^That reminds me- it will be interesting to see how the route cuts impact train ridership in general.  I need to remember to check the Q2 APTA reports later this  year.

FYI -- a story in the Portland, OR paper talks about accidents with left-hand turns and how the local transit system isn't "taking action" like other systems. And the article cites Cleveland

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/05/left-turn_accidents_like_fatal.html

 

And if you read all the way to the end, it sure looks like they got a local fact wrong

 

"Since adopting its new operating policies in March 2003, Cleveland's Regional Transit Authority hasn't had a single bus-and-pedestrian collision. "We usually have three or four a year," said RTA spokesman Jerry Masek. "

 

I'm from Portland... I hope the city doesn't ruin its excellent, pleasant downtown areas with talking and beeping buses.  And I hope The Oregonian corrects its error in the article about the RTA casualty rate.

I have noticed something along the Healthline that I am wondering if anyone is noticing. The section I witnessed approximately around where Mayfield Rd. meets 322 (Euclid) and going east.... a GREAT number of the trees that were planted in the medians and sides appear to be either dead or dying. Young trees like this usually sprout early and healthy and if dying or struggling...must be properly pruned to encourage the sap to the healthy parts of the tree and upward.

 

Anyway, these trees have not been there very long.....and when such a large number is planted there is sure to be some that don't make it....However, there seemed to be far too many that were dead or dying. I am sure all these cost plenty. If newly planted young city-scape trees are not properly looked after, many will die. Such seems the case here. I used to serve on a municipal arbor commission and learned this sort of thing working with that.

 

This is such a nice tree streetscape and when mature, will surely help to cut down on the noise and air pollution from vehicles, as well as add beauty/value. But this can only be possible if they're looked after and don't all end up dying. What another unnecessary stain on the Healthline project if that would happen. How about the "health" of the trees on the line? 

 

Its hard to miss when looking specifically for the situation. These trees may have some sort of warranty from the nursery on living for at least a certain amount of time. One section, most all were dead and I do know the difference between a dead tree and one that has not yet blossomed. The latter is very likely not the case here.

 

At any rate, maybe the urban forester Alan Seiwert, who last I checked worked out of ODNR's Middlefield office, should be consulted? He is in the Division of Forestry and helps many municipalities, including Cleveland (has helped) draft tree legislation/planting plans, care, etc. I have his contact details if anyone needs them. (PM me)

 

 

Does anyone know anything about this situation?

 

Jerry, are you aware of this?

 

 

 

By the way, on a side note.. "Cleveland1979" said: "I'm from Portland... I hope the city doesn't ruin its excellent, pleasant downtown areas with talking and beeping buses.  And I hope The Oregonian corrects its error in the article about the RTA casualty rate."

I am glad I am not the only one who recognizes the ridiculousness of that. Better drivers who look for pedestrians and get off their cell phones will erase the supposed need for a "talking bus." I have written about that one too.....many reasons why such is overkill and totally unnecessary.

^Thanks for the report about the trees.  Definitely worth watching and investigating.

Quite a few are dead in the Downtown section between East 4th and East 9th, as well.

I hope this does not have the supposed crown jewel of the Cleveland transit system... be one of many things that could possibly have this line looking like crap in just a few years. You can renovate a home, building or street, etc.......that's just the first part.....the other 90% is about follow up...follow up...follow up...follow up. We really need to improve on this sort of thing in Cleveland. And, I hope we don't read something in the Plain Dealer that would say something like "RTA officials were not aware of the dead trees" :-o

 

Jerry.. the trees are dead/dying. Call Alan Seiwert.

^At the same time, I hope the PD does pick this up and investigate a little: what kinds of trees are these?  Are they under warranty (or whatever the tree equivalent is).  Was it something about the trees themselves (bad specimen, poor treatment, etc) or the conditions of their planting location? 

 

I've heard from non-local landscape architects that downtown Cleveland is one of the most hostile locations in the country for trees because of wind, shadow and heavy winter salting, but we've had generations to find ways to make it work.

^ I agree.... It would be annoying though to hear "unaware of" when it is so pervasive and easy to see. This suggests no one is paying attention. There are several hearty species that can withstand the urban elements as you have indicated....and roads are overkilled on salt/slag anyway. Cities like Minneapolis/Chicago face similar challenges so I hope the elements do not become an excuse to not plant/replace any.

 

Again, this is what Alan does in his consulting. He is NOT a landscape guy. There is a difference between landscaping people and an urban forester professional who works with cities on choosing appropriate species...tries to select appropriate native ones when applicable, possible and appropriate. 

