Quote

The next phase will mock up a better-funded system with same coverage, more frequency.

 

Huh? Seems like they don't want to actually consider the hard choice, which is cutting coverage to increase frequency. Can't say I blame them too much though.

The only significant, non-rush-hour coverage I think we can afford outside of the city and inner suburbs would be reverse-commute trips to places like Solon.

 

I wonder if it makes sense for municipalities that might lose out in this situation to restart their own municipal bus services, as North Olmsted, Maple Heights, Euclid, Garfield Heights, and a number of others once did.  Since it was only gradually, and in some cases well after the creation of the GCRTA, that these services disappeared, I assume there are no legal impediments to running these services in coordination with GCRTA.  Some of the more relatively affluent suburbs might want to fund better services for those who live and/or work in them, out of their own budgets, than what GCRTA can afford to run.  Thoughts?

It was the Cleveland Corporate Challenge today. Maybe it’s just my sense of humor, but I found it amusing/ ironic that the RTA team came in dead last in the 10k...

From GCRTA, regarding the Red Line S-curve retaining wall reinforcement work....

 

So far, 59 of 72 steel beams are in place. Once the braces are in place, we will need to weather-treat the steel and perform testing on the tracks. We are still on track for a late August opening of the S Curve.

 

FYI: The first photo is a GCRTA picture. The second one is a contributed photo taken about a month ago. If you open it up and zoom in on it, you can see the retaining wall in the distance has bowed out. Above the Red Line is Norfolk Southern's Chicago Line that also hosts four nightly Amtrak trains.

EDIT: I zoomed in the photo in Paint and circled the visible problem area.

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 20195 yr by KJP

 Too bad they didn't dig deeper in the first place and cap over the tracks, it seems like an ugly wasteful stretch.

 

It's part of a ramp to change elevations between two railroad rights of way that the Red Line parallels. 

Has this been mentioned anywhere? Far as I can tell this includes increased frequency for the WFL. The current schedule has only weekday Blue Line trains continuing through to South Harbor, with Green Line trains going through on the weekends. The new schedule has both Blue and Green Line trains going to the waterfront until 7, effectively doubling the frequency to every 10 minutes at rush and 15 minutes off-peak. 

^That's interesting. Has there been an uptick of ridership on the WFL recently?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the extra WFL service is because of the tower city track rehab. Just today track 10 on the light rail side got surrounded with temporary fencing. 

17 hours ago, jawn said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the extra WFL service is because of the tower city track rehab. Just today track 10 on the light rail side got surrounded with temporary fencing. 

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

EDIT -- I thought they were starting it soon but I can't find anything on the RTA website about it and one of my friends at RTA who usually knows about upcoming projects hasn't heard a start date for the Tracks 10/13 replacement. 

 

The contractor and funding were approved March 26....

 

Edited August 14, 20195 yr by KJP

I rode the Red Line to Little Italy yesterday for the final day of the Feast.   

 

The ride was made longer by the constant stops by the driver--there would be a beeping sound from the driver cabin, followed by hard braking, to either a near or complete stop.  It seemed completely at random, with no pattern at all.  At times it felt like the driver was "pedaling the train".  

Has anyone else noticed this?   I wonder if it's not some overly-sensitive safety feature?   

21 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

Yep. I noticed the beep/brake last time I was on the east side and was wondering the same thing.

It seems like it used to happen much more than it does now (like 5+ years ago), but I believe it means either the train is (or thinks it is) too close to the train in front of it and is telling the operator to slow down, or the train is over the speed limit for the current section of track.  But I could be completely wrong.

Edited August 19, 20195 yr by jam40jeff

 

37 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

I rode the Red Line to Little Italy yesterday for the final day of the Feast.   

 

The ride was made longer by the constant stops by the driver--there would be a beeping sound from the driver cabin, followed by hard braking, to either a near or complete stop.  It seemed completely at random, with no pattern at all.  At times it felt like the driver was "pedaling the train".  

Has anyone else noticed this?   I wonder if it's not some overly-sensitive safety feature?   

 

I rode over to LI yesterday as well. It's been bad this summer. A crosstown trip I took in June or July was even worse. The west side part has been way worse than the east side of recent. I always figured it had to do with going to fast in stretches of track that aren't so smooth.

Edited August 19, 20195 yr by mu2010

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

I rode the Red Line to Little Italy yesterday for the final day of the Feast.   

