3 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

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. 

 

Where are our Federal reps on this?   Has the new CEO even met Marcia Fudge or Marcy Kaptur yet? 

On 12/1/2019 at 7:58 PM, Cleburger said:

 

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

 

Wasn't there a police incident or something like that?

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Where are our Federal reps on this?   Has the new CEO even met Marcia Fudge or Marcy Kaptur yet? 

 

Yes, RTA has gone to Washington DC and Columbus to rattle its tin cup.

 

Unfortunately, Calabrese did a mid-life rebuild of these rail cars at the end of their useful lives.

Edited December 9, 20195 yr by KJP

On 12/9/2019 at 4:22 PM, KJP said:

Unfortunately, Calabrese did a mid-life rebuild of these rail cars at the end of their useful lives.

 

It was also done in-house (and apparently poorly) unlike the blue/green lines considering that the LRVs have an extra 5 years of life despite being 5 years older.

 

 

I agree with RTA on this one. The cost of extending to the other side of Warrensville was $40+ million. How do you justify spending that when your existing transit system has $600 million of unfunded capital needs for replacing old railcars, buses, tracks, stations, electrical systems, bridges, maintenance facilities?

 

Another one down.

 

On 12/10/2019 at 8:58 PM, Terdolph said:

Failing to get the blue line across Warrensville Center rd to Northfield rd when the street was all torn up was a huge strategic mistake.  At least the road bed could have been designed for easy retrofit later, e.g. with removable concrete sections, rail bed already installed, etc.  It kind of signaled to the public that RTA itself had already given up on the rail system, which in the future will be our most valuable non-replaceable asset.

 

I'm with @KJP on this one, however, the TeamNEO/Developer description of the Van Aken II site kind of scares me as far as expanding the Blue Line is concerned, I know it's all speculative and renderings at this point, but take it as you will: https://properties.zoomprospector.com/OhioNEO/property/3470-Warrensville-Center-Road-Shaker-Heights-Ohio/16E34903-E2A4-479A-8309-24B395356060

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by GISguy

Actually extending the track is one issue. Sending a letter to the city of Shaker Heights and to the developer stating that you want a right of way preserved to and through the intersection of Chagrin and Warrensville is another matter. And that's a option that doesn't cost a darn thing. I'll never understand some of Calabrese's decisions.

48 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

I'm with @KJP on this one, however, the TeamNEO/Developer description of the Van Aken II site kind of scares me as far as expanding the Blue Line is concerned, I know it's all speculative and renderings at this point, but take it as you will: https://properties.zoomprospector.com/OhioNEO/property/3470-Warrensville-Center-Road-Shaker-Heights-Ohio/16E34903-E2A4-479A-8309-24B395356060

 

It's not just speculative. Shaker gave up site control a while ago for the next phase of the Van Aken District. What doesn't come up in the GIS is whether there's an easement or other agreement to preserve a path for a potential RTA expansion.

 

 

Edit: The land use overlay in the full GIS app shows something, but I can't tell if this hasn't been updated since consolidating the parcels for Van Aken District or was left purposely for future extension.

 

https://maps.cuyahogacounty.us/html5viewer/?viewer=ccgis&run=SearchByParcelPin&parcelpin=NzM2MDkwMTE=

 

Edited December 11, 20195 yr by Mendo

If there isn't an easement, RTA could probably snake the tracks through the development as a streetcar, but that will dramatically lower speeds, create wheel/flange noise through turns, and increase maintenance costs for RTA. Or RTA could just say f*ck it, we're content with our low-ridership rail lines staying within their existing footprints.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

If there isn't an easement, RTA could probably snake the tracks through the development as a streetcar, but that will dramatically lower speeds, create wheel/flange noise through turns, and increase maintenance costs for RTA. Or RTA could just say f*ck it, we're content with our low-ridership rail lines staying within their existing footprints.

 

Yeah I can't see them snaking around the buildings. How about dropping down below the intersection and popping up on the other side? That would be cool, even if just a fantasy.

18 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

It's not just speculative. Shaker gave up site control a while ago for the next phase of the Van Aken District. What doesn't come up in the GIS is whether there's an easement or other agreement to preserve a path for a potential RTA expansion.

