one more practical problem you forgot to add about brt dan. less service. articulated busses are like two regular busses in one. so you lose a bus for each. the trip may be a bit faster if dedicated lanes are built, and you are more likely to get a seat sure, but bottom line is they come less often. so you wait and wait at the stop longer for a bus. in comparison, the much improved speed and reliability of rail makes up for this service issue much better than just changing from regular bus service to big brt style bus service.

Articulated busses are also particularly uncomfortable and nauseating to ride on.  At least for me.

Thanks, mrnyc.  I also forgot to add the human factor.  With BRT, there is a lot more room for operator error (read:  accidents).  In rail systems, it is possible to have the entire operation computerized.  For example, on the Washington Metro (while not a LRT system) the operator's main responsibility is to open and close the doors and announce the stops.  Computers regulate the speed and braking of the trains. 

 

That, and if you happen to have an operator who is drunk or overly fatigued (Lord help us), there are only so many ways a rail car can veer....

 

As mrnyc pointed out, too, less service can be a hassle.  I know that in Boston, the streetcars typically come every 5 minutes or so.  This means that where all the branches converge downtown, there is typically a trolley coming through every 60-90 seconds.  Try doing that with buses.

 

X, I don't think you're alone.  A big part of the reason rail systems enjoy higher ridership than buses is precisely because of the ride quality, whether real or perceived. 

Here's an image I was looking for -- greenspace and high-density transportation...in the same space!

 

 

 

The Lyon Tram, Route T2, at Ambroise Paré in Lyon, France, photographed in 2001. (Photo by Bernard Chatreau)

 

 

 

Again in Lyon, here the T1 tram line runs in this unique median on the Avenue Albert Einstein. (Photo by Bernard Chatreau)

 

Wow, I'm sold. That is cool!

But wait, there's more! (from Lyon and photographer Bernard Chatreau)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you believe there's actually two tracks here?....

 

 

It also runs as a streetcar....

 

 

 

 

And as a subway....

 

 

 

 

 

That's all from Lakewood, er....Lyon, France!

Sweet!  If anything, those take up less than a lane of traffic would.

 

Remember when the world looked to America to see the future?

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?

 

That's wrong, wimwar.  Shaker Rapid's seem to take up space because of the deliberately-planned wide medians (and you'll note Shaker's is considerably narrower than Van Aken's b/c the latter anticipated commuter parking lots adjacent to station-stops).  The medians were built wide to enhance the grassy natural area and the large homes.  Rail cars over fixed rail takes up way less space b/c with buses, the drivers must steer and need a wider area for 'error' while the trains, of course, do not.  You should check out some of the more urban median-strip LRT lines in the Philly area that, by nature of their being in an old, transit-oriented city, are quite narrow.

That's wrong, wimwar.  Shaker Rapid's seem to take up space because of the deliberately-planned wide medians (and you'll note Shaker's is considerably narrower than Van Aken's b/c the latter anticipated commuter parking lots adjacent to station-stops).  The medians were built wide to enhance the grassy natural area and the large homes.  Rail cars over fixed rail takes up way less space b/c with buses, the drivers must steer and need a wider area for 'error' while the trains, of course, do not.  You should check out some of the more urban median-strip LRT lines in the Philly area that, by nature of their being in an old, transit-oriented city, are quite narrow.

 

To piggy back on this.  Please remember the original shaker trains were narrower than the trains currently in use.  The Van Aken line is among a high density area as there are mostly condo's an apartments along the line and is the more heavily used than the Shaker Line.  Back in the day the Van Aken line actually had an "express" train that ran. and on occasion the green line train wouldn't make its trip all the way to Warrensville or Green Rd. and turn around in the middle of Shaker Square.

 

RTA upgrades lakefront west suburban service

Thursday, January 12, 2006

James Ewinger

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

With the inauguration of the Gold Line bus service Wednesday, RTA is putting a higher gloss on an existing route near the western lakefront.

 

The new service also offers a glimpse of what's planned for the Euclid Corridor.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1137058414210090.xml&coll=2

 

RTA upgrades lakefront west suburban service

 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority General Manager Joe Calabrese calls it "BRT (bus rapid transit) lite," because the service incorporates some of the advantages of commuter rail service, including faster service and fewer stops.

