I got another response today, this one a little less form-letter, which is nice:

 

Dear RNR,

 

Thank you for taking time to contact me regarding the need for increased State funding for public transit.

 

A number of residents have voiced their concerns to me about this issue and I understand that the greater reliance on public transportation coupled with increasing unemployment only worsens the impact that these cuts would have on our community.

 

I agree with you that now more than ever, public transportation is in dire need of additional state funding.  As you may know, this year was an incredibly tough year for Ohio's budget overall. However, as a Cuyahoga County legislator, I understand the importance of keeping public transit services funded, especially for Cleveland RTA, and think that this is a priority. I will continue to work with fellow legislators and Governor Strickland to search out comprehensive solutions to ensure that RTA will receive their fair share of funding from the state budget.

 

I know that the Cleveland RTA is holding a series of public hearings on this matter. Regretfully, I was unable to attend the hearing that was held in Parma on January 6th. I did, however,  contact the coordinator of the hearing and put in a request for a transcript of the testimony that was heard and a copy of the written comments. I will review all of the input and share these concerns with my colleagues.

 

Again, I appreciate your concern for Ohio and public transit funding.  Please know I welcome any additional comments or ideas you may have. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Timothy J. DeGeeter

Ohio State Representative

15th Ohio House District

 

I've met Dale Miller and DeGeeter, both seem like stand-up guys.

The commute on Euclid is faster by car, even with the 10 MPH less speed limit, also because there are so many potholes on Carnegie and Chester that you'd be likely to ruin your suspension.  Downtown is like a moonscape these days, and I'd be surprised if some of these buses haven't had several blown tires as a result.

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.

 

I wasn't be clear, I'm sorry.  I didn't extrapolate anything and I wasn't trying to pull a trick on anyone.  I just checked with Google Transit and it spit out a 50 minute trip that did not include the 32 route.  Coincidence, and outside the rush-hour timeframe apparently. 

 

The point I was trying to make is that fifty minutes for a six-mile ride is nowhere near convenient enough to get me onto RTA when I can (and do) make the drive in less than 20.  When I did ride the 32x, even though the trip itself took about 30 minutes, the bus was never on time.  So my "planned" 30-minute trip was closer to 40 or 45 minutes (not including walking to and from stops at each end).  When my circumstances changed, I went back to driving. 

 

Hopefully even if the new route requires a transfer RTA can maintain similar travel times and not lose too many riders during this difficult economy.  If the travel time can be reduced a little, and on-time-ness or frequency increased a lot, then I think RTA would pick up a lot of riders.

 

 

 

 

 

Another example of Cleveland's failed leadership on transit issues:  Rep Dennis Kucinich is withdrawing support for the Clifton BRT/streetscaping project because RTA cancelled the Lakewood circulator routes. 

 

Let's shoot down a major TOD that could reinvigorate a once-great Cleveland neighborhood as well as tie it to the hundreds of millions in new development in Detroit/Shoreway and Downtown, all because of a couple mini bus routes in Lakewood.  Don't get me wrong, I wish RTA's finances were better and the circulators were still there, but Dennis is cutting off the leg to tend to a hangnail.  Using ARRA funds for operating is a short term solution--we need long term!

 

I urge everyone to contact Rep Kucinich on this mistake!

 

Read his letter to the Sun via Cleveland.com:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2010/01/save_the_circulator_restore_me.html

Upon reading the letter, I strongly agree with Dennis.  I think he stated the case well.  Every dollar spent on BRT, regardless of source, is a dollar misspent.  There is no sense in tearing up Clifton for bus! infrastructure! at the same time that actual transit service to Lakewood is withering.  That has the makings of a public relations disaster.  RTA needs to focus on three things:

 

1)  Rail

 

2)  Maintaining existing services

 

3)  Rail

Upon reading the letter, I strongly agree with Dennis.  I think he stated the case well.  Every dollar spent on BRT, regardless of source, is a dollar misspent.  There is no sense in tearing up Clifton for bus! infrastructure! at the same time that actual transit service to Lakewood is withering.  That has the makings of a public relations disaster.  RTA needs to focus on three things:

 

1)  Rail

 

2)  Maintaining existing services

 

3)  Rail

 

I agree with you, but with the current financial state of the city, county and RTA, I wouldn't count on this happening anytime soon.  After all, the point of Dennis letter is the financial mismanagement and lack of service...so he wants to use ARRA funds for operating costs?

 

I'll give you prediction on that if it happens:  RTA brings back one or two circulator routes, and tens of millions of dollars in ARRA funding goes for things like Transit cops standing in Tower City.  Closing budget gaps=stopping layoffs and paying off political supporters (transit and police unions).  You still won't get your rail....and the Clifton/Edgewater neighborhood will continue to crumble....

