Um, apparently you missed the part where Jerry was undergoing BRAIN SURGERY recently?!?  Excuse the f#ck out of him for having other things to worry about than responding to a question or two on this forum. :roll:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.msg449944.html#msg449944

CMHA and RTA police are not private security forces at all.  Neither is the police force of a public university.  To the extent they have actual enforcement powers, the CCF and Case people are in a gray area.  And if you observe CPD behavior, they do indeed have a glut of officers with nothing to do.  Ask the union and you'll hear otherwise... but account for their motivation when evaluating such claims. 

 

Each of these separate publicly-funded police forces has a separate command structure, HQ, and equipment contract.  Millions could be saved by combining them.  This would not require the reassignment of any resources from anything else... the gain is achieved by eliminating redundancies and utilizing economies of scale.  Yes people would be laid off, but these are managers in mid-late careers who already have big pensions.  Minimal loss for the regional economy.

 

Ever wonder why private companies are always merging?  Because the combined organization is generally more effective and less costly.  I'm really just running through the rationale for regionalization and extending it in obvious ways.  Nothing earth-shattering here.  Why have 61 municipalities in one county?  Why have 5 police forces in one city?  These things cost money!  We claim we don't have any money, yet we waste it on too many chiefs (literally) and not enough Indians.

well you won't find a bigger proponent of regionalism than I, and you'll get no arguments from that here.  As you may have noticed though... not an easy process.  And combining CMHA, RTA and CPD is probably lower on the regional priority list.  Still wouldn't really change the separate function needs, but saves a ton of tax payer $... as you mentioned.  And you're correct I don't think CCF and Case would be included in that discussion...

Well, every idea is met with "there's no money," and I just found millions like a dude on a beach with a metal detector.  And I haven't even finished my coffee.  My understanding is that combining safety forces is a primary focal point of most regionalization plans.  Some of this is already underway in various suburbs. 

 

A year ago Issue 6 seemed unlikely, but looky here at what happened.  It is possible to change things.  But change is like Tinkerbell-- you have to believe, and it sure helps if you clap.  Don't sit there and yell "Die Tinkerbell, die!  Children can't fly and you know that!" 

unfortunately regionalism is met with a die tinkerbelle die attitude in many suburbs. yes saftey forces is a primary focal point of regionalism plans.  there have been people working on this longer than you and I have been alive, and thankfully for us the Cuyahoga county government became so corrupt people voted for regionalism if whether they knew it or not (and I really think many did not or would have voted differently).  There is unbelievable sums of money to be saved from regionalism and some (including me) believe we will either figure out a way to get this done or continue to wallow.  I would suggest getting as involved as you can in the regionalism fight, we could use all the help we can get.  But that is really a topic for the NE Ohio Regionalism thread.  Assuming one day we reach a true regionalism in NE Ohio, and RTA is relieved of the burden of paying for transit cops directly, I doubt that is going to be the savior of RTA (but hey every bit does help), and as it relates to this thread there would, even if combined forces, be some sort of dedicated transit unit....

 

so my gripe is more getting the transit police out on the trains checking POP and being a safety enforcer... than standing around in clusters at areas where it is least needed.

Thanks for the note of support, but there is a reason I did not comment on your comments. I responded (to the initial post), and the bottom line is: you did not like my response, so you came back with more comments. That is called a debate, and I do not debate here. I just provide the RTA viewpoint and try to stop people who post inaccurate info. I did my part. Interesting, many people have told me that RTA never responded on their letter. Well, (often) we did respond, they did not like our response, so they figured it did not count.

 

I once had to interview an old man who had valuable info for my family tree. He knew I had a government job, and the first thing he said was, "ALL politicians are criminals." His jaw was set, his mind was made up, and he wanted an afternoon filled with rhetoric. I could have debated that one for hours, but I quickly steered the talk back to the family tree. It was certainly a better use of my time.

 

I sincerely appreciate that most everyone on this forum seems to respect other's opinions. That is indeed refreshing. This is America, you all have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to decline to debate.

 

Yes, I was out for brain surgery, and my goal now is to stop in once a day, spread some cheer, and then move on. Thanks for listening.

 

 

This thread has taken a turn for the surreal in recent days. Litterbugs? Worrying about a few cops standing around shooting the shit? I know those are annoyances, but that's like worrying about a hair in your eye when your legs are being chopped off.

When the transit agency starts claiming they have no money and begins the process of cutting routes crucial for some people's livelihood, there's nothing wrong with pointing out ways the existing money can be used more efficiently, no matter how "annoying" they seem to be.  "Shooting the sh!t" at Tower City, on such a consistent basis that most have us have seen it, is probably not a great way to be spending these few remaining dollars RTA has.

Employees standing around in public-- as if there were no crisis-- is a major, major, major issue at a time when services are being cut en masse.  The issue here seems to be "there's no money" vs. "stop being wasteful and there'd be money."  No one expects major restructuring to take place overnight.  But when reform proposals are dismissed out of hand, and money is clearly being spent on rubbish, I don't think this is a time for RTA to mock people's concerns or tell them to eat cake. 

