Taking my cue from a discussion in the Cleveland Random Developments thread http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3594.msg648709.html#msg648709, where housing occupancy is way up in the urban core but rents are not, making new construction unlikely. So I wonder.....

 

Maybe RTA or the port authority could offer lot assembly/lien removals, site cleaning, and low-interest loans to developers that build to as-yet ID'd Transit Oriented Development specs within 500 feet of transit stations or major transit intersections. It would be a widening of RTA's basic mission but still in support of it.

Maybe RTA or the port authority could offer lot assembly/lien removals, site cleaning, and low-interest loans to developers that build to as-yet ID'd Transit Oriented Development specs within 500 feet of transit stations or major transit intersections. It would be a widening of RTA's basic mission but still in support of it.

 

Sound like a great idea, perhaps the Port Authority could assist with funding. 

This will be on the docket tomorrow.........

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/12072012/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for December 7, 2012

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

 

Buckeye-Woodhill Neighborhood Development Plan (TLCI) Presenter: TBD

 

A few graphics from the presentation....

 

 

 

 

And this presentation proves that not all urban planners are geeks, wonks and stiffs. Some actually have a sense of humor.......

 

Hey Progressive Insurance, are you taking note of this move by State Farm in the Dallas suburb of Richardson??

 

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/major-new-mixed-use-transit-development-in-the-works-for-richardson.html/

This will be on the docket tomorrow.........

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/12072012/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for December 7, 2012

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

 

Buckeye-Woodhill Neighborhood Development Plan (TLCI) Presenter: TBD

 

 

Any idea if these slides ever made it online? I'd love to get a closer look at them, as these images are a bit small for the level of detail.

Any idea if these slides ever made it online? I'd love to get a closer look at them, as these images are a bit small for the level of detail.

 

http://www.noaca.org/tlciBuckeyeWoodhill.pdf (Note: this is a 50mb download!)

Hey Progressive Insurance, are you taking note of this move by State Farm in the Dallas suburb of Richardson??

 

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/major-new-mixed-use-transit-development-in-the-works-for-richardson.html/

 

This isn't a plus, to me, as sprawling and car centric as Dallas is!

Hey Progressive Insurance, are you taking note of this move by State Farm in the Dallas suburb of Richardson??

 

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/major-new-mixed-use-transit-development-in-the-works-for-richardson.html/

 

This isn't a plus, to me, as sprawling and car centric as Dallas is!

 

 

Even though Greater Cleveland is less sprawling than Dallas, businesses here tend to practice Cleveland tried and true developmental format: FOD (freeway oriented development), and that includes campus-like businesses like Progressive (what an paradoxical name, in this context)

Hey Progressive Insurance, are you taking note of this move by State Farm in the Dallas suburb of Richardson??

 

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/major-new-mixed-use-transit-development-in-the-works-for-richardson.html/

 

This isn't a plus, to me, as sprawling and car centric as Dallas is!

 

Yeah, OK. I would love to see a Mockingbird station-area development here (although if both Intesa and Uptown are built out, they would be comparable to Mockingbird)....

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/mockingbird-station-laid-the-tracks-for-future-transit-oriented-developments.html/

Hey Progressive Insurance, are you taking note of this move by State Farm in the Dallas suburb of Richardson??

 

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/major-new-mixed-use-transit-development-in-the-works-for-richardson.html/

 

This isn't a plus, to me, as sprawling and car centric as Dallas is!

 

Yeah, OK. I would love to see a Mockingbird station-area development here (although if both Intesa and Uptown are built out, they would be comparable to Mockingbird)....

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/mockingbird-station-laid-the-tracks-for-future-transit-oriented-developments.html/

 

I was at Mockingbird Lane in 1998 and it was development in every direction as far as the eye could see. A little later, when I was on a radio show in Columbus on transit/rail a Buckeye Policy type tried to say no development occurred at train stations, I said that was simply not true and referenced Mockingbird lane, saying I saw with my own two eyes the development going on there. That shot him down.

The Buckeye Policy Institute also has denied the existence of the earth and sky.

This story also has some important TOD aspects to it......

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/clevelands_urban_scene_gets_a.html#incart_river_default

The Buckeye Policy Institute also has denied the existence of the earth and sky.

 

Yes and they believe the Earth is flat. May they fall over the edge.

July 2013

Rail Industry Trends Article

Transit-oriented development in Atlanta, Portland, Charlotte and Phoenix

— by Angela Cotey, associate editor

 

Concentrating development near transit stations is hardly a novel concept. At the turn of the 20th century, streetcar systems drove the development of new neighborhoods and business districts along various routes in nearly every large U.S. city.

 

The modern-day version of the concept — transit-oriented development (TOD) — isn't much different. Beginning in the mid-1990s, some agency planners began thinking about how they could develop land near station sites to help drive ridership and boost revenue. Agencies such as the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority were among the first in the United States to consider how they could better encourage development of station-area land.

 

Other U.S. transit agencies since have followed suit and are working with their city partners to incorporate TOD into station-area planning efforts. As a result, the land surrounding many urban transit stations has become a magnet for shops, restaurants, entertainment venues, apartments and condominiums.

 

"We're in the business to move people and move them as efficiently as we can, but a great secondary benefit is the development attached to a rail program," says Hillary Foose, spokesperson for Phoenix's Valley Metro.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/article/Transitoriented-development-in-Atlanta-Portland-Charlotte-and-Phoenix--36736

My preferred "next stop" for TOD planning and development.......

 

My preferred "next stop" for TOD planning and development.......

 

 

I wouldn't leave out the parking lot completely. That is arguably the best location for TOD on that map.

RTA's Joe Calabrese: Transit can drive Northeast Ohio to a denser and more prosperous future

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on July 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM, updated July 19, 2013 at 2:25 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The job of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is to move bus and rapid rail riders from point A to point B.

 

That happens at the rate of 200,000 riders a day, or 49 million a year according to the agency. Those are big numbers, but they don’t necessarily convey the big picture.

