I’d love to see more employers offering this benefit. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’d love to see more employers offering this benefit. 

My employer has provided this benefit for many years.  Most of my co-workers had no interest in it whatsoever and this was when service options were much better.  When service was significantly degraded (slower/non-direct routes, longer travel times), it became less appealing.  To continue to use this "benefit" with the downgraded service, one would have to leave earlier to have a reasonable expectation of starting at the same time and due to scheduling with work hours, then catch a later bus to go home.  Adding about 1 1/2 hours to a commute/work day is simply not desirable to the vast majority of people.  Having Laketran as a commuting option is fortunate for those living in northeast Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, but most aren't so lucky.  With teleworking staying in place after the pandemic ends, if someone comes in the office rarely, the parking/driving cost is palatable.

 

Having employers supply no-cost passes for employees is only desirable as the transit service provided.

I’d love to see more employers offering this benefit. 

So I remember watching an episode of House Hunters that was based in Washington DC. The resident lived very close to a Metro station and the complex included Metro passes in the payments. I always thought that was a good incentive for apartment complexes that are located close to the rapid in Cleveland such as the ones in Little Italy etc.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

14 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So I remember watching an episode of House Hunters that was based in Washington DC. The resident lived very close to a Metro station and the complex included Metro passes in the payments. I always thought that was a good incentive for apartment complexes that are located close to the rapid in Cleveland such as the ones in Little Italy etc.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

Dan Whalen is trying to get some type of RTA pass worked out for Intro residents. Hopefully that happens and becomes a model for other new properties near transit. 

2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So I remember watching an episode of House Hunters that was based in Washington DC. The resident lived very close to a Metro station and the complex included Metro passes in the payments. I always thought that was a good incentive for apartment complexes that are located close to the rapid in Cleveland such as the ones in Little Italy etc.
 

Giving out transit passes by employers is a great idea--just as long as the transit service is one that is desirable and viable alternative to driving.  When RTA eliminated an express route and replaced it with a considerably longer travel time local route, it was no longer desirable.  Fortunately for those riders, they had a viable and desirable alternative in Laketran.  Almost all of the riders had a good alternative to continue to use mass transit on that system.  For those who didn't switch to Laketran (for whatever reason) decided to drive to work.  When RTA rolled out NextGen in June, those affected riders no longer had comparable transit service.  For them, having free passes to use RTA wasn't worth the time "cost" they would have incurred.  

 

Parking in Cleveland is fairly inexpensive as compared to cities like D.C, Boston, Philadelphia, New York and so on.  It came down to a much longer commute, extending their days either due to the time the bus would take travel or different schedules and a less comfortable ride.  Even without incentives such as employer provided passes, using mass transit in many other cities is a cost-effective solution due to costs in parking, operation and tolls.  Frequency and reliability of service also makes a big difference.

 

Over time, RTA's service has gone downhill for the suburbs.  Express and one-seat routes are significantly fewer.  This has eroded the passenger base.  Fewer riders have caused route frequencies to be reduced in frequency or completely eliminated during certain parts of a day.  In Mayfield Heights and Mayfield Village, there are two Fortune 500 Companies:  Parker Hannifin and Progressive.  Parker Hannifin in Landerhaven has no nearby bus routes.  Only a portion of Progressive's offices in Mayfield Village and Highland Heights are served by the once-per hour route 7A on Wilson Mills.  The main campus in Mayfield Village on SOM Center Road has no RTA service.  Progressive's "answer" was to build a new parking garage.  Based upon the big solar panel farm being constructed at their main campus, Progressive sees the benefits of making environmentally friendly choices.

12 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

In Mayfield Heights and Mayfield Village, there are two Fortune 500 Companies:  Parker Hannifin and Progressive.  Parker Hannifin in Landerhaven has no nearby bus routes.  Only a portion of Progressive's offices in Mayfield Village and Highland Heights are served by the once-per hour route 7A on Wilson Mills.  The main campus in Mayfield Village on SOM Center Road has no RTA service.  Progressive's "answer" was to build a new parking garage.  Based upon the big solar panel farm being constructed at their main campus, Progressive sees the benefits of making environmentally friendly choices.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with your point.  I gave up the bus when I can drive to work in less than half the time.

 

But it also shows (1) how damaging sprawl is -- with a stagnant population covering an increasingly wider and wider area it's impossible to provide good transit service; and (2) building your new corporate HQ in the suburbs means you only want employees willing to sacrifice to buy a car to work for you (a big "f*ck you" to the poor), and you're offloading some of the shared cost (public transit) to individuals (you have to have a car to work here). 

 

It's also ironic that building a few solar panels makes a company seem like they are interested in the environment after they endorsed sprawl to build a corporate campus with an expensive-to-build and maintain parking garage in a place that it is difficult to impossible to serve with frequent public transit.

^Agreed on all points but wanted to add, Progressive's gone all-in on remote work and people out that way are already starting to worry about what's going to happen to that campus.

 

Both Eaton and Progressive deciding to locate out on 271 were travesties.

Edited October 21, 20213 yr by mu2010

 

Any idea what's happening here? 'collision/malfunction/derail' doesn't sound good.

Is GCRTA downplaying it (AGAIN)??

 

 

Uh, I'd say so......

 

33 minutes ago, KJP said:

Is GCRTA downplaying it (AGAIN)??

 

 

Uh, I'd say so......

 

There was just a news helicopter hovering over there.   Hopefully we get some footage soon. 

 

6 hours ago, Foraker said:

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with your point.  I gave up the bus when I can drive to work in less than half the time.

 

But it also shows (1) how damaging sprawl is -- with a stagnant population covering an increasingly wider and wider area it's impossible to provide good transit service; and (2) building your new corporate HQ in the suburbs means you only want employees willing to sacrifice to buy a car to work for you (a big "f*ck you" to the poor), and you're offloading some of the shared cost (public transit) to individuals (you have to have a car to work here). 

 

It's also ironic that building a few solar panels makes a company seem like they are interested in the environment after they endorsed sprawl to build a corporate campus with an expensive-to-build and maintain parking garage in a place that it is difficult to impossible to serve with frequent public transit.

 

Progressive, Parker Hannifin and Eaton have all decided to embrace the modern corporate campus headquarters model.  In the cases of Progressive and Parker, they located on former golf course sites with land far easier to develop than what may be found in existing urban centers.  I am not taking one side or another; they were decisions made that their leadership felt was best for their companies.  As for Progressive, has anybody driven by the "rear" of their main campus on I-271?  The installation of solar panels is far more than "a few".  The number is well into the hundreds, maybe in excess of a thousand.

