Recent Comments
- Ed Morrison said “Carla: You are welcome. I hope we can all benefit from this powerful line of ...” on Food and cancer prevention
- Brian Cummins said “The following was posted as a comment on the Plain Dealer blog -- http://blog.clev~ ----------------~ ...” on Cuyahoga Board of Elections to enter agreement with US Dept of Justice to accommodate Puerto Rican Voters
- Carla said “Ed, thank you so much for posting this very important video. I will be passing ...” on Food and cancer prevention
- JS said “Since Seth Priebatsch and his ilk look to be rediscovering captology and serious gaming, the ...” on More on the video gaming software cluster
- John Polk said “We took a couple small stabs at a gaming strategy a few years ago with ...” on More on the video gaming software cluster
- About BDP Comments
Meta
George Nemeth · On the RTA’s rate hikes, service cuts
July 20th, 2008
From Tim Ferris:
At a time when ridership is making buses bulge at the seams, cutting service and charging more for what remains is the last thing you want to have happen. Service and bus routes should expand; administrative staff should be cut; salaries should be cut; grants should be acquired; general taxes should be levied. But service should expand both in the number of buses circulating each route and in the hours of operation.
We found out recently that GCRTA has no idea how many people actually ride these things. We ride quite often, and the fare boxes are always inoperable.
The shopping areas depend on bus traffic. So do schools. So do the legion of newly minted commuters.
Here’s some input from somebody who buys and uses a weekly ticket at all hours and for all destinations…
I agree. Just when a major shift is happening in people’s transportation habits, discouraging ridership is a bad move. Any other suggestions or comments on RTA’s proposed changes? Will you be attending one of the public meetings?
Tim Ferris: this is just about the last place to cut
Last 5 posts by George Nemeth
- Justin Bibb on CLE and DET - August 23rd, 2010
- Cleveland International Film Fest Year 34 - March 18th, 2010
- A tale of town city workers - February 8th, 2010
- O Opens - February 5th, 2010
- I high rec seeing CityMusic CLE - February 4th, 2010
July 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
RTA sees the opportunity to what it wants to do – give less service and charge more.
Everyone should read “The Shock Doctrine – the rise of disaster capitalism” by Naomi Klein. She has an insigthful look at how crisis is used to advance policies people would not accept except under dire circumstances.
RTA is only a small version of what’s happening. A good example of Shock Doctrine and how it works is the gas situation. To take advantage of the crisis there’s a major push to open the entire coastlines of America to drilling for oil, instead of a program to cut the use and use other methods to do away with the use of oil.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
As Roldo said, most businesses are about cutting costs while bringing in the highest profits possible. It really seems as though companies are losing site of the fact that they would not be in business if it were not for us consumers.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:17 am
It does seem as if what RTA is saying is: Oh, so you WANT to ride the bus now? Well, you can just wait for it.
I was living at Shaker Square when they cut the number of trains. With the change I would get onto the train at my usual time but could no longer get a seat. I didn’t ride the train much longer after that.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
it is like the water dept. which trivissano quotes as saying since consumption is down we need to raise rates to compensate less revenue it never made sense to me if you have less sales cut the work force that is what we in the private sector must do to survive. i have been working 20 hr. extra a week for 5 years since my company sales went down. i cannot keep as many employees simple math. public sector never seems to get smaller unless you look at funding for poorer areas like the inner city cdc funding that has disappeared over the last 8 yrs.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Well, you’re missing something here (particularly you, Dee), because Roldo has steered the conversation into his usual anti-business bias: RTA is a government entity, as stated on its Web site: “RTA is a political subdivision of the State, created under Chapter 306 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
In business, increasing demand typically creates efficiencies and drives cost down, which further expands demand, etc. Only in public agencies–where union rules are restrictive, featherbedding is rampant and political motives like providing jobs to political cronies take precedence over customer service–does it work backwards. Increasing demand creates no efficiencies because of union pay scales that increase costs with each additional increment of output–again the opposite of what happens in business.