 

Transportation systems, whether road, rail or bus, do more than any other form of infrastructure to sculpt the shape of cities by determining land values and development patterns.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2013/07/rtas_joe_calabrese_transit_can.html

Sounds great!

^^It seems the TOD bug has finally (re)bitten greater Cleveland... And that's a malady worth having. ... Good stuff by Litt; excellent comments by Calabrese (save his misguided support for the Opportunity Corridor on which he plans to run buses that will HURT TOD and compete with the Rapid).  Let's hope RTA, and the City, stand by his words... The planned Ohio City station/apartment development, along with Uptown (and FEB), are good starts.... X your fingers for Intesa, which by today's comments appears to be moving forward.

Got a problem with the Ohio City TOD project starting with a parking deck? Get in line.....

 

Market Urbanism ‏@MarketUrbanism 8m

Yup, sounds about right: "Work on the transit village started with a 480-space parking garage..."

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/09/bridge-housing-macarthur-bart-apartments.html

I'm collecting ideas on how to promote transit oriented development. Here are a few.....

Some interesting information in this detailed discussion of TOD issues and opportunities....

http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.6644933/k.991B/TODTOOL_FINAL/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp

 

I'm also collecting ideas of what incentives are out there to promote TOD. Here are some of them

 

Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program (helps keep TOD from getting priced out of the range of people who need transit access the most while retaining necessary density):

http://www.seattle.gov/housing/incentives/mfte.htm

 

Here's a whole bunch of options....

Toolkit: There are many TOD tools that can be utilized by governmental agencies, municipal governments and regional authorities. These include exclusions from concurrency standards, eminent domain, a streamlined review process, tax abatements, relaxed parking standards, subsidized housing, underwriting land costs, zoning/density bonuses, tax increment financing, buying land on open market, land assembly help, planning funding, tax-exempt bonds and capital funding;

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/r01VTABusTOD.pdf

 

In Boston, the city's small business loan program prioritizes loans to businesses within a 1/2-mile of MBTA stations. This makes more jobs more accessible. There was an article about it earlier this year but I can't seem to find it.

 

Boston also does a real good job tracking its progress in terms of putting more housing and jobs near transit -- always important to measure what you're doing:

http://www.bostonindicators.org/indicators/housing/how-are-we-doing/7-4fair-housing/7-4-2access-to-mbta-stations

 

Cleveland Development Advisors uses New Markets Tax Credits to catalyze new development projects. CDA's project selection process could include transit access criteria, but raising the score of applicable projects located within a half-mile of rapid transit (rail or BRT) stations:

http://www.clevelanddevelopmentadvisors.com/

 

Another is Location Efficient Mortgages, although more innovative programs have since been implemented:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm22.htm

 

Any other ideas for incentives, including the elimination of some laws/regulations or taxes/fees etc. that would allow the free market to work more effectively?

Got a problem with the Ohio City TOD project starting with a parking deck? Get in line.....

 

Market Urbanism ‏@MarketUrbanism 8m

Yup, sounds about right: "Work on the transit village started with a 480-space parking garage..."

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/09/bridge-housing-macarthur-bart-apartments.html

 

Just can't seem to break away for the automotive continuum, can we?

Got a problem with the Ohio City TOD project starting with a parking deck? Get in line.....

 

Market Urbanism ‏@MarketUrbanism 8m

Yup, sounds about right: "Work on the transit village started with a 480-space parking garage..."

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/09/bridge-housing-macarthur-bart-apartments.html

 

Just can't seem to break away for the automotive continuum, can we?

 

Parking garages are TOD if you ask the healthline!

Got a problem with the Ohio City TOD project starting with a parking deck? Get in line.....

 

Market Urbanism ‏@MarketUrbanism 8m

Yup, sounds about right: "Work on the transit village started with a 480-space parking garage..."

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/09/bridge-housing-macarthur-bart-apartments.html

 

Just can't seem to break away for the automotive continuum, can we?

 

Parking garages are TOD if you ask the healthline!

 

Ugh.

Parking garages are TOD if you ask the healthline!

 

Whenever I ask the HealthLine something, all it says back is "stop requested."

The hardest part of creating TOD in Cleveland is the position of our routes and location of our stations. That has to be the number one reason we have seen so little. TOD occurs most successfully near stations that are already integrated into a neighborhood and into an existing commercial main street.

 

For the Red Line, other than Ohio City, West 117th(not much of an urban street), and future Little Italy station, there arent any good locations for TOD.  Brookpark,  Puritas, West Park, and Triskett, some of the highest ridership stations(endless parking!)  are isolated, not near any worthy commercial street, and any development there would 1) kill short-term RTA ridership which they would avoid, and 2) be a crocker park like development(with rail) but even worse as it is even more disconnected from the neighborhood. The east side stations are either too isolated or too close to industrial wastelands. The rest are located in high poverty areas with crime issues and no existing business districts to build off of.

 

The Green/Blue lines stations are better located but are already mostly built out. The green line is mostly low density residential and that will not change. Same goes for the Blue line, except it has a higher density but there is not much room to develop. The only area to develop is at the end of the line where TOD is already in the planning stages.

 

We complain about developers not developing TOD in this city, but as a city/county, we aren't providing them with transit routes worthy of TOD!

^ Well said

For the Red Line, other than Ohio City, West 117th(not much of an urban street), and future Little Italy station, there arent any good locations for TOD.

 

I don't entirely agree with this.  Although they would take significant land acquisition and redevelopment, I think that besides the three you list, the W. 65th, Superior, Windermere, and (to a lesser extent) West Boulevard stations have at least moderate TOD potential.

 

I do agree that the routing of the red line is problematic, but that's something we've discussed here many times.

ClevelandOhio, I couldn't disagree with you more. If I can imagine how land around stations can be developed, then so can any urban-minded architect. It's really not that difficult.