 

The ride was made longer by the constant stops by the driver--there would be a beeping sound from the driver cabin, followed by hard braking, to either a near or complete stop.  It seemed completely at random, with no pattern at all.  At times it felt like the driver was "pedaling the train".  

Has anyone else noticed this?   I wonder if it's not some overly-sensitive safety feature?   

 

Same thing on Saturday heading eastbound. I’ve been on the rapid when it’s gone much much faster on those sections so I can’t imagine it was that. It was constant from W25th to LI.

It's RTA's cab-signal system, combined with Automatic Train Stop. All sections of track are "coded" with a circuit to automatically brake trains if the driver exceeds the speed limit. The braking is accompanied by a beeping sound. When sections of track are being worked on, they are coded with speed restrictions, such 10 or 25 mph. Even if their isn't active construction going on, the coded restriction remains in place. And, unfortunately, long after construction work is done, the coded restriction remains in effect because RTA hasn't raised the limit back to normal.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

It's RTA's cab-signal system, combined with Automatic Train Stop. All sections of track are "coded" with a circuit to automatically brake trains if the driver exceeds the speed limit. The braking is accompanied by a beeping sound. When sections of track are being worked on, they are coded with speed restrictions, such 10 or 25 mph. Even if their isn't active construction going on, the coded restriction remains in place. And, unfortunately, long after construction work is done, the coded restriction remains in effect because RTA hasn't raised the limit back to normal.

 

Based on these descriptions,  I'm not sure the drivers know what it is...because they kept speeding up until the beeping sounded then the brakes slammed on.   It was throwing everyone out of their seats!  

When I had the really rough trip a month or so ago, the lights on the train were also going on and off along with the beeping. And when the train was moving it was crawling. Yesterday was better.

On 7/26/2019 at 8:33 AM, jtadams said:

The only significant, non-rush-hour coverage I think we can afford outside of the city and inner suburbs would be reverse-commute trips to places like Solon.

 

I wonder if it makes sense for municipalities that might lose out in this situation to restart their own municipal bus services, as North Olmsted, Maple Heights, Euclid, Garfield Heights, and a number of others once did.  Since it was only gradually, and in some cases well after the creation of the GCRTA, that these services disappeared, I assume there are no legal impediments to running these services in coordination with GCRTA.  Some of the more relatively affluent suburbs might want to fund better services for those who live and/or work in them, out of their own budgets, than what GCRTA can afford to run.  Thoughts?

 

I'm not sure they are even permitted to, under the merger agreement.    Of all the local services, only Maple Heights put up strong resistance to the merger.   They remained autonomous into the mid 80s.   They were cleaner, better maintained, and ran closer to schedule than the rest of GCRTA.   The main agency's response, of course, was full absorption.

 

The unified agency was always downtown-centric and averse to anything that looked like accommodating the "fat cats".

43 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Based on these descriptions,  I'm not sure the drivers know what it is...because they kept speeding up until the beeping sounded then the brakes slammed on.   It was throwing everyone out of their seats!  

 

What's most aggravating is that drivers try to "push" the limit, like they're trying to find the end of the wall in the dark by repeatedly bumping into it, hoping they can go forward again. It's so annoying. Of course, I'm assuming that a consistent track speed is coded into the cab signal for that stretch of track.

Aug 20, 2019

India Birdsong Takes Over as Greater Cleveland Public Transit Chief on Sept. 16

 

CLEVELAND, OHIO, August 20, 2019 – The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Board of Trustees today unanimously approved the contract making India Birdsong RTA’s Chief Executive Officer and General Manager.

 

Birdsong’s official first day is Sept. 16.

 

“I’m thrilled to lead the RTA and serve the Greater Cleveland community. As a city undergoing lots of positive changes, there is no doubt that Cleveland residents deserve a vibrant transit system that will attract robust ridership and deliver the services that meet riders’ needs,” Birdsong said. “We’re going to commit every day to transparency and reliability. Communicating how and why we’re spending taxpayer money and making sure people know when their next train or bus will arrive will be a daily priority.”

 

Details are here: http://www.riderta.com/news/rta-board-approves-contract-new-ceo-0

Darn, I guess my resume wasn't good enough. 

