Here is the original story I saw.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/09/15/bus-rapid-transit-spurs-development-better-than-light-rail-and-streetcars/

 

Giving the Healthline credit for those projects is a joke IMO. Cleveland State was going to build a student center, education buildings, and dorms either way. The Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals were going to expand either way. Uptown would have happened without the Healthline(but not without UC attractions/Case). The Casino, 668 Euclid Avenue, etc. all would have happened.

 

That is like saying the 49 bus is responsible for Crocker Park.

 

There are folks who'd disagree strongly with your harsh dismissal of the HealthLine and its impact: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/realestate/commercial/cleveland-ignites-job-growth-with-rebuilding-project.html?_r=0

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Might the residential development project in Uptown, or any of the myriad other developments along the avenue, have otherwise gone forward? Possibly. Would they have taken the same form? Possibly. I, for one, think not -- IMHO.

IMO, a repaving of Euclid ave with new wider sidewalks and bike lane but the same old bus 6 would have brought the vast majority of the development we're seeing. Even if only half the more recent developments would have come about, the HL is still being oversold because some of the numbers we've seen quoted as part of the impact of it include projects announced before the HL even started construction. You can't give the HL credit for the student center at CSU, or the expansion at the CMA, or the CC, but some supporters of the HL count the cost of those projects with the impact of it which is fundamentally dishonest. You just as easily count the HL as being one of the projects brought about by the revival of University Circle even though we all know it came about because of the failure of the dual hub plan to get enough local support.

What drives me nuts is that transfers to the HL from buses (some of which used to go all the way downtown) count as new rides, and are recorded as such. I find that distasteful, disingenous and unethical on multiple levels.

Here is the original story I saw.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/09/15/bus-rapid-transit-spurs-development-better-than-light-rail-and-streetcars/

 

Giving the Healthline credit for those projects is a joke IMO. Cleveland State was going to build a student center, education buildings, and dorms either way. The Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals were going to expand either way. Uptown would have happened without the Healthline(but not without UC attractions/Case). The Casino, 668 Euclid Avenue, etc. all would have happened.

 

That is like saying the 49 bus is responsible for Crocker Park.

 

There are folks who'd disagree strongly with your harsh dismissal of the HealthLine and its impact: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/realestate/commercial/cleveland-ignites-job-growth-with-rebuilding-project.html?_r=0

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Might the residential development project in Uptown, or any of the myriad other developments along the avenue, have otherwise gone forward? Possibly. Would they have taken the same form? Possibly. I, for one, think not -- IMHO.

 

Some developments along the HealthLine were going to happen no matter what. Others' existence are clearly the result of the HealthLine. Which ones? Unless you go and interview each developer individually, it is all very subjective. However I can tell you that the physical form of many of those developments were influenced by the presence of the HealthLine and by the TOD zoning overlay enacted by the city in support of the HealthLine.

 

One misconception about TOD, or any development, is that it occurs in a vacuum without influence of a wide variety of public policies, zoning, tax policies, parking requirements, other regulations, incentives, etc. So cities tend to place their interchange-service zoning, car supportive incentives, huge parking requirements and their biggest, flattest, land-gobbling, subdivided land uses near highways. But others tend to place their transit-supportive zoning and incentives, few/no parking requirements, and their densest, most vertically mixed uses near higher-level transit corridors. As more higher-level transit corridors (intercity high-speed rail, regional commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit, etc) are built, the more occasions there are for TOD. And even where frequently scheduled regular bus lines intersect, those are also locations where TOD can shape land use -- when a municipality properly supports it.

 

 

 

What drives me nuts is that transfers to the HL from buses (some of which used to go all the way downtown) count as new rides, and are recorded as such. I find that distasteful, disingenous and unethical on multiple levels.

 

Welcome to transportation planning! I believe FTA ridership accounting practices do not require transit agencies to account for how certain routes acquired their ridership.

^ although not entirely responsible, isn't that "technique" partly responsible for the Red Lines increase in ridership?

^ although not entirely responsible, isn't that "technique" partly responsible for the Red Lines increase in ridership?

 

Yes, especially on the west side.

What drives me nuts is that transfers to the HL from buses (some of which used to go all the way downtown) count as new rides, and are recorded as such. I find that distasteful, disingenous and unethical on multiple levels.

 

Cash fares haven't had transfer privileges, between ANY modes of transport, for some time now. I'm a bit confused by what you're stating here, but if you'd provide some details, I'd be happy to address it further.

