^ Same here - I got a real sense of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. Seems she’s not the change agent me and probably all of us, were hoping for. 

1 hour ago, roman totale XVII said:

^ Same here - I got a real sense of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. Seems she’s not the change agent me and probably all of us, were hoping for. 

 

She's a step backwards.   I agree with her on POP, I'm not sure if those who are used to it realize how much that sounds like "papers, please" to those who are not.

 

But it sounds like she is openly de-emphasizing rail and has wildly inconsistent views regarding privatization.  

POP is an essential element of BRT, as are dedicated lanes and signal prioritization.  Anyone who doesn't like it is always free to use one of the several roughly parallel services.  Besides which, we already live in what is very much a "papers, please" society.  Any person can be harrassed by cops, or worse, for not producing papers.  ESPECIALLY any person of color.  People who look even vaguely Hispanic can be deported for not having papers, even if they are 5th generation American citizens.  It happens all the time.  It's not right, but it is what it is, and requiring partial payment for a valuable service that costs a lot of money to provide is not a particularly huge change from the fact that any cop can demand "papers" from any person at any time already, with or without reason, and in this case there at least would be a reason: without it, BRT is really not possible.  Plus, no one is demanding ID in this situation.  They are demanding proof of payment.  Carrying such proof is simply a condition of using the service.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by jtadams

1 hour ago, jtadams said:

POP is an essential element of BRT, as are dedicated lanes and signal prioritization.  Anyone who doesn't like it is always free to use one of the several roughly parallel services.  Besides which, we already live in what is very much a "papers, please" society.  Any person can be harrassed by cops, or worse, for not producing papers.  ESPECIALLY any person of color.  People who look even vaguely Hispanic can be deported for not having papers, even if they are 5th generation American citizens.  It happens all the time.  It's not right, but it is what it is, and requiring partial payment for a valuable service that costs a lot of money to provide is not a particularly huge change from the fact that any cop can demand "papers" from any person at any time already, with or without reason, and in this case there at least would be a reason: without it, BRT is really not possible.  Plus, no one is demanding ID in this situation.  They are demanding proof of payment.  Carrying such proof is simply a condition of using the service.

 

Proof of payment can be verified by civilians rather than law enforcement too.  Non-payment should not be criminalized. 

I'm open to both ideas.  I'm not a fan of the current state of the criminal justice system, and specifically of its tendency to harden criminals (and non-criminals as well) rather than to rehabilitate them.  But, generally speaking, theft of service is already a crime, as is trespassing.  I'd be more than happy to handle non-repeated, non-willful offenses as more or less the equivalent of parking tickets.  Or even to forgive first-time offenders altogether, maybe with a sliding scale of subsequent fines based on the number of priors and the financial ability of the offender.  However, repeated and/or willful offenses by able-bodied, able-minded, adult offenders should not be tolerated outright.  If they are, then we end up with those who will obey the law subsidizing those who will not.  That's the wrong incentive here.  Possibly not as wrong as incarcerating people for any less than the most truly compelling reasons, which I will fully admit this isn't.  But wrong nonetheless.  Can we come up with a policy that does require payment, but doesn't completely ruin the life of those who run afoul thereof?

2 hours ago, freefourur said:

 

Proof of payment can be verified by civilians rather than law enforcement too.  Non-payment should not be criminalized. 

 

If it isn't, then payment is effectively not mandatory.   

 

"Anyone who doesn't like it is always free to use one of the several roughly parallel services. "

 

Or drive.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

If it isn't, then payment is effectively not mandatory.   

 

"Anyone who doesn't like it is always free to use one of the several roughly parallel services. "

 

Or drive.

 

 

 

You can fine people for not paying without is being a criminal offense. 

True enough, but then what happens when they don't pay the fine?  If there are no real consequences, at any point, then the prior point stands: it is not mandatory.

 

What I'd prefer to see is a schedule of fines and penalties that increase in severity after repeat offenses.

If you leave your car parked at a meter too long, shouldn't that also be considered a criminal offense, not a civil offense?

 

BTW, petty theft (value of stolen item is less than $500) doesn't involve jail time. Felony theft ($500+) usually does.

32 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Why shouldn't non-payment be criminalized....

 

it is theft. 

 

Now, not having proof of payment shouldn't be criminalized, but if the State can prove that you didn't pay, you should get an orange jump suit and plastic sandals.

 

27 minutes ago, KJP said:

If you leave your car parked at a meter too long, shouldn't that also be considered a criminal offense, not a civil offense?