 

Want people to approve more money?  Show them that the approach going forward will be different than what they've seen recently.  Steps two through twelve are waiting for someone to admit there's a problem.  Further attempts at buck-passage should be called out for what they are.  Poor expenditure decisions at the local level must be answered for and cannot be blamed on Columbus or DC. 

 

These complaints are coming from people who believe in transit, who believe in government, and who defend RTA on an almost daily basis.  Seriously.  What's being done about these fare machines?  What belt-tightening measures are being explored or pursued?  What exactly is RTA's vision for the future?  Is is something worth publishing, something solid that supporters might rally behind?

http://www.riderta.com/budgetchallenges/

 

It's all laid out for you, in black and white. If you haven't already read this document, I strongly recommend you do so. It will answer many of the questions that have been raised (and may very well prompt some more, which is okay, too).

I can't imagine "public transit cop" is too high on the career totem pole for those aspiring for position in law enforcement, but it would be nice if these guys at least gave the APPEARANCE of giving a hoot by actually riding the trains individually, walking around and holding people accountable. Too often I see these guys loitering about, 3 or 4 together at a time. I'm sure some have done a fine job, but this is a crucial time with how RTA is being regarded amongst the public, and these cops have an opportunity while they're "making the rounds" to help not only shore up unpaid fares, but give a good face to an organization some have accused of squandering crucial funds.

 

But for starters, someone take away the benches or seats these guys seem to gravitate towards at Tower City.

 

I have friends with other police forces who ASPIRE to get into the RTA system for exactly that--decent pay for riding around and hiding within the system. 

 

Personally, I don't think it's the safest job in the world, but compared to CPD or CMHA police it's probably the equivalent of a school crossing guard.  So not bad for the money...

This thread has taken a turn for the surreal in recent days. Litterbugs? Worrying about a few cops standing around shooting the sh!t? I know those are annoyances, but that's like worrying about a hair in your eye when your legs are being chopped off.

 

KJP,  You're missing the underlying point..... These are NOT petty issues...they are trickle down symptoms of larger problems...the end result of complacency in one way to put it. Follow the dots and make the connections. You think a bunch of security and police personnel standing around inside TC b.s.ing while I had to go inside and inform them that they might want to go outside and break up fighting near a bus stop is petty? Instead of standing around waiting for something to happen...walk around, establish a presence and prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

On another note, I agree with the regionalism aspects of this issue as being discussed. 327 said it well. Maybe it could result in better security on the public transportation, because I do believe transit needs security. (Greater Cleveland Metropolitan Police...hmmmm..sounds interesting as a concept) If the above ideas can help save money without compromising services....or convey reasons why some may abstain from riding public transport....then they are every bit related to the topic of the thread, especially if RTA reps share on the forum.

 

Last quick note...  On the response from Jerry about some people simply not liking the responses they got from RTA....  I would have to say that at least it was nice to get a response. I did not get one...and I' say reporting a careless driver is pretty important among some other issues.

Is there any way of finding out if this is the expectation or norm for the security guys of RTA without it seeming debate like?  (If this is the expectation then that is one thing, but if it is clearly not the way they are supposed to be operating then......) 

 

Also, Jerry if you are able to let me know at some point if RTA has people that seek out federal grants for things like litter and beautification as well as other things that have been discussed, would this not help in some regard?

I have sent general emails to some RTA staff to find out but I have not had responses. 

 

Because this is part of what I do in DC, I would gladly send the info to whoever it should go(and even help with the process)

I cant guarantee what is currently out there, but have seen things in the past year, and will look into further this week. 

http://www.riderta.com/budgetchallenges/

 

It's all laid out for you, in black and white. If you haven't already read this document, I strongly recommend you do so. It will answer many of the questions that have been raised (and may very well prompt some more, which is okay, too).

 

Interesting...

 

-- RTA itself contributed enough money ($20 million or 10%) to the Healthline project to purchase all the BRT vehicles.  I had believed the feds essentially covered the capital costs themselves and I stand corrected.  For reference, this $20 million in local BRT investment (spread over years, with interest) compares to a 2008-2009 sales tax drop of $18,982,598.  So the amount spent on BRT vehicles exceeds the deficit in sales taxes that we've heard so much about.  Yes, I realize one is capitalized and one isn't, and my response is that money is fungible.  My other response is "He says if I spend $10 on stupid, he'll contribute another $90 worth of stupid.  What a deal!"  That's not a deal... that's you trading a perfectly good $10 for $100 worth of stupid.  This publication spends considerable effort justifying the Healthline project.  Perhaps that effort would be better spent on rail planning.

 

--To be fair, it also spends time defending the Waterfront line project.  In doing so it puts forth some interesting numbers.  The Waterfront line cost only $100k to operate in 2009.  RTA is getting a federal grant of $3 million to operate the Healthline in that same year, and is requesting $7.2 million for such purpose in 2010.  I realize that comparison isn't apples to apples at all, but one mode still seems substantially more efficient and green than the other.  That's why the entire nation is getting on this railroad bandwagon. 