 

What I don't know is what efforts were made by those companies to make their campuses more transit friendly.  Did they make any efforts on their part or did RTA approach them with any ideas?  Did RTA consider or off to extend the #11 Cedar beyond Montefiore, west of I-271?  At one time, the #32 Cedar used to go further to the east, but that route number no longer exists.  When it did exist, Parker was already at Landerhaven.  To route a Cedar bus route though Landerhaven is only a minor deviation from Cedar Road.

 

With the NextGen changes in June, RTA ended up having an excess of 45-foot 57 passenger (seated) highway coaches.  They purchased 12 brand new ones in 2020 (1901-series) for about $8 million.  They had another 6 from 2007 (1701-series) and 6 from 2010 (1801-series).  RTA currently operates one highway coach park-n-ride route from Brunswick/Strongsville and that is due to sponsorship by those cities.  The 12 new buses are far more that is needed for that one line.  This month, RTA just sold 4 of the 2007 models for the price $4000 to $6500 each.  They also sold 2 older 2001 highway models.  The top mileage from those four 2007 models was about 313,000 miles.  For a city coach, that is a low amount of miles.  A highway coach is designed for at least double or triple that number of miles.  Why couldn't RTA partner with these east side headquartered companies and provide express bus service from the end of the Green Line?  The operation could continue along Shaker Blvd to Gates Mills Blvd.  The express service could deviate from Gates Mills Blvd at Lander to north to Landerhaven, then continue to SOM Center Road to go to Progressive or there could be 2 routes, one for Parker and the second to continue on Gates Mills Blvd to SOM Center and up to the Progressive campus.  Riders would have the benefits of quicker rapid transit and express bus service instead of slow and infrequent local bus service. 

 

Unfortunately, RTA basically unloaded buses with a lot of service life/mileage remaining for next to nothing.  Still on the system, RTA has a vastly underutilized highway coach fleet of 20 buses that mostly sit around and it wouldn't be surprising to see more of them basically given away.  By far, this is wasting capital improvement funds.  

Edited October 21, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

18 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Why couldn't RTA partner with these east side headquartered companies and provide express bus service from the end of the Green Line?  The operation could continue along Shaker Blvd to Gates Mills Blvd.  The express service could deviate from Gates Mills Blvd at Lander to north to Landerhaven, then continue to SOM Center Road to go to Progressive or there could be 2 routes, one for Parker and the second to continue on Gates Mills Blvd to SOM Center and up to the Progressive campus.  Riders would have the benefits of quicker rapid transit and express bus service instead of slow and infrequent local bus service. 

 

Unfortunately, RTA basically unloaded buses with a lot of service life/mileage remaining for next to nothing.  Still on the system, RTA has a vastly underutilized highway coach fleet of 20 buses that mostly sit around and it wouldn't be surprising to see more of them basically given away.  By far, this is wasting capital improvement funds.  

 

Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in, but we can only speculate on the answers to your questions.  Corporate campuses in outer suburbs with nearby highway access apparently do not generate enough riders or RTA would have arranged routes to those places.  Maybe RTA did reach out to these companies, and they weren't interested in subsidizing routes.  Perhaps they surveyed their employees and not enough were interested.  Providing express service down Cedar (or along 271) might not be very helpful if your employees live in widely dispersed communities readily accessible by car -- Mentor, Broadview Heights, and Avon.  The corporate HQ workplace may provide enough density at one end of the trip, but it isn't easy to provide fast and frequent transit routes to all the scattered locations where those employees live. 

 

I would like to see and eastside BRT down Cedar.  But is there enough density to justify the cost?  Maybe we need to see more dense development at Cedar-Fairmount, Cedar-Lee, University Center, Cedar-Green, Legacy, etc. before RTA will invest in BRT. 

 

As for the highway buses, I think we can assume that those previous park-and-ride lines were losing money or RTA wouldn't have canceled them.  In other words, operating those buses was more expensive than letting them sit idle or selling them off.  Yes, it was a bad investment, but there was probably a political angle to trying park-and-ride service in the first place. 

7 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in, but we can only speculate on the answers to your questions.  Corporate campuses in outer suburbs with nearby highway access apparently do not generate enough riders or RTA would have arranged routes to those places.  Maybe RTA did reach out to these companies, and they weren't interested in subsidizing routes.  Perhaps they surveyed their employees and not enough were interested.  Providing express service down Cedar (or along 271) might not be very helpful if your employees live in widely dispersed communities readily accessible by car -- Mentor, Broadview Heights, and Avon.  The corporate HQ workplace may provide enough density at one end of the trip, but it isn't easy to provide fast and frequent transit routes to all the scattered locations where those employees live. 

 

I would like to see and eastside BRT down Cedar.  But is there enough density to justify the cost?  Maybe we need to see more dense development at Cedar-Fairmount, Cedar-Lee, University Center, Cedar-Green, Legacy, etc. before RTA will invest in BRT. 

 

As for the highway buses, I think we can assume that those previous park-and-ride lines were losing money or RTA wouldn't have canceled them.  In other words, operating those buses was more expensive than letting them sit idle or selling them off.  Yes, it was a bad investment, but there was probably a political angle to trying park-and-ride service in the first place. 

Somehow, Laketran has been able to make things be successful with their highway coach service from Mentor, Eastlake and Willowick.  Perhaps it works as they charge a higher fare for this premium service at $3.75 for a single trip.  When RTA was created, local fares were 25 cents and express/rapid transit fares were 35 cents, a 40% higher fare.  Currently, RTA charges a $2.50 fare for local service and $2.75 for the express park-n-ride service.  As most riders of the highway coaches receive paid transit benefits, increasing the fares for highway coach service to $3.50 shouldn't be an issue.  Those riders who switched from RTA to Laketran when the #239 was eliminated received the increased benefits without an issue.

 

What should be a bigger concern is the wasted money that has been spent the highway coach service on RTA.  In 2020, they purchased the 12 new highway coaches for about $8 million.  Those 12 buses are far more than what service calls for on the one remaining highway coach route.  The other 12 buses that they already had on hand with many years of service remaining would have been more than sufficient to provide service.  RTA also has spent millions of dollars in building, expanding and maintaining transit centers in Euclid, Westlake and North Olmsted, not to mention the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center downtown.  The original suburban transit centers were each built to hold about 300 cars.  Westgate was eventually expanded to hold 715 cars and North Olmsted to 489 cars.  In June-September 2013, RTA spent $252,000 to rebuild the Euclid lot.  In 2016, they stopped running the #239 and last year, most of that 309-car lot was closed off for use and perhaps no more than 15 cars could now park there.  The Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center bus bays see their most use as mid-day storage for rush hour buses.  With the elimination of the highway coach routes, it is a matter of time before the Westlake and North Olmsted lots get closed off for use. This type of use (or lack of use) is not a good return on investment on capital expenditures.  Tens of millions are spent for equipment and facilities to see the equipment sit idle (or sold for virtually nothing), empty parking lots growing weeds and a downtown transit center used to park buses.   