I would like to hear from RTA on this.  Yes, there are some things that sound like similar frustration on Dennis' end in dealing with RTA.

 

Im still waiting to hear back from someone there about money I may have found for them to deal with some things that they claimed to not have money to deal with.  To not recieve the courtesy of a response, my attitude will soon be "screw them" as well. 

Another example of Cleveland's failed leadership on transit issues:  Rep Dennis Kucinich is withdrawing support for the Clifton BRT/streetscaping project because RTA cancelled the Lakewood circulator routes. 

 

Let's shoot down a major TOD that could reinvigorate a once-great Cleveland neighborhood as well as tie it to the hundreds of millions in new development in Detroit/Shoreway and Downtown, all because of a couple mini bus routes in Lakewood.  Don't get me wrong, I wish RTA's finances were better and the circulators were still there, but Dennis is cutting off the leg to tend to a hangnail.  Using ARRA funds for operating is a short term solution--we need long term!

 

I urge everyone to contact Rep Kucinich on this mistake!

 

Read his letter to the Sun via Cleveland.com:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2010/01/save_the_circulator_restore_me.html

That's not exactly what he said.

 

In 2009, I withdrew my support for a streetscape improvement project on Clifton Boulevard in Cleveland and Lakewood when RTA began marketing the proposal as a Euclid Corridor-style bus-rapid transit project. As a result of my intervention, Cleveland and Lakewood rethought RTAs involvement in the project and renegotiated to secure veto power over anything RTA proposes to ensure that RTA does not disrupt the quality of life in these communities with another Euclid Corridor on Clifton Boulevard.

 

With the new agreement, I restored my support so the project can move forward without the threat of disruption to Clifton Boulevard.

 

Actually I've read his letter a few times and as far as I can tell his point is,

• People are mad about RTA cutting routes,
  
• I'm trying to get RTA some money,
  
• RTA has no money, but needs to bring back the circulator anyway,
  
• RTA should not have used capital funds because they need operating funds.
  

I understand your motivation, I think, but I fail to see how a transit system that *nobody* wants would benefit Clifton.  Where is the public support for BRT?  People turn out in droves to support circulators.  People laugh at the Euclid Corridor.

  People laugh at the Euclid Corridor.

 

What people are those?  The rail proponents on this forum?

 

I'm sure the thousands of people who ride the EC every day don't laugh at the improved service over the "ole #6."

 

Look,  I'm with you on the rail--however it's unrealistic to think we'll ever see any rail built in Cleveland anytime soon.  Even in growth markets with booming economies the funding and overruns make for bad PR and trouble getting new rail projects going.  Look at Dallas.  Look at Charlotte.

 

What we need in Cleveland is anything other than exodus and excuses.  I'm not a fan of BRT either--but given the alternative of nothing happening, I'll take the BRT.  Especially if it includes elements of TOD, which would fit perfectly in the 117th/Clifton area.  The bright side is a project like this could also jump start projects like the West Shoreway and hopefully one-day, yes even rail returning to the Clifton cooridor.

 

 

 

What people are those?  The rail proponents on this forum?

 

I'm sure the thousands of people who ride the EC every day don't laugh at the improved service over the "ole #6."

 

Look,  I'm with you on the rail--however it's unrealistic to think we'll ever see any rail built in Cleveland anytime soon.  Even in growth markets with booming economies the funding and overruns make for bad PR and trouble getting new rail projects going.  Look at Dallas.  Look at Charlotte.

 

What we need in Cleveland is anything other than exodus and excuses.  I'm not a fan of BRT either--but given the alternative of nothing happening, I'll take the BRT.  Especially if it includes elements of TOD, which would fit perfectly in the 117th/Clifton area.  The bright side is a project like this could also jump start projects like the West Shoreway and hopefully one-day, yes even rail returning to the Clifton cooridor.

 

What I see in Dallas and Charlotte is rail getting built and zero people asking for BRT instead.  Tear their streets up to build BRT and see how they react.  If we want West Shore rail, it seems like the best way to obtain that would be to focus our resources on West Shore rail, instead of a parallel and redundant BRT apparatus.  In that sense, Clifton BRT is like Buckeye BRT.  It would compete, 1/2 mile away, with a rail line that we either have or want.

 

As for the EC... its merit is a frequent topic for complete strangers who use it.  I know this because I ride it often.  People randomly start conversations about how dumb they think it is.  For example, they universally do not enjoy waiting for the bus in an artificial wind tunnel.  They would rather wait at a normal bus stop with the old style shelters.  It is in this context that I do most of my "no no, see, the feds paid for it, this thing did not cause you to lose [that service you lost]."  Of course, now I've discovered that that's not entirely true and that I've been lying to people. 

