Among all the service changes in the western suburbs, note the highlighted text in the following press release, which will be sent out by RTA tomorrow....

 

KJP

__________________________

 

 

Thursday, July 28, 2005                    MEDIA CONTACT: Jerry Masek or

                                                      Colleen Verbus, 216.566.5211

 

Posted at rideRTA.com>releases

 

 

 

Service changes set for Aug. 28

 

CLEVELAND – On Aug. 28, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will introduce service changes in Northwest Cuyahoga County.

 

“We believe these changes will greatly improve service to the Northwest area, increase ridership and help the thousands of loyal customers we have there,” says Joe Calabrese, CEO and General Manager. “We held eight community meetings in May, and feedback from our customers significantly change and improved our original proposals.”

 

New #822

 

RTA will introduce the #822 Southwest Community Circulator, which replaces the current #53 big-bus route. Service will operate from the Westgate Transit Center via Great Northern Mall to Westlake’s Crocker Park, where a new prototype bus shelter has been erected near Blake’s Seafood Restaurant.

 

The Circulator, RTA’s 12th, was conceived by the staff of the former North Olmsted Municipal Line (NOMBL). Service will be hourly in both directions, six days a week, from 9:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m. Fare is 75 cents.

 

The route: Westgate Transit Center to Center Ridge Road, W. 210th St., Lorain Road, W. 220th St., Mastick Road, Clague Road, Brookpark Road, Columbia Road, Country Club Blvd., Lorain Road, Dover Center Road, Center Ridge Road to St. John West Shore Hospital, and Crocker Road to Crocker Park.

 

New #55X and #55F

 

The #55CX, #55NX and #55SX will be restructured to form the #55X Clifton and the #55F West Shore Flyer.

 

The #55X will operate between the Westgate Transit Center and downtown via Wagar Road, Detroit Road, Sloane Ave., W. Clifton Blvd., Clifton Blvd. and the West Shoreway. Some weekday trips will continue to operate via Nicholson Ave., Cove Ave. and Edgewater Dr.

 

(- more -)

 

 

Page 2, RTA service

 

Customers seeking fast service to downtown will appreciate #55F West Shore Flyer service. It will provide rush-hour service in the peak direction from Avon Lake, Bay Village and Westlake. It replaces service currently provided by the #31X Avon Lake (west of Bradley Road), # 46FWestlake and #55CX Clifton-Lake.

 

As a “flyer” bus, the #55F will make limited stops on Clifton Blvd. in Lakewood and Cleveland. It will stop to pick-up and drop-off customers at: W. Clifton Blvd., Belle Ave., Nicholson Ave., Cove Ave., W. 117th St., W. 110th St. and West Blvd.

 

RTA will work to transition this premium service into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) zone, with features similar to the Euclid Corridor Silver Line now under construction, Calabrese says. These improvements are the first step in this transition.

 

Because Clifton Blvd. is a heavily-used transit corridor, RTA officials want to ensure there is first-class service.

 

“In peak hours, there should be a bus on Clifton Blvd. every five minutes,” says Calabrese.

 

#43, #49/#49F

 

Two new routes that should greatly enhance service.

 

The #43 Lake-Wolf route will operate on weekdays between the Triskett Rapid Station and Bay Village. The route will operate via Lakewood Heights Blvd., I-90, Riverside Dr., W. Clifton Blvd., Clifton Blvd., Lake Road, Clague Road and Wolf Road.

 

The #43 will provide weekday service to Bay Village and Rocky River during times the # 55F West Shore Flyer is not operating.

 

Current #55SX service on Center Ridge Road will be provided by the new #49/#49F Center Ridge route.

 

The #49/#49F Center Ridge route replaces the #55SX on Center Ridge Road, and offers a similar level of service.

 

The #49 will operate seven days a week between St. John West Shore Hospital and the Triskett Rapid Station, via Center Ridge Road, Wooster Road and I-90.

 

The #49F will operate during rush hours (AM eastbound, PM westbound) between the hospital and downtown via I-90.

 

( - more -)

Page 3, RTA service

 

No service, new service

 

After Aug. 28, there will be no bus service on some segments of streets currently served:

• Columbia Road, between Brookpark Road and Center Ridge Road

• Wagar Road, between Detroit Road and Lake Road.