 

BTW, petty theft (value of stolen item is less than $500) doesn't involve jail time. Felony theft ($500+) usually does.

because a criminal record is a horrible black mark that can have severe consequences such as preventing one from getting a job, or renting an apartment, etc. 

 

plus our criminal justice system is already overloaded and cruel.

^What’s wrong with being kicked off immediately at the next stop or pay triple right on spot?

1 hour ago, KJP said:

If you leave your car parked at a meter too long, shouldn't that also be considered a criminal offense, not a civil offense?

 

BTW, petty theft (value of stolen item is less than $500) doesn't involve jail time. Felony theft ($500+) usually does.

 

But but but driving a car is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution and it should always be free so by not feeding the meter you're just fighting the great injustice that is having to pay for parking.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

If you leave your car parked at a meter too long, shouldn't that also be considered a criminal offense, not a civil offense?

 

BTW, petty theft (value of stolen item is less than $500) doesn't involve jail time. Felony theft ($500+) usually does.

 

I'd argue that staying at a meter without paying is worse than not paying transit fare. If I'm in a parking space, no one else can use it. Not paying a fare does not prevent others from using the service.

46 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

I'd argue that staying at a meter without paying is worse than not paying transit fare. If I'm in a parking space, no one else can use it. Not paying a fare does not prevent others from using the service.

 

It could--if 100 people boarded a bus and none of them paid....

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

It could--if 100 people boarded a bus and none of them paid....

 

well, sure but highly unlikely.

2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

Our criminal justice system is under loaded. 

 

Far, far more people should be incarcerated. 

 

I guess having the highest incarceration rate on the planet isn't good enough, eh? Some say the USA uses it as the next step following slavery, Jim Crow, and red-lining.

 

Remember, when they come for the petty crimes, we are all guilty.

I'm all for incarcerating those who are truly dangerous.  Murderers.  Rapists.  Child molesters.  Armed robbers.  People who knowingly sell fentanyl-laced drugs to addicts.  That sort of thing.

 

I don't think fare evasion rises to that level of dangerousness.  But I don't think it is an entirely victimless act either.  I think that a sane society needs to figure out more productive ways of dealing with relatively small offenses such as this, in such a way as to deter them, but without completely ruining the person's life. 

 

I'd probably like to see a scale of fines based on the number of prior offenses and the financial ability of the offender.  Civil offense only, at least at first.  I'd consider criminal prosecution only in unusual circumstances (e.g., multiple offenses, willful refusal to pay fines, that sort of thing). 

 

Beating up the driver or passengers or people waiting for the bus or train?  Different matter altogether.  And transit cops have to deal with that sort of thing already; probably a good argument for using non-police personnel to deal with minor offenders, freeing up cops for more serious matters.

8 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Not everyone is capable of living in a free society. 

 

The people who are not just need to be cared for by the State.

This doesn't sound like a free society. 

You mean, not everyone is capable of governing a free society, which is why we create laws (namely drug laws that punish, not rehabilitate and then dump drugs in their neighborhoods) in order to put so many minorities in prison.

Just now, Terdolph said:

You are sort of correct.  I think that a free society should have very few rules (mostly violent crime-but also anti-social activity), very strictly enforced.  A controlled society, should have lots and lots of rules, very leniently enforced.

 

Now, back on topic.

So now you are contradicting your earlier post that more people should be in prison.

25 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

More violent criminals,  also more anti-social crimes, e.g. litter, public cursing, etc. 

 

All litterers should get ten days in the cooler.

 

I suppose you could say that I think we have the wrong people in prison.  Whether the number would be greater or lesser, I suppose I really don't know.

 

Now, I know that you are fascinated with Terdolph's social policy, and the development of Terdoph Park and Transit System but please back on topic.

 

 

Littering....lol

13 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Littering....lol

 

And public cursing?  Terdolph the Puritan?

2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

Not everyone is capable of living in a free society. 

 

The people who are not just need to be cared for by the State.

 

Oh no -- Terdolph advocating for the welfare state!  The end times are upon us! 

LOL

Could the cost of hiring staff to check passengers' tickets (ie; Amtrak) be offset by the increase in revenue?

Edited November 13, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

38 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Could the cost of hiring staff to check passengers' tickets (ie; Amtrak) be offset by the increase in revenue?

 

I'd rather see them hire a sales person that can tap into Cleveland's corporate community and subsidize the Health Line to make it free and efficient.  

 

Whatever the source, we all know GCRTA is in desperate need of additional revenue sources; to replace its aging fleet of vehicles and just for daily operations. They can't rely upon the State. ODOT has a completely different vision for transportation in Ohio.  Unfortunately NEO, an urban oasis, is unlike the rest of Ohio and the many decades-long lack of appropriate support from Columbus continues to impede the region's economic development.