 

 

okay, if BRT is poor mans or "LRT-lite", i didn't think there was a level below BRT, or BRT-lite as mr. calabrese likes to call it

okay, if BRT is poor mans or "LRT-lite", i didn't think there was a level below BRT, or BRT-lite as mr. calabrese likes to call it

 

Oh, don't worry.  If there is such a thing, Joe Calabrese will find it.

so: heavy > lrt > lrt-lite/BRT > brt-lite/bus > circulator > velociped > amtrak

Actually, Amtrak is pretty damn good and reliable along the Northeast Corridor.  Otherwise, looks about right, although you forgot "rickshaw".

I am a HUUUGE fan of light rail for numerous reasons.  I have posted on here once before about the topic and I am so happy to see many others share the same view.  I too am sad to see that Cleveland lost Tober to Charlotte (and see what is going on down there!)  The question is, what can WE do, as tax paying, transit using, citizens, to bend the ears of the RTA officials?  I would love to start a committee, do surveys, talk to developers that are taking stock in our new "urbanization" of downtown and get something done.  It would be great to know that WE actually were the catalyst to making a world class transit system.  I know I may be reaching or thinking too big....but why not?  I am not nearly as well versed or have the stats and knowledge of most of you on here, but one thing I DO know is that I have ridden transits in other cities, and I know ours could be better, and bigger.  Lets face it, people prefer rail over buses, for too many reasons to list.  So what do you guys think?  Can we rattle the cage a bit, bend some ears?  Can WE be pioneers for our city, and region?

i don't think cleveland / rta is necessarily anti-rail, but i don't think expansion will occur either until the current system becomes more successful through:

- TODs which in turn increase ridership

- Better policies (pre-paid fares, real time signage, improved security/preception of security)

 

i think that RTA feels burned on operating the waterfront line.  for a number of reasons that was a great project in 96, but no one has stepped up to build anything around those stops (and i know that some of them are hard to build around).  But, it hasn't generated nearly the ridership everyone had hoped.

 

i also think that for TOD purposes, we are constrained by past decisions to cut costs, placing lots of stations in rail trenches and industrial areas.  However, if we can get 2 or 3 good new TODs going around red line stations especially, i think we will have momentum for expanded rail.

 

Consider this though.  For the coming year, rail will generate maybe 15% of the total system ridership, but the capital budget for rail projects is higher that buses (excluding ECP):

 

2006 capital budget: $156.1 million

 

$70.0 million, BRT, Euclid Corridor Transportation Project

$27.5 million, Other

$23.5 million, Rail

$20.5 million, Buses

$  6.7 million, Transit Centers

$  4.2 million, Equipment & Vehicles

$  3.9 million, Facilities

$200,000, Bus Garages

 

BOTTOM LINE:  I think we need to show RTA that rail is working by supporting it.  One of the biggest draws of rail vs. BRT is supposed to be the permanent nature of the route and stops.  Seems Cleveland hasn't quite figured this out, because there are a lot of un/underdevloped stops and the rail line has been permanent. 

 

BOTTOM LINE2: RTA is not an innovator, but an operator.  This is where we could have the biggest impact in introducing new and better ideas on service and expansion (besides the broken record "expand rail").  Has anyone been on one of the new buses?  I have.  What is new?  Nothing that I can see.  RTA has been buying this same model of bus for 5 or 6 years now, and a lot of things have changed, but what has RTA introduced along these lines?  Nothing.  Security Cameras?  Stop announcements? 

 

With the current budget, it appears that RTA has to decide between the extras (cameras, stop announcements) and raising fares. 

 

I am not of the opinion that we should radically expand our rail system.  We need to foster the environment that will allow for sustainable rail expansion.  While some champion the ideals of Tober, I have also heard that his expansion plans are not in-line with realistic budget forecasts.  Is it overly ambitious so that maintenance costs will put too much of a strain on the system's budget? 

 

I agree with Urbanlife that we need to focus on TOD.  It will not only increase ridership, but it will set an example to Clevelanders of how rail can actually be successful and convenient.  I see West 25th and University Circle as areas that are ripe for TOD.  After we focus on what we do have, then we should expand.  As is, our rail system underperforms due to its routing.  It will be easier to enhance the areas around some of the current stations than it will be to dramatically extent or reroute our lines.

i don't think cleveland / rta is necessarily anti-rail, but i don't think expansion will occur either until the current system becomes more successful through:

- TODs which in turn increase ridership

- Better policies (pre-paid fares, real time signage, improved security/preception of security)

 

i think that RTA feels burned on operating the waterfront line.  for a number of reasons that was a great project in 96, but no one has stepped up to build anything around those stops (and i know that some of them are hard to build around).  But, it hasn't generated nearly the ridership everyone had hoped.

