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.

 

there Are limits to the length of a bus.

 

The short one is 60ft long  fits 120 persons

 

The longer one is 98ft long and fits 190 persons vs the 100 person on the healthline.

 

 

then there is the practical issue of standing on a bus vs standing on a train, it is much easier to safely stand on a train than to stand on a bus. 

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.

 

there Are limits to the length of a bus.

 

The short one is 60ft long  fits 120 persons

 

The longer one is 98ft long and fits 190 persons vs the 100 person on the healthline.

 

 

then there is the practical issue of standing on a bus vs standing on a train, it is much easier to safely stand on a train than to stand on a bus.

Do you know how long the platforms are and if they are too short to accommodate the 98ft bus if they could be extended?

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....

 

Lind is very much a conservative.  He was the right-hand man of the late Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of the neo-conservative movement.  He was an editor of Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation which studied transit, among other things… Lind, like Weyrich, just happened to be a couple of odd-balls viz their fellow conservatives (but only in the area of transit), in that they believe(d) quality mass transit, notably rail, actually assisted, not hindered, a free market economy because it facilitated effective movement in and around cities.  Weyrich could never understand why his fellow conservatives just don’t get it…  Most conservatives (E. Roc probably among them) wrongheadedly believe that rail transit unduly expensive (while loving the goo-gobbs spent own roads and highway expansion) and that rail somehow impinges on individual’s freedom while facilitating social engineering by empowering poor and minorities who don’t own cars.

 

… btw, I think Lind’s take on BRT is spot on.

 

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.

 

there Are limits to the length of a bus.

 

The short one is 60ft long  fits 120 persons

 

The longer one is 98ft long and fits 190 persons vs the 100 person on the healthline.

 

 

then there is the practical issue of standing on a bus vs standing on a train, it is much easier to safely stand on a train than to stand on a bus.

Do you know how long the platforms are and if they are too short to accommodate the 98ft bus if they could be extended?

 

The limit isn't the length of the platforms but the position of the doors, in relation to the shelter portals.  Lucky for us the doors on these vehicles are customizable.

 

Lind is very much a conservative.  He was the right-hand man of the late Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of the neo-conservative movement.  He was an editor of Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation which studied transit, among other things… Linn, like Weyrich, just happened to be a couple of odd-balls viz their fellow conservatives (but only in the area of transit), in that they believe(d) quality mass transit, notably rail, actually assisted, not hindered, a free market economy because it facilitated effective movement in and around cities.  Weyrich could never understand why his fellow conservatives just don’t get it…  Most conservatives (E. Roc probably among them) wrongheadedly believe that rail transit unduly expensive (while loving the goo-gobbs spent own roads and highway expansion) and that rail somehow impinges on individual’s freedom while facilitating social engineering by empowering poor and minorities who don’t own cars.

 

Ummm, where to begin?

 

Much depends on the meaning of the word "conservative".  Lind is actually a strong believer in communitarianism and cultural collectivism in particular, indeed he's even accepting of the term "Cultural Marxist".  Weyrich was always a cultural collectivist who believed in using the power of government to control the culture.  He never bought into the Reagan Administration's llibertarian attitude towards same, and having been involved in the movement during that era I can tell you than firsthand. 

 

By the way, good hedge on the "probably".  I've long said that rail is better than buses for mass transportation.  What I oppose is predominantly radial routing plans, particularly when the "hub" is on the outer edge of the region. 

There is no "hub" on the outer edge of the region.  No one destination in Greater Cleveland is nearly as rich in transit trip generation as Downtown.  Even the closest runners up are so spread out and pedestrian unfriendly that they would punch below their weight as transit trip generators.  Transit requires density on at least one side of the trip, and only Downtown, and to a lesser extent University Circle offer anything like the density required.

There is no "hub" on the outer edge of the region.  No one destination in Greater Cleveland is nearly as rich in transit trip generation as Downtown.  Even the closest runners up are so spread out and pedestrian unfriendly that they would punch below their weight as transit trip generators.  Transit requires density on at least one side of the trip, and only Downtown, and to a lesser extent University Circle offer anything like the density required.

 

Nevertheless, it is geographically on the edge of the region, and that means that using it as a hub leads to a lot of sharply angled trips.  Which often much more than doubles travel times versus using a car. 

 

The traditional transit models require density, but if sprawl doesn't go away, your system loses relevance (except as a de facto social program) and that leads to a potential loss of funding.

 

 

There is no "hub" on the outer edge of the region.  No one destination in Greater Cleveland is nearly as rich in transit trip generation as Downtown.  Even the closest runners up are so spread out and pedestrian unfriendly that they would punch below their weight as transit trip generators.  Transit requires density on at least one side of the trip, and only Downtown, and to a lesser extent University Circle offer anything like the density required.

 

AND SHAKER SQUARE.

There is no "hub" on the outer edge of the region.  No one destination in Greater Cleveland is nearly as rich in transit trip generation as Downtown.  Even the closest runners up are so spread out and pedestrian unfriendly that they would punch below their weight as transit trip generators.  Transit requires density on at least one side of the trip, and only Downtown, and to a lesser extent University Circle offer anything like the density required.

 

AND SHAKER SQUARE.

 

The never ending struggle of letting people know the east side exists!  :-P (Not aimed at you X!)

There is no "hub" on the outer edge of the region.  No one destination in Greater Cleveland is nearly as rich in transit trip generation as Downtown.  Even the closest runners up are so spread out and pedestrian unfriendly that they would punch below their weight as transit trip generators.  Transit requires density on at least one side of the trip, and only Downtown, and to a lesser extent University Circle offer anything like the density required.

 

AND SHAKER SQUARE.

 

The never ending struggle of letting people know the east side exists!  :P (Not aimed at you X!)

The American Conservative Home

Some Busway Realities by William Lind

... 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.

That was embarrassingly simplistic.

 

Further: I can't take anybody seriously who uses the word "collectivist".

