Cuyahoga County than it is other places, and that was done more or less with intent.   I’ve said pretty much since it happened that the mid 70s merger of the suburban bus system into GCRTA was the worst thing ever to happen to mass transit in this region.

I grew up in Maple Heights, which was then socioeconomically more like Strongsville or Solon is today.  We had a pretty good bus system.   My mom (passed in 1984) never saw the need to get a drivers license.   There was a route that went downtown, and another that ran through Maple up to Randall Mall and eventually the rapid at Van Aken.

 

Maple people opposed the merger pretty hard, but federal “encouragement” and federal bucks made it happen anyway.   The Maple system stayed autonomous for a few years.   It was better run and more reliable than the system as a whole despite having older equipment.   So of course there was a bureaucratic push for full absorption.   At which time pretty much all the predictions of merger opponents came true, including the end of that internal line.   Indeed, at this point the vast majority of GCRTA lines went downtown.   Which, of course, is not the geographical center of the region but on its edge.

 

It gets “better”.   Norman Krumholz was some sort of urban planning god to a lot of people around here, but his influence on GCRTA was absolutely disastrous.    He was loudly opposed to any concession in terms of scheduling or routing to the wishes of the people he called “fat cats” and very much in favor of a one size fits all system based on buses not rail.

 

The outcome, of course, was a social program on wheels.  With predictable results.

When RTA was created, the Cleveland Transit System was the largest transit system, so RTA essentially became an extension of CTS and it became the dominant controlling stakeholder. 

 

The City of Shaker Heights was glad to unload its rapid transit lines.  It was no longer turning a profit out of farebox revenue and the equipment was nearing the point of replacement.  The cost of replacement was something that city had no appetite to be saddled with.  At least the head of their maintenance operation went on to be a part of the combined rapid transit division.  

 

The five suburban transit systems had operating agreements with RTA.  They maintained their own facilities and base of operations.  Euclid was the first to be absorbed by RTA in 1979.  About half of Euclid's bus fleet dated before 1959.  Garfield Heights was the second system to give up its city transit operations in 1982.  That system's bus fleet was old and run down.  Brecksville was the next to give in to RTA in 1984.  Brecksville's city service was mainly a commuter service to downtown and that fleet wasn't very large.  Maple Heights and North Olmsted were the last hold-outs.  Those cities were strong-armed by Calabrese to give up their systems.

 

When those systems surrendered their operations to RTA, each of those cities ended up losing the excellent transit services their systems provided.  In particular, North Olmsted had an extremely talented group of mechanics that regularly rebuilt buses to the frame as part of major overhauls.

 

As for Krumholtz, his voice helped kill a proposed rapid transit extension of the Green Line to I-271.  Ramps directly from that freeway would have been connected to a large parking lot at the end of the line.  His "reasoning" was that nobody would use a north-south freeway to ride an east-west rapid transit line.  His anti-rail bias refused to accept that people would just use a part of that north-south freeway to bypass other east-west freeways and use that rapid transit to complete their trips.

 

On 5/20/2021 at 6:24 AM, E Rocc said:

 

I’ve said similar, a bunch of times.   For exactly the reasons you’re stating.  

 

The crazy thing is, it’s all probably truer in Cuyahoga County than it is other places, and that was done more or less with intent.   I’ve said pretty much since it happened that the mid 70s merger of the suburban bus system into GCRTA was the worst thing ever to happen to mass transit in this region.

I grew up in Maple Heights, which was then socioeconomically more like Strongsville or Solon is today.  We had a pretty good bus system.   My mom (passed in 1984) never saw the need to get a drivers license.   There was a route that went downtown, and another that ran through Maple up to Randall Mall and eventually the rapid at Van Aken.

 

Maple people opposed the merger pretty hard, but federal “encouragement” and federal bucks made it happen anyway.   The Maple system stayed autonomous for a few years.   It was better run and more reliable than the system as a whole despite having older equipment.   So of course there was a bureaucratic push for full absorption.   At which time pretty much all the predictions of merger opponents came true, including the end of that internal line.   Indeed, at this point the vast majority of GCRTA lines went downtown.   Which, of course, is not the geographical center of the region but on its edge.

 

It gets “better”.   Norman Krumholz was some sort of urban planning god to a lot of people around here, but his influence on GCRTA was absolutely disastrous.    He was loudly opposed to any concession in terms of scheduling or routing to the wishes of the people he called “fat cats” and very much in favor of a one size fits all system based on buses not rail.

 

The outcome, of course, was a social program on wheels.  With predictable results.

 

Detroit's regional transit systems avoided this sort of consolidation.  You should look into how that worked out for everbody.  Spoiler alert: not well.

Is there any consensus as to which is the best-run, best-managed public transit system in the US?

15 minutes ago, bjk said:

Is there any consensus as to which is the best-run, best-managed public transit system in the US?

I don't have a single transit system in mind, but systems at the top of my list for the US in no particular order:  Boston, Chicago, New York, San Diego and San Francisco are all top systems.  Though not in the US, Toronto also has an excellent system.