 

 

I agree to the extent that GCRTA and Joe Calabrese are not anti-rail.  They just won't go out of their way to advance it, which in some ways is just as bad.  They have such potential to expand a good rail system and make it a great one, but they just seem apathetic about doing it.

 

They got burned on the Waterfront Line largely because they banked it's success on Lake Front development that really hasn't drawn enough people on a daily basis to justify it.  The other mistake was that they didn't think big enough when designing and building the line.  It realy should have been set up to parallel the Shore Way to the East and into the Eastern suburbs along the Lake Front: generating ridership from both ends of the line rather than just from Terminal Tower through the Flats and on to the Rock Hall of Fame.

noozer, I'm not sure I agree about Joe, but I TOTALLY agree about the Waterfront Line... I also agree w/ mrnyc's and the pope's sentiment re BRT: it's a farce and a sham and hampers rail growth.

I agree with Urbanlife that we need to focus on TOD.  It will not only increase ridership, but it will set an example to Clevelanders of how rail can actually be successful and convenient.  I see West 25th and University Circle as areas that are ripe for TOD.  After we focus on what we do have, then we should expand.  As is, our rail system underperforms due to its routing.  It will be easier to enhance the areas around some of the current stations than it will be to dramatically extent or reroute our lines.

^ My sentiments as well.  I think if real investments are made for TOD, increased ridership will follow, which will lead to justifiable expansion in the future.  I must say though, I'm not sold on BRT, just seems like a glorified bus to me.  Oh well, if it increases public transit use in general, I won't complain.

 

Also, KJP, those pics from LRT in France are amazing.  It would be amazing to see something like that here.

It sounds like there's volume to warrant this today, but it could also work well with the West Shoreway rehab if that ever brings the kind of density it has the potential for.  I'd like to see this considered along Detroit Ave or W. 25/Pearl, but I'm not sure what routes are in the discussion for the new buses.

 

RTA explores service upgrade on Clifton route

 

By JAY MILLER [Crain's]

 

4:30 am, August 25, 2008

 

Article Removed

I'd really like to see this avoid the shoreway and go down Lake Ave (not the pretty part) and merge onto Detroit just south of Battery Park. This would be of great benefit to the near west side.

I agree that route would help maximize the number of riders it serves, but it would likely result in a longer commute time.  Unless they're able to make up significant time with the bus only lanes along the remainder of the route.  Don't get me wrong... I'm all for it!

I agree that route would help maximize the number of riders it serves, but it would likely result in a longer commute time. Unless they're able to make up significant time with the bus only lanes along the remainder of the route. Don't get me wrong... I'm all for it!

 

They would almost have to have a 55 Flyer and a 55 X.  The X would take 3231's route. 

I saw this in the newspaper and found the article online. It would be nice for the buses to have bus only lanes that could really move people during rush hour. I also like how it goes into all the way into Lakewood. This route could have really high ridership if all goes according to plan.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/03/clifton_boulevard_gets_upgrade.html#more

Clifton Boulevard to get upgraded bus service and 30 curbside stations

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter March 22, 2009 08:00AM

Categories: Real Time News

 

 

Lisa DeJong/Plain Dealer

New buses and an upgraded transit line are the first steps in a long-awaited facelift for Clifton Boulevard. Lakewood -- More than 60 years after streetcars were displaced by automobiles on Clifton Boulevard, an RTA bus/rapid transit line will be the street's new face of public transportation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clifton BRT definitely sounds like a winner.  I'm guessing it would play havoc on scheduling, but it would be particularly sweet if some of the Clifton BRT runs were extended as HealthLine runs to provide single seat service from the rich ridership base in Lakewood all the way to those big employers in UC...

^I think they should extend the Healthline down Detroit Avenue through downtown Lakewood.  Make that one long, fast cross town route.  Lakewood doesn't have much access to rail... the least we can give them is BRT.

Clifton BRT definitely sounds like a winner. I'm guessing it would play havoc on scheduling, but it would be particularly sweet if some of the Clifton BRT runs were extended as HealthLine runs to provide single seat service from the rich ridership base in Lakewood all the way to those big employers in UC...

 

That WOULD be sweet .. if they would include special BRT only lanes on the new bridge project, I'd be waay in support of that .. instead of just expanding it to a ridiculous 10 lanes of auto traffic. But I don't even know if that configuration could work. And obviously, RTA isn't even talking about that, so it's a pipe dream.

Clifton BRT definitely sounds like a winner. I'm guessing it would play havoc on scheduling, but it would be particularly sweet if some of the Clifton BRT runs were extended as HealthLine runs to provide single seat service from the rich ridership base in Lakewood all the way to those big employers in UC...

