Is there anyway to get around this though to have them non-union, hourly, no benefits jobs?

 

Really? You want that fight for this?

 

Im just wondering why it has to be so expensive to just staff stations.

Im just wondering why it has to be so expensive to just staff stations.

 

Because labor unions have a great deal of influence over transit agencies boards of trustees who hire/fire management. Transit unions would rather lose transit services and jobs than lose battles over union wages.

So we are stuck with Calabrese until 2020? Sorry I am not a fan, and that is my opinion. It also doesn't bode well for the Public Square redesign. Where is Ron Tober when you need him? There are those on this forum who have more knowledge and passion for transit than Calabrese has ever demonstrated. Of course that is my opinion, yours may differ.  Hmm, I'll  bet Biker or KJP wouldn't mind pulling down a quarter of a million every year. Can we get a write in?

 

Except for your Public Sq comment, I share your sentiments.  Calabrese is not the kind of transit leader a city like Cleveland needs.  He's not only against extending RTA's existing rail, other than spending Federal monies for to replace transit stations, he's done little to enhance the existing rail system.  For example, why hasn't RTA come up with a cogent TOD program to, at the very least, encourage TOD partnerships with the cities where rail stations exist, most notably Cleveland?  And for those who want to attribute the rise in rail and bus patronage to him, I prefer to attribute it to rebounding city with an especially growing downtown.  The rail system continues to flub at handling large crowds and events while refusing to be communicative with riders... And the salary?  Higher than most local officials, including the mayor and county exec. with a contract through 2020?  To me, this is rewarding mediocrity and an anti-progressive mindset.

 

I was but to continue this, if you hire someone hourly at $10 per hour, divide those 21 hours among several people, multiply by 365 days a year, and that costs you around $76,650 a year no?

'

 

$10 per hour is only slightly higher than minimum wage. These are union jobs.

 

Is there anyway to get around this though to have them non-union, hourly, no benefits jobs?

Even if they were non-union, hourly, no benefits jobs, RTA would have to pay payroll taxes and pay for uniforms. Plus if any of the positions were full time, you'd have to pay for health insurance under Obamacare starting in 2014. Plus you'd have to pay for someone to supervise these folks unless you're expecting a significantly higher degree of professionalism from non-union, hourly, no benefits workers than you do from traditional full time union workers. Plus in some stations you'd have to provide heat in whatever booth they're sitting in.

Damn, $243,386 a year! Drop his salary down to $150,000 a year and hire those station personnel I was talking about early for the university circle stations ;)

 

You get what you pay for. Joe Calabrese is ranked as one of the top transit CEOs in the nation. You may debate certain policies, but no one who really knows RTA can debate that Joe is worth every penny.

 

I believe the leadership at Hopkins Airport is also "up there" in salary. I raise that because the positions are similar. You pull talent from a national market, not a local one. If you want someone who has led an airport close in size to Hopkins, you have to go to another city. If you want someone who has led a transit system close in size to RTA, you have to look elsewhere. RTA did, and after a national search, hired Joe Calabrese in early 2000.

A great many people feel that he hasn't performed well, and that's putting it mildly.  Obviously RTA's board contains none of those people.

A great many people feel that he hasn't performed well, and that's putting it mildly.  Obviously RTA's board contains none of those people.

 

Based on what exactly?  The board set his employment objectives, and he met them.  I dont agree with everything RTA does, but as a whole with the money they have I think they do an above average job.

 

Damn, $243,386 a year! Drop his salary down to $150,000 a year and hire those station personnel I was talking about early for the university circle stations ;)

 

You get what you pay for. Joe Calabrese is ranked as one of the top transit CEOs in the nation. You may debate certain policies, but no one who really knows RTA can debate that Joe is worth every penny.

 

I believe the leadership at Hopkins Airport is also "up there" in salary. I raise that because the positions are similar. You pull talent from a national market, not a local one. If you want someone who has led an airport close in size to Hopkins, you have to go to another city. If you want someone who has led a transit system close in size to RTA, you have to look elsewhere. RTA did, and after a national search, hired Joe Calabrese in early 2000.

 

Agreed!!

 

So we are stuck with Calabrese until 2020? Sorry I am not a fan, and that is my opinion. It also doesn't bode well for the Public Square redesign. Where is Ron Tober when you need him? There are those on this forum who have more knowledge and passion for transit than Calabrese has ever demonstrated. Of course that is my opinion, yours may differ.  Hmm, I'll  bet Biker or KJP wouldn't mind pulling down a quarter of a million every year. Can we get a write in?