• Lakeview Road, between Hilliard Blvd. and Detroit Road

• Lake Road, between Cahoon Road and Clague Road.

• Hilliard Blvd., between Columbia Road and Clague Road, and between River Oaks Dr. and Wagar Road.

 

Weekend service will be discontinued on Lake Road, between Wagar Road and W. Clifton Blvd.

 

These streets now have little or no service. Starting Aug. 29, they will have service six days a week.

• Crocker Road, between Health Campus Dr. and Crocker Park.

• Dover Center Road, between Lorain Road and Center Ridge Road.

 

Elsewhere….

 

New timetables will go into effect for a number of other bus routes on Aug. 28. Timetables for these routes reflect minor schedule adjustments and/or map updates: #4, #7/7X, #9/9X, #10, #20A, #22, #25B/W, #30, #32/32X, #35, #38, #40, #45Y/R, #46, #48/48A, #70, #75X, #76X, #79A/B, #81, #86, #94, #247, #326, #804 and #808.

 

New timetables are also being issued for the #14, #15/#15A, #15F, #19, #33 and #147, to incorporate minor route changes that are already in effect. The timetables for these routes may also contain minor schedule adjustments.

 

The end of summer also brings the end of two seasonal RTA bus routes. The #20C, which operates between Public Square and the Metroparks Zoo, runs through Aug. 27. The #441, which operates from the end of the Blue Line in Shaker Heights to the entrance of Geauga Lake Park in Aurora, runs through Sept. 5.

 

Where to pick up new timetables

 

New timetables are now being printed and will be posted as soon as possible on www.rideRTA.com. They will also be available at:

• RTA’s Main Office, 1240 W. Sixth St.

• Customer Service Center at Tower City

 

For more information or to receive a new timetable by mail, call the RTAnswerline, 216-621-9500.

 

# # #

 

this is soooooooooooo stupid.  put a damn light rail on that street.  :shoot: :shoot: these damn autocentric people!  my pressure -  argh!!!   

I live on Clifton and a subway would be totally out of proportion for the traffic and densities on this street. Through Lakewood, Clifton is all residential and mostly single-family homes. I would like to see light-rail here, but on the surface.

 

KJP

As a car-free resident who uses the 55, I'm thrilled to hear that service will be improved via BRT.  :clap:

I live on Clifton and a subway would be totally out of proportion for the traffic and densities on this street. Through Lakewood, Clifton is all residential and mostly single-family homes. I would like to see light-rail here, but on the surface.

 

KJP

 

I'm sorry.  I meant surface rail.

Has anyone ever done a study of what it would take to upgrade BRT to LRT?  Would that make any sense in the future?  Is there any service improvement that comes with that upgrade?

Ride quality on LRT is probably better than BRT, although there's not sufficient experience with BRT to get a good picture of that. Energy costs are less, but it takes tremendous volume before the savings justify the startup capital costs for rail and rolling stock. With proper execution and experience, I don't see any reason why BRT shouldn't be just as fast as LRT when running in public right-of-way. Startup costs are much less, right-of-way can be designed for easy future conversion, and for that matter, buses, BRT and LRT can share the same right-of-way if it's built with that in mind.

 

Sorry. It's been said that when asked what time it is, I tell people how to make a watch. :oops:

That was a great answer, thanks Rob.  I am wondering if anyone actually has gone to the effort of designing a BRT system with future LRT conversion as a possibility.

Yes, the bus transit tunnel in Seattle, for one. It was built with rails in the pavement. Now, they are adding LRT on both sides of the tunnel to run trains through it.

 

I'm not sure, but I think Pittsburgh's East Busway also was designed for a future conversion to rail. Their transit tunnel under Mt. Washington has both LRT and buses routed through it.

 

I go back to my previous plan of extending one of the Shaker Lines across the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge, up through the center of the Main Avenue Bridge's western approach, and down the middle of the Shoreway/Lakefront Boulevard to Clifton. Using $25 million per mile as a guesstimate, it could cost about $250 million to extend it to the Westlake Park-n-Ride. As often happens, though, it will probably cost more.

 

KJP

^Not exactly BRT but close -- I think I read several years ago that Seattlle's downtown bus subway, created for dual-mode buses (trolley / diesel-electric) was designed for possible future conversion to rail. I think they may have even installed the rails when they built the roadway, in some places.

