^Sounds like it might be time for a traffic study. Lane removals might not even slow down traffic.

 

I agree. I doubt traffic would be slowed at all. It isn't an abnormally busy road, it's just poorly designed.

 

If I had to guess, the reason this section of road is so beefy is because prior to the construction of the Cudell Commons rec center, West Blvd used to have a more significant jog and ran along the east side of the current rec center (it basically followed the path of the sidewalk that runs behind the CVS and up to the clock tower). it joined Detroit at the clock tower. I imagine when they moved the intersection west, someone figured the road needed to be wider to handle the merging capacities of Detroit and West Blvd, which is a great theory if you're designing a fluid piping system but no so much a traffic system. Then they just tapered the road back to normal size between the new West Blvd intersection and Berea Rd.

The area around the station offers nothing to pedestrians.  There's a harsh dead zone between W 110 and the 90s.  RTA's parking lot doesn't help, nor does the use/disuse of historic buildings nearby, nor the private institutional developments that are prominent along this stretch. 

Even if it's more dense, the concentration of Section 8 and subsidized housing in that immediate area, especially along West Blvd., is a concern.

My biggest issue with that sentiment is that it doesn't have to be a concern if the property has good management. If you're going to have subsidized housing, locating it somewhere the residents have access to quality transit is an important factor if you want the neighborhood to be socioeconomically mixed and you want to avoid reinforcing concentrated poverty.

 

This area is primed for that kind of economic mix, as you have the subsidized apartment rows ending directly where the larger West Blvd housing begins. West Blvd is doing fine and is considered it's own real estate market separate from the rest of Cudell, so you're already targeting multiple income levels and managing to accommodate them.

.. somewhere the residents have access to quality transit ...

 

An interesting concept probably tied largely to frequency and reliability. Seen discussion about wanting to see route frequency mapped, so I made this. It's missing some routes (25, 83, etc.) but it's got the major ones on there.

 

 

http://imgur.com/a/kgsk2

Absolutely.  Mixed-use planning is a core concept of TOD.  There is TOD and there is not TOD.  There is no "TOD enough."

 

Coming into this late, but you are saying that TOD is a black and white thing?

 

I would disagree.  There needs to be room for shades of grey (I hate using that phrase) when trying to expand something that is slowly growing in demand.

Slowly growing  (or actually being rediscovered) in Cleveland.

 

TOD is a design principle comprised of many features. Some developments have some features and lack others. So yes, I agree with E Rocc that it's a shade of gray thing.

Instead of "slowly growing" I would say the demand is established and unmet-- particularly established among the new residents we're trying to attract, i.e. people who are drawn to urban living. 

 

As for the definition of TOD, if every aspect of it is optional, that's not a definition at all.  Instead it's a term one can attach to various concepts, some of which conflict with each other.  The point of having definitions is to avoid that sort of thing.  One of the most basic concepts of TOD is the ability of people to function in their daily lives without driving.  Walkable retail, in immediate proximity to transit lines, is absolutely essential to that goal.  Call something TOD without that and people might rightly question whether TOD makes any sense as a concept.

Instead of "slowly growing" I would say the demand is established and unmet-- particularly established among the new residents we're trying to attract, i.e. people who are drawn to urban living. 

 

As for the definition of TOD, if every aspect of it is optional, that's not a definition at all.  Instead it's a term one can attach to various concepts, some of which conflict with each other.  The point of having definitions is to avoid that sort of thing.  One of the most basic concepts of TOD is the ability of people to function in their daily lives without driving.  Walkable retail, in immediate proximity to transit lines, is absolutely essential to that goal.  Call something TOD without that and people might rightly question whether TOD makes any sense as a concept.

 

IMO you get more people when they still have driving as at least an option.

Of course.  It's just that for walking/transit to be much of an option itself, the area has to be set up for it.  Skipping any aspect of that messes it up.  Nothing about TOD precludes driving though.  Why not maximize all the options?