So Joe Calabrese was at RTA Transit Series (whatever that is) and was talking up BRT. Some transit guy from North Carolina was tweeting what he was saying and GCRTA was retweeting him like crazy. Here are some of his posts...  :roll:

 

Joe Milazzo II ‏@RTATriangle

#RTATransitSeries session three underway, Joe Calabrese @gcrta providing an overview of the #Healthline #brt pic.twitter.com/n35BXy8LC1

 

In Cleveland, BRT stands for "Better Rapid Transit." HealthLine is a combination of both bus and rail #RTATransitSeries

 

"It's not a bus, it's not a train, it's the future." - Joe Calabrese on @GCRTA #brt #RTATransitSeries

 

Current economic development as a result of the @GCRTA #HealthLine is more than $5 billion #RTATransitSeries

 

Q: How is BRT so much cheaper than rail? Calabrese: Major factor is flexibility of BRT, work around utilities etc #RTATransitSeries

 

"You can wish for rail forever or build BRT in 3-5 years." - Joe Calabrese, @GCRTA #RTATransitSeries

 

Q: Would the HealthLine ever convert to rail? Calabrese: Cleveland population would have to double or triple. #RTATransitSeries

"You can wish for rail forever or build BRT in 3-5 years." - Joe Calabrese, @GCRTA #RTATransitSeries

 

And that's the big reason why Joe loves BRT. I hear this all the time from other GCRTA staff. They are tired of doing rail extension studies for all corners of the rail system and not getting data favorable to extending them as rail. They hate doing all these studies without ending up doing something.

It would have to double or triple? Even though the busses become so crowded that people are pushed to the doors due to a lack of space? Seems like either RTA needs longer articulated busses or needs to SERIOUSLY look at streetcars.

It would have to double or triple? Even though the busses become so crowded that people are pushed to the doors due to a lack of space? Seems like either RTA needs longer articulated busses or needs to SERIOUSLY look at streetcars.

 

Maybe if he actually road it he would realize everything is not perfect. The busses need some work. Some bars are coming loose, the ramps dont work, the horns don't work on all busses (dangerous!!!), the exteriors are scratched up, etc. And I know its winter but a cleaning wouldnt hurt every once in awhile.

 

And ignoring all of the other performance issues I wont bring up in this post, the busses do get extremely overcrowded. Its been so bad where people cant get on and have to wait for the next bus, which is just as packed. Maybe if it was his primary route he'd think it was a bigger concern. Instead he goes around painting a golden image of the Healthline while ignoring the real issues.

 

BTW, the healthline has higher per mile ridership than all Cleveland rail lines combined. It needs a higher capacity.

As far as overcrowding goes, I've personally rarely seen the bus turn people away. The bigger issue seems to be that people stand in front of the doors making it harder to get on/off which slows down each stop. IMO that means the design needs work, though I'm not sure how to fix this short of adding another set of doors which would require longer busses or removing seats which wouldn't be a popular fix.

 

Another solution to the crowding might be to use the same busses on the 9 (or one of the other routes that feeds the HL) and run it all the way down Euclid. It could take some of the ridership that's traveling between UC and downtown thus freeing up space and improving timeliness since we know they can't add more busses due to the bunching issue.

 

I'll also add as another pet peave of mine with it that the automated announcements don't work half the time and drivers don't make the announcements either. In the mornings when it's still dark out it's hard to tell what stop you're at unless you're really paying attention. The LED signs could show this (and do occasionally), but they only seem to only display "stop requested" 15 times for each stop instead.

 

"You can wish for rail forever or build BRT in 3-5 years." - Joe Calabrese, @GCRTA #RTATransitSeries

And that's the big reason why Joe loves BRT. I hear this all the time from other GCRTA staff. They are tired of doing rail extension studies for all corners of the rail system and not getting data favorable to extending them as rail. They hate doing all these studies without ending up doing something.

Have they studied rail through Lakewood, you know, the most dense neighborhood in their service area? Seems like it would be the first place I'd study.

Have they studied rail through Lakewood, you know, the most dense neighborhood in their service area? Seems like it would be the first place I'd study.

 

Amen!

From the Atlantic Cities: "Why More U.S. Cities Need to Embrace Bus-Rapid Transit"

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/02/why-more-us-cities-need-embrace-bus-rapid-transit/8480/

 

Doesn't specifically mention the HealthLine, but Cleveland is featured in the main picture at the top of the article.

^ According to the article, despite zero rail expansion, 9 out of 10 cities had a larger increase in rail ridership (or less of a decrease) between 2001 and 2012. His conclusion? Increase funding and expansion of bus lines. :-o Here is a crazy idea. How about shifting funding to transportation options that are actually growing, instead of throwing good money after bad? Proper BRT isn't cheap either. The often praised Healthline was hugely expensive.

 

From the article:

The following chart, compiled with data from the American Public Transportation Association, shows that of ten U.S. cities that had rail systems in 2001 that have not since been significantly expanded, only one (Buffalo) had faster growth in ridership on its buses than its rail lines:

 

From Model D: "BRT in Cleveland: No mistake by the lake"

 

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/brtincleveland3414.aspx

 

The article is about a group from Detroit traveling to Cleveland to check out the Healthline. The conclusion of the piece is that Detroit should be looking to Cleveland as a model for how to grow public transit. Always good to read complementary pieces about Cleveland, but I think the article gave us too much credit. Some lines I found a bit humorous: 

 

"A word that accurately describes Cleveland's transit network, of which the HealthLine is only a small piece, is "robust." "

 

"Four commuter rail lines that link suburbs with the central city..."

 

"Yet Cleveland (as a region, not just a central city) chose a different fate than Detroit--one in which the region embraced and invested in public transit.

 

"What Cleveland is doing is more innovative than anywhere in the U.S."

 

 

I think Cleveland does a number of things well with transit, but these accolades only make sense when taken in the context that they are coming from someone from Detroit. Otherwise, they seem a bit silly.

