Please let me clarify. The hearings Aug. 4-7 were for proposed service changes that may have taken effect Oct. 1. Now, those changes are being pushed back a bit. They had nothing to do with the service changes taking effect Aug. 24. RTA changes routes four times a year, including once around the start of the school year. The next regularly scheduled service change will be in December.

 

 

The latest article above has this quote, which pretty much contradicts the fact route changes were already finalized weeks ago:

"For now, the transit agency is likely to make some minor adjustments and tweak some routes, Calabrese said."

 

This is what irks me about some people. You weren't paying attention to see/hear that the proposals to raise fares X amount and cut Y number of routes were just that -- proposals. So you thought that RTA officials had already made up their minds, that the plan was "finalized"??

I know that.  I was referring to the quote that said RTA was "likely to make some minor adjustments and tweak some routes".  You just posted that the changes were on the website for weeks, yet this article did not announce the already decided changes, referring to them as "likely".  Incomplete journalism from the PD, shocking.  Opportunity lost by RTA to communicate.

The latest article above has this quote, which pretty much contradicts the fact route changes were already finalized weeks ago:

"For now, the transit agency is likely to make some minor adjustments and tweak some routes, Calabrese said."

 

This is what irks me about some people. You weren't paying attention to see/hear that the proposals to raise fares X amount and cut Y number of routes were just that -- proposals. So you thought that RTA officials had already made up their minds, that the plan was "finalized"??

I know that.  I was referring to the quote that said RTA was "likely to make some minor adjustments and tweak some routes".  You just posted that the changes were on the website for weeks, yet this article did not announce the already decided changes, referring to them as "likely". 

 

Uh, no I didn't. JMasek did. And nothing has been decided for crying out loud. There is no decision for the PD to announce.

 

Incomplete journalism from the PD, shocking.  Opportunity lost by RTA to communicate.

 

Why mention the RTA? What's their responsibility here?

Uh, no I didn't. JMasek did. And nothing has been decided for crying out loud. There is no decision for the PD to announce.

Sorry, that was you, not Masek.  Did not realize you were butting in.  And yes, something HAS been decided for crying out loud.  Many route changes are going into effect Monday including some minor cutbacks (1 or 2 runs).  All I was saying is that the usual notifications have not been posted on busses.

Route changes (at least 30 routes, effective Monday):

http://www.riderta.com/maps-schedules.asp

 

The RTA has a responsibility to communicate route changes using various outlets.  They updated the website and put something in the Sun, apparently.  However, no notice in that PD article and most importnatly no notice on the busses.  They are normally good about this, but dropped the ball this time.  I'm sure that's a one time thing.

 

I'll let Jerry reply to your message.

 

As for butting in, as a moderator and the one who started this thread (three years ago), I get to butt in wherever I feel my butting in is justified. If you don't like it, then it's my perogative to butt you out. Dial down the attitude and play nice, starting now.

EagleFan, you raise an interesting point...one that we have wrestled with for years. What is the best way to communicate with customers? Some do not use the Internet, do not listen to news or read the newspaper, and do not bother to pick up the Riders Digest on our vehicles. Your suggestions are welcome. Right now, our communications plan includes all of the above. As far as having the route changes in The Plain Dealer, we have submitted them, of course, but we have no control over their usage. As the size of the newspaper shrinks, the criteria for what is used becomes more rigid.

 

There are technological changes coming. Eventually, customers who give us their cell, fax, pager or e-mail information, along with the routes they use, can have service changes (short-term and long-term), sent directly to them. We are not there yet.

 

Again, we are talking about two sets of service changes. The ones proposed at the hearings are the ones Calabrese commented on as "tweak some routes." The late notice you complained about were seasonal service changes that take effect on Aug. 24.

 

If you have any specific questions, you can always contact me off list at [email protected]

 

RTA statement on the passing of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones

http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1196

FYI...

 

Bus systems lure riders with plush seats and Wi-Fi

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14971.msg318445.html#msg318445

EagleFan, you raise an interesting point...one that we have wrestled with for years. What is the best way to communicate with customers? Some do not use the Internet, do not listen to news or read the newspaper, and do not bother to pick up the Riders Digest on our vehicles. Your suggestions are welcome. Right now, our communications plan includes all of the above. As far as having the route changes in The Plain Dealer, we have submitted them, of course, but we have no control over their usage. As the size of the newspaper shrinks, the criteria for what is used becomes more rigid.