 

 

Edit: The land use overlay in the full GIS app shows something, but I can't tell if this hasn't been updated since consolidating the parcels for Van Aken District or was left purposely for future extension.

 

https://maps.cuyahogacounty.us/html5viewer/?viewer=ccgis&run=SearchByParcelPin&parcelpin=NzM2MDkwMTE=

 

 

I'll see if I can dig anything up ? 

I'll be interested to hear what you find, @GISguy.

Edited December 12, 20195 yr by KJP

I assume whoever runs the AAO twitter is on here, so whoever you are, the RTA already bought this land. The contract isn't up on the website, but board passed the resolution approving the purchase at the 11/19 meeting. The money for it was part of the $15mm grant from ODOT. If you want the contract, file a public records request for Resolution 2019-109.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

You know what is weird about the Van Aken end of line rapid stop is that I seem to remember from the '70's that there was a round about at the end of the line.  KJP's photo and graphic do not show that.  What happened to it, or am I just imagining things?

 

There's still a loop at Green Road, I assume they removed at some point. 

5 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

You know what is weird about the Van Aken end of line rapid stop is that I seem to remember from the '70's that there was a round about at the end of the line.  KJP's photo and graphic do not show that.  What happened to it, or am I just imagining things?

 

The end of the Shaker line was like that too. Here's Van Aken from the 50s. The old streetcars used to use the loop turn around at the end, but IIRC, the Breda cars couldn't make that turn radius, so they rebuilt the tracks in the 80s.

The old PCC cars weren't reversible....in other words they didn't have operator controls at both ends so they had to have loop tracks downtown, at Shaker Square, at Shaker/Green and at Van Aken/Warrensville to turn around. The Breda cars do have control at both ends. So no more need for loop tracks.

17 hours ago, KJP said:

I'll be interested to hear what you find, @GISguy.

 

Giving a quick look to everything (I'll take a deeper dive when I have more time) but it doesn't seem like there's an easement on the property- Van Aken was dedicated in this area in 2016 (v.386 pp. 19-20), and Tuttle was also dedicated on that same day (v.386 pp.21-22). Again, I'll look into things a bit more when time allows, but it doesn't seem like there's any type of easement on these parcels.

 

12 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I took Red Line to work this morning.   No delays, other than the incessant beeping and automatic brakes every 10 seconds.   It really is an awful experience for riders.   

^ It truly is. I took it to/ from CLE recently for the first time in a while and was really surprised (and disappointed) that this incessant beeping and braking is still a thing.  I thought all of that track work done over the countless west side shut downs was supposed to eliminate that. 

On 12/14/2019 at 8:45 AM, roman totale XVII said:

^ It truly is. I took it to/ from CLE recently for the first time in a while and was really surprised (and disappointed) that this incessant beeping and braking is still a thing.  I thought all of that track work done over the countless west side shut downs was supposed to eliminate that. 

Isn't it more of the driver's fault? They're the ones pressing up against the train ahead of them...

There seems to be so many issues that are correctable with the rail system here in Cleveland.  The braking/beeping issue drives me crazy.  I have never experienced that issue in other cities like I have here.  Is there an estimate of how much money is lost by riders not paying to use the rail system?  Would it be feasible to hire booth workers at the turnstiles to combat nonpayment riders?  Would it be feasible to take some of the RTA police out of their cars and have them check on the trains?  Would it be feasible to automate the trains with stop information(some operators are very difficult to understand IF they even make announcements)?  I now other cities have their issues as well, but does RTA leadership go to other cities and look at different systems?  My son plays hockey and we travel a lot to Pittsburgh and Buffalo.  It's nice to see rail systems that are easy to use (payment machines) and systems that are in downtown areas and in residential areas.  I know the state makes obtaining money difficult for rail, but are there avenues that RTA can take to secure federal money, or does the state have to do that?   I know this rant is all over the board, but these are just a few things that I wish could be rectified.