 

They're more into the science of it all...the soil, climate, etc... He has worked with Cleveland arbor situations before. I wonder if he did this time. The service is through the Ohio Division of Forestry. I am sure someone did some consulting in this way and I would still hope the supplier of the trees would have had some sort of warranty.

 

But most definitely this should be looked into by the paper...But let's make RTA aware first so the paper won't print "they were not aware"

Quite a few are dead in the Downtown section between East 4th and East 9th, as well.

 

Lol, I opened up the thread and my browser put this as the top post.  I'd forgotten that we were talking about trees and for a split second I thought that I'd missed a terrorist attack on Cleveland.

^  :laugh:

But most definitely this should be looked into by the paper...But let's make RTA aware first so the paper won't print "they were not aware"

 

My guess is RTA doensn't have the authority over the trees, much like the crumbling concrete.  I'm sure the buck will be passed to the city, who will claim that THEY were not aware.... :)

^ Exactly my point...whomever this would be directed to will likely say its not their job or just something to that effect. We need a little bit of Joe Clarkism around here.

What RTA needs to consider is empowering strong brand managers across key routes/services.  I know that they introduced the concept of a "brand manager" for the HealthLine, but I'm not sure how much power that position has, and i think it is more internally focused.

 

A brand manager for the HealthLine (and others such as the Red Line, Blue Line, Green Line, (maybe some combined?), park and ride services) would have the ultimate responsibility for the entire line, including things outside of RTA's control.  Customer complaints, running times, street condition, bus/rail condition, landscaping, ticket machines, litter, etc. - basically everything. 

 

They would tell the city to fix broken traffic lights, as it is impacting the service b/c they are monitoring the running times; they would instruct RTA police, operations, maintenance to respond to specific requests to make sure that the brand is kept strong.

 

Maybe going as far as having their picture and contact information on vehicles and stations, suggesting that riders contact them to resolve any issues.  This would be a key externally customer facing position, which interfaces with everything on the line, and would be empowered to make/demand improvements, as well as be held to high standards.

 

talking buses?  automated voices/announcements?  rail corridor litter?  traffic light timing on euclid?  ticket vending machine problems?  dirty station?  graffiti?  basically everything would fall under their supervision.

You mean there is nothing like this now? Seems like a real plan/idea.

Yeah but they shouldn't need additional management personnel for things so basic to their operations.  Unless they're hiring me, of course.  Then it makes perfect sense.

^ This is why I was surprised above. I thought they would have had this sort of thing in place already...its called "management" Such should be a part of everyday operations, but when standards become well below average....and once they're back to average...average seems like something over the top to be expecting.

 

Its kind of analogous to how good some people would think the Browns are if they achieve an 8-8 (which is an achievement for them!) record only because we have stunk up the joint for so long with well below average. In that case, mediocrity seems like a pillar achievement. This is the thinking we need to change here...the kind that is the acceptance of mediocrity as the norm just because its "Cleveland" and that we should not expect anything else. Its chronically toxic thinking and must go.

 

327...  I really think you would be a good candidate for overseeing such management.

^ This is why I was surprised above. I thought they would have had this sort of thing in place already...its called "management" Such should be a part of everyday operations, but when standards become well below average....and once they're back to average...average seems like something over the top to be expecting.

 

imo, the problem is that there are too many departments and external factors that overlap (not unique to rta), that no 1 person has the ultimate responsibility and accountability over the performance or appearance of the service(s), except the CEO, who then has to react, and is concerned with 100 other bigger picture things, like union contracts, budget deficits, etc. 

 

additionally, each of the depts has their own priorities, fires to put out, and possibly internal disfunctions or morale issues, that seemingly small things like litter, dead trees, etc. aren't considered important (or are number 45 on a list of important things) or are outside of rta's control. 

 

at the end of the day, rta runs hundreds of buses and trains each day, generally on time, without accidents, etc., and they are doing a decent job of this.  however, as many have suggested here, there is a strong desire that rta expand the vision of its responsibilities to more explicitly include the impact on the community, whether it be the talking buses, litter, or customer experiences.  in some cases, rta is being asked to do what the city of cleveland should already be doing on its own.

 

a strong brand manager role, or reprogramming and the existing role, to empower this type of oversight would go a long way to address a number of the types of complaints and observations that are frequently identified here.