 

On a related note however, some other good things happened at today's board meeting:

• Red Line wall repairs are still on schedule for completion at the end of the month
• The 5508-5810 Euclid Ave. sale is approved - http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/08/midtown-property-sale-designed-to-spur.html
• Triskett CNG fueling is approved

Edited August 21, 20195 yr by jawn

On 7/26/2019 at 6:48 AM, KJP said:

 

The maintenance manager at an old job took over a nearby bar, and a couple of us stopped in.  This was years ago when jukeboxes were stand alone.   We went to play some better music, and there was literally nothing but country.  I asked him about this at work, he said that's what his regulars wanted.   He was closed within six months.

Of course the people who are already engaged are going to prefer frequency over coverage.   Pressed further, they are going to want more frequency on the lines *they* use.

 

It's a truism in the bar biz that you can't let your regulars run the place.   This is a close analogy.

Increased frequency on fewer lines means you can get to anyplace the system goes in a bounded amount of time.  If you live in a lower-density area that just became unserved, you may have to walk/bike/drive to get to a stop.  But in that case, you probably can afford to do that.  You still know that once you're in the system, you can get to anyplace else in the system in a bounded (though not necessarily small) amount of time.

 

Increased coverage with lower frequency means the system probably goes where you are, but only every hour or two, and transfers become unreliable and hence useless.  This is useful for point-to-point commutes only.  It made more sense when a lot of people worked downtown compared to anyplace else.  Not so much anymore IMO.

 

The increased frequency/fewer lines option kills the line I would use to get to work (without having to walk the last 1.25 miles) and I would *still* prefer it to the increased coverage/less frequency option.

Unfortunately, RTA isn't going to redesign its system. It chose to do nothing, citing a lack of a majority support for any alternative redesign. The largest amount of support (48%) was for reducing coverage and boosting frequency on the remaining lines. So RTA chose to stick with the status quo -- a failing system. They seem to believe that's OK, as if it is somehow fated to them.

18 minutes ago, KJP said:

Unfortunately, RTA isn't going to redesign its system. It chose to do nothing, citing a lack of a majority support for any alternative redesign. The largest amount of support (48%) was for reducing coverage and boosting frequency on the remaining lines. So RTA chose to stick with the status quo -- a failing system. They seem to believe that's OK, as if it is somehow fated to them.

 

Then I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with E_Rocc and say that we need for grownups to start running things, which I think means to prioritize the stuff for which there isn't an alternative, namely, good service in the city and inner suburbs where good ridership already exists.   Hopefully the new GM/CEO, Ms. Birdsong, will either agree and act accordingly, or plot some other consistent course toward a future in which at least those who need useful transit the most can have it.

19 minutes ago, KJP said:

Unfortunately, RTA isn't going to redesign its system. It chose to do nothing, citing a lack of a majority support for any alternative redesign. The largest amount of support (48%) was for reducing coverage and boosting frequency on the remaining lines. So RTA chose to stick with the status quo -- a failing system. They seem to believe that's OK, as if it is somehow fated to them.

 

That makes no sense; the survey stated that the “proposed” route maps weren’t meant to be actual route plans, but examples illustrating the different options.

 

And yes, shocker that when you offered people a sliding scale of options to chose from a clear majority didn’t arise. ???

 

 

It also becomes that much more important that the funding that was lost over the past decade or so be replaced.  I won't profess to have a clue as to how.  But that's why Ms. Birdsong and others at the top of GCRTA make the big bucks.  ?

Edited August 21, 20195 yr by jtadams
Tpyo.

Just now, Enginerd said:

 

That makes no sense; the survey stated that the “proposed” route maps weren’t meant to be actual route plans, but examples illustrating the different options.

 

And yes, shocker that when you offered people a sliding scale of options to chose from a clear majority didn’t arise. ???

 

 

 

Not sure those offering their opinions understood this.  Or that the status quo really provides the worst of both worlds; we get mediocre-at-best service as well as mediocre-at-best coverage, making the system at best minimally useful even to those who have no alternative, and, generally speaking, very unattractive to those who do.  AND, hence, not likely to generate much support for the funding needed to keep even this mediocre service alive for much longer.

 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Unfortunately, RTA isn't going to redesign its system. It chose to do nothing, citing a lack of a majority support for any alternative redesign. The largest amount of support (48%) was for reducing coverage and boosting frequency on the remaining lines. So RTA chose to stick with the status quo -- a failing system. They seem to believe that's OK, as if it is somehow fated to them.

 

They (RTA) won't have to do as much work this way.

