PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion  (Read 44743 times)

roman totale XVII, CbusTransit and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8694
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12330 on: November 19, 2017, 11:18:06 AM »
RTA rejected it. It didn't want to give up control of the rail system and a significant portion of its budget hiring process for the next couple of decades. The annual payments would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million to $50 million dollars per year which is about what RTA pays to run the rail system.

FTFY

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12331 on: November 24, 2017, 09:21:09 AM »
Poll results are what All Aboard Ohio expected... Cuyahoga County voters won't support a tax that merely preserves a system that doesn't adequately serve them. They want and deserve better. They want more than just keeping fares low, preventing more service cuts, and keeping the smallish bus and rail network in a state of good repair.

Cuyahoga County voters want and deserve more. They want countywide expansion including better access to more suburban jobs to address the stifling physical disconnect between jobs and job-seekers. This stifles economic growth and keeps the region as one of the nation's most impoverished.

We also want to reduce auto-dependency that raises our housing+transportation costs to East Coast levels. We want less dirty air that complicates permitting for new manufacturers. We want better access to growing employment and residential centers like University Circle, Highland Hills and suburban sites. And we want to encourage more station-area development like Centric, Uptown, the Van Aken District, Flats East Bank and others so that more people of all ages can enjoy low-mileage lifestyles.

Please share these poll results with others (especially city and county elected officials) to stimulate discussion about the future of Greater Cleveland. Better transit, including reforms of GCRTA planning and service delivery, must be an integral part of any healthy metropolitan economy. Let's roll!
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Mov2Ohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12332 on: November 25, 2017, 06:27:01 AM »
Quick question, whenever RTA can get around to replacing the rail cars, could it buy cars that are self powered to obviate the need for the overhead catwnary system in place now?

Online freethink

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2040
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12333 on: November 25, 2017, 09:58:03 AM »
^Yes that has always been my question. This cantilevers system has barely changed in design  over 150 years. It's usually the cause of the downtime of trains, something's always breaking, the parts are hard to get and it doesn't perform well in northern climates. And to me the overhead wires are ugly AF.  At this point there must be a DMU or electric hybrid that can handle our capacity.  But I know nothing about trains so I'll let someone else explain why it's just not a solution for us.  And this probably isn't the time to explore my idea of turning the Red Line/Waterfront Line into a BRT system...

Offline cfdwarrior

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12334 on: November 25, 2017, 01:49:15 PM »
I would imagine at this point in time that a "third rail" system would have safety implications as well as too expensive?  As for turning rail into BRT...I would rather see just the opposite, turn BRT into rail.  No matter how you slice it, under "normal" conditions, traffic and weather have more of an affect on buses than trains.  Oh how I wish the politicians in Cleveland in the 1950's would have made the right decision...

Offline Mov2Ohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12335 on: November 25, 2017, 02:17:14 PM »
I would imagine at this point in time that a "third rail" system would have safety implications as well as too expensive?  As for turning rail into BRT...I would rather see just the opposite, turn BRT into rail.  No matter how you slice it, under "normal" conditions, traffic and weather have more of an affect on buses than trains.  Oh how I wish the politicians in Cleveland in the 1950's would have made the right decision...

No, not "third rail." I'm speaking of a rail car that is powered internally, much like a bus that doesn't need overhead power or a third rail.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12336 on: November 25, 2017, 08:40:43 PM »
GCRTA uses overhead electrical wires instead of third rail to deliver power to its Red Line heavy rail trains at the encouragement of the mainline railroads whose tracks are immediately adjacent due to the safety of its workers. Also, much of the support structures for the overhead wires, called catenaries, were already built in 1930 for the Red Line, the parallel Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) tracks, and of course the Green/Blue lines which the Red Line shared between CUT and East 55th.

Since then, and especially recently, GCRTA has invested significant federal dollars in modernizing the overhead centenary system including trackside substations. GCRTA cannot stop using federally funded infrastructure or it must reimburse the Federal Transit Administration.

