In Cleveland, BRT’s performance promise falters
Written by William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-ChiefOfficials from Cleveland’s Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) in recent years have urged passenger rail advocates to consider the virtues of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), in the process chiding those who questioned the tag line of “just like light rail, but cheaper.”
(Railway Age has been included in that scolding, following its April 2009 article evaluating BRT and LRT, entitled "Option or oxymoron?"; we received our redress in June 2009 during the American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference in Chicago.)
But one media report now notes RTA’s $200 million HealthLine, which traverses Euclid Avenue, “is moving at about the same slow pace as the bus it replaced.”
Cleveland is adjusting traffic signals along the route to bolster BRT’s speed, which during one monitored run covered the 7.1-mile route in 44 minutes—three minutes faster than the predecessor No. 6 bus, but falling short of the projected trip time of 33 minutes. A monitored trip in the opposite direction was completed in 36 minutes.
“I am very disappointed with the performance of the Euclid Corridor,” said Brad Chase, chairman of RTA’s Citizens AdvisoryBoard, which pressured RTA to release the run times. “It is much nicer and ridership is up, but timing-wise it has never really made it.”
Chase, who said he rides both bus and rail routes, is hopeful speeds can improve. “I know that [the train] is not going to stop at traffic lights,” he said. “This [the HealthLine] is supposed to operate like a train but on wheels and it is just not there. It can be. We have the equipment but need to program it properly.”
