I know the NYC MTA uses fare inspectors that they call the "eagle team."

 

Here's a list of systems using Proof-of-Payment. Many American systems as well as systems in other countries use the system. (Germany and Italy use off-board ticket purchasing and random inspections on board even for regular city buses.) I've googled both Dallas and Denver's systems and their websites both make reference to "fare inspectors," not police. So I think the question is who, besides Cleveland, doesn't have separate fare inspectors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-payment

 

Edit: found one reference on Charlotte's system to fare inspectors and police officers checking fares: https://secure.ridetransit.org/psales/shopcontent.asp?type=Frequently-Asked-Questions. But they still have separate inspectors who take the primary responsibility, and it doesn't fall completely on police, to the detriment of actual policing.

^in the many times I've taken a "Select Bus," New York's limited bus network designed for a faster commute, and the only part of the MTA network for which you must purchase a ticket prior to boarding (as far as I know), I've only seen fare inspectors once. I think it was the first year of operation (several years ago now) and the bus was crowded. Before anyone was permitted to leave the bus the inspectors boarded to check if everyone had a ticket. It was like being in some old movie about WWII at a border crossing. One person was apprehended for not having "papers," and the fine at the time was $100. In the intervening years I have not seen this again. I would be so easy to get on one these buses without paying, not that I would ever dream of doing so ;) . On the other hand, I've seen people defiantly board regular buses without paying, daring the driver to say anything to them, as they never do. I guess they value their lives too much, ever since a bus driver in Brooklyn was stabbed to death a number of years ago for doing just that.

Los Angeles uses police officers to do fare enforcement on the trains. It used to be county sheriffs since the Metro is a County entity, but now it's LAPD officers, for some reason. I'm generally not a fan of having cops do stuff like that, but their presence is actually usually welcomed here, simply due to the amount of crazy and homeless people (and others) who routinely cause disturbances at stations and on the trains.

The Red Line was designed based on fares being paid/checked as you enter the station.  The booths already exist (or did at one point).  Such control also makes the stations safer.

^Right, but going back to the original set-up would also require paying for 19 hours of human attendants at every station and purchase, installation and maintenance of fare gates, which is awfully expensive.

 

I was a supporter of the POP system on the Red Line, but I do increasingly think new, un-attended fare gates will make sense if/when RTA ever changes to modern contact-less fare payment. You wouldn't really need more than one or two gates at any station outside of Tower City, and keeping the exit fare check requirement at Tower City would make turnstile jumping mostly irrelevant. A smaller number of transit cops could then focus on security rather than fare enforcement.

 

For the HL, not sure what the alternatives really are right now, but when you get new contactless payment, you could add payment scanners to the middle and rear doors and replace POP with random undercover inspectors who make sure people in fact tap in when they enter those other doors.

^Right, but going back to the original set-up would also require paying for 19 hours of human attendants at every station and purchase, installation and maintenance of fare gates, which is awfully expensive.

 

I was a supporter of the POP system on the Red Line, but I do increasingly think new, un-attended fare gates will make sense if/when RTA ever changes to modern contact-less fare payment. You wouldn't really need more than one or two gates at any station outside of Tower City, and keeping the exit fare check requirement at Tower City would make turnstile jumping mostly irrelevant. A smaller number of transit cops could then focus on security rather than fare enforcement.

 

For the HL, not sure what the alternatives really are right now, but when you get new contactless payment, you could add payment scanners to the middle and rear doors and replace POP with random undercover inspectors who make sure people in fact tap in when they enter those other doors.

 

Would the attendants be more expensive than the current fare checkers?  Seems they are doing the same job.  There's the extra advantage of station safety.

https://twitter.com/GCRTA/status/930034332563116034 

 

The infamous shuttle buses "supplementing" the blue and green lines.  One tweet says shortage, the other delays.

https://twitter.com/GCRTA/status/930034332563116034 

 

The infamous shuttle buses "supplementing" the blue and green lines.  One tweet says shortage, the other delays.

 

Let's hope their are no Amazon scouts checking out the transit system they want in their HQ2 city!

https://twitter.com/GCRTA/status/930034332563116034 

 

The infamous shuttle buses "supplementing" the blue and green lines.  One tweet says shortage, the other delays.

 

Let's hope their are no Amazon scouts checking out the transit system they want in their HQ2 city!