Considering the frequency at which GCRTA runs its trains, there isn't a significant operating cost benefit to replacing its overhead electrically powered trains with battery- or internal combustion-powered trains. If GCRTA had the capital, it could achieve operating cost savings by replacing the Healthline buses with light-rail trains/streetcars.

However, there might be an advantage for ordering what are called dual mode trains which can operate on battery or overhead electricity (like the new Q-Line streetcars in Detroit). The benefit is that future expansion beyond the existing core rail system would be that much less expensive. The trains could be electric and have their batteries recharged while they operate under the wires near the core of the system. Then, when they leave the core on new tracks for places like Solon, Euclid or Westlake, they could operate under battery power.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 08:46:53 PM by KJP »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12337 on: November 28, 2017, 12:51:04 PM »
There's probably an interesting story here in these two items which may be related.....

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/bbs/agenda/2017/AGENDA11292017.pdf

BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS AND BUILDING APPEALS
Room 514 – City Hall
This is a DRAFT agenda
Items may be changed prior to the meeting
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2017
BUILDING: PUBLIC HEARING: 9:30A.M.
Docket A-162-17 0 West 97th Street WARD: 11
(Dona Brady)
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), Owner of the Property appeals from a
NOTICE OF VIOLATION—PLUMBING CODE, dated September 05, 2017; appellant states that
GCRTA denies that it has violated any provision of the Building Code and disputes all of the
violations with which it is charged and reserves the right, without limitation, to raise these
objections and others in its appeal to the Board.

AND......

Docket A-186-17 8200 Madison Avenue WARD: 15
(Matt Zone)
Izzy Holdings, LLC (FKA) Tom Pallas, LLC, Owner of the F-2 Factory – Low Hazard (Noncombustibles)
Four Story Masonry Walls/Wood Floors Property appeals from a NOTICE OF
VIOLATION—PLUMBING CODE, dated August 01, 2017; appellant states that they should not be
found in violation of Cleveland’s Codified Ordinances and, in particular, CCO 3133.05(A) as it has
drainage to a public sanitary sewer, and said drainage is only being prevented by the negligent
and wrongful acts of the GCRTA in failing to repair the sewer line which has existed at least since
April of 1953. As such, Izzy Holdings requests that the order against it be set aside or waived and,
in turn, the related violation against the GCRTA be enforced and it be ordered to repair the sewer
line running beneath the tracks at West 82nd Street to comply with the Cleveland Codified
Ordinances.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline musky

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5284
  • "Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
    • FB
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12338 on: November 30, 2017, 09:03:47 AM »
Cuyahoga County to consolidate public works operations in former RTA garage

Cuyahoga County has bought the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's Harvard Garage in Newburgh Heights for $3.8 million and will move 185 employees and operations from three buildings into the facility in 2019.

County Council approved the deal on Tuesday.

Officials said the building will provide more space and meet the goal of consolidating operations into more centralized locations.

The county will put its three buildings up for sale next year. They are:

Sanitary Engineer Building, 6100 West Canal Road, Valley View. The 44,780-square-foot building, built in 1972 on six acres, is valued at $2.5 million. The county needs more space because it is providing services to municipalities. The building houses 125 employees.

Fleet Services Garage, 4000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland. The 32,100-square-foot building, built in 1963 on 2.6 acres, is valued at $1 million. It houses 15 employees who maintain all county vehicles.

Road and Bridge Maintenance: 4875 York Road, North Royalton. The 12,499-square-foot building, built in 1970 on five acres, is valued at $800,000. The 45 employees maintain county bridges and roads.