The braking/beeping issue drive me insane as well. I just moved back to the Cleveland area after 10 years in Columbus and was excited about taking the rapid to work downtown from Lakewood (red line). The fact of how slow the commute is along with how often it is running late is crazy. I'm tempted to start driving instead. What exactly causes this again?

On 12/15/2019 at 11:38 AM, GISguy said:

Isn't it more of the driver's fault? They're the ones pressing up against the train ahead of them...

 

I may be wrong, but speed restrictions are often coded into the track circuits which are picked up by the train's control system and automatically brakes the train, accompanied with the beeping noise. It's possible that the speed restriction codes haven't been removed from the track circuits. If that's the case, I'm not aware of what the reason is. But you should definitely share your concerns with RTA.

On 12/13/2019 at 1:03 PM, Terdolph said:

@GISguy,

So did SH sell the easement/parcel to the developer?

 

Did RTA ever have any ownership rights?

 

Thanks in advance for your response.

 

Sorry about the late response, and full disclosure, this isn't totally my area of expertise so don't quote me as bible, but everything I'm looking at shows 736-10-011 and 736-10-012 as owned by Shaker. So, although there may not be any ROW or easements currently present, it's not necessarily a done deal either. It'd be worth taking a dive into deeds and other legal documents to be absolutely sure though (for the bored, https://fiscalofficer.cuyahogacounty.us/en-us/recordeddocumentsservices.aspx)

 

BTW, for those paying attention, this post helped clear up the parcel numbers (if you're paying attention it was incorrectly listed as 736-09-011). It now reflects proper ownership characteristics and whatnot. So, thanks UO for making me dig into this a little ?.

From my daily commute on the red line which is during rush hour it seems like the rapid should be the biggest revenue source for RTA. Thinking out loud here and trying to better understand what is the biggest bang for the buck from their perspective.

On 12/17/2019 at 10:31 AM, KJP said:

 

I may be wrong, but speed restrictions are often coded into the track circuits which are picked up by the train's control system and automatically brakes the train, accompanied with the beeping noise. It's possible that the speed restriction codes haven't been removed from the track circuits. If that's the case, I'm not aware of what the reason is. But you should definitely share your concerns with RTA.

 

I recently begrudgingly moved from downtown to the burbs and am a Green Line commuter.  I remember the beeping and braking when I was a kid.  I can't believe it is still a thing and has only seemed to get worse.  Sometimes I wonder if RTA leadership ever actually rides the RTA.  I would assume that any decent transportation executive would find the beeping/braking unacceptable and would work to solve the issue.  It is one thing if the tracks were congested with traffic and the braking was for safety reasons.  But I suspect it is a result of old signals/circuits that are over-firing and/or gross oversight and disregard.  It may be similar to the issue facing NYC... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/nyregion/nyc-mta-subway-signals.html

 

When I was growing up, the Green Line trip time was 27 minutes (which based on my research was already longer than the original scheduled trip time when the rapid was extended to Green).  It is now 31 minutes and is usually delayed.  Van Aken's trip time is even longer.  I know the State is essentially trying to kill the RTA, but I wish the RTA would take some of the money they put into vastly unnecessary and palatial station renovations and put it into system improvements that make trip times faster and the rider experience better.  

 

Another issue that is mind-boggling to me is the fact that the Rapid does not receive any preferential street signal treatment.  In fact, it seems at times that the street signals are set up to give preferential treatment to cars.  The Green Line stops no less than 4-5 times when it goes through Shaker Square / Coventry.  The region's leadership needs to encourage public transportation use.  The infrastructure should be designed to that end.  

 

The one thing that I have been really impressed with is the ticket app.  I am thrilled to not have to use the ticket machines or paper tickets.  I actually hope the RTA considers moving towards making the app the primary payment system and not invest in a brand new ticket system which would be a fortune.  The app seems like the way the world is going.