 

There are technological changes coming. Eventually, customers who give us their cell, fax, pager or e-mail information, along with the routes they use, can have service changes (short-term and long-term), sent directly to them. We are not there yet.

 

Again, we are talking about two sets of service changes. The ones proposed at the hearings are the ones Calabrese commented on as "tweak some routes." The late notice you complained about were seasonal service changes that take effect on Aug. 24.

 

If you have any specific questions, you can always contact me off list at [email protected]

 

 

Thanks for the update.  Too bad the PD is not more supportive.  I understood all along the difference between next week's changes and the large changes proposed last month.  I just wanted a paper posted on the bus like most of the prior seasonal changes.

 

Seems like there is a nice plan in place to continuously improve.  I always like that in an organization.

http://www.cityclub.org/content/speakers/SpeakerDetail.aspx?spkID=5642

 

Joe Calabrese speaks to the City Club of Cleveland on Aug. 29

Ahhh, Medina County pols.

 

http://wp2.medina-gazette.com/2008/08/21/news/rta-wants-funds/

 

RTA wants funds

August 21st, 2008

 

By ALLISON WOOD

 

Staff Writer

 

CLEVELAND — The Regional Transit Authority hopes the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency transit council will vote today to allocate $10.5 million of unspent federal transit funds for transit operations to the agency.

 

.....

 

 

Wood may be reached at 330-721-4050 or [email protected].

 

A money grab, Mr. Hambley? Look in the f*cking mirror.

 

So the collar counties get more transit funding so they can run empty buses between the ritzy housing subdivisions and farms while RTA will have to cut crowded buses that are needed so people can reach jobs, health care and SURVIVE. I doubt Medina County residents would even know what a transit bus looks like.

 

Excuse me, but it was the public outcry for transit in Cuyahoga County that shook loose this money. Where the hell were your constituents Mr. Hambley? Waiting for the needy in Cuyahoga County to do your work for you, so your county can have a cosmetic amenity in an attempt to suck more people and jobs and life from Cuyahoga County?!?!

 

You won't be satisfied until Cuyahoga County is reduced to window-less shells of empty buildings and piles of rubble, will you? Well, kiss my ass.

OK, I'm a regular rider of Laketran (and occasionally RTA) so I'd love to see the outlying counties' transit agencies get more money, but I sure as hell know that RTA is more important to Northeast Ohio. An economically healthy, environmentally conscious, and socially responsible Cleveland is critical to the future success of the region, and I feel that RTA is an integral part of that. Dividing excess money between transit agencies based solely upon population rather than transit use is ridiculous. Medina county doesn't have a good transit system with significant usage compared to its population (and probably never will) because it's so spread out. The same applies to most of the other counties around Cuyahoga. Besides that this funding is coming from federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality money, and as far as I can tell Cuyahoga county has much worse congestion and air quality issues than most of the area.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd love to someday see a truly regional transit system in Northeast Ohio, and if RTA collapses into a shell of its former (or current) self than that truly regional transit system would be that much harder to get off the ground.

I have two things to say.  First, a friend of mine was trying to get a petition signed by riders on the Airport Rapid when RTA police told her to desist.  What's up with that?  Do they have orders from management?

 

Also, I notice that some people don't seem to adhere to a reasonable standard of decency when talking about certain politicians (who usually seem to get reelected with overwhelming majorities so it seems someone likes them despite our commentators' sour grapes).  It serves no purpose to what we're trying to accomplish in saving our routes to post rabid partisan denunciations here.  It just makes everyone who likes the polotician (s) in question think suspiciously of every further post from that person, good ideas or not.  Let's be grownups.

 

Best regards,

Chevalier in Fairview Park

 

 

KJP's post describes my reaction perfectly

 

 

 

In Medina County, county transit buses only will run from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. starting in September, which Hambley said already has affected some users who use the buses to go to work or for medical procedures like kidney dialysis.

 

“It’ll mean a whole lot more to us than to RTA,” Hambley said, because RTA does not provide those services in Cuyahoga County.

 

 

What? Um I think a lot more people rely on RTA in Cuyahoga County to get to work or to medical procedures, and last I checked RTA happened to have a few routes that went by hospitals and employment centers...

I disagree with KJP on this one.  If the normal procedure for NOACA to divide the money based on population, not ridership, I am not sure why RTA should expect it to be done differently this time.  Public transprtation plays an important role in each county for a segment of that population.  I don't see why it's fair and reasonable to change the fund distribution formula now.