 

I'd like to know specifically what RTA is doing to position Cuyahoga County for the coming age of passenger rail.  It's one thing to be generally supportive of it, it's another to take positive steps toward new rail in Cleveland's future.  We understand that times are tough right now.  Give us something positive to chew on as we look forward to better times.

This thread has taken a turn for the surreal in recent days. Litterbugs? Worrying about a few cops standing around shooting the sh!t? I know those are annoyances, but that's like worrying about a hair in your eye when your legs are being chopped off.

 

I'm sorry if these issues seem petty to you, but uncleanliness and a perceived lack of safety are a few reasons I've personally heard for why people don't take public transit.  What if addressing these problems encourages a few thousand more people to take RTA semi-regularly?  Maybe RTA can increase its farebox revenue a bit, and go from covering 20-25% of its operating costs to 21-26%.  Maybe this could save a bus route, a proverbial toe on your chopped-off legs.

 

I and the others on this board understand RTA lobbies for funding from higher levels of government.  I and others on this board have personally written letters and attended public meetings.  I and others on this board have read about RTA's budget challenges over and over again.  Therefore, I don't feel it's inappropriate for us at all to suggest efficiencies and other ways to improve the transit experience, and thus RTA's performance.

I'm sorry if these issues seem petty to you, but uncleanliness and a perceived lack of safety are a few reasons I've personally heard for why people don't take public transit.  What if addressing these problems encourages a few thousand more people to take RTA semi-regularly?  Maybe RTA can increase its farebox revenue a bit, and go from covering 20-25% of its operating costs to 21-26%.  Maybe this could save a bus route, a proverbial toe on your chopped-off legs.

 

I and the others on this board understand RTA lobbies for funding from higher levels of government.  I and others on this board have personally written letters and attended public meetings.  I and others on this board have read about RTA's budget challenges over and over again.  Therefore, I don't feel it's inappropriate for us at all to suggest efficiencies and other ways to improve the transit experience, and thus RTA's performance.

 

I concur, big time! 

It's not inappropriate at all to suggest efficiencies. You've all done that. Thanks. Mission accomplished. Now, spend time on big picture stuff and the little stuff will take care of itself. Understand our roles. Transit agencies manage day-to-day stuff. But they don't deal as much in public policy. That's where the grassroots comes in. Dwelling on operational issues is a misallocation of our grassroots resources, especially at a time like this. If I'm in intensive care in the hospital, the last thing I want to hear about is my spouse complaining that our kids aren't eating their dinner.

 

I understand your concerns, but the maintenance issues vs. funding is chicken-and-egg financial stuff. The way around it is reform. RTA needs wholesale reform into a multi-county agency, which requires amending state law. A condition of that amendment should be that any multi-county agency must achieve a 50 percent cost-recovery ratio to receive state funds. And state funding for transit must be boosted to at least $75 million annually to make a difference. Those changes will allow us to develop a kick-ass transit system that builds cities, saves us from peak oil and keep us mobile.

 

Those are the answers. Let me know when you all are done bickering about the kids not eating their dinner. Then maybe we can work together to save the patient's life.

Thanks, KJP.

 

Along the grassroots lines, I'd like to make everyone aware of a new tool, debuted yesterday, that can help with legislative communication efforts. The web site http://www.fundohiotransitnow.org/ has been set up to allow easy, one-stop advocacy for improved transit funding in the State of Ohio, at both the State and Federal levels. Letters can be customized, if desired, or you can use the stock letters that are provided.

 

Use it, share it, promote it -- FUND OHIO TRANSIT NOW!!!

Thanks, KJP.

 

Along the grassroots lines, I'd like to make everyone aware of a new tool, debuted yesterday, that can help with legislative communication efforts. The web site http://www.fundohiotransitnow.org/ has been set up to allow easy, one-stop advocacy for improved transit funding in the State of Ohio, at both the State and Federal levels. Letters can be customized, if desired, or you can use the stock letters that are provided.

 

Use it, share it, promote it -- FUND OHIO TRANSIT NOW!!!

 

Thanks.  I've never sent a letter to the Ohio Speaker of the House.  It's never crossed my mind.  this is very useful!

KJP, You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is not Gospel. (nor is mine) But I think two philosophies here can work hand in hand...go together. I believe in learning to crawl before learning to walk...and I disagree that taking care of the big from the top will take care of the small stuff at the bottom. However I do believe that carelessness or inefficiency at the top will breed it at the bottom. I don't think that is always the case of just as long as the funding is at the top...all will turn out right.

 

I sense it is the other way around in some of these issues, but yeah...a 'chicken or egg' thing, either way... true--but as long as the problems are remedied, why not take a different approach at fixing things from the lower end and attacking smaller issues and becoming a success on one issue at a time, before focusing on  the grandiose. Efficiency finds ways to do things in tough times.

 

I am just a strong subscriber to the broken window theory and that left unabated, the small things are party to setting the stage for the bigger issues we now have, that quite possibly contribute to loss of ridership and ultimately a loss of funding---or to the pervasive attitudes that cannot justify the funding in the first place--hence the little grass roots need for stating the case for more funding! I will point out once more that no amount of funding will fix the basics that have been ignored for years. By the way, I have crafted many letters in support of public transport and sent them to appropriate parties.