18 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

 

When those systems surrendered their operations to RTA, each of those cities ended up losing the excellent transit services their systems provided.  In particular, North Olmsted had an extremely talented group of mechanics that regularly rebuilt buses to the frame as part of major overhauls.

 

 

Maple Heights had a first rate mechanical department as well.   Their older fleet ran much better than the fleet as a whole.   The bureaucratic response was to absorb the standard setters and bring it all down to the lowest common denominator.

19 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Maple Heights had a first rate mechanical department as well.   Their older fleet ran much better than the fleet as a whole.   The bureaucratic response was to absorb the standard setters and bring it all down to the lowest common denominator.

Maple Heights operated quite a few "old look" style transit coaches (1958 and before), even into their time under an operating agreement with RTA.  Calabrese did his "arm twisting" to wipe out both the Maple Heights and North Olmsted systems.  If they did not agree to give up their operations to RTA, they were going to be dropped.  By the time this happened, both systems had not purchased any new equipment and over the years, became totally dependent on buses that RTA provided.

 

I recall the first "bus crisis" that RTA faced in the early 1980's.  Due to the failure of the 143 AM General buses that were purchased in 1978, RTA was facing huge problems in keeping enough equipment on the streets.  The AM General buses were a complete failure everywhere, not just in Cleveland.  That fleet was the first order of new buses received by RTA after its creation.  Due to the age of the rest of RTA's fleet, much of it was worn out.  They even pressed back into service the retired "old look" buses from the Euclid system just to keep enough buses running.  The problems were finally lessened when RTA first leased and then purchased 50 retired buses from Atlanta, Georgia and other new General Motors buses were purchased.

Interesting, I always saw those RTA buses with "maple heights transit" on the front when I was working at Randall Park in the 90's. Always wondered why they had that. Now I know

1 hour ago, metrocity said:

Interesting, I always saw those RTA buses with "maple heights transit" on the front when I was working at Randall Park in the 90's. Always wondered why they had that. Now I know

The North Olmsted buses had a "NOMBL" logo on them.  It stood for "North Olmsted Municipal Bus Lines".  When the suburban systems had operating agreements while they were separate entities, the RTA logo also had "Part of of RTA System". 

 

To provide additional service, RTA supplied each system with additional buses.  Some of the buses (2 or 3 per suburban system) were part of the last CTS order of 152 buses delivered in early 1975, just before RTA started operations.  These were the second group of regular transit buses acquired by CTS that had air conditioning.  The other group of 100 air conditioned buses came in 1971.  They differed from the earlier CTS buses by being white with blue and green stripes.  Older CTS buses were blue, except for the 30 orange buses used in downtown Loop service.  RTA also supplied older buses that were temporarily stored when the 152 buses entered service in 1975.  200 buses mostly dating from 1959 to 1962 were restored to service as ridership surged with the implementation of 25 cent local and 35 cent express bus fares. 

 

The reactivation of 200 buses was intended to be a temporary, stopgap measure.  In 1978, 143 AM General buses arrived followed by 157 General Motors buses in 1979.  Unfortunately, the AM General buses were a very poor design.  In particular, the frames were very weak and broke easily.  This plagued that bus model in every city that operated them.  RTA stored a large number of them in a field next to the Brook Park Rail Shop while litigation was pursued.  Some were rebuilt by RTA, but most were scrapped long before they should have.  With the failure of such a large number of new buses that were intended to replace the older buses, it caused severe equipment shortages that forced RTA to reactivate older retired buses, then lease and purchase others.  

Oh yeah, some of them did say NOMBL. At the time I saw them they would have been Flxible Metros

 

9 hours ago, metrocity said:

Oh yeah, some of them did say NOMBL. At the time I saw them they would have been Flxible Metros

 

By the early-mid 1990's all of North Olmsted's buses were provided by RTA.  The last of their green and orange General Motors buses for the city's operation were purchased new in 1975.  One of the 1975 models was retained by that city for historical purposes.  Another pre-1959 bus was rescued from a junk yard and was completely rebuilt for historical purposes as well.

For those of you (including me) who hoped GCRTA would somehow preserve the subway headers that makes things easier to extend a subway east under Huron Road toward Playhouse Square and possibly under Euclid Avenue someday.... Those hopes are about to be dashed. GCRTA awarded a $1 million contract to E.L. Robinson Engineering to design repairs to the 90-year-old concrete surfaces, retaining walls, supports and joints at Tower City's East Portal.  The portal suffers from continuous water infiltration, freeze‐thaw damage, cracking, spalling, exposed rebar and corrosion.

 

Among the work to be designed will be the filling of Track 8’s trench which was dug as part of a proposed junction for a future subway below Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. Track 8 will be relocated, likely atop the filled-in trench, entombing one-half of the subway junction. Estimated construction cost of the repairs is about $6 million. Here are some diagrams to familiarize people with the site.