 

I'm glad the RTA conducted the recent survey and the results came back as I would have hoped (aside from talk about removing trolley lines which seems like a bad idea).  The RTA needs to emphasize high-use bus/rapid lines and run them often enough where people could depend on it as their primary transportation.  What I would like to see is the RTA better connect Downtown (largest job-center in Ohio) and University Circle (4th largest job-center in Ohio) with express buses that would also serve Cleveland Heights/Beachwood.  Cleveland Heights is not well-served at all considering its population density and proximity to Downtown.  It should not take an hour and transfers to get from Cleveland Heights to Downtown.  I would propose a Cleveland State Line express equivalent to run from Downtown through University Circle to Coventry / Cedar Lee, Cedar Center, Beachwood Place.   

 

With all this being said, I love taking the rapid to work and not driving.  It just could be run much more efficiently.  I absolutely should raise these concerns with the RTA, but I assume and hope these things have been raised many many times already.  This is my first Transportation post so I wanted to air my grievances for the record.       

 

   

I was a little disturbed that non-peak service to North Collinwood and Euclid, both among the more densely populated residential neighborhoods beyond 5-6 miles from downtown, lose relatively direct service to downtown, under both reimagined systems, unless I'm missing something.  Right now we at least have the 39 during weekdays and the 30 to Windermere (already a very long trip through very questionable neighborhoods) the rest of the time.  What did I miss?  Are we throwing the entire northeast side under the bus? 

On 12/19/2019 at 12:06 PM, jtadams said:

I was a little disturbed that non-peak service to North Collinwood and Euclid, both among the more densely populated residential neighborhoods beyond 5-6 miles from downtown, lose relatively direct service to downtown, under both reimagined systems, unless I'm missing something.  Right now we at least have the 39 during weekdays and the 30 to Windermere (already a very long trip through very questionable neighborhoods) the rest of the time.  What did I miss?  Are we throwing the entire northeast side under the bus? 

 

What is questionable?  Serious question?

I don't think it's a serious question, unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the area, and/or looking to pick a fight.  But just on the off chance that it is.  I lived in North Collinwood about half my life.  There's not a single square inch of it I'd recommend anyone go at night if they didn't have to.  There are pockets of relative safety during the day (E. 185, E. 200, Waterloo Arts district, probably Lakeshore at least east of 156th).  But then we get south of there, to South Collinwood, then East Cleveland.  Except for Windermere station, and not even there too late at night, I would not want to change buses ANYWHERE south of the freeway.  But the reimagined systems pretend that I or any other person with a choice actually would.  Leaving completely aside that even today, the trip from Shoregate to downtown, anytime the 39 doesn't run, is about 90 minutes.  That is with the 30 from start to end, then Red Line the rest of the way.  Now, there isn't even that connection.  The truly intrepid might change buses on St. Clair or Euclid.  The rest, E. 105/Quincy.  Turning it into a 2 hour trip.  So the reimagined routes still IMO need a bit of re-reimagining in order to work.  I get that it's not a proposal per se, but just an idea of what could be done if we wanted to maximize ridership without completely eliminating service in less densely populated areas.  But it needs work.

With RTA starting to take a serious look at the design of its system, now is a great time to speak up. There are still too many people at RTA who believe the basic system is just fine and needs, at most, a little tweaking. If you suggest to them that RTA is in a death spiral, they react with hostility. To me, RTA sounds like they're blaming the market and the passengers for leaving them, as if they're doing the best that they can do provide service under very difficult constraints. Yes, they have difficult constraints, so welcome to the real world. Greater Cleveland has changed and continues to change, and RTA has yet to do a comprehensive system redesign. Instead, it needs to do one every decade. Or better yet, stop being a service provider and instead be a transit coordinator and funder, by issuing RFPs to private sector operators for various aspects of RTA service such as the rail division, the mainline bus division, paratransit, express freeway flyers, or perhaps divide things up geographically rather than by transportation mode, or perhaps a mix of both. Let the private operators decide what routes to run and how to run them, with guidance from RTA on modal connections, station area development, etc.

 

Regardless of your opinions, please share them. Let RTA know you're interested and care. Praise and push.

Edited December 20, 20195 yr by KJP

I'd just be happier if they were nicer to people at Tower City.

I don't want buses running through neighborhoods that are no longer there. If they insist on running those buses through depopulated neighborhoods, then RTA should get more financially involved in transit-oriented development.

