Shaker Heights on April 10 issued a request for qualifications from developers interested in the 60-acre redevelopment zone at the east end of the Blue Line at Van Aken, Warrensville, Northfield and Chagrin.

 

Man, this intersection could use some work.  It has to be one of the most confusing places in the area.  You can't turn certain directions from each approach, and you can only circle back around on the northeast side.  The neighborhoods around there are confusing as hell to get in and out of, too.  I think left turns are against the law in Shaker.

 

Another complaint in their plan is the north-south streets. I've noticed that Lee road, from 480 all the way up to Cedar, is a major pain.  It seems like there are traffic lights every other block and they are timed really poorly.

 

I was hoping the plan would call for some major TOD, like a rapid station integrated right into a mixed-use building. 

 

 

I remember seeing something on this maybe a year ago on the shaker heights strategic investment plan, prepared by urban design associates. (I got the pdf on my computer) Quite frankly it looked like they allready had an excellent plan on how to fix allot of the screwy problems around van aken.

 

*edit*

http://www.shakeronline.com/cityhall/documents/

Click Strategic Investment Plan, 60 page pdf, shows an ideal design for van aken,

^Urban Design Associates is a first-class outfit.

Whoops, here's another RFP...er, RFQ. And this one is a big one!

 

Shaker Heights on April 10 issued a request for qualifications from developers interested in the 60-acre redevelopment zone at the east end of the Blue Line at Van Aken, Warrensville, Northfield and Chagrin.

 

Here's is link to the 11-page RFQ from the city....

 

http://www.shakeronline.com/Media/PDFs/Uploader/413200694237WvA_RFQEmail.pdf

 

The aerial shot on the cover of the RFQ is quite interesting: despite the intense development along the streets, three of the four quadrants of the Chagrin/WCR intersection have a full golf course pretty close in, something I guess I knew abstractly but never really imagined in an aerial photo.  Makes the area look a lot greener than it feels at the rapid stop.

 

I note that only 10 acres of the development area are actually owned by the city; a large-scale redevelopment is contingent on purchasing the OfficeMax site and other privately-owned parcels.  Because no-one person actually controls all the parcels, I think the UDA plan was just some visioning to stoke interest in the area.  I sure hope something big happens.

 

Thanks for posting, KJP!  This is an incredible opportunity and one that I hope warrants extending this line out further (this has been discussed for years).  I know that this and Shaker Towne Center were the big master planning projects for Shaker Heights over the past decade or so and I'm glad to see this one get officially started.  When you consider the Cedar Center redo and all the other "new urbanist" redevelopments around the region, Van Aken really has to step it up and capitalize on the advantages that it has that none of these other sites can boast. 

You're not kidding about it being a big one, KJP! 

 

up to:

600 units of housing

250,000 sq ft of retail

400,000 sq ft of office

50,000 sq ft of institutional or public use

2,000 structured parking spaces

6 acres of open space

 

That's one heck of a development.

I ran some back-of-the-envelope numbers, and estimate that this development, if built in the manner proposed, could generate 125,000 to 175,000 additional transit trips per year. Much of that would likely be on the Blue Line.

We've been following this as it's right in our back yard -- I grew up right around these parts.  Shaker w/ this project, along w/ Shaker Towne Center, is seriously throwing down the gauntlet to rival/neighbor Cleveland Hts (Heights Bites!!) in its long overdue development of walkable, mixed use developments.  It's surprising that w/ the obvious advantage of rapid transit, Shaker's been so slow in such TOD development; but it's geared all its (limited) commercial development towards the auto -- the most recent debacle being Shaker Town Center I, built in the late 80s/early 90s, w/ the businesses set way back from the curb behind the typical sprawl-burb surface parking sea in a typical strip mall type development.

 

These new 2 TOD developments are making the best of Shaker’s decades of poor planning, and it's great to see... I too despise just missing the light at the Chagrin, Warrensville, Van Aken & Northfield intersection... too bad we can't go really nuts and build and underpass for Warrensville and extend the Blue line overhead in the center of a handsome skyway surrounded by temp controlled sidewalks connecting buildings in the new development...

 

... well, a guy can dream, can't he?

 

And guess who was the only developer to respond to Shaker's RFQ...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1147250342277810.xml&coll=2

 

Campbell said national companies have expressed interest in the project. He said the companies are searching for projects that make use of mass transit.

 

No kidding.  Welcome to the 21st Century!

If they can lure tenants like Crate & Barrell and Restoration Hardware over here, I'd actually consider making the trip via rail.  I can't support Legacy or Crocker or Eton, but a TOD in Shaker Heights is something I can get down with!

^Mister Good Day, I think a lot of people would share your enthusiasm for an authentic TOD like this one over a faux one like Crocker or Legacy.