 

Except for your Public Sq comment, I share your sentiments.  Calabrese is not the kind of transit leader a city like Cleveland needs.  He's not only against extending RTA's existing rail, other than spending Federal monies for to replace transit stations, he's done little to enhance the existing rail system.  For example, why hasn't RTA come up with a cogent TOD program to, at the very least, encourage TOD partnerships with the cities where rail stations exist, most notably Cleveland?  And for those who want to attribute the rise in rail and bus patronage to him, I prefer to attribute it to rebounding city with an especially growing downtown.  The rail system continues to flub at handling large crowds and events while refusing to be communicative with riders... And the salary?  Higher than most local officials, including the mayor and county exec. with a contract through 2020?  To me, this is rewarding mediocrity and an anti-progressive mindset.

 

 

What kind of leader do we need?  I want you to answer not with your heart or emotions but from a Transit Agency perspective.  Please tell us how he can extend rail transit, cost effectively?

 

From past experience, when people complain about someones salary those complaining often know very little about that persons job requirements, duties/knowledge of current position or performance matrix.

 

I'm not defending Calabrese....I'm defending the position he holds.

 

Im just wondering why it has to be so expensive to just staff stations.

 

Because labor unions have a great deal of influence over transit agencies boards of trustees who hire/fire management. Transit unions would rather lose transit services and jobs than lose battles over union wages.

 

That's oversimplifying the issue.  It takes two to tango.  What the casual observer often doesn't understand is that management too would often rather lose services and jobs so they position themselves at the bargaining table in a way so that they can point their finger at the union when those services and jobs are lost.  That's just a general comment, not any specific accusation against RTA.

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

 

Is what you're saying, we need a new board?

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

 

Poor reception of which notable initiatives? Would that be the free downtown trolleys, which have been a boon to downtown connectivity and a hit with businesses and tourists alike? Or perhaps the HealthLine, which continues to show year-over-year ridership growth and usage well exceeding that of the former #6 bus, and has been cited as a model for future BRT projects nationwide? Or maybe the new stations at W 117, E 55, and Puritas, with more in the works?

 

Please cite some examples. I'd love to continue this conversation.

The extension they just gave him doesn't make sense to me.  Too many debacles, not enough vision.

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

 

Poor reception of which notable initiatives? Would that be the free downtown trolleys, which have been a boon to downtown connectivity and a hit with businesses and tourists alike? Or perhaps the HealthLine, which continues to show year-over-year ridership growth and usage well exceeding that of the former #6 bus, and has been cited as a model for future BRT projects nationwide? Or maybe the new stations at W 117, E 55, and Puritas, with more in the works?

 

Please cite some examples. I'd love to continue this conversation.

 

Citing the HealthLine as a Joe Calabrese project is only partially correct. The idea and groundwork for a better connection between downtown and University Circle was laid long before Joe Calabrese ever got there. And while I support the project and feel it has been mostly a success, except for the horribly designed shelters and the rather embarrassing ticket machines some look at the BRT decision as a poor substitution for what could have been. The only certainty we can say about the HealthLine is yes Joe Calabrese was the CEO of RTA that accepted and then spent a large check from the federal goverment.

The GM could have grown ridership by 400%, reduced costs by 200% and put a monorail right down Clifton to Crocker Park to great national acclaim.  But IMHO anyone who approved those knee-level fare machines should be fired on the spot.  I don't work in transit but any rational person would have looked at those and said "no thanks, we'll pass."

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

 

Poor reception of which notable initiatives? Would that be the free downtown trolleys, which have been a boon to downtown connectivity and a hit with businesses and tourists alike? Or perhaps the HealthLine, which continues to show year-over-year ridership growth and usage well exceeding that of the former #6 bus, and has been cited as a model for future BRT projects nationwide? Or maybe the new stations at W 117, E 55, and Puritas, with more in the works?

 

Please cite some examples. I'd love to continue this conversation.

 

Citing the HealthLine as a Joe Calabrese project is only partially correct. The idea and groundwork for a better connection between downtown and University Circle was laid long before Joe Calabrese ever got there. And while I support the project and feel it has been mostly a success, except for the horribly designed shelters and the rather embarrassing ticket machines some look at the BRT decision as a poor substitution for what could have been they wanted it to be. The only certainty we can say about the HealthLine is yes Joe Calabrese was the CEO of RTA that accepted and then spent a large check from the federal goverment.

 

 

Fixed one statement for ya :-). I would like clarification on the "some" who look at the BRT decision that way.

 

I never stated that the HealthLine was entirely Joe's project. Along those same lines, though, if his supporters can't afford him 100% of the credit (not that I think they should), then his detractors shouldn't expect to place upon him 100% of any perceived "blame". No man, no project, no agency, is an island.

 

I think you're minimizing some of the certainties that can be stated about the HealthLine. However, we've gone down that road before, so I'll not belabor the point here. I'll only say that RTA, under Joe Calabrese, not only accepted the check, but fought for it in a very competitive federal transit funding environment.

How about

 

Joe bought a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute apex of the price.