As a non-transit geek but as a user and armchair observer, I'm just glad to see an emphasis on transit returning to Clifton Blvd (instead of the 7-8 lane car bonanza that it is now). As some have said, it isn't much of a stretch to see BRT become LRT and I'd think Clifton would be a perfect place for that to happen.

The tunnel under Seattle was actually built for light rail, with the tracks already installed, but they have been using it as a bus tunnel as a stop gap because the rail took so long in coming.  It isn't BRT, exactly.  The busses are hybrid trackless trolleys, which Seattle has alot of.  They aren't allowed to operate diesel in the tunnel, so the driver actually has to get out of the bus and put the contacts onto the wires at a stop/holding station just outside the tunnel. 

 

Last I had heard, the rails that were installed originally are of a different gauge than what they are going to use for the current light rail plans, so they have to rip up all of the existing, never used rails and replace them.

I thought that RTA had tried to propose rail down Clifton in the past, and the city of Lakewood wanted nothing to do with it.  That also goes for the freight tracks that run down the middle of the city.  Could be wrong though, but I seem to recall that scenerio about 15 yrs ago.

^wasn't this under the kucinich administration or something?

^I think you guys are referring to the defunct plan of using the present Lakewood rail tracks as some sort of regional rail line. 

By, the way, I am glad that RTA is at least thinking ahead in order to improve transit options. 

it's no surprise this rta administration would cheap out w/ brt. however, that they are planning ahead for more of it with so-far zero experience in brt is rather "putting all your eggs in one basket" foolish at best.  since it's a done deal on euclid i hope brt works out --- we'll have to wait and see.

it's no surprise this rta administration would cheap out w/ brt. however, that they are planning ahead for more of it with so-far zero experience in brt is rather "putting all your eggs in one basket" foolish at best.  since it's a done deal on euclid i hope brt works out --- we'll have to wait and see.

 

mrnyc - i was thinkging the same thing.  this street/avenue was formerly a rail line, and is high density. 

 

why go cheap?  Why can't we build a high quality first class project or atleast propose it that way instead of putting the "watered down" version in play?? 

 

If RTA wants people to use the transit system as a "first choice" for their mode of transportation instead of an "alternative choice" then they have to do better than a BRT!  I know some may not agree but you can't (re) build a first class city with second class projects.

KJP,

 

I call upon you again for your wisdom: What the difference (ratio/percentage or anything will do) between the maintenance of a BRT Line and fleet and a LRT line and fleet?

 

 

An interesting article can be found at:

 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt007.htm

 

Some cost data comparisons between BRT and LRT appear near the end of the article.

 

KJP

I think BRT is a waste of time, energy and money accept on, perhaps, lighter trafficked corridors which, obviously, Clifton is not.  It's really a pacifier for rail transit enthusiast tossed from the Detroit (rubber tires, concrete, oil) lobby...  I'm also an East Sider who thinks Clifton's one of the region's most attractive streets and would hate to see it uglied-up w/ a Euclid-style BRT construction.

 

The most logical alternative is not rail on Clifton, but some kind of use of the parallel NS rail corridor a few blocks to the south.  I for one don't think Kucinich and his 5/6 year-old "deal" should continue to scare the beejeebers out of us into thinking rail can never happen here, especially w/ a new, empty commuter terminal just sitting in Lorain awaiting trains!!  As KJP and others have noted in the past, this corridor can have freight traffic stepped down to night service for the reduced customers given the parallel main Chicago route several miles to the south.

 

I'll hold out hope.

 

I'd like to see LRT on the new Shoreway Boulevard and along Clifton to downtown Rocky River.  The NS lines could be used for commuter rail out to Lorain or even Sandusky.

Let's face it, it'll be a cold day in you-know-where when RTA chief Joe Calabrese supports any rail expansion.  I've seen enough of his actions (weakening RTA's existing rail w/ poor service), read his negative/hedging comments and know what town he lives in to understand this...  Joe C’s view towards rail transit can best be summed up by:    :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

 

Now, before you hit me with: “[w]here does the man live have to do with it?" broadside, I'll simply answer: a whole lot.  Especially when you’re the transit chief of a major mixed (bus/rail) transit system of a core town that's struggling w/ economic issues and trying to build up its urban center, … and you live in a suburb that epitomizes the worst in urban development: sprawl, single use development w/ lots of cul-de-sacs (and puullleeez don’t give me that faux Main Street Crock-er Park – which Calabrese, not so surprisingly held up as a great TOD model), distance from the urban core (far for Cuyahoga County, ... if it wasn't for the embarrassment he'd face for paying taxes to another county's transit system, I'm sure he'd be in Medina or beyond), and loaded w/ a bunch of think-a-like upper crust types who are either indifferent to Cleveland, esp downtown, or down right contemptuous of it.