Edited November 13, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

NEO should secede from Ohio and become a region of Pennsylvania. Cincinnati has some of the same perceptual challenges. As the two original urban centers in the state, Cleveland and Cincinnati have always been outliers. I think there would be a greater understanding of the region's needs and cooperation from Harrisburg. Philadelphia's and Pittsburgh's support for urban development has been phenomenal at the state level.

Edited November 13, 20195 yr by Frmr CLEder

I would love to see a graphic of how our tax dollars are spent in the State of Ohio.   How much money flows from Cleveland to Columbus, only to never return, as it's spent on a highway bypass in Portsmouth or elsewhere.....

1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

NEO should secede from Ohio and become a region of Pennsylvania. Cincinnati has some of the same perceptual challenges. As the two original urban centers in the state, Cleveland and Cincinnati have always been outliers. I think there would be a greater understanding of the region's needs and cooperation from Harrisburg. Philadelphia's and Pittsburgh's support for urban development has been phenomenal at the state level.

 

I would be happy if we became an exclave of Connecticut again. And not just because of this.....

 

Connecticut governor to invest $6.2 billion in rail

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Connecticut-governor-to-invest-62-billion-in-rail--59052

Edited November 13, 20195 yr by KJP

I'm curious if anyone else cringed at the news yesterday that RTA was refused $60 million from state coffers to replace the aging rail cars that have been in use for over 40 years on "The Rapid" rail lines?

 

I wouldn't think that this unfortunate news would be very appealing to any companies and corporations that are potentially looking at Downtown Cleveland as a possible home.

 

This includes Sherwin-Williams, of course. Atlanta, Charlotte, and Dallas are dangling all of their amenities that include excellent transit system's in an attempt to lure away our home-grown paints & coatings goliath. I would imagine that such news regarding critical transportation infrastructure could ultimately become a deterrent for some.

(I wanted to post this in the Sherwin-Williams thread, but it is ? locked. 

 

I know this thread pertains primarily to First Energy Stadium development, but my question can still pertain to this topic, too.

 

How many companies may overlook Cleveland if the city's embattled transit system can't maintain and update its infrastructure.

 

Just thinking out loud ... ?

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by John D. Baumgardner

The ODOT open meeting is today and NOACA (1299 Superior). I’m going to try to make it. I suspect I’ll be disappointed, but I’m curious how they position it. My understanding is that the same content will be presented at 4:30 and 6pm. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 20195 yr by Boomerang_Brian
Fixed Twitter fail

8 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The ODOT open meeting is today and NOACA (1299 Superior). I’m going to try to make it. I suspect I’ll be disappointed, but I’m curious how they position it. My understanding is that the same content will be presented at 4:30 and 6pm. 

 

 

 

Please report back, I was thinking about it but my cold has other ideas for me.

21 hours ago, John D. Baumgardner said:

I'm curious if anyone else cringed at the news yesterday that RTA was refused $60 million from state coffers to replace the aging rail cars that have been in use for over 40 years on "The Rapid" rail lines?

 

I wouldn't think that this unfortunate news would be very appealing to any companies and corporations that are potentially looking at Downtown Cleveland as a possible home.

 

This includes Sherwin-Williams, of course. Atlanta, Charlotte, and Dallas are dangling all of their amenities that include excellent transit system's in an attempt to lure away our home-grown paints & coatings goliath. I would imagine that such news regarding critical transportation infrastructure could ultimately become a deterrent for some.

(I wanted to post this in the Sherwin-Williams thread, but it is ? locked. 

 

I know this thread pertains primarily to First Energy Stadium development, but my question can still pertain to this topic, too.

 

How many companies may overlook Cleveland if the city's embattled transit system can't maintain and update its infrastructure.

 

Just thinking out loud ... ?

 

Atlanta and Charlotte and "excellent" transportation systems, don't work in the same sentence.  MARTA is just as bad as RTA.  At least RTAs bus system is deep and visible.

