It doesn't matter anyway. It's not an easy walk from the Amtrak station to the Browns walkway. You might actually do better walking to the east end of the Amtrak platform next to the tracks, carry your suitcase over some tracks and over the gravel for about a hundred feet or so. Then, walk the Waterfront Line's station platform and go up to West 3rd street through the Waterfront Line station stairwell/ramp/elevator. The Waterfront Line starts running at 7 a.m., about an hour after the last scheduled Amtrak train of the night. So you can flag down an RTA train at the Amtrak station walkway across the tracks. Or, on weekdays, you can walk down to the driveway entrance to the Amtrak station and catch a free 9/12 Trolley that starts running at 5:30 a.m. and gets you to Euclid/Chester or East 12th/Chester (a block from Greyhound).

 

But very little transit is available to get you TO the Amtrak station after it opens at midnight.

Edited January 6, 20196 yr by KJP

Did RTA ever announce a replacement for Calabrese? its been a while now.

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

Did RTA ever announce a replacement for Calabrese? its been a while now.

 

There is a temporary replacement while an executive search is undertaken. The executive search was initiated last month. The overall process can take a year or more.

On 1/3/2019 at 12:54 PM, Foraker said:

How have transit times changed since public transit's heyday in Cleveland?

 

Gordon Square to Case (currently looks like 40-50 minutes)?

Cedar-Lee to Playhouse Square (currently also 40-50 minutes)?
 

KJP -- do you have old timetables?

 

@Foraker Here are some RTA timetables I was able to find from the 1990s for the areas you are interested in....

 

The 3/26 ran as a combined, crosstown route back then. There were a lot of transfers between the two routes so RTA ran the #3 Superior and the #26 Detroit combined. Unfortunately that caused serious delays. But combining two of RTA's busiest west-side and east-side routes made it RTA's most heavily used bus route back then.

 

Here's the start of the east-side/Cleveland Heights routes that used to go downtown. I think the "F" preceding some rush-hour trips meant that it ran as no-stop "Flyer" bus down Euclid Avenue from University Circle to the vicinity of CSU. The frequency of this service on Mayfield between Cleveland Heights/University Heights/South Euclid and downtown is a bit mind-blowing considering that NO direct service exists today.

 

Even the #7 ran downtown as a Flyer during rush hours. But it didn't run west of University Circle on off-peak times/weekends. Yup, even the #7 ran every 10-15 minutes during rush hour between downtown and Cleveland Heights (and beyond).

 

This one's the killer. Since decimated, the #32 was the backbone of Cleveland Heights public transit. It served multiple streets in the Heights and funneled down Cedar Hill. Most rush-hour trips ran express down Carnegie, which had reversible lanes depending on the time of day. When I lived in Highland Heights in the 1970s, I remember being stuck in 4 lanes of heavy traffic on Carnegie (with 2 lanes inbound) during afternoon rush hour coming from our dentist in the Hanna Building. The traffic is gone, so the reversible bus lanes are gone, and so are the #32 express buses downtown. Now, the heavy traffic to/from the Heights is bound for the office/commercial corridor along I-271 where this is little bus service.

Edited January 6, 20196 yr by KJP

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

There is a temporary replacement while an executive search is undertaken. The executive search was initiated last month. The overall process can take a year or more.

 

Regarding "take a year or more," is that an industry standard or a Cleveland thing of being so slow?  Seems unnecessarily long. It took Jackson over a year to hire a new airport director when Ricky Smith left. That's crazy long and I doubt that in  other major cities it would have been the same.

I don't follow other transit agencies very closely, but I would think it's pretty common because of all the regulations that have to be followed in hiring a new transit agency GM. A year or so doesn't seem like a long time to me in filling an unexpected vacancy for a major public sector agency.

"A year or so doesn't seem like a long time to me in filling an unexpected vacancy for a major public sector agency."   I respectfully disagree.

OK. Depends on the speed of the agencies you're used to dealing with. This is what I'm used to.

 

Anyway.... I just posted some timetables that will hopefully horrify east-siders and transit advocates in general. GCRTA hasn't shifted to meet new ridership trends -- namely that booming office jobs along the I-271 corridor are largely inaccessible by transit. Instead, when fewer east siders were working downtown, GCRTA retrenched altogether. This is why GCRTA is finally taking a fresh look at its network despite its initial unwillingness to do so. It is so to get a transit agency to take a hard look at itself. They tend to consider it an insult when someone suggests that its network is no longer meeting current needs -- as if the world in which it operates always stays the same.....