 

I wonder if Van Aken-Northfield could be depressed under Chagrin & Warrensville, reducing congestion, promoting walk-a-bility and providing  a thru right of way for a future Blue Line extension to Chagrin Highlands (which will soon be getting a high-density U. Hospitals branch in addition to the Marriott and other new construction at Harvard & I-271.

I wonder if Van Aken-Northfield could be depressed under Chagrin & Warrensville

 

We can do anything if we're willing to pay the price.

 

I'd love to see such a grade separation. I wonder how much it would cost? $10 million? $20 million? More? Perhaps a TIF could be created out of this redevelopment to pay the local share for leveraging state/federal funds? Once you push the Blue Line to the other side of this intersection, the cost for further extension should be relatively small.

 

And the Major Investment Study for the Blue Line extension has already been done. Next stop is preliminary engineering/environmental impact study -- the last before federal construction funds can be secured.

This is what Urban Design Associates proposed for this area:

 

Existing conditions:

 

 

Proposed redevelopment:

 

 

Street level:

 

 

And, just west on Van Aken/Blue Line at Lee, UDA proposes this (some of which is underway, with a new rapid station built on the east side of Lee coming in the next couple of years)...

 

 

The new rapid station is visible in the background-center (at least UDA's conceptual design of it)...

 

^Mister Good Day, I think a lot of people would share your enthusiasm for an authentic TOD like this one over a faux one like Crocker or Legacy.

 

I'm a stickler for terminology.  Legacy Village and Crocker Park are not TOD, as there is no transit component.  While Legacy is a complete sham, I think Stark did a good job with Crocker Park.  It reminds me of *gasp* an authentic neighborhood.  Granted, it's still in it's infancy, but with its mix of retail, residential, and office, as well as the architectural scale and styling, I think will help it age well over time.  Understand that I live in an old, very walkable neighborhood, and I was quite impressed with Crocker Park. 

 

With that said, I think the prospects for a transit-oriented "town center" at Van Aken are tremendous.  Even as a kid, I always wondered why those shopping centers were set so far back from the Rapid station.  I guess the only caveat would be for Shaker Heights not to go all Cleveland on the thing and mandate parking requirements appropriate for the Saturday before Christmas. 

 

 

 

 

 

^Mister Good Day, I think a lot of people would share your enthusiasm for an authentic TOD like this one over a faux one like Crocker or Legacy.

 

I'm a stickler for terminology.  Legacy Village and Crocker Park are not TOD, as there is no transit component.  While Legacy is a complete sham, I think Stark did a good job with Crocker Park.  It reminds me of *gasp* an authentic neighborhood.  Granted, it's still in it's infancy, but with its mix of retail, residential, and office, as well as the architectural scale and styling, I think will help it age well over time.  Understand that I live in an old, very walkable neighborhood, and I was quite impressed with Crocker Park. 

 

With that said, I think the prospects for a transit-oriented "town center" at Van Aken are tremendous.  Even as a kid, I always wondered why those shopping centers were set so far back from the Rapid station.  I guess the only caveat would be for Shaker Heights not to go all Cleveland on the thing and mandate parking requirements appropriate for the Saturday before Christmas.

 

 

 

Well i live on Shaker Square....I'm not impressed by either.  Been to Lettuce-y Village twice, drove thru both time and been to cracker park once....I gave them both a big fat yawn!

 

Urban living is where its at...even if wolstein HAD NOT proposed the east bank and all the other "owners/developers" started sprouting plans...the INNER CITY is the answer!  As the East Coast becomes too expensive and our (local) economy diversifies the city will again be the crown jewel of the region.

 

 

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly, MTS.  Crocker Park, I think, is a good attempt at urbanity.  Admittedly, it's a bit out of context because it is surrounded by suburbia, but here's to hoping the urban form starts swallowing that up over time.

 

All I know is that when I come back to Ohio, I often feel lost, since everything is so spread out.  Crocker Park, whether you believe it or not, is one area that actually has the urban feel to which I'm accustomed.  There is plenty of work to do, though, in reinvesting in existing, older neighborhoods, but if the suburbs want to alter their form to something more urban, I'm not going to fault them for that.

 

Now Legacy on the other hand...don't get me started.

^ Can you guys post some of that stuff in the project thread?  It's on page one of P&C.

 

Thanks.

This still seems to be a TOD concept (a rather large one, admittedly), but not yet a project. But if there a thread for this project already, then we should post there. Subjects like this tend to get into a gray area between transportation and development project.

This has been part of the Shaker master plan for years.  I saw those plans that KJP posted a few years back and I loved them.  I thought they were wholly realistic and appropriate...not to mention fetching!  I would love to see them happen sooner than later and I think that the success of Shaker Town Center will have a lot of bearing on this. 