 

I've heard Amazon has 10-100 scouts currently living in each of the contenders, so let's hope there are.

Please see the GCRTA's presentation regarding its pending replacement of its rail fleet, both light-rail transit (LRT) transit and heavy-rail transit (HRT) at:

 

http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2017-11-14RailCarEvalReplace.pdf

 

This was a topic of discussion at the GCRTA Board of Directors' Operations Committee. GCRTA proposes to spend up to $2 million to hire a firm to develop specifications, compliance and procurement of railcars. GCRTA has two options -- replace both the HRT and LRT fleets with new cars or rebuild the HRT and replace only the LRT fleet. GCRTA is considering setting aside $7 million per year over the next 20-30 years to provide the minimum 20 percent local match.

In other news, GCRTA is considering 7 percent service cut in August 2018, including an already approved fare increase, to maintain a balanced budget following the loss of MCO sales taxes. This cut will be into the bones of GCRTA, which has been cut deeply enough in recent years. This was discussed at today's Finance Committee.

 

Presented proposed 2018 Operating Budget, (http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2017-11-14OperatingBudget.pdf) amendment to 2017 Capital Budget, amendment to 2018 Capital Budget and 2018 Service Plan (http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/2017-11-14ServicePlan.pdf).

 

KJP[/member] (or anyone else who might have insight) - Do you know if RTA is considering coming to county residents with some sort of bond/tax to be placed on ballot that would fill the state funding gap? Think it's futile to try and work with a state that clearly doesn't get it and time for county/region to step up and invest in ourselves.

So the video of the Cavs riding the subway in NYC is all over the place now. Imagine if they posted such a video from the Red Line, and all the positive attention that would bring to the RTA. Plus, it would announce to people around the world that Cleveland, too, has a subway/rail transit. I know the situation is different in this particular video, but that's a thought that occured to me last night while watching the late night guys talk about Lebron on the train.

So the video of the Cavs riding the subway in NYC is all over the place now. Imagine if they posted such a video from the Red Line, and all the positive attention that would bring to the RTA.

 

Good point. That reminds me, I took a very in-depth survey for the Cleveland Indians. I deftly discounted all the loaded questions that seemed an attempt to steer me toward wanting MORE PARKING. The survey took me almost a half hour, and there was not a single mention of RTA as an option.

KJP[/member] (or anyone else who might have insight) - Do you know if RTA is considering coming to county residents with some sort of bond/tax to be placed on ballot that would fill the state funding gap? Think it's futile to try and work with a state that clearly doesn't get it and time for county/region to step up and invest in ourselves.

 

Even if it ultimately failed, it could be a great way to get attention for the issue. Simultaneous ballot measures in the other big metros would be even better.

KJP[/member] (or anyone else who might have insight) - Do you know if RTA is considering coming to county residents with some sort of bond/tax to be placed on ballot that would fill the state funding gap? Think it's futile to try and work with a state that clearly doesn't get it and time for county/region to step up and invest in ourselves.

 

No, not at all. At the risk of speaking for others, it seems that GCRTA believes that they have a better shot of getting more state funds than they do in getting a local levy passed. And I don't think they're holding their breath on getting state funds. Which is why they're looking at service cuts and fare increases.

I hope it can at least be an issue in the governor's race, then.

I hope it can at least be an issue in the governor's race, then.

 

Even if it is, and we can somehow get back to where Ohio was in 2000 by devoting $42 million per year to transit -- that's for the whole state. GCRTA needs double that per year to address its state of good repair backlog and to increase the accessibility of jobs within a 90-minute one-way transit trip. Right now, only 1 in 4 jobs are "so accessible." Within a one-hour transit trip, only 10 percent of available jobs are accessible. Not only does transit need to expand with faster and more frequent rail and express bus transit to more employment hubs, but more underutilized land near existing transit needs to be cleared and cleaned to make it more competitive as job sites with the greenfields at the urban fringe. That's going to take significant public redevelopment dollars and, right now, only Vibrant NEO and All Aboard Ohio are talking about directing them to sites along high-frequency transit routes.

KJP where do you honestly see things heading in the next few years?  I don't see much hope and every day that goes by the fleet get older.  Is there anything that can be done to save soon RTA before we come to a scenario like shutting down the rail lines?  The fact that it takes five years to build a new fleet to order does not bode well for our timeline (if they went new).  I appreciate all you and AAO are doing to advocate for transportation.