With that attitude, soon they won't have to do any work at all, because there will no longer be anything resembling a GCRTA for which to work.

 

3 hours ago, jtadams said:

With that attitude, soon they won't have to do any work at all, because there will no longer be anything resembling a GCRTA for which to work.

 

 

Interestingly, when someone suggests to RTA board members or staff that RTA is in a death spiral, they take great offense to that. Truth apparently hurts.

10 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Interestingly, when someone suggests to RTA board members or staff that RTA is in a death spiral, they take great offense to that. Truth apparently hurts.

 

As I see it, they don't have much control over the hand they were dealt, and it was a crappy one.  However, they *can* choose how they are going to play it.  Business as usual doesn't work anymore.  They have to choose whether to preserve at least the core of the system (including rail and inner-city/inner-suburb service), or let it die and the entire region along with it.  Honestly, that's a lot of power over the future of over a million people, and I'd feel an awful lot better about that future if I knew that those with that power were at least a little bit inclined to use it wisely.

5 hours ago, bjk said:

They (RTA) won't have to do as much work this way.

 

I'm all for bashing government agencies, but it's more that these people are scared. Scared to reduce suburban service for fear that it will make their political situation even more tenuous.

11 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I'm all for bashing government agencies, but it's more that these people are scared. Scared to reduce suburban service for fear that it will make their political situation even more tenuous.

 

I've had to change my thinking on this.  I believe as I always have that transit serves the interests of the entire region broadly defined, including non-riders, but I no longer believe we are going to be able to sell that belief to people in lower-density suburban and exurban areas, even if we continue to run highly subsidized, yet infrequent, park and ride service to those areas.  They just don't personally see those benefits.  And given that those services operate at heavy losses, something I was not aware of until recently, I don't think business as usual makes sense anymore.  I do think it makes a lot of sense to (a) ask them to pay their fair share (in taxes, or at the farebox); (b) ask (and allow) them to operate their own suburban services at no cost to taxpayers outside their own jurisdictions; or (c) at least for now, given the current funding disaster, cut them loose.  For now.  The current ridership, and all likely future ridership, comes from the city and inner suburbs.  I'd like to keep some reverse commute trips because a lot of folks really depend on those trips.  But, otherwise, shrinking the scope of service to mostly city and inner suburbs, but running the best service therein that we can afford, makes the most sense to me.  If we want a truly regional system again - which even with great funding won't look like it would have 40 years ago - then the region will have to pay for it, and, right now, I don't know any way to sell that, especially given the need to fix the current rail systems before we can even think about expanding them.

54 minutes ago, jtadams said:

 

I've had to change my thinking on this.  I believe as I always have that transit serves the interests of the entire region broadly defined, including non-riders, but I no longer believe we are going to be able to sell that belief to people in lower-density suburban and exurban areas, even if we continue to run highly subsidized, yet infrequent, park and ride service to those areas.  They just don't personally see those benefits.  And given that those services operate at heavy losses, something I was not aware of until recently, I don't think business as usual makes sense anymore.  I do think it makes a lot of sense to (a) ask them to pay their fair share (in taxes, or at the farebox); (b) ask (and allow) them to operate their own suburban services at no cost to taxpayers outside their own jurisdictions; or (c) at least for now, given the current funding disaster, cut them loose.  For now.  The current ridership, and all likely future ridership, comes from the city and inner suburbs.  I'd like to keep some reverse commute trips because a lot of folks really depend on those trips.  But, otherwise, shrinking the scope of service to mostly city and inner suburbs, but running the best service therein that we can afford, makes the most sense to me.  If we want a truly regional system again - which even with great funding won't look like it would have 40 years ago - then the region will have to pay for it, and, right now, I don't know any way to sell that, especially given the need to fix the current rail systems before we can even think about expanding them.

 

I agree with you in terms of what service should be... but I can hear the attack ads already when this goes to the ballot box for a countywide levy, if there's only service in the city and inner suburbs.

17 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

 

I agree with you in terms of what service should be... but I can hear the attack ads already when this goes to the ballot box for a countywide levy, if there's only service in the city and inner suburbs.

 

Won't need the ads.  Word of mouth will do it.   There certainly wouldn't be any more money coming, and the current tax could be repealed.

 

I say this even though on a practical basis, I don't entirely disagree with the OP.