 

I also love the idea of extending the Blue Line through Van Aken/Chagrin.  It could do wonders to connect people to jobs...which is pretty much what that line was initially intended to do...albeit in the opposite direction.  Now, the people who need the jobs are on the inside and the jobs are on the outside.  Those who the line was initially constructed for don't really need or use the transit like they used to, so RTA et al need to really think about their users and function and make some capital expenditures that reflect this. 

 

As for Crocker & Legacy.  I've only been to Legacy and that was really before I moved home.  (I'll admit that I went once since I moved to find a sporting good that I couldn't find in Cleveland...though I tried!)  Crocker Park is a bit outside of my "comfort zone" (I hear that there are graffiti gangs out in the suburbs!) so I haven't been out there.  But from what I hear, Stark and Crocker were inclusive when it came to transit, while Legacy was not...employees and shoppers have to get off the bus on Richmond or Cedar and walk across a ton of parking to get to work/shops.  This obviously doesn't make CP a TOD in the least (that's a laugh), but the thought of building something that is supposed to be "urban" without actually including a transit element is pretty ridiculous.  Crocker is at least a few steps ahead of Legacy in that, and many other regards.  Namely, it's a mixed-use development, while Legacy certainly is not!

 

(I hear that there are graffiti gangs out in the suburbs!)

 

 

 

LMAO!!! I tell you, those westside suburban ghetto's are scary!  Be afraid....be very afraid!

^DaninDC.  I wholeheartedly agree.  My bad.  Let's get our terms straight.  After all, once we 'dumb down' the concept of TOD, in this region anyway, we open the door for sprawl-type joints masquerading as TOD like Crocker and Legacy (sorry, neither BRT nor the Westlake bus park & ride qualify as true TOD generators, Mr. Calabrese). 

 

But in Cleveland, what is TOD anyway?  Do we have true Transit Oriented Development, or Development that Happens to Be Near Transit (DHBNT?) -- where transit is merely incidental...  I mean, Wolstein hasn't yet mentioned the Waterfront Line as being, in anyway, important to his development (absent the fleeting, now apparently dead, idea of building the DFAS HQ building down there).  Obviously, Wolstein's East Bank can/will benefit greatly from the availability of rail at his front door in his tightly-configured, narrow street, small waterfront land mass.    Over at Tower City - the MOST Transit Oriented mixed use Development in the whole state (maybe the whole Midwest) - the current owners (the Ratners) ignore transit almost entirely in thier literature (or on their website), pitching parking deals as the lure to get people down there.  Indeed, Ratner lobbied for the County HQ by proposing to rip out the most valuable Hotys 11-screen cine-plex in order to build more parking.  Tower City recently built, on Prospect, an ugly, restaurant-view blocking valet/port to attract more drivers.

 

Do we have any absolute TOD in this region absent the very-noble Eco-Village townhouses at W. 65th?  -- or what's proposed at Brookpark (and that project doesn't seem to be moving).

 

Don't we suffer in this region from the mentality that convenient transit is only for the poor and minorities and, in the case of Tower City, allegedly leads to the DEATH of worthwhile development more than it helps it?

^Mister Good Day.  You're right, I've seen these (KJP) posted Shaker/Warrensville schematics, before.  Bob Stark appears the only developer, so far, that has answered the RFP/RFQ -- so what we ultimately get could be significantly different than the pictures (although, similar in concept).

 

In terms of the Blue Line, I see no reason why, since we're going to spent tens/hundreds of $ millions revamping this high-density area, spending a few million more to depress a 2-track underpass for a possible future Blue Line extension -- indeed, such a provision could ENCOURAGE the extension.

 

It's the same reason why, if we actually redevelop Public Square, as has been kicked around in the Pee Dee of late, we should build an East-West subway terminal (for further use) underneath it.  Why not?  If people are in love with the idea of running trains underneath the Detroit-Superior Bridge (which I personally endorse, too), why not put a subway terminal under the center point, traffic-wise, of the entire region: Public Square?  ... a center point that's only a couple thousand feet from the end of the Bridge, anyway.   You could even build an underground connection to the present rapid station.  It makes no sense (as most people propose) to build ramps (like the old trolleys had) raising trains to the surface, causing Toonerville Trolley type congestion.  I thought the original goal of such a subway, going back to the 1920s, was parallel to Boston's motivation: removing streetcar/bus traffic off the surface...  But maybe that's just me...

 

... but we seem so indifferent to rail/transit here, I seriously doubt it'll get done.  Look at our track record (no pun intended). 

 

- We build a Stokes Courthouse tower 15-20 feet to the west of where it could have been, which COULD HAVE allowed to railroad tracks back into Tower City where they really belong.