 

I don't understand your comment that West 117th isn't an urban street. First, what does that mean? Do you mean the land uses along it? If so, that's exactly what TOD would change. Yet, you say that a commercial main street is necessary for a TOD. I've read lots of TOD books and a commercial main street is used in some TOD-themed developments while not in others. It's not a make-or-break issue.

 

And, yes, we would temporarily lose some of the parking lots at some stations like Triskett or West Park or Puritas during construction of structured parking to free up space for development. Why is that a problem? If we avoided short-term pain we would never have the long-term gain of the rebuilt Red Line S-Curve or the rebuilt Airport rail tunnel. And I'm sure all the development will be less than perfect in our eyes. Seriously. We're all a hard-to-please audience here. But isn't any development that produces new rail ridership and economic vitality worth doing? Remember, the best way to prevent improvement is to reject it for perfection.

 

So within a half-mile of all stations, it is possible to develop transit-supportive if not TOD-themed developments at every single one of them. Sure, some are more difficult -- namely East 34th but that's one of the stations I would move as has been suggested by past studies (see below).

 

Even the Airport station offers development opportunities. A hotel, retail center, business center, conference center was proposed for a vacant site between short-term parking deck and main terminal as part of a Red Line extension. Hopkins was ready to move forward with this supportive development after Red Line extension was nixed. But the decline of air travel at Hopkins has put the development on indefinite hold.

 

And why not the Cedar station? CWRU already owns most of the single-family parcels immediately east of the station, as well as the parking lot between the station and Murray Hill Road. That whole swath is a candidate for development by the university.

 

Other stations could/should be moved. The Dual Hub Corridor Transitional Analysis Final Report from 1995 noted:

 

Certain physical improvements to the trackage and structures of the Rapid Transit system are also included in the PIS (Preferred Investment Strategy). Proposed improvements would enhance service operations and safety, but are not significant cost items. These included the relocation of Rapid Transit tracks west of the Hope Memorial Bridge to remove or improve a speed restricting, double reverse curve in the line. In addition, four stations currently served by the Red Line would be relocated as follows:

 

+ The University Circle/Cedar Hill Station would be removed and a new Murray Hill/CWRU Station (Adelbert Road) would be constructed to replace it;

+ The Euclid/East 120th Station would be removed and a new Little Italy/Mayfield Station (Mayfield Road) would be constructed to replace it;

+ The East 79th Street Station would be removed and a new East 89th Street Station would be constructed to replace it; and

+ The East 34th Street/Campus Station would be removed and a new East 22nd Station would be constructed to replace it.

 

Ironically, the Inner Belt project (along with the relocation of NS' intermodal yard to Maple Heights) may have helped make the last recommendation possible. It has created some new streets that between I-90 and the main post office including a new routing and bridge for Commercial Road over the Rapid tracks. And some new development could pop up around that site someday that would make relocating the station viable.

 

When you use your imagination, the opportunities for developing around the rail system are unlimited.

Consider these......

 

 

 

And I mentioned the East 22nd site in the prior posting as one of the four station relocations recommended in the Dual Hub Preferred Investment Strategy. Only the East 120th station is being moved thus far as a result of this GCRTA-adopted strategy......

 

 

The East 22nd station was proposed to be built roughly where the relocated Commercial Road now bridges the combined Red/Blue/Green lines.....

 

ClevelandOhio, I couldn't disagree with you more. If I can imagine how land around stations can be developed, then so can any urban-minded architect. It's really not that difficult.

 

I don't understand your comment that West 117th isn't an urban street. First, what does that mean? Do you mean the land uses along it? If so, that's exactly what TOD would change. Yet, you say that a commercial main street is necessary for a TOD. I've read lots of TOD books and a commercial main street is used in some TOD-themed developments while not in others. It's not a make-or-break issue.

 

And, yes, we would temporarily lose some of the parking lots at some stations like Triskett or West Park or Puritas during construction of structured parking to free up space for development. Why is that a problem? If we avoided short-term pain we would never have the long-term gain of the rebuilt Red Line S-Curve or the rebuilt Airport rail tunnel. And I'm sure all the development will be less than perfect in our eyes. Seriously. We're all a hard-to-please audience here. But isn't any development that produces new rail ridership and economic vitality worth doing? Remember, the best way to prevent improvement is to reject it for perfection.

 

So within a half-mile of all stations, it is possible to develop transit-supportive if not TOD-themed developments at every single one of them. Sure, some are more difficult -- namely East 34th but that's one of the stations I would move as has been suggested by past studies (see below).

 

Even the Airport station offers development opportunities. A hotel, retail center, business center, conference center was proposed for a vacant site between short-term parking deck and main terminal as part of a Red Line extension. Hopkins was ready to move forward with this supportive development after Red Line extension was nixed. But the decline of air travel at Hopkins has put the development on indefinite hold.

 

And why not the Cedar station? CWRU already owns most of the single-family parcels immediately east of the station, as well as the parking lot between the station and Murray Hill Road. That whole swath is a candidate for development by the university.

 

Other stations could/should be moved. The Dual Hub Corridor Transitional Analysis Final Report from 1995 noted:

 

Certain physical improvements to the trackage and structures of the Rapid Transit system are also included in the PIS (Preferred Investment Strategy). Proposed improvements would enhance service operations and safety, but are not significant cost items. These included the relocation of Rapid Transit tracks west of the Hope Memorial Bridge to remove or improve a speed restricting, double reverse curve in the line. In addition, four stations currently served by the Red Line would be relocated as follows:

 

+ The University Circle/Cedar Hill Station would be removed and a new Murray Hill/CWRU Station (Adelbert Road) would be constructed to replace it;

+ The Euclid/East 120th Station would be removed and a new Little Italy/Mayfield Station (Mayfield Road) would be constructed to replace it;

+ The East 79th Street Station would be removed and a new East 89th Street Station would be constructed to replace it; and

+ The East 34th Street/Campus Station would be removed and a new East 22nd Station would be constructed to replace it.