 

A side note: I have a top ten list of reasons why I have cut back on riding RTA. And, the issues were issues for a long time despite funding. Funding cannot fix basics like instilling a better customer service ethic in reps and drivers....getting existing employees to start consistently enforcing existing rules on the buses and at stops on issues many mentioned above---because those who break the rules become the kinds of riders that make other law abiding rule respecting riders not want to ride the bus/train etc. I could mention a few more examples but the point is made.

Operational matters are no concern of the citizenry, eh?  Something tells me that approach won't sell in Peoria.  If the idea is to garner people's support, I would place a moratorium on minimizing their concerns.

 

Not only does minimizing concerns of why many people dont like to use public transit lose peoples support, but it also tends to make them not care much period  (here I was trying to locate grant money for some of the small issues at RTA that they claim there isnt funding to take care of, but when I cant get a response from anyone at RTA, why would I care anymore.)

 

Im with EC, Confit and 327 on this one.  Although I understand the importance of what KJP is saying, I disagree with his analogy.,  These things are not necesarily mutually exclusive. 

 

 

Perhaps instead of this being like arguing over feeding the kids dinner when someone is in intensive care it is more like visiting a heart attack patient at the hospital and finding him smoking a stogy and drinking Jack straight from the bottle.  "But I'm already in the hospital, so I'll quit if I live long enough to get out!"

Well, someone's office actually replied.

 

"Dear RNR,

 

Thanks for your email. I will continue to strongy advocate for

additional public transit funding, and I will carefully consider new

ideas to help accomplish this goal.

 

Sincerely yours,

Dale Miller,

State Senator"

RTA set to reduce three local routes; Lines 7, 9 and 32 would no longer run to Tower City

By Jeff Piorkowski

January 07, 2010, 5:27AM

 

Three local bus lines that have taken riders to downtown Cleveland for several years are about to have their routes modified so they will not run straight through to Tower City.

 

The changes in the Numbers 7, 9 and 32 lines have some people upset, but RTA officials say the alterations must be carried out for economic reasons.

 

MORE AT

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/01/post_7.html

Great, more transfers on a system that got rid of transfers.  The "buy an all-day pass" solution is great if you have the physical means to do so before embarking on your cross-town trip.  Otherwise this sort of thing has a way of looking like a backdoor fare increase.  I'm not opposed to necessary fare increases... but I'm a big supporter of transfers, and I wish we'd bring them back as our cross-town routes continue to vanish. 

 

Related issue:  how is this whole East/West Transit Center system supposed to work, logistically?  I'm very confused about that.  Seems like it takes a lot of routes that 5 years ago were one-seat, and now have become two-seat, and makes them into three-seaters... unless the east side routes go to the west transit center, and the west side routes go to the east transit center.  But then which routes would still service the rail hub at public square? 

Related issue:  how is this whole East/West Transit Center system supposed to work, logistically? 

 

Simple.  You take your once-per-hour crossdown bus like your 94, transfer at Richmond.  Then wait for the 7/9/32.  Transfer to HealthLine.  West side bus originates from transit center at Prospect and 22nd, so walk a block through deep slushy mess.  Catch your 22 bus which no longer goes all the way to Fairview Hospital so you now have to transfer to 52 . . oops, wait, wasn't that supposed to be eliminated?  I guess there may be some way to connect to 75.  Miss a single connection and the trip which was scheduled to take "only" 3 hours actually requires 4 or more.  As the hours and hours go by, you start to realize that if your time was worth even what you could make flipping burgers, you'd have been better off on a taxi.  :(

 

I'm exaggerating a bit for impact, but not much.  Earlier in my life, when I had lower-paying jobs that required suburb-to-suburb commutes, I routinely spent 3 hours a day on the bus.  Many of those commutes are no longer possible on RTA.  It won't even be possible to get downtown from many parts of the county within a reasonable amount of time once the proposed cuts come through.  And sayonara getting from Euclid to Brooklyn - my current commute, except when I can work downtown - anytime other than maybe rush hour.

 

If you can get to and from downtown in a single trip to/from just about anyplace, then just about any commute requires 2 buses more or less.  If you have to transfer just to get downtown, and again at least once between downtown and your destination, then many commutes hypothetically require 4 buses, not 2.  That is not acceptable, and it is not necessary in order to reduce costs.  Keep at least the downtown trips, and, if necessary, reduce frequency of rapid / healthline service to match.  Same for proposed killing of 39, 55, etc.  Otherwise you have just eliminated not only most of your transit-dependent ridership, but also any incentive for people in the 'burbs, who are now unable to use transit for any reasonable purpose whatsoever, to continue to support the countywide sales tax.