 

- We build a stub terminal at Stokes/Windermere thwarting any future expansion of the Red Line east (absent the several $millions needed to alter the new station, which we won't spend).

 

- we develop the center of Shaker Boulevard east of the Green Road/Green Line terminal halting any possible expansion of that service into Beachwood/Pepper Pike...

 

... so should

[cut off] should we revamp the Shaker/Warr area, we should look to the future, if we're truly serious about Smart Growth in this region.

I think one of those plans has the line continuing through a revamped Chagrin/Warrensville intersection at-grade.  I know this would be tough, but it would probably be a lower cost alternative.  They could time the lights to prevent the trains from sitting for too long and could landscape the intersection in a way that would make all corners more attractive and accessible to pedestrians, while still accommodating for the high traffic volume that passes through.

 

A former prof of mine at UC who had her own urban design/planning firm did a study of the intersection with options like running the tracks under, through and over the intersection.  I think this may have been one of their recommendations, but I'm not sure. 

^ Really?  It sounds like another case of penny wise, pound foolish.  That intersection was rated as one of the busiest in Greater Cleveland.  If you miss the light, you wait almost 5 Min's.  I can't see how ODOT would allow Rapid cars to trip the lights and disrupt the flow.  I say: spend the few millions and build the stinkin' rail underpass, esp since they're going to tear it up anyway... The Blue line is slow enough with the lights and frequent stops.  Why not capitalize on the chance to speed trains through a very difficult intersection?

Yeah, I'm not saying it worked or was supported by anyone.  I think there are plenty of good reasons why this problem is still not resolved!  I'd prefer the underpass and I think the funding could be offset by Federal funds and perhaps a TIF deal for the whole redevelopment area.  This could be a huge project and I think that if it isn't, we'll have missed a great opportunity.  I'm glad they're including the Office Max site as a part of it...

I was looking on GoogleEarth at some of the neighborhood underpasses in Washington D.C. to get some ideas on how to design a similar underpass at the end of the Blue Line. Of course, at places like Dupont Circle, the rail line is below everything, so that's not entirely transferrable to Cleveland. Putting the Blue Line in a below-grade station adds some complicating factors of access, safety and visual attractiveness. Those issues can be addressed, so I'm not saying it's impossible, just more complicated.

 

I think what RTA will be doing station-wise at Lee Road and Van Aken might offer some insight as to what might be done at Warrensville -- treat the station area as if it were a subway. Build the station entrance above the tracks to completely cover them, creating a plaza area that provides an uninterrupted visual appearance at street level and drop a single stairwell/elevator to a center platform below.

^Hmmm...I've seen the plans, but not in real life yet.  Have they started this?

Not yet. NOACA's TIP shows the station design won't start until sometime this year (costing $260,000). Construction is slated to begin in 2008, estimated to cost $2.28 million. See http://www.noaca.org/TIP13may05.pdf for more info.

This still seems to be a TOD concept (a rather large one, admittedly), but not yet a project. But if there a thread for this project already, then we should post there. Subjects like this tend to get into a gray area between transportation and development project.

 

Very true.  You could even post about it in both, if you want.

 

I didn't see this until now, posted at Green City Blue Lake (I would like to have attended this):

 

Start: May 24 2006 - 6:30pm

End: May 24 2006 - 8:30pm

Shaker Heights is breaking ground on the 150-unit Lofts of Avalon Station - built right at the RTA Blue Line rail station (near Lee and Van Aken). The $60 million project includes a green roof over its parking deck. See this latest addition to the area's transit-oriented developments. Call 440-343-1701 for more information.

 

Or visit the developer's website at:

 

http://www.avalonlofts.com/home.php

 

That's a Heartland Developers project...Gordon Priemer...who are also doing the Jay Avenue Lofts.  (see update momentarily on that thread!)

check out this iNGENUITY installation on public square showcasing the TWE study commissioned by RTA

http://www.ingenuitycleveland.com/event_listings.asp?eventid=489&time=&date=7/14/2006&categoryid=days

I know we have the 2 projects going on in Shaker, but maybe this Baltimore TOD can be something of a guide:

 

http://www.davidsbrown.com/commercial/commercial-upcoming/metro-centre.html

 

It's the only TOD I know of that's been inspired by Balto's current rail network.

... was just past the "temporary" wooden Rapid station at Brookpark the other day on the way home from the airport.  It appears nothing's going on at all, yet I thought the construction on the hotel/retail/parking TOD there would be well underway by now as (I thought) was scheduled.  Is this project now dead?  If not, what's the status?