 

Ironically, the Inner Belt project (along with the relocation of NS' intermodal yard to Maple Heights) may have helped make the last recommendation possible. It has created some new streets that between I-90 and the main post office including a new routing and bridge for Commercial Road over the Rapid tracks. And some new development could pop up around that site someday that would make relocating the station viable.

 

When you use your imagination, the opportunities for developing around the rail system are unlimited.

 

I agree with all of this.

I agree with all of this.

 

Bummer. I wan't some debate.

ClevelandOhio, I couldn't disagree with you more. If I can imagine how land around stations can be developed, then so can any urban-minded architect. It's really not that difficult.

 

.....

 

When you use your imagination, the opportunities for developing around the rail system are unlimited.

 

I can imagine great things, but that doesn't make it realistic or likely to happen. There is a reason why we have seen such a lack of of development around our rail. And those plans look great, but like you said it requires massive land acquisition. Additionally the development would a higher density new build development in an isolated area with massive abandonment, poverty, and crime issues. It's not likely to happen and that's why it hasn't happened yet. Do you really think it is likely that someone is going to build a large mixed use building in the forgotten triangle? We can't even get that in our stronger neighborhoods. Even with the OC the best we can hope for is industrial uses.

 

I'm all for TOD, but I realize the major faults of our system. I'm not going to blame developers when we have the system we do.

There's a common misconception that transit causes development, without any other factors at play. When I read about TOD, one of the first things I notice that's said in any book or roster of guidelines is a cautionary statement that TOD rarely happens by itself. It happens because of a confluence of factors. The most important of which, naturally, is the presence of transit. But many other factors come into play, including having economic growth that drives it. The only reason why anything is getting developed around transit in Cleveland is because of half of the nation's population is a potential market -- Boomers/empty nesters and Millennials. Add to that the shift in the housing market (downsizing, rentals, back-to-the-city living, etc). Economic shifts come and go over the decades, so you have to seize on them when the opportunities arise. When you get to be a middle-aged guy like me, you begin to realize how fleeting these opportunities are. So I want to have my toolbox ready for each and every station site.

 

Interestingly, Joe Calabrese told me GCRTA rarely got any interest from developers about developing around transit in Cleveland until the HealthLine opened a few years ago. Then developers started looking for opportunities around the rail system. GCRTA staff said it was the HealthLine that caused developers to "discover" the rail system. Now maybe that was just Joe C's HealthLine boosterism talking. But the pace and location of developments support his version of the course of events. I've also been frustrated at how few Northeast Ohio developers understand TOD let alone want to understand it. Some that do understand it consider it a short-term trend. But what if the post-war auto-centric development model was the short-term blip in the 5,000-year history of cities? Some don't care one way or the other about TOD as long as they can make money at it. Money is their only passion, not architecture or lifestyle or public benefits like enhancing access to jobs.

 

So in the absence of a dynamic economy that catalyzes more TOD in places that aren't as obvious as downtown, Ohio City or University Circle, that's where incentives and tools come in. Thus I'm collecting a roster of incentives used in other cities (including some like Boston or Seattle that I was surprised would even need to offer incentives to attract/shape TOD). And I want to create a roster for each station and show where and how transit-supportive developments could occur. Stay tuned.

Good news!

 

The good news is that a regional development blueprint with lots of stakeholder buy-in has been approved for Northeast Ohio, by a governing board comprised of public and private officials. The blueprint vision includes significant rail elements for freight, passengers and namely commuter rail, introductory and connecting bus transportation, and transit-oriented development. The complete documentation and background information about this effort is at:

 

http://vibrantneo.org/tool/visionrelease/

 

Among the recommendations.....

 

Develop a robust network of regional job centers connected by multimodal transportation corridors within and between counties

 

Initiative 2.1: Strengthen regional job centers—and the corridors that connect them—by diversifying and intensifying land uses and investing in strategic local economic development within them.

Initiative 2.2: Use transit oriented development (TOD) to create stronger, more accessible, regional job centers.

Initiative 2.3: Implement a tiered approach to local parking requirements.

Good news!

 

The good news is that a regional development blueprint with lots of stakeholder buy-in has been approved for Northeast Ohio, by a governing board comprised of public and private officials. The blueprint vision includes significant rail elements for freight, passengers and namely commuter rail, introductory and connecting bus transportation, and transit-oriented development. The complete documentation and background information about this effort is at:

 

http://vibrantneo.org/tool/visionrelease/

 

Among the recommendations.....

 

Develop a robust network of regional job centers connected by multimodal transportation corridors within and between counties

 

Initiative 2.1: Strengthen regional job centersand the corridors that connect themby diversifying and intensifying land uses and investing in strategic local economic development within them.

Initiative 2.2: Use transit oriented development (TOD) to create stronger, more accessible, regional job centers.

Initiative 2.3: Implement a tiered approach to local parking requirements.

 

Excellent.

I can imagine great things, but that doesn't make it realistic or likely to happen. There is a reason why we have seen such a lack of of development around our rail. And those plans look great, but like you said it requires massive land acquisition. Additionally the development would a higher density new build development in an isolated area with massive abandonment, poverty, and crime issues. It's not likely to happen and that's why it hasn't happened yet. Do you really think it is likely that someone is going to build a large mixed use building in the forgotten triangle? We can't even get that in our stronger neighborhoods. Even with the OC the best we can hope for is industrial uses.

 

I'm all for TOD, but I realize the major faults of our system. I'm not going to blame developers when we have the system we do.

 

Cleveland, Ohio, I think you need a bit more perspective prior to constantly belittling the RTA Rapid, the Red Line in particular, for poor routing and a lack of TOD potential.

 

What are other medium-size, moderate density cities doing that Cleveland isn’t?  I first always preface this by considering how far advanced Cleveland is just by having rail rapid transit at all, especially in the so-called Rust Belt Midwest.  Outside of Chicago, only St. Louis and Minneapolis-St. Paul have rapid transit at all… That means similar-sized cities (Indianapolis, Milwaukee, KC, Cincy and Columbus), and one much bigger one (Detroit) have NO RAPID TRANSIT AT ALL (no the one-track, 2.2 mile, downtown Detroit People Mover doesn’t count)…  And that doesn’t count those sunbelt cities in rapidly growing regions of the country, such as: Jacksonville, Birmingham, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Tampa-St. Pete, Orlando, and others, which also have no rapid transit at all.