 

 

 

 

It's a shame that the voter-approved subway was never built in the 50s.  That was the last realistic chance for a subway in Cleveland. Thank you, Albert Porter.  

 

Edited May 24, 20214 yr by skiwest

GCRTA is their own worst enemy.

13 hours ago, KJP said:

For those of you (including me) who hoped GCRTA would somehow preserve the subway headers that makes things easier to extend a subway east under Huron Road toward Playhouse Square and possibly under Euclid Avenue someday.... Those hopes are about to be dashed. GCRTA awarded a $1 million contract to E.L. Robinson Engineering to design repairs to the 90-year-old concrete surfaces, retaining walls, supports and joints at Tower City's East Portal.  The portal suffers from continuous water infiltration, freeze‐thaw damage, cracking, spalling, exposed rebar and corrosion.

 

Among the work to be designed will be the filling of Track 8’s trench which was dug as part of a proposed junction for a future subway below Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. Track 8 will be relocated, likely atop the filled-in trench, entombing one-half of the subway junction. Estimated construction cost of the repairs is about $6 million. Here are some diagrams to familiarize people with the site.

 

 

 

That sucks.  Can they make it up to us by completing the Waterfront Line-Downtown loop?  Please?

On 5/21/2021 at 9:16 PM, metrocity said:

Interesting, I always saw those RTA buses with "maple heights transit" on the front when I was working at Randall Park in the 90's. Always wondered why they had that. Now I know

 

For as far back as I can recall until the late 80s, Maple Heights Transit ran a bus route from the Walton Hills line through the west side to Mapletown, then over to Southgate and up through North Randall (stopping at the mall once it opened) and Warrensville Heights to the Van Aken rapid station.    IIRC it ran about every half hour weekdays during the day.  As I've said before, my mom never felt the need to get a driver's license.   The town definitely qualified as "transit friendly".

 

As far as going downtown went, there were a couple routes a day to and from the west side, and a regular bus down Broadway that connected (pretty well synced) to the aforementioned route at Mapletown.  The thing was it didn't pick anyone up inbound past Maple Heights, or drop anyone off outbound until it got there.   This increased speed but likely caused some grumbling.

 

At RPM, it must have been the early 90s because GCRTA phased that route out pretty quickly once it took over.   Calabrese loved radial routes over peripheral about as much as he loved buses over trains.

All this talk got me curious, here's one of the Maple Heights Transit beauties: 

 

 

And a NOMBL/RTA Bus

 

Good news

 

On 5/14/2021 at 1:01 PM, KJP said:

Unfortunately, RTA is acting like a bully dwarf and is angrily going after the much larger Siemens, not realizing that people on their own staff are among AAO's sources. I'll bet Siemens is going to really miss the opportunity to bid on reequipping RTA's miniscule rail fleet. RTA, on the other hand, is acting very suspiciously.

Has RTA's actions of being the "bully dwarf" backfired upon the agency once again?  I heard a rumor that for whatever reason, be it the short time to review the massive specifications, a small window to view the rail shop and other constraints has led to no interest whatsoever by any rail car manufacturer in bidding on this order.  Essentially, a fairly small order, even with options to expand it to include additional rail cars isn't worth the bother, nor the custom stuff included would have no marketability to other systems.  RTA's so-called "management" needs to get over itself and come to the realization that in a country and world with competent leadership in operating transit systems, this system is viewed as a joke of an operation and not worth the bother.   

 

As it stands right now, any potential rail car manufacturers have ample enough in the way of orders, they can afford to walk away from this one as it won't be worth it. 

 

RTA needs to come up with the realization that off-the-shelf, tried-and-proven and successful equipment with an excellent track record is really good enough to sustain an otherwise declining operation.  People want good, reliable, comfortable and safe transit service, not a bunch of unproven and expensive stuff that turns into being unreliable and failure. 

I've also heard some speculation that there were no bidders for the railcar order. A prediction: RTA will use it as an excuse to go back to the two-system (HRV and LRV) concept and buy off-the-shelf stuff. They're going to have to either tweak their rail stations (for a standardized rail fleet) or redesign the Central Rail Facility (to accommodate modern married pair HRVs). It's time for GCRTA that they have to change, not force others to.

On 5/21/2021 at 3:47 PM, bjk said:

Is there any consensus as to which is the best-run, best-managed public transit system in the US?

 

I would add Portland, OR, Madison, WI, Olympia, WA and Kansas City, MO. They are willing to try new things and do a good job of listening to their customers as well as people who aren't yet their customers.

 

BTW, as to transit being only for the poor who have no choice, I recall this famous quote: “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation” – Gustavo Petro, Mayor of Bogotá. Along those lines, I was always shocked in Canada how many well-dressed people, especially young white professionals, rode the bus. I expected to see it in Europe, but not in Canada and even in suburban areas where service frequency was high. So in the USA, note which transit systems have the smallest income difference for transit users -- and how slow Cleveland's transit system is. If you speed up the service, it will attract more choice riders.

 

BTW2, the chart below is from: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-cities-for-public-transportation