 

The semi-forced merger was a disaster for public transit in the county, which was compounded by the "one size fits all" approach pushed by Krumholz and his allies and the non-central location of the primary hub.  The timing at the end of the "bigger government is better" mindset didn't help either, though ironically that reduced opposition.  Only Maple Heights (comparable to Strongsville today at the time) objected.   Survivors of those politicians must be feeling quite prophetic, they pretty much predicted this. 

I don't know the answer.  But I think if people truly understood the predicament we are in throughout this country with regard to mass transit, its possible demise, and the effect that will have on cities and their surrounding regions, they would be supportive of reasonable, realistic solutions.  I base this on the fact that even I, as a libertarian, believe the system needs to be funded somehow, although I would far prefer it be funded by those who most directly benefit - downtown property owners first and foremost, then riders, then other employers, then other commuters, then the region as a whole due to the positive externalities generated by transit.  And I can think of a lot of ways to fund it without new or increased taxes . . . though since public funding is a zero sum game, that means it would have to come out of something else, and I'd probably take it out of unnecessary road projects.  In a free-er market, roads, and hence low-density suburban development, would never have been subsidized to the exclusion of transit.  I don't like the idea of taxes as a tool for social engineering, but I think a good case can be made for starting to undo decades of unsustainable development patterns by no longer preferentially subsidizing highways over transit.  That can't be done all at once, but we could start now, given the political will, by, for instance, mandating that every tax dollar spent on roads in urban areas must be matched by some proportional amount of dollars on transit.  Then by using that money to build GOOD transit systems that are more convenient and useful for most people than cars.  That is the case today for exactly one part of the country, namely, New York City.  There is no reason conceptually why it couldn't be true in the more densely populated parts of other cities, including our own.  But, speaking of . . . .

 

The situation is not unique to northeast Ohio or the Rust Belt.  There is almost as much transit in the New York City area as in the rest of the country combined, but MTA's own chief lamented that their system was in, and I believe he used these exact words, a "death spiral."  It has become public knowledge that the graft involved in MTA operations (e.g., LIRR overtime mandated by outdated work rules) is absurd even by NYC standards.  I doubt that that level of graft exists here.  There just isn't enough money anymore to make it profitable.  But, all the same, I think it wise to examine whether the money being spent could be spent better.  Whether some degree of automation might help.  (Probably not driving, yet, but eventually?)  Whether the union is getting in the way of not only the GCRTA, but its own membership, by requirements that reduce productivity and thereby feed the death spiral.   I'm not  saying it is, or isn't; I just don't know, but, historically, that sort of thing has been known to happen.  Whether capital improvements - which are sometimes more easy to fund through federal grants and the like as opposed to operating costs - may in time reduce operating costs.  When a family has lost most of its income, it looks at everything it possibly can, to try to find a way to survive a little bit longer.  GCRTA needs to do the same.  Also, that family is probably looking to replace the income it lost; hopefully all, but, even if not all, then at least a significant part.  GCRTA needs to be doing that as well.  If both of those things happen, I think we have a fighting chance.  Not a guarantee, but a chance.  If it does neither though?  Then I think we all know that things end very badly.  Question is, does Jane Q. Public also know this? 

2 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I agree with you in terms of what service should be... but I can hear the attack ads already when this goes to the ballot box for a countywide levy, if there's only service in the city and inner suburbs.

 

I'm inclined to think that people in the outer suburbs don't care or think about RTA, except for the handful of commuters that use the park-n-ride services.   Many would probably prefer that there were NO service in their area, since clearly public transportation brings the "bad element" to their community.  

 

Unfortunately at the ballot boxes, if these same people see something with RTA next to it, they are going to vote no instantly--whether it be anti big-government taxes or subtle anti-urban racism....

 

 

@jtadams Then all transportation should be funded by people who directly benefit from it. The problem is that the cost of driving and parking is so heavily externalized from the acts of driving and parking we have no appreciation of costly both of these activities are. So before we drop the libertarian hammer on transit alone, make sure our hammer is large enough to land on all modes of transportation to internalize ALL of the societal costs that each mode incurs.

Edited August 22, 20195 yr by KJP

 ^^This can be mitigated by offering free service or a free zone in downtown Cleveland.  The people that do come downtown for various events might feel free transportation is a fair trade off by not having a bus come to their community 4x a day. 

  So waterfront line could be made free while the levy pushes to create a downtown loop. 