 

But for those medium-size, low density cities that DO have mass transit, have they built up-the-gut, pedestrian-friendly, easily TOD-able rapid transit lines that you say Cleveland hasn’t?  Answer: No… The hard fact is that American cities that are not the mega-large (like Philly, NYC, Chicago and, LA), or older/super dense moderate (core) cities -- but that have much larger suburban areas than Cleveland (Boston, DC and San Fran) routinely cannot muster the political will to build the kind of core subway or elevated systems through dense areas that are more TOD ready as we’d all wish.  Why?  Because it’s always deemed too expensive for midsize cities, just like we in Cleveland sadly  deemed the Dual Hub project too costly (even “gold plated”) linking downtown to University Circle up Euclid Ave – and sent the visionary RTA chief who pushed for Dual Hub packing.

 

But again, look around…

 

ST. LOUIS, which built a 2-line LRT somewhat longer in total than Cleveland’, is (like the Cleveland Rapid) built mostly along freight RRs through low population areas.  And, just as you criticize in Cleveland, there is considerable park-n-ride along St. Louis’ LRT system… The more recent extension to Shrewsbury does have some potential in University City (near prestigious Washington University) and in near downtown Clayton and Richmond Heights near the mega Galleria Shopping Mall, but it really hasn’t generated very much TOD.  St. Louis’ LRT kinda sideswipes the very dense Central West End apartment/retail district – the station is several blocks away from the core area, but directly under a hospital complex – so I guess it kinda/sorta is a walkable station.  But again, is this much better than Cleveland?  Where is all St. Louis’ TOD.

 

Minneapolis opened its Hiawatha LRT about a decade ago along a highway and RR ROW to the SE, and they are opening a 10-mile, street-level extension in the median of University Boulevard to downtown St. Paul… This line will pass through some walking districts, mainly near the massive University of Minnesota campus.  But given its streetcar, traffic-light stopping nature all the way into downtown Minneapolis, it will have potential auto-traffic disruption issues that will take the “rapid” out of rapid transit… A 3rd Line, which is in the environmental analysis stage, will branch some 15 miles to the SW mainly along RR and freeway rights of way.  The chosen route, however, is controversial as it will totally miss the core dense apartment/walking districts along the Nicolette (Ave) and Hennepin corridors such as Uptown, Whittier, Lake-Lynn and Hennepin…

 

Just down the Turnpike, Pittsburgh recently balked at building a 3-mile LRT connector to its existing downtown LRT subway to its extremely dense University Circle-like Oakland district (despite spending over a half $Billion for a 1.2 mile North Shore Connector under the river to Pittsburgh’s stadium(s)/casino area – go figure).  Pittsburgh is now exploring BRT to its cultural, educational, medical hub… Sound familiar?

 

Nearby smaller Buffalo, NY actually DID build a 6.4 mile up-the-gut (literally up Main Street) LRT subway line… So how’s that turning out?  Despite some very respectable ridership numbers as well as stations near some walking districts, like the lively Allentown area, there has been virtually ZERO TOD in Buffalo; not to mention the City’s regressive stance in refusing to expand this orphan, starter line in its 30 years of existence – however happily now, there is some momentum for at least a short extension into nearby Amherst …

 

And even Denver  (as is much noted in the UO/Denver LRT thread) which is completing a 100-mile electrified LRT/commuter rail network, still failed to build rapid transit in its most densely populated districts to the South and East of downtown.

 

… point being, Cleveland isn’t alone in the shortcomings you site.  But it is worth noting, as KJP points out, that there is a lot more to TOD than just building rail and expecting high rise/high density mixed use buildings to spring up near rail transit stations without some kind of public education and initiative – as is the case for any city, most notably medium, moderate density ones like Cleveland.

 

 

… point being, Cleveland isn’t alone in the shortcomings you site.  But it is worth noting, as KJP points out, that there is a lot more to TOD than just building rail and expecting high rise/high density mixed use buildings to spring up near rail transit stations without some kind of public education and initiative – as is the case for any city, most notably medium, moderate density ones like Cleveland.

 

Speaking as a skeptic who believes that most of the American people simply prefer less density, I suspect the significant chunk of the population that does like denser living is going to go their own way (much like their exurban counterparts have).  I'm by no means in the loop on the various urban planning initiatives, but it seems like at least in Cleveland, the dense neighborhoods spring up more or less on their own, and grow block by block.  I'm not sure what any government agency did to nucleate any of the more popular neighborhoods.  It seems private sector groups have been the ones doing that.

 

A lot of TOD seems to be an attempt to artificially nucleate new gentrified neighborhoods.  In my not in the least bit humble opinion, transit's best bet for growth and increased relevance is to boost service to existing dense areas, so that it's convenient and as quick as possible. 

 

And safe.  Never underestimate the importance of "safe".

 

Public sector driven nucleation seems largely futile, growth encouragement has potential.  Cleveland, as has been pointed out, seems to do a decent job of recognizing this.

 

Completely as an aside, it's a poor idea to disparage those park and ride lots.  Get rid of them, and the vast majority of their users will simply drive to their destinations.  Composite trips are way quicker and more convenient than fully-transit unless the transfer-time system has really been zeroed in.

Clvlndr has some information for comparison to other cities. There are a lot of things wrong with Cleveland's Red Line that TOD can and will fix, but it will take time in a low-growth economic climate. And it will take money, especially to clean up and return to productive many of the compromised properties along this rail corridor. But once they are cleaned up, these could represent the largest developable lands within Cuyahoga County. There is a near-blank slate with which to start over. But it will take time and money to make this near-blank slate ready. I call it a near-blank slate because I do not want take the few remaining residents and businesses for granted. They should be considered heroes for sticking it out in certain areas.