At least get your facts straight.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I think we can expect RTA’s Jerry Masek to weigh in on this any moment…
July 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
It is unbelievable that RTA would reduce service and raise fares at this time.
There’s a simple solution to RTA’s budget woes; all the County Commissioners need to do is divert to public transit the additional 1/4 percent sales tax we’ve all been paying since last Oct. The income would balance RTA’s budget and create a fund to Increase service. I have written the P.D. to this effect. Think they’ll publish it? Hah!
July 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Just thinking about these service cuts is making me sick. Some friends of mine just bought a house along one of the routes that’s getting chopped, fully expecting that they would be able to continue their public transit-riding lifestyle like they did while living at Shaker Square. Twenty five years ago, my parents bought their house in large part because of the bus stop in front of it – my dad took this bus every day until his retirement a few years ago. When I told them it’s one of the lines that’s scheduled to be discontinued, first they laughed. (They thought I was kidding!) Then they were angry. (“But that bus is always full!”) Then they were just confused. (“Why would they cut service on a well-used bus line like that?”)
It makes *me* really apprehensive about buying a house, if they could just discontinue my way of getting around at a moment’s notice.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Yes, let’s go after RTA instead of our elected officials (local, state, & national) who have made the decisions to underfund transit agencies & look at ourselves for putting ourselves in this situation.
It’s horrible that the RTA has to raise fares and cut service when we need it most, but let’s look at the cost of gas and government assistance before attacking them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
P.D. Headline today: “Cutting costs for convention center.” Great! Cut ‘em out!
Something tells me the Clinic and U.H. won’t pick up and leave town if they don’t get Chris Kennedy’s MedMart.
Cleveland could lead the nation with robust and timely funding to efficiently boost public transit. But that would require…leaders.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Why doesn’t RTA use a variable pricing model? Longer and high demand routes could be charged more, while holding price on shorter and less used routes down, if not cutting prices to encourage ridership and greater efficiencies. Cutting out routes, people and raising prices is simply too easy of a way to avoiding defense of tough decisions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Jeffrey’s on point.
I don’t hear anyone blaming Reagan’s pulling of support for federal operations funding for public transit. Transit agencies have still never fully recovered.
RTA is paying even MORE for gas than we are (just take a gander at the diesel prices lately). If RTA had more money for buying buses, maybe they could invest in diesel-electric hybrid buses.
I think that when choosing to raise fares or to cut service, you have to choose raising fares because when you cut service, you cut value and it’s easier to roll back fare increases than to restore value.
Jim’s suggestion about a variable pricing model could work. Sure, that would complicate the fare model but it would be more fair. There could be some sort of concentric semi-circular zones that dictate what different riders have to pay.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Also, considering the absolute gangster* price-gouging of the oil cartel, RTA’s price changes is taking penny candy from the corner store.
*gangster- adj. having attributes or behaviors resembling a gangster
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The core problem is that the RTA is a government entity that makes decisions based on non-market (i.e. political) considerations. Public transportation is a money-loser nearly everywhere in the U.S. as it is here in Cleveland. That’s because the cost structure for delivering the service is higher than the price being charged and decisions about services and pricing are politically-based, not market-based. That’s a losing business model if ever I saw one.
One option is to subsidize public transport with taxpayer dollars, which Jeffrey and Derek are advocating. This has been the popular model since FDR enlarged government in the 1930’s. That approach would mean that non-users of the service would be subsidizing users. What’s fair about that, exactly?
Another option would be to privatize the whole thing. Remember, public transportation was privately run for 150 years, until FDR. Street car companies were private corporations. New York’s subways were built with investor money and run by private companies. If the RTA were privatized, then routes would be decided, and prices set, based on demand. Full routes would not be cut, but expanded–or prices raised, which is what Jim is suggesting.