Should anyone care to remember garbage/graffiti along the Blue line tracks from the airport to Terminal Tower was so bad in the 1980's that a volunteer organization was formed to clean it up-Rapid Recovery.  It has now morphed into Park Works and doesn't/won't have anything to do with cleaning up the rapid tracks.  This has been a long time problem. 

 

Blue line and the airport?  :wtf:

 

Arrgh! Red line, I meant Red line. 

All of which taints the image of public trasnsport here...and certainly cannot help with attracting future funding...future ridership... Many things people see as little things are the genesis for the more familiar bigger things. The house may be old and worn, but it can at least be clean, functional and efficient. This is what we actually did have....but now it is getting to where that basic element is diminishing. I just don't see how not taking a pro-active stance toward all the above is conducive to a healthier RTA.

Our talking buses were just presented with some kind of award.  Today's PD Tipoff column mentioned this.  It didn't say what kind of award or where from. 

 

Coming soon:  bridges that say "Bridge is high.  Do not jump off.  Caution!  Bridge... is high."

Maybe they gave themselves an award?

^http://www.riderta.com/nu_newsroom_releases.asp?listingid=1431

APTA’s 2010 Bus Safety Awards will also be presented at this time. RTA will receive a Gold Award for its innovations in bus safety, particularly left-hand turns.

Are you kidding?  That is unreal.

I find that the incessant loudspeakerized propaganda forces people to essentially tune out all sound.  How, in the name of all that is twisted and unholy, could that POSSIBLY improve the safety of anyone????

I saw another bus sitting perfectly still this morning making the announcement that it was turning.  SITTING STILL.

Let's make this clear, Calabrese & Friends have not proven these talking buses improve safety.

Let's make this clear, Calabrese & Friends have not proven these talking buses improve safety.

 

They do not improve safety.  They reduce liability. 

Let's make this clear, Calabrese & Friends have not proven these talking buses improve safety.

 

They do not improve safety.  They are an attempt to reduce liability. 

 

Fixed that for you.

They don't even necessarily reduce liability.  Wait until there is a major accident involving cars and pedestrians, that turns out to have been caused by the stupid "Bus is Turning.  Bus is Turning" crap. 

I feel sorry for the bus drivers. They probably hear those friggin' announcements in their sleep.

 

It's like the guy who drives the ice cream truck with that damn music playing all the time. I'm waiting for one the drivers to short-circuit one day and blame the music for the bloodbath.

 

BTW: why do ice cream trucks play their music so loudly? So people outside the truck can't the hear the children screaming inside the truck.

The talking buses are absolute rubbish and an example of technology run amuck! It just adds more unnecessary and confusing and sometimes frightening noise levels that, that when jumbled with all the other noise, makes it difficult to distinguish anything at all. You don't increase safety by getting louder and louder to the point device "A" has to be louder than device "B"...and so on and so on...and the cycle continues.

 

You want to improve safety? Hire better drivers, period! I have witnessed time and time again RTA drivers making completely asinine maneuvers on the road...while NOT in heavy traffic, so there was really no need to force any way into a lane or position they needed to be in.

 

If anyone thinks this "improves safety" or really reduces liability, I would suggest getting better informed about excessive/unnecessary noise issues and their relevance to safety. Check out www.noiseoff.org  and become better informed. Talking buses are a result of a mere assumption that such would make things safer or somehow reduce liability...and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports it.

 

 

This assumption that the buses will be safer or that this will reduce liability is the same or very similar to the  "loud pipes saves lives"  battle cry with bikers who illegally modify their pipes to not be in accordance with the federal EPA stamping law on the bike chassis. Pipes are altered to not only be intentionally over the top brain splitting loud, (downright frightening to a pedestrian) but are altered to a point where they may very well be violating the clean air act. Google "The Hurt Report" and this report will sink the ideology that louder means safer. It is a masterpiece and proves in physics why it is impossible. Best of all, it was posted in a motorcycle magazine!

 

 

Be it known too, that in San Fran, there is the beginning of a small movement to can these talking buses. Again...want to reduce liability or increase safety? Then hire drivers who are less of a liability who will perhaps pull the i-pods out of their ears and put the cell phones down so their peripheral senses are working at full capacity!

 

 

Although I am not advocating for any pedestrians who, in a seemingly daring fashion (Dare you to knock this battery off my shoulder!), walk right out in heavy fast moving traffic...we must remember that at cross walks it is traffic that needs to slow down for pedestrians, instead of the other way around as is the common perception of a culture that has become so auto-dependent.

 

Question.....What about all the dead trees? Is that a point/topic that will somehow be evaded by RTA? I haven't forgotten.