SPRING, 2012 —  Community development that includes a mix of housing, office, shops and other amenities integrated within a walkable neighborhood and located within a half-mile of quality public transportation is called Transit Oriented Development, or TOD. Proponents see it as a relatively low-cost solution to problems ranging from traffic congestion and housing affordability to global warming. Detractors are calling it a war on suburbia. The Berkeley Transportation Letter turned to Robert Cervero, a UC Berkeley professor of city and regional planning and director of the UC Transportation Center and the Institute of Urban and Regional Development to bring readers up to date on TODs, their successes, failures and future.

 

Here's a pretty good working definition plus an interview with Robert Cervero...

 

http://its.berkeley.edu/btl/2012/spring/tod

 

RC: Unlike places like Copenhagen where a third of suburban rail users access stations by bicycle, in this country we’ve surrounded most of our transit stations, certainly those outside the central business districts, with massive parking lots. Activities lie too far from the station as a result and what remains is a deplorable walking environment for accessing transit.  And even beyond the parking lots there’s not typically good direct pedestrian connections, nor are there usually interesting places to drop off en route to the transit stop.

 

When you invite most transit users to drive to stations, you negate a lot of the environmental benefits of taking public transit. The typical park-and-ride access trip in the Bay Area is six to seven miles. The first two to three miles of that trip, when the engine is cold and the catalytic converter is less efficient, causes disproportionately high levels of hydrocarbon emissions and nitrogen oxides to be emitted.  Fuel consumption rates are also high. Once you’ve gone several miles to reach a station, you may have consumed three-quarters of the energy you would if you’d made a typical 10-mile commute trip. So, as long as cars are the dominant form of accessing stations, a lot of the environmental benefits of using transit are significantly offset.

 

Additionally, if we didn’t have to provide as much off-street parking close to transit, we might be able to reduce the cost of housing. We did a study of both the Bay Area and Portland that showed there was about 30 percent more parking than was needed in areas within a half-mile walking distance of a major rail stop. It’s partly because our standard building codes demand there be a certain number of parking spaces for so many units. So we tend to overbuild parking and that indirectly drives up the cost of housing — anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 per unit in urban districts.

BTL: What sort of role can bus rapid transit (BRT) play in developing TODs? BRT is generally less expensive than a rail system, yet it hasn’t gained a lot of traction. Why?

 

RC: BRT has been very successful in a handful of places, such as Ottawa, Curitiba (Brazil), and even in Cleveland, Ohio, which is getting some development along its BRT line. But for the most part, the bus is stigmatized — what some call the Rodney Dangerfield of transportation since it gets no respect.  So that’s perhaps strike one. In addition, some buses spew tailpipe emissions and can be noisy, so they’re not considered as green. Strike two. And finally, buses are not considered a permanent investment. Unlike a rail system, developers realize bus routes can change.

 

Shout out to Cleveland from Berkeley's resident TOD researcher.

 

Plus, good argument for why zoning codes need to be changed around a half-mile of a rail station re: parking.

 

Bus line frequency map

http://imgur.com/a/kgsk2

(drawn from memory so missing some routes--83, 25 etc-- and I know the 79 does NOT go down W. 41st, my mistake, and who knows what the 81 does in Tremont, the route is just the suggestion LOL)

 

Zoning 1/2 mile around West Side rapid stations

http://imgur.com/a/i6icm

 

 

 

 

 

Strike four:  ineffectual, especially for longer trips, because it stops too often and moves too slow

You'll love this. This is part of the presentation to the Cleveland Design Review Committee for a proposed landmark designation of the East Boulevard Apartment House, 2691 East 116th Street (at Shaker Boulevard). This, of course, is near the Blue/Green line's East 116th station that is about to be renovated by GCRTA....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/01062017/index.php

 

 

So here's the cool graphic from the undeveloped area around the then-new Shaker Rapid Transit....

I should have sifted through more of the design-review docket. Here's this rezoning that involves the area immediately surrounding the West 65th Red Line station. (BTW, I think the area along Lorain Avenue west of the station should be rezoned with downtown mixed use so that those damned used car lots can now become a nonconforming use!)...

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2017/01062017/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad there's no explanation of what these new zones mean.  What's the difference between Mixed Use: Residential and Mixed Use Live/Work? What are Commercail Services [sic] as opposed to other non-residential uses?  And do used car lots constitute Retail?

