Just found this thread.  The pics are great, and the interior reminds me a lot of European buses and the German S-bahns.  I'm not sure if I'm sold on the exterior, but the interior is great!

about the new board...I saw them taking it down this morning, but didn't know what they were up to...the current (now, old?) boards only gave arrival info once in a blue moon.  They seemed more concerned with the terror threat level, which really isn't information that anyone needs to be reminded of every 30 seconds.  I hope these new ones will be more informative!

Cleveland RTA Tests GM Hybrid Technology

Feb 15, 2006 11:55 a.m.

 

 

CLEVELAND The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is testing a transit vehicle powered by General Motors Corp.'s hybrid propulsion technology that will be used for the citys Bus Rapid Transit initiative called Silver Line, officials reported recently. The GM hybrid-powered pilot vehicle is similar to the 21 vehicles that the RTA intends to purchase from bus manufacturer New Flyer Industries by the end of 2007. GMs hybrid technology offers significantly greater fuel economy and cleaner emissions than conventional buses.

 

........

 

http://www.business-journal.com/GMHybridBusesCleveland.asp

 

I'm not sure I understand. Would this be instead of the flyers, or in addition to them?

I think it's just a matter of dangling modifiers or some other grammatical nebulosity...

 

The vehicle they are testing is similar to the vehicles they are buying, in that it uses the same GM technology that the vehicles they're buying use.  Does that sound right?

 

CLEVELAND The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is testing a transit vehicle powered by General Motors Corp.'s hybrid propulsion technology that will be used for the citys Bus Rapid Transit initiative called Silver Line, officials reported recently. The GM hybrid-powered pilot vehicle is similar to the 21 vehicles that the RTA intends to purchase from bus manufacturer New Flyer Industries by the end of 2007.

 

In other words, the RTA now has received and are testing a prototype of the type of vehicle they've contracted to buy from New Flyer for the Silver Line.

I thought the busses were originally going to be hybrid, but then the technology was not far enough along, so they went with clean burning diesel.

Just in case you haven't heard, there's a conference coming up in several weeks about the Euclid Corridor, redevelopment and the transit, informational and intellectual infrastructure. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend, so I hope a fellow UrbanOhio'er goes so I can hear what happens....

__________________

 

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Events_Registration&Template=/Conference/ConferenceDescription.cfm&ConferenceID=1407

 

Euclid Avenue Conductivity –

Education, Research, Development

 

Universities and research centers are no longer islands of intellectual pursuits. They are critical components of a region’s economic future.  Cleveland’s vision for an “intellectual highway ” paralleling the Euclid Avenue Transit Corridor is becoming a reality. The prerequisite technology, research and transportation infrastructure investments are underway. Join us to learn about the scale of these public/private investments and the opportunities to leverage them for technology related and mixed-use developments.

 

Wednesday, March 15th 2006

 

The 4415 Building

4415 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio  44103

 

 

3:30 PM Registration and Badge Pickup

 

4:00 PM until 5:30 PM Panel

Networking Reception and Building Tours will follow.

 

ULI Members:  $40 – Nonmembers:  $50

YLG and Public Sector:  $30

 

Please note:

Registrations made after the March 9th  deadline are considered “at the door”. 

Fees increase by $10 for “at the door” registration.

For on-line registration go to: http://www.uli.org/events/index.cfm?id=1407

 

Please Park & Enter on the West side of the Building.

We are meeting in an area currently under development. 

Please be aware and wear sensible shoes.

 

Moderator: Hunter Morrison

Director of the Center for Regional Studies and Urban Development,

Youngstown State University

 

Panelists:

 

Lev Gonick, Chief Information Officer

Case Western Reserve University

 

Gordon Priemer, President & CEO

Heartland Development LLC and

Developer of The 4415 Building

 

Jack Boyle, Vice President of Business Affairs & Finance

Cleveland State University

 

Russell Berusch, Vice President of Commercial Development,

Case Western Reserve University

 

James A. Haviland, Executive Director

MidTown Cleveland, Inc.

 

 

Please note: Registrations made after the March 9th  deadline are considered “at the door”  Fees increase by $10 for “at the door” registration.

 

Registration limited to:  110

 

Registration Deadline:

Thursday, March 9th 2006

After March 9th call 440 461-4233.

 

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Events_Registration&Template=/Conference/ConferenceDescription.cfm&ConferenceID=1407

I'll be out of town too.