 

Some new data from the Census' American Community Survey showing transit market share is showing that, in cities that built brand-new rail lines (Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, etc) to outer communities as mostly park-n-rides without removing government restrictions so TOD could be built actually saw transit market decrease despite significant new transit ridership. The reason why is that car-based lifestyles were supported by the construction of the rail transit lines. By contrast, new rail lines built through established neighborhoods and/or with strong TOD initiatives such as the Expo Line in LA or in Seattle and in Portland (plus the transit stalwarts in the Northeast) saw transit market share increase.

 

Moral of the story: if you walk out the front door of your home, work or favorite store and can't comfortably walk to a transit station in 15 minutes or less, chances are you are going to drive to your final destination unless you have no car available.

I can imagine great things, but that doesn't make it realistic or likely to happen. There is a reason why we have seen such a lack of of development around our rail. And those plans look great, but like you said it requires massive land acquisition. Additionally the development would a higher density new build development in an isolated area with massive abandonment, poverty, and crime issues. It's not likely to happen and that's why it hasn't happened yet. Do you really think it is likely that someone is going to build a large mixed use building in the forgotten triangle? We can't even get that in our stronger neighborhoods. Even with the OC the best we can hope for is industrial uses.

 

I'm all for TOD, but I realize the major faults of our system. I'm not going to blame developers when we have the system we do.

 

Cleveland, Ohio, I think you need a bit more perspective prior to constantly belittling the RTA Rapid, the Red Line in particular, for poor routing and a lack of TOD potential.

 

What are other medium-size, moderate density cities doing that Cleveland isn’t?  I first always preface this by considering how far advanced Cleveland is just by having rail rapid transit at all, especially in the so-called Rust Belt Midwest.  Outside of Chicago, only St. Louis and Minneapolis-St. Paul have rapid transit at all… That means similar-sized cities (Indianapolis, Milwaukee, KC, Cincy and Columbus), and one much bigger one (Detroit) have NO RAPID TRANSIT AT ALL (no the one-track, 2.2 mile, downtown Detroit People Mover doesn’t count)…  And that doesn’t count those sunbelt cities in rapidly growing regions of the country, such as: Jacksonville, Birmingham, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Tampa-St. Pete, Orlando, and others, which also have no rapid transit at all.

 

But for those medium-size, low density cities that DO have mass transit, have they built up-the-gut, pedestrian-friendly, easily TOD-able rapid transit lines that you say Cleveland hasn’t?  Answer: No… The hard fact is that American cities that are not the mega-large (like Philly, NYC, Chicago and, LA), or older/super dense moderate (core) cities -- but that have much larger suburban areas than Cleveland (Boston, DC and San Fran) routinely cannot muster the political will to build the kind of core subway or elevated systems through dense areas that are more TOD ready as we’d all wish.  Why?  Because it’s always deemed too expensive for midsize cities, just like we in Cleveland sadly  deemed the Dual Hub project too costly (even “gold plated”) linking downtown to University Circle up Euclid Ave – and sent the visionary RTA chief who pushed for Dual Hub packing.

 

But again, look around…

 

ST. LOUIS, which built a 2-line LRT somewhat longer in total than Cleveland’, is (like the Cleveland Rapid) built mostly along freight RRs through low population areas.  And, just as you criticize in Cleveland, there is considerable park-n-ride along St. Louis’ LRT system… The more recent extension to Shrewsbury does have some potential in University City (near prestigious Washington University) and in near downtown Clayton and Richmond Heights near the mega Galleria Shopping Mall, but it really hasn’t generated very much TOD.  St. Louis’ LRT kinda sideswipes the very dense Central West End apartment/retail district – the station is several blocks away from the core area, but directly under a hospital complex – so I guess it kinda/sorta is a walkable station.  But again, is this much better than Cleveland?  Where is all St. Louis’ TOD.

 

Minneapolis opened its Hiawatha LRT about a decade ago along a highway and RR ROW to the SE, and they are opening a 10-mile, street-level extension in the median of University Boulevard to downtown St. Paul… This line will pass through some walking districts, mainly near the massive University of Minnesota campus.  But given its streetcar, traffic-light stopping nature all the way into downtown Minneapolis, it will have potential auto-traffic disruption issues that will take the “rapid” out of rapid transit… A 3rd Line, which is in the environmental analysis stage, will branch some 15 miles to the SW mainly along RR and freeway rights of way.  The chosen route, however, is controversial as it will totally miss the core dense apartment/walking districts along the Nicolette (Ave) and Hennepin corridors such as Uptown, Whittier, Lake-Lynn and Hennepin…

 

Just down the Turnpike, Pittsburgh recently balked at building a 3-mile LRT connector to its existing downtown LRT subway to its extremely dense University Circle-like Oakland district (despite spending over a half $Billion for a 1.2 mile North Shore Connector under the river to Pittsburgh’s stadium(s)/casino area – go figure).  Pittsburgh is now exploring BRT to its cultural, educational, medical hub… Sound familiar?

 

Nearby smaller Buffalo, NY actually DID build a 6.4 mile up-the-gut (literally up Main Street) LRT subway line… So how’s that turning out?  Despite some very respectable ridership numbers as well as stations near some walking districts, like the lively Allentown area, there has been virtually ZERO TOD in Buffalo; not to mention the City’s regressive stance in refusing to expand this orphan, starter line in its 30 years of existence – however happily now, there is some momentum for at least a short extension into nearby Amherst …

 

And even Denver  (as is much noted in the UO/Denver LRT thread) which is completing a 100-mile electrified LRT/commuter rail network, still failed to build rapid transit in its most densely populated districts to the South and East of downtown.

 

… point being, Cleveland isn’t alone in the shortcomings you site.  But it is worth noting, as KJP points out, that there is a lot more to TOD than just building rail and expecting high rise/high density mixed use buildings to spring up near rail transit stations without some kind of public education and initiative – as is the case for any city, most notably medium, moderate density ones like Cleveland.