The 193,175-square-foot Harvard Garage is on 18.46 acres and was built in 1995.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2017/11/cuyahoga_county_to_consolidate_public_works_operations_into_rtas_former_harvard_garage.html

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12339 on: December 01, 2017, 04:22:36 PM »
There's growing interest at the county, RTA, business community, riders, etc. for increasing the county sales tax to rebuild and expand transit as well as to rebuilt road and bridge infrastructure in the county. FWIW, 1 cent of sales tax in Cuyahoga County in 2016 generated about $220 million. If a full additional cent is sought (probably renewable every 5 or 10 years) and the revenues split evenly among roads and transit, the $110 million +/- per year more for transit would allow fares to be reduced, transit infrastructure to rebuilt, and significant expansion undertaken to reach distant employment nodes more frequently and quickly. BTW, I would use the renewable tax to pay for expanded transit operations/reduced fares and then use a portion of RTA's existing permanent sales tax to pay for lower-interest bonds for capital improvements.

If only a half-cent increase is sought, $55 million +/- per year more for transit doesn't get you much if any expansion. But it does keep fares low, prevents service cuts from recent state funding cuts, and provides some extra revenue for major state-of-good-repair projects. But I think it's a very hard sell politically countywide since much of the county isn't served by RTA, or at least not served very well. So this would preserve a system that today doesn't meet the needs of many county residents, as underscored by the fact that so few jobs are accessible within a reasonable timeframe (ie: just one out of four jobs within a 90-minute one-way transit trip). Plus, I don't think many people believe RTA is an efficiently run organization. RTA should not be the only one undertaking its own service planning. I propose that service planning should be led by NOACA with input from local governments and RTA. Then have RTA competitively bid out services (as it already does for capital improvements), especially for rail, BRT and express bus services. A significant expansion of RTA -- combined with reforms -- must be on the table in order to win countywide support.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12340 on: December 01, 2017, 05:32:05 PM »
All around are reminders that Greater #Cleveland has a serious transportation problem & patching the existing @GCRTA system isn't going to solve it. It's going to take a multi-billion-dollar reform, rebuild & expansion of #transit to adequately link #job-seekers to opportunities.



America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Online X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9604
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12341 on: December 02, 2017, 01:50:31 AM »
I don't get it.  What are you trying to show us?  People waiting for a bus is a symptom of our transit inadequacies? What's wrong in the second one?

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12342 on: December 02, 2017, 02:07:22 AM »
In the 1st photo, large groups of RTA passengers accumulate around stops downtown because the frequency of service is so bad.

In the second, do college students really have to get in a block-long line for the best parking permits? What if we had more/better/affordable alternatives than driving/parking?

But in the absence of focus, perhaps I should delete the photos so that they do not distract from the more important parts of that post?
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Sir2geez

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12343 on: December 02, 2017, 09:18:55 AM »
There's growing interest at the county, RTA, business community, riders, etc. for increasing the county sales tax to rebuild and expand transit as well as to rebuilt road and bridge infrastructure in the county. FWIW, 1 cent of sales tax in Cuyahoga County in 2016 generated about $220 million. If a full additional cent is sought (probably renewable every 5 or 10 years) and the revenues split evenly among roads and transit, the $110 million +/- per year more for transit would allow fares to be reduced, transit infrastructure to rebuilt, and significant expansion undertaken to reach distant employment nodes more frequently and quickly. BTW, I would use the renewable tax to pay for expanded transit operations/reduced fares and then use a portion of RTA's existing permanent sales tax to pay for lower-interest bonds for capital improvements.

If only a half-cent increase is sought, $55 million +/- per year more for transit doesn't get you much if any expansion. But it does keep fares low, prevents service cuts from recent state funding cuts, and provides some extra revenue for major state-of-good-repair projects. But I think it's a very hard sell politically countywide since much of the county isn't served by RTA, or at least not served very well. So this would preserve a system that today doesn't meet the needs of many county residents, as underscored by the fact that so few jobs are accessible within a reasonable timeframe (ie: just one out of four jobs within a 90-minute one-way transit trip). Plus, I don't think many people believe RTA is an efficiently run organization. RTA should not be the only one undertaking its own service planning. I propose that service planning should be led by NOACA with input from local governments and RTA. Then have RTA competitively bid out services (as it already does for capital improvements), especially for rail, BRT and express bus services. A significant expansion of RTA -- combined with reforms -- must be on the table in order to win countywide support.