Unfortunately, the public debate and political climate about these things would never permit this discussion. The opening assumption of the political class, the media that repeats their assertions, and political activitists is that public transporation should be expanded (even if it’s a money-loser) and that taxpayer resources should be expropriated to pay for it. As long as the discussion begins and ends there, no solution is in sight.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
We should privatize the regional transit system? Good lord, man. And turn it over to the geniuses that have run the banking and financial systems to the brink of disaster, after noisily demanding less regulation? You must really think the public is stupid, J. FDR’s basic reforms have endured for a simple reason: most people viscerally understand that capital, left to its own devices, will keep pushing and pushing until the interests of only a relative few are served. That’s why “reforms” to Social Security were again rejected.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
To J:
I’m sure that you would rather have workers be paid less and less and that unions be, well, outlawed as inconveient to private business.
Slowly that’s what seems to be happening.
But in looking at only that side you do miss some important facts.
RTA is a political entity, subject to political pressures, however, it is subject to similar pressures from our local business/civic syndicate. For example, it spent $69 million to build the Waterfront Line – all local money by the way because the powers that be wanted it NOW! The reason for the Waterfront line – public transit? NO – because those private powers were opening the subsidized Rock Hall and wanted the Waterfront line, a big, big loser for RTA. It runs almost empty most of the time.
The line also connected with our special private business establishment – Forest City. As does the walkway at Gateway, another multi-million project to aid the highly-subsidized business-promoted, tax-exempted Gateway.
RTA also pays $1 million annually to Forest City for its downtown station, which dumps hundreds of thousands of visitors to Tower City every day. The revamping of the station a few years ago was under the construction management of Forest City. Wonder how they got that deal? After the project was completed Forest City – a private business, J – sued RTA for $25 million, got $10 million.
Yes, there are political pressures on RTA, a public body. There are also delux private pressures.
But you wouldn’t know anythng about that. You have your own set of convenient “facts.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
This is also ironic in light of the fact that Jonathan’s VC firm, Early State Partners, manages money from the State of Ohio’s Third Frontier program. Various inter-connections between the public and private sectors are just a fact of life in the modern world, and neither side has or will ever have a monopoly on the right answers. There are smart ways to operate and less smart ways. As long as it’s fully tranparent, we can then assess what’s working reasonably well and what’s not working at all.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
We have already privatized public transit. For $25+, you can ride in a taxi from downtown to Hopkins. One of the last public transit system in the country to operate solely out of the farebox was CTS. Without a dedicated funding source, each ride would be too expensive for many people to consider….but thanks for the idea.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Re: the question of RTA users vs. non-users. Even those people who do not use RTA benefit from cleaner air and less congestion on the highways. If the system ever stopped running on a weekday, your commute to and from work would be a lot more …”interesting.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
John, Roldo, et. al. The evidence is that you and many others are unhappy with RTA, which is run as a government entity, is a money-loser and is cutting services despite evidence of increasing demand. Why do you defend that model, therefore? For ideological reasons, or can you point to some evidence which supports the notion that government does a good job of running transport systems? Please be specific, with facts, not ideologies.
As to the banking and financial systems, John, at the core of the mortgage mess is–you guessed it–government. Congress noisily called, for years, for an expansion of lending so that more people could buy houses. To accomplish this goal, they chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Initially, the FMs were there just to ensure that lower-income people could buy homes, but inexorably Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agitated to move up-market, and those institutions now have 75% market share.
Congress also saw to it that the regulator of Fannie and Freddie, OFHEO, was weak, so that Fannie and Freddie could operate on much lower capital reserves than banks. Lending standard also were loose.
Fannie and Freddie are large campaign contributors, so they had no trouble getting their lax regulatory oversight and mission creep from Citizen Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dudd. The FMs bought Congress to forestall the Bush administration’s long-pushed goal of increasing regulatory oversight–oops, the Bushies got one right, but I’m sure you won’t give them credit for it.
The markets also assumed that Fannie and Freddie, as government chartered entities, would be bailed out by taxpayers if trouble developed. Guess what is happening? You and I are now on the hook for Congress chartering Fannie and Freddie and allowing them to be loosely regulated. At the root of the current financial problems is–surprise–government actions.