 

He did not hedge, he did not buy futures....he contracted for a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute maximum price...

 

but we wont talk about that.

 

 

 

Yes, the fuel purchase and the fare machines, and the aforementioned poor planning for crowds.  While the trolleys are an unqualified success, success is kind of expected.  It's his job.  Failures aren't so easy to write off.  And continuing to counter with inevitable ridership gains whenever someone criticizes the BRT project suggests that nothing has been learned, that RTA is more concerned with defending bad decisions than making good ones.

^^ Based on poor reception of his most notable initiatives.  The people, not the board, set his objectives.  We set the board's objectives too.

 

 

Poor reception of which notable initiatives? Would that be the free downtown trolleys, which have been a boon to downtown connectivity and a hit with businesses and tourists alike? Or perhaps the HealthLine, which continues to show year-over-year ridership growth and usage well exceeding that of the former #6 bus, and has been cited as a model for future BRT projects nationwide? Or maybe the new stations at W 117, E 55, and Puritas, with more in the works?

 

Please cite some examples. I'd love to continue this conversation.

 

Citing the HealthLine as a Joe Calabrese project is only partially correct. The idea and groundwork for a better connection between downtown and University Circle was laid long before Joe Calabrese ever got there. And while I support the project and feel it has been mostly a success, except for the horribly designed shelters and the rather embarrassing ticket machines some look at the BRT decision as a poor substitution for what could have been they wanted it to be. The only certainty we can say about the HealthLine is yes Joe Calabrese was the CEO of RTA that accepted and then spent a large check from the federal goverment.

 

 

Fixed one statement for ya :-). I would like clarification on the "some" who look at the BRT decision that way.

 

I never stated that the HealthLine was entirely Joe's project. Along those same lines, though, if his supporters can't afford him 100% of the credit (not that I think they should), then his detractors shouldn't expect to place upon him 100% of any perceived "blame". No man, no project, no agency, is an island.

 

I think you're minimizing some of the certainties that can be stated about the HealthLine. However, we've gone down that road before, so I'll not belabor the point here. I'll only say that RTA, under Joe Calabrese, not only accepted the check, but fought for it in a very competitive federal transit funding environment.

 

The 'some' I refer to are many on this forum who look at the BRT as blasphemy in the world of light rail. I don't share that view. I am less concerned with how you move people from point A to point B as long as you do it in a clean and efficient manor. And I am not here to kill the point about Joe Calabrese, it looks like he is here to stay. Our job is to challenge every decision we disagree with and let them know we demand excellence and not just settle for mediocrity.

JeT - unless you go back in time and put light rail (which you couldn't afford) or a subway (which you REALLY couldn't afford) down Euclid, you are not going to get anywhere with this crowd.

I can't believe I've missed all the fun of this debate about Mr C's salary....  I also can't believe it was KJP that posted the link first. 

 

my 2 cents:

$240,000 is a helluva lot of money to pay someone to run a public agency like Cleveland RTA.  It's more than the Chief of Police or Chief of Fire in Cleveland make or CMHA's CEO and all those groups have nearly 1,000 employees and annual budgets in the hundreds of millions.  Maybe he's the best they can get for the money, but I bet they could've got the same job done for less.  We'll never know but the $20k increase seems excessive on top of an already ludicrous salary.

How about Joe bought a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute apex of the price.

He did not hedge, he did not buy futures....he contracted for a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute maximum price...but we wont talk about that.

 

And now RTA buys gas in small quantities whenever the prices are down, and we are saving MILLIONS. We are now buying gas for 2014. Whatever money we may have lost that first year, we have made up over and over again. How can one argue about $26,000 in salary increases when millions have been saved by his efficiencies?

I can't believe I've missed all the fun of this debate about Mr C's salary....  I also can't believe it was KJP that posted the link first. 

 

my 2 cents:

$240,000 is a helluva lot of money to pay someone to run a public agency like Cleveland RTA.  It's more than the Chief of Police or Chief of Fire in Cleveland make or CMHA's CEO and all those groups have nearly 1,000 employees and annual budgets in the hundreds of millions.  Maybe he's the best they can get for the money, but I bet they could've got the same job done for less.  We'll never know but the $20k increase seems excessive on top of an already ludicrous salary.

 

I wonder if this disparity is common in other cities/metros?  Regardless, I don't think that the Chief of Police and Chief of Fire are good comparables.  After all, the Division of Fire and Division of Police are sub-departments of the Division of Public Safety, so if the comparison is to be made, Marty Flask's salary would be the one to look at.  BTW, they just advertised the Fire Chief position with a top end starting salary of $165,000 (although whoever takes the job won't get that much I'm sure).  What about the Director of the Port.... how much does he make?

How about Joe bought a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute apex of the price.

He did not hedge, he did not buy futures....he contracted for a year's worth of Diesel at the absolute maximum price...but we wont talk about that.