 

Also, "unlinked passenger trips" are an industry-standard measurement. Your unsubstantiated classifications of the reasoning behind the decision to terminate certain routes short of downtown are, in themselves, distasteful.

^There's nothing wrong with counting riders on the HL regardless of whether they transferred and there's nothing wrong with encouraging transfers onto more efficient modes. What is "distasteful" IMO is when that is done and then the ridership is compared to the HL ridership before the other routes terminated at the HL or comparing it with the 6 and using that to try to imply greater success of the HL. While not outright dishonest, leaving out that riders on routes up into Cleveland Heights are forced to switch to the HL is, at best, a little sneaky. When that comparison is made it makes it look like RTA is artificially inflating the HL numbers to make it appear as more of a success than it actually is.

The 32 and 9 used to take me from the east side suburbs to Public Square, one fare, and I was considered one rider. Great.

Now the 32 or 9 take me to the Health Line at Euclid/105th or Adelbert, respectively, in which I count as two riders upon transfering. 

 

Fine. Fair enough. But for the RTA to cheer and promote this increase is in poor taste because nothing has changed pragmatically, especially when comparing the 6 to the Healthline. Before, riders on the 32 and 9 didn't have to transfer to the 6; now they have to transfer to the Healthline, so of course the Healthline will have more people on it. But that doesn't mean anything, not really. Why not just add a third mandatory transfer, after which I would count as three riders and the numbers would go even higher. As though that's something to celebrate.

 

Whether it's industry standard or not, it's cooking the books. Probably that's an indictment on the industry as a whole, so be it, but it still calls into question the Healthline numbers and if ridership has actually risen pragmatically on the east side.

^Until they have smart cards or re-institute transfer privileges, I don't know if they could easily count fares any other way.

 

I'm fine with RTA telegraphing positive ridership numbers, even if they leave out some of the context.  They're marketing a product like anyone else and I don't really look to them to be disinterested information brokers (no offense intended) any more than I would anyone else selling a product.  The implications of causation for all that midtown development, on the other hand, strains credibility so much that I wish they have avoided it or rephrased it.

The APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report contains data for total unlinked transit passenger trips.

Unlinked Transit Passenger Trip is a trip on one transit vehicle regardless of the type of fare paid or transfer presented. A person riding only one vehicle from

origin to destination takes ONE unlinked passenger trip; a person who transfers to a second vehicle takes TWO unlinked passenger trips; a person who

transfers to a third vehicle takes THREE unlinked passenger trips. APTA estimates that the number of people riding transit on an average weekday is 45% of

the number of unlinked transit passenger trips

Let's put it in another perspective that more of us can understand -- roads and highways. When NOACA and ODOT count traffic volumes in Greater Cleveland, they also do it using unlinked trips.  So when there are 100,000 vehicles a day on I-77 from I-480 north to downtown and 160,000 vehicles on the portion of I-480 east of I-77 to I-271, we know that there is some double-counting going on here. But these numbers are still relevant so that ODOT knows how much capacity to provide and NOACA knows how much funding to give.

 

It also gets used in ways that we may not like to justify road projects. The Opportunity Corridor is a prime example. They are counting X number of vehicles per day various sections. But where are those vehicles coming from and how many are no longer using East 55th, the Inner Belt, Carnegie, Chester or Euclid? And can we eliminate X lanes-miles on those roads so we can afford the long-term maintenance and replacement costs of Opportunity Corridor?

 

These are the kinds of fiscal sustainaility issues this nation could address someday -- and that could discuss and debate on another thread. ;)

Btw, Ari Maron stated that their developments were specifically located to be near Red Line stations.  So if  study states, for example, that Uptown was generated by the HL, it's a lie.

Cleveland's HealthLine gives more development bang for the buck than other transit corridors, study finds

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on September 24, 2013 at 6:00 AM, updated September 24, 2013 at 8:06 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Bus rapid transit – led by Cleveland’s HealthLine – is proving to be a form of mass transit that efficiently sparks urban development, according to a study of 21 North American transit corridors released this morning.

 

“It can move an urban economy forward quickly and efficiently,” said Walter Hook, head of the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.