Edited January 6, 20196 yr by KJP

On 1/6/2019 at 1:24 PM, KJP said:

 

@Foraker Here are some RTA timetables I was able to find from the 1990s for the areas you are interested in....

 

This one's the killer. Since decimated, the #32 was the backbone of Cleveland Heights public transit. It served multiple streets in the Heights and funneled down Cedar Hill. Most rush-hour trips ran express down Carnegie, which had reversible lanes depending on the time of day. When I lived in Highland Heights in the 1970s, I remember being stuck in 4 lanes of heavy traffic on Carnegie (with 2 lanes inbound) during afternoon rush hour coming from our dentist in the Hanna Building. The traffic is gone, so the reversible bus lanes are gone, and so are the #32 express buses downtown. Now, the heavy traffic to/from the Heights is bound for the office/commercial corridor along I-271 where this is little bus service.

1

 

Thanks for the depressing news that you didn't have to go back to the 1950s/1960s transit heydays to find much better transit times than we currently have. 

 

Let's hope that new management at GCRTA and the results of the transit study (and your continued advocacy!) get us back to a higher quality transit service in the near future.

GCP helping RTA

 

The Greater Cleveland Partnership is helping out the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, which had a rough year in 2018 for numerous reasons, including shrinking budgets, internal leadership turmoil and a health-care scandal related to its former board chairman, George Dixon.

 

At its June 2018 meeting, the GCP board voted to establish a task force made up of GCP members to look for operational changes that could save the transit authority money. The two entities met for the first time in October and are expected to meet throughout 2019. An RTA spokeswoman said the task force also will provide a “focused and independent financial and economic forecast analysis for RTA.” 

 

MORE:

https://www.cleveland.com/expo/news/g66l-2019/01/0e97ca9f229636/cle-chatter-cleveland-councilwoman-eying-housing-court-seat-plans-for-mosque-in-north-ridgeville-change-bay-village-camera-guy-again-stirring-controversy-and-other-tidbits-.html

On 1/6/2019 at 4:40 PM, KJP said:

Anyway.... I just posted some timetables that will hopefully horrify east-siders and transit advocates in general. GCRTA hasn't shifted to meet new ridership trends -- namely that booming office jobs along the I-271 corridor are largely inaccessible by transit.

 

NO idea what to do about the 271 corridor.  There are sufficiently large pockets of employment and residential centers, but also very un-dense residential space in between, and significant (by NE Ohio standards) traffic issues to boot.  I know that if we had enough resources, I'd want to run a circulator or something of that nature up and down all of at least Richmond, Lander, and SOM Center, and also the major east-west corridors connecting them, between roughly Wilson Mills and at least Harvard.  Some of these (east-west) already have limited service, but not nearly enough.  But to make them genuinely usable, and then add north-south service, we're talking about probably at least a few dozen buses, and twice as many operators.  The resources to do that simply don't exist.  We're struggling to just barely keep the service we have now. 

As for service frequencies, the decline of the 32X and other Heights routes is unfortunate, but not atypical.  Most except the very most important routes seem to me to have seen similar decline.  Making them, IMO, unusable to most folks and particularly the transit-dependent.  IMO, service frequencies less than every 1/2 hour during the day make transit service too unreliable for the people who need it the most.  Particularly given the need to transfer at least once and usually twice in order to complete most work-related trips other than downtown or UC, and the heavy reliance of many routes that terminate at rail stops upon the rail system delivering trains on time. 

I'm probably one of the most libertarian people you have on this forum.  And even I believe that we have to find a way to better fund public transit, or else we risk losing even what little we have right now, and un-doing the promising trend of TOD in the places where it's happening now.

 

Edited January 21, 20196 yr by jtadams

The cheap solution, IMHO, is to run an express bus along/near I-271 and I-480, exiting the highway at locations that have large employment/residential/shopping/transportation nodes. A more expensive solution would be to create a busway in the middle of those highways with improved pedestrian linkages to those nodes. An add-on would be to extend the Blue and Green lines to and possibly beyond those highways. Like, run the Green Line to Beachwood Place and then up I-271 to the Hillcrest area; and, run the Blue Line to Solon via a transfer station with the I-480/271 busway.

