Jump to content
KJP

Greater Cleveland RTA News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure but wasn't "Kerry Freaking McCormack" used in an overheard phone convo by the developer proposing the casino skywalk in reference to McCormack's nay vote. Weird headline nevertheless. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, viscomi said:

I'm not sure but wasn't "Kerry Freaking McCormack" used in an overheard phone convo by the developer proposing the casino skywalk in reference to McCormack's nay vote. Weird headline nevertheless. 

Ah, yes, thanks. Still makes absolutely no sense in this context. But that does seem like the most likely explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 7:04 AM, jtadams said:

 

Umm . . I may be aging, and my short-term memory may be crap, but this was a fairly unforgettable experience, and I was there.   🙂   I know several services share the line between 59th/Columbus Cir. and lower Manhattan.  But the southbound platforms were closed.  Trains were running southbound but could not stop and pick people up.  They had to skip the station, making it fairly useless to anyone wanting to use it to travel south.  This did look like a planned thing, judging by the fairly nicely printed signs.  It's common in NYC on weekends, because they do a lot of their maintenance and trackwork then.  It's apparently the least bad among several bad options given that the subways are open, running, and well-used 24/7/365.  I mentioned this in relation to how even a minor, planned hiccup in services can cause great inconvenience to visitors and tourists and such, never mind those who depend on the train or bus for their living.  That will be a way bigger problem for the traveler here than in NYC, because, ordinarily, there are (and were, even for us, however inconvenient) alternatives to any disrupted service there; here, if you're lucky, there might be replacement bus, eventually.

 

To weave public transportation into the everyday life of our city, never mind our region, is a great goal.  That's something that's taken for granted in much of the world, but is rare in the US outside of maybe NYC, Chicago, and (arguably?) DC.  A great thing to shoot for.  But it's a lofty one given the current situation, and right now I would settle for even baby steps, provided they are in the right direction, and are sufficient to at least preserve the possibility of rebuilding in the future when the economic and political situation with respect to transit has improved. 

 

The 1 (local service) and 2/3 (express) wouldn't make you go more than one express stop to transfer.  So going from 59 street, would only make you go north to 72 or south to 42 for service.

 

I take the 2/3 and 1 every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't quite understand the reason either, and maybe the signs were wrong, but I definitely remember that they said go to 96th.  72nd would have been close enough to walk and I'd have gladly done that rather than pay $40-50 for a cab.  96th, not so much; not with little kids in tow.  I wonder if they were doing work on multiple local platforms.  And it was all the services, not just the 1.  We needed to get to South Ferry, but the 2/3 go to Fulton St. which isn't too far of a walk, so that would have been just fine.  But, details aside, the point is that people who don't use a transit system regularly will often be deterred by changes, even if planned and announced ahead of time.  I maybe should have checked the MTA website, but my phone was almost dead and I didn't want to use it unless truly necessary.  Now, given that we don't have great alternatives to our Red Line here when it shuts down, for whatever reason, I think it's pretty important to keep those shutdowns to a minimum.  And that segues back into the main topic that we've been discussing here now for years.  We need to invest some capital in order for this to be a realistic possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 1:20 PM, jtadams said:

 Now, given that we don't have great alternatives to our Red Line here when it shuts down, for whatever reason, I think it's pretty important to keep those shutdowns to a minimum.  And that segues back into the main topic that we've been discussing here now for years.  We need to invest some capital in order for this to be a realistic possibility.

 

Agreed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not yet listened to the Sound of Ideas interview with India Birdsong myself, but if Matt Rolf's overview is any indication it looks like new leadership at GCRTA will not lead to positive change, for now:

 

I am quite disappointed with this. Utilizing P.O.P. on the Healthline (and other bus lines) is one of the key components of improving bus service (as well as all door boarding, signal prioritization, and dedicated bus lanes). And not seeking new funding sources at this time would be understandable if changes were first going to be made that decreased waste/misappropriation of funds, but we clearly need more funding to solve our larger issues (rail car replacement, maintenance, etc.). Beyond that, I find it even more discouraging that the rail line is looked at as "dressing on the salad" and not as a major asset to our transit system. Not to mention this reliance on the failing Uber/Lyft just confounds me; it has been proven that they do more to hurt transit ridership and I don't see them operating in the same capacity for much longer as they will have to turn a profit at some point and they won't be able to do so in their current form.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God, Nos. 3 an 11. 

 

This woman is a disaster.

 

Guess she will not be telling SH to maintain the rapid right of way through warrensville center rd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't hear the whole segment with her, but nothing that she said made me feel any better about the future of transit in Cleveland.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Sad 1

And they reckon that the last thing she saw in her life was
Sting, singing on the roof of the Barbican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roman totale XVII said:

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by jtadams
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtadams said:

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

 

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

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freefourur said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Or drive.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

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

 

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

 

Or drive.

 

 

 

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, freefourur said:

 

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

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

 

it is theft. 

 

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

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

  • Like 2

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

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

 

it is theft. 

 

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

 

27 minutes ago, KJP said:

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

 

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

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

 

plus our criminal justice system is already overloaded and cruel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJP said:

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJP said:

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

 

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

 

plus our criminal justice system is already overloaded and cruel.

It depends.  If you had a criminal intent, the so called "mens rea" (as opposed to the women's rea) then yes you  should be incarcerated.  If it was an error without criminal intent then no, you should not be incarcerated. 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

 

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

 

plus our criminal justice system is already overloaded and cruel.

Our criminal justice system is under loaded. 

 

Far, far more people should be incarcerated. 

  • Poison 3
  • Dislike 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

Our criminal justice system is under loaded. 

 

Far, far more people should be incarcerated. 

 

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

 

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

  • Like 4

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KJP said:

 

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

 

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

Not everyone is capable of living in a free society. 

 

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

Edited by Terdolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Not everyone is capable of living in a free society. 

 

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

This doesn't sound like a free society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

This doesn't sound like a free society. 

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

 

Now, back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KJP said:

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

I would not have any drug laws, or any victimless crime laws at all, in my utopian society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Terdolph said:

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

 

Now, back on topic.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, freefourur said:

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

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

 

All litterers should get ten days in the cooler.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Edited by Terdolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

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

 

All litterers should get ten days in the cooler.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Littering....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

Not everyone is capable of living in a free society. 

 

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

 

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

LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

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

 

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...