 

 

From Model D: "BRT in Cleveland: No mistake by the lake"

 

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/brtincleveland3414.aspx

 

The article is about a group from Detroit traveling to Cleveland to check out the Healthline. The conclusion of the piece is that Detroit should be looking to Cleveland as a model for how to grow public transit. Always good to read complementary pieces about Cleveland, but I think the article gave us too much credit. Some lines I found a bit humorous: 

 

"A word that accurately describes Cleveland's transit network, of which the HealthLine is only a small piece, is "robust." "

 

"Four commuter rail lines that link suburbs with the central city..."

 

"Yet Cleveland (as a region, not just a central city) chose a different fate than Detroit--one in which the region embraced and invested in public transit.

 

"What Cleveland is doing is more innovative than anywhere in the U.S."

 

 

I think Cleveland does a number of things well with transit, but these accolades only make sense when taken in the context that they are coming from someone from Detroit. Otherwise, they seem a bit silly.

 

That was hard to read.

From Model D: "BRT in Cleveland: No mistake by the lake"

 

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/brtincleveland3414.aspx

 

The article is about a group from Detroit traveling to Cleveland to check out the Healthline. The conclusion of the piece is that Detroit should be looking to Cleveland as a model for how to grow public transit. Always good to read complementary pieces about Cleveland, but I think the article gave us too much credit. Some lines I found a bit humorous: 

 

"A word that accurately describes Cleveland's transit network, of which the HealthLine is only a small piece, is "robust." "

 

"Four commuter rail lines that link suburbs with the central city..."

 

"Yet Cleveland (as a region, not just a central city) chose a different fate than Detroit--one in which the region embraced and invested in public transit.

 

"What Cleveland is doing is more innovative than anywhere in the U.S."

 

 

I think Cleveland does a number of things well with transit, but these accolades only make sense when taken in the context that they are coming from someone from Detroit. Otherwise, they seem a bit silly.

 

"At Least We're Not Detroit"?

"The growth has been in what we call 'choice ridership'--people who could otherwise drive," said GCRTA's Joseph Shaffer, who also noted that the HealthLine is nearing its peak daily capacity.

 

Is this really true?  I see from the schedule that the buses run about every 7 minutes most of the day.  We have large swatches of Euclid throughout midtown that are either vacant or underdeveloped.  Where does the Healthline go from where it is (if it's currently nearing its peak capacity) if midtown ever gets on its feet? 

 

 

"The growth has been in what we call 'choice ridership'--people who could otherwise drive," said GCRTA's Joseph Shaffer, who also noted that the HealthLine is nearing its peak daily capacity.

 

Is this really true?  I see from the schedule that the buses run about every 7 minutes most of the day.  We have large swatches of Euclid throughout midtown that are either vacant or underdeveloped.  Where does the Healthline go from where it is (if it's currently nearing its peak capacity) if midtown ever gets on its feet? 

 

 

 

Conversion to LRT?

"The growth has been in what we call 'choice ridership'--people who could otherwise drive," said GCRTA's Joseph Shaffer, who also noted that the HealthLine is nearing its peak daily capacity.

 

Is this really true?  I see from the schedule that the buses run about every 7 minutes most of the day.  We have large swatches of Euclid throughout midtown that are either vacant or underdeveloped.  Where does the Healthline go from where it is (if it's currently nearing its peak capacity) if midtown ever gets on its feet? 

 

 

 

Conversion to LRT?

 

I imagine they would build an elevated busway above Euclid and run twice as many BRT vehicles down it as they already do.  :evil:

For anyone coming from the westside heading to the Clinic, Case, or UH, the health line is consistently 10-15 minutes faster than the red line. Many people (myself included) get off at tower city and transfer to the health line.

I imagine they would build an elevated busway above Euclid and run twice as many BRT vehicles down it as they already do.  :evil:

 

Nice!

 

For anyone coming from the westside heading to the Clinic, Case, or UH, the health line is consistently 10-15 minutes faster than the red line. Many people (myself included) get off at tower city and transfer to the health line.

 

Imagine how much faster it would be if you didn't have to transfer.

Is this due to the elimination of walking from the red line station to the destination?  In my experience, the actual vehicle trip is much shorter on the red line (it reaches higher speeds and has fewer stops).  When I was taking night classes at CSU, if I missed a healthline bus going east to university station/stokes, I would hike to tower city to catch the red line instead of waiting for the next healthline.  Maybe they have streamlined the service since I last rode.

Maybe not for the clinic due to walking time, but for UH and Case it is extremely faster to use the Red Line. Usually half the time. The new little italy station will make things even better. I use the healthline often due to the Red Line only having one downtown station and it is very slow. Extremely unreliable too with busses showing up completely at random. The "next bus" signs at the station also give meaningless information. You will see 4 busses in a row backed up and then not see another one for 15 minutes. And this is during the time when it should have 5 minute intervals. The Red Line is usually right on time in my experience and makes for much better planning. Also takes about 15 to 17 minutes to get downtown compared to the 40+ minute healthline.

 

...GCRTA's Joseph Shaffer, who also noted that the HealthLine is nearing its peak daily capacity.

 

Which is funny since the other joe said "Cleveland population would have to double or triple." in order for them to convert it to rail.

 

Although rail would be great and probably attract more development and be quieter (the busses sound terrible), it would still face all of the same speed/time issues. It would make things less packed which would be a huge plus but would fail as a transportation mode due to slow speeds.

The cheapest way to increase HL capacity may be to eliminate a few stops and talk the city into eliminating a few traffic light to improve operating speeds. There are way too many stops and lights for "rapid" transit.

For anyone coming from the westside heading to the Clinic, Case, or UH, the health line is consistently 10-15 minutes faster than the red line. Many people (myself included) get off at tower city and transfer to the health line.

 

For the Clinic, I would agree since the HL puts you right at the door of CC, as opposed to a several blocks walk from the Quincy-E. 105 stop and the intervening neighborhood is somewhat sketchy. 

 

However, I seriously question your statement regarding Case (the old CIT campus) as well as UH, where the current/rebuilding U.Circle station is only 3 blocks from the door... and the new, relocating Little Italy/UC/Mayfield station is only 2 blocks away from UH's core...  The Little Italy station will also be closer to the old WRU/College of Women campus which includes, Weatherhead and Law School. 