The writing for these kind of cuts has been on the wall for a long time- RTA has promised terminating more bus routes at rapid stops for a few years now.  And while this is an efficient system in other cities, it stinks in Cleveland becuase of the rapid's horrible downtown coverage.  Unless you work very close to public square, this will mean much more than adding a single transfer.  At the risk of invoking a broken record picture, this is another example of how much better the dual hub would have been than the HL.  :(

 

One thing that would make these changes more palatable would be establishing a mini transit center along the HealthLine near the Clinic or UH.  This would make it much easier for riders on these lines to reach the medical centers and midtown than if the lines just stop at the UC rapid station.  Probably not in RTA's budget, but maybe UCI or hospitals could step up.  I suppose this is what the transit center at the future Mayfield stop will be for, bu not for a couple years still.

 

The writing for these kind of cuts has been on the wall for a long time- RTA has promised terminating more bus routes at rapid stops for a few years now.  And while this is an efficient system in other cities, it stinks in Cleveland becuase of the rapid's horrible downtown coverage.  Unless you work very close to public square, this will mean much more than adding a single transfer.  At the risk of invoking a broken record picture, this is another example of how much better the dual hub would have been than the HL.  :(

 

One thing that would make these changes more palatable would be establishing a mini transit center along the HealthLine near the Clinic or UH.  This would make it much easier for riders on these lines to reach the medical centers and midtown than if the lines just stop at the UC rapid station.  Probably not in RTA's budget, but maybe UCI or hospitals could step up.  I suppose this is what the transit center at the future Mayfield stop will be for, bu not for a couple years still.

 

 

Cutting off the 7,9, and 32 at the rapid stop makes NO sense without adding in an extra loop to at least take riders to E. 105th.  That is both from the standpoint of people who don't work near TC but work downtown as well as the tons upon tons of riders who transfer at E. 105th.  So, if someone is coming from a shopping trip at Severance for instance, they'll have to get off the #9 at Adelbert, take the healthline two whole stops, and then get their transfer at E. 105th.  And if someone works downtown at say Eaton, for example, they'll now have to schlep through eleven blocks of lovely snow-filled streets to get to and from the office if they take the rapid. 

 

That being said, with the Healthline being my only ride option once the 9 is dropped, I'll probably go back to driving.  The reason:  I hate walking past that d@mn Parkview Apartment building in the evening.  Anyway, that's not related to RTA, but it stresses the importance of buses that can circulate off of fixed lines downtown.

RTA thread certainly is taking a turn for the surreal... and that's because RTA policy and planning have taken a turn for the surreal.  Get it together, guys.  None of this stuff is making any sense. 

 

When county govenrment elections start to heat up later this year, I plan on asking every candidate:  What are you going to do to change the direction of RTA?

One thing that would make these changes more palatable would be establishing a mini transit center along the HealthLine near the Clinic or UH.

 

I'll second that . . . it at least gets UC-bound riders most if not all the way to their destinations; the UC RTS is just too far away.  On the other hand many riders are continuing downtown or to the West Side, so you do want to stop at a real RTS (preferably UC or Mayfield/120th, not Superior, which is a bit too dangerous) as well.

 

 

^Yup, the buses could stop at UC (or future Mayfield) Rapid stop, and then continue west to 105 for the transfer DocBroc mentions.  Because the HL is so frequent, that cold be tolerable for at least some folks.  This is essentially what the 48 from Shaker Square does, to increase its usefulness.

 

If only there were some unused space near E105 and Euclid that could accommodate a bus loop...oh wait:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.503684,-81.615074&spn=0.001085,0.00327&t=h&z=19

 

Finally we could put that stupid lawn in front of Cole Eye Institute to use...

 

 

Because they're cutting the routes 'n stuff, and press releases are great and sound so nice, but I think it'd be even better if on the front page of RTA's website they'd have a box or section that listed the canceled routes and then allowed people to click on those and access detailed info on how to minimize the disruption by taking alternates. I'm talking FRONT PAGE, "RTA Daily News," clear, easy, click on my canceled route and give me some options. It's almost like the Plain Dealer has this info first... I can't find any articles or notices anywhere on RTA's OWN website... ? Or am I just not delving deep enough into their site?... but I shouldn't have to.

For once, I agree with RTA, at least as it relates to ending the Nos. 7, 9 and 32s at Red Line stations…

 

However, I do agree with doctabroccoli that the 7 and 32 probably should be extended a few blocks west to the massive Cleveland Clinic campus where they could be looped back to the Heights… Also, the 9s down Mayfield could be extended 1 block past the new Little Italy stop to the Euclid-Mayfield corner where riders could transfer to the frequent Health Line for direct service to the Clinic, CSU or other trip generators down Euclid into downtown.  These short extensions should gouge RTA’s budgets that much but, however, I’d only extend certain runs (not all) of these lines whereby the majority of them would terminate at the UC or Little Italy RTS stations.  Rush hour Heights riders on these routes wouldn’t sacrifice much as they are already rather spoiled with their 1-seat bus ride all the way downtown competing with high frequency, high capacity routes: the real rapid transit, and the Health Line bus rapid (which of course is better than a regular bus route).

 

These RTA changes are in accord w/ my view that much money could be saved by ending RTA’s many bus routes running past/competing with Rapid routes.  It’s wasteful and ending this practice does not actually end service for these riders … it’s just not quite as cushy….