 

I've defended it over and over again, even though I don't like it, because I support RTA and I want the general public to do so as well.  That said, I hate the Euclid Corridor and I hate BRT.  It is fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level.

 

 

What I see in Dallas and Charlotte is rail getting built and zero people asking for BRT instead.  Tear their streets up to build BRT and see how they react.  If we want West Shore rail, it seems like the best way to obtain that would be to focus our resources on West Shore rail, instead of a parallel and redundant BRT apparatus.  In that sense, Clifton BRT is like Buckeye BRT.  It would compete, 1/2 mile away, with a rail line that we either have or want.

 

As for the EC... its merit is a frequent topic for complete strangers who use it.  I know this because I ride it often.  People randomly start conversations about how dumb they think it is.  For example, they universally do not enjoy waiting for the bus in an artificial wind tunnel.  They would rather wait at a normal bus stop with the old style shelters.  It is in this context that I do most of my "no no, see, the feds paid for it, this thing did not cause you to lose [that service you lost]."  Of course, now I've discovered that that's not entirely true and that I've been lying to people. 

 

I've defended it over and over again, even though I don't like it, because I support RTA and I want the general public to do so as well.  That said, I hate the Euclid Corridor and I hate BRT.  It is fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level.

 

Once again, I'm with you on the rail.  I spent some time searching for historical photos of streetcars in Cleveland the other day--the line down the side of Clifton would be ideal!

 

There's one thing to be said about BRT on Clifton--it would be used heavily.  So given the choice of BRT on Clifton (and potential TOD spinoff) and losing the funding to ATU pay increases, or another even worse to another city entirely, which would you choose?

I understand your motivation, I think, but I fail to see how a transit system that *nobody* wants would benefit Clifton.  Where is the public support for BRT?  People turn out in droves to support circulators.  People laugh at the Euclid Corridor.

 

What if instead of calling it "BRT" we called it "improved bus service."  Do you really think no one along the Clifton corridor wants improved bus service?

 

Upon reading the letter, I strongly agree with Dennis.  I think he stated the case well.  Every dollar spent on BRT, regardless of source, is a dollar misspent.  There is no sense in tearing up Clifton for bus! infrastructure! at the same time that actual transit service to Lakewood is withering.  That has the makings of a public relations disaster.  RTA needs to focus on three things:

 

1)  Rail

 

2)  Maintaining existing services

 

3)  Rail

 

Actually, I think you mostly disagree with him.  His complaint about the HL is that fixed guideway transit is very expensive and diverts money from bus operations that are needed to serve the transit dependent.  I'm pretty sure he would make the some complaint about a new rail system too. 

 

If your goal for RTA is purely to provide some level of service to as many people in your congressional district as possible (w/o regard to economic development and quality of service in other districts), his view seems pretty rational.  For those of us who consider RTA as a tool for making the feds fund as much economic development and employment in Cuyahoga County and subsidize as much of our utility infrastructure as possible, he's missing the boat.  Unless there is a radical change in congress, all the money spent building the HL would have gladly served these purposes in some other region.  This may be sickening to fiscal conservatives, but is inescapable.

I just went back and re-read the Kucinich letter and saw the part where he put his support behind it after withdrawing his support.

 

I agree with you Straphanger--well stated argument.  I just wish Dennis could see beyond pandering to the lowest common denominator and look at the bigger picture.  After all, the entire line would be within his district, no?

 

Upon reading the letter, I strongly agree with Dennis. I think he stated the case well. Every dollar spent on BRT, regardless of source, is a dollar misspent. There is no sense in tearing up Clifton for bus! infrastructure! at the same time that actual transit service to Lakewood is withering. That has the makings of a public relations disaster. RTA needs to focus on three things:

 

1) Rail

 

2) Maintaining existing services

 

3) Rail

 

I agree. Start small..work with making what you have the best it can be....and focus on rail. We cannot do the grandiose of we cannot even make the humble as best it can be. There are baiscs RTA is not getting right at the moment that no amount of funding will fix. I alluded to this earlier in posts.

So lose Federal funding in favor of the dream of new light rail in Cleveland?

 

I'd opt for BRT over nothing....

 

Just remember--the last time RTA went with new light rail--we got the "practice run to nowhere" aka the Waterfront Line.

So lose Federal funding in favor of the dream of new light rail in Cleveland?

 

I'd opt for BRT over nothing....

 

Just remember--the last time RTA went with new light rail--we got the "practice run to nowhere" aka the Waterfront Line.