 

Almost all, if not all, of RTA's transit services do not pay for themselves out of fare revenue.  One would have to wonder what would happen to the HealthLine, CSU Line, MetroHealth Line and Strongsville/Brunswick park-n-ride lines if the sponsorships of those routes ended.  This may have been the reason why most of the downtown loop "trolley" routes stopped operation.

Good stuff.  One interesting item that I learned recently is that CSU's property arm, the Euclid Avenue Development Corp, owns the property on which the STJ transit center was built. I wouldn't be surprised to see the university take that property back for their own use someday.

 

Regarding the trolleys, RTA got a lot of promises from the Downtown Cleveland Alliance and other sponsors. They promised to pay but few ever did. So that's why those downtown trolleys got shut down.

17 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

[1] Somehow, Laketran has been able to make things be successful . . . .

 

[2] What should be a bigger concern is the wasted money that has been spent the highway coach service on RTA. . . .  

 

[3] Almost all, if not all, of RTA's transit services do not pay for themselves out of fare revenue.  One would have to wonder what would happen to the HealthLine, CSU Line, MetroHealth Line and Strongsville/Brunswick park-n-ride lines if the sponsorships of those routes ended. 

 [1] How much is Lake County subsidizing Laketran?  You are right that it works for Laketran.  Just because one park-and-ride route in the region works doesn't mean others would.  You also might be right that RTA didn't charge enough for its park-n-ride service.  If it costs $5 (on a good day -- it's a lot more closer to the Square) to park in downtown Cleveland, surely the park-and-ride service could charge $4?

 

[2] There are a lot of questions about where and how RTA is spending its money, and different points of view.  I do not understand why so many buses were purchased, unless the buses were actually ordered years ago, with the idea of expanding park-and-ride service, and the buses were just paid for and delivered in 2020.  I still think that park-and-ride service is not a very efficient use of transit funds.  If they're only being used by business commuters, you're essentially running one way buses a couple of times in the morning and evening and the buses are idle the rest of the day.  But there's so little traffic into downtown, and jobs are now scattered more widely, so how much more convenient is park-and-ride service than driving?

 

[3] No public transit service pays for itself from fares alone, anywhere in the world. So every public transit system needs a subsidy. Every non-tolled roadway is getting a public subsidy.  But some routes are more costly than others and RTA gets a lot less state support than what Michigan, Indiana, New York, or Pennsylvania provide to their public transit agencies. I'm thankful that we have corporate sponsors willing to assist in filling the gap.

55 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 [1] How much is Lake County subsidizing Laketran?  You are right that it works for Laketran.  Just because one park-and-ride route in the region works doesn't mean others would.  You also might be right that RTA didn't charge enough for its park-n-ride service.  If it costs $5 (on a good day -- it's a lot more closer to the Square) to park in downtown Cleveland, surely the park-and-ride service could charge $4?

 

[2] There are a lot of questions about where and how RTA is spending its money, and different points of view.  I do not understand why so many buses were purchased, unless the buses were actually ordered years ago, with the idea of expanding park-and-ride service, and the buses were just paid for and delivered in 2020.  I still think that park-and-ride service is not a very efficient use of transit funds.  If they're only being used by business commuters, you're essentially running one way buses a couple of times in the morning and evening and the buses are idle the rest of the day.  But there's so little traffic into downtown, and jobs are now scattered more widely, so how much more convenient is park-and-ride service than driving?

 

[3] No public transit service pays for itself from fares alone, anywhere in the world. So every public transit system needs a subsidy. Every non-tolled roadway is getting a public subsidy.  But some routes are more costly than others and RTA gets a lot less state support than what Michigan, Indiana, New York, or Pennsylvania provide to their public transit agencies. I'm thankful that we have corporate sponsors willing to assist in filling the gap.

[1] Laketran is funded by a 0.50% Lake County sales tax.  RTA is funded by a 1.00% Cuyahoga County sales tax.  Being the second largest county by population in the state, a 1.00% sales tax should be ample to fund RTA's operations.  Except for Cincinnati's recently enacted switch from local income tax funding to an 0.80% sales tax, all other transit operations in Ohio funded via sales taxes have a rate of no more than 0.50%.  Toledo's TARTA is seeking approval to switch from a property tax to sales tax to fund its operation.  Cincinnati's and Toledo's systems were the last two major transit systems in the state that weren't funded via sales taxes.

 

[2} Transit bus orders are amended all the time.  The 2020 RTA transit coach bus purchase was originally for 9 coaches with an option for 3 more that was taken.  If orders are canceled, usually there other systems that would be willing to take them off of the builder's hands.  The original 3 45-foot highway coaches RTA acquired in 2001 (1051-1053) were demonstrators that may have been part of canceled orders.  Selling used highway coaches that have many years of life remaining that cost in the vicinity of $630,000 apiece for a price of $4150 to $6150 apiece is an absolute waste.  They were not wrecks or burned-out hulks.  

 

There are trade-offs with express highway coach operation.  The highway coach operation is a "deluxe" service.  As such, the fares should take that into consideration.  Laketran charges accordingly with their $3.75 fare.  The fare for their local bus service is $1.75 (they have 8 normal routes and operate the free Lakeland Community College shuttle).  Like RTA, they operate an extensive dial-a-ride/handicap bus operation.  RTA's local fares are $2.50 and park-n-ride fares are $2.75.  For the express nature with far better and comfortable ride, it should be far more than a 25-cent difference.  Where the highway coach services on RTA one-way, normal freeway operation allows most buses to complete 2 round-trips in the time that a local bus "may" complete one.  Highway travel is also far more efficient fuel wise than stop-and-go surface streets.  The one-way nature of passengers should be offset by the number of trips completed at the same time span and higher fares. 

 

As an aside, Laketran has found a way to carry passengers on reverse-direction trips.  Routes #10 and #12 (these amount to all but 2 highway coach runs) had their return routes altered so that on return trips from downtown in the morning or trips headed downtown in the afternoon, they provide service for workers to the business district in the Tyler Blvd area of Mentor.  Even before this was instituted, their schedules listed times they would stop at various park-n-ride stations on return trips in the morning or outbound trips downtown in the afternoon.  I know of people who took Laketran highway coaches downtown in the late afternoon to attend evening Indians games.