 

The Red Line is a straight shot, as in no transfers, from the West Side, unlike the HL.  Plus, it's MUCH faster.  I timed 2 HL trips to/from Public Sq. to Uptown, at about 3-3:30p on a weekday.  The trips took 26 and 31 minutes.  The last time I rode the Red Line from Tower City to University Circle, it was only a 12 minute ride, including the slow, front-door-only E. 105th St. stop.  So I don't see how the Health Line is faster.  In fact, both the transfer and the ride itself, would actually make it quite slower.

 

Although rail would be great and probably attract more development and be quieter (the busses sound terrible), it would still face all of the same speed/time issues. It would make things less packed which would be a huge plus but would fail as a transportation mode due to slow speeds.

 

I disagree DM4.  By its larger, more obtrusive (than buses) nature, a rail line would half to eliminate many of the current HL stops, preferably 1/3 in my book.  Secondly, because of the fixed nature of rail tracks, there would be fewer pedestrians crossing the ROW than there are of the current HL's.  Also, I would have to believe that, in accord with this, a number of cross streets would be eliminated: dead ending into Euclid whereby crossing traffic would have to travel several blocks to a main intersection to cross Euclid and the rail tracks ...

 

... Yeah, I know the HL to LRT conversion is a tired old argument, and not likely to happen anytime soon.  But I have to believe there will come a time, esp. given the factors noted now, namely HL's at-capacity current status in light of the large swaths of underdevelopment/no development in the corridor.

 

I think DM4 is correct. The running time probably wouldn't change much vs BRT and there's no guarantee the number of stops would be significantly reduced or streets eliminated. Those would be strikes against rail -- unless a streetcar were operated instead of BRT.

For anyone coming from the westside heading to the Clinic, Case, or UH, the health line is consistently 10-15 minutes faster than the red line. Many people (myself included) get off at tower city and transfer to the health line.

 

For the Clinic, I would agree since the HL puts you right at the door of CC, as opposed to a several blocks walk from the Quincy-E. 105 stop and the intervening neighborhood is somewhat sketchy. 

 

However, I seriously question your statement regarding Case (the old CIT campus) as well as UH, where the current/rebuilding U.Circle station is only 3 blocks from the door... and the new, relocating Little Italy/UC/Mayfield station is only 2 blocks away from UH's core...  The Little Italy station will also be closer to the old WRU/College of Women campus which includes, Weatherhead and Law School. 

 

The Red Line is a straight shot, as in no transfers, from the West Side, unlike the HL.  Plus, it's MUCH faster.  I timed 2 HL trips to/from Public Sq. to Uptown, at about 3-3:30p on a weekday.  The trips took 26 and 31 minutes.  The last time I rode the Red Line from Tower City to University Circle, it was only a 12 minute ride, including the slow, front-door-only E. 105th St. stop.  So I don't see how the Health Line is faster.  In fact, both the transfer and the ride itself, would actually make it quite slower.

 

 

That long?  It really did replace the "6" then.

 

WBITD, I could swear it took less than 20 minutes to get from Thwing to E. 9th street on Euclid Avenue on the express #9.  This was opposite of the rush hour flow, but then again the BRT is supposed to be more or less exempt from traffic considerations.

 

The way I remember it, if I was going to 9th and at White Building (south part of Case Quad) it was slightly quicker to take the Rapid, the opposite if at Thwing.  The new station will drastically alter that equation, of course.

The cheapest way to increase HL capacity may be to eliminate a few stops and talk the city into eliminating a few traffic light to improve operating speeds. There are way too many stops and lights for "rapid" transit.

I found it amusing that in the HL extension study to Euclid one of the official reports used the HL as an example of successful BRT, but then the next page described ideal station spacing as 1/2 a mile. I think I literally laughed out loud. The HL might work a lot better if the stops were 1/2 a mile apart.

"The growth has been in what we call 'choice ridership'--people who could otherwise drive," said GCRTA's Joseph Shaffer, who also noted that the HealthLine is nearing its peak daily capacity.

 

Is this really true?  I see from the schedule that the buses run about every 7 minutes most of the day.  We have large swatches of Euclid throughout midtown that are either vacant or underdeveloped.  Where does the Healthline go from where it is (if it's currently nearing its peak capacity) if midtown ever gets on its feet?

 

 

You move to a light rail, but more specifically a Streetcar, within a dedicated Transit Way.

 

There are limits to frequency due to the ROW and limits to capacity due to the vehicles being used.

 

Limts to Frequency:

 

due to having cross streets you limit how frequently service can be run.

 

example:

 

If you run a peak 7 min frequency, in a perfect system you would have one vehicle hitting each intersection every 3.5 minutes,  (one eastbound and one west bound)

 

It may take at least 90 seconds for the light to Cycle through and come back to a Green for Euclid  and some light like East 14th street can take even longer.

 

The lesson learned from LA BRT system and to an extent their Light rail system is that your limit for frequency on non-grade separated transit is ~5 mins.

 

the problem with the Healthline is that they are running buses at shorter head ways because they have Capacity issues.  

 

which brings me to

limits to capacity

 

The Healthline is a bus with 50 seats, but more importantly It isn't designed in a way that Facilitates Standees. it is listed as having space for 50 standees At 6 persons per Sq Meter of Floor space.  this when translated to a more ccurate 4 Persons per Square meter means 33 Standees per bus. total capacity of only 83 persons.

 

To make it worse crowded buses take longer at each stop, as they wait for riders to fight to get on and to get off of the vehicles. The optimum design for a high capacity vehicle is as much subway style seating as possible to provide wider Aisles and more room for standees and wider doors to speed boarding.

 

the way to overcome capacity issues is A) use more vehicles B) use higher capacity vehicles.

 

RTA has to run more buses than than the busway can efficiently handle at peak times to overcome the capacity issues of the vehicle they selected to provide service.

 

The solution is A) move to longer buses (90ft vs 60ft) B) upgrade the system to light Rail (Streetcar in dedicated Lanes)

 

A) would work if the government would allow for longer articulated buses, and it can be proven to be safe to use in a mixed traffic environment.