20 hours ago, jtadams said:

I don't think it's a serious question, unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the area, and/or looking to pick a fight.  But just on the off chance that it is.  I lived in North Collinwood about half my life.  There's not a single square inch of it I'd recommend anyone go at night if they didn't have to.  There are pockets of relative safety during the day (E. 185, E. 200, Waterloo Arts district, probably Lakeshore at least east of 156th).  But then we get south of there, to South Collinwood, then East Cleveland.  Except for Windermere station, and not even there too late at night, I would not want to change buses ANYWHERE south of the freeway.  But the reimagined systems pretend that I or any other person with a choice actually would.  Leaving completely aside that even today, the trip from Shoregate to downtown, anytime the 39 doesn't run, is about 90 minutes.  That is with the 30 from start to end, then Red Line the rest of the way.  Now, there isn't even that connection.  The truly intrepid might change buses on St. Clair or Euclid.  The rest, E. 105/Quincy.  Turning it into a 2 hour trip.  So the reimagined routes still IMO need a bit of re-reimagining in order to work.  I get that it's not a proposal per se, but just an idea of what could be done if we wanted to maximize ridership without completely eliminating service in less densely populated areas.  But it needs work.

I don't know what other people think, know or feel, so the only way to find out is to ask a direct question.  I don't like to make assumptions about another persons experiences.

 

Each one of us will have various differences and experiences.  What you list as a place you wouldn't recommend may be a place others feel comfortable.  For example, I wouldn't recommend living in or visiting Little Italy, but others find it safe.

17 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

I don't know what other people think, know or feel, so the only way to find out is to ask a direct question.  I don't like to make assumptions about another persons experiences.

 

Each one of us will have various differences and experiences.  What you list as a place you wouldn't recommend may be a place others feel comfortable.  For example, I wouldn't recommend living in or visiting Little Italy, but others find it safe.

 

OK.  Fair enough.  I'd consider Little Italy acceptable during the day, but not at night.  If I have to generalize, I'd say most of Cleveland proper, as well as inner suburbs, work that way.  When there are a lot of people out and about, crime rates tend to be low.  Though with some exceptions (nightclubs, bars, parking lots etc.).  Places that are deserted tend to become lawless.  Also with some exceptions.  But having been born in East Cleveland, spend much of my life in various Cleveland neighborhoods, and most of the rest in inner suburbs ( Euclid and Lakewood), I definitely don't think it's too much of a generalization to say that most folks won't want to transfer in East Cleveland, Glenville, or South Collinwood if they don't absolutely have to.  (Windermere/Stokes being the one exception, since there are ordinarily people there from early morning to at least mid- to late evening.)

Wow, there are very few places in Cleveland I wouldn't visit, day or night. I feel very comfortable in Little Italy at night. I walk around there with my wife and 6-year-old son well after dark and we don't think twice about it. Ditto for University Circle area. It's a very active area and I've never ever had any problems. And similarly (as well as to keep this on topic), I occasionally ride transit into East Cleveland and transfer at Windermere to buses without any problems. I've seen thefts happen right in front of me on the HealthLine and Red Line but that doesn't change my outlook. Stuff happens. I just move on. It doesn't scare me.

OH: Greater Cleveland RTA's board president pleads guilty in 2019, agency faces potential 'death spiral'

 

The authority is now looking to its future with a new CEO at the helm. And it is trying to determine what public transportation will look like in Cuyahoga County in the years to come and what the agency needs to do to prepare.

 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/21119479/oh-greater-cleveland-rtas-board-president-pleads-guilty-in-2019-agency-faces-potential-death-spiral

^ Honest question, as I’ve not been able to find anything; has Birdsong made any kind of statement yet re: policy, direction, doing anything different?

Yes.  Honestly, IMO, if that is truly her view, then that makes her grossly unqualified.  Like it or not, rail is both (a) the backbone of the current system, in spite of its (hopefully temporary) shortcomings caused by decades of deferred repair and maintenance; and (b) the backbone of ANY system capable of competing with private automobiles for getting people to and from downtown, among other places.  We should be expanding and extending it, not seriously contemplating its permanent demise. 