 

[3] RTA and Laketran get less state subsidies than transit systems in other states, but those transit systems in those states do not get funding from local sales taxes.  In Pennsylvania, it has only been in recent years where the state has funded local transit systems.  Up until then, systems like Philadelphia's SEPTA and Pittsburgh's PAT always had money issues.  The money issues were far bigger than what RTA has and the Pennsylvania systems had fairly common strike shutdowns.  The way Pennsylvania is able to fund transit is greatly assisted by the tolls generated on their expanding turnpike network.  They have been adding quite a few toll highways where tolls are substantially increasing yearly to fund transit.

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Good stuff.  One interesting item that I learned recently is that CSU's property arm, the Euclid Avenue Development Corp, owns the property on which the STJ transit center was built. I wouldn't be surprised to see the university take that property back for their own use someday.

 

Regarding the trolleys, RTA got a lot of promises from the Downtown Cleveland Alliance and other sponsors. They promised to pay but few ever did. So that's why those downtown trolleys got shut down.

Interesting about the Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Transit Center.  If CSU does take it back, it still comes down to more capital money not being well spent by RTA.

 

For quite a while when the other "trolley" loop buses were supposedly going to be funded by sponsors, one route wasn't.  The 9-12 Muny Lot route never had a sponsor.  Even with the 11 2701-2711 "trolleys" and 5 6401-series former community circulator buses that were modified to resemble the 2701-series, the 9-12 Muny Lot route for a long time had the worst junk on the system to provide service.  Those buses weren't even kept clean.

On 10/21/2021 at 3:19 PM, KJP said:

Is GCRTA downplaying it (AGAIN)??

 

 

Uh, I'd say so......

 

 

That one twitter account may be the best news source in the region.

On 10/21/2021 at 5:05 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

 

Progressive, Parker Hannifin and Eaton have all decided to embrace the modern corporate campus headquarters model.  In the cases of Progressive and Parker, they located on former golf course sites with land far easier to develop than what may be found in existing urban centers.  I am not taking one side or another; they were decisions made that their leadership felt was best for their companies.  As for Progressive, has anybody driven by the "rear" of their main campus on I-271?  The installation of solar panels is far more than "a few".  The number is well into the hundreds, maybe in excess of a thousand.

 

What I don't know is what efforts were made by those companies to make their campuses more transit friendly.  Did they make any efforts on their part or did RTA approach them with any ideas?  Did RTA consider or off to extend the #11 Cedar beyond Montefiore, west of I-271?  At one time, the #32 Cedar used to go further to the east, but that route number no longer exists.  When it did exist, Parker was already at Landerhaven.  To route a Cedar bus route though Landerhaven is only a minor deviation from Cedar Road.

 

With the NextGen changes in June, RTA ended up having an excess of 45-foot 57 passenger (seated) highway coaches.  They purchased 12 brand new ones in 2020 (1901-series) for about $8 million.  They had another 6 from 2007 (1701-series) and 6 from 2010 (1801-series).  RTA currently operates one highway coach park-n-ride route from Brunswick/Strongsville and that is due to sponsorship by those cities.  The 12 new buses are far more that is needed for that one line.  This month, RTA just sold 4 of the 2007 models for the price $4000 to $6500 each.  They also sold 2 older 2001 highway models.  The top mileage from those four 2007 models was about 313,000 miles.  For a city coach, that is a low amount of miles.  A highway coach is designed for at least double or triple that number of miles.  Why couldn't RTA partner with these east side headquartered companies and provide express bus service from the end of the Green Line?  The operation could continue along Shaker Blvd to Gates Mills Blvd.  The express service could deviate from Gates Mills Blvd at Lander to north to Landerhaven, then continue to SOM Center Road to go to Progressive or there could be 2 routes, one for Parker and the second to continue on Gates Mills Blvd to SOM Center and up to the Progressive campus.  Riders would have the benefits of quicker rapid transit and express bus service instead of slow and infrequent local bus service. 

 

Unfortunately, RTA basically unloaded buses with a lot of service life/mileage remaining for next to nothing.  Still on the system, RTA has a vastly underutilized highway coach fleet of 20 buses that mostly sit around and it wouldn't be surprising to see more of them basically given away.  By far, this is wasting capital improvement funds.  

 

People like to pile onto Progressive because they considered going downtown but eventually declined.  And because they are a very car-centric company. to the point that parking was the key stumbling block that kept them in the suburbs.   Never mind that their business is based on the use of private cars, and that they are a very insular company that wouldn't interact much down there anyway.

But companies like this are examples of a much broader trend, one which I suspect is unavoidable.   Residential sprawl is one thing, and has many root causes.   Employment sprawl, particularly industrial employment, is a different matter entirely.   It's driven largely on a desire to avoid even the risk of inheriting environmental liability.

Mass transit will never serve this well.   Radial mass transit with the central hub on the geographical edge of the service area?   Much less well.

28 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

People like to pile onto Progressive because they considered going downtown but eventually declined.  And because they are a very car-centric company. to the point that parking was the key stumbling block that kept them in the suburbs.   Never mind that their business is based on the use of private cars, and that they are a very insular company that wouldn't interact much down there anyway.

But companies like this are examples of a much broader trend, one which I suspect is unavoidable.   Residential sprawl is one thing, and has many root causes.   Employment sprawl, particularly industrial employment, is a different matter entirely.   It's driven largely on a desire to avoid even the risk of inheriting environmental liability.

Mass transit will never serve this well.   Radial mass transit with the central hub on the geographical edge of the service area?   Much less well.

Several years ago, there was an extensive article in the Plain Dealer regarding Dealer Tire's new corporate headquarters on the 7000 block of Euclid Avenue.  A significant part of the article dealt with the problems with redevelopment of the property where they located and how development was disappointing in that entire area of Euclid Avenue.  What ended up making the deal to land Dealer Tire was the addition of a 600-car parking garage to that project.  That garage had be made available to the nearby church for their use as part of the condition to sell the property.  The article also stated that employees and visitors would not be relying on the HealthLine to get to that business.

 

If the presence of the HealthLine which already had a well-established operation in place did not help spur development and Dealer Tire expected to have little to no need for mass transit, what does that say for the bigger picture?  It just goes to show that RTA is not considered an essential need  or a desirable option for this area.  It doesn't matter if it is in the suburbs or even in the city.  In that case, it is unfortunate.

Just want to say I took the blue line home last night. For multiple reasons, it was the best train ride I've had in my life. One of the reasons was the new tracks. There was no slow down between TC and Campus, or around E72, which saved alot of time. The trip through the "cut" between Woodhill and Shaker Square was FAST. I don't think I've ever been on an RTA train going that quickly before. The entire journey was pretty smooth too. I did pay attention on the operator still had to manually do the track change thing and call in where Van Aken and Shake Blvds break apart though. 