The last I heard, the developer was having difficulty getting hotels to sign leases.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Transit-Oriented Development's Role in Enhancing Affordability

 

By Mariia V. Zimmerman

 

The housing market in America is changing dramatically as American households get older, smaller, and more ethnically diverse, and these shifting demographics are fundamentally re-scripting the American dream. While the single-family home with a two-car garage in the suburbs was ideal for the family with a breadwinner dad, stay-at-home mom and several kids, it doesn’t work nearly so well for families with two working parents and one child, or for “empty-nesters” or other households with no children.

 

Single adults will soon be the new majority in this country. Married couples with kids--a demographic group that made up the vast majority of households a century ago--now total just 25 percent, a number expected to drop to 20 percent by 2010. At the same time, the nation’s population is becoming increasingly diverse, with almost half the population expected to be non-white by 2050, and almost a third of that growth due to immigration.

 

These age groups and household types are flooding the housing market with buyers and renters who are interested in smaller homes and a lifestyle that’s more convenient--with entertainment, culture, sidewalk cafes, parks, and shopping all within walking distance. People want transportation options and more housing choices, including lofts, live-work spaces, townhomes, row houses, courtyard housing, and other housing types suitable for walkable, higher-density urban neighborhoods.

 

Fortunately, the U.S. is in the midst of a transit-building boom, with almost every metropolitan region planning or building some form of urban rail, busway or streetcar system. The competition for federal funding is so intense that the wait to get a proposed new project funded is almost 50 years. As a result, some regions aren’t waiting. Last fall voters in Denver, for example, approved a local sales-tax increase to fully build out their transit system in a dozen years, improving their bus system and adding six light rail lines, three commuter rail lines, and 70 stations.

 

The Affordability Index – Rethinking our Notions of “Affordable”

For most American households, wealth is perceived as the value of the family home. Few people are aware of how much they spend annually on car payments, insurance, gas, parking and car repairs, while the rent or mortgage is typically a simpler sum. But it turns out that a relatively inexpensive home with a three-car garage in a remote suburban subdivision is not the same “deal” as a similarly priced home in a more urban area when one factors in transportation costs. Many people moving to distant suburbs for cheap housing may not in the end save money or build as much wealth. For low-income families this is a particular paradox. Not only are housing prices beyond the reach of many lower-income families, but they also bear a higher burden in transportation costs as these expenditures claim a higher percentage of their household budgets even if they are spending less.

 

While housing is considered affordable if it accounts for 30 percent or less of a household’s monthly budget, there is no recognized benchmark for determining “affordable” transportation spending. Nationally, transportation is the second largest household expenditure after housing and ranges from less than 10 percent in transit-rich areas to almost a quarter of the average household’s expenditures in areas where there are few transportation options. The cost of driving in the U.S. last year was pegged at 50 cents per mile, and the annual cost of auto ownership averaged about $10,000.  And these costs will only increase with the rising price of gasoline.

 

Transportation costs, like housing costs, vary widely within metro areas, though, generally speaking, housing is cheaper the farther one lives from the Central Business District, while transportation becomes more expensive. A growing body of research has shown a strong relationship between increased density, transit access, and pedestrian friendliness on the one hand, and reduced vehicle miles traveled and automobile ownership on the other. According to the 2005 Joint Center for Housing Study, those living in housing considered to be affordable spend an average of $100 more on transportation per month than those living in areas with higher housing prices but located closer to the urban core. Given the increasing costs of driving, the savings that can result from living in a dense, transit-friendly community can be considerable.

 

Up until now, a household’s transportation demand was considered to be primarily driven by household income and size: Larger and wealthier households tend to own more vehicles and drive more miles. But research undertaken by Reconnecting America shows that the land use and transportation characteristics of a neighborhood--density, walkability, the availability and quality of transit, and the accessibility of jobs and amenities such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, daycare and movie theaters--are actually more highly correlated. Characteristics of place influence demand and help determine how residents get around, where they go, and how much they spend on transportation.

 

But these combined costs aren’t considered by lenders when they score individual home loan applications. Neither are they considered in the housing affordability standards used to allocate low-income housing tax credits or vouchers for other affordable housing programs. Reframing nationally accepted affordability measures to combine both housing and transportation costs into one measurement of overall affordability could allow low-income households to more easily qualify for homeownership and provide a substantial incentive to the private sector to invest in transit-oriented locations.

 

For these reasons, in January 2006, the Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) released the Housing & Transportation Affordability Index (H+T Affordability Index). The Index was created through the Brookings Institution Urban Markets Initiative with additional support from the McKnight and Surdna Foundations. This new Index is already being applied to the Minneapolis-St. Paul region to inform the policy debate about new transit investment, job growth, and housing affordability. The Center for TOD and CNT are working to broaden the application of the Index for at least 40 additional metropolitan areas in late 2006 or early 2007.  Detailed findings for the Chicago metropolitan region will be released in late June, and CNT is working with several other regions, including Atlanta and Champaign-Urbana, to apply the analysis to those areas. The National Housing Conference’s Center for Housing Policy will also soon release a report by CNT that uses the Index to compare housing and transportation costs across 28 metropolitan regions for working households.

