He's not held up as any sort of transit guru.

 

I don't know what Webster's you use, but it's obviously different than mine...

 

- 1996. Channel 3 ran a negative report on the new Waterfront line, w/ Krumholz griping he had to walk uphill from the E. 9th stop to his City Hall office, and that he Loop bus dropped him at the door -- nevermind that NK originated his trips from Shaker and would've had a 1-seat ride to E. 9th over the WFL as opposed to getting off the Rapid at Tower City, going upstairs and walking outside to catch the Loop bus.

 

- 2000, 01(?)... EcoCity Cleveland, the leading green/pro-transit/TOD/urban grass roots org in Cleveland, ran an extensive article studying the 5 commuter rail line proposal (generated under Ron Tober's RTA)... Unfortunately, good-hearted EcoCity turned to CSU and Krumholz as their key expert 'consultant'.   The end-conclusion of EcoCity's study? ... that despite 2.5+ million residents, Greater Cleveland overall lacks the density to justify spending for any commuter rail... Surprise! Why would a great group like EcoCity turn to NK as their point man in the report, with almost no or any rebuttal?

 

... sure sounds like a 'guru' in my book.

 

Aren't you guys agreeing?

 

We agree he shouldn't be, but I disagree that he isn't, ... or at least hasn't been in the past. And when our leading pro-transit group turns to him... That's one of our BIGGEST problems in Cleveland, we empower people who either a) have an interest or agenda in doing the area harm, or b) are good hearted, but are wrongheaded/don't have a clue... I'm not sure where exactly Mr. Krumholz falls, but either way, he's destructive.

 

I say "B."

So you've declared Krumholz a transit guru based on a blurb on that pillar of deep journalism, Channel 3, and an article in EcoCity Cleveland?  That's some guru resume for someone who was the planning director of the City for a decade, and has been a planning professor for longer than that.  Have you thought that they might go to him because he tends to be a contrarian on major transit projects?

Propose away, but what is the $$$$$?

 

I don't get your point. If I had the expertise and position, it'd have been done long ago. Are you suggesting we don't looking into upgrade our rail system or extend it if it's going to cost a few shekels? Is that you're approach to improvement projects for Cleveland in general? You and Joe Calabrese must read from the same playbook. If we can spend $Millions on worthwhile capital Rapid Station improvements to stations that are, in the end, upgrades to stations that a functioning, why not build an upgrade (with the FTA footing much of the bill as a capital project) that would bring the Rapid closer to more people, including new residents at Ave Dist...

 

... you've totally lost me.

 

Where is the money coming from and can you legally clear the tracks? Understand now?

 

MTS, I understand the intricate rules of building over active freight railway tracks.  But if you look at the new planned Puritas station, passengers will walk over the busy freight tracks.  As for money?  Spend capital budget money and apply for an FTA match I'm sure.  Also, RTA could try and get creative (a la Detroit's plan on a smaller scale) w/ a public-private buy-in for landholders (like Doubletree Hotel) and others, who may directly benefit from such a station restructure.... It even could encourage TOD development in the area, albeit much smaller than Davenport Bluffs.  It's just another example of our leaders waiting for something to happen rather than being proactive -- and developers waiting for the other guy to make the 1st move....

 

And as for RTA seriously promoting rail transit use? ... well....

So you've declared Krumholz a transit guru based on a blurb on that pillar of deep journalism, Channel 3, and an article in EcoCity Cleveland? That's some guru resume for someone who was the planning director of the City for a decade, and has been a planning professor for longer than that. Have you thought that they might go to him because he tends to be a contrarian on major transit projects?

 

Maybe...

In fairness, I DO think Krumholz is generally a good man.  He's dedicated his public life to advocating and bettering the lives of the poor, and I can never rag on a guy for that.... he just doesn't know jack about public transit and I wish he'd keep his silence on it.

Propose away, but what is the $$$$$?