 

https://gohiocommute.com/#/challenges/5c363eb6037b756d6809cfe5?platform=hootsuite

 

I absolutely hate, hate, HATE to even have to ask this.  But is Red Line service still reliable and safe enough that I could get my 11 year old and myself from Triskett to Tower City within about 45-50 minutes of arriving at the station (this would be late afternoon)?

Normally the answer is yes, just not today. Lots of kids got let out early from school and are running rampant in the city. I saw groups of them going on to the transit system at Tower City, probably because of the heavy rain.

Edited February 7, 20196 yr by KJP

Very depressing.  ? 

I'm sure you would have been fine. Just check RTA's site or their twitter for alerts, like track closure or other slowdowns. 

 

2 hours ago, Mendo said:

I'm sure you would have been fine. Just check RTA's site or their twitter for alerts, like track closure or other slowdowns. 

 

If I do that, and discover that something is wrong, I have other options, including driving in.

 

Most of RTA's customers do not have that option.  If they have to be someplace on time every time or else get fired, they get fired.

 

IMO this isn't acceptable.

 

5 hours ago, jtadams said:

If I do that, and discover that something is wrong, I have other options, including driving in.

 

Most of RTA's customers do not have that option.  If they have to be someplace on time every time or else get fired, they get fired.

 

IMO this isn't acceptable.

 

The question was whether the red line was a safe and reliable way to get into Tower City yesterday, in a vacuum. The answer was objectively yes barring any alerts due to track closure. Even when there are alerts, RTA run express buses between stations so the route is rarely shut completely.

 

The concerns about safety are largely subjective, and I'll leave it to the individual to weigh its importance. How many thousands of people took the red line yesterday without issue?

18 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

The question was whether the red line was a safe and reliable way to get into Tower City yesterday, in a vacuum. The answer was objectively yes barring any alerts due to track closure. Even when there are alerts, RTA run express buses between stations so the route is rarely shut completely.

 

The concerns about safety are largely subjective, and I'll leave it to the individual to weigh its importance. How many thousands of people took the red line yesterday without issue?

 

Probably about 28,000 -- the average number of weekday trips carried on the Red Line. ?

13 hours ago, Mendo said:

The concerns about safety are largely subjective, and I'll leave it to the individual to weigh its importance. How many thousands of people took the red line yesterday without issue?

 

My child would be coming with me, all of the stations we might use have a gang presence, and we'd be coming back fairly late at night.  So I'm not concerned about how many people didn't have an issue.  I'm concerned with how many people did.  Since I know about half a dozen people personally who did, recently, and I myself did as well in decades past when I used these stations a lot more than I do now, my "subjective" concern is quite important in this case, and probably the deciding factor in whether I will ever make use of RTA with my children when I don't have to.  My responsibility as a parent to keep my child safe is infinitely more important than my wish to advocate for and use transit wherever possible.

I don't know why you put "subjective" in quotes. Your post is the very definition of subjective.

 

That's fine if you don't feel the red line is a viable alternative for your use case. It is for a lot of other people.

The reality is shit happens on trains and buses. Not a whole lot, but it's inevitable that regular users will experience some kind of ugliness here and there. That's just life in a city, at least an American city in which there are far too many mentally ill, gangbangers, hostile/antisocial types, and then law-abiding people (who fortunately comprise the vast, vast, vast majority of users) all colliding in shared buses, and to a lesser degree trains.

 

It all depends on your threshold for safety, your child's ability to handle an ugly situation, and a lot of luck. Personally I think an 11-year-old can or should be able to take public transportation without adult supervision, even though there will be unfortunate moments. They need to see what happens and how to handle annoyances i.e. bangers or homeless sleeping on multiple seats, someone playing music loudly, or a loudmouth yelling n-word this and n-word that on the phone, to mildy more invasive irrations i.e. "square square square" or "can I have everyone's attention, I just got out of jail..." to escalated problems i.e. hoodrats getting into loud arguments, harassing innocent passengers, or even violence.  

 

Everyone, at least ordinary users, have had problems on trains and buses before. And those moments probably make us better equipped to handle subsequent situations. When my youngest niece was being sexually harassed on the green line on multiple trips (and boy wouldn't I love to slit the throat of that scumbag), she adapted and started sitting by the conductor in the front car. When some bum was trying to get me to fix his (stolen) computer, and I tried being cool, friendly and helpful, I learned quickly how FAST those types can turn on you, as he got ugly immediately when I refused to give my new "friend" money. I won't be doing that again. You learn from these moments, and they aren't an everyday occurrence. 