 

Hook said bus rapid transit first emerged as a mode of city transportation in Latin America and is now being adopted in the United States and Canada. After about a decade of use in the U.S., it has become established enough to track results, he said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/clevelands_healthline_gives_mo.html

It seems it can have an opposite effect too. There is a lot of controversy in Chicago about putting in 16 miles of BRT down Ashland, with many detractors worrying about how much commercial businesses will get hit (much of Ashland is highly developed). Two less lanes and a prohibition on left turms will make an impact on what's generally a very, very busy street.

 

Different topic for a different day, but it's definitely a big controversy here with the naysayers making some valid points.

It seems it can have an opposite effect too. There is a lot of controversy in Chicago about putting in 16 miles of BRT down Ashland, with many detractors worrying about how much commercial businesses will get hit (much of Ashland is highly developed). Two less lanes and a prohibition on left turms will make an impact on what's generally a very, very busy street.

 

Different topic for a different day, but it's definitely a big controversy here with the naysayers making some valid points.

If im not mistaken there were businesses here that closed due to the Healthline being constructed as well.

It seems it can have an opposite effect too. There is a lot of controversy in Chicago about putting in 16 miles of BRT down Ashland, with many detractors worrying about how much commercial businesses will get hit (much of Ashland is highly developed). Two less lanes and a prohibition on left turms will make an impact on what's generally a very, very busy street.

 

Different topic for a different day, but it's definitely a big controversy here with the naysayers making some valid points.

If im not mistaken there were businesses here that closed due to the Healthline being constructed as well.

There were only a few that closed during construction, but most of those were on the rocks anyway.

I think everyone agrees the HL construction was pretty disruptive, but worth pointing out that the complete reconstruction of the ROW and the utilities was not in of itself a transit project, so not really fair to tag BRT with those effects.  I think TBiden is referring more to the longer term affects on traffic flow, parking, etc.  I know nothing about Ashland, but retail businesses seem to be extremely resistant to change of any kind, which I can kind of understand, but it doesn't mean they necessarily have any more insight than the planners in these cases. The way some Times Square businesses howled when the city started pedestrianizing Broadway in New York you'd think they relied on park-in-front shoppers (which they definitely do not).

^ And streetscape construction has had adverse impacts on businesses across the city, regardless of transit improvements. The BRT features might have extended the timeline for construction, making business disruption more prolonged. But I think there was a fair amount of business anxiety and uncertainty in Detroit Shoreway with the Detroit streetscape improvements and in Tremont for Professor and Innerbelt construction and now in Collinwood for Waterloo streetscape.

 

It's almost like you need some crazy idea for how to activate streets during major traffic disruptions. Oh, look, here's one such program in St. Paul (www.irrigatearts.org) and one getting announced locally Friday (http://collinwoodrising.eventbrite.com) :D

In the report it shows a picture of the Keith Building which says...

 

"The Keith Building, a new residential building at Euclid Avenue and East 17th Street in downtown Cleveland. It opened with 236 units in 2010 and was fully occupied within months."

^I did not read the report so I will take your word for this.  If true...how did the PD reporter not catch this and comment on it as it clearly taints the credibilty of the report.  How many other facts are wrong?  This should have been a component of the PD article.

In the report it shows a picture of the Keith Building which says...

 

"The Keith Building, a new residential building at Euclid Avenue and East 17th Street in downtown Cleveland. It opened with 236 units in 2010 and was fully occupied within months."

 

^I did not read the report so I will take your word for this.  If true...how did the PD reporter not catch this and comment on it as it clearly taints the credibilty of the report.  How many other facts are wrong?  This should have been a component of the PD article.

 

Good points. BTW, the group that published this report is a New York City-based group that advocates improved bus transportation in Third World countries to address issues of mobility and access to opportunities. That doesn't necessarily make them mass transit experts, especially in developed nations. And there are so few true BRTs in North America vs. light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail lines that the BRTs are likely to be in "cream of the crop" corridors where development is more likely to occur. Clearly, Euclid Avenue linking Cleveland's two nodes with the greatest transit propensity was THE cream of the crop locally. As more BRTs are added in lesser corridors here and nationwide, there may well be a diminishing returns from them.

Anybody see the cost per mile graphic linked in the article?

 

http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/costspermile.pdf

 

The article totally ignores the cost of reconstructing Euclid with new streetscape and median, claiming just $50 million was for the BRT. Purposefully misleading.

Anybody see the cost per mile graphic linked in the article?

 

http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/costspermile.pdf

 

The article totally ignores the cost of reconstructing Euclid with new streetscape and median, claiming just $50 million was for the BRT. Purposefully misleading.