 

And now RTA buys gas in small quantities whenever the prices are down, and we are saving MILLIONS. We are now buying gas for 2014. Whatever money we may have lost that first year, we have made up over and over again. How can one argue about $26,000 in salary increases when millions have been saved by his efficiencies?

 

Good point, but I would hope anyone worth a $100k+ salary would be able to save on purchasing fuel in advance at lower prices...

That's oversimplifying the issue.  It takes two to tango.  What the casual observer often doesn't understand is that management too would often rather lose services and jobs so they position themselves at the bargaining table in a way so that they can point their finger at the union when those services and jobs are lost.  That's just a general comment, not any specific accusation against RTA.

 

Not correct. Four years ago, RTA asked the ATU for wage/benefit concessions to save bus routes and service frequency but the ATU was unwilling to revisit its contract. So the routes were scaled back or cut and jobs were lost. It wasn't just the local ATU, but others ATU locals and other unions that were asked by transit agencies throughout the country at that time. And I was not aware of any unions willing to revisit their contracts. Yes it takes two to tango. RTA wanted to tango. But the ATU didn't even show up at the dance.

 

Regarding Joe Calabrese, I have mixed feelings on the guy. I think he's a competent general manager who has made a few mistakes (dude is human, after all!). Chief among them was the fare machines. I don't even blame him for hedging fuel contracts in 2008. Few predicted oil prices were going to fall, let alone drop from $148 per barrel to $30. Except kennybabes and 327 who undoubtedly cornered the WTI Futures market that year and are now living on their own islands. RTA continues to hedge fuel contracts which saved the agency money in 2011 and 2012.

 

Calabrese came to RTA in 2000 at the start of what was perhaps the longest sustained period of economic and population stagnation in the metropolitan area's history. Considering that the bulk of RTA's revenue comes from a sales tax and in a county that has seen its population fall from 1.8 million in 1970 to 1.2 million today does not exactly lend to taking big risks with major development projects. In fact, friends at RTA and in the transportation consulting community told me that when Calabrese first came to RTA, he inquired about not proceeding with the Euclid Corridor busway project because it would add new operating costs. He was told that the project is probably too far along in its development, there was strong political support for the project (especially from Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones), and that the busway should generate new ridership and influence real estate development. So he decided to support the project. Two other projects that were in advanced planning at that time were shelved -- Waterfront Extension/Downtown Loop and the Red Line Southwest Extension.

 

Where I disagree with Joe Calabrese is on using transit more aggressively as an economic development tool. He seemed to view transit more as a response to it. As we known, economic development occurs when wealth is created. Wealth is created from the production and/or capitalization of a resource, the reduction in the cost of doing business or a combination. In Northeast Ohio, expanded transit can accomplish both. The resource is labor, which large portions are untapped because it cannot physically reach jobs. I believe the figure is that only 20-25 percent of the metro area's available jobs are within a one-hour transit ride. Expanding transit reduces labor costs for the region, making it more attractive to employers. And expanded transit reduces transportation costs which are higher in Greater Cleveland as a percentage of the average household budget than anywhere else in the nation except Houston (http://www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/driven_to_spend/driven_to_spend_report.pdf) and are higher than most cities known for being high-cost (http://www.cnt.org/repository/2012-Fact-Sheet-Rankings.pdf). Savings on transportation allows citizens to spend for other things that improve their quality of life -- and also may cause sales tax revenues to rise!

 

I have my own ideas on how to afford expanded transit in Cuyahoga County -- the short version is to ask county voters to mandate that RTA provide a service design standard (such as a bus route on all streets maintained to a certain quality with a bus provided every X minutes at specific times of the day), AND achieve a minimum cost recovery ratio in providing that service design standard. The transit agency would be prohibited from engaging in fare discounts, labor contracts, management pay, or other activities which cause its cost recovery to drop below the minimum unless it secured supplement income from the public or private sector that offsets the cost of that activity (such as a private sponsor for a downtown Trolley route or a bus route extended to a job site that's away from a transit route that meets the cost recovery ratio but wouldn't if it were extended). RTA is doing some of this stuff, but by asking for a countywide vote on mandating such a standard, it forces management and labor to restrain labor costs which I believe are unnecessarily high at 63 percent of total operating costs. Airlines, railroads and intercity bus companies (including those with an organized labor force) typically see labor accounting for about half of their operating costs. If RTA did too, it could free up about $30 million per year for expanded services. RTA has already done a very good job with its finances, so much so that its improved bond rating allowed it to restructure its debt with more favorable interest rates. That allowed RTA to save enough money to use its own funding (rather than keep trying to get federal grant dollars) for the two major Red Line projects -- Airport tunnel and S-curve rehabs that will cost $14 million total. I imagine more capital improvements could be afforded by mandating a cost recovery ratio -- one that requires realistic improvement in the coming years.