 

Sounds like you're sipping the Calabrese Kool Aid bigtime... Yeah, why don't we continue lowballing ourselves, setting our sites low (more like having them set low for us), and go into our all-too-typical "beggars can't be choosy" mode.  When we continue to settle for the mediocre, the damage is often next to impossible to undo.  Meanwhile Rus Belt neighbors Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Minny-St. Paul are opting for rail while people like you dismiss those of us who are silly enough to believe we can/should expand upon the rail transit base we have as hopeless pie-in-the-sky "dreamers".  And, oh yeah Cleburger, did you notice car-crazy LA dumpted BRT Santa Monica extension plans in favor of good old fashion steel-rail LRT? 

 

And, yeah Cleburger, let's do Calabrese thing one better, why dontcha.  Let's once again drag out that tired old anti-rail rant of trashing the Waterfront Line -- of course ignoring the fact that TOD development has not been properly studied or developed for the line, which smartly was built to serve what should be the most desirable areas, development-wise of town: our waterfront.  Nevermind that, even now, high-density Flats East Bank development is poised to rise next to the WFL's Flats East Bank station despite the credit collapse...

 

It's thinking like yours, Cleburger, that keeps Cleveland perpetually mediocre.

So lose Federal funding in favor of the dream of new light rail in Cleveland?

 

I'd opt for BRT over nothing....

 

Just remember--the last time RTA went with new light rail--we got the "practice run to nowhere" aka the Waterfront Line.

 

Sounds like you're sipping the Calabrese Kool Aid bigtime... Yeah, why don't we continue lowballing ourselves, setting our sites low (more like having them set low for us), and go into our all-too-typical "beggars can't be choosy" mode.  When we continue to settle for the mediocre, the damage is often next to impossible to undo.  Meanwhile Rus Belt neighbors Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Minny-St. Paul are opting for rail while people like you dismiss those of us who are silly enough to believe we can/should expand upon the rail transit base we have as hopeless "dreamers".  And, oh yeah Cleburger, did you notice car-crazy LA dumpted BRT Santa Monica extension plans in favor of good old fashion steel-rail LRT? 

 

And, yeah Cleburger, let's do Calabrese thing one better, why dontcha.  Let's once again drag out that tired old anti-rail rant of trashing the Waterfront Line -- of course ignoring the fact that TOD development has not been properly studied or developed for the line, which smartly was built to serve what should be the most desirable areas, development-wise of town: our waterfront.  Nevermind that, even now, high-density Flats East Bank development is poised to rise next to the WFL's Flats East Bank station despite the credit collapse...

 

It's thinking like yours, Cleburger, that keeps Cleveland perpetually mediocre.

 

I'll repete, Clvlndr--that I support the expansion of rail with open arms.

 

However, and I am unaware of the rail expansion in other rust belt towns you speak of, other than Minneapolis, which I don't consider to be very rust belt. 

 

So in the use-it-or-lose-it age of federal funding, as Strap pointed out above, I'd rather have BRT on Clifton that the current pothole ridden, sidewalk crumbling scene we have now.

 

Interesting comparison of the Waterfront Line as well--which was completed in the Flats heyday in the mid 1990's, and here we are 15 years later with a stalled project and still no development happening.  Now that's what I call TOD!  ;)

The bottom line is that all of us need to aspire to be more than mediocre and stop allowing patterns of the past to type cast us in so many ways...that has us telling ourselves all the time...."we can only be, and will always be" whatever. Sometimes aspiring to be more than mediocre requires us to not actually shoot for all the graodiose, BUT to be the BEST at what we already have, build upon it from there. In this case, the philosophy can be applied to bettering the rail service and expansding it to serve a broader demographic. This philosoophy needs to be infused into the mental makeup of so many Clevelanders/N.E. Ohians in general, s we're really all one big connected family.

 

I also don't know why people are so down on the waterfront line. Sure, right now it seems pointless....BUT.... how conveniently forgotten is it that this line was created at a time The flats entertainment area was at a peak, hence it made sense as so much pedestrian activity was focussed there. With the east bank's transition and reinvention period that we witness now, naturally, it seems that the line is pointless. But, with the new things happening, I am glad such infrastructure is already in place, as there will surely be an urbanscape created that would warrant the need for such a line. So let's stop poo pooing this line, folks. It can serve a valued purpose.  I'll take rail/train over these pretend busses and buses disguised as trolleys anyday!

^Who disagrees with trying to maximize what we get out of our current transportation infrastructure (within budget)?

 

As for the WFL: yes, most people prefer rail to buses too, but only when it follows a route that fits their needs.  People trash the WFL because we (not the feds, but we, local taxpayers) paid for a fixed route system that serves no-one's needs right now and was only marginally useful when built.  To date, the line has been an epic failure- there is not a single metric by which it is a success.  It's the kind of failure that makes Randal O'Toole smile when he goes to bed at night.  I hope someday there is enough residential/employment density in FEB and the port property that the WFL has respectable ridership, but I predict that time is still a way's off, and even for a rail fan like me, it's hard to celebrate spending money in 1995 for something that may be useful in 2015. 