 

If we're re-doing the zoning, why not allow more multi-family?  This map area is not a thriving market for single houses, so I see no reason to limit the possibilities, especially if the notion is TOD.

Thank you for sharing, KJP! Great sleuthing.

 

I love the old St Luke photos. Those apartments adjacent to the blue/green line stop at E. 116th are gone with a Cleveland public library branch there now and an elementary school next door. St Luke is largely senior housing and has an inter generational charter school plus boys and girls club.

 

It looks like the proposed zoning for the year 2020 around W. 65th redline  would turn the gardens on Lawn (formerly Maggie's farm) into town homes and makes the convenient store there on the corner probably not a fitting use.

 

More town homes too on 57th toward metro Catholic. Looks like the gardens back there wouldn't be zoned for either in the future.

 

Lots of gardens lost for what's branded Eco village.

 

Also, wonder how much housing affordability and transit use are related. Is design which ostensibly is better to put around transit so great when the people who can afford to live in it don't use public transit?

 

While density is better for transit clearly, do people moving into these new homes have proclivity to take transit is a question worth posing.

 

Most recent data shows Detroit Shoreway with net population gain, but that's while it loses Latinos and black families being priced out.

 

Detroit Shoreway is gentrifying. Which after Ohio City is arguably the best transit oriented neighborhood on the west side.

 

Millennials should gravitate toward transit goes the story, which is good. But the Cleveland region isn't exactly making it easy to be car free for young people.

 

Public transportation in Cleveland, as far as netting ridership and who actually uses it, cuts across class.

 

The 15 bus doesn't have the highest ridership because it's fast and direct. It has the highest ridership because it meanders through the areas where people take the bus. Even though it takes forever.

 

Which means the geographies with the best access to transit should have  a priority for low income. Not to say you don't want mixed income, but that's what equity planners would argue.

 

Got to at least put it on the table.

 

On a side note, I would love to some good TOD around the West Park rapid stop. The abandoned Harley lot repurposed into mid rise apartments would be amazing.

The lot on the northeast corner of West 61 and Lorain is proposed for low-income housing. More here:

https://ohiohome.org/ppd/proposals/2016/NewUnitProduction-Family/Aspen%20Place%2016-0006.pdf

 

That said, I would argue that if we think about transit as only being for the poor--and attempt to concentrate low-income housing around transit--we concentrate poverty and we miss choice riders. Those riders assist with RTA's budget.

 

We need transit to cover job centers and connect them to neighborhoods. Job centers does not mean simply downtown anymore.

http://imgur.com/a/i6icm

 

The lot on the northeast corner of West 61 and Lorain is proposed for low-income housing. More here:

https://ohiohome.org/ppd/proposals/2016/NewUnitProduction-Family/Aspen%20Place%2016-0006.pdf

 

That said, I would argue that if we think about transit as only being for the poor--and attempt to concentrate low-income housing around transit--we concentrate poverty and we miss choice riders. Those riders assist with RTA's budget.

 

We need transit to cover job centers and connect them to neighborhoods. Job centers does not mean simply downtown anymore.

 

Very good points.  Job centers have reoriented along the interstates. Ultimately I'd like to see a high-frequency grid that goes to all the employment centers in Cleveland region indiscrimately. Getting workers to jobs is step one for economic development.

 

But affordable housing in the city in walkable neighborhoods oriented around transit, I think low income people need to have priority -- not saying a monopoly.

The stretch is comprised mostly of unbuildable land, like the Zone recreation park and bridge over the Red Line. Why pick that part of Lorain of all places to re-zone?

The stretch is comprised mostly of unbuildable land, like the Zone recreation park and bridge over the Red Line. Why pick that part of Lorain of all places to re-zone?

 

I don't have a problem with focusing on this area at all -- in fact, it's one of the most ripe areas for TOD in the system; it's one of the only 4 urbanized Red Line stations on the West Side (W. 25, W. Blvd and W. 117 being the others).  There are a number of intact buildings that could be upgraded for mixed uses along Lorain.  This, along with building on top of/getting rid of those hideous, ubiquitous used-car lots that pock-mark for its length, could sew together the coherent Lorain antiques district that's so long been touted.