 

About the only new rail we could possibly get is the CVSR extension into downtown, perhaps offering some modicum of commuter service to Valley View, Akron, Canton, etc... but THAT project is being fueled by Akron Metro w/ some (very mild) cheerleading from Jane Campbell's people. 

 

Calabrese, I'm sure, is just, er, ... along for the ride... So transit fans, expect more and more BRT talk from Joe C …, and please, please don't hold your breath waiting for a rail transit alternative from Big Joe ... for if you do, sadly, I'll have to come attend your funeral.

 

I think KJP's proposal to extend one of the Shaker lines under the Detroit-Superior Br (then out the Shoreway via a connection) is intriguing.  I never considered it, but it could work as the Rapid Transit’s Cuyahoga viaduct passes close by the Det-Sup Br and it's lower subway deck.  Obviously, it would be great to have light rail trains feed directly into Tower City’s transit hub so that expensive downtown terminal-building could be circumvented entirely.

 

And, yes, I'd prefer the N-S line be used for such an extension.  The corridor is so lightly used (and as noted, can have much traffic diverted/converted to nighttime customer shuttles), trolley wire can simply be strung over the existing right-of-way track... It's doable, but we'd have to overcome the Kucinich/Calabrese 1-2 punch!

 

I was working at RTA when the Dual Hub project was basically shot down for the last time, and it was a sad day.  RTA isn't totally to blame though, there's NOACA, the state and the feds as big players too.  Aren't the feds pushing systems toward BRT these days anyway?  Transit riders are second class citizens in this country, and it's really bad under the Bush Administration as far as funding cuts.  The recent lack of support for Homeland security to provide funding to protect public transit is the most telling.  At least if these BRT routes are in place, maybe they will be better suited in the future for conversion to rail.

Let's face it, it'll be a cold day in you-know-where when RTA chief Joe Calabrese supports any rail expansion.  I've seen enough of his actions (weakening RTA's existing rail w/ poor service), read his negative/hedging comments and know what town he lives in to understand this...  Joe C’s view towards rail transit can best be summed up by:    :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

 

Now, before you hit me with: “[w]here does the man live have to do with it?" broadside, I'll simply answer: a whole lot.  Especially when you’re the transit chief of a major mixed (bus/rail) transit system of a core town that's struggling w/ economic issues and trying to build up its urban center, … and you live in a suburb that epitomizes the worst in urban development: sprawl, single use development w/ lots of cul-de-sacs (and puullleeez don’t give me that faux Main Street Crock-er Park – which Calabrese, not so surprisingly held up as a great TOD model), distance from the urban core (far for Cuyahoga County, ... if it wasn't for the embarrassment he'd face for paying taxes to another county's transit system, I'm sure he'd be in Medina or beyond), and loaded w/ a bunch of think-a-like upper crust types who are either indifferent to Cleveland, esp downtown, or down right contemptuous of it.

 

About the only new rail we could possibly get is the CVSR extension into downtown, perhaps offering some modicum of commuter service to Valley View, Akron, Canton, etc... but THAT project is being fueled by Akron Metro w/ some (very mild) cheerleading from Jane Campbell's people. 

 

Calabrese, I'm sure, is just, er, ... along for the ride... So transit fans, expect more and more BRT talk from Joe C …, and please, please don't hold your breath waiting for a rail transit alternative from Big Joe ... for if you do, sadly, I'll have to come attend your funeral.

 

 

 

clvlndr....I can see you're a huge clabrese fan!  :-D

My apologies, really guys, cause I know I come off sounding like a 1-note attack dog against Joe C.  Maybe he's really a nice guy, privately, ... maybe... But my point is, it doesn’t matter what kind of guy he may be as, say, a neighbor or a brother-in-law, he’s hurting/or at least reluctant to really improve (maybe the same difference) rail transit here.  we really need to get Mad!! Whether it Joe C., Bush in D.C., Dennis the K (see, even though I'm a liberal Dem, I'm not beholden to any pol who craps on Cleveland transit-wise, as Dennis has, like (Democrat) Al Porter (Darth Vader, himself) did...