^I'm not sure where I fall, but I assume Medina county has been hit by the same shrinking budget from The State of Ohio too?

 

 

I'm fine sharing the transit money with Medina...as soon as Medina agrees to pay a pro rata share of all the additional expenses Cuy county bears as a result of housing a disproportionate portion of the region's impoverished and transit dependent population.

I'm fine sharing the transit money with Medina...as soon as Medina agrees to pay a pro rata share of all the additional expenses Cuy county bears as a result of housing a disproportionate portion of the region's impoverished and transit dependent population.

I agree that is true, but the NOACA funds were distributed with that formula for a long time.  The NOACA favors Cuyahoga in many other ways, so I would not be surporised if they do make the change.  I'm just saying the formula is what it is for now and should not be changed on a whim without a discussion/debate/vote.

We debate opinions, but the facts are undebatable: that the need and demand exists in Cuyahoga County. Debate over.

If the normal procedure for NOACA to divide the money based on population, not ridership, I am not sure why RTA should expect it to be done differently this time.  Public transprtation plays an important role in each county for a segment of that population.  I don't see why it's fair and reasonable to change the fund distribution formula now.

 

CMAQ usually deal with air quality (AQ). If we assume that all residents of a given county breathe air, then all residents benefit from better air quality. Thus, CMAQ are normally distributed based on population.

 

This time, however, at the Governor's request, CMAQ funds were used to help transit systems pay their rising gas bills, and keep transit service running. This would maintain a higher air quality with fewer cars on the road. Under this scenario, it makes no sense to appropriate money based on population. Instead, it is now based on the size of the transit system (ridership, service miles, service hours, etc.)

 

JMASEK - Thanks for the explanation.  That makes sense.  I am not sure how NOACA is chartered, but could there be something in their bylaws that requires funds flowing through them to be distributed based on population?

Here's my take on the whole situation-

 

It cannot be denied that RTA is the most widely used transit system in the region, and also the most important to the region as a whole.  In my own personal opinion, without RTA, the region would fail.  Many more families and individuals use RTA than the outlying counties respective transit systems to reach the region's centers of employment.  Some of the individuals who live in Medina County CHOSE to live there to get away from the big, bad, inner-ring suburbs where "those" people are, while others CHOSE to live there when gas was affordable, and never even dreamed of taking public transportation..  The individuals who CHOSE to move to the outlying counties are now paying the price, literally.

 

Until we have a true, multi-county region-wide transportation system, we cannot let needed funding to one of our region's most important assets go to the wayside because of a few exubanites who can't afford gas because of their lifestyle.  I know I'm being selfish, but if these outlying counties are willing to lose the routes which RTA serves (which Cuyahoga County subsidizes) and rely completely on their own systems, then maybe a discussion should be had about funding.  However, what does this do for regional cooperation?  What does this do for the individuals who made the unfortunate decision to move miles and miles away from their employment, and now need one of Cuyahoga County's services?  We know the answers to these questions. 

 

I'm with KJP on this though, for what purpose was NOACA holding on to these monies for?  What other funds does NOACA have that can be tapped to help our transit systems?

The population-based funding distributions are embodied in NOACA's planning principles. They are in accordance with federal law. However.... there have been some complaints that NOACA's "weighted votes" send too much funding going to Cuyahoga County projects while others say that some NOACA board votes, such as those allowed for ODOT and even for RTA, have no bearing on population. That's certainly a topic worth debating.

 

As for NOACA's planning principles, read Hambley's own jottings at:

http://www.co.medina.oh.us/commiss/NOACABrief2007.pdf

 

In it, he lists this:

 

NOACA FUNDING POLICIES

Prioritization policies for NOACA funded projects:

• System Preservation

• System Efficiency

• County-level transportation system preservation and efficiency targets based on population proportional to NOACA region. Medina County current target is 7%.

 

Specifically note the first two priorities. Can a transportation system (such as RTA) be preserved or operate efficiently when it can't get the $20 million in funding it needs? I recognize that Medina's transit agency has financial needs, though I don't know what they are. If it's more than $100,000 I'll be shocked. The point is, it is a lot easier to come up with $100,000 than it is to find $20 million.

 

So here's the question in my view:

 

If the NOACA allocations of CMAQ funding are distributed to transit agencies in its realm based on population rather than actual use/needs of the transit system, then.....