 

I don't get your point.  If I had the expertise and position, it'd have been done long ago.  Are you suggesting we don't looking into upgrade our rail system or extend it if it's going to cost a few shekels?  Is that you're approach to improvement projects for Cleveland in general?  You and Joe Calabrese must read from the same playbook. If we can spend $Millions on worthwhile capital Rapid Station improvements to stations that are, in the end, upgrades to stations that a functioning, why not build an upgrade (with the FTA footing much of the bill as a capital project) that would bring the Rapid closer to more people, including new residents at Ave Dist...

 

... you've totally lost me.

 

Where is the money coming from and can you legally clear the tracks? Understand now? 

 

MTS, I understand the intricate rules of building over active freight railway tracks.  But if you look at the new planned Puritas station, passengers will walk over the busy freight tracks.  As for money?  Spend capital budget money and apply for an FTA match I'm sure.  Also, RTA could try and get creative (a la Detroit's plan on a smaller scale) w/ a public-private buy-in for landholders (like Doubletree Hotel) and others, who may directly benefit from such a station restructure.... It even could encourage TOD development in the area, albeit much smaller than Davenport Bluffs.  It's just another example of our leaders waiting for something to happen rather than being proactive -- and developers waiting for the other guy to make the 1st move....

 

And as for RTA seriously promoting rail transit use? ... well....

 

 

 

 

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere but the vote to extend the U-Pass was last week and it passed by 86 percent. It also got extended into the summer semester. Definitely good news for all us students who utilize the service.

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere but the vote to extend the U-Pass was last week and it passed by 86 percent. It also got extended into the summer semester. Definitely good news for all us students who utilize the service.

 

Which university is this for?  Or is this for all UPass universities?

Excellent!  I was very worried about that vote.

Sorry, this is for CSU.

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere but the vote to extend the U-Pass was last week and it passed by 86 percent. It also got extended into the summer semester. Definitely good news for all us students who utilize the service.

 

I voted yes for the one at Cleveland State last week and a lot of the people i had talked to said they voted yes as well.

FYI... I like playing with lines on a map. See....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2438.msg389000.html#msg389000

How did I miss this? It looks like I agree with the editors at the Plain Dealer on something.

 

Pavement-heavy Ohio budget doesn't do justice to public transportation

Posted by The editors April 05, 2009 04:11AM

 

Thanks to a big infusion of federal stimulus dollars, the General Assembly last week could pass and Gov. Ted Strickland could sign a $9.2 billion transportation bill that includes record amounts of money for road and bridge construction and lays the foundation for intercity rail in Ohio. But large as it is, the bill once again short-changes hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who, either by choice or necessity, rely on public transportation.

 

........

I missed that too! Thanks for posting it.

 

Democrats in the Ohio House of Representatives are proposing to increase funding for public transportation by $6 million per year in 2010-11. See:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4500.msg389212.html#msg389212

That was in the Plain Dealer?

 

MayDay, did your winter home freeze over?

 

 

^^I wish RTA could print that out and hand it out to all their riders along with instructions on who to contact in the government to complain.  The riders need to understand this is not RTA's fault and to whom they should really be directing their complaints.  They just don't get it.

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation".  It implies that transit users are helpless wards.  It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation". It implies that transit users are helpless wards. It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

 

I see where it seems like you're helpless, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

 

If I take bus route A from point X to point Y, and the bus is delayed, route changed, etc.. I'm screwed.

 

However, if I drive from X to Y and my car breaks down, I can still take the bus.

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation".  It implies that transit users are helpless wards.  It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

 

I see where it seems like you're helpless, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

 

If I take bus route A from point X to point Y, and the bus is delayed, route changed, etc.. I'm screwed.

 

However, if I drive from X to Y and my car breaks down, I can still take the bus.

I guess that would depend on where in the city (and/or county) you live, work and travel to.

 

Some area's of the city have better coverage and more options.

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation". It implies that transit users are helpless wards. It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

 

I see where it seems like you're helpless, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

 

If I take bus route A from point X to point Y, and the bus is delayed, route changed, etc.. I'm screwed.