 

We've discussed the WFL ad nauseum here, and I accept that people feel very differently about it.  What I don't understand is why its critics are "anti rail" or lack vision or have short memories, etc.  If you think Cleburger is wrong and that the WFL's failure hasn't eroded the credibility of rail enthusiasts in Cleveland, than say "no one notices how bad the WFL's ridership is because it's full for those 8 home games a year" or "they'll forget when ridership booms in 20 years."  But don't say "why are people picking on this line?" when it carried so few passengers.

^ Never said anyone was wrong...  Never said the WFL is not flawed...Never said it has not eroded credibility of rail, or that overall it is not a failure to date.... . I am simply saying that after all the bickering and complaining, it will likely have a strong need as the Flats are transformed for the future. Also, when it as built, it was speculated that such as you describe that would dictate the need...and be the case in the flats...Ie:...more living there, etc. so then it would have served a need. Maybe we placed the cart before the horse, though. If there is something to visit the flats that has worth, like more family venues, food, shops, gallery, residences, small museums, and unique things that are distinctly "Flats"....and we had no rail with all that set out, then we'd be griping on how much such a district should be served by rail. Maybe it was simply built at the wrong time as The Flats were destined to fail as I predicted in 1988 when they were making it a party haven only with no diversity. I knew that would grow thin and get old...eventually die. Maybe we can get it right this time.

 

On another note... and I say this because we all want good projects to happen and be a sucess for years to come.......and  just to make an analogy, the same way this rail has eroded credibility for rail, so would a "Jacob's aquarium" erode credibility for support for a REAL and respcted iconic and highly visited publicly supported aquarium. Yes, it is a different topic, but just pointing it out the similarities because the WFL as much a failure as it apprarently is, an aquarium in a ph could wind up in the same category. What the WFL is to rail, the PH is to an aquarium. So I hope the same who poo poo the WFL will not be supporters of Jacob's haphazzard attempt at an aquarium that would be like a bad remake of a classic film.

 

Sorry, now back on topic.

The waterfront line is great, as long as it goes somewhere... which it doesn't.  We just abruptly stopped with that project, after spending a ton on it, and swithced over to BRT.  We've also spent a lot on other infrascructure like new stations and shelters, not to mention the infamous fare machines.  Meanwhile that rail line just ends in a parking lot.  This planning is all higgledy piggledy. 

I'm still with you 327.  As stated many times above, I'd love to see rail down Clifton once more.  The Detroit/Clifton area is some of the highest-density living in Cleveland, and I think it would be a great investment in the area.  I love the old photos of the streetcars traveling down the side of Clifton Blvd rather than the center.  What I wouldn't give to see that again.

 

But, as a resident of the area, I have self-serving interests.  BRT or nothing? If the feds dangled funding for BRT down Clifton I would choose BRT rather than do nothing at all and let the neighborhood die (as it is now).

 

I'm sure it's been discussed in other threads, but once the BRT right of way has been established, wouldn't it be easier to add in rail at a later date?  Maybe that should be pushed as a part of the design feature?

BRT:  Bus Rapid Transit, right?  Why is it that the word "rapid" is put in there when the bus is basically at the mercy of accompanying traffic and the lights?  Why isn't it just called, "increased bus service?"

Because it isn't necessarily at the mercy of traffic and signals. The traffic lights are intended to interact with the buses. Some BRTs have no traffic lights at all, at least where this is room for complete separation from intersections....

 

Ottawa, Canada...

 

Bogota, Columbia...

 

Bejing, China...

Those look great, but our BRT is regrettably in the category of being at the mercy of traffic signals and the accompanying traffic.  How many times have I been on the HealthLine where we've sat at the traffic light (after all the doors have closed) for nearly 90 seconds or more waiting for the "unique" HealthLine signal to change to its triangle or rhombus shape to permit the bus to continue.  Shouldn't the bus be able to signal the light to change fairly quickly once the doors have shut?  If not, there's nothing more "rapid" about it than me in my Honda Civic traveling down Euclid at my leisure.

Because it isn't necessarily at the mercy of traffic and signals. The traffic lights are intended to interact with the buses. Some BRTs have no traffic lights at all, at least where this is room for complete separation from intersections....

So then, the Healthline isn't BRT, just a nice bus, because the few times I've ridden there's been little to no interaction with the lights.

This discrepancy between what we were sold and what we received is an issue we simply must address.  The idea of going forward with more of this "technology" before doing so is sheer madness.