As to the $25 taxi ride, Jerry, if you go back and research the privatization, the plan initially was to let multiple taxi firms compete. Under pressure, however, (and I’ll bet some “campaign contributions”) the politicians buckled and restricted the number of firms that could serve the airport. Don’t you remember the howls of protest from the losing companies? When government grants a monopoly, you get high prices and poor services. The cost of tax rides would reach market equilibrium if true competition were allowed.
Roldo, I find the spending of public money for dumb ideas to be as abhorrent as you do.
Finally, I want to send all of you to the last paragraph of my post time-stamped 2:32 pm. What I said there is happening here….
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
No, I’m not remotely defending RTA, about which I laughed out loud at the news that it’s supposedly the best public transit system in the land. If so, it boggles the mind. I’m merely saying that a publicly run system has a better chance of serving the entire public than a privately run system would, because private enterprise by its very nature looks for the best way to make the highest return, which inevitably means short-changing large numbers of people who aren’t as easily or profitably served.
The current health insurance system is among the best examples of this dynamic. That industry essentially amounts to a competition to find the healthiest populations that need the least care, while systematically putting structural barriers between less healthy people and the services they need. A privately managed transit system would work great for a tiny slice of the population–the slice that’s most profitably served. It would be a disaster for the wider population.
Finally, if you think the Bush administration truly pushed for more govermment regulation of anything (I mean real regulation), I suggest you’ve been partaking in some magic mushrooms in your spare time, my friend.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Jonathan, you are apparently a newcomer. You need to catch up. I’ve been critical of RTA for various reasons, including patronage, for years. Whether it is public agency or private greedster makes little difference to me. How you are acting does.
You act is if you aren’t a subsidized individual. Only transit riders are subsidized. I pay taxes for roads and highways, though I don’t own an auto. So I subsidize you with my taxes. But you are so obsessed with your supposed ability to exist without anyone’s help. You’re a welfare client, too.
And I was interested in this morning’s Plain Dealer which had a piece about Cleveland Cliffs possibly adding new office space downtown. I also notice that the company is making this move contingent on handouts from the poor City of Cleveland and the state of Ohio. Yes, they want handouts. I also see that one of your firm’s partners James D. Ireland, III, is a director of Cleveland-Cliffs.
Mr. Ireland has his hands out just as the patronage public employees apparently that you seem to abhor.
I hope you take your partner to task for his abhorrent corporate behavior.
Nothing but high class welfare clients. And you want to be critical of working people.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 am
Let RTA cut service – no difference between the pressures facing this transportation company compared to the airlines.
Eventually, RTA will find the equilibrium of revenues and costs that work and allow it to continue.
In the meantime, we’ll just have to tough it out.
I didn’t notice anyone calling for a tax hike to support RTA.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
J:
Once again you resort to ideology instead of history. The major transformative event in urban public transportation was not FDR. That’s just laughable. Rather, major metropolitan areas had thriving public and private streetcar services as late as the 1950’s. If you studied your antitrust history (or, failing that, just went to see Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a tale very loosely based on an actual legal case) you would know that major industrial parties with direct interests in replacing public, group transportation with individual automobile travel were actually convicted of a national conspiracy to destoy the streetcar and then-developing modes of intraurban light rail. Because the Sherman Act was a misdemeanor statute, the defendants were fined measely amounts for successfully destroying a favored means of mass transit. Following that, massive taxpayer-provided funds went into the road and highway infrastructure, further skewing the market towards single-passenger (or single-family) transportation. This was done, in some stages, as part of a claimed Cold War strategy to have a network of highways for the Defense Department assets to use if necessary, but as we know from I-271, the Innerbelt, etc, the effect was to heavily subsidize and drive the automobile commuter culture. For a contrast, check out, for example, Vancouver to see a city that very successfully has (1) eschewed intraurban highways and (2) operated a heavily used bus/streetcar hybrid system to move large numbers of people in a very attractive city. Think of the Metro in D.C. Hell, think of Eurail. Facts, J., facts.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
According to Jonathan’s logic, I shouldn’t have to pay a cent for public parks because I don’t use them.