Oh, good!  A public meeting that only costs $50!

^i second that, ouch.

It's not a public meeting.  It's a conference by the private non-profit research organization, The Urban Land Institute.

CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER EDITORIAL

Renewing Cleveland by bus

Monday, March 13, 2006

Clevelanders began talking about a swift transit connection between Public Square and University Circle when Carl B. Stokes was mayor. More than three decades later, construction on the Euclid Corridor has begun at last.

 

The subway originally envisioned has morphed into a fancy bus line, but the need for this $200 million project - most of it paid for by Washington and Columbus - is greater than ever.

 

.......

 

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1142155960145160.xml&coll=2

 

More important, the Silver Line will help knit together the region's two largest employment centers, two of its major universities, two cultural districts and Midtown's promising technology corridor. The collaborations that drive modern economic development should be easier than ever.

[\quote]

 

Doesn't the #6 bus already do this?  What's the improvement, aside from the landscaping?

 

Other cities have seen transit projects spur substantial private investment - including new housing. Cleveland now gets a chance to follow suit.

 

Wrong.  Other cities have seen RAIL transit projects spur substantial private investment.  I don't know of one instance where bus rapid transit has led to increased investment.

Well, according to the TOD presentation brought to us by LISC last week (available online at http://lisc.org/content/publications/detail/1444), the BRT in Boston (also called the Silver Line) has spurred mass amounts of private investment.  This was in response to a specific question that was asked about BRT and how it functions in TODs and it was met, quite enthusiastically, with this very positive response.

 

Also, the 6 does run between University Circle and Public Square, but it's notoriously overcrowded and stops almost every block.  I avoid taking it when possible, but Euclid is a route I travel frequently, so it's tough to escape.  I know it doesn't seem like it will be all that big of an upgrade, especially compared to proposed subways and light rail, but I think to the everyday rider, it will make a considerable difference.

^ Pittsburgh and Ottawa.

 

BTW, swift transit on Euclid Avenue was first seriously planned long before Carl Stokes. It goes back to the first years of the 20th century. See "Cleveland's subway story told with maps and graphics" at  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2726.0

One other reason to be optimistic: the Silver Line (BRT) in Boston (which also replaced a traditional bus line) has seen huge growth in reidership with a similar improvement in service (8 minutes shorter vs. Euclid Corridor's prmoised 10 minute improvement).  Boardings were up 87% on the Silver line between Winter 2000-2001 and Spring 2003 compared to the old bus line, while ridership on the heavy rail lines was flat to down over a similar period.  Hopefully we'll see a similar improvement on our Silver Line.

What is noteworthy about the T Silver Line, though, is much of it is grade-separated, running through a subway tunnel.  When I was there in November, I noted there is a direct connection to the Red Line and commuter trains at South Station.

 

I'm just not convinced that landscaping and a paint job is going to significantly improve service over the #6.  Aside from prepayment of fares, the operating characteristics are very much the same. 

^The stops will be less frequent.  The busses will have signal prioritization. The roadway will finally be smooth.  You can argue all you want about whether the silverline is a good idea or not, but it will definitely be an upgrade on the 6. 

The jury is out on whether or not less frequent stops are a good thing.  What people in L.A. found on the Wilshire Line is that even though the stops were spaced further apart, reducing BUS trip times, people had to walk even further to the stops, increasing OVERALL trip times. 

 

...and is RTA going to ensure that Euclid Avenue is maintained in pristine condition?  A huge reason why I don't like BRT is that the comfort of the ride is highly dependent on road maintenance, which is always backlogged.  Even if the road were maintained in mint condition, it will still cost a heck of a lot more than the maintenance required for rail tracks, and the ride quality still won't be as good as steel-on-steel.

Silver Line stops will likely be no more inconvenient than RTA's current express bus or rail rapid transit stops. 

 

Research in this 2002 LA MTA Rapid Bus report states that delays from bus stop loading and waiting at traffic signals amounted to 45% of pre-BRT total bus running time.  Thus, off-board fare collection and traffic signal prioritization really sped things up in LA. (See page 28)

 

http://www.metro.net/images/Demonstration%20Program%20Report.pdf

 

Though dated, the Silver Line project website map shows 33 stops over the 9.4 mile route, excluding Tower City/Public Sq. I believe this equates to ~3.5 stops/mile.  This compares with RTA 2003 Service Policy bus route general guidelines of 8 stops/mile in urban areas and 4/mi. in low-density areas.