 

I agree we need more crosstown 1-seaters.  Hopefully that would be a possibility for this.  I'm all for improvements to transit on Clifton since that's the corridor I primarily use.  It will defeinitely have high ridership.  But I find it frustrating that we would add more BRT before rail.  I was hoping RTA would move strongly toward west shore rail.  This is no longer the Bush administration. 

 

Also Clifton in Lakewood is neither a commercial street nor in need of development, so there would be little economic spinoff from upgrades to that route.  Seems like spinoff should be an important goal for transit upgrades, and seems like several other west side streets like Lorain/Detroit/Madison/Pearl would be more appropriate for investment.

 

And the article isn't clear... these buses will continue downtown right?  So the route technically includes the whole west shoreway, not just Clifton as illustrated, right?

It's pretty clear, actually:

 

"RTA will spend $700,000 in federal stimulus money to plan and design a four-mile line extending from the West Shoreway in Cleveland to the Lakewood/Rocky River border."

 

So... it's going to take people from the west end of Lakewood and drop them at the west end of Cleveland in the morning, when they all want to go downtown?  That can't be.  I imagine they won't build any stations or grassy knolls on the shoreway, but it's a necessary part of the route.  BRT that only serves Clifton proper would be virtually useless.

To clarify the PD story...Clifton Blvd. service would continue on the Shoreway and end on Public Square, where riders could transfer to the HealthLine or the trolley service. The story is correct in that the project design will focus on Clifton Blvd., as no design changes are needed to the Shoreway or downtown.

That makes a heck of a lot more sense.  The problem is that, as Jpop noted, the PD article and diagram make it seem like the route has nothing to do with downtown.

Yeah, that lack of detail is really unfortunate.

That definitely clarifies it, because the PD article was really odd ... it did make it sound like the route ends at the Shoreway, and then folks can just hike up West Boulevard and catch a rapid, or walk the rest of the way via the Shoreway. 

 

Though I do like the suggestion of eventually running the BRT from Public Square down Detroit to the Rocky River border ... now THAT is something that would spur some economic development, not only in Lakewood, but also along Detroit in Cleveland.

 

But the BRT on Clifton is a good start ...

So, basically the PD took what should have been an exciting front page announcement, relegated it to Metro, and described it inaccurately enough to obscure the main benefit of the project.  Stupendous.

As a Lakewood resident, it is very exciting about the Clifton BRT. I thought it made sense from the article that the line would tie into and travel through the shoreway.

 

I like the idea a lot, but I wonder if an alternative to Clifton-Shoreway route could be considered where the route would go Clifton-Lake-Detroit. This would increase the people within walking distance of the route, because once you get to the Shoreway no one lives North of it. But if the route were to travel South East down Lake Avenue (where it intersects Clifton) and then westward down Detroit into downtown, you have the line more accessible to more people. Also, you have a more direct approach into downtown via Detroit.

^ Good idea, but...the whole purpose of the idea is to get more people downtown faster, and stopping and starting down Detroit will not accomplish that. Also, many of the vehicles along Clifton are already full by the time they reach the Shoreway.

I see this Clifton BRT as the first jump into better service into Lakewood.  It has a very high ridership in a stable housing stock and will no doubt do well.  I hope Detroit is eventually looked at by RTA as an opprtunity for BRT (or light rail) because of its unbounding potential for spinoff development from Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway, W117th, Warren/Detroit, and West End.  The Clifton BRT is just an important rise in the quality of service that will probably raise property values and the area's attractiveness to younger residents.

This is an area where I think Cleveland's mayor should be coordinating with RTA where to best place new/upgrades in service in conjunction with new developments.  Someone at City Hall needs to be coordinating the development of this city.  Sadly, I don't believe Frank Jackson has the foresight to arrange these sorts of all encompassing urban intervention.

I think this makes perfect sense and is a very logical connection to the health line...  in my Utopia Cleveland, there is the "Gold Line" Subway, that extends out of downtown under the detroit superior bridge and continues down Detroit all the way to the Lakewood / Rocky River line...

 

But it seems BRT and Clifton are a perfect match (Of course in my utopia Cleveland this and the healthline would have been a street car line, but I am aware of why that isn't reality).

I see this Clifton BRT as the first jump into better service into Lakewood.  It has a very high ridership in a stable housing stock and will no doubt do well.  I hope Detroit is eventually looked at by RTA as an opprtunity for BRT (or light rail) because of its unbounding potential for spinoff development from Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway, W117th, Warren/Detroit, and West End.  The Clifton BRT is just an important rise in the quality of service that will probably raise property values and the area's attractiveness to younger residents.