 

I don't think that's purposefully misleading.  As someone mentioned earlier there was a lot of work done to Euclid unrelated to the installation of BRT.  For instance whenever the city reconstructs a street the major utilities jump in and rebuild the lines there because it makes sense to do so while the street is open.  You cannot include those costs as part of this comparison.  From the article:

 

"That’s based on a $50 million price tag for the HealthLine, or strictly the costs of the transit components -- its customized articulated buses, stations and signage – and a calculation that the project leveraged $5.8 billion in transit-oriented development.  Local planners say the Euclid Avenue bus system, which takes passengers from Public Square through University Circle to East Cleveland, had another $150 million in curb and sidewalk work, sewer and water line replacements, and landscaping that involved planting 1,500 trees, among other features. It opened in October 2008." http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/clevelands_healthline_gives_mo.html

 

To me it sounds like the $50M was just for the transit costs...busses and dedicated stations.  That's all you need to run a bus line.  Landscaping is a choice (a good one) but not a necessity, and i'm sure there are BRT lines that are just busses and stations.  RTA and the city (rightfully) chose to go further and complete unrelated sidewalk and curb work, install landscaping, and work with utilities to replace water and sewer lines. 

 

There may be a question of if $50M is all that was spent on the busses and stations...that seems a little low (but I also do not really have knowledge from which to base this feeling), but I do not at all question the rationale of leaving the other expenses out.

You can't just ignore utility reconstruction and streetscaping when comparing the Healthline costs to others. The Pittsburgh West Busway was listed at $55 million/mile in the comparison table. That is the entire cost of the project, including reconstructing a tunnel that was converted for use by HOV vehicles only. How is that a fair comparison?

 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_pit-bus-westbway-photoessay_2005-01.htm

 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Pittsburgh.pdf

 

The PD article is not comparing apples-to-apples. If you are going to compare return on investment between transit projects, you have to include all of the associated costs. The concrete construction, medians, and sidewalk work was extremely expensive. It's disingenuous to ignore the non-BRT related costs when Calabrese himself said the streetcaping helped lure companies to the corridor:

 

Making sure it was not “light” bus rapid transit, but instead included enhancements such as public art and landscaped medians, was a critical factor in making it "a place where people wanted to buy and move their businesses, and where people wanted to live,” Calabrese said.

It's not news, but has anyone else noticed this wonderful typo on Euclid around the E. 83rd station area?

It's not news, but has anyone else noticed this wonderful typo on Euclid around the E. 83rd station area?

 

Not sure what you're referring to. Is there a picture or an article?

It's not news, but has anyone else noticed this wonderful typo on Euclid around the E. 83rd station area?

 

Not sure what you're referring to. Is there a picture or an article?

 

Oh, crap, I didn't realize that had actually posted without the picture!  I'm on my phone, so I can't easily shrink it....  There's a large sign on an empty lot on Euclid that says "Build to Suite".

 

Oh, crap, I didn't realize that had actually posted without the picture!  I'm on my phone, so I can't easily shrink it....  There's a large sign on an empty lot on Euclid that says "Build to Suite".

 

Nice! Hey, if you send it to Facebook, that will shrink it. Then copy the image's link from there to here, surrounded by the img coding and brackets and such. It's a quick way to host-and-post when you're on the run....

I don't think that's purposefully misleading.  As someone mentioned earlier there was a lot of work done to Euclid unrelated to the installation of BRT.  For instance whenever the city reconstructs a street the major utilities jump in and rebuild the lines there because it makes sense to do so while the street is open.  You cannot include those costs as part of this comparison.  From the article:

 

"That’s based on a $50 million price tag for the HealthLine, or strictly the costs of the transit components -- its customized articulated buses, stations and signage – and a calculation that the project leveraged $5.8 billion in transit-oriented development.  Local planners say the Euclid Avenue bus system, which takes passengers from Public Square through University Circle to East Cleveland, had another $150 million in curb and sidewalk work, sewer and water line replacements, and landscaping that involved planting 1,500 trees, among other features. It opened in October 2008." http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/clevelands_healthline_gives_mo.html

 

To me it sounds like the $50M was just for the transit costs...busses and dedicated stations.  That's all you need to run a bus line.  Landscaping is a choice (a good one) but not a necessity, and i'm sure there are BRT lines that are just busses and stations.  RTA and the city (rightfully) chose to go further and complete unrelated sidewalk and curb work, install landscaping, and work with utilities to replace water and sewer lines. 