Oh, they don't reduce liability in real life, only in terms of laywers and lawsuits.  Now they can argue "we're not at fault! We had a verbal warning!"  I really can't believe anyone is really arguing that they legitimately help anything except RTA's legal position.

^ Oh yeah, good observation. I completely agree on that part... that it is some kind of warning as on the cigarette packs "smoking can kill you" etc... As long as they state that... They're good to go and off the hook. But we're used to living so loudly anyway that many will be deaf or hearing impaired anyway...so then what! I know this sounds bad, but I am actually investing in the hearing aid industry because there is an upcoming generation that will have severely damaged their hearing at young ages, especially the kids of the selfish parents who strap their babies like some kind of sacrifice  in the back of their audio terrorism weapons (vehicles with boom speakers, or illegally modified aftermarket exhausts louder than jumbo jets) that combine a very dangerous-to-the-body high decibel level with low frequency vibrations.

I don't understand how the warnings would have any effect on RTA liability.  I'm fairly sure buses cannot turn right on red.  So anytime a "bus is turning," it is doing so with a signal.  If it's turning at a left-arrow, pedestrians will have a "don't walk" and will be at fault for violating the sign.  If the bus is turning with a green light, a pedestrian crossing the street onto which the bus is turning will have the right of way, as they will have been instructed by the "walk" sign to cross at that time.  At a stop sign, any vehicle must yield to pedestrians when turning (I think). 

 

None of this has anything to do with the presence or absense of auditory warnings.  Warnings are legally useful for hidden dangers, when it's not clear to potential tort victims what they should do.  That is not the case in a controlled traffic environment.  It is rarely, if at all, unclear who has the right of way.  Outside of jaywalking, which is a crime... the bus does not have right of way, and the bus cannot obtain it verbally.   

I believe one of the people a driver hit was jaywalking. So in that instance, the talking bus would offer them additional legal liability.  "Not only was the person crossing when they weren't supposed to, they didn't yield the verbal warning the bus was giving indicating it was turning." Of course, since the buses give that warning ALL THE TIME, including when they are SITTING COMPLETELY STILL, it's not a very good argument.

Are the warnings triggered by the turn signal?  If a bus is idling at a layover, shouldn't they have their hazards on instead of sitting there with a right turn signal?  Seems like the operators could be trained so that this warning isn't constantly blaring.

 

Maybe RTA buses need warning speakers at each bus stop to warn people to stand back as the bus approaches, so they don't get run over.  And warnings that the bus is departing the stop so nobody runs into traffic to catch the bus.  And warnings on the bus to brace yourself every time the driver hits the accelerator or brake pedal.  And to hold on every time it turns.  Or we could just use common sense...

The messages, I believe, are triggered by a 45 degree turn of the steering wheel, which is too small considering that angle is reached as the bus pulls away from a curb.

 

Also, I heard the "nice lady" voice at TC for the first time today. Does anybody else think she sounds like Luna from Harry Potter? I literally almost busted out laughing while waiting for my train!

I'm willing to bet these recordings had more to do with the liability and future employee policy direction of the ATU and less with RTA's actual liability. 

 

Everyone knows that RTA is getting sued no matter what recording is playing if a person gets killed.  The transit union would argue that RTA offered these recordings as a stopgap and therefore they are released from liablity (and the driver keeps his/her job).

Also, I heard the "nice lady" voice at TC for the first time today. Does anybody else think she sounds like Luna from Harry Potter? I literally almost busted out laughing while waiting for my train!

 

Is she still so loud that it sounds like a bullhorn?  Does she still talk almost constantly while you're waiting?

Oh, they don't reduce liability in real life, only in terms of laywers and lawsuits.  Now they can argue "we're not at fault! We had a verbal warning!"  I really can't believe anyone is really arguing that they legitimately help anything except RTA's legal position.

 

Correct.  See that fellas, not only good looking but smart too!

The nice lady at Tower City only talks about every 5 minutes, and it's loud enough to hear, but not too loud I don't think. I actually couldn't hear the announcements on the train- I had to strain to hear the "dinner" comment.

EC, Willyboy and 327, I've come around.  While I'm still more or less sympathetic to the $$ issues as a reason why RTA itself doesn't contract out litter removal, you guys are totally right that there isn't much evidence that RTA has been thinking creatively here.  As was mentioned, Parkworks proved that volunteer efforts can make a difference.  From what you say, sounds like RTA hasn''t been very responsive to ideas.  I'd be curious to hear what they have to say.  I definitely agree that the litter issue needs some intention and can't just be shrugged off.