Because they're cutting the routes 'n stuff, and press releases are great and sound so nice, but I think it'd be even better if on the front page of RTA's website they'd have a box or section that listed the canceled routes and then allowed people to click on those and access detailed info on how to minimize the disruption by taking alternates.  I'm talking FRONT PAGE, "RTA Daily News," clear, easy, click on my canceled route and give me some options.  It's almost like the Plain Dealer has this info first... I can't find any articles or notices anywhere on RTA's OWN website... ? Or am I just not delving deep enough into their site?... but I shouldn't have to.

 

If you can't find it, you're not looking. It's very clearly there, on the front page, and has been for a couple of weeks now - "Our 2010 Fare & Service Proposal".

 

As far as how to minimize disruption by taking alternate routes, any attempt to publish such information at this time would be premature, as the public comment period doesn't end until January 21, and the final decisions won't be made until some time in mid to late February. The public input taken at the hearings will be considered in crafting the final plans.

 

Publishing such information would also be extremely difficult, as everyone's situation is slightly different. I will advocate for the publication of general alternatives as soon as things are finalized, and will also work to have the information on what goes into effect in April, or whenever our final implementation date is, available through such systems as Google Transit, for automated planning assistance, a week or two before such changes become effective.

Rush hour Heights riders on these routes wouldn’t sacrifice much as they are already rather spoiled with their 1-seat bus ride all the way downtown competing with high frequency, high capacity routes: the real rapid transit, and the Health Line bus rapid (which of course is better than a regular bus route).

 

These RTA changes are in accord w/ my view that much money could be saved by ending RTA’s many bus routes running past/competing with Rapid routes.  It’s wasteful and ending this practice does not actually end service for these riders … it’s just not quite as cushy….

 

That's worth considering, as there is an efficiency to be gained.  The problem is that RTA's customer base isn't a warehouse full of WalMart products.  Moving them efficiently is only one of several inescapable requirements.  The system also must be practical for use based on actual human lives. 

 

It's not just a matter of creature comfort... each time you have to transfer, the standard deviation in your ETA ratchets up.  If the transfer you need gets there right when you do, that's most serendipitous.  If that happens twice in a row in one day, buy yourself a lottery ticket.  But you can't stake your career on that sort of thing.  Adding transfers adds travel time, and adds enough variation in day-to-day travel times to render transit use impracticable.  You'll get fired-- and that's not worth it.  So there goes RTA's base of power and influence.  If we want broader and deeper public support, the current path cannot get us there.  Those cushy 1-seat rides feed a lotta babies that transfers won't feed. 

 

Still wondering what the deal is with the E/W "transit stations."  Also thinking that even if the feds pay 90% on that and other capital projects, we still can't justify spending a dime on them in this context.  The least RTA could do is maybe explain what certain capital projects, like STJ-TC, are even expected to accomplish for us.  Then maybe we as a community could evaluate whether that's something we'd even want to pursue, with our scarce beyond scarce dollars. 

 

How much bus infrastructure (bus! infrastructure!) do we need when there's no end in sight to the cuts in actual busing?

Cross-posted at the Rethinking transport in the USA...

It's not just happening in Cleveland. And it's not just in Ohio. Welcome to a brave new America, or at least it better be....

 

Rough road ahead for public transit

By Mike Rosenberg/ Bay Area News Group

Posted: 01/10/2010 01:01:16 AM PST

Updated: 01/10/2010 01:01:16 AM PST

 

After enduring the most brutal year in the history of Bay Area public transit, train and bus operators are barreling down a track toward bankruptcy.

 

The near-inevitable result will be costlier and longer commutes for all, whether you ride or drive.

 

From BART to Caltrain to Santa Clara VTA, every Bay Area transit agency has increased fares and reduced train and bus service to plug deep budget holes. But the changes have produced fewer riders and even less revenue -- leading some to worry that the transit system has entered a death spiral.

 

Already, more than a million riders are spending extra money and time each day just to get around. And a staggering 66,000 daily riders have abandoned Bay Area transit in the past year, more than enough to pack 40 freeway lanes during rush hour.

 

Six major agencies -- BART, Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrain, SamTrans on the Peninsula, County Connection in the East Bay and Golden Gate Transit -- have lost at least 7 percent of their riders in the past year. Some officials fear they'll never get them back.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14160305?nclick_check=1

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour.  According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.  Of course, I can drive it in about 20 minutes at my own convenience -- any time I like, listening to my own radio station, straight from my back door. 

 

I live in the Heights because I wanted to avoid hour-long commutes from the outer suburbs, among other reasons.  I'm certainly NOT going to be taking the bus if it is going to take 50 minutes to go six miles!

 

Oh, how I wish for a rail line from University Circle up Cedar to the Beachwood Mall!

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour. According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.

 

What "new schedule" would this be? Nothing's been published, or even decided, yet. Please don't make judgments based on supposition until the facts are available.

^What portion or percentage of proposed cuts typically get put into action?  50%? 80%?

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour.  According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.

What "new schedule" would this be? Nothing's been published, or even decided, yet. Please don't make judgments based on supposition until the facts are available.