 

There may be a question of if $50M is all that was spent on the busses and stations...that seems a little low (but I also do not really have knowledge from which to base this feeling), but I do not at all question the rationale of leaving the other expenses out.

 

I don't know if it's purposefully misleading, but it is most definitely misleading.

 

Why?

 

How is a BRT constructed? With an impervious surface -- usually concrete. How is a light rail line typically constructed? With tracks laid atop ballast (gravel-like rocks) that serves as its drainage system.

 

That is an inherent advantage of rail. Its drainage system uses natural absorption of stormwater through the soil and uses the ballast and gravity to quickly send the water downward away from the tracks and into the soil. A BRT's stormwater management and drainage requires more man-made stormwater delivery systems such as storm drains, catch basins, pipes and even retention systems. Those all carry significant costs which this study chose to ignore.

 

That's VERY misleading.

^I did not read the report so I will take your word for this.  If true...how did the PD reporter not catch this and comment on it as it clearly taints the credibilty of the report.  How many other facts are wrong?  This should have been a component of the PD article.

 

Eh, photos in reports like these are usually just space fillers added by a document designer, with very little input from the article authors/researchers.

 

Much more importantly, the big headline "finding" the PD highlighted is pretty much a sham, for all the reasons we've described before. The IDT didn't do any original research here- their goal was just to pull together existing data about all the transit projects they looked at.  So the $5.8B in "TOD Investment" the report shows for the HealthLine is almost definitely just the same laundry list we've criticized in the past.  Specifically, this is the citation for the "TOD Investment" data in the report (fn 2):

 

2. Development data is very difficult to find, therefore we gathered

as much information as was readily available to inform our analysis.

All development data totalled is from the implementation of the

transit service. The sources are: Portland MAX Blue Line LRT,

Interview with Alan Lehto, TriMet, 2012; Cleveland HealthLine BRT,

Interview with Tracey Nichols, Cleveland Department of Economic

Development, 2012;... [Emphasis mine]

TRANSIT DRIVING DEVELOPMENT: "IT'S THE FUTURE"

 

Last week at the 2013 Inner City Economic Summit, Cleveland RTA CEO Joe Calabrese and the City of Cleveland’s Tracey Nichols started the Summit off with a tour of the city’s revitalized Euclid Avenue corridor. Riding along the city’s Bus Rapid Transit system (Calabrese only uses the term “Better Rapid Transit” which should tell you everything you need to know about his intentions), attendees were introduced to the area and given a history of the BRT project’s beginnings and impact. Before going on the tour, it had struck me how uniformly the press had praised the unprecedented development efforts along the 9.8 mile route. After the tour, it’s hard not to come away impressed by aspects of a remarkable turnaround orchestrated in under a decade. Here are 3 notable takeaways from the trip.

 

- See more at: http://www.icic.org/connection/blog-entry/blog-transit-driving-development-its-the-future#sthash.rHLXL7F9.dpuf

TRANSIT DRIVING DEVELOPMENT: "IT'S THE FUTURE"

 

Last week at the 2013 Inner City Economic Summit, Cleveland RTA CEO Joe Calabrese and the City of Cleveland’s Tracey Nichols started the Summit off with a tour of the city’s revitalized Euclid Avenue corridor. Riding along the city’s Bus Rapid Transit system (Calabrese only uses the term “Better Rapid Transit” which should tell you everything you need to know about his intentions), attendees were introduced to the area and given a history of the BRT project’s beginnings and impact. Before going on the tour, it had struck me how uniformly the press had praised the unprecedented development efforts along the 9.8 mile route. After the tour, it’s hard not to come away impressed by aspects of a remarkable turnaround orchestrated in under a decade. Here are 3 notable takeaways from the trip.

 

 

Hate being negative, but I really dislike Joe Calabrese and I really dislike the health-line.  I'm always waiting 15 extra minutes for a bus that the sign in the stop says will arrive in "2 minutes." I always see 2-3 drive by, clumped up behind each other. I can't ever understand the voice that calls off the stops...ugh. Clearly I am personally biased against buses in general, but I don't see "BRT" helping attract young professionals downtown. Wish they had done something different...progress goes so slow.

Welcome to the forum, lolecules. And thanks for your feedback. Don't be a stranger!