 

It's unfortunate the Zone Rec center and fields take up so much valuable TOD space: Cleveland (and Shaker at Lee Rd/Van Aken) have historically, for some reason, seem to locate schools, school-like rec centers and their wide open fields, near rail stations... as worthy as those facilities are for the community, they are horrible for TOD.

 

There were big plans for W.65 TOD when the station was rebuilt in 2004, but none of it was built aside from the short stretch of Eco Village townhomes along W. 58th.  This district has much potential because the area of upgrading around Gordon Square has been steadily moving south toward the Red Line, fueled by such projects as the Waverly  Station townhomes that opened a few years ago.

A TOD friendly Zone Recreation Center would have had the building located across Lorain from the station. Instead a pretty field that doesn't produce ridership is closest to the station. A used car lot is right next to the station. Another is on the other side of the tracks. These anti-ridership land uses are repeated throughout the Rapid system. It's a great way to make and keep your rail system irrelevant.

^The rising TOD around the Little Italy-University Circle station, at least, is a beacon of hope.

Zone Rec is horrible, no question about that. I don't see why the SE corner of 65th and Lorain and down to in front of the rec center cant eventually be built up  though. There is a lot of area there.

I really wish Cleveland would get serious about TOD.  Finally, at long last, Centric is actually rising next to the UC-Little Italy rail station.  Yet, Mayfield Station, a small-ish, yet important, 6-story, 45-unit building is under attack from the LI neighborhood -- at least, certain important residents... Why?

 

Over in Ohio City, while I'm thrilled at the veritable explosion of building -- both planned, built and underway -- on the north along Detroit in/near Hingetown, it's troubling that, although nearby Market Square is thriving, the area in/around the W. 25th Red Line station is open fields and warehouses.  In the Hingetown area plans are underway to begin building an 11-story substantial mid-rise apt building, and yet all we can get for Market Plaza is talk.  There was one nice plan about 5 years ago (and even here, the buildings were short -- no 11-story building like what's going in along Detroit that has only buses), but now it appears to be a no-go for any project involving Market Plaza now...  Again, why? 

 

A similar situation exists in Detroit-Shoreway.  Edison and Battery Park on the north are exploding, but as someone noted, neither of these projects are particularly transit friendly and, in fact, are much more geared toward individuals with cars.  Meanwhile 13/14 years after the W. 65-Lorain/Madison Red Line station was built, no major commercial or multi-unit residential building has been built adjacent to the station since the small row of Eco Village town-homes were built contemporary with the station -- Waverly Station is 3 blocks away to the NE.  There is the small affordable housing building which looks to rise next to the Red Line station, so that's something.  Before this, a historic building at W. 58 and Lorain, just 1 block from the Red Line station, was actually torn down a few years ago, leaving an empty lot...

 

For the most part, none of the urbanized Red Line stations are seeing any TOD growth... Not W. 25, W. 65, West Blvd or W. 117...On the East Side, again, happily Little Italy is seeing some TOD growth -- at least when they're not fighting it...

 

How can this backwards situation be addressed?  Are banks adverse to financing TOD (at least in Cleveland, not so in any other major transit city I can think of)?  Are city officials, including council people (ie Matt Zone) oblivious?

 

 

I would think the Councilmen see anything with the word transit to be RTA's responibility. The councilmen are there for their myriad of reasons. Some want to be the defenders of their district. They may see some big shot developer trying to do something different as not aligning with the current residents so therefore it must be bad and rejected.

  If the councilmen were smart they would zone the areas around rail stations for TOD so developers wouldn't have to go to city government to do this for each location.

To be fair, W117 has had recent TOD.

 

http://www.apfuhousing.com/

 

But even still the amount of investment in the area is underwhelming.

A terrible trend I've noticed at just about every train station is a parking lot set between the station and the street! It is important for park and ride situations, but this definitely kills any sense of urbanism at the stations. The most horrible example is the W117th red line station.