John, thanks for your airing of J’s connections. It provides more perspective on where he’s coming from.
Roldo is right in the respect that many of RTA’s decisions reek of patronage. Getting rid of public funding of mass transit for this is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
RTA has potential to be better than it is but it also can be much, much worse. You don’t have to look too far to see worse *cough* Akron Metro *cough*.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
It’s interesting to me that nobody can point to an example of a public run transportation system that works. All I hear is ideology. From John Ettore: “a publicly run system has a better chance of serving the entire public.” From Roldo: “I pay taxes for roads and highways, though I don’t own an auto.” From Tom Zych: it was a conspiracy of the auto makers.
Please, please, somebody, show me an example of a publicly run transporation system that works. The thread, you remember, is about criticism of RTA. I very logically proposed an alternative approach to running RTA. Instead of a reasonable discussion about alternative approaches to running the system, what I am getting is personal attacks and ideology.
Why? Because public transportation demonstrably doesn’t work, and nobody can reasonably make a case that it does. That, as much as anything, should be an opening to examine alternative approaches. But no, the proponents of big government won’t hear of it. They shift the conversation to something else they can complain about and, the less they know about it, the easier it is for them to fabricate conspiracy, create an accusation, and treat that accusation as fact. Sheesh!
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
To be fair, you should define what do you mean by ‘works’ first. A better question: Can anyone point to an example of an urban area of any size that works that doesn’t have a public transportation system?
As you point out, this thread did start as criticism of RTA and what many here see as mismanagement. Then you turned it into a referendum on free markets.
As to your question: BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit); Portland, OR; NYC; DC Metro; Boston; London’s Underground. When I lived in LA, the transit system worked for me, although that is hardly universal. Here in Akron, voters recently approved an increase in sales tax to maintain our transit system that many feel works. We also recognized that an Akron without buses will not work.
Also important to point out (and expanding on an earlier point) is that there is no system anywhere capable of transporting large numbers of people or large amounts of cargo that does not involve government entities and public subsidy. Highways, airports, rail, seaports, buses: all involve government and public funds to a significant degree, and always have.
kj
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As well as Stuttgart’s metropolitan system, Eurail, Tokyo’s transit system and on and on and on. When one expands one’s view from microeconomic profitability to societal cost and benefit, the examples of working systems are legion, and what we’re talking about is not whether to deploy public resources but where. We see the billions of dollars spent on subsidizing the auto transport economy every time we drive by an orange barrel. Now I support infrastructure investment, including roads. Every great society and economy that lasts does that. Remember that the private rail system relied on public funds to acquire rights of way; highways require huge public expenditures; the air system lives on publicly provided and regulated infrastructure and the shipping lanes have, from the dawn of sea travel, eventually depended on government-provided security and defense.
So, J., you have your answer and aclear evidence that you are relying on ideology and not facts.
It’s also telling that you can’t refute the ones we provide.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Thanks for asking a better question, Kyle. Good point re: highways and streets. How long has this county subsidized an auto-centric lifestyle? 50 yrs?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I will definitely be attending one of the downtown Cleveland meetings. For anyone interested, here is the schedule if you haven’t seen it (from RideRTA.com):
HEARING SCHEDULE:
Monday, Aug. 4, 2008
6:00 pm, Don Umerley Civic Center Memorial Hall, 21016 Hilliard Road, Rocky River
Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2008
– Noon, Cleveland Public Library Auditorium, 325 Superior Ave. NE
– 6:00 pm, Cleveland City Hall Room 220, 601 E Lakeside Ave
Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008
6:00 pm, Cleveland Heights Community Center, One Monticello Blvd. at Mayfield Road
Thursday, Aug. 7, 2008
6:00 pm, Brooklyn Senior Community Center, 7727 Memphis Ave.
All sites are served by public transit and are accessible. Interpretive services for hearing-impaired persons will be available.