This is an area where I think Cleveland's mayor should be coordinating with RTA where to best place new/upgrades in service in conjunction with new developments.  Someone at City Hall needs to be coordinating the development of this city.  Sadly, I don't believe Frank Jackson has the foresight to arrange these sorts of all encompassing urban intervention.

 

Hopefully you've shared you opinion/ideas with your city councilman and the Mayor.

If the mayor wants me to teach him a class on comprehensive urban design I'd be happy to.

Hi I'm Clifton!  I'm getting enhanced!

 

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/drupal/index.php?q=node/3

 

Note the first public meeting listed on the site:

When: Wednesday, March 24th 2010 :: 6pm-8pm

Where: Emerson Middle School (13439 Clifton Blvd. Lakewood, OH) map

What: Intial public meeting joint session for Cleveland and Lakewood

 

    * Very brief overview of previous planning effors and actions by Cleveland and Lakewood to date

    * Overview of scope, deliverables and timeline of this study process

    * Presentation of potential plan components to test residents priorities, qualitative desires and funtional needs

 

 

Another sunny day, another survey crew working on Clifton today.

 

I wonder if any Lakewood residents have seen them west of 117th?

^ Their calendar is out of date, we will talk to them today. The public meeting is April 7. RTA will prepare a press release in a few days.

Thank you Jerry.  Glad to hear--because I wasn't going to be able to make it Wednesday night.

 

Look forward to hearing about the plans--whether they include major transit components or not.

While this is a great concept, I'm surprised no one has mentioned how the 55 is a route that is continually being cut down. Last September the 55 saw decreased runs during rush hour. And now the 55 is being cut COMPLETELY on the weekends and barely survived continuing late evening service to 10pm. It seems hard to justify putting this much money into establishing an entire BRT project around service that is mostly used for 3 hour blocks each day.

 

While I would love to see a BRT type of development along Clifton, how feasible is it from a ridership perspective? The 55 is only packed from 7-10am inbound, and 3:30-6pm outbound. Because the development pattern along Clifton is almost exclusively residential, the route serves really to only bring people in and out of downtown and not to destinations in between such as the Healthline BRT.

 

While Clifton could possibly benefit from the aesthetics of sprucing up the boulevard, Detroit is the street that would see the most benefit. Clifton is well established and very little development could take place along its path. Detroit, on the other hand is teaming with development possibilities.

I would also love to see BRT service on Detroit rather than Clifton.  However Clifton is wider and can more easily accommodate it.  I am not sure if Detroit is wide enough to provide BRT service.  If Clifton BRT becomes a reality I'd like to see it integrated with the Healthline and create one seat ride to University Circle.

While Clifton could possibly benefit from the aesthetics of sprucing up the boulevard, Detroit is the street that would see the most benefit. Clifton is well established and very little development could take place along its path. Detroit, on the other hand is teaming with development possibilities.

 

Excellent post! I am a 14-year resident of Clifton Boulevard and a homeowner. So you'd think I'd love to see a BRT-lite along Clifton. But I agree 100% that the BRT should be on Detroit (I would also put BRT or BRT-lite on Lorain and West 25th to Old Brooklyn!). If these had signal prioritization that actually worked (unlike on Euclid), the speed increase and cost savings (vehicle-hours, fuel, maintenance, etc) should be quite worthwhile. And, as you note, these are services that are busy around the clock owing to their varied land uses along them, as well as major employers, large medical facilities and attractions (zoo, metroparks, theaters, etc).

I think the closest Detroit would ever get to a BRT is the double long buses they rolled out last year on the 26. But the 26 is such a slow ride to downtown from Lakewood.

 

I think getting a BRT on Clifton is going to have a lot of hurdles. The 55 and 55F are extremely quick ways of getting people from the west side to downtown. In many instances, taking the 55 is just as quick (if not quicker) as driving yourself from the west side into downtown. Using a BRT as a justification for speed is going to be tough.

 

It also seems hard to justify a BRT for a route that can barely support enough riders outside of rush hours that its existence outside of those time frames was cut.

 

Because Clifton is so wide compared to Euclid, having buses use one of the outer 3 lanes makes more sense than having it run down the middle. Putting in a center median for buses/grass creates a logistical problem of having to create designated u-turn areas every 1/4 mile or so. This then creates an additional signal time for intersections which would in turn increase commute via the BRT compared to the standard bus.