GCRTA proposes to spend up to $2 million to hire a firm to develop specifications, compliance and procurement of railcars.

 

I'm always amazed they need such a custom product. Can't they take a more off-the-shelf approach? Or just run the last set of specs again?

KJP where do you honestly see things heading in the next few years?  I don't see much hope and every day that goes by the fleet get older.  Is there anything that can be done to save soon RTA before we come to a scenario like shutting down the rail lines?  The fact that it takes five years to build a new fleet to order does not bode well for our timeline (if they went new).  I appreciate all you and AAO are doing to advocate for transportation.

 

Thanks. RTA can't willfully shut down the rail lines. It has used a lot of federal money to rebuild stations, tracks, electrical systems, bridges, etc. and would be required to give some or all of that back if it chose to shut down the rail system. Furthermore, the Red Line trains are made of stainless steel shells. RTA can keep rebuilding these trains within their shells for decades.

 

At minimum, I think RTA buys new light-rail cars to re-equip the Blue and Green lines and rebuilds the Red Line cars in another a decade or so. It's possible that the Green Line could be converted to rush hour-only rail service with buses providing off-peak service, but that's not as cheap as it sounds. There are substantial fixed costs in owning and maintaining a rail line and if you don't use it and generate fare revenue from it, it's actually more expensive not to use it. The rail system's biggest expense is in capital costs. But the three-route rail system represents about one in five total RTA transit trips each day. That's decent for a system of nearly 60 bus routes as well as demand-response bus services. Yet the rail system accounts for less than 20 percent of total systemwide operating costs. So on an operating cost basis, the rail system is pretty efficient -- despite it being an older system with lots of slow orders, obsolete fixed-contact overhead electric wires, no signal priority for trains in Shaker Heights, and an antiquated, inefficient fare payment/collection system that slows down the trains (and all buses too).

 

 

I'm always amazed they need such a custom product. Can't they take a more off-the-shelf approach? Or just run the last set of specs again?

 

Nope. GCRTA runs a very unique rail system. It's the only rail system in the USA (possibly in North America) in which light-rail trains and heavy-rail trains use the same tracks and stations. The HRT and LRT fleets are different widths, weights, lengths, rail car floor heights (regardless of rail car stairs), and require shared stations with high- and low-level platform heights. In the late-1970s and early 1980s when RTA was planning to replace the LRT and HRT fleets (from City of Cleveland- and Shaker Heights-owned rail systems that predated RTA), there was detailed staff planning to acquire a standardized light-rail rail car (which would have also required modifying station platforms). But the general manager at that time said Cleveland deserved heavy-rail trains and be in the same leagues like Boston or Philadelphia or Chicago. So that's why we still have two rail fleets.

 

You don't want to run the same specs again. Rail car technology is much more advanced now. And the old Breda cars are junk. They were junk when RTA got them and they're worse junk now. I say that even though my cousin was the one responsible for choosing these cars back when he worked for RTA. He's nearly 80 years old now. And yes, we get along great. But if he knew then what he knows now, he never would have ordered those light-rail cars. A good friend of mine led the RTA team that did the specifications for the Red Line cars (after they were told by the GM they were going with the dual rail fleets -- my friend preferred a standardized light-rail fleet). He doesn't work for RTA anymore nor does anyone else who knows much about modern rail cars. The maintenance staff down at Central Rail know a lot about historic rail cars and how to keep them running. But they can't spec out a modern rail car fleet. That's why RTA needs to hire outside help.

 

EDIT -- by the way, I while I haven't seen the RFP for the consultants to oversee the specifications of the rail fleet, I would not be surprised if there are some provisions for designing alterations to some of the stations so that a standardized real fleet could be acquired as an option.

I've been on a couple of rail systems around the world that can service platforms, and street level stair exits (Buffalo comes to mind close to home).  Why can't we do something similar here?

Nope. GCRTA runs a very unique rail system ... You don't want to run the same specs again.

 

Thanks. You convinced me.

I've been on a couple of rail systems around the world that can service platforms, and street level stair exits (Buffalo comes to mind close to home).  Why can't we do something similar here?

 

So does Pittsburgh and San Francisco. We can do it here too. But an assistant GM at RTA told me that he doesn't like those trains because there are fewer doors for loading/unloading larger crowds. Except... Pittsburgh and especially San Francisco have busier rail lines.