I don't think she or RTA are contemplating its demise. RTA's number one priority funding request to ODOT this year was for state-of-good-repair of the rail system's infrastructure. Number 2 was replacement of the rail cars.

I don't know of the timing. 

Do any of these five studies that have been completed compare where the ridership lives versus where they work? I agree with the upthread statement that rail should form the backbone of the system. It is the most expensive component of the infrastructure. I'm just not sure that the rail system provides the services the ridership needs >80 years after it was established. Does the ridership still go to/from downtown and UC? I would say, not to the extent that they once did; unfortunately many jobs are now in the suburbs.  Job locations have become more geographically dispersed and the routes need to reflect that new reality, while still providing transportation to/from the urban core.

All transportation systems are at the mercy of the land use policies which surround them. Greater Cleveland's (and Ohio's) land use policies don't just favor the car. They are exclusionary to everything but the car so that it forces dependence on the car. We don't notice them any more than the fish notices his water. But they are there, from free parking to required parking minimums to prohibitions on mixed use to density maximums. So where are the opposite land-use policies for transit-oriented districts surrounding 1,000 to 1,500 feet of rail and BRT stations? Like, prohibiting surface parking lots or at least levying impact fees on the square footage of parking, having parking parking maximums, mixed-use requirements with prohibitions on windowless/doorless walls facing sidewalks, and minimum densities of residences/workers. And RTA needs to get into the development game much like the port authority has -- by offering its superior bonding capability to help finance transit-supportive development projects around its stations.

On 12/12/2019 at 12:45 PM, jawn said:

I assume whoever runs the AAO twitter is on here, so whoever you are, the RTA already bought this land. The contract isn't up on the website, but board passed the resolution approving the purchase at the 11/19 meeting. The money for it was part of the $15mm grant from ODOT. If you want the contract, file a public records request for Resolution 2019-109.

 

 

 

Just saw this, @jawn. My understanding was that the property acquisition was for a piece of a parcel on East 79th, just south of the current station entrance, to move the entrance southward. Is that not correct?

I think the carrot is likely to be far more effective in this case than the stick.  I don't think it's reasonable to punish drivers for choosing the easiest, cheapest, fastest, safest, most convenient, and in most cases *only* option available to them.   Rather, I'd find ways to incentivize those for whom transit might actually make sense.

 

In my case, for instance, I both live and work in high-volume transit corridors, a few miles apart, that directly connect.

However, both the 26 and 81 buses, that I would need, are quite unreliable.

Further, the point at which I'd need to transfer, the W.98/Cudell station, is not a place I'd consider particularly friendly, especially not early in the morning when I'd need to transfer.  I don't mind waiting a few minutes.  But more than a half hour, which is what it typically takes?  Nope.  No way to get work done while constantly having to watch one's back.

I am willing to more than triple my commute, from about 15 minutes by car to nearly an hour by bus, IF I can make productive use of the time riding or waiting.

But NOT if I'm wasting all that time.  Only if I can use it productively.

What would it take to make me a regular rider at least to and from work?

 

* 26 bus, which is sufficiently frequent but RARELY close to being on time, would need to become more reliable.  And there would have to be a seat at least much of the time.  I realize that bunching is the reason for both problems, and can't always be helped.  But it can be improved in most cases.

* 81 bus drivers would need to be trained to actually pick people up along Clinton Road.  They often refuse for whatever reason.  "I didn't see him."  (Why not???)  "There isn't a stop there."  (There doesn't need to be; it's a special service zone and they must stop if it's safe, unless something has changed recently.)  "I'm running late."  (Often true, but not an excuse.  Late arrival is better than not being picked up at all.)

* A sufficient police presence would be needed at W. 98/Cudell RTS, so as to deter the many students there from behaving like uncivilized thugs or worse.  (No, that is not all of them, or even most of them, nor is it even a few of them more than just some of the time; however, people with choices will not use the station if they don't have to, if they feel intimidated even some of the time, or if it is so gratuitously noisy that one can't actually work.)

* Sufficient service would have to exist for me to be able to sit down with a laptop and work.  The killer for me would not be the longer commute, but the longer commute PLUS not being able to do anything useful, other than watch my back, during by far the greater part of it.