I hope this happens

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12344 on: December 02, 2017, 11:34:04 AM »
I hope this happens

Which? There are two very different scenarios potentially at play here. One can set up the region for significant socio-economic change and growth for the future or the other can merely delay the catastrophic decline of our transportation system.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Sir2geez

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12345 on: December 02, 2017, 12:02:13 PM »
The first option. I Would love to see fare reduction and expansion.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12346 on: December 02, 2017, 03:27:41 PM »
There is a really good report coming out of the Cuyahoga County Council's Regional Transportation Subcommittee which is a select committee intended to work for only one year. The report is their end product of meetings and hearings on the state of public transit in the county and recommendations for improving it....

Here is a summary of the funding portion (assuming the state doesn't finally see the light on funding transit)....

Recommendations to GCRTA regarding replacement of MCO Sales Tax revenue: Unless new state policy comes forward, the change in federal MCO Sales Tax policy will result in a permanent revenue loss of $20 million annually, or 7% of the annual budget. We believe that GCRTA should actively assist with efforts to achieve one or more of the three basic advocacy objectives listed in Recommendation #2. Achievement of any of them would significantly improve GCRTA’s financial position.

However, given the persistence of low and declining state and federal support for public transportation, such an outcome cannot be relied upon, and we recommend that GCRTA give primary attention to the possibilities for generating additional local revenue by increasing the sales tax or creating a property tax. The possibility of cooperating with Cuyahoga County on the sales tax should be carefully considered. While raising taxes is never a pleasant process, this case is just another example of state and federal budget issues being resolved on the backs of local government. When state and federal governments reduce support for essential services, it is our responsibility to seek a solution on the local level.

More later......
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 05:23:27 PM by KJP »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12347 on: December 02, 2017, 03:47:44 PM »
Here's another idea that could be done administratively. While some may claim "taxation without representation" many cities already fund themselves this way (as does Cincinnati Metro transit). Plus out-of-county commuters are incurring significant costs such as road maintenance, traffic congestion, air pollution (that causes Cuyahoga to fail EPA's air quality standards and prevent new industries from getting permits). So I would use this to fund a new intercounty bus and rail service agency called NEO-Transit that contracts out services based on NOACA route/service planning:
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline mu2010

  • Key Tower 947'
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12348 on: December 02, 2017, 10:29:37 PM »
Love the idea of a commuter tax, how would you collect it?

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12349 on: December 03, 2017, 08:18:02 AM »
Love the idea of a commuter tax, how would you collect it?

As an income tax levied by the county but collected by cities in that county. Here's an interesting article...

Cities Consider Taxing Commuters to Drive Up Revenue
http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/gov-more-cities-could-tax-nonresident-workers-reverse-commuters.html
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12350 on: December 03, 2017, 11:09:35 AM »
It appears that the solution being considered is the smallest band-aid possible. RTA and Cuyahoga County officials are looking only at the amount of money that RTA and the county are expected to lose from the loss of the MCO sales tax via the state. RTA will lose about $20 million to $22 million per year and the county will lose about $25 million to $30 million per year. The smallest increment of new countywide sales tax that may be requested is one-quarter percent, which would produce about $50 million to $55 million per year, or roughly equal to what is needed to replace the MCO revenue losses. The county may present the issue jointly and split the additional revenue. But it would mean no RTA expansion.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline jtadams