If you cannot attend a hearing, you can send comments by Aug. 18, 2008 to:
public-comment@gcrta.org
RTA Marketing and Communications Department
1240 West Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
Also, for full info from RTA on proposed cuts and price increases, visit http://www.riderta.com/nu_ridersalerts_list.asp?listingid=1085
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Kyle, okay, thanks. At least we’re getting somewhere in the conversation. I want to start, though, by quibbling with your last statement that “all involve government and public funds to a significant degree, and always have.” That may or may not be true, but you haven’t advanced sufficient evidence to turn your assumption into a fact. The “always have” part of your statement may be true for your lifetime, but not for the history of the republic.
Prior to the mid-20th century, there was certainly a lot more involvement of private entities in providing public transportation for individuals. Street cars were built and run by private companies whose shares were purchased by investors. Your blanket statement limits the discussion of what is possible, or what is best, or what should be done by assuming that: 1. Only government involvement will make it work; and 2. That the public must subsidize mass transportation for individuals. Again, those are assumptions (philosophical ones, at that), not facts.
Having said that, one should ask the question: what is government’s role in transportation? It has been accepted since the time of the Founding Fathers that government’s role including the provision of infrastructure for the common good. The underlying assumptions for government accepting those responsibilities were heavily weighted towards commerce, however, not to moving individuals. Without dredged harbors, intercoastal waterways like the Erie Canal, and rail systems, merchants couldn’t trade overseas or move their goods around the country and farmers couldn’t ship their crops to market. Without post roads, the mail couldn’t move. Public investment was overwhelmingly focused on commerce for the first 200 years of the republic.
With the industrialization of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was mass migration from the countryside, and people became concentrated in cities. This was the opportunity that led to the formation of private street car companies.
The Depression disrupted developments, and the statist policies of the ensuing decades expanded the focus of government services. It became accepted, as you have stated, that government was the answer because of widespread propaganda that markets had failed. (John Ettore is still mouthing this line.)
Following WWII, people moved to the suburbs and mass transit along defined corridors became less efficient and less economically justified. Public spending became focused on highways but, again, to facilitate commerce. An extremely large portion of commercial goods are now moved by truck, in part because communities are scattered not concentrated and fixed rail systems are unable to reach most people.
Where does that leave us today? In some densely populated regions, like New York, public transportation is necessary. In others like San Francisco, Washington, and Portland, money-losing public transportation systems are enforced through political will and taxpayers subsidies.
Cleveland is not densely populated, although there is a school of thought that it ought to be. Or that the U.S. should enforce policies to jam people together in cities and away from suburbs so that, among other things, public transportation would be more appealing and the use of cars will be reduced. But we’re not that kind of society. We’re a society of freedom of choice…but that’s another string.
Getting back to the question of what Cleveland should do: There is no particular reason that we should model ourselves on Portland, Washington, or San Francisco. We know the outcomes of the existing models–choices about routes, frequency, and prices are set by government, riders are forced to accept those choices, and taxpayers are forced to subsidize money-losing business models.
What is objectionable about trying a different sort of experiment? One that starts with serving customers, and builds route structures, frequencies, and pricing around customer needs? This is what private enterprises do–must do to survive–and what government enterprises demonstrably do NOT do.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Tom, they’re all money-losing systems that exist on taxpayer subsidies. What is your argument for reproducing that model?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I hope that everyone sees that Jonathan doesn’t answer why some should pay subsidies for his form of transit, presumably his car on roads while no subsidy should go for public transit.
Nor does he answer why James Ireland III, his partner, has his hands out trying to get welfare subsidies for his company, Cleveland-Cliffs, from a near destitute city and a struggling state.
Please answer the questions Mr. Critic of anything for ordinary people.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Roldo, highways are used for the conduct of interstate commerce. Subsidizing them is consistent with the intent of government investments in infrastructure since the Colonial era. Subsidizing money-losing public transportation systems used by a very small portion of the population is an idea of the modern, statist era.