 

B) would work better because it solves the capacity issues and can share Replacement vehicles with the light rail Fleet, and provides opportunity for Value capture to fund the conversion to rail.

 

The cheapest way to increase HL capacity may be to eliminate a few stops and talk the city into eliminating a few traffic light to improve operating speeds. There are way too many stops and lights for "rapid" transit.

 

The stops are not the problem IMO its the lack of capacity due to the Type of vehicle chosen.

 

The Stop spacing on the HL is roughly the same as the stop spacing on the Green and Blue lines.

 

Like you said, the reality is the Healthline is no more a Rapid than the blue/green line is east of Shaker Square.

 

For anyone coming from the westside heading to the Clinic, Case, or UH, the health line is consistently 10-15 minutes faster than the red line. Many people (myself included) get off at tower city and transfer to the health line.

 

For the Clinic, I would agree since the HL puts you right at the door of CC, as opposed to a several blocks walk from the Quincy-E. 105 stop and the intervening neighborhood is somewhat sketchy. 

 

However, I seriously question your statement regarding Case (the old CIT campus) as well as UH, where the current/rebuilding U.Circle station is only 3 blocks from the door... and the new, relocating Little Italy/UC/Mayfield station is only 2 blocks away from UH's core...  The Little Italy station will also be closer to the old WRU/College of Women campus which includes, Weatherhead and Law School. 

 

The thing to remember is that every building is UC is oriented towards Euclid ave, hat is where the Front doors are, If you are  going to an institution in UC can take the Redline, but may still have to walk to Euclid to access your final destination.

 

The Red Line is a straight shot, as in no transfers, from the West Side, unlike the HL.  Plus, it's MUCH faster.  I timed 2 HL trips to/from Public Sq. to Uptown, at about 3-3:30p on a weekday.  The trips took 26 and 31 minutes.  The last time I rode the Red Line from Tower City to University Circle, it was only a 12 minute ride, including the slow, front-door-only E. 105th St. stop.  So I don't see how the Health Line is faster.  In fact, both the transfer and the ride itself, would actually make it quite slower.

 

the Healthline is more convenient for riders to use, and it involves less walking, and for most people trading 10 minute walk and 15 minute ride for a 5 minute walk and  25  minute ride is a no brainier.

 

Healthline access to UC .5 mile radius from Line.

 

Reline access to UC ( after Little Italy station is moved.) .5 mile radius from stop.

 

The advantage of surface transit is the access to the front doors of businesses and jobs, closer stop spacing helps develop corridors, while greater stop spacing helps develop nodes, the catch is the further from the stop the development is the smaller the impact Transit will have on that development. 

 

In a back to the future moment I think a light Rail Subway from East 101st to East 118th street (1 mile) would do wonders for the speed of the health line in UC, unfortunately the cost would be 170-290 million dollars.

 

^But you are ignoring the walk and transfer (lag) time transferring from the Health Line from the Red Line (remember, he said he was a West Side Red Line rider accessing CC, UC and CWRU).  Depending on the time of day or, simply bunching/non-bunching of HL buses, my time lag in just riding to CSU on the Health Line has been from 8 to 25 mins (and it was just my luck that the 25 min wait was in the winter cold last year).  I acknowledged that the HL is the better choice in going to Cleveland Clinic generally since it's directly on the HL. 

 

Whether one is dropped at the "front door" or "back door" is irrelevant -- it's time taken getting from vehicle to destination is what matters.  Also, you can't make a blanket statement about walk time and a person's desire to walk.  People walk at different speeds and, often depending on age and ambulatory ability, some prefer a good walk - just so long as it's not in an unsafe area or ridiculously long, while others don't -- that latter group will probably drive anyway.  The imperfect situation between the University Circle Red Line station and UC has existed for years and, yet, tons of West Siders commute to UC and Case via the Red Line, so your premise just doesn't hold up.  Moreover, studies have shown that commuters tend to be more turned off to transit if they are forced to transfer, esp from bus to rail, to complete their trips, as opposed to experiencing a one seat ride.  So again, your premise of Health Line superiority to West Siders over the straight shot via the Red Line is not valid.  And, again, the soon-to-be-relocated UC/Little Italy station will make the Red Line even more attractive to UC and (some Case) commuters. 

^btw, when the wait for the HL at either end of my Tower City-to-CSU trips are too long, I've learned to hop the "E Line" trolleys to complete my journey.  The trolleys are just as quick, if not quicker than HL buses, less crowded ... and more fun!

^btw, when the wait for the HL at either end of my Tower City-to-CSU trips are too long, I've learned to hop the "E Line" trolleys to complete my journey.  The trolleys are just as quick, if not quicker than HL buses, less crowded ... and more fun!

If only they stopped at the same side of the street you could wait in one spot and just take whichever came first.

^But you are ignoring the walk and transfer (lag) time transferring from the Health Line from the Red Line (remember, he said he was a West Side Red Line rider accessing CC, UC and CWRU).  Depending on the time of day or, simply bunching/non-bunching of HL buses, my time lag in just riding to CSU on the Health Line has been from 8 to 25 mins (and it was just my luck that the 25 min wait was in the winter cold last year).  I acknowledged that the HL is the better choice in going to Cleveland Clinic generally since it's directly on the HL. 

 

Whether one is dropped at the "front door" or "back door" is irrelevant -- it's time taken getting from vehicle to destination is what matters.  Also, you can't make a blanket statement about walk time and a person's desire to walk.  People walk at different speeds and, often depending on age and ambulatory ability, some prefer a good walk - just so long as it's not in an unsafe area or ridiculously long, while others don't -- that latter group will probably drive anyway.  The imperfect situation between the University Circle Red Line station and UC has existed for years and, yet, tons of West Siders commute to UC and Case via the Red Line, so your premise just doesn't hold up.  Moreover, studies have shown that commuters tend to be more turned off to transit if they are forced to transfer, esp from bus to rail, to complete their trips, as opposed to experiencing a one seat ride.  So again, your premise of Health Line superiority to West Siders over the straight shot via the Red Line is not valid.  And, again, the soon-to-be-relocated UC/Little Italy station will make the Red Line even more attractive to UC and (some Case) commuters. 