 

I also wish Calabrese looked more aggressively at ways RTA could get more actively involved in financing transit-oriented developments. As a public sector agency with a permanent source of tax revenue, it could probably offer a more attractive bond rating than most port authorities in Ohio. I know there are some restrictions on transit agencies getting directly involved in financing construction projects, but I would suspect that TOD projects may be legally allowed. If they are, then a prospective user could come to RTA seeking financing for its building project. In addition to fiscal soundness requirements, RTA would also require the project conform to its TOD guidelines and that be allowed to establish a TIF whose tax revenues could then be used to support operating and capital needs -- including the creation and continued expansion of an RTA TOD department staff.

 

Maybe with Greater Cleveland's economy showing some new signs of life, now would be an opportunity to try some of these ideas? But I do think Calabrese's fiscal conservatism was needed to stop overspending during the Tober era. Had it continued, it could have put RTA into an even more difficult financial position during a decade that most of us would probably prefer to forget when it came to Greater Cleveland's historic economic and population stagnation.

What he did with that fuel purchase was not a hedge.  It was the exact opposite of a hedge.  It was a boneheaded maneuver.  Hedging would have meant locking in multiple price options, in case the market fell... not committing 100% to the highest possible price.  Again, that is the opposite of hedging.

 

Shelving rail extensions in favor of BRT was another boneheaded maneuver.  But what's really troubling is the continued effort to expand BRT, as if he really believes it's been a popular success.  And most of the TOD plans we've seen are barely recognizable as TOD, as though the base concept is getting ignored or is deeply misunderstood. 

 

Calabrese can pull this out, but we need to see the BRT function as promised, and we need these fare machines dealt with.  Both represent inexcusable fumbles that are still just sitting there on the field.  Someone please pick up the ball.

What he did with that fuel purchase was not a hedge.  It was the exact opposite of a hedge.  It was a boneheaded maneuver.  Hedging would have meant locking in multiple price options, in case the market fell... not committing 100% to the highest possible price.  Again, that is the opposite of hedging.

 

And you knew this was the highest possible price in the summer of 2008? If so, how much money did you make off of that? And if you were so sure that it was the highest possible price and you didn't play the market, then who was  being boneheaded?

Point is-- nobody knows, not me, not Ron Tober, not Aubrey McClendon.  Given that we don't know the future, locking into any one price is boneheaded.  The whole idea of hedging is to give oneself as many future choices as possible, to protect against market changes in either direction.  In this case, we would have been better off with no contract at all.  Inaction would have produced a more favorable result.  Therefore, Calabrese could have been outperformed in this negotiation by a scarecrow, a Barbie doll, or a piece of pie.

Isn't hindsight great!

 

EDIT: news of the fuel price contracts was first reported on this site here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.msg295296.html#msg295296

 

Scroll through the pages that follow that news and tell me if you find anyone here who questioned the decision back then, or any of the fuel price hedging in any the years that following. It's probably why Joe C is doing what he's doing. And why you're doing what you're doing.

One thing I do know without the benefit of hindsight:  our species is not going to shrink to an average height of 3'11" over the next 20 years.  Fuel hedging, BRT and union concessions aside, whoever approved the fare machines should be fired immediately.  These sorts of devices go into stores, banks and restaurants every day across the country.  There is no excuse for this lack of oversight.  It starts at the top--errrr or the bottom, if referencing kneeling-height fare machines  :wink:

most fare machines across the world are low, or have one low machine at every station, so they are able to be used by people in a wheelchair. Not that I would ever defend those monstrosities, but thats one of the only things they got right.

Yes, Joe Calabrese is conservative all right. Yeah, he's apparently kept RTA solvent in difficult times. But at what cost? And more importantly, where is the line of differentiation between RTA the public service vs. RTA the business. I strongly believe that it should much more be the former.  As freethink noted, I would much prefer a GM like Ron Tober, and would love to know how he supposedly spent money like a drunken sailor so as to potentially lead RTA to economic disaster that required the conservative Calabrese.  Charlotte, NC didn’t do to badly under Tober when they launched their new Linx LRT (their first rapid transit) a few years back. 

 

Then again, is mass transit a business or is it a service?