 

... We've got a good transit system (that we clearly aren't getting the most out of, TOD, etc, -wise) which could even be better.  But we've been jobbed by so many guys in power, and it particularly galls me that, as I see it, our transit chief is in bed w/ those who are clearly ANTI-transit...

 

... and, yes, though he may not have been perfect, Ron Tober,  who bolted Cleveland (in frustration and for more $$$$) for Charlotte, was a transit hero here.  Even though frustrated by the petty pols and the like, he fought and fought and was able to move this giant, reluctant elephant to get some things done -- like Gateway, w/ his strong advocacy of a rail transit connection for the Jake & Gund.  Like the really smart,  economical Community Circulator buses; Like late-night weekend Rapid Service and all night New Year's Eve service (which Joe C couldn't wait to deep 6) and, yes, like the Waterfront Line, itself, our 1st rail extension since the Airport line in the 60s.  He recognized, as do I, that, while the Waterfront Line isn't perfect and we really should fight (at that time) for the Dual Hub subway/rail line, the WL was an opportunity for Cleveland that couldn't be passed up (which so many before him certainly would have) and, therefore, w/ a partnership w/ Mike White and the Bicentennial Commission, saw it through...

 

... Charlotte clearly saw Tober as a true transit visionary, and snapped him up from us -- so now we're stuck w/ go-along-to-get-along, business as usu Joe C....

 

... it's enough to make you MAD.  I am... You should be TOO...

 

... thanks for letting me rant... once more.

 

Could a form of BRT be used in smaller cities like Akron and Youngstown area?

^Absolutely. No reason why they couldn't, as long as the route was chosen carefully.

 

KJP

Guys, lets not bash BRT too harshly until we see it in action.  In Houston they put in a light rail, but I bet that if it were BRT, it would not look, or act much differently.

Guys, lets not bash BRT too harshly until we see it in action.  In Houston they put in a light rail, but I bet that if it were BRT, it would not look, or act much differently.

 

But in Houston.  Nobody uses the light rail.  Its been the source of numerous accidents and it's slow as hell! 

 

Its not like the shaker trains, as they run in the median of the street, this thing runs on one side of the street (and it appeared to be single tracked in some locations) as a trolley.

 

I rode it twice, just to see what it was like, and for all the complaining we do about the shaker trains...the service, on all levels, on the Houston light rail line is substandard to our "rapid rail" at best.

 

I know three people that could walk to a trains stop in Houston, but prefer to drive cause they have not embraced and "don't get" rail transit.

^that and houston is up crap creek once they realized feds only pay to build, not to maintain

ugh....BRT....what a damn waste of money. why cant RTA extend the damn rapid system??? i mean, how much more could it cost, cuz it seems like it costs a damn lot for some glorified bus route.

for any comment i possibly have, someone can go back and read my comments in the euclid BRT thread, there's a wealth discussion there, and from people more knowledgeable than me

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3696.0

A new community circulator route also will begin Aug. 28. The No. 822 will follow a U-shaped route between the Westgate Transit Center, Great Northern Mall and Crocker Park, on an hourly schedule in both directions, from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The fare is 75 cents per trip. The circulator, replacing the lightly used No. 53 "big bus" route, was conceived by staff of the former North Olmsted Municipal Bus Line.

 

I used to take this route to my old job in North Olmsted, and still occasionally use it if I have to go out to Great Northern for some reason (it's better than taking the 75X, and having to dodge car after car when crossing Lorain and Brookpark, and all the parking lots). "Lightly used" is a hell of an understatement-- I'm mostly the only passenger on the 53 for the entire trip. :)

 

It'll be nice to pay only 75 cents, though.  How good are those circulator buses?  I've never been on one.

They ride pretty nicely, plus there are the new red circulator buses which are larger, ride better yet, and carry more people. The red ones are used on busier circulator routes, like the one in Lakewood.

 

By the way, do you know that you can get on/off circulators anywhere? You flag one down as you would a taxi and, when you're ready to get off, tell the driver where a little bit in advance of your destination.