It doesn't matter what the schedule is. 

 

Let's assume no cuts besides those proposed, no headway changes, no increased volumes or crowding and no resulting delays.  Pretend that other than ending the 32 at U/C everything is exactly as it was before.

 

Say Joe Rider is coming from Cedar and Lee.  He'd have reached CSU in about 30 minutes before.  Now he will have to do one of the following: (1) transfer at U/C, Red Line downtown (15 minute trip + average 7.5 minute wait) then trolley or Health Line to CSU . .  probably closer to an hour, not 50 minutes; (2) walk from U/C to Euclid, then HealthLine downtown, average wait negligible but which will actually take much closer to 30 minutes to CSU, not the 20 scheduled, during rush hour - again, close to an hour trip including what in bad weather would be a significant walk; or if he is really fearless, (3) transfer to 8 at U/C, exit around Prospect & 21st give or take, and hope he doesn't die.  Of course 8 only runs every 40 min. and likewise will take close to 1/2 hour to reach CSU, regardless of what schedule says, and it travels through some of most dangerous parts of town.

 

In short you have just eliminated any fast and reasonable way for him to get to where he needs to go, except for driving.  Ditto for hundreds of thousands of others including me.  You also have eliminated any reason for any of those people to continue to support the countywide sales tax, RTA's main source of funding.

 

Note that ending 32 at Euclid rather than U/C Station as proposed by others would at least remove the ice-encrusted walk from option 2 making it almost bearable.  And careful through-routing plus small tweaks to many of the other proposals would make some of them bearable as well . . . typically by minimizing the need for additional transfers.  But every one I've proposed has been laughed into oblivion, so I'm not quite sure what I can do to constructively help.  Hopefully others can present those ideas, or better ones, more persuasively than I've been able to.

 

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour.  According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.

What "new schedule" would this be? Nothing's been published, or even decided, yet. Please don't make judgments based on supposition until the facts are available.

It doesn't matter what the schedule is. 

 

Let's assume no cuts besides those proposed, no headway changes, no increased volumes or crowding and no resulting delays.  Pretend that other than ending the 32 at U/C everything is exactly as it was before.

I think JetDog's point was that ending the 32 at U/C isn't final. If there is a large enough outcry for it to continue, or to be ended at Euclid, that is still possible. Also, if our politicians can find some extra funding lying around again, many of these cuts can be avoided. I'm guessing that unlike last year, NOACA's accounts have already been searched for extra pennies lying around unspent, but there is still the possibility that some funds could be found, or that other routes could be cut instead of those proposed, or that fares could be raised instead of the cuts. In other words, if this is an important issue to you, do something about it (I.E. write to people that can find some funds for RTA) and in the mean time, refer to the cuts to the 32 as proposed.

How come RTA busses aren't using the Innerbelt bridge southbound?  It's open to trucks now, correct?  I know Northbound is still closed to trucks.

I may be mistaken, but I think the reason people keep bringing up the "32 to Euclid" issue is not because they misunderstand RTA's intentions or need for money, it's because it literally seems insane to even propose ending the 32 at the Cedar station when Euclid is right there, given the implications.  For the cost of sending the bus a couple blocks further, a route would shift from plumb-useless to manageable for a great many people. 

 

Common sense should not require a letter-writing campaign.  There is a feeling among the peasants that some of this stuff is not even being thought through.  This makes the peasants wonder if their sacrifices are in vain, or perhaps less than fully necessary.  Maybe the cuts would go down smoother on the whole if the more brazen WTF? issues were identified and addressed.

I may be mistaken, but I think the reason people keep bringing up the "32 to Euclid" issue is not because they misunderstand RTA's intentions or need for money, it's because it literally seems insane to even propose ending the 32 at the Cedar station when Euclid is right there, given the implications. For the cost of sending the bus a couple blocks further, a route would shift from plumb-useless to manageable for a great many people.

 

Common sense should not require a letter-writing campaign. There is a feeling among the peasants that some of this stuff is not even being thought through. This makes the peasants wonder if their sacrifices are in vain, or perhaps less than fully necessary. Maybe the cuts would go down smoother on the whole if the more brazen WTF? issues were identified and addressed.

 

You're not mistaken.  That's exactly why I (and others) brought that up.  The #9 will connect with the Healthline at Cornell and Adelbert, so that transfer is already intact.  The #s 7 and 32 do not go to Euclid, so getting to the Clinic, Midtown, CSU, or eastern downtown becomes a giant pain in the @ss.  The ideal situation, if the 7,9, and 32 MUST be cut off in the UC area is to loop all of them to E. 105th and back since a fair number of people transfer to/from other buses at E. 105th. 

 

Regardless, RTA needs to figure out a way to connect the 7 and the 32 with the Healthline.

I may be mistaken, but I think the reason people keep bringing up the "32 to Euclid" issue is not because they misunderstand RTA's intentions or need for money, it's because it literally seems insane to even propose ending the 32 at the Cedar station when Euclid is right there, given the implications.  For the cost of sending the bus a couple blocks further, a route would shift from plumb-useless to manageable for a great many people. 