 

Posters had a very educational discussion about the expenses of transit. But it was also disturbing. What's to encourage RTA to withhold better service, even with evidence of demand, if it's more cost-effective to maintain inadequate service ... or even cut service (after all, RTA knows it can ALWAYS claim financial difficulties, esp. against the background of a stingy, conservative state (and governor) like Ohio. Look even now and even in the face of sharply increased demand (esp with the casino on line), RTA had promised to return 15 minute Red Line service frequency but hasn't yet implemented it because, according to them, they are still 'fixing the signal tower after the nearly year-old lightning strike.' Where's the motivation to provide better rail service, esp given Calabrese's oft expressed distaste for rail service ? (NOTE: in another thread, a UOer recently quoted him as stating that rail expenses exceed bus expenses despite moving far less people. To me that's whining, esp when it's true of most rail cities -- Chicago being one of them, which has a much more extensive L rail network that, still, moves significantly less people than CTA buses with a significant feeder bus system along with many radial bus lines into the Loop).  I'm sorry, but that's not how normal major transit cheif's talk. Normal transit cheifs are always advocating expansion even when the funds may not be there at the time.  (again: business vs. service)  And even if some or all of these expansions don't happen, at least the public gets the sense that their transit agency is trying to improve. Now quick: name one rail project Calabrese has vocally supported... (hint: it's a number less than one)

 

And as was noted above, RTA under Calabrese has not taken the lead in non-farebox revenue generating or TOD development (which, if done right, could lead to more revenue generation). Theoretically then, for every dollar Calabrese has saved due to frugality, he has lost due to non-aggressiveness in revenue generating (and btw, TOD of course has ripple benefits for a more urbanized, smarter-growth Cleveland as well). It's good to see that TOD is happening without Calabrese (Flats East Bank), Univ. Circle Uptown/Intesa, in addition to smaller projects, like the Marous' row-house rehab at the West Blvd station – all happening despite Calabrese’ inaction.

 

Finally, I’m sure folks will say I’m just a Calabrese basher.  In fact, I’ve given him considerable credit for introducing POP to the Red Line, which has allowed for greatly improved service (although he gets a big minus for those awful farecard machines).  I’ve also given him big probs for the excellent free trolley service downtown, which will soon be expanding in size and to weekends… all very good.  (I might also note that the Trolleys are a textbook example of an RTA public-private service through Dollar Bank).

 

I just don't think his positives outweigh his negatives; certainly not to the extent of extending his contract for another 8 years....

Okay folks, enough with the snarky tone - legitimate criticisms and questions are one thing but there's a limit.

People said they wanted to know a comparison so I thought this would work. Dont take it as the whole picture, just a quick glance at some facts.

 

Greater Cleveland RTA

$260.5 million budget

2,103 Employees

Ridership - 46.2 million

CEO Salary - $243,386. 3% pay increase with an addition $20,000 bonus.

 

 

Allegheny Port Authority (Pittsburgh)

$292.9 million budget

2,500 Employees

Ridership - 63 million

CEO Salary - $185,000. Accepted 2 year salary freeze.

 

People said they wanted to know a comparison so I thought this would work. Dont take it as the whole picture, just a quick glance at some facts.

 

Greater Cleveland RTA

$260.5 million budget

2,103 Employees

Ridership - 46.2 million

CEO Salary - $243,386. 3% pay increase with an addition $20,000 bonus.

 

 

Allegheny Port Authority (Pittsburgh)

$292.9 million budget

2,500 Employees

Ridership - 63 million

CEO Salary - $185,000. Accepted 2 year salary freeze.

 

 

Thank you. Some additional facts (extracted from http://www.portauthority.org/paac/CompanyInfoProjects/BudgetFinances/ServiceReductions.aspx ):

• Port Authority is facing a $64 million deficit in its operating budget for the coming fiscal year, which starts July 1, 2012.
  
• The planned 35-percent service reduction would be devastating to our region. More than 40 routes would be eliminated from the 100 we currently operate, and schedules would be reduced on all remaining routes.
  
• Without a state funding solution and real progress on legacy costs, fare increases would go into effect July 1, with service cuts to follow on September 2. Port Authority's Board approved these actions at its April 27, 2012 meeting.
  

Any of this sound familiar? Been there, done that. I hope Allegheny weathers the storm as well as we did.

That's oversimplifying the issue.  It takes two to tango.  What the casual observer often doesn't understand is that management too would often rather lose services and jobs so they position themselves at the bargaining table in a way so that they can point their finger at the union when those services and jobs are lost.  That's just a general comment, not any specific accusation against RTA.

 

Not correct. Four years ago, RTA asked the ATU for wage/benefit concessions to save bus routes and service frequency but the ATU was unwilling to revisit its contract. So the routes were scaled back or cut and jobs were lost. It wasn't just the local ATU, but others ATU locals and other unions that were asked by transit agencies throughout the country at that time. And I was not aware of any unions willing to revisit their contracts. Yes it takes two to tango. RTA wanted to tango. But the ATU didn't even show up at the dance.

 

That might have been the case in that instance.  I was speaking more generally in response to your post which was phrased in general terms.  And, in all my experience with collective bargaining which probably allows my knowledge of the subject to rival your knowledge of trains I'm sure, unless you were at the bargaining table, don't assume you know the specifics.  And that wouldn't just be for current negotiations, but also the few previous rounds.  Mid-term bargaining is even more complicated and because the parties are not compelled to sit down if they don't want to, a lot of the 'bargaining' and posturing occurs away from 'the dance'.