 

Going back to the topic I posted in a previous thread of East Coast transplants relocating to U.C and feeling like it's disconnected from amenities in certain areas it got me wondering. Wouldn't it be useful for RTA as well as University Circle to run it's trolly system from Windermere station down Euclid and to other UC hotspot destinations such as Little Italy and even serving as the connector to University Circle train station? For RTA you will definitely increase your ridership due to people not having to take cars as much and it being a reliable means to get to where you want quickly, also serving as a feeder for a train station that isn't the easiest to access. For UC it would benefit them by connecting their residents, tourist and workers to various destinations that isn't the easiest or most convenient to get to for those aforementioned people that may want to live a carless lifestyle. It could start in East Cleveland with stops on Euclid and Superior (still a major intersection for EC residents), Uptown, Little Italy Station, ONE University Circle, UC Train Station (Not in that order) to start. If successful a second trolly line could be added to visit  other areas in University Circle, maybe the city of Cleveland Clinic. It wouldn't step on the toes of the Healthline due to limited stops it would have and it turning up side streets, going places it doesn't go but serves as a good connector for UC residents, visitors and workers. 

How would that differ from the Healthline or CircleLink?

Anyone know why??

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Anyone know why??

 

 

 

Sure would great if part of their customer communication RTA would include "the Why".  

^Its really RUDE of RTA to make a statement like that. You'd think the new president would be more conscious that that. This just says, 'Screw you, you're don't need to know, cause you're unimportant."

Agreed. The station was closed for 2 hours. Must have been a truly dangerous and/or embarrassing situation for RTA to have to protect them or us from a truth that one of us apparently could not handle....

 

 

Someone should inform the new President about this  -- she may not even know -- but she should jump on this kind of behavior early on--of course, unless, that approach IS her style, in which case we're in real trouble.

There can be reasons why immediate disclosure might be embarrassing, and/or not be in the public interest.  (E.g.: a situation involving disorderly conduct or a minor safety issue.)  But eventual disclosure should be pretty much a given.  If there isn't, then the transparency bar is being set way, way too low.

More breakdowns... GCRTA's 40-year-old trains won't long. It needs $240 million to replace its entire rail fleet all at once. Not in 5-10 years. Now....

 

RTA train running to and from FirstEnergy Stadium breaks down

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/rta-train-running-to-and-from-firstenergy-stadium-breaks-down

7 hours ago, KJP said:

More breakdowns... GCRTA's 40-year-old trains won't long. It needs $240 million to replace its entire rail fleet all at once. Not in 5-10 years. Now....

 

RTA train running to and from FirstEnergy Stadium breaks down

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/rta-train-running-to-and-from-firstenergy-stadium-breaks-down

 

And the Blue/Green Line trains that broke down are in better shape than the Red Line trains. 

That's what they claim, @Boomerang_Brian

Edited December 9, 20195 yr by KJP

Not looking great at this moment.  Not great at all.  Looking for hope everywhere I can, and, in this context at least, not finding much.  I don't have confidence right now of GCRTA's willingness to even keep the system in mothballs, which is what it is looking like at this point, pending a hopefully brighter future in which money can be found to resurrect the system. It looks to me like they will let it die and then let it rot.  I hope I'm wrong.  I truly do.  But that is how it looks to me.

35 minutes ago, KJP said:

That's what they claim, @Boomerang_Brian

 

For clarification, are you disagreeing with RTA’s claims or are you just unconvinced about which set of trains is in worse shape?

 

 I suppose it’s a bit of a moot point - both sets of trains desperately need replacing. 

39 minutes ago, jtadams said:

Not looking great at this moment.  Not great at all.  Looking for hope everywhere I can, and, in this context at least, not finding much.  I don't have confidence right now of GCRTA's willingness to even keep the system in mothballs, which is what it is looking like at this point, pending a hopefully brighter future in which money can be found to resurrect the system. It looks to me like they will let it die and then let it rot.  I hope I'm wrong.  I truly do.  But that is how it looks to me.

 

It should be reiterated that RTA will NOT stop operating the Red, Green, and Blue Lines as they would have to refund ALL of the massive amounts of money the federal government has spent on those lines.  (I am curious exactly how big this number is - anyone have a ballpark figure?) The only part of the rail system in danger of being shut down by RTA for budget reasons is the Waterfront line since the feds did not fund its construction. 

 

All that said, we desperately need new funding sources for transit. We will continue to see more issues like the breakdown this weekend, which will cause fewer people to ride it, which will continue the transit death spiral. 

That's probably part of why they even bother to pretend.

 

But I think they could run drastically reduced service, and in fact may have no choice, once the supply of working rail cars diminishes to the point where they literally cannot do anything more.

 

And if the part of the federal penalties that can actually be enforced are less than the cost of rebuilding the system?  Well . . . no good ending there. 

 

Worst of all worlds: they're forced to shut down enough service to trigger penalties, then default on the ensuing payback requirements.  Something tells me that the feds will take it out on the riders and/or local taxpayers, not on the people who made the poor decisions (over a LONG period of time) that brought us to where we are right now.

And another breakdown this morning