 

For RTA's light rail rapid transit service, both Blue and Green Lines have 17 stops excluding Tower City.  Blue Line @ 9.3 mi. = 1.82 stops/mi; Green Line @ 9.8 mi. = 1.73 stops/mi.  Red Line stops are farther apart.

 

This suggests somewhat more convenient Silver Line station access than for rail rapid transit, though certainly far less convenient than the existing Euclid Ave. local bus route. 

 

 

Also, the largest distance between stops on that map shows a distance of about .33 miles between stops.  Take that for whatever it's worth.

Mr. DaninDC and other ECTP Detractors,

 

With all due respect, might I offer you an new perspective on the potential of the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project.  A true transportation project.

 

After riding the redline brt in curitiba brazil this past summer, i have witnessed it being as efficient as a train in regards to capacity, frequency, and timeliness.

 

As a transportation project, the ECTP will forever alter the way pedestrians interface with Euclid, Cleveland's main artery. the movement would entail walking or crossing a wide lane for pedestrians (sidewalk), then a lane of parked cars, a bikelane, a lane of traffic,  two bus lanes with pedestrian landing pads (stations) at major intersections, another lane of traffic, a bikelane, a lane of parked cars, and a wide pedestrian lane.  I believe this changes Euclid from a pedestrian barrier to a pedestrian magnet.  minimal grade separation, especially for ped use, drastically reduces tripping movements while countdown timers on lights increase predictability.

wi-fi doesn't hurt either.  the bike lanes will be interesting.

 

Yes, I agree money must be budgeted for bus and road maintenance. however,  the bus lanes provide  impetus for a life-cycle analysis of the buslanes, as RTA's efficiency in providing quality  service is dependent on the endurance of pavement integrity.  the eventual creation and utilization of a winterized rubberized paving (pothole resistant) in neo will spur innovation in the local polymer and cement industries.  i think rubber sounds more comfortable than steel. ;>)

in curitiba, the manufacturer of the brt vehicles, volvo, built a manufacturing plant on the tracks.  cleveland has similar potential.

 

Take a look at the potential of the public art, linked below, to further appreciate and imagine how this transporation project will completely change the way Clevelanders interface with Euclid Avenue.  The potential at intersections like playhouse square (already a nice ped environment) and euclid&superior (e. cleveland downtown?) as well as the univerisites are really exciting!

 

http://euclidtransit.org/timelines/images/PublicArtMasterPlan.pdf

 

Might I politely add that Cleveland is not D.C. and thankfully never will be.  It's certainly a fun city to visit though.

 

 

Might I politely add that Cleveland is not D.C. and thankfully never will be.  It's certainly a fun city to visit though.

 

Ain't that the truth.  I'm painfully reminded of it every time I come home and see Cleveland wasting away.  I could digress so much further, but I'll curb it here.

 

BRT succeeds in Curitiba for reasons that have not been embraced in North America.  Here's a summary (from lightrailnow.org):

 

Curitiba is a compact city (with triple the population of Cleveland). Its five main radial bus lines are only about six miles long, with an average bi-articulated bus speed of just 12-13 mph (20 km/hr), too slow for longer trips.

 

According to Volvo – manufacturer of some of these buses – "The average speed of the express buses is 32 km/h, and for the bi-articulated buses which stop every 500 metres, 20 km/h [12.4 mph]."  [source: Volvo Buses – Curitiba]

 

A United States transit study group visited Curitiba in 1998. The following excerpts from their report summarize some of their findings:

 

Prepayment of fares and level boarding, systems typically found in rail systems, create a very efficient boarding and deboarding process. A bi-articulated bus (a 5-door, 82-foot bus built by Volvo and currently used only in Curitiba) with a load of 270 people can board or deboard in about 20 seconds. The average speed of buses using the busway is 13 miles per hour--twice the estimated speed for buses operating in the same Curitiba corridors in mixed traffic.  (Note:  average speed of the Washington Metro is 30 mph)

 

A Curitiba bi-articulated bus (twice the length of a standard 40-foot bus) seats only 57 – its "270 passengers" are mostly standing! This would hardly appeal to American riders. By comparison, a new low-floor 40-foot bus seats about 38 people, 1/6 of a 3-car light rail train.