 

Great post.  As someone making that commute daily for over 5 years, if you're coming from the west side, the HealthLine is great for going to the Clinic, and the Red Line is better if your destination is UH or somewhere on the Case Quad.  Period.  That will only be more true once the new UC stations are completed.

 

To build off the point about transfer time, at rush hour there is always a Circle Link shuttle waiting at the UC Red Line station when the trains arrive.  It's absolutely seamless, and a ton of people take the shuttle to their final destination.  Transferring to the HealthLine downtown is nowhere near as smooth.

The cheapest way to increase HL capacity may be to eliminate a few stops and talk the city into eliminating a few traffic light to improve operating speeds. There are way too many stops and lights for "rapid" transit.

 

The stops are not the problem IMO its the lack of capacity due to the Type of vehicle chosen.

 

The Stop spacing on the HL is roughly the same as the stop spacing on the Green and Blue lines.

 

Like you said, the reality is the Healthline is no more a Rapid than the blue/green line is east of Shaker Square.

 

Actually, no, stop spacing on the HL is significantly tighter than on the blue/green line east of SS, by a tenth of mile or even more. More importantly, most Blue/Green line riders also ride on the segment west of Shaker Square, which has incredibly far-spaced stops and a completely separate ROW, leading to a relative quick total journey.  The average stop spacing for a typical Blue/Green Line journey is much wider than a typical HL journey. That's what makes it viable rapid transit over such a long distance for suburban commuters.

 

It's true that frequent stops on the HL mean reduced walking time and the potential for attracting riders, but at a certain point, it's at the cost of service quality and route capacity for such a long route. The slow average speed means fewer route completions per driver/vehicle hour so higher operating costs per service mile.  Removing intersections and stations should (hopefully) allow slightly reduced headways so the savings in driver/vehicle hours can be plowed back into more frequency.

 

Since we're unlikely to see longer vehicles or rail conversions anytime soon, I think we need to look for some shorter term, incremental improvements to boost capacity and service quality.  For riders going hub to hub, it's a pretty grueling ride currently.

I take the healthline often and time my trip almost every time. Consistently the trip between MOCA/Uptown and Playhouse Square takes between 30 to 40 minutes.

 

If the Red Line had more downtown stops I would never take the Healthline, which is a shame since it has more convenient stations. Additionally the lack of a true schedule makes waiting for the healthline a pain, especially in poor weather. I always seem to wait 15 minutes for the next bus which is not pleasant during winter, especially when combined with the long trip time. At least the redline is usually right on schedule so you can better plan your commute.

^But you are ignoring the walk and transfer (lag) time transferring from the Health Line from the Red Line (remember, he said he was a West Side Red Line rider accessing CC, UC and CWRU).  Depending on the time of day or, simply bunching/non-bunching of HL buses, my time lag in just riding to CSU on the Health Line has been from 8 to 25 mins (and it was just my luck that the 25 min wait was in the winter cold last year).  I acknowledged that the HL is the better choice in going to Cleveland Clinic generally since it's directly on the HL. 

 

you can argue about what we think it should be but going from Downtown to UC in the morning is a Reverse Commute i.e. less crowded that west bound peak HL. It seems people are Willing to sacrifice Time savigns for a more less of a walk. this should not be a surprise people do the same thing when they look for Parking spaces, prioritize convince (look for a closer space) over Time, (look for the First open space).

 

In the winter the choice is A) wait in the Cold for the healthline B) medium length  walk through Unshoveled Sidewalks from the Red line station to a location in UC.  If your were right you would see more people using the redline to get the UC. consider the fact that the HL easily exceeds Red line ridership between downtown and Windermere, it is slower but far more convenient to use.

 

Whether one is dropped at the "front door" or "back door" is irrelevant -- it's time taken getting from vehicle to destination is what matters.  Also, you can't make a blanket statement about walk time and a person's desire to walk.  People walk at different speeds and, often depending on age and ambulatory ability, some prefer a good walk - just so long as it's not in an unsafe area or ridiculously long, while others don't -- that latter group will probably drive anyway.  The imperfect situation between the University Circle Red Line station and UC has existed for years and, yet, tons of West Siders commute to UC and Case via the Red Line, so your premise just doesn't hold up.

 

 

It isn't irrelevant if the only open doors are in the front of the building, in that case it is very relevant. In many case visitors Are not allowed to enter the back doors of buildings. from an economic development POV people entering though back door does nothing to help uptown, or other retailers that have taken root on Euclid.  the best example of horrible Economic development resulting from building away from the street is Playhouse Square, where they built a gerbil tube with parking that takes people away from Euclid not to Euclid. This is reason why they have such a horrible business failure rate in that area they made people walk though the back door. 

 

think about DC or NYC where those subway portal are businesses follow, it not to say you cannot develop retail along access to Red line stations, but They are developing major destinations on Euclid right now. and this is the natural location for people to want to go.

 

Moreover, studies have shown that commuters tend to be more turned off to transit if they are forced to transfer, esp from bus to rail, to complete their trips, as opposed to experiencing a one seat ride.  So again, your premise of Health Line superiority to West Siders over the straight shot via the Red Line is not valid.  And, again, the soon-to-be-relocated UC/Little Italy station will make the Red Line even more attractive to UC and (some Case) commuters.

 

people prefer one seat rides, people also prefer short walks.

 

Transferring is not bad if you have high frequency that can ensure that you will not have a long wait during that transfer.

 

refer to this link.

"transferring" can be good for you, and good for your city

 

The common Logic that people will not transfer is wrong, they may not like it but they will do it under certain circumstances.

 

People are transferring downtown from the Redline to the healthline to access UC, this may change as the redline stations are renewed, but remember that only Every other Red line train goes to UC, and 15 min headway are greater than the headway on the HL.