 

EDIT: to clarify, Pittsburgh's trains actually have more doors than Cleveland's, but they can't use all of them at the same time. For example, at stations with low-level platforms they can use only one door per car (at the front). Pittsburgh's trains have four doors on the right side -- three for high-level platforms and one for low-level platforms. San Francisco's new S200 trains have three shared doorways for both high-level and low-level platforms because they have folding steps to reach the low-level platforms.

BTW, San Francisco is replacing Breda cars (same builder of the trains on our Blue/Green lines). SF is so unhappy with their "old" (barely more than a decade old) Breda fleet that they barred Breda in 2013 from responding when they issued the RFP for a new rail fleet! https://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/09/16/munis-next-train-fleet-breda-disqualified-from-another-contract/

 

San Francisco's new S200 trains (manufacturer video)

 

Video from just last week. The S200 trains are being manufactured now.

 

SF news coverage:

All Aboard Ohio is running a poll on Twitter for the next week...

 

If @GCRTA asked @CuyahogaCounty  voters for a countywide, 5-year renewable sales tax increase for #transit, what might you support? A 1/2 of 1% to expand #rail & #bus services to reach more jobs countywide? A 1/4 of 1% to preserve the existing system? Or nothing/other?

 

Vote here:

Wasn't there a rail company offering to take over the operation of the rail system and use their own cars? Siemens I believe. What happened to that?

RTA rejected it. It didn't want to give up control of the rail system and a significant portion of its budget for the next couple of decades. The annual payments would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million to $50 million dollars per year which is about what RTA pays to run the rail system.

RTA rejected it. It didn't want to give up control of the rail system and a significant portion of its budget hiring process for the next couple of decades. The annual payments would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million to $50 million dollars per year which is about what RTA pays to run the rail system.

 

FTFY

Poll results are what All Aboard Ohio expected... Cuyahoga County voters won't support a tax that merely preserves a system that doesn't adequately serve them. They want and deserve better. They want more than just keeping fares low, preventing more service cuts, and keeping the smallish bus and rail network in a state of good repair.

 

Cuyahoga County voters want and deserve more. They want countywide expansion including better access to more suburban jobs to address the stifling physical disconnect between jobs and job-seekers. This stifles economic growth and keeps the region as one of the nation's most impoverished.

 

We also want to reduce auto-dependency that raises our housing+transportation costs to East Coast levels. We want less dirty air that complicates permitting for new manufacturers. We want better access to growing employment and residential centers like University Circle, Highland Hills and suburban sites. And we want to encourage more station-area development like Centric, Uptown, the Van Aken District, Flats East Bank and others so that more people of all ages can enjoy low-mileage lifestyles.

 

Please share these poll results with others (especially city and county elected officials) to stimulate discussion about the future of Greater Cleveland. Better transit, including reforms of GCRTA planning and service delivery, must be an integral part of any healthy metropolitan economy. Let's roll!

Quick question, whenever RTA can get around to replacing the rail cars, could it buy cars that are self powered to obviate the need for the overhead catwnary system in place now?

^Yes that has always been my question. This cantilevers system has barely changed in design  over 150 years. It's usually the cause of the downtime of trains, something's always breaking, the parts are hard to get and it doesn't perform well in northern climates. And to me the overhead wires are ugly AF.  At this point there must be a DMU or electric hybrid that can handle our capacity.  But I know nothing about trains so I'll let someone else explain why it's just not a solution for us.  And this probably isn't the time to explore my idea of turning the Red Line/Waterfront Line into a BRT system...

I would imagine at this point in time that a "third rail" system would have safety implications as well as too expensive?  As for turning rail into BRT...I would rather see just the opposite, turn BRT into rail.  No matter how you slice it, under "normal" conditions, traffic and weather have more of an affect on buses than trains.  Oh how I wish the politicians in Cleveland in the 1950's would have made the right decision...

I would imagine at this point in time that a "third rail" system would have safety implications as well as too expensive?  As for turning rail into BRT...I would rather see just the opposite, turn BRT into rail.  No matter how you slice it, under "normal" conditions, traffic and weather have more of an affect on buses than trains.  Oh how I wish the politicians in Cleveland in the 1950's would have made the right decision...