 

 

 

I was really just focusing on Cleveland and what is wrong with our rail system. Just because other cities make bad decisions doesn't make it ok if we do too. We haven't had rail expansion in a long time beside for the short waterfront line which was badly planned IMO. And we dont really have any strong plans for smart rail expansion in the future. Isnt Detroit building a streetcar, Cincinnati is building a streetcar, and I believe KC is planning a streetcar. These cities are all planning new routes which will probably see good ridership, leaving us behind. Our leaders need to start planning, and planning smart.

 

Im not too familiar with the rail systems in the cities you mentioned, but ridership numbers show they have to be doing something right compared to Cleveland. Although they might also be built on the cheaper end, utilizing parts of Industrial ROW, they mostly have more well located downtown stations and serve attractions of this century.

 

 

St Louis - 1993 - 2006

Minneapolis - 2004, 11 mile Green Line opens in 2014

Cleveland - Shaker Lines - 1913 - 1936, Red Line - 1958 - 1968, Waterfront Line - 1996

Buffalo - 1985

Denver - 1994 - 2006

Pittsburgh - Couldn't find

Chicago - mostly very old

 

I understand we will never be like New York or Toronto, who have 12,176,519 and 7,175,821 riders per mile respectively. But building new smartly routed light rail routes will help increase public transportation ridership, provide rail options to transit worthy neighborhoods, and present a greater potential for the development of TOD.

^But is your constantly harping on what’s wrong with the RTA Rapid with no solutions other than ‘look how bad we are compared to …” really helpful?  I think most UOers are well versed in the system’s shortcomings and are pushing to expand it… but (and I hate this word) realistically, given our population and jobs/business losses, I don’t expect serious expansion happening anytime soon – hope I’m wrong, but most people (and I’m sure your one of them) don’t see rail transit as the tool for economic development as I and a few others on this board do … So rather than bemoan the problems, I wish you’d focus on solutions to make what we have BETTER… And to simply say: TOD won’t, can’t happen because the Rapid routes are so crappy, isn’t adding anything but the typical Cleveland-type ‘woe-is-me’ attitude…

Take your statement about how poorly planned the Waterfront line is… So what?  Fact is, whatever you, or Bob Smith or Joe Shmoe thinks about how poor it is, TOD IS happening… The high-density FEB is being built there for a reason (never mind the fact that Aloft Hotel only speaks of driving directions there and is silent on the Rapid on its website, to wit: http://deals.alofthotels.com/Aloft-Cleveland-Downtown-Hotel-3606/special-offers?PS=LGEN_AA_DNAD_CGGL_TRP), major dense residential, office and retail development has and is about to be built there, and MORE PEOPLE will use the Rapid to get there, irrespective of what YOU THINK… The same is true at Ohio City, where major mixed use residential/retail developments are rising/planned on both sides of the station and, of course, at the relocated Univ. Circle/Little Italy station, where there’s already considerable growth – completing the huge Intesa development would be gravy…

 

As KJP mentioned, in this town we’re only limited in the scope of TOD development by our lack of imagination, creativity, desire and planning… i.e.: I never considered TOD directly at the airport until he mentioned it… There are possibilities at a relocated E. 34 to E. 22nd station; ditto an East 79th to Buckeye-Woodland-E. 89th.  What about West Blvd-Cudell?  Or W. 65 (where the Eco-Village townhouses were built but the larger plans, shelved (for now I hope)…

 

My point isn’t just to rag on you ClevelandOhio, but the stuff your saying isn’t original or anything new that many, many others have said and thought… Now, how about less moaning and more solutions?

 

^ Im not sure if you said I believe that rail isn't a tool for economic development but that couldn't be further from the truth. I have continuously stated otherwise on this forum.

 

I based my Waterfront line solely on ridership. It was closed for several years and still to this day has very low ridership. I am excited for the East Bank project and that will help, but the FEB isn't built there because of the rail. They even show plans for a parking garage on the lot closest to the station. I also mentioned the Ohio City and Little Italy stations in my post saying that those two have good potential for TOD, I never denied that.

 

What I am saying is that TOD is not likely at most of our stations for many reasons. Its not the developers fault for not wanting to develop there and there are many concrete reasons why it hasn't happened yet and most likely wont for decades, if even then. I dont want to sit back and wait for something that doesnt make sense and probably wont happen. I want the city to aggressively plan for new routes or rerouting the current lines. The Red Line missing the Cleveland Clinic is a major blow, so is the fact that it also misses Cleveland State and Playhouse Square.

 

If we don't point out the flaws, we will always wonder why our ridership is so low and why TOD hasn't happened, and we will never have discussion on what we need to do to improve. A new line along Detroit, serving Downtown Lakewood, Gordon Square, West 25th and Downtown, switch over to Euclid Avene to University Circle, then mayfield to Little Italy and Coventry, eventually connecting to cedar to Cedar Fairmount, and possibly even to Beachwood Place would instantly destroy the current routes when looking at ridership per mile. Building new lines that serve population centers and commercial centers would not only provide high quality transit options that would see high ridership, but also promote TOD in an area where it is way more likely to occur. It would make it easier to not own a car as rail would take a larger portion of the population to work(no park and ride required) and also provide opportunities to take rail to grocery stores, retail stores, and major shopping centers. I believe that it would be worth abandoning current lines if that was the only way to make it possible.

 

A system that relies on Park and Rides is a system that would be better off served by bus or commuter rail which serves further out communities. The number of people who are going to drive 10 to 15 minutes to a rapid station to take it to a grocery store is low.