Sure, right now it seems pointless....BUT.... how conveniently forgotten is it that this line was created at a time The flats entertainment area was at a peak, hence it made sense as so much pedestrian activity was focussed there. With the east bank's transition and reinvention period that we witness now, naturally, it seems that the line is pointless. But, with the new things happening, I am glad such infrastructure is already in place, as there will surely be an urbanscape created that would warrant the need for such a line.

 

That does not appear to have happened at most of the Red Line stations, esp. on the East Side.  On the West Side, many stations are surrounded by parking and/or industrial sites that could not be easily be redeveloped.  So TOD in the Flats area, while desirable, is not inevitable.  In fact, if I were a developer, I would consider the existing transit service in the area to be a liability, not an asset, since the WFL does not even run all day during the week, and the area is only modestly served by existing bus lines.  The trolleys are supported by corporate sponsorships which could disappear at any time leaving the area with almost no coverage at all.  I'd want, as a developer, legally binding guarantees to bring back the WFL and to guarantee some minimal amount of additional coverage (probably trolleys + existing 22/26, 55, etc. would suffice if guaranteed not to disappear).

^Those are good points.  And related to them: I would predict that moving employees from the city's traditional CBD to the new FEB office tower is going to be a net negative for RTA ridership in the near term because it's pulling people further away from Public Square and the main bus routes and instead putting them in what is more or less an isolated pocket of development surrounded by parking.  A really bad outcome from the first phase of FEB. IMHO, would be RTA getting pressured to resume full time service on the WFL at the expense of other operations because there's new development, even if it generates only a few riders.

I have to agree about the Euclid Avenue BRT.  Even if there is interaction with the traffic signals, it is so poorly implemented that I can't imagine that the bus would run any slower if they just obeyed the natural cycles of the lights (such as the Green Line east of Shaker Square).  As someone who has always been interested in traffic flow and systems engineering, I can't imagine how we can have timed lights on Carnegie but we can't get the lights on Euclid Avenue to work even remotely close to how they should.

IIRC, I believe I read or heard something a month or two ago that said the traffic lights on Euclid Ave. had been changed in deference to the automobile traffic. And that this change had obviously added time to the HL's trip up and down Euclid, albeit a small amount depending on the time of day.

I think they were getting complaints from car drivers about too much stop-n-go driving...

 

Once Euclid gets redeveloped and is more dense/has more users of public transportation, I'm sure the buses will win out in the traffic-light game.

Unless everything is knocked down without any immediate rebuilding...then we get the ruralizing of Euclid...then it's anybody's guess as to the traffic lights. But I digress.

I think they were getting complaints from car drivers about too much stop-n-go driving...

 

Huh?  Why would they listen?  Most through automobile traffic takes Carnegie, Prospect/Carnegie, or Chester.

 

 

  Most through automobile traffic takes Carnegie, Prospect/Carnegie, or Chester.

 

I think that's kinda why. Sitting in a car on an almost-vacant Euclid Ave. between E. 30th and E. 79th (honestly, which is the way it is a large chunk of the day) waiting at lights and doing the stop-n-go thing made no sense.

It discouraged automobile traffic from using Euclid.

You're right, the remaining people that used Euclid Ave. left Euclid during the Corridor construction (they had to...it was off limits in places) and are now using the other streets you mentioned. The way I interpreted it was that we need people (in cars, in buses, on foot) back on Euclid. Trying to make it more user-friendly for all, at least for the time being.

 

I don't see how it's a zero-sum game between buses and cars on Euclid.  If one can go straight at a given time, why can't they all?  What traffic issue would stop a westbound bus, but not a westbound car, or vice versa?  The only cars who should be inconvenienced by a timing system favoring buses are those needing to cross the bus lanes, i.e. those turning left off of Euclid, those crossing Euclid, and those turning left onto Euclid from a side street.  The timing system, if functional, should only have benefical effects on cars going the same way the bus is going.  It becomes a little more complicated on the Case end of the system, as right turns are affected too, but straight is still straight for all vehicles.

 

I don't recall the signal timing EVER working as planned, and I distinctly remember the explanation being that kinks and bugs were getting worked out and that the timing would improve.  I also remember asking whether contract remedies with the vendor were being pursued, and I don't know if that was ever looked into.  It ought to be front page news, along with the fare machines.  I feel like we're getting ripped off by these vendors and our rights are not being advocated.

Reminds me of the lack of separate lanes for the HL through University Circle.  To sum up: we're going to improve transit speed on Euclid by giving the HL its own lanes and prioritized signals at the expense of auto traffic.  Except where it actually inconveniences auto traffic.