Trend?  Most of those parking lots date to the 50's.  What trend are you going to notice next?  Rock 'n' Roll and blue jeans?

At W 117, you're not going to move the tracks, and you're not going to move the streets, so what can you do?

The tracks cross over 117.  The transit stop could be there. 

 

I think the worst stop on West side is West Park.  The stop is way off Lorain Ave.  This us another one where the stop could be moved over Lorain Ave.

To be fair, W117 has had recent TOD.

 

http://www.apfuhousing.com/

 

But even still the amount of investment in the area is underwhelming.

 

Transit adjacent doesn't mean transit oriented.  The new nursing home by W 117 is merely adjacent, since nursing home residents have limited economic impact and many are unable to leave the premises at all.  And of course it's a single-use building.  It doesn't interact with the rest of the city any more than any other nursing home does.

 

I recently heard someone say you should avoid nursing homes located on bus lines because that suggests a lower quality of staff.  He was wrong; the staff at the other ones just walks further from their bus stops.  So the transit-adjacency of this one is at least beneficial for its staff, but that still falls short of TOD.  I live right by it and have no reason to visit that building.  If I did, security would turn me away.  Most of my neighbors don't even know what it is.  For pedestrians and transit-users alike, it merely takes up space.

 

Parcels for possible TOD around that station include the self-storage facility to the south and that first few blocks of Madison across from the factory.  There's even a vacant lot on the corner of Newman, ready to roll.  All of these parcels could benefit from extending the "Birdtown" branding, as could the station itself.  RTA calls it "Highland Square" even though that's in Akron.

^Pretty sure that's a 55+ community, not a nursing home.

To be fair, W117 has had recent TOD.

 

http://www.apfuhousing.com/

 

But even still the amount of investment in the area is underwhelming.

 

Transit adjacent doesn't mean transit oriented.  The new nursing home by W 117 is merely adjacent, since nursing home residents have limited economic impact and many are unable to leave the premises at all.  And of course it's a single-use building.  It doesn't interact with the rest of the city any more than any other nursing home does.

 

I'm confused, what nursing home?

To be fair, W117 has had recent TOD.

 

http://www.apfuhousing.com/

 

But even still the amount of investment in the area is underwhelming.

 

Transit adjacent doesn't mean transit oriented.  The new nursing home by W 117 is merely adjacent, since nursing home residents have limited economic impact and many are unable to leave the premises at all.  And of course it's a single-use building.  It doesn't interact with the rest of the city any more than any other nursing home does.

 

I recently heard someone say you should avoid nursing homes located on bus lines because that suggests a lower quality of staff.  He was wrong; the staff at the other ones just walks further from their bus stops.  So the transit-adjacency of this one is at least beneficial for its staff, but that still falls short of TOD.  I live right by it and have no reason to visit that building.  If I did, security would turn me away.  Most of my neighbors don't even know what it is.  For pedestrians and transit-users alike, it merely takes up space.

 

Parcels for possible TOD around that station include the self-storage facility to the south and that first few blocks of Madison across from the factory.  There's even a vacant lot on the corner of Newman, ready to roll.  All of these parcels could benefit from extending the "Birdtown" branding, as could the station itself.  RTA calls it "Highland Square" even though that's in Akron.

 

^Pretty sure that's a 55+ community, not a nursing home.

 

Apfuhousing may be across the street from the W. 117th st rapid, and maybe it was build there as a TOD, but honestly, how many of its residents actually use the RTA? There is a large parking lot build as part of this apt building, so one has to wonder how many of the residents drive rather than use RTA.

 

Also, a nursing home that could be build as a TOD is not necessary a bad idea, or not a TOD. Take for example a 100 bed nursing home, which is the size of the majority of nursing homes. A nursing home with 100 beds would most likely employ 100 people. A 1 to 1 ratio. Now the majority of those employees are low wage earners (STNA's, Laundry workers, dietary workers), and most of these workers usually take public transportation. I know from experience. So a nursing home could be good for public transit.

 

And using the nursing home example, how many of the rest of the employees may choose to also use public transportation, and how about all the visitors of the residents of the nursing home. 