Regarding Cleveland-Cliffs, while Jamie is on the board, I can’t support your assertion that he, personally, is trying to get what you describe as “welfare subsidies” for the company, which is not “his,” anyway. It belongs to its shareholders, which include pension funds managing benefits for union and public service pensioners. Public subsidies of this sort exist because governments offer them; if they didn’t, then companies wouldn’t ask for them. The City of Cleveland can say “No” at any time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Providing mass transit for people to get to and from jobs, to get to doctors, to shop, isn’t in the public interest?
Jamie, as you call James D. Ireland III, may be where y you get some of your thinking Jonathan.
I note that he has 186,343 shares of Cleveland-Cliffs, direct and indirectly owned, plus being a director and family-connected for many years. He has a say. I note also that he picked up $278,000 in stock trade in the most recent year.
I also note that Cleveland-Cliffs, which is asking the city of Cleveland for a handout, as stated above, has revenues of $2.4 billion and gross profits of $462 million. Do Cleveland-Cliffs and Jamie need the money more than the people of Cleveland.
And You still haven’t answered the questions.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The distinction between public subsidy of the movement of freight and cargo and the public subisidy of the movement of people is a false one. Thomas Jefferson authorized the construction of the first federally funded highway in 1806, primarily to facilitate the movement of people west. Courts have long recognized the interstate commerce clause to include regulation of the movement of people on transit lines, as with freight. Do you have a similar complaint about public monies building airports? You have invented a distinction that has no relation to the history of transportation.
And you assume but have not demonstrated in any way that a private concern could perform the vital functions of public transit. Let’s see a business model that says it could work without significant subisidies and still guarantee a minimum level of service. If it does, great. Give it a shot. (And by ‘without significant subsidies’, I mean that we can’t start from the liquidation of publicly owned assets. Start from scratch the way RTA did.)
And stop discounting the benefits that public transit provides: providing access to crucial economic activity as workers and consumers for significant segments of the population; easing stress on the other publicly-subsidized transportation systems; lowering air pollution and fuel consumption. These benefits are significant, despite the fact that they don’t show up on any ledger.
And let’s not forget that public transportation is not alone in dropping routes, cutting service, and raising fares. I don’t think the airline industry should be a model, either.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Roldo, which questions? I described very clearly where I think government should invest and why. If you’re talking about Kyle’s questions, yes, cities should have public transportation networks. No, government shouldn’t be assumed to be the best entity to run those systems.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Jonathan: I want you to answer whether you are a subsidized individual as a driver on city, state and federal roads financed by taxes and operated by government.
I’d like you to answer whether Cleveland-Cliffs is asking for handouts, i. e., welfare, when requesting subsidies to expand office space in the city of Cleveland.
Two simple questions that could be answered with “Yes,” or “No.”
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Roldo, I don’t know. I don’t know. On the first, with sufficient research, I could perhaps unveil an answer. On the second, what Cleveland-Cliffs asks for is either public record, in which case I’ll read about it in the paper like you do, or private deliberations, which are none of my business.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
J:
Complete revisionist history. There never has been the distinction between moving people and “commerce” that you pretend to rely on. The interstate highway system was sold as a national defense expenditure, to move military assets, not “commerce.” In reality it was designed to handle personal travel and freight movement via trucks – in all respects a mix of business and personal travel. Look at any of the plans for interstate highways and their feeder systems – commuter travel and personal use are central to the siting, scoping and maintenance designs. Same history with thr rails, although we have designed them with too much freight haulage in mind so that passenger rail always has been te stepchild while we have subsidized auto traffic. Your ideology continues to blind you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Typical Tom Zych argument. Start with a political philosophy. Cherry pick supporting information. Claim that your debating opponent is doing what you are doing. Ignore inconvenient facts. Answer no questions.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
J:
You have your answers. You just don’t like them. So there.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
EMERGENCY response. RTA needs to do what it takes to make service work for the people. See this report:
http://www.docuticker.com/?p=21783
BTW, Jerry–you said that drivers would be able to at the very least hand out some type of official RTA excuse to provide riders seriously inconvenienced by stoppages. Recently, I was stuck on a bus during rush hour –everyone on the bus was surely late for work. No paper explanation. Your riders have lives and they will avoid unreliable service, because their employers will fire them.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I am surprised that in all of these dozens of comments, absolutely nobody mentioned the real cause of the crisis at RTA. Over 60% of RTA’s revenues come from the 1% sales tax in Cuyahoga County. The sales tax revenues are down, cutting RTA’s revenues. Only a minority of the revenues come from fares. Meanwhile, Ohio provides the smallest subsidy for public transit in this region of the USA, and the state legislature has cut this subsidy substantially in recent years. So, RTA’s revenues are down, and their expenses are skyrocketing because they are paying obscene amounts of money for diesel fuel. The blame for that one is in Washington, not here in Cleveland. The remedy is for decent funding in Washington in Columbus, but that is not forthcoming. Another remedy would be improvement in the economy, so that the tax revenues increased instead of falling.