3 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

Just want to say I took the blue line home last night. For multiple reasons, it was the best train ride I've had in my life. One of the reasons was the new tracks. There was no slow down between TC and Campus, or around E72, which saved alot of time. The trip through the "cut" between Woodhill and Shaker Square was FAST. I don't think I've ever been on an RTA train going that quickly before. The entire journey was pretty smooth too. I did pay attention on the operator still had to manually do the track change thing and call in where Van Aken and Shake Blvds break apart though. 

The track rebuilding process was definitely necessary.  Significant stretches of track were last rebuilt about 40 years ago.  The reconstruction will permit higher speeds and less of a rough ride.  Higher speeds and a smoother ride will be appreciated by passengers and easier on the old equipment.  I recall when that last rebuild was done.  RTA was still operating the old and pretty much worn out PCC fleet (guessing that history is repeating itself).  Those cars rode much better on the rebuilt track as well.

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

The track rebuilding process was definitely necessary.  Significant stretches of track were last rebuilt about 40 years ago.  The reconstruction will permit higher speeds and less of a rough ride.  Higher speeds and a smoother ride will be appreciated by passengers and easier on the old equipment.  I recall when that last rebuild was done.  RTA was still operating the old and pretty much worn out PCC fleet (guessing that history is repeating itself).  Those cars rode much better on the rebuilt track as well.

 

That is great news.  They yellow birds were even older, yet the trip "square to square" was faster back then. 🤷🏽‍♂️  It would be nice, when business downtown returns to pre covid levels, if RTA would reinstate express service on the line.

23 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Several years ago, there was an extensive article in the Plain Dealer regarding Dealer Tire's new corporate headquarters on the 7000 block of Euclid Avenue.  A significant part of the article dealt with the problems with redevelopment of the property where they located and how development was disappointing in that entire area of Euclid Avenue.  What ended up making the deal to land Dealer Tire was the addition of a 600-car parking garage to that project.  That garage had be made available to the nearby church for their use as part of the condition to sell the property.  The article also stated that employees and visitors would not be relying on the HealthLine to get to that business.

 

If the presence of the HealthLine which already had a well-established operation in place did not help spur development and Dealer Tire expected to have little to no need for mass transit, what does that say for the bigger picture?  It just goes to show that RTA is not considered an essential need  or a desirable option for this area.  It doesn't matter if it is in the suburbs or even in the city.  In that case, it is unfortunate.

 

All good points, and TBH BRT without signal prioritization is somewhat of an oxymoron.   But having spent many years in automotive related industries, I must point out that such companies have an extra affinity for the car.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

All good points, and TBH BRT without signal prioritization is somewhat of an oxymoron.   But having spent many years in automotive related industries, I must point out that such companies have an extra affinity for the car.

True, but the bigger point that even with the HealthLine fully established as an operation, it was not contributing to development as it was lagging in that area.  A bit to the west, RTA owned a decent-sized parcel of cleared land that was used when the HealthLIne was being constructed.  It took over a decade after the line's completion for RTA to finally sell it.  The HealthLine was not much if at all of a contributing factor to development along Euclid Avenue.  If it were, land near the HealthLIne would have been hard to get/expensive and development projects would have businesses lined up to move in.  It never happened.

46 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

True, but the bigger point that even with the HealthLine fully established as an operation, it was not contributing to development as it was lagging in that area.  A bit to the west, RTA owned a decent-sized parcel of cleared land that was used when the HealthLIne was being constructed.  It took over a decade after the line's completion for RTA to finally sell it.  The HealthLine was not much if at all of a contributing factor to development along Euclid Avenue.  If it were, land near the HealthLIne would have been hard to get/expensive and development projects would have businesses lined up to move in.  It never happened.

 

Don't shoot the messenger lol, but here's what is purported:

 

$9.5 billion in economic development along the Euclid Corridor

The HealthLine has been credited with having the highest return-on-investment of any public transit project in the nation, leveraging $190 for every transit dollar invested.  Included is:

$200+ million at East Ninth and Euclid Avenue

$380 million invested by Cleveland State University

$370 million invested by University Hospital

$350 million invested by Cleveland Museum of Art

$1.3 billion invested by Cleveland Clinic Foundation

8,800+ new residential units

1,800 + new dorm rooms

1,300 + new hotel rooms

23 million square feet in total development

 

http://www.riderta.com/healthline/about

20 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Don't shoot the messenger lol, but here's what is purported:

 

$9.5 billion in economic development along the Euclid Corridor

The HealthLine has been credited with having the highest return-on-investment of any public transit project in the nation, leveraging $190 for every transit dollar invested.  Included is:

$200+ million at East Ninth and Euclid Avenue

$380 million invested by Cleveland State University

$370 million invested by University Hospital

$350 million invested by Cleveland Museum of Art

$1.3 billion invested by Cleveland Clinic Foundation

8,800+ new residential units

1,800 + new dorm rooms

1,300 + new hotel rooms

23 million square feet in total development

 

http://www.riderta.com/healthline/about

Just to add to this. You don't see anywhere near the development on car centric streets like Carnegie or Superior or Payne. 

2 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Don't shoot the messenger lol, but here's what is purported:

 

$9.5 billion in economic development along the Euclid Corridor

The HealthLine has been credited with having the highest return-on-investment of any public transit project in the nation, leveraging $190 for every transit dollar invested.  Included is:

$200+ million at East Ninth and Euclid Avenue

$380 million invested by Cleveland State University

$370 million invested by University Hospital

$350 million invested by Cleveland Museum of Art

$1.3 billion invested by Cleveland Clinic Foundation

8,800+ new residential units

1,800 + new dorm rooms

1,300 + new hotel rooms

23 million square feet in total development

 

http://www.riderta.com/healthline/about

RTA is famous for being selective with their numbers.  For years, they touted how many more passengers the HealthLIne carried as compared to the former #6/6A.  They failed to mention all of the other riders lost when other routes stopped running downtown.  Overall, the ridership was a significant net loss when factoring in all the other riders that decided to take other non-RTA methods to get downtown.  They weren't enthralled with losing express service downtown and having to transfer when they lost their one-seat rides.  The HealthLine probably contributed significantly to the overall ridership system-wide drop.

 

As for RTA bringing up all of this development along the HealthLine, that is no more than taking credit for the sun rising in the morning.  University Hospitals and Cleveland Clinic had significant expansion plans well in place decades before the Dual Hub Corridor was even dreamed of, long before that idea morphed into the HealthLine.  The Cleveland Clinic was buying up properties along Euclid Avenue in the 1980's.  Bus Rapid Transit wasn't even a concept back then.  Cleveland State University had plans long before the HealthLine was conceived to increase on campus dorm rooms.  I don't think the art museum based their plans on the bus line either.  This development would have happened without the creation of HealthLIne. 