Because of the cost of building and maintaining a rail system, the ultimate goal of any rail system is for it to be used by "all-purpose riders" to maximize its usage. You don't want just those riding to/from work. Work trips yield for the transit agency only two rides per day from each user. By placing a large amount of residents, services and jobs at each station, the rail line becomes an enclosed lifestyle system in which most of your day-to-day errands, entertainment activities, recreation, shopping and work/school can be accomplished within a 10-minute walk of each station (and preferably within a 5-minute walk). That means putting the largest, most dense and most mixed uses as close to the station as possible, with the densities decreasing with distance from the station.

 

This very simplified, idealized graphic shows the difference in land uses surrounding a rail station. The TOD-themed land-use patterns are to the upper-right of the rail line and station. The car-oriented land use patterns are to the lower-left of the rail line and station. Note that the parking lots are placed away from the station and that park-n-ride transit users must walk through the high-density, mixed-use development to reach the station (or return to their cars). This way they can drop off their dry-cleaning, their children at day care, pick up some office supplies for work, or get a cup of coffee and fresh fruit/bagel/muffin/doughnut for the train ride into work. Some people may to drive to work or shop at the TOD's stores, offices, restaurants, theaters, etc. Some people already live at the TOD, in the towers above the shops, offices, theaters, restaurants, or in the less-dense tier of development away from the TOD core (which also has some greenscape as a place for socializing, networking, unwinding, etc. Others take the train to this TOD core from from another TOD that, from the air, may look similar in its layout but at the ground has different stores and no theater but maybe has some light tech manufacturing, etc. The difference in stores and land use themes from each station's TOD to the next creates the synergies and ridership. We already have some of that, with the West Side Market at the Ohio City station, Tower City Center at its station, Flats East Bank riverside theme at its station, Little Italy at its station, etc. But more housing, more services and more jobs are needed near, next to or even above more stations.

 

The auto-oriented example on the lower-left is what RTA does. It's a parking lot surrounding by low-density, single-use buildings set back from the street/sidewalk, making it very pedestrian-unfriendly. It's why RTA trains don't get many "all-purpose riders." And it's why their rail system is one of the least used in the USA....

 

TOD&Auto-Words.COLOR by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

The tracks cross over 117.  The transit stop could be there. 

 

I'm not following this.  The stop is directly above W117. 

^ I guess I'd have the access to 117th directly to the street.  It's actually not in a terrible location now.  The parking lot could be located where the storage place us now.  The current parking lot could be developed to a TOD

Parcels for possible TOD around that station include the self-storage facility to the south and that first few blocks of Madison across from the factory.  There's even a vacant lot on the corner of Newman, ready to roll.  All of these parcels could benefit from extending the "Birdtown" branding, as could the station itself.  RTA calls it "Highland Square" even though that's in Akron.

 

Agree I like the Birdtown name change idea. Simply because it appears that such branding helps to build an identity to spur investment. "West 117" is too large a geographical area to really mean anything. And as you've said, Highland Square is in Akron.

 

Also I am worried about the current Highland Tavern building. The bar is currently closed for long delayed "renovations," the type in which we've seen fires or irreversible water damage occur.     

Unfortunately, so many of these questions come down to the same ugly facts:  the inter-connected reality of a stagnant economy, low traffic congestion, low rents (relative to construction costs), low and decreasing share of destinations located near transit. It's a network problem and it's getting worse. The households who can afford market rent new construction overwhelmingly own cars. Which means builders will rationally include parking spaces for new construction in most cases, even if near transit, even if not required by zoning. Which means ridership share for new TOD is likely not going to be very high. At this point, I would guess replacing park-and-ride lots that are typically occupied during business days with TOD would actually reduce ridership.

 

[typos]

 

EDIT: but to add a more constructive note: at this point, I think a better bet than directing scarce discretionary subsidy to TOD on suburban park and ride lots is to continue densifying the inner core to provide a bigger destination magnet and seed transit constituents. Subsidizing downtown retail, for example, would probably add more to ridership on a dollar by dollar basis than subsiding new market rate TOD.