 

what does it matter, if you are going from the west side to the Cleveland clinic you will transfer Downtown, why? because the walk from Redline platforms in tower city to the HL platform in public square is much easier than the walk from Little Italy to Euclid and then back tracking through the slowest potion of the Euclid corridor to the Cleveland clinic. the advantage of speed on the redline is defeated by the distance to Euclid and the slowness of the HL though UC. 

 

The cheapest way to increase HL capacity may be to eliminate a few stops and talk the city into eliminating a few traffic light to improve operating speeds. There are way too many stops and lights for "rapid" transit.

 

The stops are not the problem IMO its the lack of capacity due to the Type of vehicle chosen.

 

The Stop spacing on the HL is roughly the same as the stop spacing on the Green and Blue lines.

 

Like you said, the reality is the Healthline is no more a Rapid than the blue/green line is east of Shaker Square.

 

Actually, no, stop spacing on the HL is significantly tighter than on the blue/green line east of SS, by a tenth of mile or even more. More importantly, most Blue/Green line riders also ride on the segment west of Shaker Square, which has incredibly far-spaced stops and a completely separate ROW, leading to a relative quick total journey.  The average stop spacing for a typical Blue/Green Line journey is much wider than a typical HL journey. That's what makes it viable rapid transit over such a long distance for suburban commuters.

 

It's true that frequent stops on the HL mean reduced walking time and the potential for attracting riders, but at a certain point, it's at the cost of service quality and route capacity for such a long route. The slow average speed means fewer route completions per driver/vehicle hour so higher operating costs per service mile.  Removing intersections and stations should (hopefully) allow slightly reduced headways so the savings in driver/vehicle hours can be plowed back into more frequency.

 

Since we're unlikely to see longer vehicles or rail conversions anytime soon, I think we need to look for some shorter term, incremental improvements to boost capacity and service quality.  For riders going hub to hub, it's a pretty grueling ride currently.

 

First: Measure them, I did

On average between CSU and East 105th st there are on average 1/4 mile between stops, the Van Swerigens laid out the Blue green line to be ~1/4 between stops.

 

Second, Federal funds were used to build those stops and removing them may require repaying the feds for that investment.

 

Third: making it faster will only add to the issues by attracting more riders to a system that is already at or near capacity. what would be the point of that? even during conversion to light rail I wouldn't remove stations, it sounds counter intuitive but more stops make it more attractive for riders than a faster travel time would.

 

I take the healthline often and time my trip almost every time. Consistently the trip between MOCA/Uptown and Playhouse Square takes between 30 to 40 minutes.

 

If the Red Line had more downtown stops I would never take the Healthline, which is a shame since it has more convenient stations. Additionally the lack of a true schedule makes waiting for the healthline a pain, especially in poor weather. I always seem to wait 15 minutes for the next bus which is not pleasant during winter, especially when combined with the long trip time. At least the redline is usually right on schedule so you can better plan your commute.

 

I think the issue is if you are heading east of East 105th st from downtown the red line make more sense, but west of E105th the healthline makes more sense.

 

^ I agree that the stations should not be removed. They don't really cause much delay anyways. The biggest issue is red lights. Every trip the bus seems to get stuck by several long red lights.

 

Why were the stations built after the lights instead of before?

^ Pretty sure that was to cut down on the number of stations needed through most of the corridor where the right of way is down the middle of Euclid.

 

Those stations serve both sides of the road. It might be after the red light going one direction and before the red light the other.

 

The stations in part of UC are like you describe - on opposite sides of the intersection but there aren't many of those stations anyway.

^All the stations in midtown are also located right after the light.  The reason was to coordinate with the signal pre-emption, so buses could cruise right through intersections before stopping.  This is confirmed by RTA somewhere waaaay upthread.

 

biker16, this is a minor point, but I did measure the station spacing on the different routes:

Shaker Square station to Green Road terminus: 3.9 miles with 11 segments (12 stations) = .35 miles between station midpoints (on average)

Shaker Square station to Warrensville terminus: 3.3 miles with 11 segments (12 stations) = .3 miles between station midpoints (on average)

 

HealthLine route, from East 24th Station to East 105th (which are the most charitable endpoints given the higher station concentration downtown):

3.1 miles, 13 segments (14 stations) = .24 (on average)

 

[From Tower City station to East 115th St: 4.9 miles with 22 segments (23 stops) = .21 miles between station midpoints (on average).]

 

So Green Line spacing is about 50% wider and the Blue Line spacing is 25% wider than the HL, no?  Or, put another way, to really match the eastern Green Line's average spacing, we'd have to eliminate 4 stops between CSU and East 105th (i.e., it would take 9 stations to get the HL route's 3.1  miles up to .35 mile spacing.) To match that spacing from Public Square to East 115th, we'd have to eliminate 9 stops.

 

There's nothing magical about the Green Line or Blue Line spacing, so I apologize for belaboring this, but these small differences in feet add up to a lot of stations over such a long route length. And mostly I wanted to prove that I did measure :)

 

I mentioned stop elimination (and signal removal) as way to shorten the route duration, allow shorter headways, and increase route capacity (our original topic), but I readily admit that there's a complicated trade-off between station frequency (convenience), trip speed, and ridership.  Each of us has a personal utility function that trades convenience and trip speed differently, and it simply may be that maximizing ridership means losing some riders who value speed.  And that loss is cushioned somewhat by the availability of the Red Line as an alternative. 

 

And maybe DM4 is right and removing stations wouldn't even speed things along much anyway.

^Straphanger you're correct, with a few obvious exceptions, the Blue and Green lines were deliberately planned to be 1/3 mile apart with the curving side streets converging at the major intersections along Shaker and Van Aken blvds containing station stops ... I also agree, comparing those lines to the HL doesn't figure, since one is the HL is an urban line with no grade separation while, as you note, the Blue/Green lines west of Shaker Sq. are distribution lines of a grade-separated, high-speed commuter rail-type operation.

 

People are transferring downtown from the Redline to the healthline to access UC, this may change as the redline stations are renewed, but remember that only Every other Red line train goes to UC, and 15 min headway are greater than the headway on the HL.