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

@jtadams Then all transportation should be funded by people who directly benefit from it. The problem is that the cost of driving and parking is so heavily externalized from the acts of driving and parking we have no appreciation of costly both of these activities are. So before we drop the libertarian hammer on transit alone, make sure our hammer is large enough to land on all modes of transportation to internalize ALL of the societal costs that each mode incurs.

 

I thought that was what I was suggesting.  That roads should never have been subsidized at the expense of transit, and that it is not appropriate to continue to keep doing the same thing, even presuming that it ever was, now that we know for certain what will result. 

Sorry, I have a nasty habit of just skimming through posts. ?

1 hour ago, Terdolph said:

I am in agreement with JT.  Right now, the goal should be to preserve infrastructure for happier days.  I do think that, with the right investments, Cleveland will have a recovery but it might be 20 years off, and then the transit funding will be there.  I look at Vancouver BC as an example.  In the 1970's, no one would have thought that building a subway, etc. would have made any sense in that town-which was really rough. Look at it now.  Seattle too-in the 1970's and even 80's, no one wanted to move here.  So, first we need to preserve the rail system at all costs, and I think investing in a downtown loop for the waterfront line will pave the way for investments that will come eventually. It really isn't all that much $$. Second, the new RTA manager needs to tell Warrensville Hts. to preserve an rapid right of way across Northfield Rd.  That would cost nothing. 

 

Vancouver had 40% of Hong Kong residents emigrate there.  Seattle had Amazon happen.  Cleveland needs something on this level to witness the transformation you're suggesting. 

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

 

Vancouver had 40% of Hong Kong residents emigrate there.  Seattle had Amazon happen.  Cleveland needs something on this level to witness the transformation you're suggesting. 

 

Rockefeller incubated his business here. Sherwin and Williams incubated their business here. So did Charles Brush, Frederick Crawford, Cyrus Eaton, Jeptha Wade, Samuel Mather and so many others. We just need to be able to capitalize tomorrow's employers and keep them here.

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Rockefeller incubated his business here. Sherwin and Williams incubated their business here. So did Charles Brush, Frederick Crawford, Cyrus Eaton, Jeptha Wade, Samuel Mather and so many others. We just need to be able to capitalize tomorrow's employers and keep them here.

 

I don't disagree at all.   

 

But with the current political and business climates, we are in an uphill battle.   Until Ohio starts thinking more progressively, we'll continue to have a hard time attracting 20-something software coders who would rather be on the coasts with better transit, weather and tolerance.  

You guys are apparently talking to different people and reading different economic news headlines in Cleveland than I am.

23 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Cleveland is.......still bleeding jobs. 

 

Cleveland is not bleeding jobs. I’m not saying we can’t do better, but like KJP said I’m not sure where you’re getting this from.

 

This is from an article KJP posted a few days ago:

 

“Demand for apartments is coming from an increase in employment that is allowing more people to move into rentals. Employers added roughly 14,200 positions year over year in May, nearly double the previous year’s growth.

 

Another encouraging sign for Cleveland is that most employment sectors added jobs during this period. The heightened hiring has kept the unemployment rate below 5 percent for the past five months and the rate is down 80 basis points since May 2018.”

 

We can do better and I don’t mind discussions about that, but let’s get the facts straight.

Edited August 22, 20195 yr by Sir2geez

And now back to this thread's topic: "RTA smart fare cards on the way, finally, RTA says"

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/08/rta-smart-fare-cards-on-the-way-finally-rta-says.html

 

RTA says that the delay is due to the contractor, who was acquired mid-project.  RTA says that they have withheld millions of dollars in payment to the contractor due to the smart card implementation delays.

 

And it seems that @KJP was referenced in the article, although not by name or direct quote.  "In a 2013 Plain Dealer story addressing the years-long delay in implementing smart-card technology, All Aboard Ohio’s executive director said the cards could save RTA millions of dollars a year in operating costs."  (Or was that outside your tenure, Ken?)

Just now, Boomerang_Brian said:

And it seems that @KJP was referenced in the article, although not by name or direct quote.  "In a 2013 Plain Dealer story addressing the years-long delay in implementing smart-card technology, All Aboard Ohio’s executive director said the cards could save RTA millions of dollars a year in operating costs."  (Or was that outside your tenure, Ken?)

 

No, that was me. I've been AAO ED since 2008, but served in different positions within AAO since 1988, or was that 1888?