 

KJP

Gold-Level Service

RTA Introduces New Type of Transportation Service to Commuters in Northwest Corridor

 

(CLEVELAND), January 11, 2006 – RTA will formally unveil a new bus fleet for the Gold Line today to commuters living in Cleveland’s West Side lakefront suburbs.  The line represents a new transportation approach in Northeast Ohio, incorporating elements of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in order to achieve express bus service along a street corridor, instead of through a freeway or interstate.  RTA purchased a new fleet of metallic gold colored buses for the line, which follows three different routes initiated from Avon Lake, Bay Village and Westlake at Crocker Park to downtown, with evening returns.

 

To celebrate the launch of the new Gold Line fleet and the fulfillment of the transit authority’s New Year’s resolution to provide enhanced service to the lakefront suburbs, RTA’s marketing staff will be boarding Gold Line buses on Wednesday morning, January 11, to distribute gold envelopes filled with discounts to Geiger’s Clothing & Sports, Fitworks Fitness Center, and Nature’s Bin to help riders keep their own 2006 resolutions.  Riders will also receive free ride tickets, and have a chance to win monthly fare passes as part of the launch promotion.

 

Providing enhanced work trip service to residents living along the Northwest Corridor, encompassing the communities of Avon Lake, Bay Village, Westlake, Fairview Park, Rocky River and Lakewood, has been a major priority at RTA.  Initially, the idea was to create a bus flyer line that would enter I-90 at various points.  But after holding community meetings last year and receiving feedback from residents recommending the line follow Lake and Detroit Avenues and Clifton Boulevard, the transit authority decided to create a different kind of express bus service.  The Gold Line cuts commute time through limited stops at dedicated stations, similar to a transit line.

 

“Combining the best of rail and bus service is the concept behind BRTs,” explains RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese.  “The Gold Line offers a service that is closer to rail than our traditional bus flyer service, and better addresses the transportation needs of those living along the Northwest Corridor.  We see great growth potential for this line.”

 

The introduction this week of the new gold bus fleet is the final piece for the Gold Line.  Since August, the line has been operating under the route designation 55F GL.  RTA has recorded a steady 10 percent increase in ridership on the line each month.

 

About RTA

RTA is the nation’s 13th-largest public-transit system, serving more than 45 percent of all public-transit riders in Ohio. Its 2,753 employees operate 108 rail cars on 34 miles of track and 624 buses on 1,606 route miles. In 2004, more than 55.5 million passengers rode RTA’s trains, buses, Community Circulators, and Paratransit vehicles.

45% of all public transit riders... that just seems crazy.  Just never read that stat before.

these arrogant cheapazz rta morons all need to be tossed. so they just officially expanded brt before ever using it? what?? portland, heck even dallas waited until the public spoke before expanding their lightrail. it's just the sensible thing to do. i smell payola with the buss company.

 

but what did i tell ya??? that those rta dopes would shove brt down the westside's throat. so kiss that commuter train good-bye. when your residents start to complain about those noisy & stinky articulated brt busses up and down the streets i'll just laugh -- you get what you deserved dennis the menace! another thing is there is no room for it on for example lake road west past clifton/lakewood.

 

still, even if they work that all out --- and i hope they do --- but certainly this is a warning shot to kiss any rapid expansion hopes goodbye. be shocked if they dont tear out all the tracks in a few years and turn all the trains into these damn cheapo shiny busses. ugh. whatev -- rrgh.  :x  must...take..a...deepbreath.

 

again...Management doesn't ride the bus...have no idea what to do with bus routs or light rail.  We need BEST IN CLASS mass transportation leadership in Metro Cleveland.

 

Not a f*ckin' creative bone in the bunch and Payolla sounds about right to me!

^silver line? gold line? indeed. why not orange? or purple? rta's ironic inside joke on the citizens. it's a scam.

meanwhile, across town in what i take is silver line news -- from crains:

 

Bus-only lanes drive trophy biz out of city

The changing of downtown Cleveland traffic and parking patterns is about to send one longtime business packing.

 

You guys are harsh!

It doesn't really sound like BRT.

^It's not, unless some major, transit-oriented changes are made when ODOT rebuilds Clifton in the next couple of years. Changes might include a center median, possibly with rapid-transit style stations in the median or maybe on the outer edges of the roadway. Or it may not have them at all given RTA's worsening financial crisis. RTA's 2005-2010 capital budget doesn't mention any such potential expenditures.