 

I still think the HL was worth doing, but the promise of dependable high speed flew out the window as soon as the map of station locations was released during the planning phase.  There are about 23 stations in the 5 miles of Euclid from public square to the the Red Line overpass at the eastern edge of University Circle.  Add in all the traffic lights without stations and it's easy to understand why the light timing and bunching are issues.

 

Would be great if we could eliminate a few lights along the route though.  Maybe turn E22ind into a two way street and keep E 20th from crossing the HL right of way (maybe a ped cut though).

I'm still with you 327.  As stated many times above, I'd love to see rail down Clifton once more.  The Detroit/Clifton area is some of the highest-density living in Cleveland, and I think it would be a great investment in the area.  I love the old photos of the streetcars traveling down the side of Clifton Blvd rather than the center.  What I wouldn't give to see that again.

 

But, as a resident of the area, I have self-serving interests.  BRT or nothing? If the feds dangled funding for BRT down Clifton I would choose BRT rather than do nothing at all and let the neighborhood die (as it is now).

 

I'm sure it's been discussed in other threads, but once the BRT right of way has been established, wouldn't it be easier to add in rail at a later date?  Maybe that should be pushed as a part of the design feature?

 

It would be difficult to get BRT established if RTA ends weekend/evening service on the 55.  Other communities may cry foul if a corridor that doesn't have seven-day-a-week bus service gets something like BRT. 

I don't see how it's a zero-sum game between buses and cars on Euclid.  If one can go straight at a given time, why can't they all?  What traffic issue would stop a westbound bus, but not a westbound car, or vice versa?  The only cars who should be inconvenienced by a timing system favoring buses are those needing to cross the bus lanes, i.e. those turning left off of Euclid, those crossing Euclid, and those turning left onto Euclid from a side street.  The timing system, if functional, should only have benefical effects on cars going the same way the bus is going.  It becomes a little more complicated on the Case end of the system, as right turns are affected too, but straight is still straight for all vehicles.

 

I don't recall the signal timing EVER working as planned, and I distinctly remember the explanation being that kinks and bugs were getting worked out and that the timing would improve.  I also remember asking whether contract remedies with the vendor were being pursued, and I don't know if that was ever looked into.  It ought to be front page news, along with the fare machines.  I feel like we're getting ripped off by these vendors and our rights are not being advocated.

 

If they did change the light timing for cars, it's worse now, especially in MidTown.  If you are stopped at the E. 30th light going eastbound, if you don't (or the d-bag in front of you doesn't) step on it to accelerate to about 30mph within a couple seconds, you will get stuck at the light at E. 36th.  The same thing happens again trying to get to E. 40th.  So I'm not sure what the heck they did to change the car signals (if anything), but I actually think it's worse now.

 

 

It would be difficult to get BRT established if RTA ends weekend/evening service on the 55.  Other communities may cry foul if a corridor that doesn't have seven-day-a-week bus service gets something like BRT. 

 

They can cry foul, but as Dennis Kucinich is complaining, the ARRA funds cannot be used for operating costs.  I understand the argument, but that's the rules of the game.  Another infastructure investment in the future could boost ridership on RTA and lead to increased revenue in the future.  We should also hope that the economy and sales tax revenues come back enough to cover any population loss during this downturn....

The Greater Greater Washington blog had a post today about the resignation of Metro head John Catoe. One interesting point, which should be of interest to Cleveland, was about the marketing efforts of the Los Angeles Metro (which Catoe used to head).

 

"In a city obsessed with image, the LA Metro aggressively brands itself. Billboards across the city show "sexy" Metro Rapid buses and boast of the faster service. Coffeehouse baristas in uber-hip Silver Lake wear Metro T-shirts. And the county's 191 bus routes are broken down into three color-coordinated services. Metro Local buses are painted orange and stop every few blocks. Metro Rapid buses are painted red and have stops about a mile apart. And Metro Express buses, painted blue, run on freeways and make few stops at all.

 

As a result, 1.2 million people ride the bus each day, or more than the subway and bus in D.C. combined. The agency claims that ridership on the 26 Metro Rapid routes has increased 40%, travel times have dropped by 29%, and one-third of the system's new riders are people who've never used transit before."

 

Think what RTA might accomplish if it made a tenth the effort.

 

Here's the link

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=4638

The Greater Greater Washington blog had a post today about the resignation of Metro head John Catoe. One interesting point, which should be of interest to Cleveland, was about the marketing efforts of the Los Angeles Metro (which Catoe used to head).