 

Even Thomas Rubin, a zealous supporter of "Bus Rapid Transit" against virtually any rail alternative, raises questions about the applicability of Curitiba's operation to Southern California:

 

First, it is somewhat questionable if large numbers of Southern California riders will accept the degree of overcrowding that we observed in Curitiba for long trips. More important, however, the Consent Decree in Labor/Community Strategy Center v. MTA requires MTA to operate buses with a peak load factor (the ratio of total passengers at the peak load point of each line to the number of seats on the bus) of no more than 1.2:1 by 2002. The Curitiba loads of 270 were achieved on buses with 57 seats, a load factor of 4.74.

[source: Thomas A. Rubin, "The Future for Transit in the San Fernando Valley", page 23]

 

As for creating dedicated bus lanes along heavily traveled Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, the idea of taking two existing traffic lanes plus its landscaped median for buses has so far received vocal opposition and little public support.

 

It appears Curitiba will be getting a rail system – the City of Curitiba's web site shows a monorail on a page (in Portuguese) of plans for a "Metro Elevado."

 

While Curitiba has its fans, light rail's speed, comfort, and capacity have made it a popular success in the United States. Phoenix just voted to join the western cities of Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, and Minneapolis, that all have or are building light rail.  (DC is about to start building two streetcar lines.  Even residents of Manhattan, home of the U.S.'s slowest bus fleet, have argued for an east-west light rail link.)

 

In addition, the residents of Curitiba are largely poor, in higher percentages than Cleveland anyway.  They don't have the option of cars for the most part.  Curitiba also has highly restrictive zoning along the BRT corridors, and focuses high-density development along the BRT lines.  Cleveland hasn't particularly committed to the idea of transit-oriented development, as we found out in the post-1996 world. 

 

There are plenty of technical reasons why BRT is inferior to rail.  The only advantage that BRT *sometimes* has is lower capital costs, but even that is not a given. 

 

*Acceleration/deceleration of rail is superior since steel-on-steel has lower coefficients of static and kinetic friction than rubber on asphalt. 

 

*All pavement materials are susceptible to cracking, frost heave, and freeze/thaw cycles.  You will never eliminate cracks in the road or potholes, especially in Cleveland. 

 

*Buses have much shorter service lives than rail vehicles.  The average service life of a bus is 12-14 years.  Rail vehicles can last 40-50 years or more. 

 

*Buses have higher maintenance costs due to more moving parts.  Of course, being as objective and diligent as they always are, RTA has accounted for this in the life-cycle cost of the EC boondoggle.

 

Of course, anyone who's ever ridden both buses and subways knows all this already.

 

But the fact of the matter is that we're developing a BRT line on Euclid Avenue.  I don't think you'll find anyone on this forum who wouldn't prefer a rail line for any number of reasons. 

 

We've spent much time on here deliberating over why RTA, NOACA, Cleveland, and ODOT haven't pursued this more ardently, but basically, right now, we're building BRT and we'd better be committed to making the best of it!

I just fear that without an overly aggressive commitment to TOD, there won't be enough development in the corridor to substantiate the BRT line, a la the Waterfront Line.  At worst, this could prevent any future transit service expansions or enhancements in the future.

 

In the future, the attitude that transit is only for the poor, disabled, and elderly MUST change. 

In the future, the attitude that transit is only for the poor, disabled, and elderly MUST change.

Absolutely!  The WCPN interview with Joe Calabrese about a month ago directed a lot of attention towards that precise issue.  Multiple callers brought up that concern and I can definitely sympathize with their comments. 

 

I also know that, despite the obvious transit improvements, I've viewed the ECP as an economic development tool from the start.  I can't imagine that the City isn't looking at it the same way.  This HAS to leverage private investment.  I'm glad that they've gone forward with the form based zoning for parts of the corridor, which hints at their commitment to the urban design elements of new growth along the route and at the expectations for private investment.

 

That's not to say that investing twice the money to build light rail would't yield more than twice the benefits, but we'll just have to do our best with what we've got going right now.  Make sure it works to its full potential...give the City, RTA, ODOT, NOACA a solid reason to upkeep and perhaps upgrade into the future.  That, and do more with the next opportunity (Opportunity Corridor, perhaps?).

Another big problem I have with RTA, though, is they seem to develop each of their projects in isolation.  For example, a great way to exponentially enhance the usefulness of the BRT line would be to plan for commuter rail, with major stations at Tower City and University Circle.  You would certainly get a heckuva lot more bang for your buck than some nice-looking trees.