 

Why not just try it out for a few weeks. A month.

I'm not talking about general rowdiness, which, yes, every rider will encounter from time to time.  I'm talking about I have a friend who was beaten badly at the W. 117/Madison station and another at W.98/Cudell.  I've also seen the news reports.  I'm aware of the gangs that operate in those areas.  I still go to those places at night.  The question is, should I bring my 11 year old and very un-streetwise son into those same places late at night?  If I didn't have another choice, maybe, but I do.  So no.  I'll probably take the Red Line there, and a bus to come back to the station.

New Lake County service into Downtown by Laketran.  Not RTA, but I put it here as its Cleveland-transit related. 

 

"After years of planning, Laketran has officially launched transit service along Lake County’s largest manufacturing corridor, adding to the connectivity its Park-n-Ride service provides between Lake County and downtown Cleveland.......According to a news release, Tyler Boulevard in Mentor is the major arterial connecting 10 industrial boulevards lined with over 300 employers and 7,500 jobs, making it the seventh largest concentration of manufacturing companies in the state."

 

Interesting: 

 

"More recently, the regional transit system has seen Cleveland residents and those as far as Middleburg Heights, using the Park-n-Ride service to commute eastbound into Lake County."

 

https://www.news-herald.com/news/laketran/laketran-launches-new-service-between-cleveland-lake-county/article_5544fb0c-2e31-11e9-ad23-9ffd13a8512c.html

I heard an ad for RTA on the radio this morning, with something along the lines of "we want to know, do you want more frequency on our existing lines or are our existing lines not going where you want to go."  Which seems like the wrong question (we want to go where we need to go, AND we want increased frequency on whatever routes you're running).

 

There is a survey up on the RTA website:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KTYGYRM

22 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I heard an ad for RTA on the radio this morning, with something along the lines of "we want to know, do you want more frequency on our existing lines or are our existing lines not going where you want to go."  Which seems like the wrong question (we want to go where we need to go, AND we want increased frequency on whatever routes you're running).

 

There is a survey up on the RTA website:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KTYGYRM

 

That's not how transit works though. When you have finite resources, you need to balance between service coverage and frequency. As agencies reexamine their networks, they need to make a decision whether they value running buses out to low-density suburbs more or running increased frequency on high density corridors more, and then balance those two accordingly. That's what this survey is trying to capture. 

 

Jarrett Walker, the consultant who is doing RTA's study, explains it better here: https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe#ridershipcoveragetradeoff

Edited February 13, 20196 yr by TPH2

Just now, Foraker said:

I heard an ad for RTA on the radio this morning, with something along the lines of "we want to know, do you want more frequency on our existing lines or are our existing lines not going where you want to go."  Which seems like the wrong question (we want to go where we need to go, AND we want increased frequency on whatever routes you're running).

 

There is a survey up on the RTA website:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KTYGYRM

 

I don't think you'll get much argument here on either point.

But the sad reality is that we have to either accept, or (preferably!!) find a way to change, the fact that we are so grossly underfunded that we may not get to keep what we have now in terms of frequency and scope of service, much less get to increase either one, and still less to increase both at once. 

And given that depressing reality, my gut reaction is that safe, reliable and frequent service on major trunk lines should be the priorities, even if it means spacing services out more, spacing stops further, and encouraging people to make their own arrangements for the proverbial "last mile" in less densely populated areas where anything even close to duplication of nearby service may simply no longer be possible.

But, simultaneously, we should do everything and anything we possibly can to get the funding issue out in front of the voters in some fashion, preferably, with multiple options for spreading the cost across users, those who indirectly benefit (most of the rest of us), and downtown property owners who disproportionately benefit from the increased labor pool transit makes possible directly and indirectly.

If not . . . I'm not convinced we can keep our rail system.  Even leaving operating costs completely aside, we're at the point of literally cannibalizing parts from an increasing portion of our rolling stock, to prolong the life of the aging and dying remainder of the rest.  That is fairly obviously unsustainable.

And I don't know that RTA remains relevant either to suburban commuters, or the transit-dependent, without rail, and especially the Red Line.  It's the backbone of the system.  It's the only semi-reliably fast connection between most of the city of Cleveland and downtown.  We've terminated many of the suburban lines at Red Line stations that used to go downtown, and that would have to be completely undone if the Red Line were to become much less frequent, reliable, or capacious than it is now, which would reduce Red Line usage and feed the death spiral even faster.