 

No, not "third rail." I'm speaking of a rail car that is powered internally, much like a bus that doesn't need overhead power or a third rail.

GCRTA uses overhead electrical wires instead of third rail to deliver power to its Red Line heavy rail trains at the encouragement of the mainline railroads whose tracks are immediately adjacent due to the safety of its workers. Also, much of the support structures for the overhead wires, called catenaries, were already built in 1930 for the Red Line, the parallel Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) tracks, and of course the Green/Blue lines which the Red Line shared between CUT and East 55th.

 

Since then, and especially recently, GCRTA has invested significant federal dollars in modernizing the overhead centenary system including trackside substations. GCRTA cannot stop using federally funded infrastructure or it must reimburse the Federal Transit Administration.

 

Considering the frequency at which GCRTA runs its trains, there isn't a significant operating cost benefit to replacing its overhead electrically powered trains with battery- or internal combustion-powered trains. If GCRTA had the capital, it could achieve operating cost savings by replacing the Healthline buses with light-rail trains/streetcars.

 

However, there might be an advantage for ordering what are called dual mode trains which can operate on battery or overhead electricity (like the new Q-Line streetcars in Detroit). The benefit is that future expansion beyond the existing core rail system would be that much less expensive. The trains could be electric and have their batteries recharged while they operate under the wires near the core of the system. Then, when they leave the core on new tracks for places like Solon, Euclid or Westlake, they could operate under battery power.

There's probably an interesting story here in these two items which may be related.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/bbs/agenda/2017/AGENDA11292017.pdf

 

BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS AND BUILDING APPEALS

Room 514 – City Hall

This is a DRAFT agenda

Items may be changed prior to the meeting

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2017

BUILDING: PUBLIC HEARING: 9:30A.M.

Docket A-162-17 0 West 97th Street WARD: 11

(Dona Brady)

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), Owner of the Property appeals from a

NOTICE OF VIOLATION—PLUMBING CODE, dated September 05, 2017; appellant states that

GCRTA denies that it has violated any provision of the Building Code and disputes all of the

violations with which it is charged and reserves the right, without limitation, to raise these

objections and others in its appeal to the Board.

 

AND......

 

Docket A-186-17 8200 Madison Avenue WARD: 15

(Matt Zone)

Izzy Holdings, LLC (FKA) Tom Pallas, LLC, Owner of the F-2 Factory – Low Hazard (Noncombustibles)

Four Story Masonry Walls/Wood Floors Property appeals from a NOTICE OF

VIOLATION—PLUMBING CODE, dated August 01, 2017; appellant states that they should not be

found in violation of Cleveland’s Codified Ordinances and, in particular, CCO 3133.05(A) as it has

drainage to a public sanitary sewer, and said drainage is only being prevented by the negligent

and wrongful acts of the GCRTA in failing to repair the sewer line which has existed at least since

April of 1953. As such, Izzy Holdings requests that the order against it be set aside or waived and,

in turn, the related violation against the GCRTA be enforced and it be ordered to repair the sewer

line running beneath the tracks at West 82nd Street to comply with the Cleveland Codified

Ordinances.

 

 

Cuyahoga County to consolidate public works operations in former RTA garage

 

Cuyahoga County has bought the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's Harvard Garage in Newburgh Heights for $3.8 million and will move 185 employees and operations from three buildings into the facility in 2019.

 

County Council approved the deal on Tuesday.

 

Officials said the building will provide more space and meet the goal of consolidating operations into more centralized locations.

 

The county will put its three buildings up for sale next year. They are:

 

Sanitary Engineer Building, 6100 West Canal Road, Valley View. The 44,780-square-foot building, built in 1972 on six acres, is valued at $2.5 million. The county needs more space because it is providing services to municipalities. The building houses 125 employees.

 

Fleet Services Garage, 4000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland. The 32,100-square-foot building, built in 1963 on 2.6 acres, is valued at $1 million. It houses 15 employees who maintain all county vehicles.

 

Road and Bridge Maintenance: 4875 York Road, North Royalton. The 12,499-square-foot building, built in 1970 on five acres, is valued at $800,000. The 45 employees maintain county bridges and roads.