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12351 on: December 05, 2017, 08:02:11 AM »
Something has changed since the housing market crash.  The stark division between city and suburb, especially inner suburb, has lessened greatly.  Places like Euclid, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Brooklyn, Independence, even Solon, have seen major increases in transit-dependent people as well as in many cases non-transit-friendly jobs.  It no longer makes sense IMO to think that the city and the rest of the county have starkly differing interests.  It is not always even the case that the city has the densest population.  (Euclid is very comparable; Lakewood's is actually almost double Cleveland's).  If the county as a whole cannot see the case for a frugally but adequately funded transit network, then Cleveland and First Suburbs, and anyone else interested, should band together and work to create a funding district specifically for creating such a network.  And let me point out, as usual, one thing that will piss off conserberals and libervatives alike:  Transit GREATLY benefits downtown property owners, making the job density of downtown or University Circle possible.  Taxation is never fair, but, if you want it to be as fair as possible, you have to find a way to make them pick up their share, and the best way to do that is to give them some positive motivation to do so.  How?  I'm not quite sure.  Naming/branding rights are a step in the right direction.  I loathe property taxes but perhaps a modest levy on downtown commercial real estate (only) would be fair compensation for bringing tens of thousands of workers downtown at (mostly) other taxpayers' expense?  And in the year 2017 (almost 2018) it is important to look ahead to the point where not only Uber and Lyft, but multiple fleets of self-driving vehicles, will dramatically change the face of transit.  My guess: buses will decrease in importance except along the busiest corridors; rail will greatly INCREASE in importance because it is the one and only thing, even in 2018, that has the potential to bypass the increasing density of traffic that even Cleveland should see when and if the local economy ever begins to stabilize and grow again.  And such buses as continue to exist will probably need to be consolidated so as to provide better/more frequent service on a smaller number of routes.  A single frequent route to, say, Solon, might make a lot more sense than 4 or 5 infrequent ones, if at the end of the frequent route, riders can hire cheap, autonomous vehicles to take them the last mile or two.

Online E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8694
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12352 on: December 05, 2017, 08:13:41 AM »
Something has changed since the housing market crash.  The stark division between city and suburb, especially inner suburb, has lessened greatly.  Places like Euclid, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Brooklyn, Independence, even Solon, have seen major increases in transit-dependent people as well as in many cases non-transit-friendly jobs.  It no longer makes sense IMO to think that the city and the rest of the county have starkly differing interests.  It is not always even the case that the city has the densest population.  (Euclid is very comparable; Lakewood's is actually almost double Cleveland's).  If the county as a whole cannot see the case for a frugally but adequately funded transit network, then Cleveland and First Suburbs, and anyone else interested, should band together and work to create a funding district specifically for creating such a network.  And let me point out, as usual, one thing that will piss off conserberals and libervatives alike:  Transit GREATLY benefits downtown property owners, making the job density of downtown or University Circle possible.  Taxation is never fair, but, if you want it to be as fair as possible, you have to find a way to make them pick up their share, and the best way to do that is to give them some positive motivation to do so.  How?  I'm not quite sure.  Naming/branding rights are a step in the right direction.  I loathe property taxes but perhaps a modest levy on downtown commercial real estate (only) would be fair compensation for bringing tens of thousands of workers downtown at (mostly) other taxpayers' expense?  And in the year 2017 (almost 2018) it is important to look ahead to the point where not only Uber and Lyft, but multiple fleets of self-driving vehicles, will dramatically change the face of transit.  My guess: buses will decrease in importance except along the busiest corridors; rail will greatly INCREASE in importance because it is the one and only thing, even in 2018, that has the potential to bypass the increasing density of traffic that even Cleveland should see when and if the local economy ever begins to stabilize and grow again.  And such buses as continue to exist will probably need to be consolidated so as to provide better/more frequent service on a smaller number of routes.  A single frequent route to, say, Solon, might make a lot more sense than 4 or 5 infrequent ones, if at the end of the frequent route, riders can hire cheap, autonomous vehicles to take them the last mile or two.

The irony of course is that this would be the opposite approach from that taken since the merger of the various systems into GCRTA.  Maple Heights and Garfield Heights, for example, were quite transit friendly communities when they had their own systems, but the idea of “bigger is better” government still held sway in the mid 70s and like all too often happens did more harm than good.  The system became downtown/inner city centric at a time that the population’s mindset was shifting in the opposite direction.  The fact that downtown is on a periphery of the region for obvious geographical reasons only compounded this issue.