Regarding the salary differences at the top, the Allegheny job has been somewhat easier given PA's traditionally higher subsidy for transit.  :lol:

 

That may no longer be true given state budget cuts, however.

Regarding the salary differences at the top, the Allegheny job has been somewhat easier given PA's traditionally higher subsidy for transit.  :lol:

 

That may no longer be true given state budget cuts, however.

 

Based on ClevelandOhio's numbers, the Allegheny Port Authority is budgeted $4.65 per rider they moved, where RTA is budgeted $5.64 per rider they moved (16% more).  Regardless of the state not providing enough money, our county sales tax (1%) that goes to RTA may be better than whatever local tax Allegheny has.  So I wouldn't say they have an easier funding situation.

Saw this on twitter.

 

"@GCRTA Why must we suffer worst ticket machines on planet? http://pic.twitter.com/MWMZpEeX"

 

 

RTA's response..."changes are coming sooner than you think!"

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Also, has anyone had a chance to use http://www.nextconnect.riderta.com/ yet?

Regarding the salary differences at the top, the Allegheny job has been somewhat easier given PA's traditionally higher subsidy for transit.  :lol:

 

That may no longer be true given state budget cuts, however.

 

Based on ClevelandOhio's numbers, the Allegheny Port Authority is budgeted $4.65 per rider they moved, where RTA is budgeted $5.64 per rider they moved (16% more).  Regardless of the state not providing enough money, our county sales tax (1%) that goes to RTA may be better than whatever local tax Allegheny has.  So I wouldn't say they have an easier funding situation.

 

It's not entirely clear where ClevelandOhio got some of his numbers from, so I'll be certain to cite my sources. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, we'll just look at overall 2012 operating budgets, since those are the most customer-facing numbers and are most affected by (or potentially have the greatest effect on) ridership:

 

GCRTA: "The 2012 appropriation for operating expenditures totals $230,907,701.  In comparison, the 2009 Budget totaled $246,514,436 and the 2010 Budget appropriated $225,941,877.  The amount appropriated for 2011 was $225,874,579." So, basically, 2009 to 2010 was a reduction, 2010 to 2011 pretty much stood pat, and 2012 is a <2% increase. Source: http://www.riderta.com/pdf/budget/2012/2012Budget_Full.pdf, page TL-3

 

PAAC: FY 2009 actual $351,325,813; FY 2010 actual $355,122,506; FY 2011 actual $352,344,773; FY 2012 budget  $370,151,875. So, we're looking at about a 1% increase in from 2009 to 2010, a comparable decrease in from 2010 to 2011, and a proposed 8% increase in 2012. Source: http://www.portauthority.org/paac/portals/Capital/2012Budget/2012BudgetBook.pdf, page vi

 

Again, I'm not sure where the previously-supplied numbers came from, but if we apply operating budget/ridership numbers to the numbers I've obtained, we get:

 

GCRTA: 230,907,701/46,200,000 = 5.00 per passenger (rounded)

 

PAAC: 370,151,875/63,000,000 = 5.88 per passenger (rounded)

Here is where I got RTA's operating budget. I thought this website would have reliable information.

 

http://www.riderta.com/ar_RTAfacts.asp

 

Also this shows expenditures of $266.2 million against estimated revenue of $255.4 million

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2011-11-15-PublicHearStmt.pdf

 

 

Also when are those 20 minute red line intervals going to go down to 15 minute intervals? RTA said "May or June."

Here is where I got RTA's operating budget. I thought this website would have reliable information.

 

http://www.riderta.com/ar_RTAfacts.asp

 

Also this shows expenditures of $266.2 million against estimated revenue of $255.4 million

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2011-11-15-PublicHearStmt.pdf

 

 

Also when are those 20 minute red line intervals going to go down to 15 minute intervals? RTA said "May or June."

 

Back off the attitude. I have no doubt those numbers are accurate, in some interpretation. It is when numbers are provided IN AN APPROPRIATE CONTEXT that direct comparisons can be made. I will further investigate the $260.5 million figure quoted on the Facts page.

 

Also, the second link you provided DOESN'T, in fact say that. It says "The General Fund budget request includes expenditures of $266.2 million against

estimated revenue of $255.4 million." "request"... "estimated..." these were forward-looking statements made during the planning and comment phase.

Here is where I got RTA's operating budget. I thought this website would have reliable information.

 

http://www.riderta.com/ar_RTAfacts.asp

 

Also this shows expenditures of $266.2 million against estimated revenue of $255.4 million

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/2011-11-15-PublicHearStmt.pdf

 

 

Also when are those 20 minute red line intervals going to go down to 15 minute intervals? RTA said "May or June."