 

However, if I drive from X to Y and my car breaks down, I can still take the bus.

 

Huh?  Some people choose to take the bus from X to Y, but still own a car.  Therefore, your logic works in reverse as well, they could (unwillingly) drive if the bus route went away.

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation". It implies that transit users are helpless wards. It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

 

I see where it seems like you're helpless, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

 

If I take bus route A from point X to point Y, and the bus is delayed, route changed, etc.. I'm screwed.

 

However, if I drive from X to Y and my car breaks down, I can still take the bus.

 

Huh? Some people choose to take the bus from X to Y, but still own a car. Therefore, your logic works in reverse as well, they could (unwillingly) drive if the bus route went away.

 

Exactly, so those people don't rely on public transportation either, because they have both options.

Exactly, so those people don't rely on public transportation either, because they have both options.

 

Yes, but what is always ignored in these articles is that the people who choose to use public transportation (but don't necessarily rely on it) are getting shortchanged as well.  They always use the term "rely" to attempt to convey the idea that it's just those poor schucks that can't afford a car that use public transportation.

^ You're making an assumption in that statement.

I hate the phrase "rely on public transportation".  It implies that transit users are helpless wards.  It's only fair to point out that drivers "rely on the automobile" or "rely on highways" then, no?

 

I don't think I understand your objection...many among the working poor do rely on public transit to get to work.  And rhetorically, I think that's a pretty important message in a community dominated by car owners- that RTA isn't just about taking car-owning suburbanites to Cavs games.  I don't see an implication that drivers don't rely on cars and highways.  I'd bet the coverage of the innerbelt says as much.  My only beef:  if someone is taking RTA by choice, I don't see how that actually rely on it.

^ You're making an assumption in that statement.

 

Correct.  Sometimes you have to read between the lines.  They're not going to come right out and say it, but they know damn well how most people will read it.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. If there's a better place, moderators, please move it.

 

I'm thinking about heading to the Beachland tonight for a show. I've never taken public transit there before. It looks like the bus stop is in the same place I always made sure not to park due to people getting mugged after concerts, but maybe I'm misremembering.

 

I'm not worried about the trip there, it's the trip back I'm concerned about.

 

Anyone know Collinwood well enough to know if it's a bad idea to be standing at 156th and Grovewood late at night waiting for a bus? (and walking to Grovewood from waterloo?)

 

 

I've always felt it was sketchy over there, yet I've been to several shows there and have parked wherever I could find a spot, including on dark side streets, and our car was never bothered.  There seem to be very few people actually out on the street late at night.

 

My biggest concern would be how LONG you might have to wait since evening and weekend schedules mean buses run much less frequently.  I have tried to plan trips like this before around a bus for the first time and then for whatever reason, I either just missed the bus (even if I was at the stop before it was to arrive) or it didn't come at all and I was stuck another hour waiting, or had to call someone to come and get me if I couldn't wait another hour. 

 

I personally would not take a bus to a concert there, even if I had company.  Late night stranded is just not an ideal situation anywhere in town, particularly in a neighborhood that doesn't seem to be great. JMO.

I would echo the sentiments of RR.  The most dangerous part of public transit is the wait, especially if unaccompanied.  I am not sure of your sex, but if you are female, I would be especially cautious. 

 

If the bus stop was right outside a cafe or restaurant, then it wouldn't be a problem.  However, you seem to indicate that the stop is isolated. 

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. If there's a better place, moderators, please move it.

 

I'm thinking about heading to the Beachland tonight for a show. I've never taken public transit there before. It looks like the bus stop is in the same place I always made sure not to park due to people getting mugged after concerts, but maybe I'm misremembering.

 

I'm not worried about the trip there, it's the trip back I'm concerned about.

 

Anyone know Collinwood well enough to know if it's a bad idea to be standing at 156th and Grovewood late at night waiting for a bus? (and walking to Grovewood from waterloo?)