 

The 193,175-square-foot Harvard Garage is on 18.46 acres and was built in 1995.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2017/11/cuyahoga_county_to_consolidate_public_works_operations_into_rtas_former_harvard_garage.html

There's growing interest at the county, RTA, business community, riders, etc. for increasing the county sales tax to rebuild and expand transit as well as to rebuilt road and bridge infrastructure in the county. FWIW, 1 cent of sales tax in Cuyahoga County in 2016 generated about $220 million. If a full additional cent is sought (probably renewable every 5 or 10 years) and the revenues split evenly among roads and transit, the $110 million +/- per year more for transit would allow fares to be reduced, transit infrastructure to rebuilt, and significant expansion undertaken to reach distant employment nodes more frequently and quickly. BTW, I would use the renewable tax to pay for expanded transit operations/reduced fares and then use a portion of RTA's existing permanent sales tax to pay for lower-interest bonds for capital improvements.

 

If only a half-cent increase is sought, $55 million +/- per year more for transit doesn't get you much if any expansion. But it does keep fares low, prevents service cuts from recent state funding cuts, and provides some extra revenue for major state-of-good-repair projects. But I think it's a very hard sell politically countywide since much of the county isn't served by RTA, or at least not served very well. So this would preserve a system that today doesn't meet the needs of many county residents, as underscored by the fact that so few jobs are accessible within a reasonable timeframe (ie: just one out of four jobs within a 90-minute one-way transit trip). Plus, I don't think many people believe RTA is an efficiently run organization. RTA should not be the only one undertaking its own service planning. I propose that service planning should be led by NOACA with input from local governments and RTA. Then have RTA competitively bid out services (as it already does for capital improvements), especially for rail, BRT and express bus services. A significant expansion of RTA -- combined with reforms -- must be on the table in order to win countywide support.

 

 

All around are reminders that Greater #Cleveland has a serious transportation problem & patching the existing @GCRTA system isn't going to solve it. It's going to take a multi-billion-dollar reform, rebuild & expansion of #transit to adequately link #job-seekers to opportunities.

 

 

I don't get it.  What are you trying to show us?  People waiting for a bus is a symptom of our transit inadequacies? What's wrong in the second one?

In the 1st photo, large groups of RTA passengers accumulate around stops downtown because the frequency of service is so bad.

 

In the second, do college students really have to get in a block-long line for the best parking permits? What if we had more/better/affordable alternatives than driving/parking?

 

But in the absence of focus, perhaps I should delete the photos so that they do not distract from the more important parts of that post?

There's growing interest at the county, RTA, business community, riders, etc. for increasing the county sales tax to rebuild and expand transit as well as to rebuilt road and bridge infrastructure in the county. FWIW, 1 cent of sales tax in Cuyahoga County in 2016 generated about $220 million. If a full additional cent is sought (probably renewable every 5 or 10 years) and the revenues split evenly among roads and transit, the $110 million +/- per year more for transit would allow fares to be reduced, transit infrastructure to rebuilt, and significant expansion undertaken to reach distant employment nodes more frequently and quickly. BTW, I would use the renewable tax to pay for expanded transit operations/reduced fares and then use a portion of RTA's existing permanent sales tax to pay for lower-interest bonds for capital improvements.

 

If only a half-cent increase is sought, $55 million +/- per year more for transit doesn't get you much if any expansion. But it does keep fares low, prevents service cuts from recent state funding cuts, and provides some extra revenue for major state-of-good-repair projects. But I think it's a very hard sell politically countywide since much of the county isn't served by RTA, or at least not served very well. So this would preserve a system that today doesn't meet the needs of many county residents, as underscored by the fact that so few jobs are accessible within a reasonable timeframe (ie: just one out of four jobs within a 90-minute one-way transit trip). Plus, I don't think many people believe RTA is an efficiently run organization. RTA should not be the only one undertaking its own service planning. I propose that service planning should be led by NOACA with input from local governments and RTA. Then have RTA competitively bid out services (as it already does for capital improvements), especially for rail, BRT and express bus services. A significant expansion of RTA -- combined with reforms -- must be on the table in order to win countywide support.

 

I hope this happens

I hope this happens

 

Which? There are two very different scenarios potentially at play here. One can set up the region for significant socio-economic change and growth for the future or the other can merely delay the catastrophic decline of our transportation system.

The first option. I Would love to see fare reduction and expansion.

There is a really good report coming out of the Cuyahoga County Council's Regional Transportation Subcommittee which is a select committee intended to work for only one year. The report is their end product of meetings and hearings on the state of public transit in the county and recommendations for improving it....