 

If the HealthLine was such a big factor, RTA wouldn't have been stuck with property they couldn't unload for more than a decade.  They would have had developers fighting over it, perhaps even triggering a bidding war.  There is still quite a bit of undeveloped property along Euclid Avenue, 13 years after the line opened. 

4 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Just to add to this. You don't see anywhere near the development on car centric streets like Carnegie or Superior or Payne. 

I would like to see the number and amount of tax cuts, low/no-interest loans, grants, credits and below market leasing rates that have been doled out in incentives to assist in getting the various development projects going on Euclid.  There have been quite a few, amounting to tens of millions of dollars and even with those possibilities, some projects have fallen through.  How do these incentives stack up to what has been made available on car-centric streets such as those that are mentioned?  

Edited October 26, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

All bus services on Euclid and Chester avenues in the 1980s, when GCRTA began their Dual Hub project planning, carried more than 50,000 riders per weekday.

 

Right before the pandemic, the HealthLine carried about 16,000 riders per weekday.

 

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

I would like to see the number and amount of tax cuts, low/no-interest loans, grants, credits and below market leasing rates that have been doled out in incentives to assist in getting the various development projects going on Euclid.  There have been quite a few, amounting to tens of millions of dollars and even with those possibilities, some projects have fallen through.  How do these incentives stack up to what has been made available on car-centric streets such as those that are mentioned?  

 

The city makes those same subsidies available to all development projects. But they are made in response to applicants. Developer interest in a site precedes an application. And how those developments are sited and designed with the respect to the sidewalk, parking, etc. is dictated by the TOD zoning overlay that was added during the Euclid Corridor development process.

 

The rebuilding of Euclid Avenue was a thorough endeavor. It buried and replaced the aging overhead electric and communication lines with higher-capacity fiber. Built new storm, sanitary and water sewer lines in individual trenches to prevent infiltration. Provided an attractive streetscape and demystified the zoning. These major infrastructure and zoning changes undoubtedly instigated some development here, but not as much as what GCRTA is claiming.

8 hours ago, KJP said:

All bus services on Euclid and Chester avenues in the 1980s, when GCRTA began their Dual Hub project planning, carried more than 50,000 riders per weekday.

 

Right before the pandemic, the HealthLine carried about 16,000 riders per weekday.

 

 

The city makes those same subsidies available to all development projects. But they are made in response to applicants. Developer interest in a site precedes an application. And how those developments are sited and designed with the respect to the sidewalk, parking, etc. is dictated by the TOD zoning overlay that was added during the Euclid Corridor development process.

 

The rebuilding of Euclid Avenue was a thorough endeavor. It buried and replaced the aging overhead electric and communication lines with higher-capacity fiber. Built new storm, sanitary and water sewer lines in individual trenches to prevent infiltration. Provided an attractive streetscape and demystified the zoning. These major infrastructure and zoning changes undoubtedly instigated some development here, but not as much as what GCRTA is claiming.

Thank you very much for the supporting information.  The investment in complete infrastructure repair was badly needed and should have happened regardless of the HealthLine.  The drastic loss in ridership has been reflected in all the bus routes that have either been truncated into feeder routes, frequencies slashed or lines that were completely eliminated. 

 

There is one thing that I am wondering about.  When the Euclid-120th Red Line station was closed and the Mayfield Road Red Line station opened to replace it, what was the station usage at Euclid-120th prior to the closure and how many people used the new station?  For those who might not be aware, when the original grading and construction was done by the Van Sweringens back in the 1920's/1930's for what would become the Red Line, provisions for a station, including steps, were done at Mayfield Road.  When the construction on the line to Windermere started in the 1950's, CTS had no interest in providing a "benefit" to the riders of Redifer Bus Line (the independent company that provided bus service on Mayfield Road to downtown).  Even though Redifer was purchased by CTS in the early 1960's to become the #9/9X/9F, that mistake was not corrected for a half a century of service of the Mayfield Road routes by CTS/RTA.

 

All the work done in the 1920's and early 1930's permitted a fairly inexpensive option to build the Windermere line in the early 1950's.  Much of the required grading was done, bridges were constructed with space for rapid transit tracks, station provisions were made, overhead line structures were put up and even part of one track was started.  That track was removed during World War 2 for better uses for the war effort.

Edited October 26, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

14 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Don't shoot the messenger lol, but here's what is purported:

 

$9.5 billion in economic development along the Euclid Corridor

The HealthLine has been credited with having the highest return-on-investment of any public transit project in the nation, leveraging $190 for every transit dollar invested.  Included is:

$200+ million at East Ninth and Euclid Avenue

$380 million invested by Cleveland State University

$370 million invested by University Hospital

$350 million invested by Cleveland Museum of Art

$1.3 billion invested by Cleveland Clinic Foundation

8,800+ new residential units

1,800 + new dorm rooms

1,300 + new hotel rooms

23 million square feet in total development

 

http://www.riderta.com/healthline/about

 

How much of this would not have happened without the HealthLine?

On 10/23/2021 at 3:36 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

[1] Laketran is funded by a 0.50% Lake County sales tax.  RTA is funded by a 1.00% Cuyahoga County sales tax.  Being the second largest county by population in the state, a 1.00% sales tax should be ample to fund RTA's operations.  Except for Cincinnati's recently enacted switch from local income tax funding to an 0.80% sales tax, all other transit operations in Ohio funded via sales taxes have a rate of no more than 0.50%.  Toledo's TARTA is seeking approval to switch from a property tax to sales tax to fund its operation.  Cincinnati's and Toledo's systems were the last two major transit systems in the state that weren't funded via sales taxes.

 

[2} Transit bus orders are amended all the time.  The 2020 RTA transit coach bus purchase was originally for 9 coaches with an option for 3 more that was taken.  If orders are canceled, usually there other systems that would be willing to take them off of the builder's hands.  The original 3 45-foot highway coaches RTA acquired in 2001 (1051-1053) were demonstrators that may have been part of canceled orders.  Selling used highway coaches that have many years of life remaining that cost in the vicinity of $630,000 apiece for a price of $4150 to $6150 apiece is an absolute waste.  They were not wrecks or burned-out hulks.  

 

There are trade-offs with express highway coach operation.  The highway coach operation is a "deluxe" service.  As such, the fares should take that into consideration.  Laketran charges accordingly with their $3.75 fare.  The fare for their local bus service is $1.75 (they have 8 normal routes and operate the free Lakeland Community College shuttle).  Like RTA, they operate an extensive dial-a-ride/handicap bus operation.  RTA's local fares are $2.50 and park-n-ride fares are $2.75.  For the express nature with far better and comfortable ride, it should be far more than a 25-cent difference.  Where the highway coach services on RTA one-way, normal freeway operation allows most buses to complete 2 round-trips in the time that a local bus "may" complete one.  Highway travel is also far more efficient fuel wise than stop-and-go surface streets.  The one-way nature of passengers should be offset by the number of trips completed at the same time span and higher fares. 