 

 

 

I'm going to answer this in my capacity as a Board member of the Northeast Shores Development Corporation and neighborhood resident more so than my capacity as an RTA employee. We are working extensively to improve the safety of that area, and Commander Drummond of the 5th (former 6th) District Police is very conscious of an responsive to neighborhood issues. This area has seen recent growth as a burgeoning arts district, and was actually featured prominently in last Friday's Wall Street Journal.

 

I do not personally consider the Waterloo/Grovewood area to be overly dangerous, but then I am an able-bodied 40 year old white male who grew up regularly walking New York City streets of all varieties, from the East Village to Harlem and all points in between. I would recommend exercising caution during later hours, and walking with a companion whenever possible.

 

As far as RTA service, the #37 and #39 late-night only run once an hour, so you do need to be cognizant of the schedule timings. If you are catching a #37, there are closer stops to the Beachland than Grovewood. Also, I don't consider many (or any) of the Beachland-area or Grovewood stops to be "isolated".

 

Whatever your final decision may be, I hope you enjoy the show tonight. Cindy Barber (NSDC Board President and Beachland owner) does a great job keeping things at the Beachland running smoothly.

Have there been any proposals to shutting down the Red Line from E.120 to Stokes?  I ask because that portion of the RL travels the exact same route as the HL.  Thus, would it not save a ton of money to redirect passengers on the RL to get off at E.120 and board a HL?

Have there been any proposals to shutting down the Red Line from E.120 to Stokes?  I ask because that portion of the RL travels the exact same route as the HL.  Thus, would it not save a ton of money to redirect passengers on the RL to get off at E.120 and board a HL?

At the same time have there been any proposals to shutting down the HL.  and directing passengers to take the RL from E. 120 to Windermere?

Same thing, although I'm sure the RL is quite faster and would actually be the better option to "pick up."  However, during these financially trying times,  I would recommend shutting down the RL bc it is more expensive.  But you are right, either way $$ would be saved.

 

 

**Also, the bus would fill huge gaps in regards to the stops.  Past E.120, the RL only hits Superior and Windermere. There is a lot of land either before or in between.  The HL, while taking longer to go from E.120-Windermere, would hit all these places, and possibly cut down on people's walk time.  Thus, I am not actually sure how much "faster" it would make the overall trip.

Maybe these are reasons to just keep both open.

Maybe these are reasons to just keep both open.

 

Exactly!

Maybe these are reasons to just keep both open.

 

What reasons?  Because we do not know for sure which one would be faster?  Even if that qualifies as a "reason," it does not justify providing the exact same service in two different ways at a high cost during a time of financial short-falls.

The Red Line represents a fixed cost and its track, electrical systems, overhead copper wires and stations will incur insurance, maintenance, depreciation costs even if they are not in use. Plus I don't think the overhead electric wires can be de-energized just on the segment east of East 120th, so RTA would pay for the electricity for powering trains even if no trains are runnings. And even if RTA could de-energize the overhead electric wires, how long do you think the copper wires would remain in place? To restart service on that line would likely require buying and installing new electric wires. I suspect the wires wouldn't be the only targets of thieves and vandals, but the track and stations, too. Lastly, RTA trains heading east and terminating at the East 120th station would need to proceed forward to the nearest crossover tracks to get on to the westbound track. The nearest crossovers are near the University Circle station at Cedar Glen or just west of the Windermere Station. If train schedules, signal systems or other operating constraints do not permit a reverse move to the crossovers at University Circle, then the trains would have to continue east to the crossovers near Windermere. And if they have do that, then they might as well keep carrying passengers to/from Windermere as well.

The Red Line represents a fixed cost and its track, electrical systems, overhead copper wires and stations will incur insurance, maintenance, depreciation costs even if they are not in use. Plus I don't think the overhead electric wires can be de-energized just on the segment east of East 120th, so RTA would pay for the electricity for powering trains even if no trains are runnings. And even if RTA could de-energize the overhead electric wires, how long do you think the copper wires would remain in place? To restart service on that line would likely require buying and installing new electric wires. I suspect the wires wouldn't be the only targets of thieves and vandals, but the track and stations, too. Lastly, RTA trains heading east and terminating at the East 120th station would need to proceed forward to the nearest crossover tracks to get on to the westbound track. The nearest crossovers are near the University Circle station at Cedar Glen or just west of the Windermere Station. If train schedules, signal systems or other operating constraints do not permit a reverse move to the crossovers at University Circle, then the trains would have to continue east to the crossovers near Windermere. And if they have do that, then they might as well keep carrying passengers to/from Windermere as well.