I would love to see Clifton with a median.  It is one of my favorite streets in the Cleveland area (Lakewood portion)--large trees line each side for about three miles.  IMHO, the expanse of asphalt is way too large.  A nice green median would due wonders for the impression that the street gives to the pedestrians and residents. While there are large amounts of traffic that use the street, it would not fail if you took out land in the middle for a fixed-median.

 

While others rue the presence of BRT, I see it as a definite improvement. I don't consider the new Gold line to be BRT at all.  What I like about the ECTP is that it creates the infrastructure that suggests to all that the street is a public transit corridor.  Large fixed stations are much more inviting than the intermittent bus shelter.  If the Silverline were connected via the new Shoreway Blvd to Clifton, this would create a greater and simpler connection in the minds of west siders to downtown, MidTown and UC. This would lead to an increase in the amount of trips that people would take inside this corridor. Light rail would take up too much space if it were placed in a median (best case scenario would be to use the existing rail line for commuter or light rail use--thanks a lot Dennis!)

Wimwar, how would light rail take up too much space in a median, but BRT would not?  Assuming a standard track gauge of 4'-8-1/2", and vehicle widths no greater than 10 feet, how do trains take up more room?

Dan,

 

I am not the expert in this field.  But, I look at the Shaker lines and see how much space they take up and compare it to the plans for the ECTP.  It appears that much more space is needed for light rail.  KJP, am I correct in my assumption?

Guys, lets not bash BRT too harshly until we see it in action.  In Houston they put in a light rail, but I bet that if it were BRT, it would not look, or act much differently.

 

Not quite.  What gets ignored by the pro-BRT crowd are the actual performance characteristics and limitations of the modes.  Just because you make a bus look like a train, does not mean the bus is going to behave like a train. 

Sure, BRT uses light-rail routing characteristics--fewer stations spaced farther apart, perhaps even a system of pre-boarding fare payment.  There are marked differences between the vehicles themselves, though.

 

Light rail operates on steel wheels on steel rails.  The coefficients of static and kinetic friction are far lower for steel-on-steel than for rubber-on-asphalt.  What this means in practical terms is the diesel motor of a bus must generate more power than the electric motor of a train.  Since diesel engines also have more moving parts, they require more maintenance, and are more prone to breakdowns.

 

Second, the life of a bus is far less than that of a rail car.  Buses last, on average, about 12-14 years.  Rail cars can last for several times that.  In fact, there are PCC cars from the 1940s that are still in operation in North America.  Since a thorough life-cycle cost analysis is never done when comparing BRT to light rail, the added expenditures of multiple bus fleets is never factored into the "lower cost" of the mode.

 

Third is ride quality.  Buses have much poorer acceleration and deceleration characteristics than rail.  Because buses spend more time accelerating and decelerating, they are not able to achieve as high of an average speed over the same route as a train.  The ride also suffers, because it is dependent on the quality of the streets, which as all Clevelanders know, tends to be suspect.   

 

With regard to routing, pro-BRT folks tout the flexibility of buses as an asset.  Flexibility is a negative quality--redundancy is an asset.  Even though special "stations" can be built for BRT, there typically is no permanence to the routing.  The line could theoretically be moved to a different street, or eliminated altogether.  On the other hand, rail infrastructure is permanent and fixed, which leads to increased investment along the route (and thus more stability in the affected neighborhoods), and increases ridership.

 

 

 

I'd rather say it with pictures, which show how tight an LRT alignment can be with adjacent traffic lanes, pedestrian walkways and parking.....

 

 

In Boston, pedestrians cross Beacon St. at Coolidge Corner station in front of LRT train. (Photo: LRTA)

 

 

 

Also in Boston, LRT in median alignment at Harvard St station. (Photo: Light Rail Central)

 

 

 

More Boston, with a C-Line LRT train in a boulevard median alignment. Note nose-in parking at left. (Photo: D. Pirmann)

 

 

 

In Karlsrhue Germany (sorry for the small pic!)

 

 

 

Again in Karlsrhue (and again a small pic)

 

 

And while I couldn't find a picture of it this go around, there's several systems in Europe (and also New Orleans) where the greenspace in the roadway's median also is the rail line. A rubberized mat was placed amid the rails and grass was planted on the mat. You can barely see the rails.