It's just this simple . .. we need more money.  Or it will be hard to even keep what we have now.

7 hours ago, TPH2 said:

 

That's not how transit works though. When you have finite resources, you need to balance between service coverage and frequency. As agencies reexamine their networks, they need to make a decision whether they value running buses out to low-density suburbs more or running increased frequency on high density corridors more, and then balance those two accordingly. That's what this survey is trying to capture. 

 

Jarrett Walker, the consultant who is doing RTA's study, explains it better here: https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe#ridershipcoveragetradeoff

1

 

Agreed, and the survey intro explains it well, too. 

 

I was not clear (when I said "we want to go where we want to go" -- I was speaking as someone in the inner ring of suburbs near a transit spine who is frustrated with the current frequency and timeliness of the local bus line). You're right to point that out so I can clarify.

 

I agree that the system needs more money, and needs to focus on dense corridors and frequency on those corridors and not let the system get too spread out.  I know there is concern about providing service to the outer burghs because RTA wants their support on tax votes, but I think spreading out to less dense routes is just going to kill the system. 

 

Hey Solon and Avon  -- if we put more riders inside the 90/271/480 belt onto mass transit, you'll have fewer cars to battle on the highway -- sounds like a better reason to urge voters to approve more funding.  The state should contribute more as well.

^ Ah, Yes, exactly. Sorry, I misread your post. 

I don't know if this has been reported already or not, but FTA's December 2018 ridership numbers have finally been posted to the NTD, and RTA's ridership was just over 35 million, an 11% drop from last year (and a new all-time low). 

 

I know this is a catch 22, but if RTA wants to expand ridership, it needs to expand access. 

 

I personally have two friends who bought homes in West Park for the sole purpose of being able to take the rapid into work. If there was a rapid or light rail that ran down Detroit, I think people would be 2-3x more likely to ride it than they are the bus. Maybe I'm wrong - you all are significantly more well versed than I am re: public transit. 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

I know this is a catch 22, but if RTA wants to expand ridership, it needs to expand access. 

 

I personally have two friends who bought homes in West Park for the sole purpose of being able to take the rapid into work. If there was a rapid or light rail that ran down Detroit, I think people would be 2-3x more likely to ride it than they are the bus. Maybe I'm wrong - you all are significantly more well versed than I am re: public transit. 

I completely agree with your logic. If I didn't have to worry about the stress of driving and the pain of buying gas so frequently and just hop on the train/streetcar, I would do so in a heartbeat. I love the train, I love the speed at which you arrive at your destination, I love how I can sit back and relax while I get to said destination. If I could just walk out of my door and catch a train to work, I would in a heartbeat and I don't feel I'm even close to being the only one that feels that way. 

^^Money is the big constraint here. RTA wants to increase ridership because that's their mission, but it only benefits RTA financially if the additional ridership revenue exceeds the marginal increase in operating/construction costs necessary to generate that ridership revenue.  RTA should absolute examine its network (which it's doing), but a really great thing for RTA's stability (aside form higher sales tax collections or other subsidies) would be higher ridership on the existing network. 

Edited February 21, 20196 yr by StapHanger

Except.... The more riders RTA carries, the more money it loses (albeit not in a linear manner, but in a step manner). At this week's RTA board meeting, it was reported that RTA's cost-recovery ratio is down to 19 percent. In other words, fares cover only 19 percent of the cost of providing a transit trip. US transit agencies are abysmal at cost recovery, so RTA is not unique. Interestingly, Canadian transit agencies often achieve 50 percent or higher cost recovery even though they cover more suburban areas and do so more frequently than their US counterparts. Now, it's true that there is certain amount of fixed cost in every transit vehicle trip. The existing bus or train is running anyway, right? So if you put more fare-paying bodies on that bus or train, it's going to cover more of its costs. If the bus or train starts carrying standees, then there's pressure to add more service. Add another bus or train and the cost recovery ratio takes a big step down until it can attract more riders to cover more of its costs.

 

RTA has chosen geographic coverage over frequency of service because it is stretched by political demands. That's a big reason why its cost recovery is so low. If RTA's board releases more funds to complete the system redesign (right now the consultant is merely collecting data, but RTA staff doesn't think it needs any help to redesign the system), then this region's political leaders are going to have to make a hard choice -- have a financially viable and usable transit system or have one that puts an hourly bus through their community to carry an average of 11 riders per bus trip.