 

That makes sense.  I guess that would lead to my next question, which would be why does the HL run past E.120? 

 

I am assuming the answer will have something to do with trying to promote growth in E. Cle. 

The Red Line represents a fixed cost and its track, electrical systems, overhead copper wires and stations will incur insurance, maintenance, depreciation costs even if they are not in use. Plus I don't think the overhead electric wires can be de-energized just on the segment east of East 120th, so RTA would pay for the electricity for powering trains even if no trains are runnings. And even if RTA could de-energize the overhead electric wires, how long do you think the copper wires would remain in place? To restart service on that line would likely require buying and installing new electric wires. I suspect the wires wouldn't be the only targets of thieves and vandals, but the track and stations, too. Lastly, RTA trains heading east and terminating at the East 120th station would need to proceed forward to the nearest crossover tracks to get on to the westbound track. The nearest crossovers are near the University Circle station at Cedar Glen or just west of the Windermere Station. If train schedules, signal systems or other operating constraints do not permit a reverse move to the crossovers at University Circle, then the trains would have to continue east to the crossovers near Windermere. And if they have do that, then they might as well keep carrying passengers to/from Windermere as well.

 

That makes sense.  I guess that would lead to my next question, which would be why does the HL run past E.120? 

 

I am assuming the answer will have something to do with trying to promote growth in E. Cle. 

 

This isn't a smartass answer, but some of what you're asking was explained in the HL presentations and I'm pretty sure covered in the HL thread.

I personally would not take a bus to a concert there, even if I had company.  Late night stranded is just not an ideal situation anywhere in town, particularly in a neighborhood that doesn't seem to be great. JMO.

 

As someone who is car-free, standing alone at bus stops late at night has to happen sometimes unless I want to not go out late at night.

 

I'll hopefully be able to catch a ride home, but I always plan like I won't be able to. Because...there's always the possibility it doesn't happen.

 

I would echo the sentiments of RR.  The most dangerous part of public transit is the wait, especially if unaccompanied.  I am not sure of your sex, but if you are female, I would be especially cautious.

 

I'm a guy. I agree about the wait being the most dangerous part...the only other part that's a little nerve racking being the walk. I'm somewhat imposing, but I've been mugged at gunpoint before (not in Cleveland, in DC), so I know that doesn't necessarily protect me.

 

I do not personally consider the Waterloo/Grovewood area to be overly dangerous, but then I am an able-bodied 40 year old white male who grew up regularly walking New York City streets of all varieties, from the East Village to Harlem and all points in between. I would recommend exercising caution during later hours, and walking with a companion whenever possible.

 

As far as RTA service, the #37 and #39 late-night only run once an hour, so you do need to be cognizant of the schedule timings. If you are catching a #37, there are closer stops to the Beachland than Grovewood. Also, I don't consider many (or any) of the Beachland-area or Grovewood stops to be "isolated".

 

Whatever your final decision may be, I hope you enjoy the show tonight. Cindy Barber (NSDC Board President and Beachland owner) does a great job keeping things at the Beachland running smoothly.

 

Thank you...this was helpful, especially because you're a resident there.

 

Just to be clear: I certainly don't mean to knock the neighborhood. I really like the Waterloo arts district and part of the reason I'm trying to figure out public transit is because I like going there. If it was a one-time thing, I'd just take CityWheels and be done with it. But I want to do it often. I had the same fear in the Gordon Arts District the first time I went there, but now I'm totally comfortable over there. It's more the unknown I'm concerned about, since I don't know the place as a pedestrian only as a driver.