 

I'd think there would be a major liability issue with volunteers (non-RTA employees) in the system's rail ROW. Thorough safety training would be needed, probably along with a waiver excusing RTA from any liability for operations-related injury or death of a volunteer on the ROW. The hazards are great even for trained, supervised employees, and I can't see any system exposing volunteers to those hazards. All common-carrier freight and passenger railroads and urban heavy- and light-rail systems that I've seen have stringent prohibitions against trespassing because of the danger and liability risks.

The trains are loud, and, unlike most rail systems, there is no electrified third rail and trains run infrequently except in peak hours.  I don't see why work along the ROW would be considered inordinately hazardous.  Am I missing something?

The nice lady at Tower City only talks about every 5 minutes, and it's loud enough to hear, but not too loud I don't think. I actually couldn't hear the announcements on the train- I had to strain to hear the "dinner" comment.

 

Don't strain too hard, it's definitely not worth hearing.  I would rather listen to the mumbling train operator announce the stops.

I will sum up my feelings this way.....I used to ride RTA religiously...now sparingly. Do I want it that way? No, NOOO........Do I support Public Transport, YES.... But until they find a way to address and make some of the needed changes, (that again, are NOT necessarily going to be magically fixed by the catch all phrase of "MORE FUNDING!")  I will not be riding it much at all. Bottom line and there are many who would say the same. Many great ideas and thoughts on this forum gives them the torch.

 

If they want to take it on board and listen...GREAT..if they want to drop it and think no one else can come up with an original idea other than them......then I am not someone to reward failure, ignoring their customer base.... or a system that plasters awards all over and when I get on it in reality, I am thinking.. "Annnd..WHY did they get such an award?"

 

I am still very curious about how the city and or RTA or both will address, IF it is ever addressed, the fact that a so many dead trees means someone screwed up somewhere and it cannot just be swept under the bus.

The trains are loud, and, unlike most rail systems, there is no electrified third rail and trains run infrequently except in peak hours.  I don't see why work along the ROW would be considered inordinately hazardous.  Am I missing something?

 

Rob is right that it's a risk most rail system won't (maybe shouldn't) take.  But these volunteer efforts have happened in the past along these ROWs, so they found a way before (see: http://www.parkworks.org/home-copy-history.html).  Ridership on the rail lines is very low on Sunday mornings when there isn't an event; I think it would be very easy to run shuttle buses on a Sunday morning and organize a cleanup from 8am until noon for partial segments of the system.  RTA has certainly done this for regular track repair.  There would still be some liability issues, but hopefully well drafted waivers and some responsible prep by RTA (removing clear hazards) could make it possible.

The trains are loud, and, unlike most rail systems, there is no electrified third rail and trains run infrequently except in peak hours.  I don't see why work along the ROW would be considered inordinately hazardous.  Am I missing something?

 

Municipalities and their transit systems often are perceived by the public as having deep pockets when it comes to litigation, and there are people who will sue when they fall off a platform or trip over a rail, no matter what the circumstances. Even when those individuals don't prevail in their suit, the system operator may incur hefty costs defending itself. Experience has taught them to be extremely risk-averse, and it's understandable that they sometimes err on the side of caution.

 

If volunteers are asked to sign a detailed and lengthy waiver or release from liability, how many of them do you think will do it, and how many will say, "Holy Sh*t! If it's that dangerous, I'm outta here!"

I have done a lot of volunteer work where you have to sign a waiver, it's not difficult to get people to do.  just like getting extras in a restaurant to sign a waiver if you're shooting there.  It's really not that big of a deal.  It's just another way for them to say oh, it's too difficult for us to accomplish.  People who want to help will come, sign whatever and help. Those who are human roadblocks won't be there volunteering anyway.

I have done a lot of volunteer work where you have to sign a waiver, it's not difficult to get people to do. just like getting extras in a restaurant to sign a waiver if you're shooting there. It's really not that big of a deal. It's just another way for them to say oh, it's too difficult for us to accomplish. People who want to help will come, sign whatever and help. Those who are human roadblocks won't be there volunteering anyway.

 

I agree.  Ive had to sign a waiver as well. I think the possible dangers are pretty obvious and should be pretty well "pinpointed".  Signing a waiver shouldnt be that big a deal.   

Honestly I would think that a few simple rules like- "you guys work on this side of the tracks, you guys work on the other side, and nobody crosses the tracks"- would take care of most of the special safety issues relating to this being a rail corridor.  A little supervision should handle the rest.