Offline PoshSteve

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 707
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12353 on: December 05, 2017, 07:11:18 PM »
RTA's board was meeting today to discuss what kind of cuts they will be making. Not sure when we will hear anything from it though.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12354 on: December 06, 2017, 08:31:53 AM »
Leaders hope new MetroHealth Line buses boost neighborhood (photos)
Dec. 6, 2017 Updated 7:03 AM;
By Grant Segall, The Plain Dealer
gsegall@plaind.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Community leaders hope that 20 new buses rolling out Thursday on the renamed MetroHealth Line will help to rev up the West 25th Street neighborhood.

Dr. Akram Boutros, the MetroHealth System's president and chief executive officer, said that the line is just part of about $100 million in expected neighborhood improvements over the next five years. He hopes to raise money to help build homes, create a business incubator and boost La Villa Hispana, a portion of the West Side. He's also overseeing a roughly $800 million remake of his main campus on West 25th.

"We think we can transform this struggling neighborhood to become a vibrant part of the city and be an example for other neighborhoods," said Boutros. "If you look at what the HealthLine did for the Euclid Avenue corridor, we expect we'll draw millions of dollars in investments, create new businesses, doubling the number of jobs, filling our restaurants and galleries and stores."

MORE:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/12/leaders_hope_new_metrohealth_l.html
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline TBideon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3241
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12355 on: December 06, 2017, 09:00:19 AM »
"Officials credit the line with spurring more than $6 billion in growth nearby. Ridership has risen about 60 percent."

Say what? I know RTA pads their statistics with those transfers, but still...60 percent? And don't get me started on their bullshit about $6 billion in investments.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 09:05:01 AM by TBideon »

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45677
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12356 on: December 06, 2017, 09:55:29 AM »
The HealthLine ridership growth of 60 percent was based on the ridership of the #6 Euclid bus in its final year vs the HealthLine today. What it doesn't take into account is that RTA no longer runs to downtown the #7, #9, #28X, #32 (with branches to Cedar, Fairmount, Silsby) as limited-stop runs on Euclid/Chester. As recently as the 1980s, those buses accounted for more than 50,000 weekday trips vs the HealthLine's 16,000 weekday trips.

What was great about the HealthLine is that is was part of an entire package of urban redevelopment initiatives -- multi-agency/industry cooperation, transportation investment, sub-street infrastructure investment, focused existing and new development incentives, rezoning, etc. It was everything the Waterfront Line was not, where the city told RTA to plop down a rail line and said they were done. Let both experiences be a lesson to us.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6568
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12357 on: December 06, 2017, 10:00:18 AM »
RTA got away with lying about the Euclid bus, which has emboldened it to make even goofier claims about the West 25th bus.  At some point there has to be accountability.  Up is up and down is down.

Online X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9604
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion
« Reply #12358 on: December 06, 2017, 05:35:16 PM »
The HealthLine ridership growth of 60 percent was based on the ridership of the #6 Euclid bus in its final year vs the HealthLine today. What it doesn't take into account is that RTA no longer runs to downtown the #7, #9, #28X, #32 (with branches to Cedar, Fairmount, Silsby) as limited-stop runs on Euclid/Chester. As recently as the 1980s, those buses accounted for more than 50,000 weekday trips vs the HealthLine's 16,000 weekday trips.

What was great about the HealthLine is that is was part of an entire package of urban redevelopment initiatives -- multi-agency/industry cooperation, transportation investment, sub-street infrastructure investment, focused existing and new development incentives, rezoning, etc. It was everything the Waterfront Line was not, where the city told RTA to plop down a rail line and said they were done. Let both experiences be a lesson to us.

I think this is the exact approach we need.  I am skeptical that the future of transit can be in serving ever more sprawling development on the fringe of the urban center.  As jtadams said a few posts up, RTA should focus on a few main lines with a high level of service, and work with the city and other agencies to focus development around them.