 

The Affordability Index provides a new information tool that quantifies, for the fist time, the impact of transportation costs on the affordability of housing choices. This new Index provides consumers, policy-makers, lenders and investors with the data needed to make better decisions about which neighborhoods are truly affordable, and illuminates the implications of their policy and investment choices. In short, it provides the missing information to help rethink the issue of true housing affordability.

 

Affordability Index = (Housing Costs + Transportation Costs) / Income

 

The Affordability Index calculates the percent of income spent on housing and transportation costs combined. When calculating the Affordability Index of a neighborhood, the sum of average housing costs plus average transportation costs for a neighborhood (represented by a U.S. Census block group) is divided by average neighborhood income. This is the simplified formula for the Index, where total housing costs include current housing sales prices and rents and total transportation costs equal the sum of the costs for auto ownership, auto use, and transit. The results of the Index, applied to the Twin Cities metropolitan area (see Table 1), show that affordability is significantly impacted by improved access to high quality transit service, access to jobs, and the availability of mixed-income housing. Midway and Longfellow/Seward are neighborhoods located relatively close to the downtowns of St Paul and Minneapolis. Fridley is an older suburban community and a potential stop along a future commuter rail line that is being proposed for the region. Until recently Farmington was primarily a rural town, but is now experiencing tremendous growth as it becomes home to commuters seeking affordable housing on the metropolitan edge.

 

Table 1.Housing and transportation costs in the four Twin Cities areas

 

 

Farmington

Fridley

Midway in St. Paul

Longfellow/ Seward in Minneapolis

Seven-county region

 

Median income

$43,443

$59,196

$39,601

$32,909

$54,304

 

Average annual transportation costs

$13,860

$10,526

$8,378

$6,995

$10,989

 

Transportation costs as % of income

32%

18%

21%

21%

20%

 

Average housing cost as % of income

22%

13%

17%

22%

20%

 

Housing and transportation costs for homeowners

54%

31%

39%

43%

40%

 

Housing and transportation costs for renters

47%

30%

37%

39%

35%

 

 

 

Reducing transportation costs through investments in transit that allow households to have greater transportation choices is an important part of the affordability equation. Similarly, locating affordable housing near transit corridors is also critical to providing affordable lifestyles for low-income families who may be particularly transit-dependent. A number of states are already linking the allocation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits to areas served by transit, which is an effective first step to bridging housing and transportation.

 

There are many reasons to focus public policy and funding on transit-oriented development and enable the private sector to exploit this window of opportunity to accommodate more housing near transit. As a growing number of communities simultaneously struggle with increasing traffic congestion and a lack of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families, transit-oriented development can be an important tool in creating places that provide people not only with transportation choices, but that also help households realize savings from living near transit that can be used to purchase a home, build wealth, or for other household needs. People must make their own decisions about where they want to live, but it is important to provide them with the information they need to better understand the trade-offs between places.

 

For more details on the Affordability Index, its methodology and application in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, visit www.reconnectingamerica.org.

 

Mariia V. Zimmerman is Vice President for Policy, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

http://icma.org/sgn/newsdetail.cfm?nfid=2450&id=#autoID%23

Thanks for sharing that, noozer.  I can't say I'm shocked, though.  Believe it or not, it's actually cheaper for me to live in DC than it would be to live in Ohio, simply because I don't need a car here, and I would pay about the same in rent.  My transportation costs are about $80/month, and my employer picks up most of that. 

 

Now Detroit, that's a fun place, what with car insurance alone running 3 grand a year for a Chevy Cavalier.

 

 

^I think you need to specify.  Everything is relative and, the fact is, you can get around Cleveland w/o a car much easier than every big city in Ohio, ... and certainly much more so than Detroit.  DC vs. Cleveland?  Yes, there's more rail, esp in some of the burbs.  And regional/commuter/Amtrak is better, largely b/c of the really big cities in nearby in the NE Corridor... But RTA's rail + bus are pretty good in town and in various close-in burbs (like the entire Heights, E. Cleveland, Lakewood, Fairview Pk, Brook Park & a few others), and suburban bus, in Cuy County is very good; better than DC's simply b/c we have more and lighter-trafficked freeways and a better express bus system (not to mention many more wider streets and lighter density)...  Cleveland, on a level, has more sprawl, but gridlock in DC's city and burbs are 10 times worse than here.  I think, overall, our transit/freeway balance/mobility is better... It's all relative.

Agreed. Not sure about the sprawl comment though. The last time I drove around the DC metro area (1993) I was shocked at how far out the 'burbs went (70 miles). I can't imagine what it must look like now.