So now the Healthline is "responsible for $6 billion in development." Im hearing this more and more, including by Joe Calabrese and several city politicians. So I took a look at some of the numbers that the cite as development.

 

Cleveland Museum of Art - $350,000,000 (how can they even act like the Healthline had any impact on this?)

Cleveland Clinic various projects - $793,000,000

Stokes VA Medical Center - $539,000,000

University Hospitals Case Medical Center - $410,000,000

CSU student center - $55,000,000

CSU garage - $14,000,000 (REALLY?!!!)

CSU law school renovation - $9,000,000

CSU main classroom building - $27,000,000

CSU Euclid Commons - $60,000,000

CSU College of Education building - $36,000,000

 

 

CSU + Cleveland Clinic + VA + Museum of Art + UH = $2,293,000,000 (These numbers only include older projects so new projects numbers aren't included, although they are included in the new $6 billion number)

 

 

East 4th Street - $115,000,000

Terminal Tower Renovation - $40,000,000

Hanna Theatre - 19,200,000

Allen Theatre/Cleveland Playhouse/CSU - $30,000,000

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center - $6,400,000

Mayfield Road Street Improvements - $10,000,000 (hasn't happened yet)

East 120th street rapid station relocation - $10,000,000

 

 

This is just a few.

I always love that they give the HL credit for the VA hospital work that's over half a mile away from it, was planned before the HL broke ground, and isn't currently accessible from the HL by paved sidewalk. Yeah, sure they spent $600 million consolidating the brecksville and wade park VA hospitals because of there is a new bus route half a mile away.

^Valid points although I don't understand the not accessible by paved sidewalk comment.

^Valid points although I don't understand the not accessible by paved sidewalk comment.

There's no sidewalk on 105th or MLK because of the construction.

^you can get off at East Blvd or Ford and complete sidewalks to the VA.  Ford might even be a shorter walk than 105.

Either way, its has no connection to the Healthline development. Its a joke that they include it.

The American Conservative Home

Some Busway Realities

December 19, 2013 by William Lind

Filed under: Car Stop 

 

Arguments in favor of busways as an alternative to rail transit are gathering steam, in part because of the success of Cleveland’s HealthLine, which connects Public Square with University Circle via Euclid Avenue. As a Clevelander, I know some things about the HealthLine and the development it has supposed to have brought that non-natives may not be aware of.

 

First, the reason the HealthLine is a busway instead of a streetcar line is political. The project was undertaken during the administration of President George W. Bush. That administration, which was owned by the oil industry, hated passenger rail, Cleveland knew that if it requested federal funds for any rail project on Euclid, the answer would have been “no.” So it requested a busway instead, and got the money.

 

Shortly before the HealthLine opened, I was given a tour of it. An RTA official, who took me on the tour, told me the above. He made it clear he knew the streetcar would have been better. But a busway – – a real one, not just some lines painted on a street – – was better than nothing, and nothing was the only other option. He added that the busway project had done all the necessary work, such as utility relocation, so converting it to streetcar would be simple, just a matter of laying the track, putting up the overhead and buying some streetcars.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cpt/2013/12/19/some-busway-realities/

^It's that simple?! Buy the CAF LRVs already! LOL....I wouldn't mind some silver CAF streetcars linking DT to University Circle :)

I, as an observer from Chicago of this and other blogs on UrbanOhio, get the impression from this rather extensive thread dating back now several years, that the "HEALTH LINE AIN'T SO HEALTHY!"

 

Is there any regular on this thread who can offer his/her honest opinion on just how well the Health Line has actually performed - as compared to the promises its promoters made?

 

From what I've seen mentioned more than once on this thread, the Health Line BRT seems to be suffering rather extensively from poor operational oversight and management, leading to bus bunching resulting in long waits for service.

Hardly what I'd call a resounding endorsement of at least this particular edition of bus rapid transit.

 

Isn't Cleveland's Health Line being promoted nationwide as THE Rolls-Royce-Level Gold Standard against which all other BRT and light-rail efforts are being measured?

 

I await your comments with bated (not baited) breath!

 

^ I don't think anyone in this forum disagrees with your assessment. You're not exactly making ground braking claims here

The last two posts were moved here from the Red Line/HealthLine extension thread as they deal more with the existing HealthLine than with a possible future extension of it eastward toward Euclid.