 

As an aside, Laketran has found a way to carry passengers on reverse-direction trips.  Routes #10 and #12 (these amount to all but 2 highway coach runs) had their return routes altered so that on return trips from downtown in the morning or trips headed downtown in the afternoon, they provide service for workers to the business district in the Tyler Blvd area of Mentor.  Even before this was instituted, their schedules listed times they would stop at various park-n-ride stations on return trips in the morning or outbound trips downtown in the afternoon.  I know of people who took Laketran highway coaches downtown in the late afternoon to attend evening Indians games.

 

[3] RTA and Laketran get less state subsidies than transit systems in other states, but those transit systems in those states do not get funding from local sales taxes.  In Pennsylvania, it has only been in recent years where the state has funded local transit systems.  Upuntil then, systems like Philadelphia's SEPTA and Pittsburgh's PAT always had money issues.  The money issues were far bigger than what RTA has and the Pennsylvania systems had fairly common strike shutdowns.  The way Pennsylvania is able to fund transit is greatly assisted by the tolls generated on their expanding turnpike network.  They have been adding quite a few toll highways where tolls are substantially increasing yearly to fund transit.

 

 

I've worked in and around Tyler Blvd in Mentor for nearly a decade now, in fact we are directly across 2 from the Market Street park and ride station.   

It's largely industrial.  Our plant starts at 6am others start at 6 or 7.   If the buses coming back aren't coming through by then they aren't really relevant.

39 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I've worked in and around Tyler Blvd in Mentor for nearly a decade now, in fact we are directly across 2 from the Market Street park and ride station.   

It's largely industrial.  Our plant starts at 6am others start at 6 or 7.   If the buses coming back aren't coming through by then they aren't really relevant.

According to Laketran's current schedules, the #10 route has 4 am trips and 2 pm trips while the #12 has 2 am trips and 4 pm trips on Tyler Blvd between Heisley and Route 306.

@LifeLongClevelander Boardings at Euclid-120th were in the 70-100 riders per day range in the 2000s. According to RTA, they grew by more than 100 percent at the new Little Italy-University Circle station in the first year and have risen every year since (until 2018 which was the last anecdotal update I could find). I have not been able to find more detailed information. And frankly, I don't see how they can accurately track the boardings anyway.

48 minutes ago, KJP said:

@LifeLongClevelander Boardings at Euclid-120th were in the 70-100 riders per day range in the 2000s. According to RTA, they grew by more than 100 percent at the new Little Italy-University Circle station in the first year and have risen every year since (until 2018 which was the last anecdotal update I could find). I have not been able to find more detailed information. And frankly, I don't see how they can accurately track the boardings anyway.

 

I occasionally used that station in the early to mid 80s and those numbers seem high, if anything.   Dingy doesn't begin to cover it.

I used that station for awhile in 1978-79. The only time I saw another person there was if someone was sleeping in the hallway.

Please Note: I know there's a lot more to it, but I'll be talking from a high 10,000ft view. Also, I'm going to leave out RTA's terrible leadership for this convo.

 

I think one of the biggest problems the RTA has that causes people not to ride is it's train access. There's so many places in CLE that you have to jump two, three or more buses to finally reach a train, & as many problems that Rail has, IMO the bus is worse(full disclosure, I'm not a fan of the bus, but I love rail). If I can't even get around downtown on a train, let alone the rest of the city, I'm not going to rely on public transit at all. Especially for something which I need to be punctual for, like a job... I'll have to stick with a vehicle. If you had a Rail station within even a 10min walk of any neighborhood In city limits I think you could make a better case for folks to ride(public transit) more, but when you don't even have a Rail station in multiple neighborhoods, INCLUDING the city Zoo, that's a big deterrent. for the most part any city/major city you point to for any kind of example of good public transit, a good Rail option is the backbone. I know it cost more, and I don't have all the answers(I'm just identifying my hesitancy with RTA, and what the focus should be on... I'm sure others agree), but I feel the focus should be on how to make better and expand Rail in the city.... and if they can do that I think they'll see more people move to public transit.

 

Pic for reference: no RTA Rail Stations throughout multiple neighborhoods including the CLE Zoo...

 

8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

How much of this would not have happened without the HealthLine?

Probably very little would have happened.  University Hospitals and Cleveland Clinic had expansion plans in the works for many decades.  By the mid-1980's, most of the decayed properties that engulfed Euclid and East 105th Street had been purchased and demolished.  This was long before the Dual Hub Corridor was even dreamed up.  Any medical and health care related businesses located to that area due to the proximity of the main campuses of the hospitals, not because of the bus line.  Cleveland State University was buying up land for the expansion of its campus and had long-range plans in the 1980's for more on-campus housing.  I don't think the Cleveland Museum of Art undertook any of its expansion and renovations based upon what RTA did.  The addition of all of the hotel rooms was due to Cleveland becoming more of a tourist destination and the construction of a new downtown convention center (surprising that RTA isn't trying to take credit for the convention center, too).  The creation of the thousands of downtown residential units had much more to do with the activities downtown such as the theaters, dining and other recreational activities.  Don't recall the construction of Beacon, Lumen and other new/converted apartment buildings being linked to the presence of bus rapid transit. 

 

As @KJPstated, the one significant improvement that came about was the complete reconstruction and improvement of the infrastructure of Euclid Avenue.  It was way overdue in coming and the project provided a coordinated and unified effort to get it done instead of being piecemeal dragged out for an extended period of time.

 

RTA has taken a list of accomplishments and improvements for the city and is trying to take credit for them happening.

3 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

As @KJPstated, the one significant improvement that came about was the complete reconstruction and improvement of the infrastructure of Euclid Avenue.  It was way overdue in coming and the project provided a coordinated and unified effort to get it done instead of being piecemeal dragged out for an extended period of time.

 

RTA has taken a list of accomplishments and improvements for the city and is trying to take credit for them happening.

I think you're understating the importance of the rebuild and reconstruction of Euclid Ave.  Maybe it wasn't the Healthline itself that boosted Euclid's redevelopment, but they completely rebuilt the street and sidewalks from the Square past CSU and that cleanup made the street a lot more attractive for redevelopment.  And it was the Healthline project that brought the funding for that rebuild.