 

Will transit systems in Medina, Lorain, Lake and Geauga counties end up adding services and/or keeping fares more affordable while RTA will end up having to eliminate services and/or cause fares to become less affordable?

 

If this is the projected end result, then this is a cash grab -- for the collar counties and not a fair or equitable way of distributing these funds. And I believe that this is a continuation of the policies that have been bleeding Cuyahoga County of its population and wealth for the past 40 years. This is utter nonsense and destructive insanity at a time of rising fuel prices when greater urban density, not worsening sprawl, is necessary for metropolitan areas to remain economically viable.

When considering transit it would make sense to consider that a significant portion of that Medina county population probably uses RTA more than MCPT. After all lots of people, like me, live in other counties but work in Cuyahoga. I have a couple of coworkers that live out in that direction and take the bus from the Strongsville park-n-ride.

When considering transit it would make sense to consider that a significant portion of that Medina county population probably uses RTA more than MCPT. After all lots of people, like me, live in other counties but work in Cuyahoga. I have a couple of coworkers that live out in that direction and take the bus from the Strongsville park-n-ride.

 

If and when they implement smart cards, charge these out of county folks a higher fare. After all, we Cuyahoga Country dwellers provide the bulk of RTA's revenue via sales tax we pay.

Out-of-county rides on RTA do incur a higher fare. Local bus and Rapid fares are $1.75, park-n-ride bus fares are $2, and out-of-county bus fares are $3.

 

http://www.riderta.com/ro_fares.asp

Many riders drive in from other counties to an RTA parking lot in-county.  redbrick is saying they should provide a Cuyahoga County ID or pay more.  i don't like that.  Those that work in the county likely pay quite a bit into the RTA sales tax.

Many riders drive in from other counties to an RTA parking lot in-county. redbrick is saying they should provide a Cuyahoga County ID or pay more. i don't like that. Those that work in the county likely pay quite a bit into the RTA sales tax.

 

Mmmm... probably not.  Think about where you tend to do your spending.  While you may frequent restaurants near your workplace for lunch, you probably do most of your shopping near home.  And, given the retail development trends, your average non-Cuyahoga resident will also tend to shop near home (usually in their own home county).

 

That said, I also agree that one ought not have to produce an ID to determine bus fare (even when picking up a ride from Strongsville or the like).  A more equitable system for regional transportation probably wouldn't rely on sales taxes in the first place.

Why not? You have to show an ID when paying the discounted senior/disabled fare.

Avogadro - You may be right, though Cuyahoga County has several large near-county-line shopping areas (at least on the west side) that bring in plenty of people from the surrounding county.  (Crocker Park, Great Northern, Southpark Mall)

Why not? You have to show an ID when paying the discounted senior/disabled fare.

 

Well, because I foolishly think that a county-based model for supporting regional transportation is flawed.  :| Also, because it would require drivers to know that Glenwillow is in Cuyahoga County but Willowick isn't.  I don't think that anybody would enjoy waiting for the driver to consult a list.

The answer is, as other's have already said, a truly regional transit authority. And if our local leaders weren't always in a county vs. county or suburb vs. city peeing match, maybe they could rise up to the occasion and spur the state legislature to get this done.

 

I've already posted this idea, I think earlier in this thread -- increased funding from the State (needed) tied to creation of truly regional authorities (needed) will be the best longterm answer for public transit in Ohio.

KJP said:

 

Again, why were these funds untapped? And how much more CMAQ funding remains untapped in the NOACA region? I'd love to know if we're leaving money on the table at the end of the fiscal year......

 

This should be a matter of public record and we should be able to find out under the Sunshine Law. The question is: who has the time to do the digging?

Not I, said the man with two full-time jobs

The answer is, as other's have already said, a truly regional transit authority. And if our local leaders weren't always in a county vs. county or suburb vs. city peeing match, maybe they could rise up to the occasion and spur the state legislature to get this done.

 

I've already posted this idea, I think earlier in this thread -- increased funding from the State (needed) tied to creation of truly regional authorities (needed) will be the best longterm answer for public transit in Ohio.

 

I agree, totally.  Medina County, which doesn't need these NOACA funds, suddenly rises up to exercise this silly proportionality rule just in time to try and limit RTA's ability to maximize this relief, when RTA clearly NEEDS this money... The Ohio mentality is highly balkanized which is a large reason why this potentially great state is dysfunctional mess that it is.