^Pretty sure that's a 55+ community, not a nursing home.

 

Not a significant distinction here, apart from requiring less staff.  It still excludes people in the prime of their lives. The whole point of it is to accommodate a diminished capacity for independent living, in terms of income and physical mobility.  Still not an ideal driver of incoming or outgoing transit usage, still not an ideal contributor to car-free living.

 

Nursing homes are big employers, so locating them near transit is very helpful to the workers, but since most of those jobs are low wage, it's not quite the same as extending the rapid to Lincoln Electric, or putting future Lincoln Electrics near existing transit lines.  And none of this makes mixed-use anything less than an absolutely essential TOD element.

Consider all of these terrific TOD concepts that never-were but still can be achieved with a programmatic, system-wide policy tied to development incentives (many of which already exist but the scoring processes don't encourage developing next to high-frequency transit)....

 

Nice overview by the CNT in 2011....

cleveland-CNT-tod-map by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

A transit-proximate development concept at Brook Park station, but falls far short of TOD guidelines...

Brookpark Station TOD2 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Another transit-proximate development concept which would probably produce some new rail ridership vs. the urban prairie that's there now. But some vertical uses, not greenspace, should be next to the two East 79th rail stations...

East 79th vision-Opportunity Corridor by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

One of mine...

east14stationareadevelopment by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

east105-quincy tod by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Fairfax-NewEconomyNeighborhood by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

We do have some good TOD around stations, like Flats East Bank...

Flats East Bank-083112-rev3m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Flats East Bank-view of station1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

And Uptown, one of the best new TODs in Greater Cleveland. It checks all of the boxes in the TOD guidelines...

HealthLine past UptownII-May2013Rev1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

A transit-proximate development concept for the empty and off-street West Park station...

Kamms_TLCI_Img_08 (1) by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Kamms_TLCI_Img_12 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

WestPark_TOD1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Alternate ideas for the Little Italy station area....

Little Italy-2066 Random Rd Business Ctr by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

LittleItaly-CoyneOfficeBuilding by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Mayfield Lot 45 TOD-Bialosky1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

MayfieldStation1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Another one of mine to anchor the end of the Waterfront Line and be a key asset for a future extension...

munylot-burke-waterfronttod-s by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Another Waterfront Line anchor concept -- the original, outstanding design for the North Coast Transportation Center and lakefront boulevard....

North Coast Transportation Center by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Ohio City....

ohio-city-site-plan-crop1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

I've shown this graphic because this "ramp" onto the Opportunity Corridor at East 55th (next to the station) shows how this region isn't thinking about its existing assets when designing new things. The Opportunity Corridor community design team was perplexed when presented with this green space inside the "ramp" and didn't know what to do with it. Some thought a park would be nice. Some though some sort of bio-diversity installation would be nice. I sent an e-mail to the design team and suggested they work with CMHA or Front Steps on placing a multi-story transitional housing development here with a coffee shop/cafe on the ground floor closest to the rail station. They responded -- oh yeah, good idea... Don't know if anything ever came of it.

Opportunity Corridor-East 55th station by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Before we called them TODs -- and before we forgot how to design cities around transit (15 years of depression and war, followed by the auto-centric love-in erased our collective urban design know-how...

RTA_ShakSq_122104 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Another two of mine....

shaker-warr-tod-proposed by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

shaker-green-tod-proposed by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Great ideas for University Circle that never happened....

univcircomposite1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

univcirrtatod1m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Still a work in-progress...

ShakerHeights-WarrensvilleTOD-m by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

vanaken_warrensville TOD-planning parntership by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

VanAkenDistrict_RMS-render-2015-2 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Another great idea that never went anywhere....

W117-Madison TOD-L by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

This was proposed by NRP (developers for A Place For Us housing across from the station) for the West 117th area. I hope they stick with it, even though it has some flaws. But much better than what's there now...