^Yes, you're right about that.  And it's a thick sprawl, at that.  I think it's, in part, caused by both the explosive growth DC has had in the last 40-50 years coupled with the dreaded US Capitol Dome/height restriction in downtown DC.  Baltimore has received some of throw-off expansion of businesses/agencies that want to be near DC in a city area, but just can't cope w/ the traffic.

If ya must know, my brother has lived on the West Side and Lakewood for a number of years, and found it difficult to be without a car.  He still needed to bum rides off friends to get groceries, buy clothes, and the like, until he caved and finally bought his own car.  RTA is decent enough, but waiting 1/2 hour for a bus just isn't acceptable if you need to get somewhere.

 

Because of extensive TOD, I'm fortunate to have most daily needs within a 10 minute walk, and about everything else within a short subway ride.  Neither of those modes is affected by automobile gridlock.  I've only needed a car twice since September--both for occasions way out in the Virginia suburbs.  Yes, I agree that it is all relative.  I'm just trying to express how profound the trade-off between real estate and transportation can be when you have extensive TOD.   

 

The sprawl in the suburbs around here does suck though.  A lot of it has to do with higher housing costs in the urban core.  Much more of it, I think, has to do with myopic state governments that only know how to build freeways.  The height restriction isn't as much of a factor in the District as one would think, because there are PLENTY of neighborhoods that have vacant properties waiting to be developed. 

Does your brother know the community circulator runs every 20 minutes with mainline buses in between? Does he live on Madison, because there I can see a problem with not having a grocery store on Madison (until you get east to Birdtown).

 

I live at the east end of Lakewood (just off the Gold Coast), and as I posted in the Where Do You Live thread, the following basic services and amenities are within a 15-minute walk of my building:

 

> the Rapid station (frequent service to Hopkins Airport, with community circulators from my neighborhood to the station every 20 minutes from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m.);

> two grocery stores;

> two inns (Day's Inn, Travelodge);

> four banks;

> post office;

> four churches;

> two coffee houses;

> three large drug stores (two of which are open 24 hours);

> one college (Virginia Marti College of Fashion and Art, which also has a nice art gallery storefront);

> two video stores (not including those in grocery or drug stores);

> several doctor/medical offices,

> two convenience stores (one is open 24 hours);

> lots of funky stores (Clifton Web, Flower Child, and others);

> a couple of laundromats/dry cleaners;

> six fast-food restaurants;

> 17 restaurants, of which several are open 24 hours (Pier W, Swingos on the Lake, Warter's Edge Deli, Gold Coast Cafe, Clifton Diner, Papa Nick's Pizza, Tick Tock Tavern, It's It Deli & Cafe, Kluck's Seafood, Truffles desserts, Diana's Deli, Friends Restaurant & Deli, Pizza Hut (should it be under fast food?), Shore Restaurant, Maria's Roman Room, Pepper's Italian Cafe, and some Chinese take-out joint I've yet to visit), with more restaurants coming as two car dealerships are giving way to the mixed-use Rockport Square;

> Seven live-music taverns/clubs:  Blind Lemon (rock), Phantasy Theater and Nightclub (concert club), The Chamber (goth/industrial), Symposium (dance club), Twist (gay dance club), Pepper Joe's (blues/rock), Hi-Fi Club (rock);

> Six "neighborhood-style" pubs:  Five o'Clock Bar, Remix Lounge, Good Luck Tavern,  Bassa Vitta Lounge, The Hawk (NEVER!), Elm's Bar;

> A wide variety of ethnic persons live in my building and the surrounding neighborhood. In the summer, from my balcony, I can hear parties in which Arabic techno music is played, disagreements in Hungarian are made, and greetings in oriental are relayed.

> Plus, there's the annual Clifton Arts Festival, held the first weekend of each June, in which the seven-lane-wide Clifton Boulevard is closed to traffic for several blocks and turned into a huge art gallery, food bazaar and live music venue. They also close Lake Avenue for the Cleveland Marathon (runners from around the world pass by in both directions, but the Kenyans always win) for one day each May.

> Oh, and a 15-minute bicycle ride takes you to Edgewater Park to the east, or Lakewood Park to the west....

 

Who needs a car? Unfortunately, as a reporter, I do...

My brother lives just off Clifton, more to the west.  It's really not bad--there's a LOT within walking distance, and the bus service is decent.  It does take a little time to wait for the Circulator and ride it to the Rapid, though.  Even then, if you need to say, buy clothes, you have to schlep to Westgate, Parmatown, or (God forbid) Strongsville.  If I still lived in the Cleveland area, I'd probably be somewhere in Lakewood (I like the area where you live, KJP), or somewhere thereabouts. 