I, as an observer from Chicago of this and other blogs on UrbanOhio, get the impression from this rather extensive thread dating back now several years, that the "HEALTH LINE AIN'T SO HEALTHY!"

 

Is there any regular on this thread who can offer his/her honest opinion on just how well the Health Line has actually performed - as compared to the promises its promoters made?

 

From what I've seen mentioned more than once on this thread, the Health Line BRT seems to be suffering rather extensively from poor operational oversight and management, leading to bus bunching resulting in long waits for service.

Hardly what I'd call a resounding endorsement of at least this particular edition of bus rapid transit.

 

Isn't Cleveland's Health Line being promoted nationwide as THE Rolls-Royce-Level Gold Standard against which all other BRT and light-rail efforts are being measured?

 

I await your comments with bated (not baited) breath!

 

As much as we complain about the Healthline's shortcomings, it's only somewhat below expectations.

• It is faster than a regular bus.
  
• It is convenient to have a line with a frequency high enough that I don't have to pay attention to the schedule.
  
• It does have a higher capacity than a bus.
  
• It is easier to cross a lane of traffic to a HL station than to climb a flight of stairs to a Red Line station.
  
• I'm sure some developments in the area chose Euclid Ave at least partially because of the HL.
  

 

That said, it's not as big of an improvement as we hoped.

• It is slower than a rail line.
  
• The busses do bunch up.
  
• If you're waiting in cold weather, the stations don't keep rain/snow/wind off of you.
  
• If the busses are bunching, it takes longer than it should for the next one to come.
  
• If the busses are bunching, the first one to come will not have enough room.
  
• The lights that are supposed to give the busses priority don't seem to do so.
  
• The number of developments that chose Euclid even partially because of the HL has been greatly exhagerated (to put it mildly).
  

 

Is it the Rolls Royce of BRT? No, but it's not the Pinto of BRT either.

Is the 60ft articulated bus the longest articulated bus available for purchase?

They make bi-articulated up to 100ft. The healthline's platforms would never be able to handle that though.

The American Conservative Home

Some Busway Realities

December 19, 2013 by William Lind

Filed under: Car Stop 

 

Arguments in favor of busways as an alternative to rail transit are gathering steam, in part because of the success of Cleveland’s HealthLine, which connects Public Square with University Circle via Euclid Avenue. As a Clevelander, I know some things about the HealthLine and the development it has supposed to have brought that non-natives may not be aware of.

 

First, the reason the HealthLine is a busway instead of a streetcar line is political. The project was undertaken during the administration of President George W. Bush. That administration, which was owned by the oil industry, hated passenger rail, Cleveland knew that if it requested federal funds for any rail project on Euclid, the answer would have been “no.” So it requested a busway instead, and got the money.

 

Shortly before the HealthLine opened, I was given a tour of it. An RTA official, who took me on the tour, told me the above. He made it clear he knew the streetcar would have been better. But a busway – – a real one, not just some lines painted on a street – – was better than nothing, and nothing was the only other option. He added that the busway project had done all the necessary work, such as utility relocation, so converting it to streetcar would be simple, just a matter of laying the track, putting up the overhead and buying some streetcars.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cpt/2013/12/19/some-busway-realities/

 

Not too bad of an article, but a cautionary note:  Calling Bill Lind a "conservative" is a lot like calling Art McCoy a "black activist".  He might be right from time to time, but he's kind of out there....

The American Conservative Home

Some Busway Realities

December 19, 2013 by William Lind

 

Not too bad of an article, but a cautionary note:  Calling Bill Lind a "conservative" is a lot like calling Art McCoy a "black activist".  He might be right from time to time, but he's kind of out there....

Regardless of his "conservativeness", his best point is in his last paragraph...

Some busway advocates no doubt really believe they can do as much for urban redevelopment as rail transit – - again, an unproven assertion. But many remain closet advocates for continued automobile domination. They know rail transit compete successfully with automobiles, while buses usually cannot. They push buses instead of rail because their real loyalty (sometimes connected to their pocketbooks) is to cars. That game has been going on since the 1920s, and urbanists should not let themselves fall for it. The proven case remains clear: if you want to get people out of their cars, give them rail.

They make bi-articulated up to 100ft. The healthline's platforms would never be able to handle that though.

The red line stations are mainly fit for 2-3 trains, but people on here said they could easily be extended with construction, could the same be said for the HL stations.  I ask because the 60ft HL busses aren't nearly enough they are crowded to the max capacity often.