 

Biker, this is a blanket statement that simply is not true.  University Circle is a large place, in and many high density employment/student areas, like the Case (or Sothern) campus of CWRU and UH, many people commute on the Red Line from downtown and (esp) the West Side.  Yes, currently a lot of people do ride the HL to places on/near CWRU's north (and the old College for Women) campus ... as well as Uptown, since the current Euclid-E. 120 station is somewhat distant (to Uptown), crappy and forces passengers to walk under/through that long, dirty, dungeon-like Red Line/NS RR bridge over Euclid.  But you should stroll around University Circle station (once it is finished/reopens soon) during evening rush hour.  You would see a steady stream of commuters heading down the alley/pathway from just east of the Adelbert Rd. bridge into the Red Line station and onto the UC platform.  And as even you have acknowledged, once the UC-Little Italy station is built, Red Line passengers will be considerably closer to Uptown and those core north-side UC institutions, such as the Art Museum, the Botanical Gardens and north-side CWRU facilities.

 

People are transferring downtown from the Redline to the healthline to access UC, this may change as the redline stations are renewed, but remember that only Every other Red line train goes to UC, and 15 min headway are greater than the headway on the HL.

 

Biker, this is a blanket statement that simply is not true.  University Circle is a large place, in and many high density employment/student areas, like the Case (or Sothern) campus of CWRU and UH, many people commute on the Red Line from downtown and (esp) the West Side.  Yes, currently a lot of people do ride the HL to places on/near CWRU's north (and the old College for Women) campus ... as well as Uptown, since the current Euclid-E. 120 station is somewhat distant (to Uptown), crappy and forces passengers to walk under/through that long, dirty, dungeon-like Red Line/NS RR bridge over Euclid.  But you should stroll around University Circle station (once it is finished/reopens soon) during evening rush hour.  You would see a steady stream of commuters heading down the alley/pathway from just east of the Adelbert Rd. bridge into the Red Line station and onto the UC platform.  And as even you have acknowledged, once the UC-Little Italy station is built, Red Line passengers will be considerably closer to Uptown and those core north-side UC institutions, such as the Art Museum, the Botanical Gardens and north-side CWRU facilities.

 

I Never said all UC riders are transferring from the redline to the Healthline, but there are alot more people doing so than you think and since there isn't any data to support either of our arguments other than I personally witness alot of people transferring to the HL and a Number of them inhale talked to are going to UC.

 

Your logic that speed of the redline makes up for it being in a less than perfect location is not true for some riders. The ridership of the HL vs the redline on the east side supports the argument that access can be more attractive than speed.

 

^All the stations in midtown are also located right after the light.  The reason was to coordinate with the signal pre-emption, so buses could cruise right through intersections before stopping.  This is confirmed by RTA somewhere waaaay upthread.

 

biker16, this is a minor point, but I did measure the station spacing on the different routes:

Shaker Square station to Green Road terminus: 3.9 miles with 11 segments (12 stations) = .35 miles between station midpoints (on average)

Shaker Square station to Warrensville terminus: 3.3 miles with 11 segments (12 stations) = .3 miles between station midpoints (on average)

 

HealthLine route, from East 24th Station to East 105th (which are the most charitable endpoints given the higher station concentration downtown):

3.1 miles, 13 segments (14 stations) = .24 (on average)

 

[From Tower City station to East 115th St: 4.9 miles with 22 segments (23 stops) = .21 miles between station midpoints (on average).]

 

So Green Line spacing is about 50% wider and the Blue Line spacing is 25% wider than the HL, no?  Or, put another way, to really match the eastern Green Line's average spacing, we'd have to eliminate 4 stops between CSU and East 105th (i.e., it would take 9 stations to get the HL route's 3.1  miles up to .35 mile spacing.) To match that spacing from Public Square to East 115th, we'd have to eliminate 9 stops.

 

There's nothing magical about the Green Line or Blue Line spacing, so I apologize for belaboring this, but these small differences in feet add up to a lot of stations over such a long route length. And mostly I wanted to prove that I did measure :)

 

I mentioned stop elimination (and signal removal) as way to shorten the route duration, allow shorter headways, and increase route capacity (our original topic), but I readily admit that there's a complicated trade-off between station frequency (convenience), trip speed, and ridership.  Each of us has a personal utility function that trades convenience and trip speed differently, and it simply may be that maximizing ridership means losing some riders who value speed.  And that loss is cushioned somewhat by the availability of the Red Line as an alternative. 

 

And maybe DM4 is right and removing stations wouldn't even speed things along much anyway.

 

Interesting, It really is .05 mile difference.

 

Another factor is that even if you Eliminator stops will not eliminate signals.

 

There are limits to signal preemption, it cannot change a light just keep it green for a longer period of time.

 

^ I agree that the stations should not be removed. They don't really cause much delay anyways. The biggest issue is red lights. Every trip the bus seems to get stuck by several long red lights.

 

Why were the stations built after the lights instead of before?

 

The volume of cross traffic mandates longer cycle times and makes it difficult to create windows of time free of red lights. This makes it more important to better manage the frequency of buses on the route. 

 

Stops are opposite of the lights to prevent the vehicle from stopping twice at every intersection, once for passengers and again for the light.  Preemption is supposed to hold  the light to allow the bus to pass through and stop at the station on the other side. You really can't have effective preemption if the bus stops before the light,

 

If you were going to add signal permeation to the blue/green lines you would want to flip the stations similar to the Healthline.

 

In the end you can go to a rail vehicle, reduce travel time and even reduce operational expenses.

 

LRT vehicle

 

 

 

Keep in mind you will probably run into significant political opposition if you start modifying/changing stops, particularly in those lower density areas between the CSU campus and CC.  It's tailor made for the type of politician who likes to screech about changes that benefit "them" at the expense of "us", and that's one thing we don't have a shortage of in this area.  Indeed, the spacing planning likely kept this in mind.

 

I've commented on this before, running transit resources through areas where they do not stop can be controversial.  This applies, to a lesser degree, to taking away things that already exist.