 

"In a city obsessed with image, the LA Metro aggressively brands itself. Billboards across the city show "sexy" Metro Rapid buses and boast of the faster service. Coffeehouse baristas in uber-hip Silver Lake wear Metro T-shirts. And the county's 191 bus routes are broken down into three color-coordinated services. Metro Local buses are painted orange and stop every few blocks. Metro Rapid buses are painted red and have stops about a mile apart. And Metro Express buses, painted blue, run on freeways and make few stops at all.

 

As a result, 1.2 million people ride the bus each day, or more than the subway and bus in D.C. combined. The agency claims that ridership on the 26 Metro Rapid routes has increased 40%, travel times have dropped by 29%, and one-third of the system's new riders are people who've never used transit before."

 

Think what RTA might accomplish if it made a tenth the effort.

 

Here's the link

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=4638

 

I'm not sure about that.

I'm not in town enough to form an opinion about RTA's marketing efforts, but I like the sound of LA Metro's marketing.

 

Who knows if it would help build ridership, but IMHO, the branding of the HL has not been helped by its invisible color palate- both for the vehicles and for the stations.  Maybe RTA latched onto the "Silver Line" working name and just couldn't stray from it.

 

 

If I were redesigning RTA from scratch I would recognize that downtown commutes, local trips and longer-distance work trips require very different kinds of service, and target very distinct groups of users.  I'd definitely bring back the distinction between local and express service, with the former dominating in the city and inner suburbs and express service (including some longer-distance, crossdown, diagonal and circular routes) dominating everywhere else.  I'd find a way to make express service a viable and even preferable alternative to freeway travel, and at least during peak periods I'd make sure NO ONE ever felt a need to drive downtown.  LA Metro seems to have the right idea here, while GCRTA seems to be moving in the opposite direction for reasons I completely fail to understand.

I didn't even know RTA had a marketing department.  Other than the buses driving around town, I don't see much in the way of "getting the word out."

I didn't even know RTA had a marketing department.  Other than the buses driving around town, I don't see much in the way of "getting the word out."

If you don't have money in your budget, how do you advertise/market?  It's one of the first things cut.  At a state run agency where you budget must be balanced, how would you affectively market?

 

How would you formulate a plan?  It's easy to sit back and critize but it's really hard to put a extensive omni media plan together with only X dollars and not a cent more.

 

It's happening everywhere, not just at RTA.

I'm just pointing out that I don't see any sort of marketing... and yeah, there's no money -- I get it!

 

I know there's a city policy against the bus shelters being "sold" to sponsors, but is that policy something that the transit agency could address with the City of Cleveland?  Perhaps if that policy were easily lifted, RTA could sell advertising on the bus shelters throughout town to generate some money.  This wouldn't be unlike the ads on the sides of the buses.  I have to say, having the shelters sport some kind of ad on them would be a big improvement over what some of them look like right now.  I can't imagine the City of Cleveland would oppose lifting this policy, given the transit agency's ongoing struggle with cash.

I'm just pointing out that I don't see any sort of marketing... and yeah, there's no money -- I get it!

 

I know there's a city policy against the bus shelters being "sold" to sponsors, but is that policy something that the transit agency could address with the City of Cleveland?  Perhaps if that policy were easily lifted, RTA could sell advertising on the bus shelters throughout town to generate some money.  This wouldn't be unlike the ads on the sides of the buses.  I have to say, having the shelters sport some kind of ad on them would be a big improvement over what some of them look like right now.  I can't imagine the City of Cleveland would oppose lifting this policy, given the transit agency's ongoing struggle with cash.

 

Now you're preaching to the choir!  I 100% agree.  Why can't this law be changed?  I wonder if RTA has approached the city?

  I can't imagine the City of Cleveland would oppose lifting this policy, given the transit agency's ongoing struggle with cash.

 

In fact, the city appears very opposed to this idea.  the city made a deal for exclusive advertising on the triangular kiosks a few years ago, and attempts to expand the program to provide revenue for rta, recycling containers, uniform newspaper machines (the "nice" street elements you may see in other cities supported in part by ad revenue) were all rejected by the city.

 

it is a good question, and one that more people should be asking the city why this isn't happening.  to be fair, there are downsides (real and perceived) of cluttering the ROW with additional advertising, which the city stands behind.

  I can't imagine the City of Cleveland would oppose lifting this policy, given the transit agency's ongoing struggle with cash.

 

In fact, the city appears very opposed to this idea.  the city made a deal for exclusive advertising on the triangular kiosks a few years ago, and attempts to expand the program to provide revenue for rta, recycling containers, uniform newspaper machines (the "nice" street elements you may see in other cities supported in part by ad revenue) were all rejected by the city.

 

it is a good question, and one that more people should be asking the city why this isn't happening.  to be fair, there are downsides (real and perceived) of cluttering the ROW with additional advertising, which the city stands behind.

Design standards can be set in place.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.