 

I would take the 37 there, but I probably wouldn't be ready to leave until the 37 has stopped running, so I'd be relying on the 39. (11:30ish)

 

Also, I've chatted up the cops in the former 6th before (when my buddy's car got smashed in after a show at the Beachland). A couple of beat cops are the ones who told me about muggings that occur after concerts on the side streets, which is why I am a tad hesitant.

 

 

Thanks for the input (and certainly I welcome any more). I'll think it through. I should be watching the Cavs tonight, but a cute girl asked if I wanted to meet her up at the concert, and that's hard to say no to.

The Red Line represents a fixed cost and its track, electrical systems, overhead copper wires and stations will incur insurance, maintenance, depreciation costs even if they are not in use. Plus I don't think the overhead electric wires can be de-energized just on the segment east of East 120th, so RTA would pay for the electricity for powering trains even if no trains are runnings. And even if RTA could de-energize the overhead electric wires, how long do you think the copper wires would remain in place? To restart service on that line would likely require buying and installing new electric wires. I suspect the wires wouldn't be the only targets of thieves and vandals, but the track and stations, too. Lastly, RTA trains heading east and terminating at the East 120th station would need to proceed forward to the nearest crossover tracks to get on to the westbound track. The nearest crossovers are near the University Circle station at Cedar Glen or just west of the Windermere Station. If train schedules, signal systems or other operating constraints do not permit a reverse move to the crossovers at University Circle, then the trains would have to continue east to the crossovers near Windermere. And if they have do that, then they might as well keep carrying passengers to/from Windermere as well.

 

That makes sense. I guess that would lead to my next question, which would be why does the HL run past E.120?

 

I am assuming the answer will have something to do with trying to promote growth in E. Cle.

 

This isn't a smartass answer, but some of what you're asking was explained in the HL presentations and I'm pretty sure covered in the HL thread.

 

Agreed. 

The Red Line represents a fixed cost and its track, electrical systems, overhead copper wires and stations will incur insurance, maintenance, depreciation costs even if they are not in use. Plus I don't think the overhead electric wires can be de-energized just on the segment east of East 120th, so RTA would pay for the electricity for powering trains even if no trains are runnings. And even if RTA could de-energize the overhead electric wires, how long do you think the copper wires would remain in place? To restart service on that line would likely require buying and installing new electric wires. I suspect the wires wouldn't be the only targets of thieves and vandals, but the track and stations, too. Lastly, RTA trains heading east and terminating at the East 120th station would need to proceed forward to the nearest crossover tracks to get on to the westbound track. The nearest crossovers are near the University Circle station at Cedar Glen or just west of the Windermere Station. If train schedules, signal systems or other operating constraints do not permit a reverse move to the crossovers at University Circle, then the trains would have to continue east to the crossovers near Windermere. And if they have do that, then they might as well keep carrying passengers to/from Windermere as well.

 

That makes sense. I guess that would lead to my next question, which would be why does the HL run past E.120?

 

I am assuming the answer will have something to do with trying to promote growth in E. Cle.

 

This isn't a smartass answer, but some of what you're asking was explained in the HL presentations and I'm pretty sure covered in the HL thread.

 

Agreed.

Jerry was nice enough to respond on a similar subject here.

 

thanks.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/124064841788370.xml&coll=2

 

RTA expecting $9 million operating shortfall this year

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Karen Farkas

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

After the RTA board this week approved spending $9.5 million in federal stimulus funds to replace the 40-year-old Puritas/West 150th Street rapid station, the agency confronted the stark reality that service may have to be cut to help offset an expected $9 million shortfall this year.

.....