 

Back off the attitude.

 

I dont know where this came from as I wasn't trying to show any attitude. Im sorry you took it that way, as it wasnt intended.

 

GCRTA receives the attitude on twitter, and its nice to see they always respond politely

 

Edit: Btw, I havent had a chance to use the nextconnect but I have checked out the website and it looks to be a great addition. And from what I have heard the times are extremely accurate. The maps take some time to load and dont always work, but that doesnt really matter to me. The times are the important information and those appear to be working perfectly. So great addition. And if new fare machines are coming soon, than thats another great plus for RTA.

Ladies and gentlemen, some random thoughts.

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the debate on Joe Calabrese. Most points were made well, and none dropped to the name-calling level I have seen elsewhere.

 

I was hired at RTA as Media Relations Manager 6 weeks before Joe was hired, so I have had a front-row seat for his entire term of office.

 

Ron Tober started at RTA on Oct. 31, 1999 (Halloween), so RTA has gone more than 20 years with just two leaders. That bodes well for the stability of the agency.

 

I have also had the pleasure of working for George V. Voinovich for 5 years, and I find the two men very similar. I have loads of respect for each.

 

As for the debate over RTA being a business, yes, it is very much a business. The first priority of any business is survival -- pay your bills, stay solvent, be fiscally responsible. How many people would an agency serve if it went out of business? Answer: zero. To survive is the first order, to thrive is the second. Survival in this climate, with economic depression, unreliable state funding, and questionable federal funding, is a huge effort, and consumes much attention.

 

I know many of you care deeply about transit, and that's why you are here. I would LOVE for some of you to be able to sit in the big chair for even an hour, and face the realities of the day. As someone who has gone from journalism to PR to journalism and back to PR, I have learned that are few black-and-white issues. Most things are shades of grey, as some of you alluded to above.

 

Few things are as simple as they appear. If you read the "Politifact" column in the PD, where they dissect the many political ads, you will get a greater understanding of some of the issues. Even though it has little to do with transit, I heartily recommend it.

 

Have a good day.

On the subject of Twitter, whoever runs the RTA account does a great job. I check the Twitter account for service updates, but more than that, @gcrta does a good job promoting RTA and reaching out to customer base through Twitter.

<<When are those 20-minute Red Line intervals going to go down to 15-minute intervals?">>

 

When all repairs are done and signals are tested.

 

It is a matter of safety. The damage was massive, and work proceeds daily. I ride the Red Line every day. So do many RTA staffers. When the work is complete and we can ensure the safety of all trains, we will be delighted to increase the frequency. Until then, we thank you for your support.

 

 

 

On the subject of Twitter, whoever runs the RTA account does a great job. I check the Twitter account for service updates, but more than that, @gcrta does a good job promoting RTA and reaching out to customer base through Twitter.

 

Most of Twitter work comes from Marketing, but Media Relations and IT also help. Few things in RTA are one-man shows. I will pass along your comments. Thank you.

<<When are those 20-minute Red Line intervals going to go down to 15-minute intervals?">>

 

When all repairs are done and signal are tested.

 

It is a matter of safety. The damage was massive, and work proceeds daily. I ride the Red Line every day. So do many RTA staffers. When the work is complete and we can ensure the safety of all trains, we will be delighted to increase the frequency. Until then, we thank you for your support.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. I was reading an old article and it mentioned it which reminded me so I asked. Does RTA still plan on running the Waterfront Line daily once the Flats East Bank opens up? I wonder how much of a ridership boost this project will have. I feel like Phase 2 is what will really add to the ridership, but I believe phase 1 can still help. Thanks

 

Ron Tober started at RTA on Oct. 31, 1999 (Halloween), so RTA has gone more than 20 years with just two leaders.

 

There's something not accurate in that. Do you mean Joe Calabrese started in 1999? I thought Rob Tober was hired in 1988 or thereabouts.

 

BTW, if someone wants to pay me a salary that's more than many of my peers are getting paid, then I'll take it without complaint or hesitation. If my board thinks I'm worth more than many of my peers, I'm pretty sure I'll listen to them and not the critics. Do I think Calabrese is worth it? I have no opinion on the matter because I don't like to tell other people how much they should or should not be paid. I may be jealous of some people because of what they got paid. So I try to work harder and accomplish more so I can earn what I think I'm worth, rather than succumb to my insecurities and waste time worrying about what others are paid. So what I think I'm worth and what my employer thinks I'm worth are the only two opinions that matter on the subject.

^ You are right. I got some dates transposed.

 

Tober -- 5-28-88 to 10-31-99.

 

Calabrese -- 2-22-2000 to present.

<<Does RTA still plan on running the Waterfront Line daily once the Flats East Bank opens up?>>

 

Yes. I think the date is sometime in 2013.