 

The fare increases have also hurt ridership, even though they increased revenues. One might argue that RTA's cost recovery is so low that a small increase in public funding combined with the cost savings from not having to collect fares may justify making the system fare-free.

The debate over geographic spread-vs-higher service level isn't just about political leaders trying to maintain parochial service.  We often have this debate on here about wanting to add more suburban service, crosstown trips, and the like.  I think the system needs to condense and concentrate it's resources on the most transit supportive parts of the region along with encouraging TOD along the Rapid and BRT lines.

Sure, if you're going to do it (ie: provide service to suburban job nodes, hospitals, college campuses, etc), then do it right with frequencies of 30 minutes or better. Instead, what's provided is more cosmetic than useful. And the transfer times between infrequent routes is what puts so many jobs beyond the range of a 90-minute one-way transit trip.

And the other side of that coin (and related to the original comment today), we get pathetic 20 minute headways on the 26, which should be a high frequency route.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

The fare increases have also hurt ridership, even though they increased revenues. One might argue that RTA's cost recovery is so low that a small increase in public funding combined with the cost savings from not having to collect fares may justify making the system fare-free.

 

I've often wondered this. How much of an increase in taxes/state funding would be needed to make the service fare-free? Sure there would be pushback from the usual crowd saying its not fair they pay for it in their taxes and don't use it while the people who use it pay nothing... but I see plenty of benefits to it. First and foremost it could make a huge difference to the less fortunate and lower income people of this region. RTA could also save money from not having the collection infrastructure (including policing payments). Suburban and infrequent users would also not have the confusion/embarrassment of figuring out the pay system, and may be more likely to use the system.  I could go on and on. 

 

From Wikipedia, it seems Tallinn is the only large city to go fare free in the world, although there are many other small systems around the world who have - some seeing ridership increase by 1300%(!). That would be a tremendous amount of cars off the road.

15 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

it seems Tallinn is the only large city to go fare free in the world

I think I read that the entire country of Luxembourg is going fare-free this year. Not that there are any big cities there.

15 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

 

Sure there would be pushback from the usual crowd saying its not fair they pay for it in their taxes and don't use it while the people who use it pay nothing... but . . . .  That would be a tremendous amount of cars off the road.

1

 

You answered your own question -- why should suburbanites want better mass transit?  Because it takes cars off the road.

Does anyone know the process of selling advertisement space RTA property? I see a few trains around shaker that are purple. The whole train is a Crown Royal ad.  How could they land a giant like that but not have advertisements on other trains? Why Crown? Are they trying or do you think Crown approaches RTA and they were like fine we will take the money and don’t try to solicit other companies to advertise on  the trains. It just seems bizarre to have one company with such an enormous ad and the other trains are blank.

On 3/1/2019 at 10:05 PM, BelievelandD1 said:

Does anyone know the process of selling advertisement space RTA property? I see a few trains around shaker that are purple. The whole train is a Crown Royal ad.  How could they land a giant like that but not have advertisements on other trains? Why Crown? Are they trying or do you think Crown approaches RTA and they were like fine we will take the money and don’t try to solicit other companies to advertise on  the trains. It just seems bizarre to have one company with such an enormous ad and the other trains are blank.

 

RTA solicits sponsors of individual rail cars.

Researchers say RTA spending has multiple community benefits

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/03/researchers-say-rta-spending-has-multiple-community-benefitts.html

 

Here's the slides from this morning's presentation:

 

 

 

"But before voting on House Bill 62, the Ohio House Finance Committee adopted a large amendment that gives public transit $100 million a year in federal transportation funds. That is up from $70 million a year that the committee had discussed Tuesday night, and higher than the $40 million a year recommended by Gov. Mike DeWine. The state’s 61 urban and rural transit agencies now get $33 million a year."

 

Ohio House committee clears bill for 10.7 cent gas tax increase, with new wins for transit, local govs

 

Now if only we can get that $7 million up from the state's GRF.

Edited March 7, 20196 yr by imjustinjk

The new station at E. 116-St. Luke's is almost complete! Today GCRTA began service by boarding on the new platforms. Over the next few days, old platforms will be demolished and the new station will be completed....

 

 

 

 

 

About $110 million worth of investment has been made in this area, nearly all north of the station, in recent years. Imagine how much better this station's setting and ridership would be if the south side was redeveloped in the manner that NOACA and its TOD consulting team suggested......

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 20196 yr by KJP