A Place For Us-NRP Group-West 117th by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

Unfortunately, so many of these questions come down to the same ugly facts:  the inter-connected reality of a stagnant economy, low traffic congestion, low rents (relative to construction costs), low and decreasing share of destinations located near transit. It's a network problem and it's getting worse. The households who can afford market rent new construction overwhelmingly own cars. Which means builders will rationally include parking spaces for new construction in most cases, even if near transit, even if not required by zoning. Which means ridership share for new TOD is likely not going to be very high. At this point, I would guess replacing park-and-ride lots that are typically occupied during business days with TOD would actually reduce ridership.

 

[typos]

 

EDIT: but to add a more constructive note: at this point, I think a better bet than directing scarce discretionary subsidy to TOD on suburban park and ride lots is to continue densifying the inner core to provide a bigger destination magnet and seed transit constituents. Subsidizing downtown retail, for example, would probably add more to ridership on a dollar by dollar basis than subsiding new market rate TOD.

 

But it's not like no development is happening in Cleveland's urban neighborhoods. In fact, a lot is happening. But what can this region do to push these development dollars to sites within a five-minute walk of stations to maximize the utility of one of this region's greatest, yet under-utilized assets -- it's rail system?

^But how much would that even help ridership at this point? What do you think the transit share is of, say, the fancy new townhouses on Duck Island or the FEB apartments? My guess: very low.

 

I'm very pro TOD. I'm just not at all surprised by the lack of it in our region given the overall context, and not really convinced filling in these suburban park n ride lots is really where we should be using our limited financial bullets. Definitely a tough issue. [i'm more open to subsidizing it in denser, central areas, though.]

Right now I'm more interested in addressing the "only 1 out of 4 available jobs is within a 90 minute transit trip" issue that is dragging down this region with concentrated poverty and all its ill-effects. TOD can do that -- and it justifies massive public investment to incentivize affordable housing and low-skill job creation along high-frequency transit lines.

Despite the positive growth in key neighborhoods like Univ. Circle and Ohio City, Cleveland is still a distressed city economically.  TOD could be a way to revitalize swaths of the city... It IS happening in University Circle and FEB.  But we need to get moving with other glaring locations/stations like W. 25, W. 65, West Blvd, E. 116, W. 117 and even W. 150 and Brookpark.  All but a few of the projects outlined by KJP above are very doable.  But it starts with community education and a significant paradigm shift.

 

As far as ridership?  Riders will get it eventually; I'm not worried about the lack of riders at, say, FEB, for example -- particularly since that project, attractive as it is, is not fully developed by a long shot.  Add to that the continued public negativity toward the Waterfront Line, which is another story entirely... We shouldn't let the fear of a lack of riders deter from developing TOD.

^ ... and we must get buy-in from our pols and leaders.

For example, Puritas-W.150.  There's a heavy-rail rapid transit station with direct service to downtown and the airport, just a few miles down the road.  There is also a freeway exit.  And yet there are a few small hotels-- the Marriott, which is more oriented to I-71 is substantial, but La Quinta's hotel, which across the parking lot from the Puritas station, is tiny and semi-rundown (the La Quinta further away near Great Northern in N.O. is much nicer from what I've heard).  There's that modest bank processing building erected in the 70s, and the usual warehouses, an endless sea of asphalt parking and a low-density bungalow neighborhood on the other side of the tracks.... This is wasted TOD opportunity at the W. 150 station which, as we know, was totally rebuilt a few years ago, ... and attractive.

IMO if you want to do TOD in Cleveland, you have to start from the inside out.  We're already started from downtown (we have, with the Flats East Bank and other downtown residential growth).  The next TOD focus should be W25th (easy, IMO--it's one of the hottest neighborhoods in the city).  Going east there should be a focus on the CCC campus, or possibly with that development at E 14th/Broadway that KJP posted above.  If you can get young people moving into these developments, they will soon realize the added value of transit.  Once established, our "leaders" could push new initiatives further out.

. But what can this region do to push these development dollars to sites within a five-minute walk of stations to maximize the utility of one of this region's greatest, yet under-utilized assets -- it's rail system?

 

Montgomery County, MD, (Wash DC burbs) allows very generous density and height within a mile of the Metro stations and limits both in most other places. It's working - lots of TOD.  The current regret is that the Metro was built undersized - there is no way to run express trains.