Maybe I'm off base here, and someone can help out... but RTA's poised to spend $9.5M in stimulus funds to rebuild the Puritas Rapid Sta.  But that project was already on the table, as were other station rebuilds in the past, and they received FTA capital matching funds in X % amount.  Shouldn't RTA be using the Obama money for what it's name applies: stimulus -- building new, innovative transit projects that can potentially serve more people? -- ... like the 3Cs Amtrak project moving forward: service that didn't exist yesterday, as opposed to reshuffling money to the already-targeted rebuild of a heavily used station.  I really don't like BRT, but I could see BRT more as a 'stimulus' project as opposed to a preexisting Rapid rebuild.  Yes, I know the article said the Puritas money, once envisioned, had dried up so RTA turned to Obama's Stimulus funds, but still something doesn't seem quite right...

 

Preferably, I'd like to see stimulus projects for rail expansion, like the Blue line to the Highlands or helping commuter rail projects materialize, like the West Shore Commuter which seems to be moving along.  (Of course, we tend to know RTA's attitude toward rail expansion, so that's probably a nonstarter)

Did Calabrese seriously just float cutting weekend service systemwide?

 

I know every budget at every level is struggling to balance right now, but we need a new revenue source. The state needs to step up.

Did Calabrese seriously just float cutting weekend service systemwide?

 

 

Even if Calabrese was trying to goad Columbus and/or NOACA into forking over more operating funds, I think his comment is irresponsible.  That's a scare tactic that needlessly puts people on edge, especially in an economically/psychologically battered community like Cleveland.

What's "shovel ready"?

Maybe I'm off base here, and someone can help out... but RTA's poised to spend $9.5M in stimulus funds to rebuild the Puritas Rapid Sta. But that project was already on the table, as were other station rebuilds in the past, and they received FTA capital matching funds in X % amount. Shouldn't RTA be using the Obama money for what it's name applies: stimulus -- building new, innovative transit projects that can potentially serve more people? -- ... like the 3Cs Amtrak project moving forward: service that didn't exist yesterday, as opposed to reshuffling money to the already-targeted rebuild of a heavily used station. I really don't like BRT, but I could see BRT more as a 'stimulus' project as opposed to a preexisting Rapid rebuild. Yes, I know the article said the Puritas money, once envisioned, had dried up so RTA turned to Obama's Stimulus funds, but still something doesn't seem quite right...

 

Preferably, I'd like to see stimulus projects for rail expansion, like the Blue line to the Highlands or helping commuter rail projects materialize, like the West Shore Commuter which seems to be moving along. (Of course, we tend to know RTA's attitude toward rail expansion, so that's probably a nonstarter)

 

It will stimulate the economy in that it will employ some folks to do the work, pay suppliers for the materials, etc., etc., etc.

 

I agree that mentioning the elimination of weekend service, if as a scare tactic, is terrible. If it's a realistic option on the table, then I guess I'll have to start thinking about what kind of car I want and making sure I can find the payroll forms to stop my monthly transit pass purchase, since a void of service for a day would make car-free not work for me.

^a wholesale cut, like elimination of weekend service, would literally destroy people's lives along w/ really wrecking our economy.  At leas people like you and me can afford to go buy a car if we needed to.  Not so for the thousands of riders for whom RTA is their lifeline... Unless it was something that was on the table, and I can't imagine it was for a transit stystem as large as RTA, it should never by thrown out there like that.

^a wholesale cut, like elimination of weekend service, would literally destroy people's lives along w/ really wrecking our economy.  At leas people like you and me can afford to go buy a car if we needed to.  Not so for the thousands of riders for whom RTA is their lifeline... Unless it was something that was on the table, and I can't imagine it was for a transit stystem as large as RTA, it should never by thrown out there like that.

 

I 100 percent agree. But RTA does need to balance its budget. Something massive is going to happen without a revenue boost. I would hope cutting a day of service would be unthinkable, but nothing surprises me any more.

 

This sounds to me like either a float to gauge reaction or a threat he hopes will open the pocketbooks.

 

ETA: Oh, and by the way, I certainly don't mean to woe-is-me the subject. I'll find a workaround. For many Clevelanders, they could lose their jobs, not be able to go to their church/temple/mosque or not be able to get to the grocery store on a day off. Of course it would be far more devastating to people who MUST rely on public transit as opposed to folks like you and I who CHOOSE to rely on public transit.