 

We haven't seen the same level of investment on parallel streets.  Sure seems like RTA does deserve some credit for all that, even if not as much as they're claiming.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I think you're understating the importance of the rebuild and reconstruction of Euclid Ave.  Maybe it wasn't the Healthline itself that boosted Euclid's redevelopment, but they completely rebuilt the street and sidewalks from the Square past CSU and that cleanup made the street a lot more attractive for redevelopment.  And it was the Healthline project that brought the funding for that rebuild.

 

We haven't seen the same level of investment on parallel streets.  Sure seems like RTA does deserve some credit for all that, even if not as much as they're claiming.

Euclid Avenue was rebuilt.  That is good.  Taking credit for everything else that has happened is no more taking credit for the sun rising in the morning.  Most of those things were going to happen regardless or are attributed to other factors (hospital system growth, CSU, art museum, hotels, downtown living).  The incentives (grants, low/no interest loans, credits, tax breaks,  amenities, discounted leases, etc....) had much more to do with new development and if they were offered elsewhere, that's were those projects would have been done. RTA has never been called out on their exaggerated claims.  Development was not significantly related to BRT and the overall ridership for that part of the system has dropped significantly. 

11 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Euclid Avenue was rebuilt.  That is good.  Taking credit for everything else that has happened is no more taking credit for the sun rising in the morning.  Most of those things were going to happen regardless or are attributed to other factors (hospital system growth, CSU, art museum, hotels, downtown living).  The incentives (grants, low/no interest loans, credits, tax breaks,  amenities, discounted leases, etc....) had much more to do with new development and if they were offered elsewhere, that's were those projects would have been done. RTA has never been called out on their exaggerated claims.  Development was not significantly related to BRT and the overall ridership for that part of the system has dropped significantly. 

We agree that RTA was overly aggressive in taking credit for too much of the development that has happened (hospitals, art museum, downtown living away from Euclid Ave).

 

But I still think that lot of the development that did happen on Euclid would not have happened without the street rebuild, and the street rebuild wouldn't have happened without RTA.  In the end the new street with new utilities led to more development along Euclid than on Chester, Superior, and Prospect, and all of those streets qualified for the same incentives you mentioned.

 

Having longer buses on Euclid, zero impact.  Some of the new BRT infrastructure has provided some mid-street pedestrian refuges though, which makes crossing Euclid much nicer than it was before (and certainly nicer than trying to cross a wider street like Superior or Carnegie or East 9th in areas lacking those mid-street safe points).  A better pedestrian "feel" (walkability?) also encourages residential development, in my opinion.

And while some of it might have been built anyway, perhaps it would not have been built up to the sidewalk or employed TOD-type design standards.

Hello GCRTA?

 

SEPTA launches development program for transit-rail corridors

10/29/2021

 

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) this week launched its new Transit Supportive Community Development (TSCD) program.

 

Part of SEPTA's recently announced SEPTA Forward strategic plan, the new program is designed to improve access to public transit, increase equity and ridership, enhance local economies and reduce reliance on personal vehicles, SEPTA officials said in a press release.

 

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/SEPTA-launches-development-program-for-transit-rail-corridors--65064

And on the other side of PA, Pittsburgh moves more aggressively forward on TOD

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/25/Port-Authority-transit-oriented-development-five-year-study-increase-diversity-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-East-Busway-gentrification/stories/202110250015

3 hours ago, KJP said:

And on the other side of PA, Pittsburgh moves more aggressively forward on TOD

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/25/Port-Authority-transit-oriented-development-five-year-study-increase-diversity-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-East-Busway-gentrification/stories/202110250015

Pittsburgh has had true "bus rapid transit" for decades.   Nothing flashy.  Just operate buses and PCCs (long before the term Light Rail Vehicle was invented) on dedicated rights-of-way where they were the only vehicles permitted.  In FY2019, the last year before the pandemic, that system's ridership was approximately double of RTA's ridership (64 million to 32 million)  It has about double the buses and about a third more rail vehicles (they only operate LRV's that serve both high and low platforms, have been doing so for many years).  Pittsburgh has about 70,000 fewer residents than Cleveland while Allegheny County has approximately the same population as Cuyahoga County.  The last time that RTA's ridership was even in the vicinity of 64 million was 63.5 million in 2000.  Coincidentally or not, that was the year that Calabrese was hired. 

15 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Pittsburgh has had true "bus rapid transit" for decades.   Nothing flashy.  Just operate buses and PCCs (long before the term Light Rail Vehicle was invented) on dedicated rights-of-way where they were the only vehicles permitted.  In FY2019, the last year before the pandemic, that system's ridership was approximately double of RTA's ridership (64 million to 32 million)  It has about double the buses and about a third more rail vehicles (they only operate LRV's that serve both high and low platforms, have been doing so for many years).  Pittsburgh has about 70,000 fewer residents than Cleveland while Allegheny County has approximately the same population as Cuyahoga County.  The last time that RTA's ridership was even in the vicinity of 64 million was 63.5 million in 2000.  Coincidentally or not, that was the year that Calabrese was hired. 

 

All true...except you're missing an important fact -- Pittsburgh is 58 square miles. Cleveland is 77. Density in the core city supports transit ridership. Both metro areas had their share of abandonment. But while Cleveland's abandonment was concentrated in the core city, Greater Pittsburgh's abandonment was in the riverside suburbs where many of the steel mills were (Aliquippa, McKees Rocks, Homestead, Braddock, McKeesport, etc).

8 hours ago, KJP said:

 

All true...except you're missing an important fact -- Pittsburgh is 58 square miles. Cleveland is 77. Density in the core city supports transit ridership. Both metro areas had their share of abandonment. But while Cleveland's abandonment was concentrated in the core city, Greater Pittsburgh's abandonment was in the riverside suburbs where many of the steel mills were (Aliquippa, McKees Rocks, Homestead, Braddock, McKeesport, etc).

The density of Cleveland is less than Pittsburgh's but the inverse is true concerning Cuyahoga County as compared to Allegheny County.  Cuyahoga County has 457 square miles of land area compared to Allegheny County's 730 square miles of land area.  Considering that both transit agencies are county-wide agencies, that has to be factored in as well.  In addition, in 2019, PAT's ridership actually rose while for RTA, 2019 was just another consecutive year of all-time new low ridership totals.

 

The density of each city and each county does not explain the ridership trends for each transit system.  The losses and changes to each area cited are historical ones going back decades ago.  The situations for each regarding industries and populations have little to do with recent historical trends.  PAT's ridership fluctuations were fairly small and was seeing increases.  RTA's ridership has been in a freefall.  

Edited November 1, 20213 yr by LifeLongClevelander

It's not the fares either. PAT's fares are higher than GCRTA's. It's gotta be the service levels and the public funding that supports them. I recall that PAT had some service reductions but not the bloodletting that GCRTA has undertaken, especially since 2008.