 

Here is a summary of the funding portion (assuming the state doesn't finally see the light on funding transit)....

 

Recommendations to GCRTA regarding replacement of MCO Sales Tax revenue: Unless new state policy comes forward, the change in federal MCO Sales Tax policy will result in a permanent revenue loss of $20 million annually, or 7% of the annual budget. We believe that GCRTA should actively assist with efforts to achieve one or more of the three basic advocacy objectives listed in Recommendation #2. Achievement of any of them would significantly improve GCRTA’s financial position.

 

However, given the persistence of low and declining state and federal support for public transportation, such an outcome cannot be relied upon, and we recommend that GCRTA give primary attention to the possibilities for generating additional local revenue by increasing the sales tax or creating a property tax. The possibility of cooperating with Cuyahoga County on the sales tax should be carefully considered. While raising taxes is never a pleasant process, this case is just another example of state and federal budget issues being resolved on the backs of local government. When state and federal governments reduce support for essential services, it is our responsibility to seek a solution on the local level.

 

More later......

Here's another idea that could be done administratively. While some may claim "taxation without representation" many cities already fund themselves this way (as does Cincinnati Metro transit). Plus out-of-county commuters are incurring significant costs such as road maintenance, traffic congestion, air pollution (that causes Cuyahoga to fail EPA's air quality standards and prevent new industries from getting permits). So I would use this to fund a new intercounty bus and rail service agency called NEO-Transit that contracts out services based on NOACA route/service planning:

Love the idea of a commuter tax, how would you collect it?

Love the idea of a commuter tax, how would you collect it?

 

As an income tax levied by the county but collected by cities in that county. Here's an interesting article...

 

Cities Consider Taxing Commuters to Drive Up Revenue

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/gov-more-cities-could-tax-nonresident-workers-reverse-commuters.html

It appears that the solution being considered is the smallest band-aid possible. RTA and Cuyahoga County officials are looking only at the amount of money that RTA and the county are expected to lose from the loss of the MCO sales tax via the state. RTA will lose about $20 million to $22 million per year and the county will lose about $25 million to $30 million per year. The smallest increment of new countywide sales tax that may be requested is one-quarter percent, which would produce about $50 million to $55 million per year, or roughly equal to what is needed to replace the MCO revenue losses. The county may present the issue jointly and split the additional revenue. But it would mean no RTA expansion.

Something has changed since the housing market crash.  The stark division between city and suburb, especially inner suburb, has lessened greatly.  Places like Euclid, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Brooklyn, Independence, even Solon, have seen major increases in transit-dependent people as well as in many cases non-transit-friendly jobs.  It no longer makes sense IMO to think that the city and the rest of the county have starkly differing interests.  It is not always even the case that the city has the densest population.  (Euclid is very comparable; Lakewood's is actually almost double Cleveland's).  If the county as a whole cannot see the case for a frugally but adequately funded transit network, then Cleveland and First Suburbs, and anyone else interested, should band together and work to create a funding district specifically for creating such a network.  And let me point out, as usual, one thing that will piss off conserberals and libervatives alike:  Transit GREATLY benefits downtown property owners, making the job density of downtown or University Circle possible.  Taxation is never fair, but, if you want it to be as fair as possible, you have to find a way to make them pick up their share, and the best way to do that is to give them some positive motivation to do so.  How?  I'm not quite sure.  Naming/branding rights are a step in the right direction.  I loathe property taxes but perhaps a modest levy on downtown commercial real estate (only) would be fair compensation for bringing tens of thousands of workers downtown at (mostly) other taxpayers' expense?  And in the year 2017 (almost 2018) it is important to look ahead to the point where not only Uber and Lyft, but multiple fleets of self-driving vehicles, will dramatically change the face of transit.  My guess: buses will decrease in importance except along the busiest corridors; rail will greatly INCREASE in importance because it is the one and only thing, even in 2018, that has the potential to bypass the increasing density of traffic that even Cleveland should see when and if the local economy ever begins to stabilize and grow again.  And such buses as continue to exist will probably need to be consolidated so as to provide better/more frequent service on a smaller number of routes.  A single frequent route to, say, Solon, might make a lot more sense than 4 or 5 infrequent ones, if at the end of the frequent route, riders can hire cheap, autonomous vehicles to take them the last mile or two.