 

And while I’m at it, when are we going to get the collective balls to overturn that ridiculous, regressive and (I’m sure) Republican-backed law barring gas tax revenues to be used for mass transit.  We desperately need to bring this state into the 21st Century.

 

Sorry, but it's not a Republican backed law that prohibits gas taxes from being used on anything other than highways. It was the people of Ohio who voted for this constitutional restriction in 1947. Thus only the people can overturn it. I'll help you distribute the petitions to collect signatures to put on the ballot.

 

Here is the restriction, Article XII, Sec. 5a:

 

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

 

USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES

RESTRICTED.

§5a No moneys derived from fees, excises, or license

taxes relating to registration, operation, or use of vehicles

on public highways, or to fuels used for propelling

such vehicles, shall be expended for other than

costs of administering such laws, statutory refunds and

adjustments provided therein, payment of highway obligations,

costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance

and repair of public highways and bridges and

other statutory highway purposes, expense of state enforcement

of traffi c laws, and expenditures authorized

for hospitalization of indigent persons injured in motor

vehicle accidents on the public highways.

(1947)

^Hmmm, I'm still wondering if a Republican hand was influentially behind this, at least, complicit with GM which, around that time, was deeply invested in destroying urban streetcar and rapid rail systems... but be that as it may...

 

Yes, I will do what I can to help overturn this law; maybe not distribute petitions, as I'm away from Cleveland as much (if not more) than in it.  But from my vantage point, I sure would write letters and make calls... This stupid law has got to go, it's archaic and a hindrance on smart growth and healthy transportation, esp in light of the current energy crisis..

 

Sorry, but it's not a Republican backed law that prohibits gas taxes from being used on anything other than highways. It was the people of Ohio who voted for this constitutional restriction in 1947. Thus only the people can overturn it. I'll help you distribute the petitions to collect signatures to put on the ballot.

 

Here is the restriction, Article XII, Sec. 5a:

 

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

 

USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES

RESTRICTED.

§5a No moneys derived from fees, excises, or license

taxes relating to registration, operation, or use of vehicles

on public highways, or to fuels used for propelling

such vehicles, shall be expended for other than

costs of administering such laws, statutory refunds and

adjustments provided therein, payment of highway obligations,

costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance

and repair of public highways and bridges and

other statutory highway purposes, expense of state enforcement

of traffi c laws, and expenditures authorized

for hospitalization of indigent persons injured in motor

vehicle accidents on the public highways.

(1947)

 

Are there any existing legal opinions on this section in Ohio?  It seems there is a good argument that this provision states that it applies to vehicles used on public highways, which leaves off road and construction equipment fuel taxes available for diversion, similar to what other states have done.

 

I'd like to either see a strong movement to change the language or, in the meantime, someone to start distributing funds from the taxes to transit, and wait for a challenge in the courts to resolve the language.  It feels like we are still sitting around in Ohio, when at least a few other states have tackled these types of restrictions a few years ago. 

You're on to something. Oregon already uses gas tax revenues from off-road vehicles and other gasoling powered equipment for a rail fund. This could be done here.

 

As far as the gas tax goes, probably the best approach would be to propose that any additional gas tax increase be split among all modes, with the provision that the existing gas tax continue to be dedicated to highways. ODOT is already running short on what it takes in and the contractors might support this, since a half loaf is better than nothing.

JMASEK - Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I am not sure how NOACA is chartered, but could there be something in their bylaws that requires funds flowing through them to be distributed based on population?

 

I am no expert on NOACA, and I have no knowledge of their charter.

St. Louis' transit agency is also experiencing serious financial problems. Yet despite a metro area with a stagnant population, the transit agency is seeking a tax hike to cover its rising fuel costs and pay for expanded rail and BRT services....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6079.msg319456.html#msg319456

St. Louis' transit agency is also experiencing serious financial problems. Yet despite a metro area with a stagnant population, the transit agency is seeking a tax hike to cover its rising fuel costs and pay for expanded rail and BRT services....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6079.msg319456.html#msg319456

 

Holy sh!t!  That's bad.  The bus lines I took in high school have already been done away with....  No Metrolink after 8pm would be a huge blow.  Like what's already in place in Cuyahoga County, though, is that they're only asking for a tax hike in St. Louis County.  The saddest part about that is that based on what they said with no bus service outside of I-270, that leaves at least 1/4-1/3 of the county without bus service if the tax hike doesn't pass....  And people in Summit/Medina/Lake/Lorain Counties are whining about losing their RTA service when St. Louis might not even be able to fund its own county...  We seem to be luckier than another city of our same calibur!

USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES

RESTRICTED.

§5a No moneys derived from fees, excises, or license

taxes relating to registration, operation, or use of vehicles

on public highways, or to fuels used for propelling

such vehicles, shall be expended for other than

costs of administering such laws, statutory refunds and

adjustments provided therein, payment of highway obligations,

costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance

and repair of public highways and bridges and

other statutory highway purposes, expense of state enforcement

of traffic laws, ...

  We could shift the cost of the Ohio State Highway Patrol *back to* the gasoline tax receipts (as was done until just a few years ago).  We could take the OHP funding from the General Fund and direct it to mass transit. 

You're on to something. Oregon already uses gas tax revenues from off-road vehicles and other gasoling powered equipment for a rail fund. This could be done here.

 

 

FYI- off road vehicles do not pay the gas tax.  as i understand it, oregon has allocated a fractional percentage of the gas tax, whose use is attributed to lawn mowers, to their mass transit funding.  there is a discussion about this on GCBL.org @ http://www.gcbl.org/transportation/regional-agenda/reforming-odot

EagleFan, you raise an interesting point...one that we have wrestled with for years. What is the best way to communicate with customers? Some do not use the Internet, do not listen to news or read the newspaper, and do not bother to pick up the Riders Digest on our vehicles. Your suggestions are welcome. Right now, our communications plan includes all of the above. As far as having the route changes in The Plain Dealer, we have submitted them, of course, but we have no control over their usage. As the size of the newspaper shrinks, the criteria for what is used becomes more rigid.

 

There are technological changes coming. Eventually, customers who give us their cell, fax, pager or e-mail information, along with the routes they use, can have service changes (short-term and long-term), sent directly to them. We are not there yet.

 

Again, we are talking about two sets of service changes. The ones proposed at the hearings are the ones Calabrese commented on as "tweak some routes." The late notice you complained about were seasonal service changes that take effect on Aug. 24.

 

If you have any specific questions, you can always contact me off list at [email protected]

 

 

Funny story about the 8/24 seasonal changes that were not widely circulated.  A co-worker takes the 263 that originated in Olmsted Falls at 6:34 AM last week, but changed to 6:29 AM this week.  My coworker arrived early because I told him of the change last week.  The bus showed up at the usual later time, which was good since several other riders walked up just before he arrived, unaware of the change. 

The funny part is, he asked the driver about the change (since he did not appear to be any earlier), and the driver said "what schedule change?". 

What was up with the meltdown on the Rapid lines around rush hour yesterday?

^I was told it was a signaling problem while I was on the platform at Tower City.  The poor RTA worker giving the news was really heckled by the people waiting there.  Then my train experienced "mechanical difficulties" and was stopped for about 10 minutes somewhere past the w.65th station

RTA CEO and General Manager Joe Calabrese will speak today to the City Club of Cleveland. The title of his speech: "Public Transit: On a Roll."

 

In Cleveland, the speech will be aired live on WCPN, 90.3 FM. from 12:30-1pm. The full hour airs at 3 p.m. Saturday. You can listen to the streaming audio at:

www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/streaming/

 

WCLV 104.9 FM carries the full hour of The City Club Forum at 9 p.m. on Fridays.

www.wclv.org

 

The speech will be aired on 160 stations that are part of a national City Club radio network.

www.cityclub.org/content/services/index/radio_members.asp

 

You can see the speech live on your computer at:

http://fms.uakron.edu/applications/city_club_of_cleveland/live.htm

 

The speech will broadcast on WVIZ TV-25 from 10-11 a.m. Sunday, Aug. 31.

www.wviz.org/

 

The speech will be broadcast over most Time Warner Cable systems at 9 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday.

 

After 2 p.m. today , the complete text of the speech will be available at:

http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1200

 

For information on obtaining a podcast of the event, go to:

www.cityclub.org/content/podcasts/index/index.asp

I caught the audio of Joe C. at the City Club. When asked about how few University Circle employees ride transit to work, even from nearby areas like the Heights, he said "raise the cost of parking." Could Cleveland put a tax on square footage of surface in designated zones -- downtown and the Circle, for starters -- that are paved for parking, and earmark the revenues for transit? Just putting it out there - discuss.