 

If you've ever hung out at the Five O'Clock, you probably have seen my brother there wearing a tacky orange sportcoat and singing along to AC/DC.  LOL

It's certainly not impossible to live without a car in Cleveland (or Lakewood or certain other 'burbs) but hard not to agree with Dan that it's a heck of a lot easier in DC, as it is in Boston, Phili, NYC, Chicago and maybe some other towns.  Some of it might be self-selection, but I think the fact that many people in these cities who can afford to own cars in fact live without them is pretty good evidence.  I hope the excellent work of KJP and others (including MayDay's good example) make it easier and easier for more people to make this choice in Cleveland.

 

Off topic, but KJP, "greetings in oriental are relayed"?  That is serious old school white person talk.

While car-free seems to be the major standard, it shouldn't be the only one.  While living in Nashville, Detroit and Memphis, my wife and I were a two-car family.  Now nestled into our Ohio City home, we've become a one-car family. We couldn't do that in Michigan or Tennessee. We couldn't easily be car-free in Cleveland, but at least we don't have to have two cars. 

^That's a good point.  Going from 2 cars to 1 saves as much money as going from 1 car to 0.  Frankly, most people I know in DC, Boston and Phili (not here in NYC though) end up owning a car eventually because of intercity travel needs, little kids (strollers on subways are a royal pain) or laziness.

My girlfriend and I moved from zero-car NYC to 1-car Cleveland.  We lasted three months here without a car and I believe we could've gone longer, but the night classes and my girlfriend's part-time occupation as a doula (look it up) made living car-free impractical.  The car sits in its space without moving for probably 3 or 4 days each week, but the fact that we have it (she bought it and I am lucky enough to get to use it when need be!) makes us more likely to drive on occasions where we wouldn't have thought necessary during the three months we lived in Cleveland without one.

 

In addition to the school and on-call doula job, every time we wanted to trek down to Yellow Springs (near Dayton) to visit her family for the weekend, we'd either have to borrow a car from my parents or rent one.  I don't consider Greyhound to be an option here and we certainly don't have a viable rail option from Cleveland to YS!

 

As far as day-to-day needs, in Ohio City, we have a full-service grocery store, plus the West Side Market within a 5-minute walk.  We have restaurants and bars galore and some of the best transit access (bus & rail) in the city.  We have a library and many social service agencies within a 5-minute walk, but no post office and no pharmacy.  We have several retailers in the immediate vacinity, but none that really suit my tastes.  We can bike or walk to most places we need or want to go, including Detroit-Shoreway, Edgewater, Downtown, and Tremont.  (I've even started biking home from University Circle after work!)  To top it all off, we have City Wheels based just a few blocks from us. 

 

But these are choices and not everyone has the luxury of choosing transit, automobile or bike/ped.  By me, TOD is not only a desireable form of development for aesthetic, sustainability and market reasons, but it is also the best way to build an equitable city where people really do have the most choices possible, whether they be rich, poor, young, old, disabled, or whatever.  Basically, the agenda for TOD can be pushed a lot harder from number of directions that haven't tuned in yet.  And the situation will only get more urgent as time goes by and more poorly planned development occurs.

The only reason I use my car is to visit my parents or grandmother out in the burbs. In the spring, summer and fall, I bike or walk everywhere. It's easy to do when you live within 2 miles of downtown and your life is centered around downtown. Lakewood, for my tastes, is too far out -- as it would be for anyone who wants to live a truly car-free or "car-light" existence (unless they also happen to work in Lakewood, which would be unusual). As I've said before, most people who complain about Cleveland transit have chosen to live in places where transit is scarce. This is partly understandable (the "nicer" neighborhoods are on the city's outskirts), and partly the result of laziness and outdated fears about inner-city neighborhoods.

 

Also, let's not forget City Wheels, which is providing yet another option for people in close-in neighborhoods who don't want to own a car.

 

Don't get me wrong: I want Cleveland to do much more TOD. But we have it pretty good when compared with other U.S. cities.

Blinker, you make a very good point (my elaboration of which should probably be in the general Cleveland public transit thread, but...): the inner city decay and flight of wealth from the city of Cleveland are so advanced (and the metropolitan mindset so suburbanized) that Lakewood, Cleveland Heights and even Shaker are considered "urban" by many in the metro area...which is frankly pretty nuts.  They are suburbs.  I don't mean to re-open any lame debates about what "urban" means, I just mean to say that they are not really very close to the regional center on absolute terms (only relative to Strongsville and Solon) and people's transit expectations might have to be adjusted appropriately. 

 

A corollary is that redeveloping the central city can make the city more transit friendly simply by building a critical mass within short walking/bus/bike distance, whether or not transit is actually improved.  If you don't need to head to the burbs to shop, dine or see friends, going car-free is obviously a lot easier.