These causes are out of RTA’s control. But, they are in the control of our politicians in Washington DC and Columbus.
I dislike the cuts as much as anybody, but they are sound proactive management on the part of RTA. Would the other people commenting prefer bad management and bankruptcy at RTA?
The time has come to ask the politicians in Washington and Columbus why they drastically cut their funding to RTA and to the other transit authorities in Ohio.
George Zeller
GCRTA Citizens Advisory Board
July 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
George Z., I am surprised that nothing in your post points to RTA providing a service to customers that they want at a price that enables RTA to operate. Why is your entire focus on what some distant government body needs to do with taxpayer money to subsidize a losing system? The time has come to ask the larger question of what it is about the way RTA is run that causes it to be such a money loser.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This is not a good thing — has anyone taken into consideration that the gas prices for our automobiles have gone down? Now, why would you raise the prices to ride a bus, when we can drive now? Why would you cut service? If you do this with some rational planning, it will work, you have to listen to the public. We are the ones who stand out in the elements to wait for buses to take us to our jobs, doctors appointments, shopping, etc. Do you actually think that we would enjoy standing on any Cleveland City corner waiting more than 10 minutes for a bus? If you have to go up on the fares, do it gradually, you cannot just hit us with a full $2.00 rate increase. THAT WILL NOT WORK — we will get back in our cars first — then the ridership of RTA will drastically decline. You have an all day pass that is for Seniors/Disabled/Child, break it down into three different fares. Let each category have their own pricing..Seniors one price; Disabled one price and Child one price and then go up on the fares in intervals at 25 to 50 cents a year; like you did before. We cannot pay for your mistakes. The public did not ask for that new HealthLine, so we should not be put in a position to pay for it as drastically as being proposed. Not as many people are dependent on RTA these days as it use to be….people are buying cars
August 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
We are willing to deal with a rate increase but on a smaller scale. This is really really crazy, and as it stands, I have to say along with other riders that I’ve talked to, that new HealthLine was not necessary.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
GZ says–”The time has come to ask the politicians in Washington and Columbus why they drastically cut their funding to RTA and to the other transit authorities in Ohio.” I couldn’t attend today’s meeting due to work, but my neighborhood network just informed me that over 600 people attended the meeting at the Cleveland Public Library downtown. Who’s the bad guy in RTA’s book? State funding…they are asking riders to petition the state reps for funding on par with other states, which receive 23 percent of their funding from state funds, while Ohio provides less than 3 percent to public transportation here.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Gloria tells me that the RTA people holding the hearing yesterday at the downtown library turned people away at the door and rescheduled another event to handle the overflow. This is a hot topic about an integral economic driver, a driver that nobody has yet tried to ramp up as a way of increasing productivity and commerce.
We need to fund an enhanced public transportation fully and first, and only then we can think about ODOT’s plans to finally give us the automobile-oriented things they should have back in 1958, when cars were bigger, gas was cheaper, and the population denser.