 

How much would this cost?  Not a lot.

 

How much would it cost to instead punish me for driving to work? 

 

You would be making me an opponent rather than a supporter.

 

And not just me, but tens if not hundreds of thousands of others like me; people who live, work, or both in Cleveland proper or in an inner suburb that could reasonably be served by high-frequency, reliable buses or trains.

 

Is the goal to make life harder for drivers, most of whom have no choice currently, or to make things easier for transit users, such that many folks on the margins, such as myself, would choose the latter rather than the former? 

 

 

 

^That is not what he was saying at all. KJP made a great point about land use zoning around transit locations needing to get rid of automobile friendly zoning.  Instead of a sea of parking lots around rapid stations it would be set up for multi-use buildings. 

Quote

Rail has always depended on real estate speculation to fill in the land around it with economic value. And now Cleveland is in a position where it has to suddenly rediscover how to do this.

https://www.gcbl.org/blog/2019/12/we-need-to-stop-treating-light-rail-like-its-a-precious-heirloom

On 1/6/2020 at 2:17 PM, jtadams said:

I think the carrot is likely to be far more effective in this case than the stick.  I don't think it's reasonable to punish drivers for choosing the easiest, cheapest, fastest, safest, most convenient, and in most cases *only* option available to them.   Rather, I'd find ways to incentivize those for whom transit might actually make sense.

 

In my case, for instance, I both live and work in high-volume transit corridors, a few miles apart, that directly connect.

However, both the 26 and 81 buses, that I would need, are quite unreliable.

Further, the point at which I'd need to transfer, the W.98/Cudell station, is not a place I'd consider particularly friendly, especially not early in the morning when I'd need to transfer.  I don't mind waiting a few minutes.  But more than a half hour, which is what it typically takes?  Nope.  No way to get work done while constantly having to watch one's back.

I am willing to more than triple my commute, from about 15 minutes by car to nearly an hour by bus, IF I can make productive use of the time riding or waiting.

But NOT if I'm wasting all that time.  Only if I can use it productively.

What would it take to make me a regular rider at least to and from work?

 

* 26 bus, which is sufficiently frequent but RARELY close to being on time, would need to become more reliable.  And there would have to be a seat at least much of the time.  I realize that bunching is the reason for both problems, and can't always be helped.  But it can be improved in most cases.

* 81 bus drivers would need to be trained to actually pick people up along Clinton Road.  They often refuse for whatever reason.  "I didn't see him."  (Why not???)  "There isn't a stop there."  (There doesn't need to be; it's a special service zone and they must stop if it's safe, unless something has changed recently.)  "I'm running late."  (Often true, but not an excuse.  Late arrival is better than not being picked up at all.)

* A sufficient police presence would be needed at W. 98/Cudell RTS, so as to deter the many students there from behaving like uncivilized thugs or worse.  (No, that is not all of them, or even most of them, nor is it even a few of them more than just some of the time; however, people with choices will not use the station if they don't have to, if they feel intimidated even some of the time, or if it is so gratuitously noisy that one can't actually work.)

* Sufficient service would have to exist for me to be able to sit down with a laptop and work.  The killer for me would not be the longer commute, but the longer commute PLUS not being able to do anything useful, other than watch my back, during by far the greater part of it.

 

How much would this cost?  Not a lot.

 

How much would it cost to instead punish me for driving to work? 

 

You would be making me an opponent rather than a supporter.

 

And not just me, but tens if not hundreds of thousands of others like me; people who live, work, or both in Cleveland proper or in an inner suburb that could reasonably be served by high-frequency, reliable buses or trains.

 

Is the goal to make life harder for drivers, most of whom have no choice currently, or to make things easier for transit users, such that many folks on the margins, such as myself, would choose the latter rather than the former? 

 

 

 

Even HealthLine are rarely on-time these days. I live reasonably close to Euclid Ave and work in Tower City so HL is near perfect in terms of alignment. But I have been walking 35-40 min to and from work these days because it takes almost as long, and sometimes longer, to use HL.