All for that too...  And on that note, there was ZERO mention of the Euclid Corridor at Monday's Innerbelt meeting.  Talk about putting public investments together to make them both function better and capitalize on money spent... it just so happens that the EC passes directly over the Innerbelt!  Sheesh...

 

They did talk about suburban park n ride lots, though...(what?!)

Might I politely add that Cleveland is not D.C. and thankfully never will be.  It's certainly a fun city to visit though.

 

 

Ain't that the truth.  I'm painfully reminded of it every time I come home and see Cleveland wasting away.

 

If Cleveland continues its slide of wasting away I can imagine a time when our mayor could be convicted of smoking crack.  And then it can get so bad that he or she would be re-elected.  That would truly be horrible

Don't forget tax evasion, either. 

quit the cleveland vs. dc bickering.

quit the cleveland vs. dc bickering.

 

yeah, Detroit feels left out.  :)

 

I agree. I get pretty tired of this forum when we lower the level of discussion.

MGD, how exactly did they justify suburban park and ride lots in a discussion about the Innerbelt?  Are we to believe that a widening and easing of the Innerbelt will make people want to ride the bus to work???

The suburban park & rides are included to alleviate traffic problems during construction.

If park and ride will alleviate traffic during construction, then why not do it permanently, and you know, save a few hundred million bucks? 

 

Allow me to bang my head on my desk.  Repeatedly.

^Either you've done that too much already, or you need to do it a little more.

How so? 

Plot plan for the East 17th Street Extension (cross posted w/CSU thread)

Thanks for that Musky!  This is supposed to start next month?

Yes, it is.

Construction on the north side of Euclid, from Playhouse Square to the inner belt is to start around Mamorial Day. The norhtside of Euclid will be closed from around Memorial Day to around Labor Day. The south side will begin after that.

Here are a couple of graphic representational timelines

2 of 2

 

 

This project has been such a great catalyst for the street and the entire city.

Great bang for the buck already.

^maybe i'm not paying very good attention, but huh?

I'm still not seeing dates on those images...when are the Public Sq. - Playhouse Sq. phases to begin/end?

Public Square to Playhouse Square are set for 2007. There is no set date for Public Square. It will most likely be last.

I guess that's still in line with what I posted in page six.  I just thought I'd heard something different since then, but pehaps not!

The E. 17th Street site as it sits today:

 

The following article is from GCRTA's Euclid Corridor Transportation Project newsletter (vol. 5, no.1, Spring 2006)

 

Sound Portraits Will Connect the Corridor's Past and Present

 

Native American and ethnic histories, commerce, the Industrial Age, Cleveland's revitalization, music, arts, culture, famous Clevelanders, and journeys of the lives of families and business legacies are just a few of the many subjects that the RTA will explore and profile through sound portraits of the people, neighborhoods, and events that have shaped Euclid Avenue.

 

As part of the Euclid Corridor Public Art program, an extensive collection of audio profiles will be preserved and featured in touch screen kiosks located at 19 high traffic and pedestrian areas along the rapid transit route.

 

Cleveland Public Art manages the project, which includes the Corridor's public artists and Cleveland State University.  CSU has incorporated the oral history project into its curriculum to enlist students to conduct historical research and interviews of Clevelanders.  Ideastream's WCPN 90.3 FM will assist with recording and preserving the audio of the featured sound portraits.

 

The sound portraits are a rare illustration of a first-person look at life, experience and storytelling of Cleveland's past.  Artist Jan Brigham, who conceptually created the concept and kiosks' implementation, will add photographs to the stories to create both a visual and audio experience as users begin to marry the past and present.

 

Audio will be Internet-connected so that content can be updated on a regular basis.  The system will be designed to support user-choice via mobile technology.

 

"This will be a great vehicle to help Clevelanders learn more about who they are and where they come from," says Greg Peckham, executive director of Cleveland Public Art.  "It's like a conversation between the past and the present."

 

...

 

This is great news!  It's funny, though, that the article caught my eye because of the Brooklyn, NY-based Sound Portraits (www.soundportraits.org), who I interviewed with last year.  Their programming is fantastic and is used by NPR from coast-to-coast.  Despite the obvious similarity of this project to their work, if the RTA project has anything to do with them, they failed to mention it!