 

Common sense should not require a letter-writing campaign.  There is a feeling among the peasants that some of this stuff is not even being thought through.  This makes the peasants wonder if their sacrifices are in vain, or perhaps less than fully necessary.  Maybe the cuts would go down smoother on the whole if the more brazen WTF? issues were identified and addressed.

 

You're not mistaken.  That's exactly why I (and others) brought that up.  The #9 will connect with the Healthline at Cornell and Adelbert, so that transfer is already intact.  The #s 7 and 32 do not go to Euclid, so getting to the Clinic, Midtown, CSU, or eastern downtown becomes a giant pain in the @ss.  The ideal situation, if the 7,9, and 32 MUST be cut off in the UC area is to loop all of them to E. 105th and back since a fair number of people transfer to/from other buses at E. 105th. 

 

Regardless, RTA needs to figure out a way to connect the 7 and the 32 with the Healthline.

 

If we absolutely must end before downtown than E. 105 is as good a point as any . . . frequent connections to one of the better north-south routes, the 10.  (I was about to say the 50 too, but . . . )  :(

 

However . . . the further west we go, the more useful the service becomes.  If we're going to E. 105 anyway, why not the other end of the Clinic (E. 89)?  If there, why not to E. 79 or E. 55 where we can transfer to the industrial areas off St. Clair and Quincy (yes, some people still work in industry)?  If there why not E. 55, then CSU, then downtown?

 

THAT is why I think the whole idea is crazy.  You still have to carry those passengers anyway, and thus have to run the Health Line either more crowded, or more frequently.  Thus you probably are not saving nearly as much $$ as you think, and you're virtually guaranteeing that many of them will abandon RTA.  The cynic in me wonders whether maybe that's part of the plan: make the cuts not as painless as possible, but as pain-FUL as possible, in the probably misguided hope that they'll go screaming to their state reps for more $$$$, instead of the much easier and probably more fruitful option of just getting in their cars and accepting that RTA is no longer relevant to them.

 

And I'm sorry to have to keep bringing this up, but if you want a regional system, not just an inner-city one, you really do need to give people in the 'burbs a reason to continue (if not expand) the funding they are providing now.  If anything you should be reaching out to the outlying counties, via NOACA, and trying to find efficiencies and economies of scale that would engender possible support through the entire region for a genuinely regional, and regionally funded system.

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour.  According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.

 

What "new schedule" would this be? Nothing's been published, or even decided, yet. Please don't make judgments based on supposition until the facts are available.

 

My source is Google Maps' public transit calculator.

With the old 32x, I could get from Cleveland Heights to CSU in about half an hour.  According to the new schedule, I'm looking at at least 50 minutes for the same trip.

 

What "new schedule" would this be? Nothing's been published, or even decided, yet. Please don't make judgments based on supposition until the facts are available.

 

My source is Google Maps' public transit calculator.

 

Neat trick, considering that data hasn't been provided to Google SINCE IT DOESN'T YET EXIST. Currently, attempting to plan a trip after April 3, 2010 properly results in the message "Sorry, we don't have transit schedule data for " your trip.

 

During rush hour (westbound in the morning, eastbound in the evening), the trip between Cedar-Lee and Chester-E 17 on the #32, a good approximation of the "Heights-CSU" leg, is scheduled at a 30-34 minute run time. Outside of that time frame, transfers are necessary, and have been for some time.

 

Extrapolating the current system state to the future, outside of the time and date range for which data is currently available, is not necessarily an accurate reflection of what the reality will be at that time.

Possibly dumb question re: 7/9/32, and perhaps in a perfect world 28 as well (which used to come downtown during peak hours):

 

Given that the main reason they come downtown, or used to, was that a large majority of riders were going downtown, and that it's best for cost as well as all other purposes to make that happen as quickly as possible . . .

 

Also given that, in spite of improved light timing etc., Euclid still is a narrow and very busy street:

 

Would it be an option to route these buses down Chester or Carnegie instead, possibly shaving 5-10 minutes run time off each trip?  Probably stopping only at major destinations and transfer points, not every block or two, since local riders have the HL, 8, 4, 38, etc. which do stop frequently?

 

I know that in a perfect world we'd want to leverage the HealthLine as much as possible.  But it is still, in my view, an improved local bus service, not true bus rapid transit as comparable to for example the Pittsburgh busways.  The HL stops at frequent lights.  It also picks up or drops off every few blocks.  If a bus were behind one coming straight downtown without needing to stop much, it'd be blocked by a HL vehicle pretty much the entire way.

 

Putting 7/9/32/28 down Carnegie or Chester would allow a proper separation between express and local service, and, in my opinion, improve both.

 

So why isn't this option being considered?  Aside from ego, am I missing something obvious?

Your suggestion is logical, but not at all realistic.  The commute down Euclid (by car) is often faster than Chester or Carnegie (no joke) even though the speed limit is 10 mph less because the light timing on Chester and Carnegie is soooooooo awful.  Therefore, it'd probably still cost RTA about the same $$ in gas.