Sorry, but you're giving way too much credit to developers in Cleveland, many of whom are still stuck in the 1970s or 80s in their thinking about what mode of transportation to develop around. There are some enlightened developers like MRN or Geis or Coral Co. who "get it." A vast majority do not. And many banks who would provide lending do not. Frankly, a big problem is we're stuck in a catch-22. Most developers/banks don't think there's a big market for TOD in Cleveland because there's few of them that exist. So the few local developers who want to move more aggressively in that direction cannot get banks or deep-pocketed developers to partner with them. Look at the trouble Coral Co. is having in developing Intesa, even though we know there's a huge residential market in University Circle and UCI is bending over backwards to help Coral succeed. Frankly, I'd wished UCI had found a real estate company with deeper pockets to pursue this, such as Geis or Optima. Perhaps they can be brought on a partner to help.

 

I don't say this stuff because of what I read in the newspapers. I say this because of what I've written in newspapers based on interviews I've done with developers, transit experts, city officials and community development organizations. And I say it because of my work with All Aboard Ohio in trying to make local developers aware of TOD, many of whom still think the best theme for development is to build mcmansions or look-a-like apartments with paper-thin walls with two parking spaces for every unit built to last 30 years on a cornfield in southern Medina County. They do this because it's a cheap way to make money. How this impacts Northeast Ohio over the long-term is inconsequential to them. There are more developers having this thinking than there are Ari Maron's and Peter Rubin's. And if we want more of the developers who couldn't care less what they build as long as they make a quick buck and move on, we'll have to give them financial incentives to create a broader TOD momentum. Never forget the physical law that objects in motion tend to stay in motion; those at rest tend to stay at rest.

 

I have seen rail lines with physical limitations worse than our Red Line see development spring up along it. TOD happened because there was an active, productive partnership between the transit agency, municipality and development community (developers, lenders, nonprofits, etc). Such a partnership has only begun to spring to life in Cleveland since just before the Great Recession, and thus has only really bloomed in the last few years. So give it time. This is a multi-decade process.

Here's an update on a project being spearheaded by the City of Shaker Heights to use transit access to help expand their taxbase......

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17886.msg689554.html#msg689554

As KJP mentioned, in this town we’re only limited in the scope of TOD development by our lack of imagination, creativity, desire and planning… i.e.: I never considered TOD directly at the airport until he mentioned it…

 

And the same company that is developing Shaker Heights' Van Aken District will advise the City of Cleveland on a prospective airport development including a hotel/office complex almost directly above the Red Line station.....

 

 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

CLEVELAND, OH

SITUATION

The City of Cleveland’s Division of Port Control is seeking to leverage Cleveland Hopkins International Airport as an anchor to draw more development. The City hired a consulting team including Berusch Development Partners, a Chicago-based development advisor, an architect, a cost estimator, and a hotel analyst. The team’s mission is to study the market and financial feasibility for developing a major new hotel adjacent to the main airport terminal, and to work with airport personnel on establishing key planning and design parameters for the facility.

 

CHALLENGE

Honing in on the right hotel concept including the optimal number of rooms, brand affiliation, amenities, market segment and price point; determining the best location and orientation on the site relative to existing and future airport infrastructure; and forecasting the hotel’s operating performance and the likely financing gap to be filled with subsidy financing.

 

STATUS & RESULTS

The consulting team has analyzed the market potential for new hotel and office space, is working closely with airport staff on design feasibility, and is poised to create a financial model and developer/hotelier solicitation plan for the proposed project.

 

Services Employed

Market research

Assessing financial feasibility

Development planning

Developer solicitation and negotiations

 

Project Specs

Budget: $50 million or more

Hotel with 150 or more rooms

New ground transportation center

Scheduled Completion: 2016

^That would be sweet... Cleveland needs more quality hotels at/near the airport other than the old Sheraton, which is OK, and one directly on top of the Red Line Station would be awesome... Other than the Sheraton and perhaps the 2 Marriotts: a Courtyard I think along West Brookpark Rd near the I-480 entrance and, of course, the W. 150/I-71 branch miles away (but within walking distance of the Puritas Rapid station), the bulk of the hotels near the airport, esp. east on Brookpark appear to be crappy, sleazy joints where (I'm sure) no shortage of prostitution is going on... They are nestled in between rundown-looking "Gentleman's clubs", that are so cheesy looking, even the Hustler Club would probably shun the area...

 

... All in all, not what you want visitors to see near your International Airport.... A few years ago, for whatever reason, I drove a visitor + wife  I'd picked up down Brookpark looking for an I-480 east entrance ramp after he'd dropped off their car at the rental HQ... It was their 1st visit to Cleveland... That portion of the trip was quite embarrassing... BOTTOM LINE... The proposed new airport hotel (and, hopefully) the old TOD hotel at Brookpark station are sorely needed.

Sadly most U.S. airports have such "businessmen specials" just as major city railway stations in Europe have them. I guess more than a few business travelers get quite lonely, or there wouldn't be a market for such things.

The development at Hopkins would be even better if there was an office component--say a 200 - room hotel and  7-8 story office buidling. A lot of cities (Washington and LA included) have new office facilities very close to the airport---there is a market for that kind of space. CLE has one of the highest (if not highest) cost per enplanement in the UA system. As much non-aviation revenue as possible will help make CLE an attractive airport for airlines, which is the ultimate goal.

The development at Hopkins would be even better if there was an office component--say a 200 - room hotel and  7-8 story office buidling. A lot of cities (Washington and LA included) have new office facilities very close to the airport---there is a market for that kind of space. CLE has one of the highest (if not highest) cost per enplanement in the UA system. As much non-aviation revenue as possible will help make CLE an attractive airport for airlines, which is the ultimate goal.

 

Do you mean like something akin to The Squaire at the Frankfurt Airport?  Albeit at a smaller scale since that thing is massive.

Do you mean like something akin to The Squaire at the Frankfurt Airport?  Albeit at a smaller scale since that thing is massive.

 

I've traveled under the Squaire on the InterCity Express to/from Cologne, and next to it a few years later on the shuttle between terminals. Did you know that it started out as a featureless "platform" or "deck" above the train station? I've seen pictures of this "before" scene but now I can't find one.

 

 

Yes it is definitely huge.....